thus That I either mean by Congregation the whole Catholick Church or only some part of it as if one should say Whatsoever Congregation of men is the Common-wealth of England and another in answer to it should distinguish either by Congregation of men you mean the whole Common wealth or some part of it when all men know that by the Common-wealth of England must be meant the whole Common-wealth for no part of it is the Common-wealth of England Again you distinguish that some things are Essentials or Necessaries and others accidents which are acknowledged or practised in the Church Now to apply this distinction to my Proposition you must distinguish that which I say is acknowledged to have been ever in the Church by the Institution of Christ either to be meant of an Essential or an Accident when all the world knows that whatsoever is acknowledged to have been ever in the Church by Christs Institution cannot be meant of any Accidental thing but of a necessary unchangeable and essential thing in Christs true Church If one should advance this 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 always 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 form as you ground yours still insisting upon them in your address almost to every proposition Hence appears first that I used no fallacy 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 Syl. 2. 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 Catholick 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 Save that Congregation which acknowledges Saint Peter c. the term Congregation supposes for the same whole Catholick 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 alwaies visible c But no true Church of Christ hath been always visible save the true Church of Christ which acknowledges Saint Peter c. Ergo whatsoever true Church 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 always 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 Pastors as before Congregation signifies determinately no one of these but generically and in confuso 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 always 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 beleeve the holy Catholick 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 immediatly before answered Ephes. 4. proves not only that some particular Churches or part of the whole Church must always 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 lesse then the whole Church For no particular Church alone is his mystical Body but only a part of it Ephes. 4.
Church you have imposed an obligation upon me of answering the reasons and allegations whereby you labour to prove it to have been perpetually visible Baxter Num. 39. You complain of a deficiency in quality though you confess that I abound in number But where is the deseâ—â—t 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 Iohnson Num. 39. You know I mean not that why lose you time in putting an if upon it Baxter Num. 40. 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 Iohnson Num. 40. I abstract from that also be it but truly and properly one whencesoever that unity is drawn 't is all alike to the Solution of my Argument Baxter Num. 41. 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 Ephes. 4.4 5 6. c. Iohnson Num. 41. These Churches which these mean you all that you seem to point at in your Catalogue All sure or you prove nothing but which are those all You name only those of the present age Greeks Armenians Ethiopians Protestants After these for eleven hundred years you name none at all How shall we then know determinately what you mean here by these Churches when you give no light to know your meaning Let us therefore first know which are these Churches you here relate to by some particular designation and denomination of them or how can you either prove or we know whether they were united in Christ or no and then and not till then can it be discerned whether these Churches be or be not parts of Christs family or body according to the places you here cite Baxter Num. 42. All that are true Christians are one Kingdome or Church of Christ but these of whom I speak are true Christians therefore they are one Kingdom or Church of Christ. Iohnson Num. 42. I grant your Major and deny your Minor if they were independent of the Roman Bishop Baxter Num. 43. And that they have been visible since Christs time till now all History even your own affirm as in Judea and from the Apostles times in Ethiopia Egypt and other parts Rome was no Church in the time of Christs being on earth Iohnson Num. 43. Let them have been as visible as you please that 's nothing to me so were the Arrians Sabellians Montanists c. as much as many of these prove they were no more then one visible Congregation of Christians amongst themselves and with Orthodox Christians that 's the present controversie Baxter Num. 44. 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 Iohnson Num. 44. Why do you still ask me if I mean what you know I mean not Baxter Num. 45. 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 Phillippi 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 Iohnson Num 45. I assent to you in this why lose you labour in asserting that which no man questions Baxter Num. 46. 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 reqâ—â—ire not this of the Church-Historians It sufficâ—â—th that they tell you that Ethiopia Egypt Armenia Syria c. had Christians without naming them When all History tells you that these Countreys 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 Abassins and Indians and others you might have been as much to seek for names as they Iohnson Num. 46. You trifle away time exceedingly I require as you have seen above the nomination of the determinate Opinions or Societies as Hussites Waldenses Nestorians Eutychians c. not of their persons And therefore I say you nominate none See Baxt. p. 41. much less prosecute you those with whom you begun Now these were Greeks Armenians Ethiopians Protestants so that I speak undeniably of the nomination of Sects and Societies not of Names Sirnames and Genealogies of persons There were different Sects and Professions in different Countreys as Armenia Abassia c. I require the nomination of which of those Sects or parties you mean in those times and Nations not what were their names and sirnames Nor is it sufficient that you say there were Christians that is Christians univocally so called or true Christians in all Ages in Armenia Ethiopia Egypt c. who denied the Popes Supremacy for unless you nominate of what party sect opinion or profession they were how shall any man judge whether they held not some Opinion contrary to the Essentials of Christianity and by that became no Christians even in your opinion You must therefore either have nominated and designed what sort of professions you mean or acknowledge you have spoken in the air and produc'd a pure non-proof in the nomination of those Countreys since no man can know by that what sort of profession you mean amongst all those different professions which have inhabited the said Nations for Arrians Sabellians Manichees Menandrians c. whom you hold to be no Christians and to erre in Essentials denied the Popes Supremacy in those Nations CHAP. III. ARGUMENT Num. 47. No Congregations of Christians can be united in Christ which are not united in the profession of one and the same Faith and in the Unity of external Communion n. 50 51 c. Assertors of the Popes Supremacy within the first 400. years after Christ. Extra Imperial Nations subject to the Roman Bishop n. 51. India and outer Armenians not alwayes Extra-Imperial n. 51. An Universal prov'd from a Particular by Mr. Baxter His word a proof n. 55. A bold Assertion of his contrary both to Ancient and Modern Writers n. 54. The Ethiopians subject to the Three
Reader may have all ready at hand for a more facil understanding of the whole matter Yet in my Answer to his second part in proof of the perpetual visibility of the Protestant Church I have not inserted his Text both by reason it would haveâ—â— rendred the tome improportionable and that he often spends many Leafs in proving Propositions which I deny not so that it had bin to no purpose at all to insert them what I found material in that part I have recited and answered and remit the judgement and censure of the whole work to any impartial Reader If Mr. Baxter will venture upon an Answer I expect as fair a proceeding from him as he has here from me to insert by Sections as I have done my Text and apply a particular Answer to each Section for otherwise all impartiall eyes will see that he flies the light and seeks corners to hide himself and takes a new occasion both to pervert my words distort my sense and make me say what he pleases when he cannot answer what I say as he has done more then once in this his Answer The whole issue of the work is not onely a discovery of the weaknesse and dâ—â—ssatisfaction of this his Answer but withall an enervating of the main Principles Arguments and Instances against the Roman Church in his other Works and particularly in his KEY this against Johnson being a Receul or Epitome of what he has more largely treated in his former Invectives so that the Authour hopes the serious perusal of this will so far rectifie the judgement of his Readers that they will be enabled to see the vanity and fallacy of all he has with so much labour and bitternesse given out against us All we have to say or doe in relation to his Person is earnestly to beg of the God of mercy pardon and forgivenesse for him for what is past and a new beam of light from heaven to guide and direct him for the future and bring him into that saving way wherein he may attain unto a never ending felicity A Brief Advertisement to the READER THat the Reader may be sufficiently informed how this controversie took its rise and progresse he may please to take notice That Mr. Johnsons Argument was first sent to Mr. Baxter concerning the necessity of being a member of the Roman Church to obtain salvation next Mr. Baxter sent back an Answer to the said Argument and thereupon Mr. Johnson sent a Reply to Mr. Baxters Answer Thus far the whole Process is comprised in Mr. Baxters Edition from page 1. to page 66. which I have here reprinted Word for Word that the Reader may have a full view of the whole Controversie and have at hand the matter to which Mr. Baxter fram'd his last Answer to the end that this Rejoynder to it may be the better understood and the force of it more fully examined and weighed by the Iudicious Peruser of this Tract Mr. Baxter therefore sets down Mr. Johnsons Argument Mr. Baxters Answer and Johnsons Reply in this manner following 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 lawfull 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 is now the true Church of Christ hath been always visible since the time of Christ either under persecution or in peace and flourishing But no Congregation of Christians hath been always visible since the time of Christ either under persecution or in peace and flourishing save that only which acknowledges S. Peter and his lawfull 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 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. The Major is proved thus Whatsoever Congregation of Christians hath always had visible Pastors and people united hath always been visible either under persecution or in peace and flourishing But whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the the true Church of Christ hath always had visible Pastors and People united Ergo Whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ hath always been visible either under persecution or in peace and flourishing The Major of this last Syllogism is evident for seeing a visible Church is nothing but a visible Pastor and people united where there have always been visible Pastors and people united there hath always been a visible Church The Minor I prove from Ephesians cap. 4. ver 10 11 12 13 14 c. Where S. Paul says 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 is 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 always 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 there shall always 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 Syllogism viz. That no Congregation of Christians hath been always visible c. save that which acknowledges S. Peter and his lawfull 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 always till this present time since Christ hath been visible either under persecution or in peace and flourishing save that only which acknowledges S. Peter c. ut supra Sir To comply with your desires of brevity and of confining my self to half a sheet of paper I send you at present only one Argument which being fully discussed shall be followed by others God willing To this as to all the rest of my Arguments which may hereafter be urged I require a Categorical and strict Syllogistical Answer in Form by Concedo Nego Distinguo Omitto Transeat And the particular Propositions specified to which the Respondents apply any of them and no more then precisely thus neither adding Amplifications Reasons Proofs c. of their own out of form and that this may be done with all convenient speed To the place of Scripture Ephes. 4. c. is also required a Categorical answer to what is precisely pressed in it without directing the Discourse to other things And what is answered otherwise I shall not esteem an Answer but an Effugium or declining of the difficulty By this method exactly observed Truth will easily and speedily be made manifest and your desires of Brevity will be punctually complied with I also desire that the Respondent or Respondents will as I do to this subscribe his or their name or names to their answers so often as any are by him or them returned with the day of the month when returned Decemb. 9. 1658. William Iohnson The Answer to the first PAPER I received yours and writ this Answer Ian. 4. 1658. Sir WHoever you are a serious debate with so sober a Disputant is to me an exceeding acceptable employment I shall not I hope give you any cause to say that I decline any difficulties or balk your strength or transgress the part of a Respondent But because 1. You have not as you ought to have done explained the terms of your Thesis 2. And have made your Propositions so long 3. And have so cunningly lapped up your fallacies your Respondent is necessitated to be the larger in distinction and explication And seeing you are so instant with me for strictness you thereby oblige your self if you will be ingenuous to make onely the learned and not any ignorant men the Iudges of our dispute because you know that to the unlearned a bare Nego signifieth nothing but when such have read your Arguments at length they will expect as plain and large a confutation or judge you to be in the right for speaking most TO your Argument 1. Your conclusion containeth not your Thesis or Question And so you give up your cause the first step and make a new one It should have contained your Question in terms and it doth not so much as contain it in the plain sense so much difference is there between Assemblies of Christians united c. and Congregation of Christians and between Salvation or the Church never was in any other then those Assemblies and no Salvation out of that Congregation as I shall shew you besides other differences which you may see Ad Majorem Resp. 1. By Congregation you mean either the whole Catholick Church united in Christ or some particular Congregation which is but part of that whole In the latter sense your Subject hath a false supposition viz. that a part is the whole and your Minor will be false And your whatsoever Congregation of Christians seems to distinguish that from some other excluded Congregation of Christians that is no part of the Catholick Church which is a supposing the chief part of the Question granted you which we deny We know no universal Congregation of Christians but one which containeth all particular Congregations and Christians that univocally deserve that name 2. Either you mean that this whole Congregation or true Church acknowledgeth the Popes Soveraignty or else that some part of it doth acknowledge it The former I deny and challenge any man living to prove If it be part onely that you mean then either the greater part or the lesser that it is the greater I as confidently almost deny for it is against the common knowledge of men acquainted with the world c. If you mean the lesser part you shall see anon that it destroyes your cause 3. Either you speak de Ecclesia quae talis or de Ecclesia qua talis and mean that this acknowledgment is essential to it or at least an inseparable property or else that it is a separable accident The latter will do you no good the former I deny In sum I grant that a small corrupt part of the Catholike Church doth now acknowledge the Pope to be Christs Vicar or the Vice-christ but I deny 1. That the whole doth so which is your great cause 2. Or the Major part 3. Or any Congregation through all ages though if they had it would do you no good 4. Or that it is done by any upon just ground but is their corruption Ad Minorem Resp. 1. If you mean any part of the Vniversal Church by that Congregation which is now the true Church I deny your Minor If the who le I grant it 2. You say all Christians agree in it c. Resp. I think all Protestants or near all do but Franciscus à sancta Clara hath copiously told us in Artic. Anglic. that most of your own Doctors are for the salvation of Infidels and then either you take Infidels for your Church membrs or your Doctors for no Christians or you play not fair play to tell us so grosse an untruth that all Christians are agreed in it To your Conclusion Resp. 1. Either you mean that there is no Salvation to be had out of that Vniversal Church whose part a minor corrupt part acknowledgeth the Popes Soveraignty or else that there is no Salvation to be had out of that Universal Church which wholly acknowledgeth it or else that there is no Salvation to be had out of that part of the Universal Church which acknowledgeth it In the
first sense I grant your conclusion if really you are part of the Church There is no Salvation to be had out of Christs Universal Church of which you are a small corrupted part In the second sense I told you we deny the supposition in the subject In the third sense I deny the sequel non sequitur because your Major Proposition being false de Ecclesia universali the conclusion must be false de parte ista as excluding the rest But to the unskilful or unwary Reader your conclusion seemeth to import that the being in such a Church which acknowledgeth the Popes Soveraignty as it is such a Church is necessary to Salvation and so that the persons acknowledgement is neccesary But it is a fallacia accidentis cunningly lapt up that is the life of your imported cause That part of the Universal Church doth hold to the Popes Soveraignty is per accidens and could you prove that the whole Church doth so which you are unlike to do I would say the like And that your fallacy may the beter appear I give you some examples of such like Sophismes Whatsoever Nation is the true Kingdom of Spain is proud and cruel against Protestants But there is no protection there due to any that are not of that Kingdome therefore there is no protection due to any that are not proud and cruel Or whatsoever Nation is the true Kingdome of France acknowledgeth the Pope but no protection is due from the Governours to any that are not of that Kingdom therefore no protection is due to any that acknowledge not the Pope Or what ever Nation is the Kingdome of Ireland in the days of Queen Elizabeth was for the Earl of Tyrone but there was no right of Inheritance for any that were not of that Nation therefore there was no right of Inheritance for any that was not for the Earl of Tyrone Or suppose that you could have proved it of all the Church If you had lived four hundred years after Christ you might as well have argued thus Whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ is against kneeling in adoration on the Lords days But there is no salvation to be had out of that Congregation of Christians which is now the true Church of Christ therefore there is no salvation to be had out of that Congregation which is against kneeling on the Lords day c. But yet 1. There was Salvation to be had in that Congregation without being of that opinion 2. And there is now Salvation to be had in a Congregation that is not of that opinion as you will confess Or whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ doth hold the Canticles and the Epistle to Philemon to be Canonical Scripture and so have done c. But there is no Salvation to be had out of the true Church therefore there is no Salvation to be had out of that Congregation which holdeth the Canticles and Epistle to Philemon to be Canonical Scripture But yet 1. Salvation is to be had in that Church without holding it 2. And its possible hereafter a Church may deny those two books and yet you will think Salvation not thereby overthrown This is but to shew your fallacy from a corrupt accident and indeed but of a part of the Church and a small part Now to your proof of the Major Resp. ad Major The present matter of the Church was not visible in the last Generation for we were not then born but the same form of the Church was then existent in a visible Matter and their Profession was visible or audible though their faith it self was invisible I will do more then you shall do in maintaining the constant visibility of the Church Ad minorem 1. If you mean that no Congregation hath been alwayes visible but that Vniversal Church whose lesser corrupt part acknowledges the Popes Soveraignty I grant it For besides the whole containing all Christians as the parts there can be no other If you mean save that part which acknowledgeth you contradict your self because a part implyeth other parts If you mean save that Universal Church all whose members or the most acknowledg it there is no such subject existent 2. I distinguish of Visibility It s one thing to be a visible Church that is visible in its essentials and another thing to be visible quoad hoc as to some separable accident The Universal Church was ever visible because their Profession of Christianity was so and the persons professing But the acknowledgment of the Vice-christ was not alwayes visible no not in any parts much less in the whole And if it had it was but a separable accident if your disease be not incurable that was visible and therefore 1. It was not necessary to Salvation nor a proper mark of the Church 2. Nor can it be so for the time to come I need to say no more to your conclusion Your Argument is no better then this whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ hath been alwayes visible since the time of Christ But no congregation of Christians hath been so visible save onely that which condemneth the Greeks which hath a Colledge of Cardinals to chose the Popes which denieth the cup to the laity which forbiddeth the reading of Scripture in a known tongue without license c. Therefore whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ hath all these 1. In a corrupt part it hath 2. But it had not alwayes 3. And may be cured hereafter To your proof of the Major 1. I grant your Major 2. Ad minorem 1. Either you mean Vniversal Pastors each one or some one having charge and Government of the whole Church or you mean unfixed Pastors having an indefinite charge of Preaching and Guiding when they come and have particular calls and opportunities or you mean the fixed Pastors of particular Churches In the first sense your Minor is false the Catholike Church was never so united to any Universal Head but Christ no one of the Apostles governed the rest and the whole Church much less any since their time In the second sense I grant that the Church hath ever had Pastors since the Ascension In the third sense I grant that some parts or other of the Catholick Church have ever had fixed Pastors of Congregations since the first setling of such Pastors But any one particular Congregation may cease to have such Pastors and may cease it self And Rome hath been long without any true Pastors and therefore was then no such visible Church 2. If by Congregation you mean not the Universal Church but a part or if you mean it of all the parts of the Universal Church I deny your Minor Communities of Christians and particular persons have been and may be without any Pastors to whom they are united or subject The Indians that died in the faith while Frumentius and Edesius were
there preaching before they had any Pastor were yet Christians and saved If a Lay man convert one or a thousand and you will say that he may baptize them and they die before they can have a Pastor or ever hear of any to whom they owe subjection they are nevertheless saved as members of the Church And if all the Pastors in a Nation were murdered or banished the people would not cease to be Christians and members of the Church Much lesse if the Pope were dead or deposed or a vacancy befell his seat would all the Catholick Church be annihilated or cease To your Confirmation of the Major that a visible Church is nothing but a Visible Pastor and people united I answer 1. It s true of the Universal Church as united in Christ the great Pastor but not as united in a Vice-Christ or humane head 2. It is true of a particular Political or organized Church as united to their proper Pastors 3. But it is not true of every Community of Christians who are a part of the Universal Church A companie converted to Christ are members of the Vniversal Church though they never heard of a Pope at Rome before they are united to Pastors of their own The Proof of the Minor from Ephes. 4. I grant as aforesaid The Text proveth that Pastors the Church shall have I disclaim the vain Objection of Conditionality in the Promise which you mention But it proves not 1. That the Church shall have an Universal Monarch or Vice-Christ under Christ. 2. Nor that every Member of the Universall Church shall certainly be a member of a particular Church or ever see the face of Pastor or be subject to him You say next There remains only to prove the Minor of the second Syllogism Viz. That no Congregation of Christians hath been always visible but that which acknowledges c. This is the great point which all lyeth on The rest hath been all nothing but a cunning shooing horn to this Prove this and prove all Prove not this and you have lost your time You say The Minor I prove by obliging the answerers to nominate any Congregation of Christians which always till this present time since Christ hath been visible save that only which acknowledges c. And have I waited all this while for this You prove it by obliging me to prove the contrary Ridiculous sed quo jure 1. Your undertaken form of arguing obligeth you to prove your Minor You cannot cast your Respondent upon proving and so arguing and doing the Opponents part 2. And in your Postscript you presently forbid it me You require me to hold to a Concedo Nego Distinguo Omitto Transeat threatning that else you will take it for an Effugium And I pray you tell me in your next to which of these doth the nomination or proof of such a Church as you describe belong Plainly you first slip away when you should prove your Minor and then oblige me to prove ehe contrary and then tell me if I attempt it you 'l take it for an Effugium A good cause needs not such dealing as this which me thinks you should be loth a learned man should hear of 3. Your interest also in the Matter as well as your office as Opponent doth oblige you to the proof For though you make a Negative of it you may put it in other terms at your pleasure It is your main work to prove that all the members of the Vniversal Church have in all ages held the Popes Soveraignty or Universal Headship Or the whole Visible Church hath held it Prove this and I will be a Papist you have my promise You affirm and you must prove Prove a Catholike Church at least that in the Major part was of that mind though that would be nothing to prove the condemnation of the rest If you are an impartial enquirer after truth fly not when you come to the setting too I give you this further evident reason why you cannot oblige me to what you here impose 1. Because you require me to prove the Visibility of a Church which held not your point of Papacy and so put an unreasonable task upon me about a Negative Or else I must prove that they held the contrary before your opinion was started And it is the Catholike Church that we are disputing about so that I must prove this Negative of the Catholike Church 2. It is you that lay the great stress of Necessity on your Affirmative more then we do on the Negative you say that no man can be saved without your Affirmative that the Pope is the universal Head and Governour But we say not that no man can be saved that holdeth not our Negative that he is not the Vice-Christ For one that hath the plague or leprosie may live Therefore it is you that must prove that all the Catholike Church was still of your mind 3. And it is an Accident and but an Accident of a smaller corrupted part of the Catholike Church that you would oblige me to prove the Negation of and therefore it is utterly needlesse to my proof of a visible Catholike Church I will without it prove to you a successive Visibility of the Catholike Church from the Visibility of its Essential or Constitutive parts of which your Pope is none I will prove a successive visible Church that hath still professed faith in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost and been united to the Universal Head and had particular Pastors some fixed some unfixed and held all essential to a Christian. And proving this I have proved the Church of which I am a member To prove that England hath been so long a Kingdom requireth no more but to prove the two Essential parts King and Subjects to have so long continued united It requireth not that I prove that it either had or opposed a Vice-King This is our plain case if a man have a botch on one of his hands it is not needful in order to my proving him a man heretofore that I prove he was born and bred without it so be it I prove that he was born a man it sufficeth Nor is it needful that I prove the other hand always to have been free in order to prove it a member of the body It sufficeth that I prove it to have been still a hand I do therefore desire you to perform your work and prove that no Congregation hath been still visible but such as yours or that the whole Catholike Church hath ever since the ascention held a Humane Universal Governour under Christ or else I shall take it as a giving up your cause as indefensible And observe if you shall prove onely that a part of the Catholick Church still held this which you can never do then 1. You will make the contrary opinion as Consistent with salvation as yours For the rest of the Catholick Church is savable 2. And then you well allow me to turn
in usual Logical processes belonging to Syllogistical Form p. 37. Baxt. Edit Do what I can you will mistake me I speak of a Church denying that the Pope hath alwayes had it that is of a Church which now or of late times denies it and you make me speak of a Church which hath alwayes denied it contrary to my express words immediately following as you presently acknowledge All I pretend is this Prove that any Church which now denies it hath been alwayes visible and I am satisfied whether that Church alwayes denied it or no. Baxter Num. 27. I told you I would be a Papist if you prove That the whole visible Church in all Ages held the Popes universal Head-ship You say that you have proved it by this Argument that either he hath that Supremacy or some other Church denying that he hath alwayes had it hath been alwayes 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 alwayes 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 Iohnson Num. 27. I have manifestly forced you to contradict a common Principle and not one but Two of them First you are forced to contradict that Principle in Logick That he who denies an universal Negative Proposition framed in a positive Historical matter as mine is is not obliged to give an instance when it is demanded to infringe the universality of it and this I have and do refer The second is a Theological or rather Christian Principle That no professed Heretick nor Schismatick properly so called is a true part of the universal visible Church of Christ. That this is such a Principle shall appear hereafter where I shall make it evident that a professed Heretick properly so called had or could have true Christian Faith or the profession of it without which no man can be a true member of the Catholick Church that is united to Christ as his Head as you explicate your meaning Your other difficulties about the Title of Universal Bishop c. shall be answered in their place Baxter Num. 28. 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 ingenious and fair Remember it hereafter that you have discharged me from proving a Church that denied the Papacy formally and expresly Iohnson Num. 28. But have you dealt as fairly with me when after I had so clearly explicated my self in my former Answer not to exact a perpetual visible Church formally and expresly denying that Supremacy you make me frame an Argument in the precedent Paragraph exacting the formal and express denial of it in all Ages is this fair You corrupt again my Proposition I say not that I freed you from proving a Church that denied the Papacy formally and expresly but as you acknowledge in this Paragraph that I obliged you not to prove a continued visible Church formally and expresly denying it that is such a Church as denied it so all the time that it was visible yet I quitted you not of the obligation of instancing in a Church which at some time or other denied it formally and expresly as your inference seems to affirm I do For seeing it has for many hundred years been publickly acknowledged as due to the Bishop of Rome it was deniable by those who lived in the said Ages Baxter Num. 29. But as to what you yet demand 1. I have here given it you because you shall not say Iâ—â—le fail 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 it's 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 Iohnson Num. 29. I had no farther Obligation in the Process of this Argument then to inforce you to produce an instance of some Church perpetually visible which either denied or was inconsistent with and Independent of that Supremacy And this I say you were obliged to do according to Logical Form say as much as you please that it was ex abundanti no good Logician will beleeve you I mention not the Churches being without a Supream visible Pastor which you term universal nor oblige I you precisely to prove that but to prove a perpetual visible Church whose government was inconsistent with one supream visible Pastor over all which is an Affirmative Proposition Why mistake you perpetually prove this and I am satisfied Nor yet have you in what you have done performed what you undertake as shall appear in my following Rejoynder to your Arguments Baxter Num. 29. 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 beleeve not this or that is more obliged to prove it then he that affirmeth a point as of no such moment Iohnson Num. 30. Sure if you prove me more bound you prove me bound à fortiori For every comparative supposes its positive The instance I bring is pertinent and all who read it attentively will see it is so Your last sentence is a repetition of what I denied without answering my answering my Argument against it Then say I a Christian is bound to prove his Religion to a Mahumetan but a Mahumetan is not bound to prove his to a Christian or if you will have it so is more bound of the two this you answer not because the same reason holding in both you saw you could not answer it Baxter Num.
First General Councils An obscure Authority obscurely cited from Bishop Usher n. 5â—â— 58. He draws an Argument for no-subjection due to the Pope from the disobedient Acts of Schismaticks and Hereticks against him n. 60. The 28. Canon of Chalcedon though admitted proves not Mr. Baxter's Assertion ibidem What is meant by the Merits of S. Peter when they are alledged by Ancient Fathers as the prime Ground of the Popes Supremacy Baxter Num. 47. 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 Iohnson Num. 47. You answer not the question for they might be in different places and times and under several guides and yet be one and the same Congregation as appears in the succession and extension of the Catholick Church The question I demanded is this were they all united in the profession of one and the same Faith and unity of External Communion without these two it is impossible to be united in Christ as I shall prove hereafter Baxter Num. 48. That there were any Papists of 400. years after Christ do yo prove if you are able My Conclusion that all have been against you for many hundred years must stand good till on 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 Iohnson Num. 48. I have proved there were some in citing the Orat on of the Legates from Pope Celestine in the first Ephesine Council who you grant were for us and if they were for us then all were not against us for so many hundred years See Baxt. p. 23. for you speak there of the first 400. years Now though that Council was celebrated in the year 430. yet both that in a moral consideration passes for 400. and those Legates witnessing what they said to have alwayes been known to every one notum omnibus c. give an Authentical Testimony that it was alwayes acknowledged as a Christian Truth in and through the Church and consequently within the first 400. years No nor was the Council of Ephesus nor any part of it then against us For if they had they would have at least some of them contradicted that which they had in your supposition esteemed so manifest an untruth and contrary to the liberty and jurisdiction of all other Bishops and Churches as imposing upon them a Superiour and Judge who had no lawfull Authority over them Baxter Num. 49. Do you think to satisfie any reasonable man by calling for positive proof from Authors of such Negatives Iohnson Num. 49. I demand no proof of a Negative prove I demand it My demand is to shew any one Congregation of Christians always visible since Christ till now See Baxt. p. 5. beâ—â—de that which acknowledged the Popes Supremacy which is an Affirmative Baxter Num. 50. 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 Iurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome Iohnson Num. 50. I suppose you mean by were not under c. were never under the Bishop of Rome otherwise your instance proves nothing for if they were under him in any age and for any time since Christ you can never make them to be an instance of those who were perpetually in all Ages a visible Congregation of Christians not acknowledging the Popes Supremacy for in that Age wherein they were subject to him they did acknowledge it Baxter Num. 51. You find all these Churches or most of them at this day that remain from under your Iurisdiction and you cannot tell when or how they turned from you If you could it had been done Iohnson Num. 51. I neither find it nor can find it till you tell me which were these Extra-Imperial Churches you mean when you say other Extra-Imperial Nations Mean you all other or some other If all I find the quite contrary For the Goths successively inhabitants of Spain never acknowledged themselves Subjects to the Empire who notwithstanding are now subject to the Roman Bishop and consequently were and are for some time under him And the Suedes and Danes which pretend to proceed from the Goths Vandals c. though now they reject all obedience to him yet in the year 1500. they all acknowledged themselves to be his Subjects in Spirituals and that for many hundred of years together Well then I find not all Extra-Imperial Churches from under the Popes Jurisdiction and some who are I can and do find when and how they turned from him It was about the year 1520. by occasion of the Lutheran Heresie as all the world knows If you mean onely some of those other Extra-Imperial Churches when you have told me which are those some you shall have an Answer In the interim give me leave to tell you that to maintain your Novelty you must shew all Extra-Imperial to have been exempt for if any one were not all might have been subject nay were to have been so à paritate rationis As to the Indians they were not alwayes Extra-Imperial For in the year 163. they subjected themselves to the Roman Emperour Antoninus Pius Euseb. in Chronic Anno 22. Anton. Eutrop. lib. 8. Evagr. Id. c. 7. The Armenians that were Christians were not alwayes Extra-Imperial For in the year 572. being grievously persecuted for the Christian Faith by the Persians they rendred themselves Subjects to the Roman Emperour Nor were they always a separate Congregation from those who acknowledged the Spiritual Soveraignty of the Roman Bishop â—â—n Flor. in literis unionis de Armenorum concordia Vide Plat. Naucler Volaterranum Chalcond Emilium Onuphrium Genebrard de Concilio Flor. See Iovius Gen. Maseus Iâ—â—rriâ—â— in anno 1524. For in the year 1145. they and the Indian Christians subjected themselves to him and again Anno 1439. and so remain for the present Nor were the Ethiopians in all ages a different Congregation from the Romane For Anno 1524. the Emperour and High Priest David promised obedience to the Sea Apostolick And Claudius his Successor did the like Anno 1557. Now let us review the force of your instances You undertook to shew in Answer to my Minor some visible Congregation beside that which acknowledges the Popes Supreme power in all Ages since Christ. To prove this you nominate onely the Indians Ethiopians Armenians Now no one of these Three have been in all Ages a visible Congregation beside that of Rome for each of them at one time or other became the same Congregation to that by subjecting and conforming themselves to and with the Bishop of Rome as I have proved You assert that these Three are and ever were Extra-Imperial Nations and upon that score in your principles independent of the Roman Bishop
declared the second Patriarchate by the Decree of the Nicene Council because it was the second Seat in the Empire and Antioch which was the third was likewise appointed to be the third Patriarchate and other eminent Cities according to their greatness and precedency in the Empire had the dignity of Primacy and Metropolitane Seas for by this means Church-government was more sweetly and peaceably instituted and maintained both to the satisfaction of the Cities themselves of the temporal Governours and of spiritual Pastors It was say you not the Dignity and Authority of St. Peter Nâ—â—w Sâ—â—ct but the Merits of Vertue and Sanctity which was alledged in hâ—â—se and â—â—hâ—â— like Texts as ground of the Supereminency of his Sea aâ—â— Rome for still they press meritis Beati Petri by the merits of St. Peter I am glad to hear you against your own Tenets acknowledge merits of Saints to haâ—â—e been delivered by the Authority of so great a stream of Antiquity in these purer Ages but it seems withal you were sore press'd for an Answer when you could find no other but what is so disadvantageous to your Cause And that which is yet worse it cannot serve your turn neither For if those Ancients mean't by merita B. Petri the merits of his Sanctity and grounded the Primacy of his Sea in them it must have been undoubtedly known to them that St. Peter was a greater Saint and of a life more meritorious then either S. Paul or S. Iohn Evangelist or S. Andrew or any of the other Apostles of which none of these had any certainty at all much less was it a thing received in the Church that S. Peter had a higher degree of Sanctity then any of his fellow-Apostles prove there was any such perswasion Nay it would probably have been esteemed a temerity a very great curiosity to have preferr'd the sanctity of any one amongst them before all the rest But I wonder much you observed not the manner of speaking of those holy Fathers and grave Authors who give it clearly enough to be understood what Merits they meant For had they been of your opinion they should have added by way of explication Meritis Beati Petri qui sanctissimus erat inter omnes Apostolos by the Merits of S. Peter who was the holiest amongst all the Apostles But to shew they understood not that but the Merits of Dignity and Authority they usually add this clause Meritis Beati Petri qui Princeps est omnium Apostolorum by the Merits of S. Peter who is the Prince of all the Apostles which speaks manifestly a merit or worth of Authority And it were very strange to regulate the Authority of Episcopal Seas by the personal merits of their first Institutors both because that is without an express revelation a thing known to God onely and would occasion a thousand contentions about the precedency of Bishops every one being desirous to esteem the Apostle of his City or Nation the greater Saint and because there never was in Ancient times any such reason given for the precedency of Episcopal or Apostolical Seas if there were shew it nor was any of the other Apostles successors preferred before the rest upon pretence that his merits and sanctity was esteemed greater then that of others Baxter Num. 61. But those Councils gave the Pope no preheminence over the Extra-Imperial Nations Iohnson Num. 61. If he had it before what needed they to give it him or how could they give him what was due to him by Christs Institution But supposing Argumentandi gratiâ not granting that they had had power to confer these priviledges upon S. Peters Sea how do you prove they did not de facto give them to him and thereby gave him power over those Extra-Imperial Nations You prove it thus Baxter Num. 62. For 1. Those Nations being not called to the Council could not be bound by it Iohnson Num. 62. Were they not called sure then they came without calling for there they were For had they not been there how came the Bishops of Persia of both the Armenia's and Gothia which were all out of the Empire to subscribe to the first Council of Nice Vide Act. Conc. Nicen. et Ephes. How came Phoebamnon Bishop of the Copti to subscribe to the first Council of Ephesus How came that Circular Letter writ by Eusebius Bishop of Caesaria in Palestine in the name of the Council to be directed to all Bishops and in particular to the Churches through all Persia and the great India if the Bishops of those Churches were not called or the Council had no Authority over them Theod. l. 1. c. 7. Mar. Victor lib. 1. adv Arium Euseb. l. 3. de vitâ—â— Constannin c. 7. Socrat. l. 1. c. 5. Lastly if those Bishops were not called to the Council why do Theodoret Marianus Victor Eusebius Socrates all of them affirm that to the Council of Nice were called Bishops from all the Churches of Europe Africa and Asia You will not forget to answer these questions in your next CHAP. IV. ARGUMENT Num. 63. Emperors alone called no General Councils so that Extra-Imperial Bishops must have been called by the Pope Extra-Imperial Churches under the Patriarchs num 65 c. One page and a half of Mr. Baxters Key for Catholicks occasionally examined and what defects are found in them n. 67. Had the Extra-Imperial Churches not acknowledg'd the Popes Iurisdiction over them they had not been of the same kind of Government with those within the Empire n. 68. S. Prosper's and S. Leo's Texts for the Popes Supremacy without the Roman Empire num 69. S. Leo highly injur'd by Mr. Baxter num 71. No full express nomination of all the particular Provinces under Alexandria in the sixth Canon of the Nicene Council n. 71. By Egypt may be understood Ethiopia and other adjacent Countreys num 72. Dr. Heylen and Ross Protestant Authors against Mr. Baxter n. 37. The first of these acknowledges the Arabick Translation of the Nicene Council to be Authentick Baxter Num. 63. The Emperours called and enforced the Councils Non-proof 5. who had no power out of their Empire Iohnson Num. 63. Called they them alone had they not the Authority of the Roman Bishop joyn'd with them or rather presuppos'd to theirs Prove that the Emperours onely called them What if they had no coercive power out of the Empire had they not power to signifie to those Extra-Imperials that a Council was to be celebrated and to invite them at least to it Or if they did not could not the Bishop of Rome or the other Patriarchs under whose Jurisdiction they were respectively notifie to them the celebration of those Councils and require their presence in them You cannot but see this Baxter Num. 64. The Dioceses are described and expresly confined within the verge of the Empire See both the description and full proof in Blondel de Primatu in Ecclesiâ Gall. Iohnson Num. 64. I should much rather have
the heart to spend paper in such groundless Parergons In your fifth you first call those marks of flattery for giving the title of Vniversal Bishop to Pope Leo which the whole Council of Chalcedon approved and read publikely and therefore must all have concurred with flatterers and yet in the next line you affirm that by the title of universal they meant no more then the Bishop which in order of dignity is above the rest and that you confess belongs as due to the Roman Bishop how then account you them flatterers when they give the Pope no more then his due Either therefore they were no flatterers and then you injure them in branding those holy venerable persons with so black a note or they meant more then you would have them mean by universal Bishop and then you speak untruly in putting a false gloss upon their words chuse which you please you contradict your self And you are as consonant to your self in instancing that many particular Churches are oft called Catholick What then Ergo the Title of Archbishop of the Catholick Church or the Vniversal Bishop proves not the Popes Supremacy Draw these two together if you can Yes there is a difference say you next between a Catholick Church and the Catholick Church There is so but what of that Then will you say if you say any thing there must be a difference betwixt an Archbishop of a Catholick Church and the Archbishop of the Catholick Church That 's true too But see you not that this discourse quite overthrows yours for you say not that the title whose sequel you infringe is that the Pope is called an Archbishop of a Catholick Church for so is every Orthodox Archbishop as well as the Pope but that he is called the Archbishop of the Catholick Church These are your precise words Noâ—â— say you that we stile him an universal or Catholick Bishop for so are all lawfull Bishops but that we stile him the universal Bishop It seems you have two hands and those so contrary one to the other that what the one builds the other pulls down Then you say the Bishop of Constantinople had that title given him in a Council at Constantinople Anno 518. But was that Council received as publickly without contradiction in the Church as this Epistle was received without contradiction in the Council of Chalcedon Was not that Constantinopolitan Council condemned both by S. Gregory and his Predecessor as S. Gregory witnesses in his Epistle against Iohn of Constantinople and can you name any who in the Council of Chalcedon condemned the title given to Leo in that Epistle read in the Council of Chalcedon The truth is you care not much what you write so you make a noise This done you alledge Iustin. Codex de Episcopis l. 1. lege 24. that is the First Law the four and twentieth Law a learned citation if yours and not the Printers oversight in printing L. for T. for it should be Tit. 2. not 1. lege 24. You cite him thus Constantinopolitana Ecclesia omnium aliarum caput the Church of Constantinople is the Head of all other Churches whence you prove that Iustinian prefers the Church of Constantinople before the Church of Rome Surely you never read this Law of Iustinian for had you read it you would have found by his mentioning there certain Ecclesiastical Officers called Chartularii belonging to the Cathedral Church that he speaks there only of the great Patriarchal Church of St. Sophia in Constantinople and makes it the Head of all other Cathedral Churches in that Patriarchate and not of the politick body of the Constantinopolitan Church in regard of all other Christian Churches in the world And your very Concession here concludes that he prefers not the Constantinopolitan in your sense before that of Rome for you acknowledge he prefers Rome before it For all know that Iustinians Laws were so prudently couched and ordered that such palpable contradictions as these were never noted by any Classick Authors to be inserted into them But whilst you thus take Authors upon trust hand over head no marvel if you make more haste then good speed in posting out one Book after another Presently upon this you fall upon a Story concerning Vigilius and Iustinian and by that you prove nothing For Iustinian might both hold the Bishop of Rome was Head of all the holy Prelates of God as he intitles him C. l. 1. tit 2. l. 7. and yet persecute him and abuse him to draw him to subscribe to what he desired as many Emperors since Iustinian have done who notwithstanding beleeved and professed constantly the universal Supremacy of the Roman Bishop For when they are injurious to particular Popes their spleen is not against the Sea or dignity of the Roman Bishop but against this or that person who is actually in possession of it Thus Iustinianus junior endeavoured all he could even by force and violence to draw Pope Sergius to subscribe to the Trullane Cannons though he could not effect it Nay had you drawn a natural sequel from such proceedings it should rather have been That Iustinianus senior therefore proceeded so violently against Vigilius to induce him to subscribe to the condemnation of the Tria capitula decreed in the fifth Council because he esteemed him to be of so eminent power that it would never have been universally received as a lawful General Council without his Subscription to it and confirmation of it which was the reason that moved Iustinianus junior to press Sergius so forcibly to subscribe to that in Trullo Thus I have given a brief Survey of what you cite p. 174 175. in your Key whence may be collected what your manner of writing is in that loose Treatise since in little more then in one sole page occasionally light upon I have discovered no lesse then two Equivocations three Fallacies four false Translations three Inconsequences one Mistake and two Contradictions Yet were such defects now and then only to be met with in your Book it were something tolerable but such as read it attentively finde it swarmes all over with them and is indeed nothing but a Farrago of Fallacies and Falsities heap'd one upon another throughout the whole Tract Pardon me if I have been more bold with you in answering this passage of your Key then in what you have writ against me for I neither find you so mainly defective in that as in this other and where you are so I labour to smother what I can that I may not seem to be too severe with you in my own concern What you say in this Paragraph by way of Parenthesis That the Emperors gave power to the Councils Acts if you mean they gave any spiritual Authority by force of Vote or Suffrage to them you neither have prov'd it nor can prove it if you mean they gave only a coercive power for the external Observation of those decrees which by vertue of the Councils Authority obliged
the first Earl of England should pronounce a penal sentence against those who respectively are inferiour only in place and precedency to themselves would it not be judged profoundly ridiculous Baxter Num. 75. 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 Non-proof 8. that were under Alexandria were not therefore under Rome Iohnson Num. 75. Your ground is untrue for I have proved Alexandria to have been absolutely and totally under Rome in the example of Dionysius Anno 263. which was before the conversion of Constantine and before any Council through the whole Empire could be assembled and that in the Nicene Council there was no restriction of that Patriarchal Sea to the Precincts of the Empire Con. Nicen. cap. 6. nor of the Roman Sea to Alexandria as comprehending only the Imperial Provinces prove any such limitation was made there Now if before the Council of Nice and before the Church was under Christian Emperors Rome had such power over Alexandria c. and that proceeded not from the Institution of Christ shew as you are obliged when how and by whom that power was given to it in those times Baxter Num. 76. 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 re rest of the World Iohnson Num. 76. Yes 't is very much for it sounds an Argument à paritate rationis that seeing no considerable reason can be given why one Extra-Imperial Province should be subject to Rome more then all the rest if one be proved subject all others must be supposed to be so unless some particular reason can be alledged why this was subject more then the rest For till that be done there can no reason be given why any of the Extra-Imperial Churches were subject to the Roman Bishops save this that he was Governour over all the Churches and Bishops in the world and consequently as much over all Extra-Imperial as over all Imperial Churches Baxter Num. 77. Sir If you have impartially read the Ancient Church-History and yet can beleeve that all these Churches were then under the Pope despair not of bringing your self to beleeve any thing imaginable that you would have to be true Iohnson Num. 77. 'T is your pleasure to say so I shall be moved to beleeve you when you convince ' me by reason but your bare word without reason Non-proof 9. has no poise at all with me nor I think with any one who is led by reason Baxter Num. 78. Your next Question is When the Roman Emperors were yet Heathens had not the Bishops of Rome 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 Iohnson Num. 78. I do not nakedly ask the Question but prove what I say by an Instance as you presently acknowledge Baxter Num. 79. But you ask again Did those Heathen Emperours give it him Answ. 1. Power over all the 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 Imperial 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 Nicen Council as saith your Aeneas Silvius Pope Pius the second Iohnson Num 79. But I have now proved the power and Authority of the Roman Bishop to be over all Nations that were Christian in the instances given above If therefore the power he had were given him by the Emperors they must have given him power over all Churches which no Emperor could do as having no Authority over Extra-Imperial Churches Whence follows evidently the power he had could not have been given him by the Emperours And as little could that of precedency even over the Empire have been given him before the Nicene Council by the Bishops within the Empire for there is no step in antiquity of any such gift and if there be shew when and by whom it was first given him Nor were that admitted would it satisfie the difficulty for the Bishop of Rome had precedency not only over all the Bishops within the Empire but through the whole Christian world for so is Blondel forced to acknowledge page 14. and page 528. I would gladly have some evident proof from Antiquity that the word Primacy put absolutely or alone 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Primate in the Ecclesiastical signification signified a precedencie only of meer degree or place and not a true Authority and Jurisdiction over those in relation to whom one is said to have primacy or â—â—o be Primate Run over all those who had the dignity of Primate in ancient times and name any one who in vertue of that Primacy had not true Ecclesiastical Authority over others in relation to whom he had that Primacy Do not both yours and ours think they defend and oppose sufficiently the Roman Bishops Authority asserted by Catholicks when they call it in Latine Primatus Romani Pontificis the Primacy of the Roman Bishop Has not Bellarmine and Stapleton of ours Whitaker Chamler and Blondel of yours with many others disputed that question largely under the name of Primatus or Primacy Blondel p. 527. acknowledges this to be the common and ordinary signification and produces one only instance where primacie is taken for precedency of place onely and there it is not put absolutely but with this Adjunct Primacy of honour by age Primance d'honeur par l'age Should you affirm that the Bishop of Canterbury in quality of Primate had only a meer primacy of degree or locall precedency and no authority conferred upon him by force of his primacy had he not reason to be highly offended with you Seeing therefore in the Council of Chalcedon reciting the forenamed Canon of Nice it is affirmed that the Sea of Rome had ever the Primacy Ecclesia Romana sâ—â—mper habuit primatum and seeing no adjunct or limitation is given there that the word Primacy is not taken in the usual Ecclesiastical signification to wit for a primacy in authority and jurisdiction it must be understood in the usual signification There was indeed anciently a precedency of place amongst the other Patriarchs Primates and Metropolitans but were any of them for that reason termed their Primates or said to have Primacy in relation to those before whom they sate in the Councils or before whom they took place in all publick Assemblies You will not fail I hope to bring such clear
Church all the rest even the highest are no more then his Officers with a limited and restrained power that is in order to the sole sole external and visible government of it not having other Bishops under him as his Officers but as Officers of Christ and subject to him as hereafter shall be further declared Nor yet have you given here any direct answer to my Question I demand whether you account Rome and Protestants one Congregation To which you answer the Roman Church hath two heads and the Protestant but one and that 's the difference Now this gives no satisfaction to my demand for the Question inquires not Whether there be any difference betwixt us and you that was out of Question but whether that difference assigned by you be so great that it hinders them from being one Congregation and that you resolve not and thereby leave the difficulty unanswered Baxter Num. 91. They are Christians and so one Church as united in Chrst with us and all other true Christians If any so hold their Papacy and other Errors 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 Iohnson Num. 91. You tell us what would follow if such things as you fancy were done but you tell us not whether it is possible to do them or no. Can a Papist think you remaining still a Papist so hold his Papacy and other pretended errors as to destroy Christianity If he cannot why trifle you away time in printing such Chymerical conditionals if he can tell us how and by what means which you have not done nor indeed can you do it For how is it possible for two persons to be both Papists that is of the same Faith in all things for otherwise they will not be both Papists and the one of them only to be a Christian and the other none but practically and effectually destroying Christianity Baxter Num. 92. And your modest stile makes me hope that you and I are of one Church though you never so much renounce it Iohnson Num. 92. I never saw a man labor so confidently to perswade one out of his Religion upon so weak grounds as you do And truly something might be done in time to make you and me of one Church if I knew what Church you are of For you contradict so loudly the Tenets of all those who pretend either to be the Church or parts of the Church before you that I cannot finde but you are of a Church by your self which no man knows but your self and then I 'me sure you neither are nor can be of one Church with me so long as you remain in the state you are in yet it is the height of my desires that we may both be joyned in one Catholick Church which I shall most earnestly and unfainedly beg of God still hoping that your zeal and ardency in what you profess may as it did S. Paul bring you to see and imbrace his true Church Baxter Num. 93. As Papal we are not of your Church that 's a new Church-form Iohnson Num. 93. Prove it is new you know well enough we hold it to be ancient Baxter Num. 94. 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 Iohnson Num. 94. I have shewed you are not as Christian speaking univocally of one Church with us For true Christianity requires true faith which I cannot beleeve you have nor have you proved it as shall appear hereafter I am unwilling to revive the memory of those severities you mention and you also might have pleased to have buried them in Oblivion for in objecting them to us you refresh the remembrance of yours towards us nor yet see I why such severities can better stand with your Christianity then with ours CHAP. VII ARGUMENT Num. 95. Roman Catholicks and Protestants cannot be of one and the same Church num 96 Length of time or continuance excuses not the succeeding Hereticks or Schismaticks from the crimes of their first beginners num 97. When Protestants deserted external Communion with Rome they deserted together with it the external Communion of all other particular visible Churches and that upon the same grounds n. 98. Mr. Baxters exclamation against Rome is injurious to all other ancient particular Churches existent immediatly before the first beginners of Protestancy n. 99. All the Kingdoms in the world not one visible but only invisible Kingdome under Gods invisible providence and power which governs them and in that regard an unfit instance to prove different particular Churches without one visible governour of them all to be one visible Church num 100. His opinion of actual Hereticks and Schismaticks properly so called contrary to all Authors ours or his own and to Christianity it self num 101. How Alphonsus à Castro held them to be members of the Church num 102. Every Heretick properly so called denies some essentials of Christianity num 103. Pelagians undoubted and manifest Hereticks and Schismaticks The Catholick Church so perfectly one that it s not capable to be divided Baxter Num. 95. But you ask 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 Iohnson Num. 95. You separated as much from us as did either Novatians or Pelagians or Donatists or Acacians or Luciferians or Nestorians Eutychians c. did from the Catholick Church of their respective times which is enough for us to deny you to be of one Church with us or to be any true parts of the Catholick Church If it be not so shew what you can say for your selves which any of those Hereticks might not as well have alledged in their own defence for neither did any of them separate from the Church as it was Christian nor did either the Pelagians Donatists Acacians Luciferians Novatians dis-beleeve any essential point of Christian faith if Protestants dis-beleeve no essential what you say of not separating from us as we are Christians is a precision never used by Catholick or Heretick in ancient times nor indeed did ever any Heretick who esteemed himself a Christian affirm he separated from the Church as it was Christian for that had been to deny himself to be a Christian which
of the denyal of original Sin That Infants which dye without Baptisme are not in the state of Salvation c. Now these are enough to make them Hereticks and out of the Church whatsoever is of the rest of their Heresie which howsoever some dispute now wherein it consisteth yet when they were first condemned there was no dispute about it But here 's another grand Noveltie of yours to be considered Who ever yet before you said that Catholick Church could be divided in it self when it is a most perfect unity See what the Fathers say of this point why is it called una Ecclesia Catholica one Catholick Church in the Nicene Creed if it can be divided and then you adde another Novelty as the former For who but you ever said the Donatists were not divided absolutely from the Church does not S. Aug. lib. de Baptismo contra Donatistas say they separated and divided from the Church a hundred times over But more of this hereafter Mr. Baxter Num. 105. I know that Heresie is a personal Crime and cannot be charged on Nations unlesse you have Evidence that the Nations consent to it which here you have none William Iohnson Num. 105. I have your own Author for it an approved Historian amongst you there is no Authority alledged by you which contradicts his Testimony or clears them from Eutychianisme why therefore seek you evidence against what you are not able to disprove But for your farther satisfaction first it is certain in the year One thousand one hundred seventy and seven the Abyssines or Ethiopians under Prester Iohn desired Doctours to be sent to them from Pope Alexander the third to Instruct them in the Roman Faith from which they differed at that time The Pope write to their King and high Bishop that he desired nothing more then to gratifie them in their Request intreating them to send their doubts and requests in particular to Rome Now that these differences from the Roman Church in part at least were the Heresie of Eutyches is Evident from the Canon of their Mass wherein they commemorate three or four times the Fathers of the three first general Councils but never make mention of those in the fourth that is the Council of Chalcedon whereof no other probable reason can be given save their adhering to the Heresie of Eutyches which was condemned in that Council so that there needs no farther Testimony against them seeing they condemn themselves of Eutychianisme Mr. Baxter Num. 106. Some are Hereticks for denying Points essential to Christianity these are not 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 Abyssines and all the rest have not been yet tryed and convicted before any competent Iudge and Slanderers we regard not William Iohnson Num. 106. This is already answered all Hereticks deny the veracity of Christ which is Essential to Christ and Christianity whatsoever their Heresies be the Abyssines confess themselves to follow as I have proved Eutyches and Dioscorus and therefore need neither tryal nor conviction Mr. Baxter Num. 107. Many of your own Writers acquit them of Heresie and say †Non-proof 13. the difference is now found to be but in words or little more William Iohnson Num. 107. Name those Writers and you shall be answered think you that any rational man will be convinced by your bare affirmation Mr. Baxter Num. 108. What you say of their disclaiming us unless we take the Patriarch of Constantinople for the vice Christ you many wayes mistake 1. if this were true that they rejected us it were not proof that we are not of one universal Church William Iohnson Num. 108. But sure I mistake not in saying they disclaim you if it be supposed true as you suppose now they doe disclaim you and I think impartial men will take it to be a proof for if both the whole Westerne Church with the Bishop of Rome and the Easterne with the Bishop of Constantinople each claiming the Soveraignty of visible Government over the whole Church of Christ reject you as Hereticks and no other Church existent in the world anno Dom. 1500. Immediately before your first visible opposition against the Roman Church own you as you have not proved nor can you ever prove they doe but upon the same or for some other reasons Reject you for which the Easterne and Westerne Churches have disclaimed you you cannot but confess you are rejected by the whole Catholick Church of Christ seeing you were Rejected by all the visible Churches of that time Now whosoever is rejected as an Heretick by the whole Catholick visible Church either must be no part of it or the Catholick Church must not be able to know which are which are not her true parts and be fallen into so desperate an Errour as to reject as out-casts and enemies those who are her true Children Or what phrenzie would it be in a Novellist vainly and presumptuously to give himself out for a Member of the Church when the whole Catholick Church disclaims and Anathematises him as an Alien Now reduce your selves as Tertullian sayes to your first origine in the year 1500 even in your Principles the visible Catholick Church was all the Congregations of Christians through the whole world but all these Congregations disowned you as Aliens and Separatists from them when you first begun an 1517. ergo the whole Catholick Church disowned you as Aliens and Separatists Ergo you were then either such as the Church esteemed you to be or the whole Catholick Church was deceived but all good Christians will rather believe that you who were then but a handfull of new-hatched Novellists were deceived in fancying your selves to be parts of the Church against the censure and judgement of the whole Christian world then that the whole Christian world should be deceived and you only in the Right Nay that you may have no shadow to shroud your self under not only the whole Christian world when you begun rejected you as not belonging to their Body but you your selves never so much as pretended then to be parts of any of these Churches but hated and abominated them as much as they did you and condemned them all of Errour and Superstition of Babylonish captivity and utter darknesse of Antichrianisme and Idolatry c. Read your first Writers and you will find it so for seeing all the visible Christian Congregations held many of those Points which your first beginners held to be Idolatrous and Superstitious in the Roman Church in condemning the Roman and separating from it upon those pretended Superstitions and Errours you separated from and condemned the whole Catholick Church nor can you free your self from this unless you nominate some Church in those times spread all the Christian world over which resisted those said Errours as you did and joined with you against the Roman
not Zygomalas suppose that the Protestants and they are two Churches that they were not then united into one saies he not that he hopes for such a Future Unity Gaudium in coelo supra terram erit si coibit in unitatem utraque Ecclesia c. Ergo that unity was not then actually made and that unity depended on the correction of those differences in Faith which were betwixt them which whilst they remained obstructed it now this is wholly destructive of your Novelty nay this Agreement and becoming one and the same Church as Synonimaes coibit in unitatem utraque Ecclesia et Idem sentiemus both Churches the Greeks and Lutherans shall join in unitie and we shall hold that is believe the same thing evinces that their disagreement was inconsistent with their being one Church nay besides Faith he requires a future charity and concord which argues it was then wanting Et simul vivemus in omni concordia pace secundum Deum in sincerae charitatis vinculo and sayes he we shall live together in all concord peace in God and in the bond of sincere Charity so that this very Text which you quote to prove the unity betwixt Greeks and Lutherans proves the quite contrary so choice are you in your Citations Mr. Baxter Num. 112. But as it is not the Patriarch that is the whole Greek Church so it is not their Errours in some lesser or tolerable points that prove us of two Churches or Religions William Iohnson Num. 112. Who saies he is the whole Church yet sure when the Patriarch writes concernings his own Jurisdiction he is supposed to understand the extent of it and when those of his Church shew no kind of contradiction against it neither when he writ this nor ever since and thereby give a tacite consent to it what he writes is to be esteemed as the tenet of his Church I am much joyed to hear you terme the differences in Faith betwixt you and the Grecians some lesser or tolerable points for they being in substance the very same with those betwixt you and us as the Authors confesse cited by me pag. 46. of your Edition you must consequently acknowledge the differences betwixt you and us to be some lesser or tolerable points but give me leave then to tell you that as you judge those points tolerable so must you also judge your separation from the external communion of the Greek and Roman Church intolerable for if those parts in difference be tolerable they were to have been tolerated by you without proceeding to an open and scandalous Schisme by reason of them nor will it excuse you to alledge you were forc't to separate in detestation of those things which you judged Errours otherwise you would have compell'd us by punishments to have assented to them for you were rather to have suffered patiently that force though it had been to death it self then to have made so notorious a Schisme for tolerable Errours or fear of persecution I have already shewed that every Errour in Faith against a divine truth sufficiently proposed separates the erring partie from the true visible Church of Christ. Mr. Baxter Num. 113. Whereas you say it is against all antiquity and Christianity to admit condemned Hereticks into the Church I Reply 1. I hate their condemnation rather then reverence it that even being non Judices dare condemn whole Nations without hearing one man of them speak for himself or hearing one witnesse that ever heard them defend Heresie and this merely because some few Bishops have in the dayes of all maintained Heresie and perhaps some may doe so still or rather differ from you in words while you misunderstand each other I see you have a sharp tooth against Bishops why name you them onely as maintainers of Heresies how many Bishops found you broaching or spreading heresie in the 2. first hundred yeares was either Simon Magus or Nicolaus or Cerinthus or Menander or Valentinian or Manes or Montanus Bishops and in the third Age was there not Arius and Eutyches neither of them Bishops broachers of two most pernicious Heresies as well as Nestorius and Dioscorus who were Bishops William Iohnson Num. 113. You mistake the manner of the Churches condemnation of Hereticks it is neither personal nor National save in some notorious Arch-Hereticks who either by their words or writings evidently professe or teach Heresie but general or abstractive viz. whosoever holds such or such Errours let him be accursed or we excommunicate all such as hold them c. where there can be no wrong done to any for those who de facto held them not are not cast out of the Church now when this sentence comes to Execution those who either acknowledge themselves to hold those Heresies or communicate with them who professe it are esteemed as Hereticks because they join with an heretical party against the Church and in case they profess to disbelieve their heresie and yet live in communion with them and subjection to them they become open Schismaticks separating themselves from the whole visible Church by communicating with Hereticks Mr. Baxter Num. 114. Did I find such Errours with them as with you yet first I durst charge them on no one man that I had not reason to hold guilty of them I dare not accuse whole Nations of your Errours but of all these things and of sundry words which you cite I have spoken already in two books and in the latter fully proved that you differ in many points of Faith and greater things then you call Heresies in others among your selves even your Pope's Saints and Councils and yet neither part is judged by you to be out of the Church see my Key pag. 124 125 127 128 129. and pag. 52. ad 62. William Iohnson Num. 114. You or any Christian may safely judge those Hereticks who publickly communicate and side with those who professe and teach open heresie for the very siding with them Argues a consent to their Doctrine and is a sufficient profession of it unlesse they professe publickly a difference from their heresie your recrimination is unseasonable the question is not for the present wherein or how We differ but whether You be guiltie of heresie or no our innocencie or guiltiness clears not you clear your Selves first and then you will have gained credit to accuse us 'till that be done you do nothing but divert the Question â—â—y removing it from your selves to us In your Key pag. 128. you trifle in using the words Material point Equivocally and proceeding à specie ad genus fallociously Mr. Turberville speaks of material Points against your 39. Articles saying for if they differ from them in any material point c. and you make him speak of all kinds of material points in Religion whether contrary to any Article or Ecclesiastical decree of Faith or no. Mr. Baxter Num. 115. When you say so much to prove the Greeks guiltie of manifest heresy
accused to shew that he did not play the part of a judge but of a friend as Chrysostome did by some that fled to him I pray answer his reasons William Iohnson Num. 183. Had I written as you print my words I had indeed deserved a sharper reprehension then you gave me Now whether I writ so or no I leave it to your judgement Here you cite my words thus in your margent say you you add that concerning St. Athanasius being judged and rightly Chamier acknowledgeth the matter of fact to be so but against all antiquity pretends that judgement to have been unjust In which words you make me first wrong Chamier by affirming he sayes Athanasius was judged rightly by Iulius and then you make me wrong my self by delivering a manifest contradiction in two lines for first in your citation I say that Chamier affirms that judgement to have been rightly done and then presently that I affirm Chamier to have said that judgement to have been unjust that is not rightly done Now whether I affirm Chamier to have said the matter of fact to have been so that is to have been rightly done your own printing of my words will put the matter out of question therefore pag. 52. in the margin you cite my words thus concerning St. Athanasius being judged and righted by Pope Iulius Chamier cit acknowledges the matter of fact to be so Now one may be judged and righted that is set again into his right by one who hath no power to judge him and consequently judges not rightly that is duly juridically and Canonically now by changing righted into rightly you change the whole tenure and meaning of my words and then grate on me upon the Conscience with what not I but you or your printer was guilty of and truly I should have been most willing to have cast it upon him had your written copy shewed the contrary so here you have not righted but rightly neither do I finde these words to be so in my marginal copy but only thus Chamier confesses the matter of fact without to be so though I will not contend with you in this as not having seen the copy which was sent you True it is Chamier would have this judgement to have passed as from a freind but to prove this he contends that it could not be from a competent and canonical Judge because it was under the notion of a judgement unjust seeing both parties were not present to be heard in judgement so that he holds this to have been an unjust judgement if taken in a rigorous sense which is all that I said But in the mean time you answer not my arguments whereby I prove it just nor could you answer them without impeaching St. Athanasius of concurring with Iulius to an unjust judgement for though Iulius had past this judgement as a freind yet to proceed to execution before the adverse party was heard or things made so evident that there was no place for defence would have been an unjust proceeding and if matters were so undeniably clear it was not unjust for want of that formality so that if it were unjust in a freind according to equity or justice can justify a person accused without hearing what his accusers are able to make good against him much lesse can those accusors be condemned as manifest detractors and lyars when they are not permitted to speak for themselves and produce their evidences in quality of a judgement for want of the defendants being heard it would have been unjust in quality of freind-ship for the same reason for now to say that St. Athanasius concurred with Iulius either as an unjust Judge or as an unjust freind would to wrong that blessed Saint and your self too but I would gladly be satisfyed in this how one who had no judicatory authority above another Court could reverse the Sentence of that Court and restore the person injured by it to his right as Iulius here did by the Sentence given in a Council against St. Athanasius or what man in his right wits would address himself to a friend for relief in that which he knows is above his power should a Citizen of York injured in the Mayors Court frame an appeal to the Lord Mayor of London because he is his friend and the prime Mayor in England being the chief Officer of the Imperial City to reverse the sentence given at York against him would he not become a laughing-stock both to York and London Mr. Baxter 184. 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 Iudge no not as to the universal Iudge of the Church Imperial much less of all the Catholick Churches William Iohnson Num. 184. Here you say nothing at all to Chamiers granting it to be an appeal as to a Judge that was so plain belike that you could not answer it nor yet would you expresly grant it neither that had been too flat against you So you thought it best to huddle it up in silence and say nothing of it and thought it may be your adversaries would have past it over too but I hope all wise men will see your failing in this Baxter p. 51. in Margin The question in my Margin there is not what you say to it but what Chamier said Now lest it should appear that you and Chamier clash in this you give me only your opinion but dissemble his and yet sure his was as much the better as it was the â—â—iuer Nor yet do you deny this appeal to have been as to a Iudge which was the only question in the Margin p. 51. Baxter but not to have been as to an universal Governour or Iudge no not within the Empire say you But by your good leave if this were not a forcible Instance supposing it were as to a Iudge which Chamier grants and you deny not to prove à paritate rationis that every Bishop both within the Empire and Church might have as well appealed to the Roman Bishop as to a Iudge as Theodoret did had he been injured as he was If I say this was not of force shew in your next some particular reason why the Bishop of Rome had power to judge the case of Theodoret rather then of any other Bishop in the Church which till you do See more of this supra your effugium that this appeal was not made as to an universal Governour or Judge speaks nothing for if he as in our sense be an universal Judge or Governour to whom every Bishop of the Church may appeal as to his Judge then seeing Theodoret's appeal to him as such proves every Bishop had as much right in the like circumstances which Theodoret then had it proves also that he appealed to him as to an universal Governour or Judge
enough look into that action and you 'l find it in the Edition of Paulus Quintus Mr. Baxter Num. 253. But why were not the antecedent words of the Bishop of Antioch and his Clergy as valid to the contrary as Juvenals for this William Iohnson Num. 253. Because Iuvenal was a known Catholique Bishop Liberat. in brev c. 4. act Ephes. Tom. 1. c. 21. act Ephes. Tom. 3. c. 1. Evag. c. 5. alii and consented to the council and Iohn of Antioch with his complices were favourers of Nestorius restorers of the Pelagian Heresie and open Schismatiques celebrating a conventicle against the Ephesine council Mr. Baxter Num. 254. If these words were spoken they only import a judging in Council as a chief member of it and not of himself Non-proof 24. William Iohnson Num. 254. Yes sure it must needs be so because you say 't is so shall we never have an end of your non-proofs what kinde of Council mean you a general Council that was never thought necessary for the Roman Bishops censuring of others a particular that could have no juridical authority out of the Western Church ergo the power of judging out of the Western Patriarchate was only in the Pope Mr. Baxter Num. 255. And his Apostolica ordinatione is expresly contrary to the fore-cited Canon of the Council of Chalcedon and therefore not to be believed Non-proof William Iohnson Num. 255. Still more non-proofs why is it expresly contrary why you say 't is so I deny it to be contrary that 's as good as your affirmation I have explicated that Canon of Chalcedon above and made it consonant to these words of Iuvenal But what if it were contrary I have also shewed the uncanonicalness and illegality of that Canon But at least you cannot deny that I have brought one instance here that the Popes authority over a Patriarch was by Apostolical ordination Is it not manifest by this your answer that you slight the Council of Chalcedon in granting in one Session to approve of Iuvenals sayings and in another to contradict them Mr. Baxter Num. 256. Yet some called things done ordinatione Apostolica which were ordained by the seats which were held Apostolick Non-proof 25. William Iohnson Num. 256. Some which some why say you some and name none nor prove any still more and more non-proofs Mr. Baxter Num. 257. But still you resolve to forget that Antioch or the Empire extended not to the Antipodes nor contained all the Catholick Church William Iohnson Num. 257. Your burthen must still bear up the Song we have had enough of that already Shew some solid reason why the Pope had rather power over the Church and Patriarch of Antioch then over all other Prelates and Churches and you say something Mr. Baxter Num. 258. You next tell me of Valentinians words A.D. 445. Reply It is the most plausible of all your testimonies but worth nothing to your end for 1. Though Theodosius ' s name pro forma were at it yet it was only Valentinians act and done at Rome where Leo prevailed with a raw unexperienced Prince to 1 word the Epistle as he desired so that it is rather 2 Leo's then the Emperours original 13. Non-proofs more noted in figures in the Text. 3 And Leo was the first that attempted the excessive advancement of his seat above the rest of the Patriarchs 2. It is known that the Emperours sometime gave the Primacy to Rome and sometime to Constantinople as they were pleased or displeased by each of them So did Justinian who A. D. 530. Lampadio Oreste Coss. C. de Episcopis lib. 1. lege 24. saith Constantinopolitana Ecclesia omnium aliarum est Caput The Church of Constantinople is the head of all other 3. It is your fiction and not the words of Valentinian or Leo that the succession from Peter was the foundation of Romes Primacy It was then believed that Antioch and other Churches had a succession from Peter It is the merit of Peter and the dignity of the City of Rome and the authority of the Synode jointly that he ascribeth it to The 4 merit of Peter was nothing but the motive upon which Leo would have men believe the Synode gave the Primacy to Rome And Hosius in the Council of Sardica indeed useth that as his motive Let us for the honour of Peter c. They had a conceit that where Peter last preached and was martired and buried and his relicks lay there he should be most honoured 4. Here 's is not the least intitation that this Primacy was by Gods appointment or the Apostles but the Synodes nor that it had continued so from Peters dayes but that jointly for Peters merits and honour and the Cities dignity it was given by the Synode 5. And it 6 was but Leo's fraud to perswade the raw Emperour of the authority of a Synode which he would not name because the Synode of Sardica 7 was in little or no authority in those dayes The rest of the reasons were fraudulent also which though they prevailed with this 8 Emperour yet they took not in the East And Leo himself it seems durst not pretend to a divine right and 9 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 universitas is all that you translate in your Comment the whole visible Church As if you knew not that there was a Roman universality and that Roman Councils were called universal when no Bishops out of that one Common-wealth were present and that the Church in the Empire 10 is oft called the whole Church yea the Roman world was not an unusual And I pray you tell me what power Valentinian had out of the Empire who yet interposeth his authority there Neque praeter authoritatem sedis istius illicitum c. ut pax ubique servetur And in the end it is all the Provinces that is the university 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 lawful c. I answ No wonder for France was part of his Patriarchate and the Laws of the Empire had confirmed his Patriarchal power and those Laws might seem with the reverence of Synodes without new letters to do much But yet it 11 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 12 medled with the rest of the Christian world It seems by all their writings and 13 attempts this never came into their thoughts William Iohnson Num. 258. In this paragraph you
have no lesse then a bakers dozen of non proofs I have noted them by figures in your text let them be prov'd and then they shall be answered till then they deserve no answer To what has any seeming ground or proof I answer First it imports little whether Theodosius had any hand in this Epistle or no I say nothing of him in my text p. 59.60.61 Secondly Your proof from Iustinian is already answered in my observation made upon p. 174. of your key only I see you have mended your citation and put lib. in place of lege 3. Must it needs follow that it is my fiction because it is not the words of Valentinian that the succession from St. Peter is the foundation of Romes primacy May not a medium be given betwixt those two extremes what if it were the true sense of Valentinians words it was then neither his words nor my fiction but a true interpretation of his words and that it is so is manifest for there must be some reason sure why the merit of St. Peter conferr'd a primacy rather upon the Bishop of Rome then upon any other Bishop but none can be imagined save this that the Bishops of Rome succeeded St. Peter in the sea of Rome ergo it must be that succession or nothing You seem to say that because St. Peter last preached and was martired and buried and his relicks lay there he should be most honoured and by honoured you must mean as Hosius cited by you here and Valentinian doe in the power acknowledged in the Bishops of Rome But this cannot subsist for St. Paul preached last at Rome also was martyred and buried and his relicks lay there yet no authors say the primacy of the Roman Bishops was founded in St. Pauls merits now no reason can be given of this save that which I gave viz that the Roman Bishops succeed not to St. Paul as they doe to St. Peter because St. Paul was never Bishop of Rome as St. Peter was What you say of the succession from St. Peter in Antioch availes nothing for he having deserted the Bishopprick of Antioch in his life time and transferr'd his seate to Rome were he dyed Bishop of the Roman see was to have his proper successour there for by tranferring his see to Rome he transferr'd the dignity of Primacy of the Episcopal crown as Valentinian sayes there appropriated to him and took it from Antioch and by dying Bishop of Rome left it there to his successours whence appears that the Bishop of Antioch was a successor to St. Peter as were other Bishops but no successor to his supereminent dignity and primacy over the Church because so long as St. Peter lived it could not descend upon any other Fourthly I deny not that he ascribes the establishment of Romes primacy to those three St. Peter the city and the Synod yet he makes the first foundation of it the dignity of St. Peter and therefore prefixes it before the other two and that it may appear he makes this the first and fundamental reason and not the Synod he addes these words haec cum fuerint hactenus inviolabiter custodita since these things i. e. that nothing of great concern should be done without the authority of the Roman see have been hitherto inviolably observ'd for if the Synod had conferr'd that dignity to the Bishop of Rome he could not have said with truth that those things had been alwayes observ'd for before the Synod which gave it which was three hundred years and more after the re-Surrection of our Saviour they were observed seeing therefore they were alwayes observed that power authority must have been in the Bishop of Rome long in being before those Synods were celebrated Now how the dignity of the Roman city concurr'd to this primacy I have above declared whence appears the loud untruth which you pronounce n. 4. Here is not the least intimation that this primacy was but by the appointment of the Synod nor that it had continued so from St. Peters dayes Since you use not to read over the texts which are brought against you I pray you what signifie these words haec cum fuerint hactenus inviolabiliter observata these things have been hitherto inviolably observed what signifies hitherto but from St. Peters time to his Your guess at the Synod of Sardica as aimed at by Valentinian though say you it was of little credit in those dayes which I have numbred amongst your non-proofs is a pure mistake for the Synod he alludes to is that of Nice which in the 6 canon as it is recited in the Council of Chalcedon sayes thus Ecclesia Romana semper habuit primatum the Church of Rome hath allwaies had the primacy where that holy council gives it not as you surmise but declares it to have been alwaies due to that see since the Apostles time whence also appears the falshood of what you say next that Leo durst not pretend divine right and institution nor to a succession of Primacy from the Apostle for this very Synod to which Leo alludes warrants both For if it were alwayes due to it or that it had alwayes possession of it semper habuit it must have come not only from the time of the Apostles but from Christ himself otherwise it had been semper for in the time of the Apostles it had not been due to it When you say next I translate the word universitas the whole visible Church you wrong me for I translate it universality see pag. 59. and when I name the whole visible Church p. 60. I make no translation of his words but deliver that which I think to be the sense of them To what you say there was a Roman universality If you mean that those who were under the sole Roman Empire with exclusion of all extra-imperial Churches communicating with them were called anciently the universal Church or the universality of Christians you are much deceived where prove you that if as united with them and giving the denomination to the whole 't is true and confirms what I say Now to shew that Valentinian meanes by universalities not those of the Roman Empire exclusively to all others he joynes to universalitie ubique for then sayes he the peace of the Church will be kept every where when the whole universality acknowledges their governour but certainly Valentinian was not so ignorant as not to know there were then many Churches out of the Roman Empire For about the year 414. that is above 20 years before Valentinian enacted this law Spain was possest by the Goths and divided from the Roman Empire and was Valentinian think you ignorant of that so that I am not ashamed to confesse my ignorance that I really know not any Roman universality Ecclesiastical in your precisive and exclusive sense nor know I any Council anciently stiled oecumenical or universal where no Bishops out of that one the Roman common-wealth were present and you have not yet
and of him that liveth for ever William Iohnson Num. 403. But see you not the text speakes of Patâ—â—iarchal Seas and how can you say there were any Patriarchal Seas before Rome was one seeing you conceit they were all constituted together in the Council of Nice I have shewed that all obedience argues not servitude or being the servants of those wee obey Children obey their Parents and Scholars their Masters and people their pastors yet are they not his servants And see you not that he sayes they are only tanquam famulae in some short attenders and joynes to it quasi filiae that they are as children nor speaks he of the Patriarchs wherein many Millions who were quasi filiae and tanquam famulae as daughters and attendants of the Roman sea and the whole custom and constitution of those Patriarchates was to serve as mediums and instruments that the whole Church might more facily be governed by the sea Apostolick as we shall see hereafter Mr. Baxter Num. 404. Truely the reading of your own historians and the Popes Bulls c. have more perswaded me that the Pope is Anti-Christ then the Apocalips hath done because I distrusted my understanding of it William Iohnson Num. 404. Truely Sir if I may be plain with you without offence by what you collect from these Historians Popes c you had reason to mistrust your understanding these as well as the Apocalips c. which I leave to judgement Mr. Baxter Num. 405. Benedictus de Benedictis wrote a book against Dr. Whitaker to prove its as false that the Pope is Anti-Christ as that Chirst is Anti-Christ and dedicated it to Pope Paul 5. with this inscription Paul 5. the Vice-God printed at Bononia 1608. William Iohnson Num. 405. Suppose that were so is Benedictus de Benedictis a sufficient authority being but a single Author or Paul 5. the generality of Popes you know I speak in such cases and not of particulars Mr. Baxter Num. 406. Caraffas Theses printed at Naples 1609. had the same inscription Paulo 5. Vice Deo to Paul 5. Vice-God William Iohnson Num. 406. The like is of Caraffa Mr. Baxter Num. 407. Alcazar in Apocal. in carmine ad Johannem Apostolum saith of the same Pope Paul 5. Quem numinis instar vera colit pietas whom as a God true Piety adores William Iohnson Num. 407. Nor is Alcazar more then one private person who when he plaies the Poet uses Licentia Poetica qui dlibet audendi CHAP. X. NUm 408. What Marcellus said to Iulius 2. Num. 410. Mr. Baxter makes the gloss upon the Canon Law to be the Canon Law he misscites the words of the gloss whether the Glosser cal the Pope God or the Printer err'd in inserting the word Deum into some late impression Num. 412. Antonius Puccius gives no more to the Pope then Pulcheria and the Council of Chalcedon gave to the Emperour Martian Num. 413. Begnius mistaken and mistranslated Stephanus Petracensis miscited St. Bernard condemned St. Antonine miscalled by Mr. Baxter Num. 414. the Oecumenical power of the four first Councils vindicated by authority and reason Mr. Baxter Num. 408. Christopher Marcellus in his Oration before Pope Julius 2. in the approved Council at Latarane Sess. 4. and you take not contradicting to be consenting and verily to such blasphemy in a Council so it is saith thus Quum tantae reipublicae unicus atque supremus princeps fueris institutus beatissime Pontifex cui summa data potestas ad divinum injunctum imperiuÌ„ c. ante sub tuo imperio unus Princeps qui summam in terris habeat potestatem But these are small things Teque omnis aevi omnium seculorum omnium gentium principem caput appellant But yet the Prince and head of all ages and Nations is too low cura Pater beatissime ut sponsae tuae forma decorque redeat But yet to make the Church his Spouse is nothing cura denique ut salutem quam dedisti nobis ut vitam spiritum non amittamus Tu enim Pastor tu medicus tu gubernator tu cultor tu denique alter Deus in terris That is see that we lost not the health that thou hast given us and the life and spirit For thou art the Pastor the Physition c. To conclude thou art another God on earth William Iohnson Num. 408. Marcellus is indeed of more concern because he speaks in a Council but the world may see he play'd the Orator his first expressions are no way extravagant but true and proper that of divinum imperium is so aâ—â—tered by you c that it seems a riddle you interlace it thus ad divinum imperium c. ante sub tuo imperio unus princeps qui summam in terris habeat potestatem to the divine command injoyn'd c. and before under thy command c. and one prince which hath the highest power in earth riddle me riddle me what 's this Now that particle ad divinum injunctum imperium is not spoken of the Popes power but of Gods divine command obliging Iulius to take care of those who were committed to him for he â—â—ayes thus cum igitur tantae-reipublicae unicus atque supremus princeps fueris institutus cui summa data potestas ad divinum injunctum imperium tuum est quemadmodum oppressum armis erexisti amplificasti ita moribus depravatam rulesiam reformare corrigere illustrare That of stiling the Church his Spouse had he meant it of the whole Church militant and triumphantâ—â— had been very extravagant and directly false and scandalous but applying it only to the visible Church on earth which is the more ignoble part of Christs Church I see not why that may not be termed according to the sole external government of it his Spouse as much as particular Bishopricks or parts of the visible Church are usually stiled the Spouses of their respective Bishops and they said to be espoused to those respective Churches His exhorting Iulius to preserve the health life and spirit which he had given them is easily explicated that he both gave them and preserved them by a careful direction teaching an external governing the visible Church His last stiling him alter Deus in terris another God upon earth is that which offends you most but had you considered that Moses in holy Scripture is made by God himself the God of Pharaoh that God titles those who are in lawful authority Gods ego dixi dij estis I have said you are Gods and that St. Paul affirms that all Gods true servants and children are participes divinae naturae participant of the divine nature which are as high and much higher expressions then Marcellus gives here to Iulius you would not I suppose so confidently have impeached him of blasphemy nor indeed could unless you make both St. Paul and the holy Scriptures nay and God himself to pronounce blasphemies in applying the like titles to
reason why that was subject rather then all the rest I convince by that the subjection of all now it is evident that both the Churches of Spain and France Brittaine and Ireland of France and Germany even when divided from the Roman Empire were as subject to the sea of Rome as were those which remain'd united to the Empire And the ancient historians writing upon the Council of Nice affirm as I have observed that the Bishops of all the Churches in Europe Affrica Theod. l. 1. c. 7. Mar. Victor advers Arium l. 1. Euseb. l. 3. de vita Const. c. 7. Socrat. l. 1. cap. 5. and Asia were call'd to it and consequently from all the Countries excepted by you save India if you account that in America now if they all were call'd to the Council of Nice there must have bin some who had authoritie to call or summon them that was not the Emperour for he had no power out of the Empire ergo it must have been some spiritual power over them but none can be thought with any probability to have that power save the Patriarks and those were all resident within the Empire ergo some spiritual Governour within the Empire had power out of the Empire if so then he who is now suppos'd to have precedency before all the rest is the most likely to have had that power or the others at least who were under his power 42. But to shew unanswerably the universal power of the Roman Bishop as he is successor of St. Peter over the whole Church first the most ancient Fathers of the 4. first ages deferr'd to St. Peter the care and power over the whole Church even over the Apostles themselves Thus in the first age St. Clements (a) Epist. 1. stiles St. Peter the first or chief of the Apostles (b) Epist. ad Rom. St. Ignatius that the Roman Church preceded or was the chief without any limitation to the Empire (c) De divino no. post medium St. Denis calls St. Peter the supream and most ancient summitie of the Divines 43. In the second age (d) In orat de consummatione mundi St. Hippolitus calls St. Peter the rock of faith the Doctor of the Church and the chief or first of Christs disciples (e) Hom. 5. in Exod. lib. 5. in Iohan. hom 17. in Lucam in ep ad Rom. Origen that he is the Rock upon which the Church is built and the first of the Apostles and that Christ had delivered unto him the supream charge in feeding his sheep (f) De veritate Eccles ep 55. ad Corn. ep 7. ad Ianuar. ep 52. ad AntonianuÌ„ St. Cyprian that St. Peter received the charge of feeding Christs sheep that the Church was built upon him that the primacy was given to Peter ut una Christi Ecclesia Cathedra una constitueretur (g) hom de resurrectione St. Eusebius of Alexandria that the Church was built upon the faith of Peter (h) In Chronicis an 44. lib. 2. histori Eusebius Cesariensis intitles St. Peter the first Bishop of the Christians and that the providence of God had made Peter Prince of the Apostles And to (i) Lib. 2. hist. Eccle c. 24. shew even in time of the Heathen Emperours this supream Authority of the Roman Bishop was so notorious in the world that it was known even to them he relates that there being strife in Antioch who of the Pretendents to that Bishoprick had right to possess the Bishops house that it should be deliver'd to him whom the Christians of Italy and the Roman Bishop decreed it was to be given The Nicen Council in the 39. Canon according to the Chaldaick Edition sent into Portugal an 1605. the 11 of November from Franciscus Ross Bishop of Angomala in the Mountains of St. Thomas sayes thus Ita ille cujus principatus Romae est Petro similis authoritate par Patriarcharum omnium dominatum Principatum obtinet Huic sanctioni siquis repugnaverit obsistere ausus fuerit totius Synodi decreto anathemati subjicitur So he whose principality is at Rome like to Peter and equal to him in authority hath the dominion and principality over all the Patriarchs whosoever repugnes against this Decree and shall dare to resist it shall be excommunicated by the decree of the whole Council St. Athanasius calls Marcus Bishop of Rome (k) Ep. ad Marcum the Bishop of the universal Church and after calls the Church of Rome the mother and head of all Churches and promises obedience to it and stiles it the Apostle-ship and in another Epistle (l) Ep. nomine Episc. Aegyp Thebaidis Libiae ad Filicem papam affirmes that their predecessors had ever receiv'd help from the Roman Sea nay even ordinations points of doctrine and redresses That they had recourse to that sea as to their mother they confess they were committed to him and a little after they profess they would not presume without acquainting the Bishop of Rome to conclude any thing the Ecclesiastical Canons commanding that in causes of high concern Majoribus causis that is causes betwixt Bishops about heresie or belonging to the whole Church they should determine nothing without the Roman Bishop and our Lord hath commanded the Bishops of Rome who are placed in the very top of greatness to have the care of all Churches and that the judgement of all Bishops is committed to the Bishop of Rome and that it is decreed in the Council of Nicâ—â— that without the Roman Bishop neither Councils were to be celebrated nor Bishops condemned that the Roman sea was established firm and moveable by Christ our Saviour St. Hilarius (m) in psal 131. calls St. Peter the foundation of the Church the dore-keeper of the Kingdome of heaven and that judge in the judgement of the earth St. Epiphanius (n) In Anchorato inter initium medium that St. Peter was the first of the Apostles establish'd by our Saviour and the firm rock whereupon the Church of God is built and that God (o) heresi 51. circa medium made choise of St Peter to be the head of his Disciples St. Ambrose (p) In luce 24. post medium that our Saviour left St. Peter as the vicar of his love (q) l. 3. de sacer c. 1. St. Ambrose desir'd in all things to accord with the Roman Church and relates that (r) orat de obit Satiri fratris post medium Satyrus his brother demanded of a certain Bishop to have a tryal of his Faith whether that Bishop were of the same minde with the Catholick Bishops that is to say with the Roman Church St. Optatus (s) l. 2. contr Parmen non longe ab initio Melevitanus writing against Parmenian the Donatist sayes thus Igitur negare non potes scire te in urbe Roma Petro primo Cathed am Episcoâ—â—alem esse collatam in qua sederit omnium
that he is segregated or divided from the peace of St. Peter that is from the communion of the Catholique Church What follows for six leaves together is nothing but a farago of equivocations misconceits contradictions p. 154. after you your self had cited St. Greg. words that this title was offer'd him per Concilium Chalcedonense by the Council of Chalcedon you say it was but a brag of his and that it was offer'd only by two Deacons in the Council 47. Thus you first cite authors against us and then accuse them of vanities and falsity when those very citations which you cite for your self make against you the question is not what is or is not now extant in the Council of Chalcedon or wherein St. Gregory grounded his sayings but whether St. Gregory affirms that this title was offer'd him in that Council as you confess by citing his words he does and is it fit for so mean a worm as you are to make this most honourable and holy Pope the Apostle of our Nation to be a bragger when he relates what pass'd in general Councils But now let us see a piece of your skill in History first you say the title was writ by two Now Blundel p. 452. acknowledges there was four and Barron ad an 451. num 32. sayes they were varii clerici alii Alexandrini then say you these two were Deacons Blundel sayes no such matter but that they were particular persons and Barronius that they were clerici and others Next you add they had no votes in the Council what wonder 's that when they did not so much as sit in it You say the names of those who compos'd those bills libellos against Dioscorus were Theodorus and Ischirion who as they were only those who offer'd them to the Council in the names of their Authors the bills being compos'd by others as well as by them after his you call those writings libels on purpose to disgrace them as it may seem for though they be called libelli that is little writings in Latin yet the word libels in English is alwayes taken in a bad sence and signifies a a false seditious infamous pamphlet but this you thought a fitter name for them because they had a superscription containing the title of universal Patriarch given to Pope Leo never considering what a disgrace you put upon that holy Council by making it a favourer and receiver of libels but suppose St. Greg. had had no other ground of his so constant affirmation that the title of universal Patriarch offer'd him by those Clerks of Alexandria in the Council of Chalcedon read publickly and no way disallowed by any one in the Council when it concern'd them so much ut supra yet this very thing convinces that he thought such a â—â—acite approbation was sufficient to affirm it was offer'd him not only in the Council but per consilium by the Council of Chalcedon Next page 254. You shew your skill in Grammar and argue that if the thing were due signified by the title of universal the name was also due never reflecting that one word may be taken in divers senses whereof one may agree with one particular thing signified and not the other Thus Tyrannus signified a King in the ancient signification but now a Tyrant only thus Minister in Latin signifies both a Minister and a servant c. Nay you your self confess and that is one of your contradictions that the Council offered it not to him in that sense wherein it signifies an vniversal governour of the Church but in an other now because this word beside the moderate signification in which the Council offer'd it is capable of another most pernicious and ante-Christian sense as I have declared St. Gregory thought it undue and unfit to be accepted because he esteemed himself oblig'd to avoid all appearance of evil and never accept of any title which was apt to breed publick scandal in the Church 48. Your next work is pag. 255. to confound those two significations of this word or the thing it self for that which is to be debated betwixt us is not what St. Gregory judged to be the thing signified by this word for that was most wicked and unchristian but the being the supream visible governour of Christs Militant Church yet so that inferiour Bishops and Pastours are true governours also each of his portion and immediate officers and Vice-gerents of Christ receiving their original power from him and not from the Pope which may also be signified by the word universal Now you shift cunningly from this second to the first and thereby work a confusion in your whole discourse and deceive your reader you take it in the first bad signification or the unchristian thing signified by it as St. Greg. understood it pag. 254. then say it is plain that it is the thing as well as the name that St. Gregory wrote against but that is not the thing now debated betwixt us but that which St. Greg. took to be signifyed by that word which we disallow asmuch as he did or you can do 49. Page 255. num 2. You equivocate againe about the taking away Episcopacie by that title for we affirm not that St. Gregory thought or Iohn of Constantinople either to expel all Bishops directly crudely out of the Church as you and your zealous brethren lately did out of the English Hierarchy But that although they remain'd still in the possession of their former titles and office of Bishops yet in effect according to the malignancie of this proud title St. Gregory thought the virtue and proper force of Episcopacie to be ennervated that is that whosoever made himself universal Bishop made himself Bishop of every particular Diocess in the Church in capite and thereby the rest who were possest of those Diocesses held their titles as from him as his vicars a moveable at pleasure by him as it were his servants or officers And though happily Iohn of Constantinople penetrated not so deep into the malignancy of this title Yet St. Gregory might suppose he did or fear he would do therefore would not permit so dangerous a title in the Church by force whereof one might lay a claim so obnoxius to and destructive of Ecclesiastial Hierarchy and this is that which St. Gregory signifies that Iohn by force of that title would subjugate all Christs members to himself that is make them his officers and vicars holding their Original powers from him and not immediatly from Christ. Now to say as you adjoyn that this is the very form of Popery is nothing but either your calumnie or want of true understanding of our doctrine wherewith you ought to have bin furnished before you had taken to write so bitterly against us We subject no Bishop according to his Episcopal power of ordination or original power of jurisdiction in his Diocess to the Pope no more then are the Collonels or Captaines of an Army who recieve their
acknowledge it to be his due you can give me no other reason for this then because the word universal is capable of a worse signification and therefore to be avoided which is the very reason I give you why St. Gregory both refused it and inveighed so much against it 56. How the rest of the Apostles had the care of the whole Church you oppose Bellar. p. 262. sect 2. To your first answer I have now replyed To your n. 2. No man questions St. Peters being a member of Christs Church under Christ the head but so is every Bishop a member of the Church which hinders not their being true Governours and visible heads of their respective Diocesses so was the high Priest amongst the Jews a member of the Church next under God the absolute chief head yet was withal indued with the power of governing visibly the whole Jewish Church as all grant 57. Pag. 262. But see you not into what bryars you have cast your self if you follow the ordinary Edition read it as you do thus certe Petrus Apostolus primum membrum sanctae universalis Ecclesiae est Peter the Apostle is the first member of the holy universal Church You establish St. Peters supremacy for what is primum membrum sanctae universalis Ecclesiae is it in place only then the Bishops of Rome as St. Peters successors have their precedency in place from him and not conferr'd upon them by the Fathers which destroyes the main ground of your novelty you cannot therefore say it is a naked precedency in place it must therefore have been a primacy over the whole Church in government as was that of the other Apostles in their singular jurisdictions yet was he not to be stiled absolutely head of the whole Church for the reasons above declar'd But if you follow the lection of Mr. Iames whom I credit as much as you do Mr. Ross you will make a fair piece of non-sence of St. Gregories words for they constitute St. Peter no more then a common member of the Church membrum sanctae universalis Ecclesiae est which is true of every good Christian and yet constitute the other Apostles heads of particular Churches and thereby give a greater honour and power to them then to St. Peter which you your self every where deny CHAP. V. Saint Leo and other holy Fathers NUm 58. what means Ecclesiae Catholicae Episcopus given by St. Leo and other Fathers to the Roman Bishop how Episcopus universalis Ecclesiae and universalis Episcopus Bishop of the universal Church and universal Bishop are said by Bellar. to be of the same signification Num. 60. How Mr. Baxter abuses both Bellar. and St. Gregory he makes St. Greg. speak false Latin and non-sence by misciting his words he understands not St. Greg. Latin phrase Num. 62. In what sense Catholiques affirm Christians to be opposers of the Pope Bellar. misreported by Mr. Baxter Num. 64.66 He gives a false translation to Raynerius his words twice over and misreports his meaning by concealing the words following in Canus once Num. 67. 68 69 c. He proves his antecedent but not his consequence which I deny Num. 69. Whether the Papacy began in Phocas his time 58. To your third numb pag. 263. you are sore pinch'd to find an answer to the Popes being intituled Episcopus universalis Ecclesiae Bishop of the universal Church could you think it would satisfie any rational man to say that this title imported no more then what may be and ought to be given to every Bishop who adhered to the common Communion was a Catholick to wit that he was a Bishop of the Catholick Church can you be so ignorant as not to know this and the like titles were given him as signal declaratives of his place honour whereby he was both distinguish'd and preferr'd before all other Bishops and Patriarchs neither of which could be done had Episcopus universalis Ecclesiae signified no more then that he was a Bishop that is to be accounted amongst the Bishops of the universal Church for this was common to him with all other Bishops thorough the whole Church And I pray you tell me in good earnest when any one should have intituled his letter to Pope Leo v. g. thus Leoni Episcopo universalis Ecclesiae to Leo a Bishop of the Catholick Church would it not have been profoundly ridiculous for seeing there might have been some other Catholick Bishops call'd Leo as well as the Bishop of Rome who could know to whom this letter was written by vertue of that title but that it may appear evidently how incongruous this your effugium is several Epistles of Pope Leo intituled with his own hand will sufficiently manifest it Saint Leo Epist. 97. intitles his Epist. thus Leo Romae universalis Catholicaeque Ecclesiae Episcopus would you translate these words thus Leo a Bishop of Rome and of the universal and Catholique Church I pray you how many Bishops of Rome were there at that time beside Leo Or sees not every one who sees any thing that they must be thus render'd into English Leo Bishop of Rome and of the universal and Catholique Church Now this evinces that as he was in power and jurisdiction Bishop of Rome so was he also Bishop of the universal and Catholique Church in power and jurisdiction for otherwise the sentence will be incongruous and equivocal In the like manner ep 13. he intitles himself Leo Catholicae Romanae Ecclesiae Episcopus Leo the Bishop of the Catholique Roman Church Now who sees not both that this must be in authority and government and that the appellation of the Roman Catholique Church is of 12. hundred years standing Ep. 42. he writes himself thus Leo Catholicae Ecclesiae Episcopus now had that imported no more then this Leo a Bishop of the Catholick Church who could have known who writ this Epistle ep 88. he gives himself this title Leo Romanae Ecclesiae Apostolicae sedis Episcopus Leo Bishop of the Roman Church and Apostolique Sea Now seeing he takes the Roman Church for the same with the Catholique Church as we have now seen it imports thus much Leo Bishop of the Roman or Catholique Church of the Apostolical Sea for had he meant only the particular Roman Church by Romanae Ecclesiae he had committed a tautology in adadding presently Apostolicae sedis for that design'd the particular Church of Rome Now seeing he was by power of government Bishop of the Apostolique Sea either he must speak equivocally and absonously or signifie by those words that he was by power of government also Bishop of the Roman Catholique Church ep 54. thus Leo Episcopus Romanae universalis Ecclesiae Leo Bishop of the Roman and universal Church ep 62. Leo Catholicae Ecclesiae Episcopus Leo Bishop of the Catholique Church by all this appears the truth of Bellarmines illation from this title against your novel and
NOVELTY REPREST In a Reply to M r. BAXTER'S Answer to WILLIAM JOHNSON WHEREIN The oecumenical Power of the four first General Councils is Vindicated the Authority of Bishops asserted the compleat Hierarcy of Church Government established his novel succession evacuated and professed Hereticks demonstrated to be no true parts of the visible Church of Christ. By WILLIAM JOHNSON Prophanas vocum i. e. dogmatum novitates devita quas recipere atque sectari numquam Catholicorum semper vero Haereticorum fuit Lirinensis contra Haereses c. 23 24. c. Retenta est Antiquitas explosa Novitas Idem c. 10. PARIS Printed for E. C. Anno 1661. The Preface MEdusa sister to Euryale and Sthemione and daughter of a sea-monster ensnared by her beautie and golden tresses Neptune god of the Ocean and with him polluted the Temple of Minerva and had for issue Pegasus the winged Courser Minerva that learned and Virgin Goddess in revenge of so foul an injury metamorphos'd each hair of Medusaes head into a serpent and laid so heavy a Curse upon her that every one whose eyes were so curious as fixedly to behold her chang'd into stones whereupon the Beldam Medusa took her flight into the Dorcades islands in the Aethiopick sea and there raging like a hellish furie made her self Queen and Generaless of a femal armie her two sisters being the chief Commanders under her wasting and depopulating all where they march'd with unheard of cruelty The noble and valiant Captain Perseus covering his breast with a brazen shield of Minerva marched undauntedly towards this hideous Monster and discovering by the reflexion she made in the brightness of his shield while shee and her brood of serpents were all asleep at one blow cut off her head and those of the serpents with it and took it upon the point of his fauchion with him into Africa but such was the venome and pestilence of that inchaunted head that every drop of bloud which fell from it turn'd into a serpent whereby the whole coast of Africa was fill'd with snakes and vipers This though a fiction seems to be a fit Embleme of Heresie S. Greg. in Iob. lib. 35. cap. 34. The sea whale or Monster mother of Medusa by reason of her immense bulk and strength of body toweing her self over all other creatures in the Ocean is Pride and Ambition styled by Saint Austin the mother of hereticks Lib. 2. c. 3. contra lit Parmen Medusa seducing the heart of inconstant Neptune with her youth and beauty is a luxuriant wit priding it self in the invention of novelties in Religion The violation of Minervaes Temple the staining of the holy Church with sordid tenets and practices Pegasus the high flying thoughts of heretical spirits Those snakes and serpents crawling from Medusaes head and twisting themselves about her neck gnawing and consuming not onely one another but the head which bore them are wicked Heresies hatch'd in the brain and nourish'd in the head of Arch-Hereticks condemning and thwarting one another by perpetual contrarieties and still gnawing upon the Conscience which brought them forth The Petrifying Metamorphosis wrought upon the curious spectators of Medusa is the obduratenesse of those hearts who open too broad an eye to the speculations of Hereticks The wasting and destroying what ever oppos'd that femal army the horrible rebellions civil warres destractions desolations caus'd by Hereticks both in ancient and in our present ages The undaunted Perseus the supreme Bishop of the Catholick Church guarded with the shield of Faith and arm'd with the sword of Saint Peter cuts off the serpentine head of Medusa errours and heresies with his definitions decrees censures and anathemaes the drops of bloud distilling from Medusaes head even after it was struck dead and divided from her shoulders turning into so many snakes and adders the pullulation of new divisions and subdivisions of Heresies spreading themselves all o-over and infesting the countries where they fall with implacable dissentions and tumults each against other This is the sad story of Medusa Emblemis'd And yet happy had been our Nation and many others with it had it rested in the nature of an Embleme and been no more then a bare speculation But as it hath faln heavy upon several Countries in all precedent ages so in this and the former has it almost crush'd ours and many adjacent to us the histories are too too fresh in our memories and the late pressures too broad before our eyes to need recital and yet we might hope to obliterate their foul Characters in time were there not new drops distilling from Medusaes ghastly head and perpetuating that generation of vipers which took their first birth from it Force of Reason and Authority had devested our adversaries of both and so enervated their Principles that they had no consistency when behold a new brood of unheard of Novelties dropping from Medusa's brain rise-up to reestablish their dying cause Sects and Schismes are united as parts to the Catholick Church Oecumenicall Councils are despoiled of their ancient Authority Ecclesiasticall Decrees pin'd up within the Circuit of the Romane Empire true Christian and Divine Faith made consistent in the same soul with Heresie ancient Theologicall Definitions question'd and revers'd c. And those Principles once advanced which both Parties condemned and execrated as Diabolicall our Arguments are frustrated and we put upon a necessity to prove what we and all Christians suppos'd hitherto as undeniable Truths This is the task which Mr. Richard Baxter inventer of the said Novelties hath put upon me a man who had his fecunditie of invention been equalliz'd with a soliditie in Learning might have proved as offensive as he is now invective against the Roman Church My present work therefore is not so much a defence of mine own as of the common cause of Christians against those young Meducean Serpents new bred Novelties hissing against it so that it may be equally intitled CHISTIANITY MAINTAIN'D and NOVELTY REPRES'T Yet I have made choice of the latter as not daring to assume a Title to any writing of mine which a Person so far excelling me in all respects has prefixed to his own in answer to another bold oppugner of Christian Principles Whosoever therefore shall please to peruse this present Tract shall I hope find the whole controversie laid open so plain before his eyes that he needs no more then to parallell each answer to its respective objection in their severall Paragraphs for to this end I have inserted the whole first part of Mr. Baxters last Answer by Sections verbatim and to each applyed my rejoinder that neither the Reader may be put to the cost or trouble of perusing Mr. Baxters Book nor he himself have any occasion to complain that I accuse him to say any thing which he expresses not in his own Treatise For the same end also I have reprinted here the whole precesse of the argument with all our precedent respective Answers and Replies that the
determinate congregation they were In your Num. 3. you tell me in the former ages till one thousand there were near as many or rather many more A fair account But in the mean time you nominate none much less prosecute you those with whom you begun Num. 4. You say in the year six hundred there were many more incomparably What many what more were they the same which you nominated in the beginning and made one Congregation with them or were they quite different Congregations what am I the wiser by your saying many more incomparably when you tell me not what or who they were Then you say But at least â—â—or four hundred years after Christ I never yet saw valid proof of one Papist in all the world that is one that was for the Popes universal Monarchy or vice-Christ-ship What then are there no proofs in the world but what you have seen or may not many of those proofs be valid which you have seen though you esteem them not so and can you think it reasonable upon your single not-seeing or not-judging 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 ancient Author for this Assertion Were those primitive Christians of another kind of Church-order and Government then were those under the Roman Empire * But how far from truth this is appears from St. Leo in his Sermons de natali suo where he saies Sedes Roma Petri quicquid non possidet armis Relâ—â—gione tenet and by this That the Abyssines of Ethiopia were under the Patriarch of Alexandria antiently which Patriarch was under the Authority of the Roman Bishop as we shall presently see 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 Emperor 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 equall judgement whether my demand be satisfied or no. You answer to this That all those who are nominated by you are parts of the Catholick 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 Catholick 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 dis-union 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 Catholick 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 Catholick Church unless you make Arrians and Pelagians and Donatists parts of the Catholick 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 Catholick Church notwithstanding that separation do continue parts of the Catholick Church For who knows not that the Ethiopians to this day are * See Rosse his view of Religions p 99 489 492 c. Where he says that they circumcise their children the eighth day they use Mosaical Ceremonies They mention not the Council of Calcedon because saies he they are Eutychians 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 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 other or you must make condemned Hereticks parts of the Catholick Church against all antiquity and Christianity And for those Greeks near Constantinople who are not infected with Nestorianism and Eutychianism yet in the Procession of the Holy Ghost against both us and you they must be thought to maintain manifest Heresie it being a point in a fundamental matter of faith the Trinity and the difference betwixt those Greeks and the Western Church now for many hundred of years and in many General Councils esteemed and defined to be reall and great yea so great that the Greeks left the Communion of the Roman Church upon that difference alone and ever esteemed the Bishop of * See Nilus on this Subject Rome and his party to have fallen from the true faith and lost his ancient Authority by that sole pretended error and the Latins always esteemed the Greeks to be in a damnable error in maintaining the contrary to the doctrine of the Western or Roman Church in that particular And yet sure they understood what they held and how far they differed one from another much better then some Novel Writers of yours who prest by force of Argument have no other way left them to maintain a perpetual visibility then by extenuating that difference of Procession betwixt the Greek and Latin Church which so many ages before Protestancy sprung up was esteemed a main fundamental error by both parts caused the Greeks to abandon all subjection and Communion to the Bishops of Rome made them so divided the one from the other that they held each other Hereticks Schismaticks and desertors of the true Faith as they continue still to do to this day and yet you will have them both parts of the Catholick Church But when you have made the best you can of these Greeks Armenians Ethiopians Protestants whom you first name you neither have deduced nor can deduce them successively in all ages till Christ as a different Congregation of Christians from that which holds the Popes Supremacy which was my Proposition For in the year 1500. those who became the first Protestants were not a Congregation different from those who held that supremacy nor in the year 500 were the Greeks a visible Congregation different from it nor in the year 300. were the Nestorians nor in the year 200. the Eutychians a different Congregation from those who held the said Supremacy But in those respective years those who first begun those Heresies were involved within that Congregation which held it as a part of it and assenting therein with it who after in their several ages and beginnings fell off from it as dead branches from the tree that still remaining what it ever was and only continuing in a perpetuall visibility of succession Though therefore you profess never to have seen convincing proof of this in the first 400 years and labour to infringe it in the next ages yet I will make an Essay to give you a taste of those innumerable proofs of this visible consent in the Bishop of Romes Supremacy not of Order only but of Power Authority and jurisdiction over all other Bishops in the ensuing instances which happened within the first 400 or 500 or 600 years (a) Liberatus in Brev. c. 16. Iohn Bishop of Antioch makes an Appeal to Pope Simplicius And Flavianus (b) Epist. praeambula Concil Chalcedon Bishop of Constantinople being deposed in the false Council of Ephesus immediatly appeals to the Pope as to his judge (c) Concil Chalcedon Act. 1. Theodoret was by Pope Leo restored and that by an (d) Concil Chalcedon Act. 8. appeal unto a just judgement (e) S. Cyprian Epist. 67. Saint Cyprian desires Pope Stephen to depose Marcian Bishop of Arles that another might be substituted in his place And to evince the supream Authority of the Bishops of Rome it is determined in the (f) Concil Sard. cap. 4 cited by S. Athan. Apol. 2. page 753. Council of Sardis That no Bishop deposed by other neighbouring Bishops pretending to be heard again was to have any successor appointed untill the case were defined by the Pope Eustathius (g) St. Basil Epist. 74. Bishop of Sebast in Armenia was restored by Pope Liberius his Letters read and received in the Council of Tyana and (h) St. Chrysost. Epist. 2. ad Innocent Saint Chrysostome expresly desires Pope Innocent not to punish his Adversaries if they do repent Which evinces that Saint Chrysostome thought that the Pope had power to punish them And the like is written to the Pope by the (i) Concil Ephes. p. 2. Act. 5. Council of Ephesus in the case of Iohn Bishop of Antioch (k) St. Athanas. ad Solit. Epist. Iulius in lit ad Arian ap Athan. Apol. 1. pag. 753. Theodoret lib. 2. cap. 4. Athanas. Apol. 2. Zozom lib. 3. cap. 7. The Bishops of the Greek or Eastern Church who sided with Arius before they declared themselves to be Arians sent their Legates to Iulius Bishop of Rome to have their cause heard before him against S. Athanasius the same did S. Athanasius to defend himself against them which Arian Bishops having understood from Iulius that their Accusations against S. Athanasius upon due examination of both parties were found groundless and false required rather fraudulently then seriously to have a fuller Tryal before a General Council at Rome which to take away all shew of excuse from them Pope Iulius assembled Saint Athanasius was summoned by the Pope to appear before him and the * The Appeal of Theodoret from that Council as to his judge is so undeniable that Chamier is forced to acknowledge it Tom. 2. l. 13. â—â— 9. p. 498 and the whole Council of Calcedon acknowledged the right of that Appeal restoring Theodoret to his Bishoprick by force of an Order given upon that Appeal by Leo Pope to restore him Concerning Saint Athanasius being judged and righted by Iulius Pope Chamier cit p. 497. acknowledges the matter of fact to be so but against all antiquity pretends that judgment to have been unjust Which had it been so yet it shews a true power of judging in the Pope though then unduly executed otherwise Saint Athanasius would never have made use of it neither can it be condemned of injustice unless Saint Athanasius be also condemned as unjust in consenting to it Nicâ—â—ph lib. 13. cap. 34. Chamier cit p. 498. says other Bishops restored those who were wrongfully deposed as well as the Pope Which though it were so yet never was there any single Bishop sâ—â—ve the Pope who restored any who were out of their respective Diocess or Patriarchates but always collected together in a Synod by common voice and that in regard only of their neighbouring Bishops whereas the Bishop of Rome by his sole and single authority restored Bishops wrongfully deposed all the Church ever Council in Judgement
which he presently did and many other Eastern Bishops unjustly accused by the Arians aforesaid had recourse to Rome with him and expected there a year and half All which time his Accusers though also summoned appeared not fearing they should be condemned by the Pope and his Council Yet they pretended not as Protestants have done in these last ages of the Kings of England That Constantius the Arian Emperour of the East was Head or chief Governour over their Church in all Causes Ecclesiastical and consequently that the Pope had nothing to do with them but only pretended certain frivolous excuses to delay their apearance from one time to another Where it is worth the noting that Iulius reprehending the said Arian Bishops before they published their Heresie and so taking them to be Catholicks for condemning S. Athanasius in an Eastern Council gathered by them before they had acquainted the Bishop of Rome with so important a cause useth these words An ignari estis hanc consuetudinem esse ut primum nobis scribatur ut hinc quod justum est definiri possit c. Are you ignorant saith he that this is the custome to write to us first That hence that which is just may be defined c. where most clearly it appears that it belonged particularly to the Bishop of Rome to passe a definitive sentence even against the Bishops of the Eastern or Greek Church which yet is more confirmed by the proceedings of Pope Innocent the first about 12. hundred years since in the case of S. Chrysostome Where first Saint Chrysostome appeals to Innocentius from the Council assembled at Constantinople wherein he was condemned Secondly Innocentius annuls his condemnation and declares him innocent Thirdly he Excommunicates Atticus Bishop of Constantinople and Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria for persecuting S. Chrysostome Fourthly after S. Chrysostome was dead in Banishment Pope Innocentius Excommunicates Arcadius the Emperour of the East and Eudoxia his wife Fifthly the Emperor and Empress humble themselves crave pardon of him and were absolved by him The same is evident in those matters which passed about the year 450. where Theodosius the Emperour of the East having too much favoured the Eutychian Hereticks by the instigation of Chrysaphius the Eunuch and Pulcheria his Empress and so intermedled too far in Ecclesiasticall causes yet he ever bore that respect to the See of Rome which doubtless in those circumstances he would not have done had he not beleeved it an Obligation that he would not permit the Eutychian Council at Ephesus to be assembled without the knowledge and authority of the Roman Bishop Leo the first and so wrote to him to have his presence in it who sent his Legats unto them And though both Leo's letters were dissembled and his Legate affronted and himself excommunicated by wicked Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria and president of that Conventicle who also was the chief upholder of the Eutychians yet Theodosius repented before his death banished his wife Pulcheria and Chrysaphius the Eunuch the chief favourers of the Eutychians and reconciled himself to the Church with great evidences of sorrow and pennance (m) Concil Chalced. Act. 1. Presently after An. 451. follows the fourth General Council of Chalcedon concerning which these particulars occur to our present purpose First Martianus the Eastern Emperour wrote to Pope Leo That by the Popes Authority a General Council might be gathered in what City of the Eastern Church he should please to chuse Secondly both Anatolius Patriarch of Constantinople and the rest of the Eastern Bishops sent to the Legats of Pope Leo by his order the profession of their faith Thirdly the Popes Legats sate in the first place of the Council before all the Patriarchs (n) Concil Chalced. Act 3. Fourthly they prohibited by his order given them That Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria and chief upholder of the Eutychians should sit in the Council but be presented as a guilty person to be judged because he had celebrated a Council in the Eastern Church without the consent of the Bishop of Rome which said the Legats never was done before nor could be done lawfully This order of Pope Leo was presently put in execution by consent of the whole Council and Dioscorus was judged and condemned his condemnation and deposition being pronounced by the Popes Legats and after subscribed by the Council Fifthly the Popes Legats pronounced the Church of Rome to be * Which could not be by reason of the Sanctity and truth which was then in it for the Church of Milan and many others in France Africa and Greece were also then pure and holy and yet none have this title save the Church of Rome In the time of Iustinian the Emperour Agapet Pope even in Constantinople against the will both of the Emperour and Empress deposed Anthymus and ordained Mennas in his place Liberat. in Breviario cap. 21. Marcellinus Comes in Chronico Concil Constantin sub Menna act 4. And the same S Greg. c. 7. ep 63. declares that both the Emperour and Bishop of Constantinople acknowledged that the Church of Constantinople was subject to the See of Rome And l. 7. Ep. 37. Et alibi pronounceth that in case of falling into offences he knew no Bishop which was not subject to the Bishop of Rome Caput omnium Ecclesiarum the Head of all Churches before the whole Council and none contradicted them Sixtly all the Fathers assembled in that Holy Council in their Letter to Pope Leo acknowledged themselves to be his children and wrote to him as to their Father Seventhly they humbly begged of him that he would grant that the Patriarch of Constantinople might have the first place among the Patriarchs after that of Rome which notwithstanding that the Council had consented to as had also the third General Council of Ephesus done before yet they esteemed their grants to be of no sufficient force untill they were confirmed by the Pope And Leo thought not fit to yeeld to their petition against the express ordination of the first Council of Nice where Alexandria had the preheminence as also Antioch and Hierusalem before that of Constantinople Saint Cyril of Alexandria though he wholly disallowed Nestorius his doctrine yet he would not break off Communion with him till Celestinus the Pope had condemned him whose censure he required and expected Nestorius also wrote to Celestine acknowledging his Authority and expecting from him the censure of his doctrine Celestinus condemned Nestorius and gave him the space of ten daies to repent after he had received his condemnation All which had effect in the Eastern Church where Nestorius was Patriarch of Constantinople (o) S. August Tom. 1. Epist. Rom. Pontif. post Epist. 2. ad Celestinum After this Saint Cyrill having received Pope Leo's Letters wherein he gave power to Saint Cyril to execute his condemnation against Nestorius and to send his condemnatory letters to him gathered a Council of his next Bishops and sent Letters
and Articles to be subscribed with the Letters of Celestine to Nestorius which when Nestorius had received he was so far from repentance that he accused St. Cyril in those Articles to be guilty of the Heresie of Apollinaris so that St. Cyril being also accused of Heresie was barred from pronouncing sentence against Nestorius so long as he stood charged with that Accusation Theodosius the Emperour seeing the Eastern Church embroiled in these difficulties writes to Pope Celestine about the assembling of a general Council at Ephesus by Petronius afterwards Bishop of Bononia as is manifest in his life written by Sigonius Pope in his Letters to Theodosius not only professeth his consent to the calling of that Council but also prescribeth in what form it was to be celebrated as Firmus Bishop of Cesarea in Cappadocia testified in the Council of Ephesus Hereupon Theodosius sent his Letters to assemble the Bishops both of the East and West to that Council And Celestine sent his Legats thither with order not to examine again in the Council the cause of Nestorius but rather to put Celestines condemnation of him given the year before into execution S. Cyril Bishop of Alexandria being constituted by Celestine his chief Legate ordinary in the East by reason of that preheminency and primacy of his See after that of Rome presided in the Council yet so that Philip who was only a Priest and no Bishop by reason that he was sent Legatus à Latere from Celestine and so supplied his place as he was chief Bishop of the Church subscribed the first even before S. Cyril and all the other Legats and Patriarchs In the sixth Action of this holy Council Iuvenalis patriarch of Hierusalem having understood the contempt which Iohn patriarch of Antioch who was cited before the Council shewed of the Bishops and the Popes Legats there assembled expressed himself against him in these words Quod Apostolica ordinatione Antiqua Traditione which were no way opposed by the Fathers there present Antiochena sedes perpetuo à Romana diregeretur judicareturque That by Apostolical ordination and ancient Tradition the See of Antioch was perpetually directed and judged by the See of Rome which words not only evidence the precedency of place as Dr. Hammond would have it but of power and judicature in the Bishop of Rome over a Patriarch of the Eastern Church and that derived from the time and ordination of the Apostles The Council therefore sent their decrees with their condemnation of Nestorius to Pope Clestize who presently ratified and confirmed them Not long after this in the year 445. Valentinian the Emperour makes this manifesto of the most high Ecclesiastical authority of the See of Rome in these words Seeing that the merit of S. Peter who is the Prince of the Episcopal Crown and the Dignity of the City of Rome and no less the authority of the holy Synod hath established the primacy of the Apostolical See lest presumption should attempt any unlawful thing against the authority of that * See this at length in Baronius in the year 445. See for then finally will the peace of the Churches be preserved every where if the whole universality acknowledge their Governour when these things had been hitherto inviolably observed c. Where he makes the succession from S. Peter to be the first foundation of the Roman Churches primacy and his authority to be not only in place but in power and government over the whole visible Church And adds presently that the definitive sentence of the Bishop of Rome given against any French Bishop was to be of force through France even without the Emperors Letters Patents For what shall not be lawful for the authority of so great a Bishop to exercise upon the Churches and then adds his Imperial precept in these words But this occasion hath provoked also our command that hereafter it shall not be lawful neither for Hilarius whom to be still intituled a Bishop the sole humanity of the meek Prelate i. e. the Bishop of Rome permits neither for any other to mingle arms with Ecclesiastical matters or to resist the commands of the Bishop of Rome c. We define by this our perpetual decree that it shall neither be lawful for the French Bishops nor for those of other Provinces against the ancient custom to attempt any thing without the authority of the venerable Pope of the eternal City But let it be for a law to them and to all whatsoever the authority of the Apostolick See hath determined or shall determine So that what Bishop soever being called to the Tribunal of the Roman Bishop shall neglect to come is to be compelled by the Governour of the same Province to present himself before him Which evidently proves that the highest Universal Ecclesiastical Judge and Governour was and ever is to be the Bishop of Rome which the Council of Chalcedon before mentioned plainly owned when writing to Pope Leo they say * Epist. Concil ad Leon. Pap. Act. 1. sequ Thou governest us as the head doth the members contributing thy good will by those which hold thy place Behold a Primacy not only of Precedency but of Government and Authority which Lerinensis confirms contr Haeres cap. 9. where speaking of Stephen Pope he saies Dignum â—â—t opinor existimans si reliquos omnes tantum fidei devotione quantum loci authoritate superabat esteeming it as I think a thing worthy of himself if he overcame all others as much in the devotion of faith as he did in the Authority of his place And to confirm what this universal Authority was he affirms that he sent a Law Decree or Command into Africa Sanxit That in matter of rebaptization of Hereticks nothing should be innovated which was a manifest argument of his Spiritual Authority over those of Africa and à paritate rationis over all others I will shut up all with that which was publickly pronounced and no way contradicted and consequently assented to in the Council of Ephesus one of the four first general Councils in this matter Tom. 2. Concil p. 327. Act. 1. where Philip Priest and Legat of Pope Celestine says thus Gratias agimus sanctae venerandaeque synodo quod literis sancti beatique Papae nostri vobis recitatis sanctas chartas sanctis vestris vocibus sancto capiti vestro sanctis vestris exclamationibus exhibueritis Non enim ignorat vestra beatitudo totius fidei vel etiam Apostolorum caput esse beatum Apostolum Petrum And the same Philip Act. 3. p. 330. proceeds in this manner Nulli dubium imo saeculis omnibus notum est quod sanctus beatissimusque Petrus Apostolorum Princeps caput Fideique columna Ecclesiae Catholicae Fundamentum à Domino nostro Jesu Christo Salvatore generis humani ac redemptore nostro claves regni accepit solvendique ac ligandi peccata potestas ipsi data est qui ad hoc usque tempus ac
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 inveighing 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 Catholick 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 Catholick Church was for us in this point For the age 600 see S. Gregory Pope l. 10. ep 30 where Hereticks and Schismaticks repenting were received then into the Church upon solemn promise and publick protestation that they would never any more separate from but always remain in the unity of the Catholick Church and communion in all things with the Bishop of Rome As to what you say of Congregation of Christians in the beginning I answer I took the word of Christians in a large sense comprehending in it all those as it is vulgarly taken who are baptized and profess to beleive 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 onely 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 seldome 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 denied Only please to give me leave to tell you that I cannot conceive my Argument yet answer'd by all you have said to it Feb. 3. 1658. William Iohnson Novelty Represt In a Rejoynder to Mr. Baxters Reply to William Iohnson The First Part. CHAP. I. ARGUMENT Num. 1. Exordium n. 3. Assembly and Congregation not different n. 5. Acknowledgment or Denial of what is Essential to the Church is it self Essential to the constitution or destruction of the Church my words mis-cited by omitting the word ever n. 7. Three Fallacies discovered Franciscus à S ta Clarâ mis-alledged n. 12. Congregations of Christians and Church not Synonyma's n. 16 17. Nothing instituted by Christ to be ever in his Church can be accidentall to his Church n. 19. Though universals exist not yet particulars which exist may be exprest in universal or abstractive terms n. 20. Many things necessary to the whole Church which are not necessary for every particular Christian. num 21 22. Christ now no visible Pastor of the Church militant though his person in heaven be visible n. 22. A visible Body without a visible Head is a Monster Such is Mr. Baxters Church Mr. Baxter SIR Num. 1. THe multitude and urgency of my employments gave me not leave till this day May 2. so much as to read over all your Papers but I shall be as loath to break off our disputation as you can be though perhaps necessity may sometime cause some weeks delay And again I profess my indignation against the hypocritical jugling of this age doth provoke me to welcome so Ingenuous and Candid a Disputant as your self with great content But I must confess also that I was the lesse hastie in sending you this Reply because I desired you might have leasure to peruse a Book which I published since your last a Key for Catholicks seeing that I have there answered you already and that more largely then I am like to doe in this Reply For the sharpness of that I must crave your patience the persons and cause I thought required it William Iohnson Num. 1. Sir Your Plea is my Defence I had my imployments and those of great concern as much as you which have hitherto detained me from accomplishing this Reply I have my Adversaries as well as you and no lesse then three at once in Print against me yet the esteem I have of your worth hath exacted from me to desist a while from what I had begun in Answer to the chief of them that I might bestow the whole time on you which notwithstanding was lately interrupted even when I was drawing towards an end by an unexpected and unrefusable occasion which hath already taken from me many weeks and is like to deprive me of many more Some small time an interstitium through the absence of my Adversary hath afforded me and that hath drawn the work almost to a period I have not hitherto had any leisure to peruse your Key and indeed what you here acknowledge of it Sharpness deterrs me from medling any further with it then what may be occasioned in this your Answer I finde even this in several passages of a relish tart enough but I can bear with that and I hope observe a moderacy where passion speaks against my cause or me For I tell you truly I had rather shew my self a patient Christian then a passionate Controvertist What reason utters will have power with rational men Passion never begins to speak but when reason is struck dumb and so cannot speak according to reason Mr. Baxter Num. 2. If you will not be precise in arguing you had little reason to expect much lesse so strictly to exact a precise Answer which cannot be made as you prescribed
Church be true or false that 's stated in the Argument but whether it be in a matter Accidental or Essential Now I affirm that nothing which Christ hath Instituted to be ever in the Church is Accidental to the Church for every Accident is separable from the Subject without destroying the Subject whose Accident it is But what Christ ha's Instituted to be ever in his Church is inseparable from it Mat. 19.6 for Quae Deus conjunxit homo non separet Those things which God hath conjoyned man must not separate In the mean time you fairly acknowledge your instances were not home to the present purpose because not in matters Instituted to be perpetual by one of that Authority whose Institution no man can change and consequently not necessary to be ever in those Nations or Commonwealths to whom you ascribe them Baxter Num. 17. For 1. The holding it alwayes done and that of Christs Institution may be either an Accident or but of the Integrity and ad bene esse yea possibly an errour Iohnson Num. 17. If of the Integrity then not Accidental for no Integral part is an Accident to the whole So you yield up your cause and acknowledge your errourâ—â— and 't is laudable in you The question is not what you might have done but what you did your instances given fell short and were plainly fallacious I have already shew'd that nothing can be an Accident to the Church which Christ hath instituted to be ever that is perpetually in the Church and consequently the Churches holding any thing to be so if true is Essential to the Subsistance of the Church if false is essentially destructive of the Church so that whether true or false it will never be accidental to the Church Baxter Num. 18. And I might as easily have given you instances of that kind Iohnson Num. 18. Had you more fully reflected upon your Adversaries words you might have done many things more pertinently then you have done them but here again you acknowledge your error in alledging instances which were not to the purpose But your Readers and I should have been much more satisfied had you amended what you acknowledge to be a fault and brought at least in this your last Reply those instances which you say here you might have given then Be sure therefore in your next to produce instances of Accidentals in such things as Christ hath instituted to be ever in his Church whereby it may appear that this Roman acknowledgment whether true or false is accidental to the true Church So that the acknowledgment of it by all those to whom it is sufficiently propounded is necessary to make them parts of the true Church and the denial of it when so propounded hinders them from being parts of it Baxter Num. 19. To your third Syllogism I reply 1. When you say your Church had Pastors Fallacy 5. as you must speak of what existed and universals exist not of themselves so it is necessary that I tell you how far I grant your Minor and how far I deny it Iohnson Num. 19. What though universalls exist not of themselves may not therefore a Logician expresse things which have existed in an abstract or universal term Is not this a true Logical Proposition Ever since Adam there have been parents and children in the world though the terms abstract from lawful and unlawful from male or female children would you carp at this Proposition as you do here at mine because universalls exist not of themselves or go about to distinguish different sorts of children or parents as you do Pastors here to find out the true meaning of that Proposition No man sayes or need to say in such Enunciations that universalls exist but expresses particulars which have existed by abstract and universall terms Baxter Num. 20. My Argument from the Indians and others is not solved by you For 1. You can never prove that the Pope was preached to the Iberians by the captive maid Fallacy 6. nor to the Indians by Frumentius 2. Thousands were made Christians and Baptized by the Apostles Three non-proofs without any preaching or profession of a Papacie Acts 2. pasâ—â—im 3. The Indians now converted in America by the English and Dutch hear nothing of the Pope nor thousands in Ethiopia 3. Your own doe or may baptize many without their owning the Pope who yet would be Christians And a Pastor not known or beleeved or owned is actually no Pastor to them Iohnson Num. 20. To all these Instances I answer They conclude nothing against my Assertion for I never said that all particular persons or communities are obliged to have an express belief or acknowledgment of the Roman-Bishops Supremacy that being necessary to all neither necessitate medii nor praecepti It is sufficient that they beleeve it implicitely in subjecting themselves to all those whom Christ hath instituted to be their lawfull Pastors and when the Bishop of Rome is sufficiently proposed to them to be the supream visible Pastor of of those Pastors upon earth that then they obstinately reject not his authority To your first instance of the Captive maid and Saint Frumentius I answer we can prove as much at least that to have been preacht to them as you can prove either Justification by Faith only or any other particular point of your doctrine to have been preacht to them And both of us must say that all important Christian Truths both for particular persons and Churches were delivered to those people and till you have evinced this of Supremacy to have been none of those it is to be supposed it was sufficiently declared to those Nations At least in explicating the Article of the Catholike Church to them they must be supposed to have told them it consisted of Pastors and people united and that the people were to obey all their lawful Pastors in which doctrine the Pope is implicitely included To your second from Acts 2. The Scripture relates not there all that S. Peter said but affirmeth vers 40. that he gave testimony to them in many other words And who can tell whether amongst the rest that of his Supremacy might not have been sufficiently intimated to them However it appears by the Text vers 37. that the people addrest themselves first and in particular to S. Peter before all the rest of the Apostles as the prime amongst them and he who first preacht the Gospel to them Prove the English and Dutch Convertites converted by Protestants if you mean those as you must do if your argument have any force to be instructed in the true Faith and then your Instance will have some force prove those of Ethiopia to be Orthodox and Catholick Christians To what purpose produce you instances which are assoon denied as they are proposed Your last touches only particular persons which I have shewed are not obliged to know this expresly to be of the Church the Pope is their true pastor and so
beleeved to be implicitely by them when they subject themselves to all their lawful pastors he being one and the chief of them Baxter Num. 21. To your Confirmation I reply You mis-read my words I talk not of invisible I say it is true that the universal Church is united to Christ as their universal Head Iohnson Num. 21. Nor say I you have writ there the word invisible but that the pastor or Head which you there name Viz. Christ is an invisible pastor nor say I as you mis-conceive that Christ is an invisible person that toucht not the controversie but that he was an invisible Pastor and that most certainly he is both in heaven and earth for though his person may be seen there yet the exercise of his pastorship consisting only in spiritual influxions and internal graces cannot be seen by any corporal eye whatsoever therefore as pastor of the Militant Church he is wholly invisible whence it is evident that you put a visible body the universal Militant Church for we treat no other here save that without a visible Head for Christ as head that is as supream pastor of this Church is invisible all that is visible in the pastoral Function being performed by visible pastors and all that is invisible by our Saviour Thus whilest you by a strange piece of Novelty constitute a visible Body without a visible Head you destroy the visible Church and frame a Monster Baxter Num. 22. 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. Iohnson Num. 22. If Christ be no otherwise visible as Head of the Church then in his members and their profession of his Faith you may as well affirm that God the Father is visible in his creatures and make him also visible which were absonous and contrary to Christian Faith It seems you regard not much what follows from your doctrine so you may at present oppose your Adversary The question in treatie is seeing we both confess the members and profession of the Universal Militant Church to be visible whether Christ in the exercise of his Headship or chief-Pastorship over the Church renders himself visible to our corporal eyes or performs immediatly any visible action in relation to his Church To constitute therefore Christ to be a visible Head of the Church when he performs nothing visible as Head of the Church or to make a visible Body without a visible Head is another of your grand Novelties fit to be represt and stifled in the cradle And all men will expect that in your Rejoynder to this you shew that Christ not in his person but in the exercise of his pastoral Headship works visibly by himself One thing is worth observation in this Paragraph that you affirm Christ is seen by most of the Church and by the best part even by the glorified whereby you must either affirm that the glorified are now conjoyned to their bodies and thereby evacuate the general resurrection of Saints bodies at the day of judgement or that the souls of Saints in heaven have corporal eyes for we speak only of corporal sight Baxter Of Ephes. 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 Fallacy 7. 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 denial from me Iohnson Num. 23. All I intend from Ephes. 4. is to prove my Minor the perpetual Succession of visible Pastors whatsoever those be you grant here it proves thus much Why then presse you me to know whether I would prove from it one supream visible Pastor on earth when I alledge it not to prove that It is strange Logick to ask an Opponent whether he intend to prove more by his Syllogism then what he was obliged to prove in Form when the Respondent grants he has proved that and by proving the Proposition which was to be proved has evinced the Thesis to be true which he first undertook to prove by his Argument Viz. the Popes Supremacy CHAP. II. The ARGUMENT No Negative fram'd in Positive Historical matters to be proved num 24. but the Instances alledged against it to be disproved by the Opponent num 25. The Pope obeyed in England not only as Patriarch of the West but as Supream visible Pastor of the whole Militant Church See Stow and Spâ—â—ed with the Statutes of Parliaments and decrees of our English Councils in and before the beginning of King Hâ—â—nry the eighths Râ—â—ign of this matter was in quiet possession of the spiritual government of the English Church when Protestancy first appeared in it Mr. Baxter forced n. 27. to deny two common principles n. 28. His unfair dealing with his adversary n. 33 34. Visible Pastors though Christs Officers Essential to his visible Church and if they why not the Supream amongst them n. 35 36. Some under Officers are Essential to Monarchies p. 38. No new work to be attempted till the old be finish'd n. 39 40 41 42 c. Mr. Baxter puts many questions and doubts where there is no need and n. 46. mistakes grosly his Adversaries words and meaning Baxter Num. 24. In stead 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 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 his 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 mâ—â—st have leave more plainly to state our Case Iohnson Num. 24. I am still content to refer my case as I state
it in your Edition p. 35. But why do you refer what I admit not I say not that every Opponent may come to a Negative at his pleasure as you make me say but when that Negative is deduced by force of Syllogistical form and denied by the Respondent in a matter proveable by instances as this is I affirm and desire it should be sent to both our Learned Universities that he who denies the universal Negative is obliged in Logical process to give some instance to the contrary and that there is no other means to prove that Negative but by infringing the instances which the Respondent produces against it For if the Opponent go to prove his universal negative by Induction viz. in my present Minor But no Congregation of Christians hath been alwayes visible save those which acknowledge St. Peter c. he must come at last to this Such a Congregation is neither that of the Arrians nor of the Eutychians nor of Nestorians nor any other Congregation that can be named Then if the Respondent deny that Proposition and affirm there is some nameable he is obliged to tell which it is otherwise it is impossible to make progress in the Argument which way of arguing notwithstanding is most Logical and usually practised amongst Learned Disputants Baxter Num. 25. We are all agreed that Christianity is the true Religion and Christ the Churches universal Head and the Holy Scriptures the Word of God Papists tell us of another Head and Rule the Pope and Tradition and Iudgement of the Church Protestants deny these Additionals and hold to Christianity and Scripture onely our Religion being nothing but Christianity we have no controversie about their Papal Religion superadded is that which is controverted They affirm 1. the Right 2. the Antiquity of it We deny both The Right we disprove from Scripture though it belongs to them to prove it The Antiquity is it that is now to be referred Protestancy being the denial of Popery it is we that really have the Negative and the Papists that have the Affirmative The Essence of our Church which is Christian is confessed to have been successively visible But we deny that theirs as Papal hath been so and now they tell us that it is Essential to ours to deny the Succession of theirs and therefore require us to prove a Succession of ours as one that still hath denied theirs Now we leave our Case to the Lawyers seeing to them you make your Appeal 1. Whether the Substance of all our Cause lie not in this question Whether the Papacy or universal Government by the Pope be of Heaven or of Men Fallacy 8. and so Whether it hath been from the beginning which we deny and therefore are called Protestants and they affirm and are therefore called Papists 2. If they cannot first prove a Successive visibility of their Papacy and Papal Church then what Law can bind us to prove that it was denied before it did arise in the world or ever any pleaded for it 3. And as to the point of Possession I know not what can be pretended on your side 1. The possession of this or that particular Parish Church or Tythes is not the thing in question but the universal Headship is the thing But if it were yet it is I that am yet here in Possession and Protestants before me for many Ages Successively And when possessed you the Head-ship of the Ethiopian Indian and other Extra-Imperial Churches never to this day No nor of the Eastern Churches though you had Communion with them 2. If the question be who hath possession of the universal Church we pretend not to it but onely to a part and the soundest safest part 3. The Case of Possession therefore is Whether we have not been longer in Possession of our Religion which is bare Christianity then you of your super-added Popery Our Possession is not denied of Christianity yours of Popery we deny and our denial makes us called Protestants Let therefore the reason of Logicians Lawyers or any rational sober man determine the case whether it do not first and principally belong to you to prove the visible Succession of a Vice-Christ over the universal Church Iohnson Num. 25. Fair and softly Sir you are run quite out of the field and have lost your self I know not where The present question is not who is to prove the universal and perpetual Supremacy of the Roman-Bishop See you not that I have already undertaken the proof of that in this present Argument The question at present is nothing but this when I have brought the Argument to this Head that no other Congregation of Christians can be named perpetually visible save that which acknowledges the Roman Supremacy and you deny that negative Proposition of mine whether you be not obliged upon that denial to name some Congregation which has been perpetually visible beside it This and this onely is that which I referr'd and still refer to the the judgement of the Learned as to your Case when it comes in season it shall be resolved This onely ex abundanti for the present whatsoever may be or not be of the Indians and Ethiopians c. which shall hereafter be examined You who confess the Pope to have been constituted Part 2. at least by the Churches grant Patriarch of the West and thereby to have acquired a lawfull Supremacy over the Western Churches and consequently over that of England and was in full and quiet possession of that Right when your first Protestants began to reject it you I say cannot deny those first Protestants at least to have been obliged by reason of that possession to bring convincing proofs that it was unlawfull which notwithstanding you must hold impossible to be done because you hold that Patriarchal power over them to have been lawfull Now what obligation falls upon you as maintaining successively so wrongfull a cause I leave to your consciences to determine Nay it is most evident in time of the first breach with the Roman Bishop he was in as quiet possession of Supremacy over the English Church in quality of Supreme visible Pastor over the whole Church as he was in quality of the Western Patriarch for the English obeyed him as Supreme over all and not as Patriarch of the West onely as appears by thousands of testimonies extant in our National Councils Doctors Bishops Historians Records Decrees c. Therefore those who dispossest him of that possession were bound either to have demonstrated it undeniably to be unlawfull or to have procured a definitive Sentence against him by such as had full Authority to judge him that his possession was unjust neither of which either hath been done nor can ever be done Baxter Num. 26 As to your contradictory impositions I reply 1. Your exception was not exprest and your imposition was peremptory Iohnson Num. 26. But I supposed my Adversaries to be Logicians and stood not in need to be instructed
31. 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 Iohnson Num. 31. Let the Reader judge that by what hath been said on both parts Baxter Num. 32 Me thinks you that make Christ to be corporally present in every Church in the Eucharist should not say Fallacy 8. That the King of the Church is absent Iohnson Num. 32. Why dally you thus to amuse your Reader you know we we dispute now of a proper visible presence Such as is not that in the Eucharist Baxter Num. 33. 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 Iohnson Num. 33. I have proved that Christ instituted S. Peter and his Successors to govern visibly his whole Universal Church on earth in all ages and that nothing so instituted is accidental to his Church and you have not yet given any instance to infringe it so that my proof stands in full force against you till it be answered I presse you therefore once more to give an instance of something which has been ever in the visible Church by Christs Institution and yet is accidental to his Church Baxter Num. 34. 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 Kingdome the Deputy is but an Officer and not essential Iohnson Num. 34. 'T is so indeed de facto but suppose as I do that a Vice-King be by full Authority made an Ingredient into the Essence of the Kingdome See my words Baxter p. 38. then sure he must be essential this is evident in our present subject For though all the Pastors in Christs Church be only his Officers and Deputies yet you cannot deny such Officers are now Essential to his visible Church I wonder you look no deeper then to the Superficies nor consider what inconveniences follow against your self by your replies for what true Christian ever yet denied that either Bishops or Presbyters or both though they are all Christs Officers and Deputies are essential to Christs visible Church Baxter Fallacy 6. The word ever left out the thiâ—â—d time Num. 35. 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 Iohnson Num. 35. My Assertion is of force till you produce some instance of perpetual Church Government instituted by our Saviour which is not Essential to his Church which you neither have done nor can you do it And certainly when any Common-wealth is instituted in such a determinate kind of perpetual Government by one of so eminent Authority that no other hath power to change that Institution as it passes in our case the government which he instituted is not accidental to that Common-wealth so far that it will be no longer the Common-wealth instituted by him when the Government is changed Baxter Num. 36. The Government of Inferiour Officers is not Essential to the Vniversal Church no more then Iudges and Iustices to a Kingdom Iohnson Num. 36. Your Assertion is not true for Iudges and Iustices may be changed into other Officers by the Supream authority whereas none have power to change the Officers which Christ hath instituted to be perpetual in his Church Again even in Common-wealths and Kingdoms though these determinate Officers are not essential to them yet it is essential to have some inferiour Officers seeing it is impossible that the Supream Magistâ—â—ate should govern the whole Common-wealth immediatly by himself Baxter Num. 37. 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 Iohnson Num. 37. I have proved it and my proof is good till it be convinced that you have answered my Argument Governours they are but under Christ and no farther then to a visible government of the universal Militant Church Baxter Num. 38. Sir I desire open dealing as between men that beleeve these matters are of eternal consequence I watch not for any advantage against you Though it be your part to prove the Affirmative 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 proved a visible Church successively that held not the Popes Vniversal 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 Iohnson Num. 38. Sir All that I contend is that my Argument sent to you and the Answer to it promised and assayed by you be respectively accomplished by us both when that is done I shall refuse no reasonable Propositions and shall endeavour to give you all possible satisfaction But give me leave to tell you till that be done I shall take it for an Effugium from you and and so I think will all rational men to set upon a new work before the old be finisht For by this means we shall bring nothing to an Issue but still flit superficially from one difficulty to another without bringing any thing to a period and thereby both lose our time and credit Let us first follow this close and when we are come to an end we shall be ready to begin another It is not for the present the proof of the perpetual visibility of your Protestant Church in particular which is aimed at for answer to my Argument Be it that or any other Independent of the Bishop of Romes authority 't is all one for solution of the Argument The force of my discourse consists in this No Congregation of Christians has been perpetually visible save that which acknowledges the Popes Supremacy Ergo No Congregation of Christians is Christs true Church save that Now this Argument presses all Congregations of Christians whether Ancient or Modern not acknowledging that Supremacy as much as Protestants and if any of them can be proved to be perpetually visible the Argument is solv'd So that the Argument is not directed particularly against Protestants but as well against Grecian Schismaticks Eutychians Nestorians Montanists c. as against them and had it fallen into their hands as it did into yours the proving their visibility though yours had not been proved would have given satisfaction nay if you had shewed the perpetual visibility of any others as you have assayed to do of yours you had given an equal satisfaction to the Argument But seeing you have pitcht upon the visibility of your Protestant
and yet Two of these made themselves subjects to the Roman Emperour as I have now proved You undertook to prove that those three forenamed Nations and other Extra-Imperial Churches were never under the Bishop of Rome and in proof thereof you say in your first reason that all or most of them that is not all at this day are from under his Jurisdiction so that your Argument runs thus None of them were ever under him because all or most of them were never under him Take you this to be Logick You tell me we cannot tell when or how they turned from us and I tell you and have prov'd it that the Goths in Spain are not from under us at this day and that the Suedes and Danes being their off-spring departed not from us till about the year 1520. by occasion of Luther's Heresie This is your first proof and no marvel you put it as your Achilles in the front it is so mighty strong Now let us hear your second Baxter Num. 52.2 These Nations profess it to be their Tradition that the Pope was never their Governour Iohnson Num. 52. You are pleas'd to say so and I am ready to believe you when you prove what you say This is your second proof Baxter Num. 53.3 No History or Authority of the least regard is brought by your own Writers to prove these Churches under your Iurisdiction no not by Baronius himself that is so copious and so skilfull in making much of nothing Iohnson Num. 53. Those Histories and Authors which say All Churches and the whole Church of Christ was and ought to be subject to him prove sufficiently that these Churches were subject to him for these were contained in the number of All. But many Ancient Authors S. Prosper S. Leo c. infra citandi and Fathers say That All Churches and the whole Church was and ought to be subject to him Ergo they say that these Churches were subject to him The Major is evident The Minor shall be amply proved and is sufficiently already in my subsequent Allegations as I shall make good when I come to the defence of them against your Answers and Exceptions Baxter Num. 54. No credible witnesses mention your Acts of Iurisdiction over them or their Acts of subjection which Church History must needs have contained if it had been true that they were your Subjects Iohnson Num. 54. What none that were very strange Is not Genebrard a witness that Pope Eugenius wrote to the Emperour of Ethiopia anno 1437. to send Legates to the Council of Ferrara as the Greek Emperour had decreed to do to whose Letters and Legates David their Emperour returned a respectfull Answer and accordingly sent some of his Church to that Council as appears by the Acts of the Council it self where the Ethiopians are recorded to have been present and that in the year 1524. the said David and Helena his Empress promised Obedience to the Bishop of Rome Pope Clement the 7 th And witnesses not both Platina Nauclerus Volaterranus Chalcondylas Emylius Onuphrius Genebrard and also the Acts of the Florentine Council that the Armenians and Indians acknowledged the Spiritual Soveraignty of the Roman Bishop through the whole world Are these no credible witnesses And as to more Ancient times gives not the Arabick Translation of the first Nicene Council a clear witness as we shall see presently that the Ethiopians were to be under the Jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Alexandria and he under that of Rome as is witnessed and decreed in the Ephesin Council and others Are these no credible witnesses neither Witness not the whole Kingdome of Spain at this day and all the Historians of Sueden Denmark and other Northern Countreys issuing from the Extra-Imperial Goths and never subject to the Roman Empire that from their first Conversions till after the year 1500. they were all subject to the Roman Bishop and are none of these credible witnesses That 's hard But more of this hereafter Baxter Num. 55. Their absence from General Councils and no invitation of them thereunto that was ever proved or is shewed by you is sufficient evidence Non-proof Iohnson Num. 55 I intend to make a particular Tract to prove this and to evidence the falsity of your Allegation from the undeniable testimonies of Classie Authors and from the ancient subscriptions of the Councils themselves Baxter Num. 56. 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 Liturgie 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 Latinâ Translatione contra fidem Ethiopic Exemplarium ut in primâ operis editione confirmat Pontificius ipse Scholiastes expunctum est nomen panis Iohnson Num. 56. No more does the Roman Missal it self nor those of France or Spain witness their subjection to the Roman Bishop Must every Book witness every thing Must those Books which contain nothing but the service of the Church determine points of Controversie no way pertaining to that subject What rule have you for that Yet I finde in their very Liturgie both a plain acknowledgment of St. Peters primacy and of the reverence they bear to the three first general Councils in making a particular Commemoration of the Fathers which were in them in the Cannon of their Mass whereby they profess to receive the Decrees of those three Councils and thereby their subjection to them and name not the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon the fourth general because they follow the Heresie of Eutiches who was condemned in it Your digression I confesse is something large from the Popes Supremacy to Transubstantiation Yet had you grounded it upon a more firm Authority then that of a professed Adversary it would I suppose have had more weight with your Readers What if Usher say so that moves not me a jot though I marvel not a little also why you who stand upon such Niceties in citations should fall into the same defect which you blame in me of putting me to the labour of reading over that whole Book by not citing the place where those words are found But I should have taken no notice of such small omissions had not you given me a President for it At last I found them cap. 2. p. 54. Edit 2. but then I was at a loss again For having examined three different Editions of the Bibliotheca which is all are extant and the Scholia's in the Margin I could finde no such matter nor could I know what other Scholiastes or Edition he meant and should be more satisfied if in your next you please to cite the Edition more exactly and the precise words of
the Scholiastes and where they are to be found For the matter it self it seems I must needs tell you very improbable both because the Scripture it self hath hoc and not hic panis and were it not a great boldness in a whole Church to consent to the changing of Christs words of Institution in this divine Sacrament and foisting in others in place of them nor see I any reason why the Ethiopique Church in particular should do it when in the very same Liturgie it delivers cleerly the change of bread into Christ Body effected in the consecration of the divine Mysteries Canon universalis Aethiop Hoc est corpus sanctum honoratum Vitale domini salvatoris nostri Iesu Christi quod datum est in remissionem peccatorum vere sumentibus ipsum Hic est sanguis Domini salvatoris nostri Iesu Christi sanctus honoratus ac vivificus qui datus est in remissionem peccatorum advitum consequendam voce sumentibus eum Dicit intra divinum sacramentum esse corpus quod assumpsit ex Maria Virgine Eâ—â— supra dicit Sacerdos hoc est corpus meum Respondet populus Amen Amen Amen hoc est vere corpus tuum Dein dicit sacerdos Hic est calix sanguinis mei qui pro nobis effundetur pro redemptione multorum c. Baxter Num 57. Constantines letters of request to the King of Persia for the Churches there which Eusebius in vitâ Constantini mentioneth do intimate that then the Roman Bishop ruled not there Iohnson Num. 57. Why so Might not the Roman Bishop rule there though the Emperour did not The King of Persia as not Subject to the Emperour was not to be commanded but entreated by him but might not that stand with the Authority of the Roman Bishop over that Church May not the King of France intreat the King of Spain to send his Bishops to a general Council though both of them acknowledge the Popes Authority over them and the Churches in their respective Kingdomes Call you this an Argument Baxter Num. 58. Even at home the Scots and Brittains obeyed not the Pope nor conformed about Easter-Observation even in the dayes of Gregory but resisted his changes and refused Communion with his Ministers Iohnson Num. 58. No more do you conform to him now follows it thence that he never exercised authority over the Church in this Nation Will you draw a consequence from the disobedience of a Subject to the want of power in a Superiour Was not this very error ascrib'd to them by Venerable Bede Beda Histor. Ang. lib. 2. cap. 2. and here acknowledged by you condemned as an Heresie in the Council of Nice and may you not as well argue thus even against your own principles Those Brittains and Scots conformed not about the Easter-Observation prescribed in the Council of Nice therefore they acknowledged no subjection to the authority of that Council Ergo That Council never had authority over them And as to Communion with his Ministers See V. Bede Hist. Angl. l. 2. cap. 2. Bede tells you they refused also to communicate with the English who were then converted or to help towards their conversion were they also justifiable in this Or had they any right in Christian charity to refuse it Baxter Num. 59. I have already elsewhere given you the testimony of some of your own Writers as Reynerius contra Waldenses Catal. in Bibliothecâ patr Tom. 4. pag. 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 Iohnson Num. 59. No more are you what then our question is not of what is done de facto for the present but what de jure ought to be done or has been done at one time or other This Author says not these Nations were never under the Church of Rome even as you cite him but are not now for the present under him Know you not that many things have been heretofore which are not now Thus I have shewed you and doubt not but you see it the weakness of the first eight points of your Reasons I come now to the ninth which requires a deeper and larger discussion as being a main point in your Novel Divinity Baxter Num. 60. I have proved from the Council of Chalcedon that it was the Fathers that is the Councils that gave Rome its preheminence Iohnson Num. 60. Sir I take the boldness to tell you that you have proved nothing nothing at all of that matter what you say in your second part of the 28 Canon of the Council of Chalcedon proves not what you say here though that Canon were admitted of which more hereafter For the Greek word is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gave to or conferred upon Rome those priviledges but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exhibited or deferred to them to Rome as ever before due unto it by right of the Apostolick Sea of S. Peter established there And though the Canon alledge for the reason of this the Imperial power of that Citie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it was the Imperial City yet it neither says as you would infer from it that this was the sole and compleat reason no nor the chief neither of Romes preheminence but one amongst some others Nor can it be understood to be the sole reason without imputing a contradiction to the Council For those Holy Fathers in their Epistle to St. Leo Pope affirm Conc. Calced in relat ad Leonem That Dioscorus had extended his Felony against him to whom our Saviour had committed the charge and care of his vineyard that is the whole Catholique Church when that wicked Heretick presumed to excommunicate St. Leo. Now the true reason why this Canon mentions rather the Imperial Authority of that City then the right from St. Peter was because it suited better with the pretensions of Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople and his complices for the elevation of that Sea then any other because Constantinople had no other prevalent plea for its preheminence save the Imperiality of Constantinople Now that this reason of the Imperial seat at Rome is no way exclusive of the right from S. Peter is evident from the conjoyning them together by the Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian in their Laws made six years before the Council of Chalcedon whereof the Fathers of that Council cannot be supposed ignorant where they say thus Vâ—â—de infra Three things have established the Primacy of the Sea Apostolick the Merit of S. Peter who is the Prince of the Episcopal Society the Dignity of the City and Synodical Authority Where the original and prime ground is the Merit of S. Peter the other two are subsequent and subservient For therefore the Imperial Throne is given as a reason because St. Peter thought it convenient that the Highest Spiritual Authority should be placed in that City which had highest Temporal Power as also Alexandria was anciently
had the Description from your self then have been thus bobb'd off to Blondel so laxely cited without Page Paragraph Number Chapter or Book as you cite him here so that I must be enforced if I will find it to turn over his whole Treatise a Book in Folio of 1268 Pages Whatsoever therefore is of him with whom I have nothing to do for the present for if I would answer every particular Author of yours whom you cite as wildly as you do this Blondell I might have work enough it is evident that some Extra-Imperial Provinces were under the Ancient Patriarchs And in the first place concerning the Bishop of Rome the 39 Canon of the Nicene Council in the Arabick Edition published by Pisanus which I shall cite more particularly hereafter and prove the Authenticalness of those Canons affirms expresly that the Roman Bishop as being Christ's Vicar has power over all Christian Princes and their people subject to them Tom. 1. Conc. p. 416. and that he as being the Vicar of Christ is over all people and all Christian Churches and Can. 36. declares that the Bishop of Alexandria has Jurisdiction over the Ethiopick Churches And Can. 35. orders that the Bishop of Antioch should have Authority over the Church of Persia which was Extra-Imperial And the Council of Chalcedon Ibid. pag. 4â—â—5 Can. 28 th so much extolled by you gives to the Bishop of Constantinople Authority over the Barbarous Nations near those parts that is such as were Extra-Imperial as that of Russia and Muscovia Baxter Num. 65. The Emperors themselves did sometime giving 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 pag. 174 175. But the Emperours had no power to do thus with respect to those without the Empire Iohnson Num. 65. I will here give my Reader an assay of the solidity of your proofs heaped confusedly one upon another in your Key You cite in pag. 174 175. Now pag. 174. you translate Pontifex Pope and summus Pontifex chief Pope Sure you never had this Translation from any Grammarian new or old Who ever before you said that Pontifex signifies Pope or what similitude is there betwixt Pontifex and Pope save onely that they both begin with the same Letter When S. Paul saith speaking of our Saviour Habemus Pontificem magnum Hâ—â—b 4.14 would you translate it We have a great Pope Or when he affirms that he is Pontifex secundum ordinem Melchisedec would you English it Hâ—â—b 6.20 He is a Pope according to the order of Melchisedec I alwayes thought that Pontifex or summus Pontifex signified the highest sort of Priests both in the Old Testament and the New but never heard that it signified Pope before But you have some drift in this Baronius say you in Martyrolog Roman April 9. affirms that all Bishops were stiled anciently not onely Pontifices but summi Pontifices that is say you Popes and chief Popes to infringe thereby what some gather as you say viz the Supremacy of the Roman Bishop from this Title of being stiled Summi Pontifices chief Popes say you pag. 173. You should have done well to have told us who those some were and would have done so had you writ like a Scholar But I 'le help you out for once Bellarmin is one of that some you speak of Lib. 2. de Pontif. Roman cap. 31. sect Quartum But Barenius say you affirms that Title to have been attributed anciently to all Bishops that 's true too if you take the Latin words but not in that sense wherein Bellarmin takes Summus Pontifex For Baronius takes it for a chief Priest and Bellarmin for the chiefest or highest Priest not onely in respect of simple Priests who are in a rank below Bishops and in relation to whom Bishops were anciently stiled summi Pontifices such as were in the highest order of Priests but absolutely in respect of all other Bishops in the Church For Bellarmin in proof of this Title cites an Epistle of Pope Stephen where the Bishop of Rome is stiled Summus omnium praesulum Pontifex the highest Bishop of all Prelates or Bishops In the same sense he cites S. Gregory and S. Bernard And lastly the sixth Synod which intitles him Act. 18. in Sermon Acclamatorio Sanctissimum Patrem nostrum summum Papam their most holy Father and most high Pope that is the highest of all Bishops even over the Bishops of that Council And though Baronius cited by you grant the bare words of summus Pontifex as they signifie onely a chief Priest were anciently given to all Bishops yet in his Annals Anno 215 216. num 3. from the Title of Pontifex maximus the greatest or highest Bishop that is summus Pontifex in Bellarmins sense he proves the eminent Authority of the Roman Bishop Now this is worth the noting also that you first take summus Pontifex for the chief Pope in Bellarmins sense and then prove that summus Pontifex as it signifies not the chief Pope but a chief Priest as Baronius takes it is no proof of his universal Authority In your second Paragraph you shew that the Titles Papa Dominus Pater Sanctissimus Beatissimus Dei amantissimus c. were commonly given to all Bishops Who confute you here who ever said these Titles prove his Supremacy The like is of the Church of Rome being called the mother of all Churches Paraph. 3. for the term mother may be understood either in relation to the first origin or fountain of Christanity and in this sense Hierusalem is the mother Church or in regard of authority and government which a mother hath over her children And in this sense the title of mother is attributed to the Roman Church and proves evidently her aâ—â—thority over all Christian Churches But is it not very handsome for you first to affix the title of mother absolutely to the Roman Church and then to infringe that title by saying the Church of Cesarea out of S. Basil is the mother of all Churches in a manner Would you think it a rational answer if one should prove your mother had authority to correct you by vertue of the title of mother Fallacy 10. you should answer that the tiof mother proves nothing for your elder sister was as a mother to you in a manner though she had no authority over you Is not not this a plain Fallacy from simpliciter to secundum quid In your fourth Paragraph you say If the words be consulted where the Roman Church is stiled mater Ecclesiarum mother of all Churches for that 's her title they signifie only priority of dignity that is without authority and jurisdiction over all Churches joyned to that dignity And this you never go about to prove so irrefragable is your authority that your bare word must passe for a proof I wonder you have
all Christians to assent to them you say true but nothing against us Baxter Num. 66. But what say you now to the contrary Why 1. You ask Were those Primitive Christians of another kinde 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 Non-proof 6. which is the thing in question is it any weakning of such evidence in a matter of such publick fact to put such a question as this Whether they were under another kinde of Government Iohnson Num. 66. I have now shewed that Church-History is so far from proving what you say that it proves the quite contrary and had it been otherwise why cited you not here some one Ecclesiastical Historian seeing I prest you to it in my second Paper in confirmation of your Assertion My question therefore is of force and stands unsatisfied till you prove what you say here Baxter Num. 67. We know they were under Bishops or Pastors of their own and so far their government was of the same kind Iohnson Num. 67. It could not be of the same kinde for those under the Empire acknowledged themselves subject to the Roman Sea as they were parts of the Catholick Church which whole Catholick Church they profest to be subject to that Sea and consequently all the true parts of it as shall appear when I come to the justification of my proofs whereby all this whole Paragraph of yours will be enervated Baxter Num. 68. You say that how far from truth this is appeareth from S. Leo in his Sermons De Natali Suo where he sayes Sedes Roma Petri quicquid non possidet armis religione tenet Reply If you take your religion on trust as you do your Authorities that are made your ground for it and bring others to it when you are deceived your selves how will you look Christ in 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 old Book of Nicol Fabers And in that Sermon there is no such words as you alledge Neither doth he Poetize in his Sermons nor there hath any such words as might occasion your mistake and therefore doubtless you beleeved some body for this that told you an untruth and yet ventured to make it the ground of charging my words with untruth Iohnson Num. 68. How this citation came under the name of S. Leo I really know not My Authentical Copie written in my own hand which I have shewed to some of credit and am ready to shew it you or any one who shall desire to be satisfied hath no such citation nor can I learn how it crept into the Paper which was sent you if it were not by the addition of a confident friend who writ out part of my Reply in whose hand-writing I find it and I my self being out of Town when my Reply was sent out of a desire to comply with your request for a speedy Answer it was sent away in my absence so that it could not be perused by me which is insinuated sufficiently in the end of my paper where I desire you to excuse what errors you finde in the Copie which I sent Baxter p. 100. But however there is only a nominal error in citing St. Leo for St. Prosper who is something ancienter then St. Leo and lesse to be excepted against by you then he as being wholly disinteressed in that matter of the Popes Supremacy Now this Text of St. Prosper is so notoriously known amongst Scholars and so usually cited Authors that I wonder you perceived not that it was a mistake in the name only and that the Text it self was true and reall nay much more forcible against your new invention then as it stands cited in my Paper For whereas it is imperfectly quoted there and much more weakly as you printed it I suppose by an error of the Printer though I find it not amongst the Errata where it hath neither force nor sense for you print almis for armis whereas I say it is there cited thus Sedes Roma Petri quicquid non possidet armis religione tenet Rome the Sea of Peter whatsoever it possesses not by force of Arms it possesses by means of religion the Text of St. Prosper hath it thus Sedes Roma Petri quae Pastoralis honoris facta caput mundo D. Proâ—â—er Carm. de Iâ—â— gâ—â—atis quâ—â—cquid non possidet armis religione tenet Rome the Seat of Peter being made Head of Pastoral honour to the world possesses by means of Religion whatsoever it possesses not by force of arms Thus St. Prosper And to the same effect in another place he affirms Dâ—â— vocat Gent. lib. 2. c. 6. That the principality of the Apostolick Priesthood hath made Rome greater through the Tribunal of Religion then through that of the Empire * New Sect. But that you may see the whole force of this Text of S. Prosper is emphatically also delivered by S. Leo though not in Verse yet as it seems alluding to these Verses of St. Prosper for he uses the same expressions which I wonder you marked not in perusing his Sermons in these words making â—â—n Apostrophe to the City of Rome and relating to St. Peter and St. Paul Isti sunt qui te ad hanc gloriam provexerunt ut gens sancta populus electus S. Leâ—â— Serm. 1. de Natal Apostol Petr. Paul civitas sacerdotalis regia per sacram beati Petri sedem caput orbis effecta latius praesideres religione divina quam dominatione terrenâ Quamvis enim multis aucta victoriis jus imperii tui terrâ marique protuleris minus tamen est quod tibi bellicus labor subdidit quam quod pax Christiana subjecit These viz. S. Peter and S. Paul are they who have elevated thee to this heighth of glory that thou shouldst be a holy Nation an elect People a Priestly and Kingly City that being made Head of the World by the Seat of Blessed Peter thou shouldst have a larger command by means of Divine Religion then terrene Domination For though being aâ—â—gmented by many victories thou hâ—â—st extended thy Empire through Sea and Land yet it is less which warlike labour brought under thy command then what Christian peace hath subjected to thee And to the same effect the same S. Leo writes to Anastasius Bishop of Thessalonica telling him That the great order of the Church instituted some one in every Province S Leo. epist 82. ad Aâ—â—stâ—â—sium Episâ—â— â—â—hessâ—â— to have power over the rest and that such as were seated in the more ample and noble Cities should have power over such as were in particular Provinces by means whereof the care of the Vniversal Church n. b. might flow to the Sea of Peter Mark well he says not the care of
the Churches within the Empire as you do but the care of the Universal Church Baxter Num. 69. Yet let me tell you that I will take Pope Leo for no competent Iudge or Witness though you call him a Saint as long as we know what passed between him and the Council of Chalcedon Non-prooâ—â—â—â— and that he was one of the first tumified Bishops of Rome he shall not be Iudge in his own Cause Iohnson Num. 69. Sir I am really mov'd to compassionate you when I see you write in this manner Had it not been enough for you to extenuate the Authority of the Holy Council as you here do but that you must as the Chalcedonian Council sayes of Dioscorus extend your spite against him that is S. Leo to whom our Saviour hath committed the care of the Vineyard to wit his whole Church Who ever before you and those Novellists of your spirit since the time of S. Leo branded him with the black note of a Tumified Pope Was it not this great S. Leo of whom the Council of Chalcedon pronounced that the care of Christ's Vineyard was committed to him by our Saviour Vâ—â—de Concilâ—â—um Calced in literis ad Leonem Was it not he who was stiled by the Ecclesiasticks of those times The Oecumenical Bishop Did not that holy Council call him their Head their Father their Directour and you fear not to call him a Tumified Pope I beseech God to forgive you And what I pray past betwixt him and the Council of Chalcedon which might occasion this rash censure Read his Epistles to the Council and to Anastasâ—â—us Bishop of Thessalonica and you will see it was nothing but the zeal of conserving the Authority of the Nicene Council in the Order and Dignity of Patriarchâ—â— which moved him to withstand that surreptitious Canon for the preferring Constantinople before Alexandria and Antioch to which the Nicene Council had decreed the two first Patriarchates after Rome The Primacy of his Sea was not questioned at all in that Canon for it is there expresly ordained that Constantinople should be the second after Rome Now for you to call him a Tumified Bishop for no other reason given here then for seeking to maintain the Ancient Decrees of Nice against all innovations of subsequent Councils will seem very strange I suppose to all Christian Readers Baxter Num. 70. But you add that the Abassines of Ethiopia were under the Patriarch of Alexandria anciently and he under the Authority of the Roman Bishop Reply 1. Your bare word without proof shall not perswade us that the Abassines were under the Patriarch of Alexandria for above three hundred if not four hundred years after Christ. Prove it and then your words are regardable Iohnson Num. 70. Why say you I speak without proof when I direct you pag. 42. by saying as we shall see presently to my proof of it which is pag. 45. where I prove it from one of your own Historians Baxter Num. 71.2 At the Council of Nice the contrary is manifest by the sixth Canon Mos antiquus perdurat in Egypto vel Lybia vel Pentapoli ut Alexandrinus Episcopus horum omnium habeat potestatem c. Iohnson Num. 71. Your argument is fallacious and proceeds a parte ad totum The Canon sayes no more then that according to the ancient custome Egypt Lybia Can. Nicen. â—â— 6. and Pentapolis were subject to him which may be most true though more Provinces were under his Jurisdiction then these Should one say that England and Scotland is now subject to our most gracious Soveraign Charles the Second durst you conclude thence that Ireland was not part of his Kingdome Nor was it here the intention of the Council to nominate expresly all the Provinces under Alexandria nor to make a new Constitution but a Decree of Confirming the Ancient Custome about the Jurisdiction of Patriarchs Now seeing Meletius and his Complices had schismatically exercised Jurisdiction in those Provinces the Council to abrogate that intrusion and usurpation had a particular occasion of nominating these three thereby to restore the Ancient Right to the Sea of Alexandria leaving the other parts of that Patriarchate about which there was no controversie to the ancient custome without nomination of particulars as it did in relation to Antioch Socrat. l. 1. c. 6. Theodor. l. 1. c. 9. Conc. Nicen. Can. 6. where none at all are nominated in that Canon because there was no such occasion given of nominating any but leaving that Patriarch to that extent of Jurisdiction over those Provinces and Churches which he was known in those times to have possessed anciently Moreover some of the Learned are of opinion that under the name of Egypt Ethiopia is included And it seems probable that Egypt was a denomination including many other particular Countreys and Provinces in those parts for the Constantinopolitane Council c. 2. citing this 6 th Canon of Nice says that it was decreed in that Canon that the Patriarch of Alexandria should govern onely the affairs of Egypt neither naming Lybia nor Pentapolis which are specified in that Nicene Canon so that Egypt included all the adjacent Countreys in those parts and consequently Ethiopia Baxter Num. 72. And the common descriptions of the Alexandrian Patriarchate in those times confine it to the Empire and leave out Ethiopia Iohnson Num. 72. You should have done well to have cited some Authors one at least in proof of this seeing I had cited one and he of your own who says the contrary Ross. p. 99. infra citaâ—â— When you produce those Descriptions they shall be answered In the Interim I stand to my Assertion as not yet disproved Baxter Num. 73. Pisanus new inventions we regard not Iohnson Num. 73. The question is not what you regard or regard not but what you ought to regard according to right Reason I doubt not but Dr. Heylin hath the esteem of a person as much indued with Learning and Reason as your self who hath so much regard to Pisanus his Edition of the Arabick Canons of the Nicene Council Canon 36. Arab Edit Dr. Heylin Cosmograph lib. 4. pag. 977. Edit ultim that he cites them as Authentical and thereon grounds the subjection of Ethiopia to the Patriarch of Alexandria to have been confirmed in the Council of Nice and continued so ever since Behold Ross and Heylin both your own are against you CHAP. V. The ARGUMENT Num. 74. Proofs from Antiquity that the Bishops of Alexandria were more subject to the Bishops of Rome then are the rest of the Earls of England to the Earl of Arundel or the younger Iustices of the Peace to him who in a Sessions is the Eldest amongst them ibid. Bishops of Rome exercising Spiritual Iurisdiction and Authority over the three first Patriarchs of the East n. 75. No limitatiun to the Roman Empire mentioned in Antiquity in relation to the Popes Authority num 76. If any one Extra-Imperial Church be granted subject
to Romes Authority all others must be so a paritate rationis unless some reason be alledged why that was subject rather then others n. 79. No Emperor could give Authority to Rome over Extra-Imperial Churches n. 80. Primacy and Primate put absolutely in the Ecclesiastical signification argues alwayes Iurisdiction over others No Ancient Authority alledged or alledgeable that the Bishops within the Empire made the Pope chief Bishop even in place or meer precedency before Constantine's time or that the Bishops of the West constituted him by unanimous consent to have Power and Iurisdiction over all the Western Bishops Baxter Num. 74. I deny that the Patriarch of Alexandria was under the Government of the Bishop of Rome any more then the Iury are under the Foreman or the Iunior Iustices on the Bench under the Senior or York under London or the other Earls of England under the Earl of Arundel Iohnson Num. 74. I perceive you are very free in your denials but it had been well done to have considered twice before you deny once a thing so evidently true as this is Was the Patriarch of Alexandria no more under the Bishop of Rome then those which you here nominate one under the other Are you serious Why then did the Christians of Pentapolis write their accusations to Dionysius Bishop of Rome against Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria Anno 263. S. Anthanas de Sentent Dionys. Idem in Com. de Synod Why did the same Pope calling a Council in Italy for that end sit in solemn Judgement upon his Cause and write Monitory Letters to him to send him the Confession and Declaration of his Faith which he did accordingly and justified himself to the Bishop of Rome How came Peter Bishop of Alexandria Anno 337. Socrat. l. 4. c. 30. by vertue of Pope Damasus his Letters to be restored to his Bishoprick Why writ Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria Anno 404. Apud Palladâ—â— Dialog to prevent the writing of S. Chrysostome to Pope Innocentius in his own defence that he might escape the sentence and punishment of the Churches censure which S. Chrysostome required the Pope to inflict upon him and his complices Why did Innocentius the First together with the other Occidental Bishops Anno 407. D. Chrysost. epist ex Septem Tom. 5. operum ejus Extat etiam Tom. 1. epist. Rom. Pont. post Innocâ—â—nt ep 16. Anno 451. excommunicate Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria How came Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria to be deprived from sitting in the Council of Chalcedon and to be presented before the Council as a guilty person by vertue of a Sentence to that effect from S. Leo Bishop of Rome Concil Chalced. Act. 1. Evagr. lib. 2. cap. 4. What was the reason why Timotheus Solopaciolus craved pardon of Pope Simplicius for reciting the name of Dioscorus at the holy Altar compelled to it as he affirms by the Eutychians What reason had Pope Simplicius to write objurgatory Letters to Acacius because in a matter of so great moment as was the restitution of Petrus Mogus the Eutychian to the Sea of Alexandria and the exclusion of Ioannes Talaida a Catholick Simplicâ—â—us epist 17. Canonically elected to that Sea Or why writ those of Alexandria to Pope Simplicius Anno 483. to intreat him to confirm the election and instalment of Ioannes Talaida What moved Ioannes Talaida to procure Commendatory Letters to Simplicius from Calendion Bishop of Antioch to favour his Appeal against Petrus Mogus and Acacius and why did Felix Successor to Simplicius with a Western Council wherein he presided send a Writ by way of Citation to Acacius to answer in the Judicature of Rome to the Objections made against him by the said Iohn And why writ Felix to Zeno the Emperour to compel Acacius to appear Liberat. cap 18. Evagr. l. 3. c. 18 sâ—â—q and answer to his Adversaries at Rome And why was Petrus Fullonis condemn'd for having been intruded Cod. Crescâ—â—ni and Collect. recusa apud Baronium Tom. 61 Liberat. c. 1â—â— with exclusion of the lawfull Bishop Calendion into the Sea of Antioch And why writ Acacius himself to Felix Bishop of Rome to confirm his condemnation of Petrus Gnapheus and Ioannes Bishop of Apamea Nor will your usual Solution to my subsequent Objections serve your turn For it appears evidently in the form used in Excommunications and Condemnations from Rome they were not onely Declarations that the Bishop of Rome and his Bishops substracted themselves from communicating with them which say you any Christian may do but a positive ejection of them out of the Church and from the Communion of all faithfull Christians Thus runs the Excommunication and Condemnation of Acacius Bishop of Christantinople and his adherents the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch given out against them by Pope Felix Habe ergo cum his quos libenter amplecteris portionem ex sententiâ praesenti Sacerdotali honore Communione Catholicâ necnon etiam à fidelium numero segregatus sublatum tibi munus Ministerii Sacerdotalis agnosce Sancti Spiritus judicio Apostolicâ authoritate damnatus nunquamque Anathematis vinculis exuendus Receive therefore thy portion with those whom thou so willingly embracest by vertue of this sentence Thou art separated from Priestly Honour from Catholick Communion and from the number of the Faithfull Know that thou art deprived of Name and Ministery of a Priest being condemned by the judgement of the Holy Ghost and by Apostolical Authority never to be loosed from the bonds of this Anathema See here 1. A positive exclusion from the number and communion of the Faithfull 2. A deposition from Priesthood or being Bishop 3. That this is done not by way of counsel but of authority authoritate Apostolicâ it was done by the Popes Apostolical Authority 4. That this judgement of the Apostolick Sea is attributed to the Holy Ghost And lastly That the Pope exercises this high authority over the three chiefest and highest Patriarchs of Alexandria Antioch and Constantinople at the same time From which it will hereafter sufficiently appear how groundlesse your Answers are to my Objections But to proceed Nor yet can you alledge as you do to some of my proofs that these were unlawful and unjust proceedings For first The matter of the sentence was not unjust those being Hereticks Schismaticks Intruders and Usurpers against whom the sentence was decreed and that it was not unjust as proceeding from one who had no authority to inflict such a punishment is clear For neither did the Catholick nor Orthodox Christians no nor those very Schismaticks who were thus censur'd by Felix pretend any thing against the power of his Authority over them and if any such plea were used by them let it be evidenced out of authentical Authors in or about those times Now to your discourse if either the Foreman of a Jury or the Senior Justice upon the Bench or the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of London or
Instances in your next Reply as are here demanded of you You cite me here Blondel and Aeneas Silvius so confusedly without Book Chapter Page or Column that I think it not worth my pains to spend time in seeking them if they have any thing worth your citing or satisfactory to what here I say either set it clearly down in your next or give me some clear means to know what you stand upon in those two Authors Baxter Num 80. Whether the Bishop of Rome had power over the Bishop of Arles Fallacy 11. by the Heathen Emperors 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 Non-proof 10 without the Emperors and yet not meddle out of the Empire Iohnson Num. 80. You proceed Sophistically à possibili ad actum The Question is not What the Bishops might have done but what they did Now you affirm they did form themselves into Patriarchates by free consent make it appear to have been so by Authentical Testimonies from Antiquity I bring you proofs that their subjection to him was out of that most publick Tradition that he was successor to S. Peter Vide infra Bring me as many that he was made Patriarch of the West before Constantines time by force of free consent of the Western Bishops under the Empire Is it not a plain Paradox to affirm that a thing should be done by publick consent of a thousand Bishops through the whole Western Church and yet there should be no one step of proof no word of any Historian for it in all Antiquity Baxter Num. 81. 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 Iohnson Num. 81. S. Cyprians words shall be examined hereafter in their proper place CHAP. VI. ARGUMENT Num. 82. The four first General Councils proved by many Reasons and Authorities to be truly and properly Oecumenical having Authority over all Christian Churches as well without as within the Roman Empire num 84 85. Whom Mr. Baxtâ—â—r accounts univocal Christians and proper parts of the Catholick Church num 86. Whether he have made a good choice for himself num 88. No Heretick properly so called can have true Christian Faith in any Article whatsoever and consequently can be no part of the Catholick Church num 90 91. Christ the sole Head of the whole Church Triumphant and Militant The Bishop of Rome no more then Head of the visible Church on earth and not absolutely but secundum quid that is according to the external and visible Government onely and even that not as having all other Bishops under him as his Officers but as Christs Officers together with him they of their respective Districts and he of them to direct and correct them when need requires it Baxter Num. 82. 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 Non-proof 11. 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 Iohnson Num. 82. Where are your proofs I deny any such consent to be extant in Antiquity nor could those Provincial or Nationall Councils call the Extra-Imperials to sit with them because they were only of the Provinces which were within the Empire and had no Authority without the precincts of their respective Churches Now you will give me leave to discover the weakness and inconsistency of your Novelty about the first four General Councils having had no power without the Empire First the very a Vide titulum Conc. Nicen. Titles of the Councils themselves confute you where they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is universal or General Nor can you say that is meant onely through the Empire for you hotly contend that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 universal is extended to all Christians through the whole world Part. 2. Secondly b Conc. Chalcedon Act. 16. ap Binium p. 464. they call themselves General Thirdly the Canons Decrees Definitions are General without any limitation more to the Empire then to any other part of the world as is clear out of all the Canons and Decrees themselves Fourthly Historians of all Ages call them Oecumenical or General and never intimate any Imperial limitation if they do produce the Historian that calls them National or Imperial Councils Fifthly the whole Christian world ever since their times have esteemed them General and to have had an obligatory power and authority over all Christians Sixthly the holy Fathers c D. Aug. tom 7. contra Denatist lib. 2. cap. 13. ut diu Concil in suis quibusque regionibus diversa Statuta nutaâ—â—rint donec plenario totius orbis Concilio quod saluberrimè sentieâ—â—atur etiam remoâ—â—is dubitationibus â—â—irmaretur Hoc enim jam in ipsa totius orbis unitate discussum consideratum perfectum etque firmatum est loquitur de Concil Niceno Now it is evident that S. Aug. by his totius orbis means totius orbis Christians the whole Christian world that is the whole Church of Christ as appears by a hundred places of his against the Donatiffs when he sayes they have separated themselves from the whole world that is from the whole visible Church and this you confess to be true pag. 229 230 c. of your Book who speak of them stile them General Oecumenical plenary yea plenissima c. d Produce any one of them who limits these Councils to the Empires or denies them to have had power to oblige all Christians Seventhly Protestant Authors so far as I can see before you esteemed them General without any limitation and if you can cite any who say the contrary I pray do it e Anno 1 Elizabeth cap. 1. Versus finem capitis Eighthly the very Statute-Books of England since Protestant times call them General f Artic. 21. where by saying Some General Councils have erred they suppose there have been General Councils in the Church which had Authority out of the Empire For those as you confess were onely National or Imperial Councils Ninthly your 39 Articles call them General and the Fathers g D. Aug. tom 7. de Baptism cont Donatist lib. 2. cap. 3. when they call them General they distinguish them also from Provincial or National Councils Tenthly h D. Aug. ibid. cap. 1. cap. 4. cap. 9. Sic ait si autem Concilium ejus Cypriani attenditur huic universae Ecclesiae posterius Concilium Nicenum intelligit praeponendum cujus se membrum ostendebat ut se in totius corporis compage retinendâ caeteri imitarentur saepiùs admonâ—â—bat Nam ut Concilia
Bernard Lutsemburg de Albigens Vide etiam S. Anton. 4 parte summae Tit. 11 c. 7. the one Good and the other Evil with the Manichees who denied 1. the Old Testament 2. that Baptism profited Infants to Salvation 3. that an unworthy Minister could consecrate the holy Sacrament 4. that wicked Prelates had any Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction or were to be obeyed 5. that it is lawfull to swear in any occasion whatsoever c. then with Alexander the Third whom no Christian in those times ever accused of Heresie or Errour in Faith who was elected against his will and after a Schisme made by Octavianus the Anti-Pope and Frederick the Emperour was received both by the Western and Eastern Churches excepting onely the party of Frederick who notwithstanding after acknowledged him and relinquisht Octavianus the Anti-Pope And whatsoever latter Historians relate by Hear-say Acta Alexâ—â—nd 3. ap Romuald Episcop Salern in suo Chronico ap Rogerium in Epist. Alexand in Histor. suâ of the insulting of this Pope over that Emperour yet those who recorded what past before their eyes in the time of Alexander record nothing but what became a modest and Christian Prelate of his eminency Baxter Num. 87 The Religion of all these men was one and they were all of one Vniversal Church Iohnson Num. 87. This is your grand Novelty at which I chiefly aim in this Answer It is not easie to conjecture what you mean by all these men whether the Iconoclasts Berengarians Waldensians Albigenses Wickliffists Hussites Lutherans Calvinists which you named in the end of pag. 105. and again pag. 106. in your Edit or those whom I named pag. 43. of your Book that is all at least amongst them whom you account Univocal Christians amongst which are Donatists Nestorians Eutychians Pelagians And can you or did yet ever any Christian before you account these men to have had one Religion Is the Religion of those who say there are Two Gods the same with that which teaches there is no more but one onely God if so then Heathens and Christians may be as well of one Religion If not then could not at least the Albigenses be of one Religion with the rest Vide supra whom I have proved to have held two gods Of the rest more hereafter Baxte Num. 88. Where you again call for one Congregation I tell you again that we know no unity Essential 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 Universal Church one in any other formal respects but as it is Christian and so one in Christ. Iohnson Num. 88. We acknowledge the Church to be one in Christ as much as you but we acknowledge him as Head not to be the Formal but the Causal unity that is working the formal unity to wit Faith and Charity in his Church It is not enough to make one living organical body that there be one head and parts but those parts must be united to their Head and amongst themselves and to that Head Nor is it enough that there be several parts in the Church and one head of it but those parts must also be united to their Head and amongst themselves otherwise they are not one Now that which is the formall cause of this Unity is true Christian Faith and Charity which do both unite Christians amongst themselves and to Christ their Head I mean that necessary and prime charity which preserves external Communion and society amongst Christians so much celebrated by the Fathers and Schoolmen which is taken away by nothing but Schism or that which includes Schism Whence appears that to whomsoever the name of Christian is vulgarly given unless there be found true Faith and this Christian charity amongst all the other members they cannot be actual parts of the one true Catholick Church When therefore you say the Church universal cannot be called one in any other formal respect but as it is Christian if you mean by Christian all such as have true Christian faith and charity ut supra you say true and you say nothing but what all good Christians say But then here comes the difficulty how any Heretick or Schismatick can be a Christian more then nomine tenus in denomination only or in a laxe acception of the word for such as make a bare profession to beleeve in Christ and are thereby distinguished from Jewes Mahumetans and Heathens and so pass under the notion of Christians For if to be a Christian in our present strict sense be required a true Christian Faith then all that are true Christians have true faith but no Heretick hath true faith Ergo No Heretick is in this strict acception a Christian The Major is evident I prove the Minor Whosoever hath true faith beleeveth the material object of faith or the thing beleeved for the Divine Authority of God revealing it But no Heretick beleeves the material object of faith or the thing beleeved for the Divine Authority of God revealing it Ergo no Heretick hath true faith The Major is granted by all Divines yours and ours For Christian faith must rest upon Gods revelation as its formal object I prove the Minor Whosoever beleeves the material object of faith or thing beleeved for the Divine Authority of God revealing it must beleeve all things which are as suffiâ—â—iently propounded to him to be revealed by God as are the rest of the Articles which he beleeveth protesteth to and beleeve nothing as revealed which is as sufficiently declared to him to be erroneous or not revealed by Divine Authority as are the Articles of Faith propounded to be revealed by God But every Heretick either refuses to beleeve something which is so sufficiently propounded to him to be revealed from â—â—od or beleeves something as revealed which is so sufficiently declared to him to be erroneous or not revealed from God Ergo no Heretick hath true faith The Major I prove thus as to the first part Whosoever refuses to beleeve what is so sufficiently propounded to be revealed by God either beleeves all that is so propounded or beleeves some things and refuses to beleeve others as sufficiently propounded as those which he beleeves But if he refuses all he can have no true faith for he beleeves nothing and consequently is no Christian. If he beleeves some and refuses others equally propounded he beleeves them not for the Divine Authority revealing for when that is equally propounded to his understanding it ought to work equally upon it but upon his own willful choice or private judgement refuses one and assents to the other To illustrate this Let this sentence of Scripture Tertiâ die refurget he shall rise again the third day be so sufficienly propounded to be Gods revelation that whosoever refuses to beleeve the substance of our Saviours Resurrection delivered in it is
is one visible Kingdome yet to make it no more one visibly then the School of Christ-Church or Westminster is one visible School is in my Logick to speak-contraries Mr. Baxter Num. 100. Your next reason against me is because They cannot be parts of the Church unless Arians and Pelagians and Donatists be parts and so Hereticks and Schismaticks be parts Reply 1. You know sure that your own Divines are not agreed whether Hereticks and Schismaticks are parts of the Church William Iohnson Num. 100. You cannot but see I speak of parts of the Church as you understand parts and therefore I say pag. 48. in yours Secondly your position is not true Now your position is to hold that some Hereticks properly so called are parts of the Church of Christ and united to him as their Head by reason that they believe with a true Christian Faith the Essentials of Christianity whereby they are Christians though they erre in some Accidentals as appears by that distinction so often used by you In this sense then I say you hold Hereticks to be true and real parts of the Church And this I affirm to be contrary to all Christianity and a novelty never held before by any Christian. Though therefore taking the word parts in another more lax and improper sense and the Church as it is a visible body and government one only Catholick Authour * Lib. 2. de Haeret. punit c. 24. Haereticus etsi per Haeresim perdat fidem non tamen eo ipso est prorsus ab Ecclesiâ separatus sed adhuc est parâ—â— illius corporis membrum ejus c. Et infra Faâ—â—eor quidem meo quidem judicio negari non potest Haereticum esse partem Ecclesiae membrum illius non esse omnino ab illâ separatum quia etsi fidem non habeat habet tamen Characterem Baptismalem per quem primum factum est membrum Ecclesiae quâ—â— durante semper erit membrum illius Alphonsus à Castro thinks Hereticks may be called parts of the politick Body of the Church as She hath power over them to inflict punishment upon them by reason of the character of Baptisme which makes them ever remain subjects of the Church and lyable to her censures yet he holds expresly that they have no true Christian Faith at all quite against you whereby they can be made parts of Christ's Church united to Christ as their Head as you hold they are And the like is of Schismaticks For though some Catholick Author 's doubt whether they may be termed by reason of the profession of Christian Faith parts of the Church in a large sense yet none ever held as you doe that they were united to Christ as their Head and thereby compose one Christian Church with other Catholick Christians because they want that principal Christian Charity required as necessary to a compleat union to Christ. Your opinion therefore is contrary to all those of the Roman Church and shall God assisting me be * See my second Part. proved contrary to all Christians and Christianity and of most dangerous and damnable consequence But you must know that à Castro's opinion is censured by all other Doctours and thereby improbable nor yet makes the ground of his opinion Hereticks and Scismaticks more of the Catholick Church then are those Christians who are damned in hell for even they have the Character of Baptism and yet he says that so long as that Character remains they are Church-members quo durante semper erit membrum illius Mr. Baxter Num. 101. And if they were yet it is not de Fide with you as not determined by the Pope William Iohnson Num. 101. 'T is determined contrary to your sense a hundred times over by all the Anathemas and Excommunications thundred out against them in so many General Councils Mr. Baxter Num. 102. If it be then all yours are Hereticks that are for the affirmative Bellarmine nameth you some of them If they be not then how can you be sure it 's true and so impose it on me that they are no parts William Iohnson Num. 102. I have now told you None of ours ever held them parts as you doe that is united to Christ their Head as the rest of the parts are by Faith and Charity Mr. Baxter Num. 103. Arians are no Christians as denying that which is Essential to Christ and so to Christianity William Iohnson Num. 103. 'T is very true they are no real univocal Christians and your reason is good because they deny that which is Essential to Christ and so to Christianity But hence will follow that no proper Heretick whatsoever is a real univocal Christian for all of them deny something Essential to Christ and so to Christianity which I prove thus Whosoever denies Christ's most Infallible veracity Divine Authority denies Something which is Essential unto Christ. But every Heretick properly so called denies Christ's most infallible veracity and divine Authority Ergo Every Heretick properly so called denies something which is Essential to Christ and so to Christianity The Major is evident I prove the Minor Whosoever denies that to be true which is sufficiently propounded to him to be revealed from Christ denyes Christ's most infallible veracity and divine authority But every Heretick properly so called denies that to be true which is sufficiently propounded to him to be revealed from Christ. Ergo Every Heretick properly so called denyes Christs most infallible veracity and divine Authority The Minor is clear For that is properly to be an Heretick The Major is also clear For how is it possible to deny that to be true which is sufficiently propounded to me to be revealed from Christ without affirming that Christ said something which is not true which is manifestly to give Christ the lye and to doe that is to deny openly his divine veracity This Argument I hope you will please to think of seriously and either give an Answer in form to it or relinquish your Noveltie Mr. Baxter Num. 104. Pelagianisme is a thing that you are not agreed among your selves of the true naâ—â—ure of Many of the Dominicans and Jansenists think the Jesuites Pelagianize or Semi-Pelagianize at least I hope you will not shut them out Donatists were Schismaticks because they divided in the Catholick Church and not absolutely from it and because they divided from the particular Churches about them that held the most universal external Communion I think they were still members of the universal Church but I 'le not contend with any that will plead for his uncharitable denyal It 's nothing to our Case William Iohnson Num. 104. You fall again into a plain Fallacy proceeding à parte ad totum The doubt which is among some of our Divines is only about part of their Heresie and you would make your Reader believe it were about the whole Some points of their Heresie are clearly agreed upon by all Catholick Authors as is that
Church in this opposition Mr. Baxter Num. 109. They do not claim to be vice Christi the universal Governours of the Church Contradiction the Title of universal Patriarch they extended but to the then Roman Empire and that not to an universal government but Primacy William Iohnson Num. 109. I wonder to hear you say here the Greeks intended the Title of universal Patriarch only to the Empire and that not of Government but of Primacie that is as you mistake that word precedencie in place when you labour mightily to prove Pag. 154. 155.156 c. from St. Gregorie's Epistles that the Title the Greeks then pretended to and S. Gregory exclaimed against was to be Bishop and to have spiritual Jurisdiction over all Churches and Christians in the world either therefore you must grant that your Argument drawn there from St. Gregorie's words is fallacious and of no force or if it be of force and well grounded That then Iohn of Constantinople and with and after him the Patriarchs of that City pretended to be universal Governours of the whole Church both extra and intra-Imperial And as to the later Patriarchs of Constantinople seeing there is now no Christian Empire amongst them and they still retain that former Title of Vniversal Patriarchs you cannot pretend they inclose their Authorities within the Verge of the Christian Empire And that you may see what Authoritie the Constantinopolitan Patriarch assumes to himself and how plaguely he stiles himself a vice-Christ quite contrary to your groundlesse Assertion here Hieremias in his Epistle to the Lutherans of Germany prefixed before his censure of their Doctrine saies thus Si enim volueritis inquit Scriptura audieritis me bona terrae comedetis quibus sane verbis mediocritas item nostra quae ipsa Christi Domini miseratione successione quadam hic in terris ejus locum tenet ad amabilem concordiam consensum cum ea quae apud nos est Jesu Christi Ecclesia charitatem vestram cohortatur If you be willing and shall hear me saith the Scripture you shall eat the good things of the Land in which words our mediocrity likewise which by the mercy of Christ our Lord by a certain succession here upon earth holds his Christ's place Exhorts you to an amiable concord and charity with that which is with us the Church of Iesus Christ where this Patriarch of Constantinople Hieremias affirmes expresly of himself that he holds Christ's place upon earth which is to be a vice-Christ as you term it as much as the Pope esteems himself one yet sure Hieremias knew what Authoritie he had in Christ's Church now that you may know undoubtedly he speaks not of a Church of Christ which may be affirmed of every particular true Church but of the Church of Christ that is the whole Catholick visible Church he exhorts those German Lutherans to an amiable concord with that Church of Christ which is with him that is in the Government whereof he holds the place of Christ and that this is no other then the whole visible Catholick Church he declared in the last Paragraph of the eight chapter saying Et ut conâ—â—idimus ubi ei quâ—â— apud nos est sanctae Catholicae Iesu Christi Ecclesiae vos subjiâ—â—ietis c. And as we confide when you shall subject your selves to that holy and Catholick Church of Christ which is with us or belongs to us which can be meant of no other save the whole visible Church for he accounts none to be in communion with that Church which is with him save those who believe and observe all the Apostolical and Synodical traditions and all who believe and observe them to be of his communion that is all orthodox Christians which is the whole Catholick Church nor can these words quae apud nos est be so understood as if they denominated only some part of the Catholick Church to be with him and some other not with him or against him for the Greek hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if he had said the holy Catholick Church existing amongst us or with us Mr. Baxter Num. 110. And for Hieremias his Predecessor whom you mention though they disputed with him by letters Stephanus Gerlochius and Martinus Crusius did not agree in all things with him yet he still professed his desire of unity and concord with us and in the beginning of his second Answer rejoiceth that we agreed with them in so many things William Iohnson Num. 110. So do we to and labour to procure that unity with all our forces but why cast you a mist upon the point in question by saying he agreed not with them in all things what mean you by all things I had said the Greeks and others profess generally all those points of Faith with us against you wherein you differ from us and prove this out of Hieremias his Epistle you answer that the Lutherans did not agree in all things with Hieremias what all things mean you those wherein you and we differ why then have you not designed some at least of those points in difference betwixt us wherein they agree with you against us if you mean they agreed not in all things that is in some wherein we and you agree they agreed also with you us that 's true but is no Answer at all to my Assertion for I meddle not with those but disagreed they with you in the points controverted betwixt us that 's true too but it is a confirmation of my Assertion But you artificially to dissemble what you could not answer serve your self only of a general terme whereby the Reader may remain still unsatisfied whether they agree with you or us in the Points under controversie betwixt us Tell us therefore and I beseech you fail not to do it whether my Assertion be true or no in this point when you Reply to it and whether my Allegations prove it not that is whether the modern Greeks agree with the Roman Church in all points now controverted betwixt us and you except that of the Popes supremacie and whether Hieremias the Patriarch assume not to himself as true a supreme authority over the whole Church as does the Pope Mr. Baxter Num. III. Iohannes Zygomalas in his letters to Crusius 1576. May 15. saith Perspienum tibi omnibus futurum est quod in continuis causam fidei praecipue continentibus articulis consentiamus quae autem videntur consensum inter vos nos Impedire talia sunt si velit quis ut facile ea corrigere possit Gaudium in coelo super terram erit si coibit in unitatem utraque Ecclesia Idem sentiemus simul vivemus in omni concordia pace secundum Deum in sincerae Charitatis vinculo William Iohnson Num. III. To what purpose are these words cited cannot any of the Roman Church write the very same now to Lutherans But does
is scarce faire pardon this plainness consider of it your self The substance of Nilus book is about the Primacie of the Pope the very Contents prefixed to the first book are these Oratio demonstrans non aliam c. an Oration demonstrating that there is no other cause of dissention between the Latine and the Greek Churches then that the Pope refuseth to defer the Cognisance and Iudgement of that which is Controverted to a General Council but he will sit the sole Master and Iudge of the Controversie and will have the rest as Disciples to be hearers of or obey his word which is a thing aliene from the Lawes and Actions of the Apostles and Fathers and he begins his Book after a few words thus Causa itaque hujus dissidii c. The Cause therefore of this difference as I judge is not the sublimity of the point exceeding man's capacitie for other matters that have divers times troubled the Church have been of the same kind this therefore is not the cause of the dissention much lesse is the speech of the Scripture it self which as being concise doth pronounce nothing openly of that which is Controverted for to accuse the Scripture is as much as to accuse God himself But God is without all fault but who the fault is in any one may easily tell that is well in his wits He next shews that it is not for want of learned men on both sides nor is it because the Greeks do claim the Primacy and then concludeth it as before he maintaineth that your Pope succeedeth Peter onely as a Bishop ordained by him as many other Bishops that originally were ordained by him in like manner to succeed him and that his Primacy is no governing power nor given him by Peter but by Princes and Councils for order sake and this he proves at large and makes this the main difference Bellarmine 's answering his so many Arguments might have told you this if you had never read Nilus himself and if you say that this point was the Cause I deny it but if it were true yet was it not the onely or chief Cause afterwards The manner of bringing in the Filioque by Papal Authority without a general Council was it that greatly offended the Greeks from the beginning William Iohnson Num. 118. This is a strange manner of Arguing what if his chief subject be about the Popes Primacy may he not ex incidente and occasionaliter treat other matters Is not your chief matter in this Treatise to prove the succession of your Church and oppose ours and yet treat you not in this very place incidentally the procession of the holy Ghost I say then that Nilus declaring the cause why the Bishop of Rome hath lost all that Primacy and Authority which he had anciently by reason he is fallen from the Faith in adding Filioque to the Creed and teaching that the holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son the words you cite out of Nilus proves nothing he pretends indeed that the cause of the present dissention is the Popes challenging so high a Primacy which they are unwilling as all schismaticks ever were to grant him but that may well stand with what I affirm him to say that the first original cause of the breach betwixt the Greeks and Latines was the adding of Filioque and holding the holy Ghost's procession from the Father and the Son But see you not how fair a thread you have spun by pressing those words as you do against me is there indeed no other cause of dissention betwixt the Greek and Latine Church nor ground of their breach save the Popes supremacy then sure there is a full agreement in all other things if so there is a main disagreeing betwixt you and the Greeks in all other points of Faith controverted betwixt you and us for if they agree with us they disagree from you in every one of them nay you press Nilus his words in that sense you must take them to frame an Argument against me quite against the very words themselves for you alledge them to shew that he touches not the procession of the holy Ghost in that Book as the first ground of their difference to prove this you must proceed thus he treats nothing there save the Pope's Supremacie ergo he touches not the holy Ghost's procession you prove the Antecedent by the words of the Title of his first book here cited because he affirmes in them there is no other cause of dissention then that the Pope refuses to stand to the judgement of a general Council as if that onely were controverted betwixt them for otherwise you prove nothing Now it is most evident that Nilus supposes many other Controversies betwixt them and the Latines for he saies even as you cite him thus then that the Pope refuseth to defer the Cognisance and Iudgement of that which is Controverted to a general Council Ergo you must acknowledge that according to Nilus there was something controverted betwixt the Greeks and the Latines besides the Pope's Supremacie and after you bring him in pag. 124. mentioning this very point of the procession when you alledge him thus the cause therefore of this difference as I judge is not the sublimity of the point exceeding man's capacitie where he speaks of the holy Ghost's procession as I affirm him to doe thus you play fast and loose say and unsay at your pleasure thus you confound times and by not distinguishing the past as before you did not the future from the present make that which is now onely pretended by Nilus to be the chief cause of their not coming to Agreement to have been many hundred yeares agoe the original cause of their breach and opposition against the Latines whereby you confound the first occasion of the breach and the present obstacle to the making it up and reconciling them together as if they were one and the same thing Now it is most manifest that the first occasion of the breach made by the Greeks from the Latine Church was the Exception they took against the Latines for adding the word Filioque and from the Son to the Nicene Creed for Michael Patriarch of Constantinople anno 1054. in time of Leo the 9. Pope and Constantine the 10. Emperour styled Monomachos aspiring not onely in name and Title as many of his predecessours had done before him but in reality and effect to be universal Patriarch proclaimed Leo and all the Latines who adhered to him to be Excommunicated because contrary to the decree of the Ephesine Council they had made an Addition to the Creed so that the Roman Bishop being pretended by the Greeks to be thereby deposed from his Sea The Primacie of the Church fell by Course and right upon him as being the next Patriarch after the Bishop of Rome which gave occasion to Nilus of acknowledging that Controversie about the procession of the holy Ghost to have been the first occasion of
the breach Mr. Baxter Num. 119. But you say that when I have made the best of those Greeks Armenians Ethiopians Protestants I cannot deduce them successively in all Ages till Christ as a different Congregation of Christians from that which holds the Pope's Supremacie which was your Proposition Reply I have oft told you we owne no universal Informing Head but Christ in Respect to him I have proved to you that it is not my Interest or designe to prove us or them a different Congregation from you as you are Christians nor shall you tempt me to be so uncharitable as to damn or unchristen all Papists as far as you do others incomparably safer and better then your selves William Iohnson Num. 119. This is answered above no Heretick ever professed to separate from the Church as it is Christian for in so doing he must professe himself to be no Christian which no Heretick ever did yet for by professing himself no Christian he falls into the sin of Apostacie and becomes not an Heretick but an Apostate Mr. Baxter But as you are Papal and set up a new informing Head I have proved that you differ from all the ancient Churches but yet that my Cause requireth me not to make this proof but to call you to prove your own universal succession William Iohnson I have shewed above there must be alwayes some who Exercise visible Government as ordinary Governours of the whole Church and seeing a general Council is not the ordinary way of Governing the Church there must be some one who is supreme in visible Government over the whole Church this I affirm to be the Bishop of Rome and seeing there must be some one and you confesse the Roman Bishop to be the highest in place and honour me thinks even in your principles he has a stronger claim to be supream in authority also then any one singular person through the Church now if we set up the Pope as a new informing head over the whole Church as you say we do I should be much obliged if you would please to nominate the first Pope whom we set up as such a head who they were that set him up and who withstood it as a noveltie you cannot in your principles alleadge Boniface the third for the having his title as you pretend from Phocas and Phocas having no power out of the Empire could not give him any authority over the extra-imperial Pormies no not so much as precedency in place over all the extra-imperial Bishops for what reasons had they to conform themselves to the Emperours orders who had no authority over them and consequently not over the whole Church nor was the Emperour so foolish to give more then he had power to give now that Popes before Boniface's time had jurisdiction over the whole Empire you are forc't to acknowledge divers times in your reply not being able otherwise to resolve my arguments Phocas therefore neither made nor could make Boniface head over the whole Church nor was he the first who set him up over all the Churches within the Empire oblidge me therefore in nominating to me the first head so set up in your rejoynder to this I have no obligation to prove my succession my argument presses you to the proof who though you made a bold essay to produce one Congregation of Christians perpetually visible either denying and opposing the Popes universal supremacy or at least of such a nature in Church government as rendered it inconsistent with it and in this your present reply p. 92. you undertake the proof of such a visible Congregation distinct in all ages from that which hold the said supremacy yet being told by your adversary that none of the particular Congregations instanced and nominated by you in your former answer were perpetually visible as distinct from that which held the Popes supremacy in those two paragraphes you recoile and manifestly give up your cause as not being able to perform what you first undertooke Mr. Baxter Num. 120. You adde your reason because these before named were at first involved in your Congregations and then fell off as dead branches Reply this is but an untruth in a most publique matter of fact William Iohnson Num. 120. This is your bare affirmation without proof you nominate p. 23 your edit the Armenians Greeks Ethiopians Indians Protestants and no more Now it is evident by what I have said above that the first Protestants before their change were of that Congregation which held the Popes supremacy the Armenians and Greeks consented to it in the council of Florence the Ethiopians and Indians I have proved to have reconciled themselves to the Bishop of Rome since he publickely exercised and claimed the said supremacy ergo no one of those nominated by you no nor all together have been a perpetually visible Congregation distinct from that which held the Popes supremacy Mr. Baxter Num. 121. All the truth is this 1. those Indians Ethiopians Persians c. without the Empire never fell 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 William Iohnson Num. 121. I have proved it out of the Arabick edition of the nicene canons and from that very text of the council of Calcedon cap. 28 c. which you use against us Mr. Baxter Num. 122. 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 power over them William Iohnson Num. 122. You your self in the insueing replyes acknowledg a governing power over the Churches through the whole Empire and consequently over Constantinople nay you cannot deny the fact of Agapeâ—â— over Anthymus Bishop of Constantinople nor of Celestin over Nestorius c. you are therefore as much obliged to answer Nilus his argument as I am and Bell hath saved us both a labour of answering him 't is true according to what you say of being subject the Greeks hold now a subjection to the Pope and sure if they professe subjection to him they must professe themselves to be his subjects now according to you subjection may signifie no more then to be inferiour to another in place and every subject has a superiour to whom he is subject ergo they professe the Pope to be their superiour which gives him even in your principles at least a precedency before them but Nilus never granted they were in any proper sense subject to the Pope but only inferiour in place to him seeing therefore S. Gregory as we shall see hereafter declares the Bishops of Constantinople and all other Bishops in the Church to be subject to him and his sea and the Greeks now acknowledge no subjection to him it is manifest they are not only fallen from communion with him but also from their
subjection to him for no man in proper speech can say that the Mayor of York professes subjection to the Mayor of London because he acknowledges he is to take place of him in a publique meeting nay by this meanes your Church of England and Bishop of Canterbury givâ—â—ing primacy to the Pope as much as the Greeks do that is in precedency of place only may must be said according to you not to have fallen from the subjection to the Roman Church which I believe will sound harsh in their ears Mr. Baxter Num. 123. The withering therefore was in the Roman branches if the corruptions of either part may be called a withering you that are a 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 proclaime your necessities William Iohnson Num. 123. If the Roman Church have withered in this point shew me when it begun to wither in setting up the Pope as supream and as I now told you you will really oblige me Is it not strange to hear you term my argument a begging the question when you in the very same sentence beg the question your self for without any proof at all you suppose there what is universally deny'd by us that your selves and almost all the rest of Hereticks and Schismaticks now in the world are parts of the Catholicke Church for without inclusion of them you could not affirm with any appearance of probability those who oppose the Roman Church to be twice as great as part of the Catholick Church as are those that adhere to the Roman The Second part CHAP. I. ARGUMENT Iohannes Thalaida and Flavianus NUm 124. The interest of producing the insuing instances misreported by Mr. Baxter whereupon he imposes a false obligation upon his adversarie almost in every page the appeale of Iohn Thalaida patriarch of Alexandria to Pope Felix defended Thalaidas age according to Mr. Baxters account what kind of persons Zeno Acacius Petrus Mogas Petrus Fullonis Thalaida and Calendion were Num. 125. No Authors of those ages reprehend Simplicius or Felix in condemning Acacius and justifying Thalaida Num. 127. Thalaidas appeale whether it were a strict rigorous appeale or no proves the Popes supremacy Num. 128. The Popes power exercised over the three cheif Patriarchs of the East Num. 129. The whole Church allowed Pope Felix his deprivation of Acacius c. Num. 131. c. It had been ridiculous if Flavianus patriarch of Constantinople had apealed from the second Council of Ephesus which was then esteemed a general Council the Pope and his provincial Council had not the Pope as Pope had power to reverse the sentence of that Ephesine Council Num. 137. How farre the second Council of Ephesus was a general Council Mr. Baxter Num. 124. In good time you come to give me here at last some proof of an ancient Popery 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 inquiring after you are to prove that all the Churches in every age were for the Papal universal Government and so that none can be saved that is not William Iohnson Num. 124. Sir please I may tell you that you would impose upon me an obligation of proving that which cannot be inferd from the argument I sent you as I have shewed above so would you now perswade your Reader by the insueing instances that I undertook to prove what was never undertaken by me I give indeed some proof of an ancient Popery and I have proved by force of my argument which you undertake to answer that all the Church in every age was for the Papal universal Government But I never undertooke in my treating with you to prove this by instances from age to age for this I still denyed as I yet do to be any obligation of mine contracted by virtue of my arguments which requirs your proof only and meddles not with mine such a proof as that from age to age may in its due time be effected when you have given a satisfactory answer to my Argument all therefore that I undertake here is occasionally fallen upon me by reason of your bold Assertion that within four hundred years you never saw valid proof of one Papist in all the world that is one that was for the Popes universal monarchy or vice-Christ-ship thus you p. 23. whereupon I took occasion to give you som essayes in ancienter times as appears by my words p. 49. in your edit where I say thus Though therefore you profess never to have some convincing proof of this in the first four hundred years and labour to infringe it in the next ages I will make an essay to give you a taste of those innumerable proofs of the Bishops of Romes supremacy not in order only but of Power Authority and Iurisdiction over all other Bishops in the ensuing instances within the first 400 500 or 600 years whence it is evident I intended no demonstration of our perpetual visibility but only a confutation of what you pretended within or about the first five hundred years by shewing some few instances to the contrary And indeed had I undertaken to prove it in all ages since Christ I had most grosly faild in my proof since I produce none after the first six hundred years whence appears how palpably you impose upon your Reader by proceeding upon this false supposition which you repeat almost in every page in your Answer to my instances that I have not brought the consent of the whole Church in them whereas it was sufficient for my intent in confutation of your Assertion to produce any one solid instance for it in those ages Mr. Baxter Num. 125. 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 to deceive others there was no such man as John Bishop of Antioch in Simplicius raigne John 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 thirteene years as Baronius saith and eighteene as Nicephorus he dyed in Sixtus the fift's time but it s said indeed that John Bishop of Alexandria made some addresse to Simplicius of which Baronius citeth Liberatus words not c. 16 but c 18 ad Anno Dom. 483. that John being expelled by the Emperour Zenos command went first to Calendion Bishop of Antioch and so to Rome to Simplicius if Baronius were to be believed as his iudge 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 Mogas as Bishop of Alexandria into his communion and that without Simplicius for the Churches unity at the Emperours command William Iohnson Num. 125. It was indeed Ioannes Thalaida chosen Bishop of Alexandria but presently disturbed by Zeno the Emperour through Acacius his meanes and Petrus Mogas setled in his place by the Emperours authority and by Acacius Bishop of Constantinople this Ioannes Thalaida being a Catholick Bishop appealed as Liberatus saith and you acknowledge to Simplicius being dead before Iohn arrived at Rome Pope Felix his successor received the appeal and gathered a council upon it sent Legates and redargvitory letters to Zeno and Acacius where in his letter to Zeno he exhorted him to send Acacius to Rome according to the Ecclesiastical lawes and cited Acacius a fauourer of Hereticks to hasten thither to defend himself against the depositions of Ioannes Thalaida and to answer juridically to the objections made by his accuser and then to have his cause tryed in judgement this is the history By the way I wonder much to hear you say that Iohn Bishop of Antioch dyed in Sixtus the fift's time when as all the world knowes this Iohn of Antioch flourished in the year 1585. surely that Iohn must have been a notable old man of eleven hundred and odd years at least Mathuselah was nothing to him and which is yet a greater miracle he must have lived above a thousand years after he was dead I should have taken no notice at all of this for I know you would have said Sixtus the third but only to let you reflect how carefull you ought to have been in your own accounts Names and Figures when you are so punctual to note every smal slip in the writings of your adversary I might also have noted your errour in affirming this Iohn of Antioch dyed an 436. citing Baronius for it whereas Baronius as abreviated by spondanus sayes expresly he dyed Anno 440. But I have no reason to pass in silence your not informing your Reader what Zeno Acacius Petrus Mogas Petrus Fullonis Iohn Thalaida and Calendion were you say Zeno expelled Iohn Thalaida that Acacius disowned him and acknowledged Petrus Mogas as Bishop of Alexandria and thence inferre how little regard Acacius made of our Pope by which obsurdity in writing your ignorant Reader may well suppose that Zeno was a good Christian Emperour Acacius and Petrus Mogas found Catholick Bishops Iohn and Calendion turbulent intruders or Schismaticks whereas you could not but know seeing you profess to read the Aâ—â—thours you quote that Zeno Acacius Petrus Mogas Petrus Fullonis and their abbetters were either Hereticks or first favorites secretly and after publickly of the Eutychian heresie and the cheif of them were after by a sentence given of Pope Felix excommunicated and deprived of Episcopal dignitie and jurisdiction as I have proved above whereas Iohn Thalaida and Calendion were most Orthodox and Catholick Bishops quietly and canonically elected and installed the one in the sea of Alexandria and the other in that of Antioch which had it been declared as all open and fair dealing required it had proved rather a credit then a disadvantage to the Roman sea to have been opposed by such notorious Hereticks and Schismaticks as those were and appealed to by Thalaida and Calendion Catholick and lawful Bishops Mr. Baxter Num. 126. Here you see how little regard Acacius made of your Pope and that the appeal was but to procure his letters to Acacius which did him no good William Iohnson Num. 126. I am glad to see how Hereticks and Favourers of hereticks have still contemned the authority of that Sea but I see not that the appeal was only to procure the Popes letters to Acacius for it was also to summon Acacius to answer Iohns accusations against him at Rome and there to trie his cause in judgement with him now that nothing was effected by this was only Acacius his pertinacy for which he is condemned by all the Catholick writers of his proceedings in those times and not one of them blame Simplicius or Felix as exceeding the limits of their authority in sentencing and deposing Acacius and his adherents as we have seen he did produce in your next those authours who speak against it in their times Mr. Baxter Num. 127. But do you in good earnest think that all such addresses or appeales are ad superiorem judicem what more coÌ„mon then to appeal or make such addresses to any that have advantages of interest for the releif of the oppressed young men appeal to the aged in controversies and the lesse learned to the more learned and the poor to the rich or to the favorites of such as can relieve them Johns going first to Antioch was no acknowledgement of Superiority William Iohnson Num. 127. Yes I think so in very good earnest and when you shall have fixt your second thoughts upon what past in this affaire I doubt not but your own ingenuity will induce you to think so too 't is not every appeal made from any tribunal or Judge to another who hath power to summon the defendant and to pronounce sentence against him in case of not appearance to defend his cause a strict and juridical appeal to a higher Court or Tribunal was not this appeal such I know when you consider the letters and sentence given by Felix against Acacius you neither will nor can deny it whence appeares how far your instances of improper and nominal appeales are from the present matter Should a poor Peasant of Northumberland being wronged by some inferiour persons having the Lord Mayor of London his friend appeal to him and require of him that he cite those Judges to appear before him and in case they did refuse to appear pronounce sentence against them and deprive them of their offices lands and possessions would it not be highly ridiculous seeing therefore such a proceeding as this was held by virtue of this appeal of Iohn Thalaida and no Catholick of those times ever condemned Felix for doing it nor Iohn for requiring it as is most evident it was an appeal or complaint as Baronius affirms to an higher Judge Now seeing an appeal made from one Judge to another as all solemn and proper appeals are made and understood in law must be from a lower to a higher Judge and the word appeal as all other words must be taken in a proper sense where nothing constraines us to take it improperly it is most manifest that this appeal must be understood to have been made to a higher Judge then were those who deposed Thalaida Mr. Baxter Num. 128. But of this I must referre you to a full answer of Blondel against Perron de Primatu in Ecclesia cap. 25. sect 76. where you may be satisfied of the vanity of your instance William Iohnson Num. 128. I could wish you had alleaged Blondels reasons for by
thus giving me Authours at every turne you will oblige me to peruse and answer whole libraries if Blondel have any thing worth taking notice of you may please to insert it into your rejoynder to this Reply and it shall be answered thus much only I am bold to tel you aforehand that Blondel trifles exceedingly for whether Thalaida were cited by Acacius legally or no which might make the wrong done him rather violence then juridical condemnation yet seeing Blondel confesses injuries done him by Acacius and his adherents upon pretence of perjury wherof he was though illegally judged guilty and solemnly deposed it was an appeal properly so called to reverse that unjust judgement by virtue of a sentence pronounced by an higher judge otherwise if an innocent person should be unjustly condemned in his absence without either citation or hearing he could not properly appeal from that sentence to an higher Court that which Blondel alleadges in the second place is yet more childish for seeing Zeno Acacius and their complices never treated with Thalaida about a joynt consent to chose Felix their Arbiter nay seeing the appeal was made to Felix whether they would or no they refuseing to appear in defence of themselves and make good their accusations against Thalaida it is most manifest that Felix was not made Arbiter of the cause by joynt consent as all Arbiters must be but had of himself the power of judging both parties Now though it was admitted not granted that the recourse of Thalaida to Simplicius and Felix was rather a complaint of violence injury done him by force then of an unjust juridical sentence pronounced against him yet my intent will evidently follow from it or it had been ridiculous in Thalaida to have sought redress from that injury and a condemnatory sentence against Acacius c. from one who had no power or jurisdiction over them and it had been a most insufferable injustice and presumption in Felix to have deposed and deprived Acacius had he had no jurisdiction over him and the rest of his complices Hence your fallacy consists in this that you proceed from secundum quid to simpliciter that is from appeales improperly so called or vulgar appeales to juridical or proper appeales whereas you should have given some instance where an appeal made from an unjust sentence to another Judge who hath power to cite and condemn those from whom the appeal is made is not alwayes made to an higher judge for such was the appeal of Thalaida to Simplicius as I have proved Mr. Baxter Num. 129. Whereas therefore you inferre or you say nothing that because this John thus appealed to Rome therefore he appealed thither as to the universal Ruler of the Church William Iohnson Num. 129. The story proves it most manifestly there were but three cheif Patriarck's then in the Church besides the Pope viz. of Constantinople Alexandria and Antioch now if the Pope had authority to summon sentence condemn excommunicate or deprive them of the communion of the faithful depose and dis-dis-Bishop them as Felix undeniably did in his sentence against Acacius and his adherents the intruded Patriarkes of Alexandria and Antioch he must have had power and jurisdiction over all the inferiour Church governours for qui valet ad majus valet ad minus and to limit this papal power to the Empire I have shewed it groundlesse for if the Bishop of Constantinople censured here by the Pope had power over the barbarous that is extra-imperial Provinces as I have proved above why should not the Pope that had power over him seeing there is not the least appearance in antiquity that he had power over the Patriarkes as they were subjects of the Roman Empire and if there be shew it Mr. Baxter Num. 130. The story derideth your consequence much more that therefore the universal Church held the Pope then to be the universal head or Governour William Iohnson Num. 130. What story wherein how derides it my consequence why you say it does and that 's enough this second consequence follows also undeniably for seeing these proceedings were notorious to the whole Church and no Catholick Prelate or Church disallowed of them but all Authours of those times approve them that it was either then the unanimous consent of the Church that the Pope had the power or there is no meanes left to know by Authentical tâ—â—stimonies what the Church held or held not in those Ages Mr. Baxter Num. 131. Here is nothing of Govâ—â—â—ment but intreaty and that but within the Empire and that but upon the seeking of one distressed man that would be apt to go to those of most interest that might relieve him and all this rejected by Acacius and the Emperour a fair proof William Iohnson Num. 131. Here is nothing but a most supream visible authority in Government over the three cheif Patriarchs of the Church in repealing their sentence excommunicating depriving and deposing them and consequently seeing some of them at least had authority over extra-imperial or barbarous provinces as I have proved the Pope had government over some who were out of the Empire yet withall I minde you I undertook no more then to prove against you that some at least in those times held the universal jurisdiction of the Pope now whether my proof or your answer be the fairer I leave it to the impartial Reader Mr. Baxter Num. 132. Your second Instance is that Flavianus appeals to the Pope as to his judge Epist. praeambul Concil Chalced. Reply I have perused all the Council of Chalcedon as it is in Binius purposely to finde the words you mencion of Flavianus appeal and I finde not any such words in Flavianus own epistle to Leo there are such words nor any other that I can finde but the 〈◊〉 appeal once in one of the Emperours Epistles as I Remember but without mencioning any judge I will not turne over volumes thus in vain for your Citations while I see you take them on trust and do not tel me in any narrow compasse of cap. sect or pag. where to finde them William Iohnson Num. 132. I am sory you were put to so much paines but I take it not to have been occasioned by me I cite Epist. praeambulat Con. Chalced. and you confess you found it in one of the Epistles whether the word Judge be there or no imports nothing for the nature of the appeal and circumstances wherein it was made shew him to be a Judge as wee shall now see Mr. Baxter Num. 133. But had you found such words an appeal is oft made from a partial to an impartial Iudge thought of equal power William Iohnson Num. 133. What a juridical appeal made both viva voce and per libellum by a bill of appeal in and from a generall Councill to another of no greater authority then that Councill was nay in your principles of inferiour Authority to a generall Councill would not this have been ridiculous should
a Citizen of Newscastle injured in the Mayors court publikly appeal to the Mayor of Bristol and his court as knowing him to be a more impartial Judge and of equal authority with the other would not all knowing men nay the common people laugh at him Mr. Baxter Num. 134. He might appeal to the Bishop of Rome as one of his Iudges in the Council where he was to be tryed and not as alone William Iohnson Num. 134. This is worse then the former think you that Flavianus was so great a fool as to frame a Solemn appeal in writing in the presence of a general Councill from the authority of it which is to be estemed and then esteemed it self the highest Congregationall tribunall in the Christian world to a particular Councill of some few Bishops in Italy as to a higher Judge then was a general Councill this is just as if one should appeal from the Parliament to the common Council of London Mr Baxter Num. 135. And it is evident in the history that it was not the Pope but the Council that was his Iudge William Iohnson Num. 135. But made that appeal the Bishop of Rome or the Council either an higher Judge then a general Council that 's the question here if it did then you must confess the Pope in a provincial Council at least iure Ecclesiastico above a general Council in Power and Authority How will your Brethren like that Mr. Baxter Num. 136. The greatness of Rome and Primacy of order not of jurisdiction made that Bishop of special interest in the Empire William Iohnson Num. 136. But withal you must suppose them in their right witts and of ordinary Learning and Prudence as Flavianus surely was and then they will find it absurd and foolish to appeal from a general Council to a particular or to make one who has no more then Patriarchal authority as you hold the Pope has no more above a general Council Mr. Baxter Num. 137. And distressed persecuted men will appeal to those that may any whit releive them But this proves no governing power nor so much as any interest without the Empire to make the voices of Patriarks necessary in their general Councils no wonder if appellations be made from those Councils that wanted the Patriarchs consent to other Councils where they consented William Iohnson Num. 137. But here in the beginning of the Council the patriarchs were present even he of Rome by his legates so that it was not conven'd wholly against the Popes wil and had things been carried justly and canonically there might have been a perfect consent of all the Patriarchs at least there was the consent of three of them and why a particular Council gathered by consent of one only patriarck as was that in Italy should be an higher tribunal then a general Council where three were present I cannot see nor I suppose you neither Mr. Baxter Num. 138. In which as they gave Constantinople the second place without any pretence of Divine Right and frequent appeals were made to that Sea so also they gave Rome the first Sea William Iohnson Num. 138. But was there ever a solemn Canonical appeal made in and from a general Council to any Bishop of Constantinople with his provincial Council as was made here from this of Ephesus to the Pope with his that 's the point and I hope you will give some instance of it from antiquity in your next Mr. Baxter Num. 139. Adding this only that as Flavian in his necessity seeking help from the Bishop of the prime Seat in the Empire did acknowledg no more but his primacy of order by the lawes 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 therefore if he had held as you wil never prove he did the universal Government of the Pope if you will 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 William Iohnson Num. 139. All this is answered in the former instance though Flavian were not all the Church nor half neither for where did I ever say he was or needed to say so yet he was one man at least and a good Orthodox Christian and that 's enough to confute your former assertion that within the first four hundered years you never saw any one who was for the Popes universal monarchy or vice-Christs-ship now this was all I undertook to make good in my instances as I have demonstrated above what you add that this appeal having been addressed to Simplicius by Flavianus argu'd no more then a primacy of order in Simplicius before all other Bishops will seem as strange to considering persons as if a malefactour condemned by a younger Judge at the assizes should appeal to some other more ancient amongst the Judges because he would take place of the other in Parliament CHAP. II. ARGUMENT Theodoret the council of Sardica St. Leo NUm 140. Mr. Baxter crownes his arguments before he gives them a being Theodoret seeks in his appeal to be restored to his Bishopprick of Cyre as he was by the Popes authority Num. 143. The Councill gave no new judgement of Leo. Num. 145. In virtue of the Popes having authority over general Councils it follows he had power also over extra-imperiall Churches The Sardican council rightly cited but not fully Englished me Num. 150. Of what authority the Sardican council was Num. 151. The Sardican council falsified and sent into Africa by the Donatists Num. 153. Canons of the council of perpetual force in the Church Num. 164. St. Peter unsainted by Mr. Baxter ibid. His disrepect to General Councils Num. 165. ibid. The Sardican canons give not but presuppose a Suprâ—â—am power in the Pope Mr. Baxter Num. 140. And it is undeniably evident that the Church of Constantinople and all the Greek Churches did believe the universal Primacy which in the Empire was set up to be of humane right and now changeable as I prove not only by the express testimonies of the council of Chalcedon but by the slacking 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 William Iohnson Num. 140. These authorities shall be answered in your second part where you urge them at large to the Council of Chalcedon something is said already Mr. Baxter Num. 141. And if the Greek Churches judged so of it in Gregories dayes and the Council of Chalcedon in Leo's dayes wee have no reason to think that they ever judged otherwise at least not in Flavianus dayes that were the same as Leo's and business done about 149. This argument I here set against all your instances at once and it is unanswerable William Iohnson Num.
141. It is really unanswerable for I see nothing to be answered in it you only say you prove it by the testimony of the Council of Chalcedon and stating the primacy at least in St. Gregories dayes in Constantinople but neither produce here any authority of that Council nor of the Pope then you come with an if it be so c. when you have not proved it is so and then say your Argument is unanswerable 't is so indeed for no man can answer an argument before it be made considering men will think it had been soon enough to honour your own arguments with the illustrious title of unanswerable when you have set them out in their full glory but very unseasonable before you have given them a being now how unanswerable your argument will prove when it has a being time will inform us Mr. Baxter Num. 142. Your next instance is of Pope Leo's restoring Theodoret upon an appeal to just judgement Reply every Bishop hath a power to discerne who is fie for his own Communion and so Leo and the Bishops of the West perceiving Theodoret to be Orthodox received him as a Catholick into their communion and so might the Bishop of Constantinople have done William Iohnson Num. 142. Was there no more in it think you men a bare receiving an Orthodox Bishop into communion what need was there of that for I read not that Theodoret was excommunicated by the false Councill of Ephesus but deposed from his Bishopprick but having been accused of Nestorianisme and as such condemned in this Councill the Pope according to the usual custome declared him Orthodox and received him into his communion it was a restoration to his Episcopal Sea which he appealed for and a reversing the unjust sentence in his absence and having no warning given him to plead his cause and defence which he sought for to Pope Leo and he was accordingly restored in the first Session of the Councill of Chalcedon and consequently by the Authority of Pope Leo and took his seat in the Councill with the other Fathers because the Bishop of Rome had judged him innocent and restored him nor is there any mencion made of the Bishops of the West but only of a restauration ordered by Leo's authority nor could the Bishop of Constantinople have don any such soveraign act as this was which you say but prove not shew me if you can ever nay appeal like this of Theodorets made from the sentence of a generall Council to any patriarch in the world save the Bishop of Rome or any Bishop thus appealing restored to his sea after deposition by a general Council save only by the Popes authority Mr. Baxter Num. 143. But when this was done the Council did not thereupon receive him and restore him to his Bishopprick no nor would heare him read the passage between Pope Leo and him no nor make a confession of his Faith but cryed out against him as a Nestorian till he had expresly Anathematiz'd Nestorius and Eutiches before the Councill and then received and Restored him so that the finall judgement was not by Leo but by the Council William Iohnson Num. 143. Here are many untruths put up together 1. First it is most certain the Councill did receive him and he sat amongst them as Bishop of Cyrus upon his Restitution by Leo though the Bishops of Palestine Egypt and Illyria excepted and exclaimed against him 2. It was not the Councill but those Bishops which opposed him Con. Chalced ac 1. for whose satisfaction he Anathemis'd Nestorius 3. The Councill did not restore him otherwise then by ratifying and approving Pope Leo's act of Restaurations which is not to have the final judgement of the cause but to consent and approve by a publick act what was justly and Canonically adjudged before which may be and is very frequently don by equall or inferiour judges if indeed the judgement of Leo had been reverst in the Councill without the recourse had to him about it you might have had some Colour to affirm the finall judgement was by the Councill Mr. Baxter Num. 244. But if in his distress he appealed as you say to a just judgement from an unjust or sought to make Leo his friend no wonder but this is no grant of an universal Soverâ—â—ignty in Leo William Iohnson Num. 144. It was an act of jurisdiction out of the Western Patriarchs therefore it could not proceed from Leo as he was Patriarch of the West so that he must have done it as having authority and judicatory power over other Patriarchals and seeing there is no reason alleadgeable why he should have power in the Patriarchals where Theodoret was Bishop more then in any other à paritate rationis it proves that he had juridical power over all the Patriarchals ergo an universal power over the whole Church at least within the Empire if you will solve this argument you must shew a disparity why Theodoret was more subject to the Sea of Rome then any other Bishop within the Empire or the rest of the Patriarchs Mr. Baxter Num. 145. And if it had granted it in the Empire that is nothing to the Churches in other Empires William Iohnson Num. 145. It is manifest by this instance that Leo had power to annull the sentence of a general Council at least which esteemed it self so nor can I see why Protestants in their principles should not account it as true a general Council as others of those times there having been present both the Emperour and the Patriarchs either by themselves or their Legates and as many or more Bishops then were in â—â—her general Councils now seeing general Councils had power over the extra-imperial Provinces as is manifest above from the Couâ—â—cils of Nice and Chalcedon which subjected the barbarous Provinces that is Russia and Muscovia c. to the Bishop of Constantinople and the two Arabia's to the Patriarch of Antioch of which some were the extra-imperial seeing I say that this instance evidences that the Bishop of Rome had power to judge of the sentence of a general Council and reverse it too he must have had power also over that which is subject to general Councils that is over the extra-imperial Provinces Mr. Baxter Num. 146. Or if he had granted it as to all the world he was but one man of the world and not the Catholick Church William Iohnson Num. 146. 'T is true Theodoret was but one man but it was not Theodoret alone who thought this appeal lawful but it was approved as such by the whole general Council of Chalcedon which was the Church representative having exercised power as well without as within the Empire and after this the whole Catholick Church was satisfied with it never having accepted against it by any Orthodox writer in or about these times nor any memory lost that the Church or any true parts of it excepted against it in your next it will be expected you either produce
no other copy of the Sardican Council save that false one of the Arians fraudently given out for the true one of Sardica Now if St Augustine the light not only of Africa but of the whole Church was ignorant of the true canons of the Sardican Council the copies of it having been supprest by the Donatists what need you wonder that the rest of the African Bishops were ignorant of them and this is the reason why the African Fathers writ they found not the canons in any Council of the Fathers because they had not the true copy of the Sardican wherein they were yet it is true that these very canons were acknowledged by the African Churches within very few years after this African Council both by the practise of that Church S. Leo. Ep. 8. ad Episc Africanâ—â—s where as St. Leo witnesses an African Bishop appealed to him who succeeded within eight years of Celestine and his appeal was received and by inserting these very canons of the Sardican Council into the canon law of Africa for Fulgentius Ferrandus Deacon of Carthag not long after St. August and Contemporanean with St. Fulgentius Fulg. Ferrand in Breviar Can art 59. 60. hath registred them into his collection of the canons amongst the rest Mr. Baxter Num. 152. It was made in a case of Athanasius and other Orthodox Oriental Bishops meerly in that strait to save them and the Churches from the Arians William Iohnson Num. 152. But if it were only for this strait why was it many years after put into the canon law of Africa as I have now proved and practised to this very day ever since in the Church Who ever before you said it was only for that strait name any one clasick author of antiquity if you can who said so Canons of general Councils though occasioned by several accidents are to be supposed as perpetual to the whole Church till they be either repealed by some authority equal to a general Council or some manifest action given in the institution of them that they are only provisionary for a time prove if you can by the words of this Council that it intends them only to be obligatory only for that strait and not to be perpetual This indeed were an excellent way to infringe the obligation of all or the most part of the Ecclesiastical canons by saying they were in aid upon such a strait as all were made by some or other and therefore binde not after that occasion is past But what if in effect either the same or the like occasion and strait more or lesse be still found in the Churches For after the Arians the Nestorians Eutychians Monothelites image breakers others persecuted Catholick Bishops as wrongfully as did the Arians why then was this canon not to remaine necessary after that strait of the Arian opposition I see the strait was yours being much pinched for an answer when you fell upon such a strait as this Mr. Baxter Num. 153. The Arians withdrew from the Council being the Minor part and excommunicated Julius and Athanasius and other occidentals and the occidental Bishops excommunicated the oriental Athanasius himself was a cheif man in the Council and had before been rescued by the help of Julius and therefore no wonder if they desired this safety to their Churches William Iohnson Num. 153. But yet because it was morally certain even after this strait was past that as before this Council was assembled or the Council of Nice either many Bishops were opprest by their neighbour Bishops and stood in need of appeals so in all future times more or lesse such occasions would happen as continual experience ever since hath taught as they have hapned for these reasons I say it was necessary that these and the like canons should be of perpetual force or remedy against perpetual dangers equal or like to those of the Arians This ground of yours would have stood our late Republicans in good stead who might have cancelled most of the ancient lawes of our Kingdomes upon the same pretence with yours that they were enacted first upon some strait or other which being past over many years agoe they are now no more necessary nor any way obligatory See you not what foundations you lay for the overthrow of the lawes both of Church and Kingdome Mr. Baxter Num. 154. Note that this is a thing newly granted now by this canon and not any ancient thing William Iohnson Num. 154. Prove it is a new thing this decree was not before it was made but the matter of the decree that is the power of the Bishops of Rome to judge all other prelats was before this Council for otherwise St. Athanasius and the other Bishops could never have appealed to the Bishops of Rome as to their judges or would their appeales have been accepted by those holy Bishops or approved in general Councils or had the effects of restauration c. In the Church which notwithstanding you your self confesse here was done before this Council Mr. Baxter Num. 155. Note that therefore it was of humane Right and not of Divine William Iohnson Num. 155. Therefore whence deduce you that to prove first your premises before you infer your conclusion may not the Church order that divine Lawes and institutons be observed and are they therefore not of divine right because the Church hath commanded the observance of them did not the fourth Council of Lateran command all Christians to receive at Easter Is therefore the reception of the Sacrament not of divine right true it is the circumstances of Executing divine commands may be determined by the Church as they were in this Council but the substance is still divine shew by any word in those canons that they give the power of judging the causes of all Bishops to the Pope as if he had it not before Mr. Baxter Num. 156. Note that yet this canon was not received or practised in the Church but after this the contrary maintained by Councils and practised as I shall anon prove William Iohnson Num. 156. When you prove it I hope I shall answer it Mr. Baxter Num. 157. That it is not any antecedent Governing power that the Canon acknowledgeth in the Pope but in honor of the memory of St. Peter as they say yet more for their present security they give thus much to Rome it being the vulgar opinion that Peter had been their Bishop William Iohnson Num. 157. I am heartily sorry to discover so bad a spirit in you as these expressions demonstrate why give you not the title of St. to him to whom this holy oecumenicall Council as you here acknowledg gave it they call him say you St. Peter and you unsaint him cal him as it were in derision of the Council plain Peter why call you that a vulgar opinion which was imbraced as an unquestioned certainty by this reverend Learned and general assembly of the catholick Church why impose you upon
this holy Council that they had preferred their own security before the memory of St. Peter I am really struck with compassion to see so much of the Lucian in you I have denyed any power at all to be given to the Bishops of Rome by these canons they only determine the use which was to be made of his presupposed power by whom and when If an order be made in Parliaments That such particular persons as have been oppressed by others in inferiour courts shall have recourse by appeal to one of the Lords cheif Justices Does that Parlianent by virtue of that order create or institute the Lord cheif Justice or rather is it not evident it supposes him to have the power of cheif Justice precedently to that order and only ordaines that others have recourse to him But yet the power they mention of redresse and appeal to the Roman Bishops is to him only as Judge for the canon sayes nothing of any Council joyned to him nor names any other Judge save the Pope when a Judge sits in judgement at the assizes though the bench be filled with other justices who inform and assist yet the sentence proceeds only from the Judge Thus though the Bishops of Rome used in matters of great concernment to the whole Church to call some neighbouring Bishops to sit in Council with him for his better information and greater solemnity in the judgement yet he alone had the power of pronouncing a definitive sentence in behalf of Bishops wrongfully deposed c. It is manifest by this that the restauration is ascribed as done by him and not by him and his Council and so having no authority in itself out of the Roman or Western Patriarchate and serving only for an assistance to the Pope in framing his judgement of the case propounded not in a decisive voyce in pronouncing the sentence or legal power in granting the restauration How expect you to be spoke of after your death when you slight so much the Fathers of the first general Council of Nice for a great number of them were in this and how can you live without fear Socrat. eccl histor l. 2. c. 11. Zozom l. 3. c. 11. 12. that you are led with the spirit of errour when you refuse to hear and beleive those who were the lawful pastours in a full representative of Gods holy Church but to shew how far you fal from trueth in saying those canons acknowledge no antecedent governing power in the Pope please to reflect on what is said in the third of them where they leave it to the Popes prudence to accept of what appeales he thinks fit and intreat him to vouchsafe to write to the neighbouring Bishops or to send legats of his own to examine the case as he judges best now had they conferd this power upon the Pope by virtue of those acts they should not have proceded by way of intreaty but by way of precept and injunction nor left matters to his disposition but ordered him by theirs what he was to doe Mr. Baxter Num. 158. That it is not a power of judging alone that they give but of Causing the re-examination of causes by the Council and adding his assistance in the the judgement and so to have the putting of another into the place forborne till it be done William Iohnson Num. 158. But does not the first of these canons give expresse order that the Pope appoint the judges and the second that the Pope himself pronounce the last juridical sentence the third that it is left to the Popes free election either to refer the farther examination to the neighbour Bishops or send judges of his own appointment Can there be more evident markes of an absolute judge than these are If the Pope had power only to examine the causes who had the power to judge them according to these Canons or to what purpose where those examinations made if none were impowred to passe judgement after the causes were examined Now seeing the canons attribute the power of judging to no other save the Bishops of Rome for they make no mention at all of any Council then the Council supposed the power of judgeing to be in him alone and not joyntly in the provincial Council and him Mr. Baxter Num. 159. And I hope still you will remember that at this Council were no Bishops without the Empire and that the Roman world was narrower then the Christian world and therefore if these Bishops in a part of the Empire had now given not a ruling but a saving power to the Pope so far as is there expressed this had been far from proving that he had a ruling power as the vice-Christ over all the world and that by divine right Blame me not to call on you to prove this Consequence William Iohnson Num. 159. I hope you will also remember what I have answered to these exceptions and that I have proved that Bishops from the three Arabia's were present in this Council all which were not under the Empire and that the Roman world in order to spiritual Government was as large as the Christian world univocally so called as I have prov'd from St. Prosper and St. Leo. Mr. Baxter Num. 160. There is as much for appeales to Constantinople that never claimed as vice-Christ-ship as jure divino William Iohnson Num. 160. 'T is your pleasure to say so but your word with me is not arrived to the authority of an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is your proofes not the bare sayings I expect here non proof 17. CHAP. III. ARGUMENT St. Basil. NUm 160. Mr. Baxter in lieu of answering to his adversaries objection treats other matters to draw his Reader from considering the force of the argument Num. 161. whether Mr. Baxter or his adversarie say true concerning the words of St. Chrysostome in his second epistle to Pope Innocent the first Num. 162. what the first Council of Ephesus writ to pope Celestine about Iohn Bishop of Antioch Mr. Baxters strange confidence in both these authorities Num. 163. Mr. Baxter flies to Hereticks to maintayn his cause by their wicked practises ibid. what Iuvenal Bishop of Hierusalem said of the Roman and Antiochian Church ibid. Mr. Baxter clips off the cheif part from Iuvenals words Num. 164. St. Cyril presided in the first Council of Ephesus as being the Popes legate Num. 166. Mr. Baxter recurrs again to the criminal procedings of Hereticks to maintaine his cause ibid. He minces the force of excomunication to lessen the Popes authority Num. 168. Whether Blondel Whitaker and Feild give satisfaction to that which Mr. Baxter calls a rancid instance Num. 171. What St. Basil sayes about the Popes authority Num. 172.173.174 Many non proofs heap't up together by Mr. Baxter Num. 179. He flies againe to patronize his cause by the crimes of Hereticks Mr. Baxter Num. 161. The sixt instance out of Basil's 74 Epistle I imagine you would have suppressed if ever you had
read that Epistle and had thought that any others would be induced by your words to read it William Iohnson Num. 161. This is a strange way of answering I cite not St. Basil as it comprises those matters which treated in regard of himself or of the Western Bishops but only as it contains his testimony of Eustathius having been restored to his Bishopprick by force of the letters of Liberius which he clearly witnesses Now that this was done not by way of recommendation only and testification of his profession of the Catholick Nicene faith in consideration whereof he desired he might be restored to the Bishoppricks is manifest seeing he actually restored him by an absolute command For you to alleadge other passages of a different nature and nothing contrary to what I say and unfit to shew the thing I cite to be untrue is a meer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 why trifle you thus answer the wordes of St. Basil relating to Eustathius and Liberius It is not proofs from your key that I expect here but answers to my Arguments non proof 18. Your branding Liberius with the note of an Arian without proof is as easily rejected by me as said by you what had such a parenthesis as that to do in the argument But I see it is hard to hide rancor where it is excessive For being universal authority drawn from these and the like instances is of force by an argument a paritate Rationis What reason can be alleadged why Pope Liberius should command the restauration of Eustathius a Bishop of the Eastern Patriarck save this that he had power to restore any one wrongfully ejected through the whole Church You assert that all the preheminence he had given him over all the Bishops within the Empire was no more then a Primacy of place and precedency how then came he to have a Primacy of authority and jurisdiction over all the imperial Bishops to judge condemn and restore them shew me who gave him that imperial power this you never resolved in your whole book and I know the reason you could not resolve it into any other grant then into that of Christs institution from the Council of Nice it could not be both because that Council according to your principles rather restraines his power to the Western Churches then extends it into the wole Empire and the Popes exercised power through the wole Empire long before the Council of Nice so that neither that nor any other subsequent Council could give it him nor could the Christian Emperours give him that power for he exercised it long before the Emperours were Christians both in the East and West nor did the the primitive Bishops through the whole Empire give it him for there is no proof in antiquity of any such grant ergo there is no appearance that any such authority was given to the Bishops of Rome from any save Christ himself Now Christ never restrained the power he gave him to the Empire but rather intended it to the whole Church and if he did restrain it shew where and how Mr. Baxter Num. 162. Your seventh proof is from Chrysostome who you say expresly desireth Pope Innocent not to punish his adversaries if they do repent Chrys. Epist. 2. ad Innoc. Reply you much wrong your soul in taking your religion thus on trust some book hath told you this untruth and you beleive it and its like you will perswade others of it as you would do me There is no such word in the Epist. of Chrysostome to Innocent nor any thing like it William Iohnson Num. 162. Either you or I must be in a mighty errour I affirm those very words are in you accuse me of taking things on trust and thereby deceive my self and others and you flatly deny there is any such word in the Epistle of St. Chrys. to Innocent or any thing like it in which Epist. 1 ad Innocentium I again affirm those words are and refer my self to the inspection of the Greek and Latine copies where St. Chrysostome intreates Pope Innocent that in case his opposers would put a remedy to their crimes and Illegalities they might not be punished Mr. Baxter Num. 163 Your eight proof is this the like is written to the Pope by the Council of Ephesus which no doubt you mean is in Binius enough to make a considerable volume and divided it into six tomes and each of those into Chapters and not into acts and if you expect that I should read six Tomes in Folio before I can answer your several sentences or shredds you will put me on a twelve moneths to answer a few sheets of paper If you mean by p. 2. Tom. 2. and by Act. 5. cap. 5. then I must tell you there is not a word of that you say nor like it only there is reference to Celestines and Cyrils Epistles and Celestine in his Epistle recited Tom. 1. cap. 17. threatens Nestorius that if he repent not he will excommunicate him and they will have no communion with him which others did as well as he but not a word of John Bishop af Antioch there nor can I finde any such time in the fourth â—â—ome where John's cause is handled Indeed the notes of your historians divide the Council into sessions but in his fift session there is nothing of John but of Nestorius and in the fourth session John and his party excommunicate Cyril Memnon and others and it was the Council that suspended first and after excommunicated John and it is the Emperour to whom he appeales William Iohnson Num. 163. Had I been sufficiently informed before I writ this answer you had no other edition of the Council then that of Binius I should easily have framed my citations according to that to save you the labour of turning volums over but how should I know that before you told it me I had reason to suppose that you who are and have been for many years so famous a writer of controversies had the Council ready in all sorts of Editions so that none could fall amisse to you If therefore you please to peruse in the Ed of Paul quintus you shall finde the words cited by me conc Ephes. 1. p. 2. Act. 5. in relatione ad Celestinum where writing of Iohn Bishop of Antioch to Pope Celestine the Fathers reserve or remit him to the judgement of Celestine in the interim had provisionally declared him excoÌ„municate deprived him of sacerdotal power whereby it appears how the Council excomunicated him and not only that but declared him also deprived of sacerdotal power Now seeing they reserve this very sentence to the Popes further censure It is manifest they both prefer his sentence before their own and that the sentence was not only negatively to avoide him or not communicate with him but positively to deprive him of the commuion of the faithful which alwayes argues superiority in power as we have seen above in Acatius and tooke the
his eminent authority in that Kingdom he might do you some favour and he upon the receipt of those accusations should summon those Brethren of yours to appear before him and for not appearance condemn them and acquit and restore you would not all the World see that he exceeded his Commission No Patriarch by vertue of his Patriarchal dignity though preceeding the other in place had power to condemn any belonging to another Patriarchate if the fact were not committed within his jurisdiction without the consent of that Patriarch under whose Authority he was according to the Council of Nice Mr. Baxter Num. 176. Our own Communion with men is to be directed by the judgement of our own well informed consciences William Iohnson Num. 176. But our consciences if well regulated must avoid all those whose Communion is prohibited by the lawful Governours of Gods Church nor are private persons to avoid any whom the lawful Prelates of the Church retain in their Communion Mr. Baxter Num. 177. Julius desired not any man then to be one with a Council that should decide the Case William Iohnson Num. 177. There 's another non-proof make that appear Non-proof 18. Mr. Baxter Num. 178. Councils then had the Rule and the Patriarchs were the most honourable members of those Councils but no Rulers of them Non-proof 19. William Iohnson Num. 178. And that 's another let us see that prov'd Mr. Baxter Num. 179. Yet Zozomen and others tell you that Julius 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 Emperours commands prevailed Non-proof 20. William Iohnson Num. 179. And that 's another cite the place in Zozomen who be those others Mr. Baxter Num. 180. 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 Synode when a Patriarch was deposed William Iohnson Num. 180. What then Ergo the Pope had no Authority over them So did the Pharisees resist our Saviour the Jews Moses and Aaron and the late Rebels our most gratious Soveraign Ergo will you deduce thence they had no Authority over them But see you not how inconsequent you are to your self you said just now p. 148. that it seemed irregular that any Patriarch should be deposed without the knowledge of the Patriarch of the preceeding Sea Ergo say you the Eastern Bishops seem I suppose you mean truly and with reason or you urge that reason p. 148. without reason to have proceeded irregularly in opposing Iulius If so either this your first reason is against reason or you against your self Tradition Mr. Baxter Num. 181. Any Bishops might have attempted to relieve the oppressed as far as Julius did especially if he had such advantages as aforesaid to encourage him William Iohnson Num. 181. Another non proof why give you neither instance nor reason for what you say Mr Baxter Num. 182. All your consequences here therefore are denyed It is denyed that because Julius made this attempt that therefore he was universal Ruler in the Empire 2. It is denyed that it will thence follow if he were so that it had been by divine right any more then Constantinople had equal previledges by divine right 3 It is denyed 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 you would rack these testimonies to speak it is but that he was mad by Councils and Emperours the cheif Bishop or Patriarck in a National Church I mean a Church in one Princes Dominion as the arch-Bishop of Canterbury was in England But a national or imperial Church is not the universal and withal oppressed men will seek releif from any that may help them William Iohnson Num. 182. All those consequences are proved at large in other parts of this treatise The first because this proceeding of Iulius having been approved in all ages by the whole Church there can be no other reason given of his power over the Bishops of Alexandria and others of the East save this that he was head in Government over all the Churches through the whole Empire The second that it was by divine right for it was exercised by virtue of an ancient rule or canon received in the Church as Iulius affirms which could not be that of Nice for that was instituted a very few years before Hence followes the third for Christs institution was for the whole Church not for the sole Empire CHAP. IV. ARGUMENT St. Athanasius Theodoret St. Chrysostome Innocentius NUm 182. Mr. Baxter miscites his adversaries words and then accuses him of want of Conscience for writing what he never wrote ibid. What sense Chamiers words can have whether they be referred to a Iudge or to a friend ibid. c. St. Athanasius his recourse to Iulius and effectual proceding in it and that Iulius had authority to restore him ibid. Theodorets appeal as to a Iudge acknowledged by Chamier nor is it directly contradicted by Mr. Baxter If the Pope were Theodorets lawful Iudge by way of appeal then was he also Iudge of all the Bishops in the Church Num. 184. St. Chrysostomes appeal convinces the Popes soveraign power Num. 185. 186. His appealing first to a Council hindred not his appeal afterward made to the Bishop of Rome Num. 187. None but superiours to a Council can reverse the sentence given by that Council Num. 187.188.189 How Mr. Baxter declines and Sophisticates the words of St. Chrysostome Num. 193. Whether Arcadius and Eudoxia were excommunicated by Pope Innocentius In what year Eudoxia dyed Num. 194. Mr. Baxter involves and lames the words of his adversarie Num. 201. What authority St. Ambrose had to excommunicate Theodosius which act is falliciously instanced by Mr. Baxter Mr. Baxter Num. 183. In your margin you add that concerning St. Athanasius being judged and rightly by Pope Juliu s Chamier acknowledgeth the matter of fact to be so but against all antiquity pretends that judgement to have been unjust Corruption Reply Take it not ill Sr I beseech you If I awake your conscience to tell me how you dare to 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 denyeth He proveth to you from Zozomen's words that Athanasius did make no appeal to a judge but only fled for help to a friend he shewes you that Julius did not play the Iudge but the helper of the spoiled and that it was not an act of judgement 2 He therefore accuseth him not of wrong judging but only mentioneth his not hearing the
Diocess though the person sentenced lived out of their Diocess yet they might renounce all Communion with him Churches that have no power over one another may have Communion with one another and that Communion they may hold and renounce as there is cause Now if a neighbour Patriarch with so many Bishops of the West had renounced Communion with Chrysostome's Enemies and also written their letters on his behalf and taken him still as in their communion this he hoped would much further his restauration which yet he doubted as he had cause For in his second Epistle he thanks him for doing his part though it do no good or did not availe William Iohnson Num. 191. St. Chrysostomes words now cited evince there was more then bare avoiding of anothers communion Nay it is evident the aâ—â—oresaid authorties that Pope Innocent kept communion with both parties till a further trial of the cause was heard vide S. Chrysostome Ep. 5. ad innoc papam supra citatam Mr. Baxter Num. 191. And it is to be noted that your author Nicephorus tels you lib. 13. cap. 31. that Chrysostomes letters and his fellow-Bishops also and the Clergies of Constantinople were all written both to the Emperour Honorius and to Innocent and therefore you may see by that on what account it was and what help they did expect The Emperour was not to excomnicate but his letters might do much William Iohnson Num. 192. But sayes Nicephorus the same letters which were writ to Pope Innocent were writ to the Emperour prove that Mr. Baxter Num. 193. Well but to alleadge Niceph. lib. 13. cap. 34. to prove 1 Chrysostomes appeal But you have better or worse eyes then I for I can finde no such thing but a seeking for help as aforesaid 2 You say Innocentius nuls his condemnation and declares him innocent Ans. So might another Bishop have declared him But how far it should be regarded was not in his power William Iohnson Num. 193. Now at last you confess there was more then a bare avoiding the communion with others Doe you really think that any Bishop whatsoever could null the sentence of a Council both out of his Diocess and his Patriarchate as Innocent did that of Constantinople that is to say validly and lawfully I cannot perswade my self you doe now had it been unlawful St. Chrysostome would never have intreated Innocent to do it If you mean any Bishop can do it invalidly and unlawfully you say nothing to the purpose it was not indeed in his power how far it was regarded nor is it the power of a King how far his commands are regarded by powerful Rebels but what of that he had power to command and censure to annul and restore and so it was in his power to oblige others and procured that it ought to have been regarded that they sinned grievously in disobeying his command which is enough for my purpose But whilst you thus measure out the power of others by the rejection of their commands made by unjust oppressors you shew what spirit you had when you writ this in matter of Monarchial government it imports little what may be said of excommunication in general it is sufficient that this now treated included jurisdiction Mr. Baxter Num. 194.3 You say he excommunicated Atticus and Theophilus and 4. Arcadius the Emperour also and Eudoxia Reply 1. If he did so and did well another Bishop might aswel have done it William Iohnson Num. 194. Now let you and me try whether the sentence of Innocent against these persons were nothing save a bare excomunication in your sense that is a declaration of avoiding them Niceph l. 13. c. 34. Glicas Ann par 4. extant Tom 1. Epist Rom Pontif. Ep. Innoc 17. Georgius Patri Alex citatus a S. Io. Damasc orat de Imagin a Photio in Biblioth in Greg Alexandr extatque Graece editus in Angl. unà cum Oper. S. Chrysost. or that they were unworthy of Christian coÌ„munion or not communicating with them utsupra The words are these Itaque ego minimus peccator cui thronus magni Petri Apostoli creditus est segrego rejicio te illam i. e. Arcadium Eudoxiam a perceptione immaculatorum mysteriorum Christi Dei nostri Episcopum etiam omnem clericum ordinis Sanctae Dei Ecclesiae qui administrare aut exhibere ea vobis ausus fuerit ab ea hora qua praesentes vinculi mei legeritis literas dignitate sua excidisse decerno Quod si ut homines potentes quenquam ad id vi adegeritis Canones nobis a Salvatore per Sanctos Apostolos traditos transgressi fueritis scitote id vobis non parvum peccatum fore in horrenda illa judicii die cum neminem hujus vitae honor dignitas adjuvare poterit arcana autem abdita cordium sub occulos omnium effundentur atque exhibebuntur Arsacium quem pro magno Joanne in thronum Episcopalem produxistis etiam post obitum exauthoramus unà cum omnibus qui consultò cum eo communicarunt Episcopi cujus etiam nomen Sacro Episcoporum albo non inscribatur Indignus eo honore est quum Episcopatum quasi adulterio polluerit Omnis siquidem planta quae a Patre nostro in coelis plantata non est eradicabitur Ad Theophili anathematismum addimus abrogationem absolutam a Christianismo absolutionem I the least of all and a Sinner to whom the throne of the great Apostle Peter is committed segregate and reject thee and her that is Arcadius the Emperour and Eudoxia the Empresse from the receiving of the immaculate misteries of Christ our God and I decree that every Bishop and Clerk of the order of the holy Church to be fallen from his dignity who shall dare to give them to you from that hour wherin you shall have read these obligatory letters of mine But if you as being powerful shall force any of them to exhibite them to you and shall transgress the rules delivered to us from Christ by the holy Apostles it will be no smal sin upon your Conscienâ—â—s at the terrible day of judgement when the Honor and Dignity of this world can help no man but the secrets of hearts shall be powred out manifested before the whole world Arsacius whom you have intruded into the Episcopal throne in place of that worthy and great John Chrysostome we accurse even after his death together with all the Bishops who wittingly communicated with him whose name is not to be written in the Catologue of the holy Bishops He is unworthy of that Honor who hath polluted his Bishopprick as it were with adultery For every plant which is not planted by our Father which is in heaven shall be pluckt up by the roots To Theophilus his curse we add an abrogation or deposition and an absolute rejection from Christianity Whatsoever Blondel presses against the creditableness of this Author yet in matter of this consequence
hapning so neer his time citing the precise words of Pope Innocent's Bull then extant he could not be morally supposed to erre in this though he fail in other matters and if it be a good argument such an Author often failes in history therefore nothing which he saith can be beleived even Socrates himself the only occasional Author of the contrary relation would not be of credit in what he saith of Pulcheria for he often not only through ignorance but malice and spite also against Catholicks and particularly against St. Chrysostome either reports falsities or conceals truths Blundel p. 275. glories much in the authority of Emapius cited by Photius who affirms he brought his history no farther then to the banishment of St. Chrysostome and intrusion of Arsacius into his place and the death of Pulcheria who dyed saith Blondel according to Photius his relation from this Eunapius immediately after she was delivered of a child But neither saith Photius nor cites he Eunapius as relating that Pulcheria dyed presently after the banishment of St. Chrysostome or intrusion of Arsacius but only in the time of his banishment and the others possessing the Sea of Constantinople which taking up three years time shews the account may be true notwithstanding all that Photius saith of Eunapius Here is much more then your minute excommunication or bare avoiding to communicate with them or I am much deceiv'd Mr. Baxter Num. 195. Mennas excommunicated Vigilius of Rome non proof 22. William Iohnson Num. 195. Your assertion of this had been more vigorous had you backt it with some authority who think you save those who have sworn to your placet will be moved by such bare affirmations of your own But had he done that did he also depose him and forbid any one to give him the Sacrament as Innocentius did here and had he don all this was his authority acknowledged either by the Roman Bishop or by the common consent of Catholicks approving his act as was this of Innocent see you not how far your instances fall short of the mark Mennas excommunicated Vigilius Bishop of Rome who saith so Mr. Baxter what then Mr. Baxter Num. 196. Excommunicating is not alwayes an act of jurisdiction but a renouncing of Communion with a ministerial 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 more non proofs William Iohnson Num. 196. These proofless positions might have force in your own parish they have none with me Mr. Baxter Num. 197 2. But I would have you answer Dr. Whitaker's reasons by which he proves that Nicephorus is a fabler in his relation and that that Epistle is not Innocents which cap. 34. he reciteth lib. de Pont. Rom. Contr. 4. Qu. 4. pag. 454.455 William Iohnson Num. 196. This is the handsom'st difficulty I finde in your whole reply and as it deserves so I hope it shall have an answer Mr. Baxter Num. 198. Neither Socrates Theodoret or Zozomen make any mention of this excommunication who 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 yâ—â—t mention Ambrose his censure of Theodosius William Iohnson Num. 198. One reason why those three Authors made no mention of this excommunication may be Socrates Zozomen produce their histories to the year 439. because it was so present in memory and concerning such imperial dignities that it was not convenient and might have been prejudicial to them to have published it in those times Another that Zozomen and Socrates being novatian Hereticks would not give notice to all posterity of the most eminent authority of the Roman Bishop over the Patriarks of Alexandria and Constantinople the Emperour himself 3 That because Arcadius and Eudoxia presently repented craved pardon and were absolved the matter made not so great a noise in the Church that these authors had in their times full notice of it it having been almost as soon recalled by their repentance as it was inserted as Baronius testifyes out of Arcadiu's responsory Epistle to Innocentius Innocentius his answer to Arcadius recited by Glicas Annal. par 4.4 Your argument is not only negative but fallacious For though those three historians mention it not yet Leo Augustus Metraphrastes Cedrenus Zonaras Gennadius Nicephorus Glicas Georgius Alexandrinus whereof some are ancient Historians record it and the very Epistles which were written betwixt Innocentius and Arcadius yet extant in an ancient codex in the Vatican as Baronius witnesseth give full testimony to the truth of it Now had you produced a full negative argument against this excommunication you should have proved that neither any of the three authors you mention nor any other creditable ancient author or records testify the truth of it Nor concludes your parity from the recording of St. Ambrose his excommunication of Theodorus For first I finde not that Socrates hath mentioned it in his history so that you suppose a falshood in affirming it to be recorded by those three Authors Secondly that hapned by a publick notorious act in a great Church of Milan this was only contained in a letter and so soon recalled by pennance that it is not certain whether it came to publick execution or not 3 That was a prohibition from entring into the Church this was only from receiving the Sacrament the first being much more to be taken notice of then the second because many came to Church who received not every time they came Mr. Baxter Num. 199. 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 Chrysostom dyed the third year of his banishment And Zozomen saith l. 8. c. 28. That Chrysostome was in banishment three years after the death of Eudoxia but if Nichephorus were to be believed Eudoxia was alive and excommunicated by Innocent after Chrysostome's death Nor can it be said that Innocent knew not of her death for his legates were sent to Constantinople in Atticus time who succeeded Acacius who outlived Eudoxia This is the Summe of Dr. Whitakers confutation of Nicephorus And withal who knows not how full of fictions Nicephorus is William Iohnson Socrates might have been deceived by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which amongst the Grecians signifieth as ordinarily death as banishment whereby he by mistake thought that to be spoken of his banishment which the Author from whom he took that his story spoke of his death for it is evident both from Zozymus a Heathen Historian who lived in that very time for lib. 5. he testifies that after the great fire at Constantinople which
happened after St. Chrysostome's banishment Arbazachius was sent by the Emperour against the Isaurians where after he had spent some time depraving himself and exercising so many corrupt proceedings and oppressions as he was guilty of c. which would require the space of a year or two and thereby extend to the year 407. or thereabouts wherein St. Chrysostome died being accused and cited to answer the accusations made against him gave rich presents to the Empress and thereby escaped punishment Now these things could not happen but in a long tract of time it is not morally possible they should have been done in four dayes as those say who follow Socrates and Marcellinus Comes affirms that the troubles of Isauria happened anno 405. under the Consulate of Stilico and Anthemius So that Arbazachius must have had much more time before he was accused and consequently the Empress must have lived some years after the banishment of St. Chrysostome Nor makes Palladius any mention of her prodigious death so suddenly after the banishment of St. Chrysostome And George Patriarch of Alexandria who wrote 1000. years ago and is cited by St. Io. Damasc Orat. de Imagin affirms that Arcadius and Eudoxia were excommunicated by Innocentius and Zonaras affirmes the same Nor do the Authors you cite against this Bull affirm what you say Socrates lib. 6. c. 19. hath not a word of Eudoxia's death or that St. Chrysostome died three years after his banishment there 's your two first errors Zozomen seems to put the death of Eudoxia before that of St. Chrysostome but speaks not a word in that place here cited by you that he was in banishment three years after the death of Eudoxia there 's your third error Blondel p. 277. cannot deny this relation of Zozimus but questions whether the Empress he mentions were Eudoxia Now if it were not Eudoxia he should have told us what other Empress there was living at that time in Constantinople to whom those presents were given For Arcadius lived six years after this and Theodosius his Son was not capable of marriage presently after his Fathers death being then a child of no more then seven years of age having been born in the year 401. and Arcadius dying the year 408. Nor can it be thought that Arbazachius remained in Isauria till Theodosius junior was married for the expedition in a short time was finished against the Isaurians And presently upon that victory Arbazachius fell upon oppressions and complaints were not long after raised against him Mr. Baxter Num. 200. 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 single authority restored Bishops wrongfully deposed all the Church over William Iohnson Num. 200. I like not your writing my words by halves they were not so many but you might have quoted them intirely as they lay as you printed them pag. 52. I adde there after Diocesses these words viz. But alwayes collected together in a Synode by common voice and that in regard only of their neigbouring Bishops which you mask under an c. And then I adde whereas the Bishop of Rome by his sole and single authority restored Bishops wrongfully deposed as you have it here whereby the difference appeared more clearly betwixt the authority of the Roman and other Bishops which you by your c. have rendred obscure there being no express reason by way of opposition in their proceedings to adde this all the Church over which is clearly opposed to this other in regard only of their neighbouring Bishops in my words and by omitting those words but alwayes collected in a Synode by common voice you hide from your Reader that their convening was by order of their Arch-bishop Metropolitan Primate or Patriarch respectively who commonly had authority over those who were restored For all Synodes were to be Canonically convened by consent and authority of Ecclesiastical Superiours either granted or presumed And this happily may be one reason why you wish those to whom you recommend this book as I am certainly informed from a person of great worth who heard you to read your last answer only and not to trouble themselves with perusing my Text to which you pretend to answer Mr. Baxter Num. 201. Reply 1. It seems you took Chamier's words on trust peruse that page and see his words William Iohnson Num. 201. I took only upon trust of my own eyes and I think they deceived me not Mr. Baxter Num. 202. 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 Fallacy William Iohnson Num. 202. You answer fallaciously proceeding à toto ad partem When I speak of persons out of their Diocesses I mean clearly such as are neither in them actually by way of habitation nor habitually by birth and education for my words are general And you give an instance of one who though not habitually yet actually was within the Diocess of him who censured him as then Theodosius was in the Diocess of Milan where St. Ambrose was Bishop You cannot sure be ignorant that domicilium fixum a settled habitation makes one an inhabitant and part of that City where he lives and that crimen commissum a crime committed in that place makes one subject to the Tribunal of that City Besides the Emperour could not be said by reason of his universal dominion to be fixt to any part of his Empire for his Empire was his dwelling so that wheresoever he was actually and committing any thing deserving excommunication there the Bishop of that City had power to excommunicate him With such sophismes as these you inveigle your credulous Readers I beseech God to forgive you and enlighten you Mr. Baxter Num. 203. Epiphanius presumed even at Constantinople to excommunicate Dioscorus and his Brethren Socrat l. 6. c. 14. William Iohnson Num. 203. Socrates hath no such matter in that Chapter nor any thing like it nor indeed could he for either you mean Epiphanius Bishop of Salamina who was dead 42. years before Dioscorus was excommunicated for that Epiphanius died anno 402. and Dioscorus was excommunicated anno 451. or as I think you do Epiphanius Bishop of Constantinople and Dioscorus was dead 70. years before Epiphanius was installed in the See of Constantinople Nor did Socrates produce his History farther then to the year 439. that is 90. years before Epiphanius was Bishop of Constantinople Who wrongs his soul now by taking authorities upon trust Mr. Baxter Num. 204. 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 Non-proof William Iohnson Num. 204. I
wonder you being a Scholar should perswade your self any prudent man will be moved by your may bees upon no other ground then that you say them without proof If you have such instances alleadge them if you alleadge them not say nothing of them 't is not for your credit thus to trifle in serious matters Mr. Baxter Num. 205. And if the fact were not proved yet the forbearance proves not the want of power William Iohnson Num. 205. But sure if it can be proved a man of your learning can prove it and then why have you not done it is it not a shrewd sign there was no such power when there can be given no instance in so many hundred years that it was ever brought into practice you know frustra datur potentia quae nunquam reducitur in actum and if such a power whereof you say many instances may be given had ever been sure it was either frustraneous and thereby not from God or fome steps of the exercice of it would have appeared in antiquity We speak not here of what is or is not in it self unknown to us but of what can be proved to have been and that must appear by the acts and exercise of such a power recorded in some ancient Authors or Records CHAP. V. Theodosius St. Leo. ARGUMENT NUm 205. Many instances of Bishops restored out of the Empire by the Bishop of Rome Num. 206. St. Leo's affirming the Popes power in calling General Councils to come from divine Institution Num. 116. Mr. Baxter misreports his Adversaries argument and then esteems what he himself hath done ridiculous Num. 217. Pulchelius for pulcheria ibidem Her letter about Anatolius his sending the Confession of his Faith to Leo miserably misconstrued by Mr. Baxter Mr. Baxter Num. 206. 3. I deny your unproved assertion that the Bishop of Rome singly restored all the Church over it is a meer fiction How many restored he out of the Empire Or in the Empire out of his Patriarchate but swasorily or Synodically William Iohnson Num. 206. Very many Such were all those Bishops who about the year 400. in Spain in France anno 475. in England anno 595. in Germany anno 499. and other Western and Northern Kingdoms which were taken either from under the command of the Romane Emperours or were never under it who were restored by the Bishop of Rome's authority when wrongfully deposed from their Sees addressing themselves to him and requiring justice from him whereof all Ecclesiastical Histories of those Nations are full of instances And in more antient times whilst the Emperours were Heathens the cause of the Pope's authority out of the Western Patriarchate could not be the subjection those Bishops had to the Emperour of Rome but must have been derived from a spiritual authority instituted by Christ himself For neither had there been any General Council in those times to invest Rome in that authority nor can it be ever proved from antiquity that it was given him by the unanimous consent of all Bishops otherwise then as supposing it still due to him before their respective times by the power granted by our Saviour to St. Peter and his lawfully Successors as I have already affirmed the Bishop of Rome to have received all the Primacy you esteem him to have from a Council as shall be proved hereafter And I press you to produce any authority in those times which witnesseth it was originally given him by consent Now that the Bishop of Rome exercised jurisdiction over the Eastern Bishops in St. Victor's time and over Firmilian and those of Cappadocia in Pope Stephens time is so evident that it cannot be denyed See St. Irenaeus Nor will it avail to say those instances of France and Spain c. were in latter times And St. Cyp. in his Epistles to Pope Stephen where we dispute about the four first ages for if in all those ages it had been a common known tradition that the Pope had no jurisdiction of the Verge of the Roman Empire that tradition would have been publiquely and universally received in the years 500. and 600. even to the first erection of those new Kingdoms in the West and North And Vincentius Lirinensis infra citandus so that every one would have known they were no longer bound to be under the Roman Bishop then whilst they were under the Roman Empire because all knew in your novel supposition that the jurisdiction of the Pope extended no farther then the Roman Empire Why then did those Kings and all the Bishops and Churches in their Kingdoms esteem themselves as much obliged to the obedience of the Bishop of Rome after they were freed from the command of the Roman Emperour as they were before and never alleadged any such reason as you have invented of the Popes authority limited to the precincts of the Roman Empire to plead thereupon his not having any longer jurisdiction over them as being now no subject of that Empire What I say therefore is no fiction but a solide and manifest truth that he had authority of restoring Bishops wrongfully deposed all the Church over even out of the Empire but yours is a pure fiction to assert that as a publick tenet and practice which was manifestly unknown to those either of the four first or any subsequent ages coined lately from your own brain upon which I pray God heartily it lie not heavy one day as novelties in Religion use to do upon the heads of their first Inventors What you say of swasorily and Synodically I have above clearly confuted by shewing that the Councils of neighbouring Bishops in Italy were only assistants to the Pope but could have no juridical power over the whole Church or in parts remote and without the Western Patriarchate Now to what you usually presse of Ethiopia Persia outer Armenia c. that no instance can be given of any Bishop of those Churches restored by the Popes authority I answer that I can prove as effectually by instances their restoration by the Pope as you can prove them to have been restored by their own Primates Metropolitans Provincial Councils or Collections of Bishops within their own Charters nay as you can shew that any of them were restored The reason therefore that no such instance is given in the primitive times is not as you imagine and would impose upon your Reader that none of them were subject to the Pope but because there is no Records or mention in Ecclesiastical History that any were restored either by this or any other authority and if there be produce them The reason whereof is because the Roman Emperours then Heathens permitted no publique correspondence of those who were out of the Empire being their enemies with those who were within it and after the Christian Emperours being in war with those barbarous Nations refused to admit unlesse upon very urgent occasions such correspondences nor have we extant any authentick Authors of those Provinces who have
recorded the Histories and transactions of the said Churches so that 't is unknown to us what either passed betwixt them and the Bishop of Rome or amongst themselves Mr. Baxter Num. 207. Your next instance of Theodosius his not permitting the Council at Ephesus to be assembled and his reconciling himself to the Church is meerly impertinent We know that he and other Princes usually wrote to Rome Constantinople Alexandria c. Or spoke or sent to more then one of the Patriarcks before they called a Council William Iohnson Num. 207. You still seek diversions to avoid the difficulty The question is not now whether Theodosius and other Emperours did or might write to other Patriarcks about the celebration of Councils as well as the Roman but it is this whether they wrote in the same manner to them as they did to him that is as Pope Leo witnesses epist. 15. that he Theodosius bare this respect to the divine institution that he would use the authority of the Apostolick Sea for the effecting of his holy disposition And this was celebrating that Council the 2d of Ephesus which as then appeared to the Pope to be good and holy Finde me such a sentence of his writ by Theodosius or other Emperours to any of the Patriarcks beside the Roman that their authority was necessary according to divine institution for the celebrating of a general Council and you will have done something without which you trifle Mr Baxter Num. 208. You cannot but know that Councils have been called without the Pope William Iohnson Num. 208. Truly if you speak of lawful general â—â—ouncils I am so unknowing that I know it not supposing there were a known undoubted Pope in the Church as there was in Theodosius's time and I fear I shall be so dull that you will not be able to make me know it I am sure yet you have not gone about it and I presse you to nominate any such lawful general Councils call'd without the B. of Romes consent and authority Mr. Baxter Num. 209. And that neither this nor an Emperours forsaking his errour is a sign of the Popes universal Government William Iohnson Num. 209. Take the context of my proofs along with you which you conceal here and you confess this demanding the Popes authority as necessary to the celebration of a general Council and in that giving respect to divine restitution is a sign of his universal government seeing general Councils as I have proved are representatives not of the Empire but of the whole visible Church And Theodosius his pennance whereof one effect was that he required the confirmation of Anatolius in the Sea of Constantinople from Pope Leo and thereby attested his power over that Patriarck and a simili over all the rest he shewed himself to believe that the Roman Bishop was supream governour of the universal Church Mr. Baxter Num. 210. That Emperour gave sufficient testimony and so did the Bishops that adhered to Dioscorus that in those dayes the Pope was taken for fallible and controulable when they excommunicated him William Iohnson Num. 210. No more then the Clergy of Sweden would shew it now if they ventured so far as to excommunicate the Pope Is think you authority overthrown or rendred or argued null because it is opposed and contemned by Rebels you shew in this what your spirit is and how inconsistent with true Government when you make the contempt of Rebels an argument that all whom they reject have no lawful power over them a thing seasonable enough when you wrote this having then rebellious times and persons well suiting with it but yet demonstrative what you thought then and may still be esteemed one of your principles But I wonder much you were so venturous as to let it passe the print and see light since the happy return of our most gracious Soveraign For think you men are so blind as not to see this consequence that if Hereticks outing and contemning the authority of a Catholique Bishop as Dioscorus an Eutychian and his party did that of Leo be a good argument as you make it to prove he had no authority over the Church nor over Dioscorus who excommunicated him you must also hold that a publique Rebel's deposing a Soveraign is a good argument to justifie the fact and to prove that Soveraign had no authority over him Or if you your self dare not go so far you have laid a principle emboldning all Rebels to do it Mr. Baxter Num. 211. But when you cite out of any Author the words that you build on I shall take more particular notice of them William Iohnson Num. 211. I have cited them out of St. Leo and expect your answer Mr. Baxter Num. 212. Till then this is enough with this addition that the Emperours subjection if he had been subject not to an Ambrose or other Bishop but only to Rome would have been no proof that any without the Empire were his subjects no more then the King of Englands subjection to the Arch-bishop of Canterbury would have proved that the King of France was subject to him William Iohnson Num. 112. You flie again the difficulty I make not this argument the Emperour was subject to the Pope in spirituals Ergo all those Christians who were Extra-Imperial were also subject to him This is no argument of mine but your imposition My argument is this The Emperour and all Christians within this Empire were subject to the Pope as to St. Peters Successor and Supream Pastor of the whole flock and Vineyard of Christ by Christs institution Ergo all Extra-Imperial Churches were also subject to him Now this to have been the reason of their subjection is evident both from St. Leo's Epistle lately cited concerning Theodosius and from the Council of Chalcedon treated by me hereafter and from the command of Martian and all the other declaratives of the Bishop of Romes supereminent authority delivered and received in antiquity where not so much as any one of them hath chained it up within the circuit of the Roman Empire or given that for a measure or reason of his power and it still remained in full force in such Kingdoms as were taken by Christians from the Roman Emperors who as I have said never affirmed their freedom from the Emperours command to have franchised them from the Bishop of Romes authority Whence is clearly answered your parity in the Kings of Englands subjection to the Bishop of Canterbury for the Kings of England never subjected themselves to the Bishop of Canterbury as to the Supream visible Governour in spirituals of the whole Catholique Church no not as to one who had any jurisdiction out of England at all Mr. Baxter Num. 112. Your twelfth proof from the Council of Chalcedon is from a witness alone sufficient to overthrow your cause as I have proved to you This Synode expresly determineth that your Primacy is a novel humane invention that it was given you by the Fathers because Rome
was the Imperial Seat If you believe this Synode the Controversie is at an end if you do not why do you cite it and why pretend you to believe General Councils William Iohnson Num. 213. You have a strange way of shifting off the force of an argument and that quite out of form and that illogical and it is to bring in some preface or other to weaken the authority of those whence this proof is brought before you give a Categorical answer What have we now to do with your proof alleadged many leaves after Part. 2. Is there not time enough to answer it when it comes in treaty Have you forgot that you are a Respondent not an Opponent are you so much inamoured with your own arguments that you must shew them at every turn even when there is no just occasion to mention them one would think it timely enough to boast of them when you and all men see no satisfactory answer given to them Have patience a while and you shall see ere long you authority from Chalcedon hurts us nothing It is partly shewed already and when it shall be treated in its place I hope you 'l have no cause to brag of it Mr. Baxter Num. 214. But what have you from this Council against this Council Why 1. you say Martian wrote to Leo that by the Pope's authority a General Council might be gathered in what City of the Eastern Church he should please Reply 1. Whereas for this you write Act. Concil Chalced. 1. You tell me not what Author Crab Binius Surius Nicolinus or where I must seek it I have perused the Act. 1. in Binius which is 74. pages in folio such tasks your citations set me and find no such thing and therefore take it to be your mistake William Iohnson Num. 214. I am sorry you have taken so much pains and lost your labour but sure I gave you no occasion of it for as I cited in the margin Con. Chalced. Act. 1. so I quoted in the Text Martian's Epistle to Leo when I said Martian wrote to Leo so that you had no more to do then to turn to the first Action of that Council and seek Martian's Epistle to Pope Leo which because it is in the full editions of Councils I thought it needless to name any Now this might have been done in a very short time nor could it be more exactly cited then I cited it giving both the Action and the Epistle extant in that Action Could you not as well have found the Epistle of Martian as of Valentinian and Martian if they be different Epistles Sure the one was as visible and legible as the other I tell you 't is no mistake of mine but your mishap that you found it not Please to look again and you will find those very words which I cite in that very Epistle which I quote Mr. Baxter Num. 215. But in the Preambul Epistle I find that Valentinian and Martian desire Leo's prayers and contrary to your words that they say hoc ipsum nobis propiis literis tua sanctitas manifestet quatenus in omnem Orientem in ipsam Thraciam Illyricum sacrae nostrae literae dirigantur ut ad quendam definitum locum qui nobis placuerit omnes sanctissimi Episcopi debeant convenire It is not qui vobis placuerit but qui nobis William Iohnson Num. 215. Your words from the Epistle of Valentinian and Martian infringe not those mentioned by me for it may well be that Pope Leo remitted the designation of the place to the Emperour as judging it more belonging to them then to himself as a thing wholly temporal though the precise words qui nobis placuerit may be in rigor applied both to the Emperour and Pope My first authority therefore from that Council is not answered at all in this your paper Mr. Baxter Num. 216. But what if you had spoke truth doth it follow that Pope Leo was Christs Vicar-general Governour of the world because that the Soveraign of one Common-wealth did give him leave to chuse the place of a Council Serious things should not be thus jested with William Iohnson Num. 216. I argue not so you proceed fallaciously a secundum quid ad simpliciter The force of my argument consists not in the chusing of the place by the Pope that 's a pure circumstance but the strength of my reason consists in this that the Council was gathered by the Popes authority And to this you say nothing which notwithstanding is an evident proof that the Pope had authority over the whole Church as I shall prove hereafter Serious things should be seriously answered and not be thus jested at by fraudulent fallacies and disguises Now in my words here cited viz. Martian wrote to Leo that by the Bishops authority a General Council might be gathered in what City of the Eastern Church he should please to chuse the word he may as well be related to Martian as to the Pope So that you cannot inforce from the precise words that I say the place was left to the Pope's choice Mr. Baxter Num. 217.2 You say Anatolius the rest of the Eastern Bishops sent to Pope Leo the professions of their Faith by his Order Reply 1. And what then Therefore Pope Leo was both Governour of them and all the Christian world You should not provoke men to laughter about serious things I tell you Can you prove this Consequence Confessions were ordinarily sent in order to communion or to satisfie the offended without respect to superiority Corruption William Iohnson Num. 217. I see y' are merrily disposed y' are so full of jesting and laughing but truly see no other jest here â—â—hen your misreporting my argument and then saying it moves laughter I spake of confessions of Faith exacted from others by command or order of the Pope and this I alleadge to be a proof of the Popes universal supremacy And you answer that Confessions were ordinarily sent in order to Communion or to satisfie the offended without respect to superiority As if I made the bare sending a Confession of Faith to another an argument that he to whom it is sent is superiour to him that sends it Whereas I say in express termes that it is the ordering such a Confession to be sent to him who orders it and not the bare sending without order which argues superiority in him who orders the sending such professions Might I not here deservedly retort your Sarcasmus and tell you you should not provoke men to laughter by such gross perversions as these in serious things But I spare and pitty you Mr. Baxter Num. 218.2 But I see not the proof of your impertinent words Pulcherius Epistle to Leo expresseth that Leo had sent his Confession first to Anatolius to which Anatolius consented By your Rule then Leo was subject to Anatolius Corruption William Iohnson Num. 218. I find no Epistle of Pulcherius to Leo nor so much as any such
man in those times You would say I suppose Pulcheria the Empress But you should have dealt more fairly if you had declared in what manner Pulcheria mentions the Confession of Faith sent by Leo. Really Sir the cunning which you use here is unsufferable First you say that Confession of Faith from Leo was sent to Anatolius Which is manifestlie untrue for the Empress Pulcheria saith it was sent to Flavianus his Predecessor This may pass as an error in Historie onlie Secondlie you say that Anatolius consented to that Faith which is true but you express not in what manner he consented to it for equals may consent in Faith one with another but the Empresse saith that Anatolius subscribed to the confession of Faith sent to Flavianus from Pope Leo and that without the least difficulty or demurr which argue that Leo's confession was sent to this end that the Pope required the Bishops of Constantinople to subscribe to what he wrote there to shew that they believed the Catholick Faith Et Epistolae similiter Catholicae fidei quam ad sanctae memoriae Flavianum Episcopum tua Beatitudo decrevit sine ulla dilatione subscripsit Anatolius The Empresse writes thus And he Anatolius without any delay subscribed to the Epistle of Faith which thy blessedness directed to Flavianus Thirdly whereas this Epistle or Confession of Faith was sent as from a superiour to be subscribed by those Patriarcks that he might know whether they held the right Faith or no and thereby judge whether he were to admit them into his communion as was then the ordinary custome you would make it to be a confession sent as from an equal to give them to whom he sent it an account of his Eaith Fourthly whereas I speak of a confession ordered by the Bishop of Rome to be sent from the Bishop of Constantinople to him that the Pope might thereby judge of his Faith you in answer return a confession of Faith as freely sent from the Bishop of Rome to the Bishop of Constantinople as though the Pope had given an account of his Faith to that Bishop now all know it to be a rule of Faith sent Vide verba Pulcheriae by Leo to which was required the in ep ad Leonem Bishop of Constantinople should subscribe to shew that he held the same Faith with the Bishop of Rome and thereby deserved to be received as a Catholick into his communion And lastly you make that to be a confession of Pope Leo's faith made to Anatolius when it was only a summe of the Catholick Faith Epistola fidei Catholicae in general that those Bishops were to subscribe by the Popes order For this very same Epistle in a Council held by the Popes legates in Constantinople Council Chalced in gracis was sent by their order to all the codicibus post Act â—â— tam. Metropolitans in those parts as Pope Leo had given them order to be subscribed by them CHAP. VI. Council of Chalcedon ARGUMENT NUm 219. Mr. Baxters imposition upon his adversary ibid. The legates precedency how it proves the Popes Supremacy Num. 221. Dioscorus not sitting as a Father in the Council shews the Bishop of Romes authority over the Council Num. 222. Mr. Baxter put to desperate shifts read these words Caput omnium Ecclesiarum that Rome is the head of all the Churches Num. 223. The Councils not contradicting what the legates said an undoubted sign of their assent Num. 224. His weak answer to the Councils calling the Pope their Father and themselves his children Num. 226. Mr. Baxter denyes most confidently the Council of Chalcedon to say what it sayes most manifestly Num. 227. Mr. Baxter dissembles his adversaries answer Num. 231. Of what authority was the 28 canon of Chalcedon in St. Leo's time and after Num. 132. General Councils never writ to exhort Bishops and Patriarchs to confirm their decrees in that manner as did the council of Chalcedon to the Pope ibid. two sleights of Mr. Baxters discovered Mr. Baxter Num. 219 You say the Popes Legates sate first in Council Reply what then therefore the Pope was Governour of the Christirn world though not a man out of the Empire were of the Council corruption William Iohnson Num. 219. Your petty slights are grown so numerous that they become intolerable An unskilful Reader would easily perswade himself this consequence is mine which you so confidently impose upon me here viz that I deduce or ought to deduce from the Popes legates sitting first in the Council that the Pope was Governour of the Christian world though not a man out of the Empire were of that Council as If I had granted and were agreed with you in this that there was not a man out of the Empire in that Council and supposing that as a truth with you yet that not withstanding I draw the Popes universal supremacy from the precedency of the Legates in that Council Now I pray you where have I in my whole paper supposed or delivered that there was not a man out of the Empire in that Council name the place and cite the words where I say so or acknowledge that you have imposed a most fals injurious calumnie upon me For you are not content to father your own error and so much your own that you are the first and sole inventor of it upon me but upon that imposition you aske me in a bitter Sarcasmus whether I be still in jest that is you put a consequence as you esteem it ridiculous of your own forging upon me and then aske me are you still in jest is not this handsome yet I Sr give me leave to tell you thus much that though I had granted which I constantly deny that not a man out of the Empire had been in the Council of Chalcedon yet it would have been no jest but a solid truth that from the precedency of the Roman Legates in the Council follows that the Pope was governour of the Christian world for it is necessary to the making of a Council truly and absolutely general and powerful over the Christian world that any Bishop out of the Empire should be actually present in it it is sufficient that they be legitimately and Canonically called to it as much as morally all circumstances considered can be done their actual sitting in it may be obstructed by a hundred accidents dangers impossibilities which hinders not those who can and do present themselves to compose a Council absolutely oecumenical as a sufficient representative of the Church no more then a Parliament legally summoned ceases to be a representative of the kingdome though the Knights of some Counties or Burgesses of some Cities be accidentally absent prove therefore in your next that for this reason that not a man out of the Empire was in that Council the Popes universal government over the Christian world followes not from his legates sitting first in it Mr. Baxter Num. 220. But if it must be so then I can prove that others
when they call the Roman Church Caput omnium Ecclesiarum head of all Churches as they doe very familiarly should allwayes according to you mean no more then the Churches within the Empire and yet should never signifie they mean no more then those if they ever doe signifie it name the place and words in any one of them and you shall be answered As to the word Caput head applied here to an original body As St. Paul declares the Church to be 1 Cor. 12.12 c. it must not only have the propriety of being the highest part in the body but also of having a power and capacity of governing and directing all the other parts as the head hath in natural bodies whereby it is evident that the legates in stiling the Roman Church the head of all Churches must be properly understood to mean that the Roman Church hath not only the cheif place but the cheif visible government and direction also over all other particular Churches Now St. Paul 1 Cor. 12.21 Composing the Church of different organical parts affirms that one amongst them is the head and by head he cannot mean our Saviour for he speaks of such a head as cannot say to the feet they are not necessary for it which cannot be true of Christ he must therefore mean a visible created head which hath need of the inferiour members as they have of it Mr. Baxter Num. 224. The Popes legates were not the Council nor judges in their own cause and not opposing signifies not alwaies a consent William Iohnson Num. 224. What if they were not the whole Council at least they spoke those words to the whole Council and I pretend no more Why should they be Iudges in their own cause seeing it was in a matter which no man then in the whole Council call'd in question or required that any new judgement should be given about it what if not opposing signifie not alwaies consent do I or need I pretend that it alwaies doth so it is sufficient for me that it argues consent here for certainly considering the matter they propose touches deeply upon the priviledges of the Fathers there assembled had they not spoken a known and unquestionable truth all the Fathers had been obliged to defend their liberties given them by our Saviour and represse this injury done them by the legates in that expression which seeing none of them did and yet every one had his full freedome to speak his minde for the Emperour had then no particular affection to the Sea of Rome it is an evident signe then all held it for a received truth so that it was the unanimous opinion and doctrine of the whole Council All therefore which I affirm is this that when any thing is publickly pronounced tending as this did in your opinion to the manifest and great disadvantage of all those who hear it some of them would contradict it if therefore noe one amongst many hundreds present offer to contradict it it is a manifest signe they conceived it no way injurious or disadvantageous to them and therefore assented to it as a most known and undeniable truth in those dayes Mr. Baxter Num. 225. This Council doe as I said expresly define the point both what your Primacy is and of how long standing and of what institution and that Constantinople on the same grounds had equal priviledges William Iohnson Num. 225. This is already toucht and shall be more fully answered in its place Mr. Baxter Num. 226. You say all the Fathers acknowledged themselves Leo's children and wrote to him as their Father Reply Of this you give me not any proof but leave me to read a 190 pages in folio to see whether you say true or not and what if you do as I believe you doe can a man of any reading be ignorant how ordinarily other Bishops were stiled Fathers even by their fellow Bishops as well as the Bishop of Rome William Iohnson Num. 226. You are deeply plunged in difficulties that you have no way to make a seeming escape but by throwing your self out of one fallacy into another See Blondel p. 997. acknowledging these words my argument is grounded in this that the Chalcedon Fathers call'd Pope Leo their Father and themselves his children and you might as you did by printing it in a different character easily perceive that the whole force of my argument was grounded in those termes their Father his children Now you wholly dissemble the answer to this and tell me that ordinarily other Bishops were stiled Fathers even by their fellow Bishops as well as the Bishop of Rome which is a pure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to my argument for one may stile another Father because he is Father to those who are his spiritual children in the Church as all Bishops are in relation to their diocesans Thouhg their equals who writ to them neither stile them their Fathers nor themselves their children as the Fathers of this Council did here style Leo and themselves Whereas you should have given an instance of some number or assembly of Bishops stiling any one their Father and themselves his children to whom they were equal and had no subjection to them nor dependance in government of them this you have not done because you could not do it whereby my argument hath received no solution from you but remaines in its full force against you As concerning your pains of reading a 190 pages in folio to finde out my citation I take so much pains to have been needless for I cite in my text the precise Epistle of that Council to Pope Leo saying in their Letter to Pope Leo which is not above two or three pages at most nor was I obliged to cite it more punctually then I did Mr. Baxter Num. 227. You adde that they humbly begged of him that the Patriarch of Constantinople might have the first place next Rome which notwithstanding the Council had consented to as had also the third general Council at Ephesus before yet they esteemed their grants of no sufficient force till they were confirmed by the Pope Reply So farre were the Council from what you fastely say of them that they put it into their canons that Constantinople should have the second place yea and equal priviledges with Rome and that they had this on the same grounds as Rome had its Primacy even because it was the Imperial â—â—eate vid. Bin. pag 133.134 col 2. William Iohnson Num. 227. I am sorry to see you in passion and that so deeply as to accuse my words of falsity either without duely examining whether they were true or false or if you did examine the place I cite quite against your conscience for these expresse words stand in the Councils Epistle to Pope Leo cited by me where speaking of their canon about the priviledges of Constantinople they say See Blondel p. 997. acknowledging these words rogamus igitur tuis decretis nostrum honor a
Iudicium Therefore honor we beseech you our judgement also with your decree Here therefore you wrong both your self and me in affirming what I say to be false To what you say about that other canon I shall answer in the ensuing paragraph Mr. Baxter Num. 228. You see then contrary to your fiction that three general Councils of the greatest likened by Gregory to the four Evangelists not only judged without the Pope but by your own confession against him for you say he consented not Yea so much did they slight the Popes consent that when his legates dissented they were not heard see Bin. p. 134.136 They persisted in the Council to maintain their Canon 38 notwithstanding the contradiction of Lucretius and and Paschasinus William Iohnson Num. 228. That there was a canon composed in behalf of the Bishops of Constantinople c. I have acknowledged and you acknowledge I have acknowledged it here when you print those words of mine which notwithstanding the Council had consented to c but you dissemble my answer for I contend that whatsoever they concluded amongst themselves without the knowledge and against the protestations of the Popes legates they here submit to the Popes judgement and decree and tell him they enacted that Canon at Constantinople grounding themselves upon a confidence they had that notwithstanding whatsoever his legates presse against it he himself would yield to it as being a thing conceived by them to be very reasonable praesumentes dum noverimus quia quicquid rectitudinis a filiis fit ad Patres recurrit facientes hoc sibi proprium presuming say they Seeing we know that what is done justly by children recurrs to their Fathers who make it to be their own act seeing therefore this whole canon was both decreed out of a confidence that Pope Leo would consent to it and his consent desired by the Council all you say here either of those Fathers resisting the legates or persisting in the persuance of that canon is of no force to prove that either they desired not that his consent or the denyall of it break not the legality of that canon Moreover when you affirm this council decreed without and against the Pope you fall into another fallacy for seeing as I have now prov'd those Fathers proceeded to that decree through confidence they should obtain Leo's consent they cannot properly be said to have done it without much lesse against his consent for they conceived themselves to have a consent presumed which is sufficient when no more can be had to regulate humane actions and though Leo thought fit to deny his consent yet that was after the canon was fram'd for whilst they formed it they had hope he would consent I omit you call it the 38 canon when it is the 28 I suppose 't was an errour in the print Mr. Baxter Num. 229. And unanimously the whole Synod consented never stopping at the Roman dissent Pergaminus Bishop of Antioch saith in omnibus sanctissimum Archiepiscopum Regiae civitatis novae Romae in honore cura sicut Patrem praecipuum habere nos convenit No man contradicted this and is not this as much or more then you alledge as spoke to Leo William Iohnson Num. 229. Will you not expose your self to the deep censure of a considering reader when you say here the whole Synod consented viz to this 28 canon having said but just now they persisted in the council in maintaining the the 38 28. canon notwithstanding the contradiction of Lucretius and Paschasinus who were the Popes legates and were not they the two cheif persons in the whole Council how then could the whole Council consent to it when these two contradicted it Mr. Baxter Num. 230. They call Leo you say Father And the Bishop of Constantinople is pronounced the cheif Father in all things in honour and cure William Iohnson Num. 330. They call Leo say I their father and themselves his children prove they have given such a title to the Bishop of Constantinople vide supra nor yet call they him the chief Father for the words pater praecipuus may properly signifie a cheif Father that is one of the chief Fathers of the Church no nor do they stile him absolutely a chief Father but that he was to be honoured sicut pater praecipuus as a chief Father though he were not the chief above all Mr. Baxter 231. And Eusebius Bishop of Doryl the chief adversary of Dioscorus witnessed that he himself in the presence of the Clergy of Constantinople did read this Canon to the Pope at Rome and he received it upon which your Historian hath no better an observation then that either Eusebius lyed or else at that hour he deceived Leo. William Iohnson Num. 231. Why cite you not your Author for this story sure there 's some reason fo'rt best known to your self no wise man would be thought Author of so fond a Fable First the thing it self is wholly improbable unless you suppose Leo to have been of an unconstant brain for he expresly rejects it in his answer to the Synodical Epistle and secondly to tell it as you do that in the presence of the Clergy of Constantinople Eusebius read this Canon to the Pope of Rome will seem ridiculous seeing that by the Clergy of Constantinople is properly to be understood either all the Clergy or almost all for had you meant only a small part of it you would have said in presence of some of the Clergy c. of Constantinople and not absolutely in presence of the Clergy of Constantinople think you that almost the whole Clergy of Constantinople left their own Church without divine service or Government to go with Eusebius an ordinary Bishop of Rome But that which makes this story as you tell it not only false but impossible is this that what Eusebius said was either before or whilst this Canon was decreeing Eusebius being then present in the Council so that he must have either read it at Rome to Leo before it was made or in the time whilst it was decreeing being then himself not at Rome but at Chalcedon All therefore that he could have said to Leo was about the Canon of the 2. general Council at Constantinople something like to this which was not approved neither by two nor by any of his Predecessors So that Cardinal Peron had reason to affirm the relation of this Eusebius to be false because Leo was so far from confirming either of these Canons that he expresly rejects them in his answer to the Synodical Epistle from Chalcedon Mr. Baxter Num. 232. It 's true that the Synod writ to him for his Consent but not as suspending any of their decrees on it but telling him over and over that the things were by them defined and confirmed already pag. 140. William Iohnson Num. 232. What mean you by not suspending any of their decrees that they raced them not out of the records wherein they were writ that 's
true but not to our purpose or mean you they desisted not from proceeding practically in conformity to them as esteeming them absolutely and compleatly obligatory whether the Pope yielded consent to them or no that 's not true For to what purpose used they so many reasons and perswasions so earnest entreaties Rogamus dignare we beseech thee vouchsafe most blessed Father to imbrace them c. had they not thought his consent necessary to the confirmation of them and that this very 28. had not the authority of a legitimate Canon of that Council as having been secretly and illegally framed neither the Judges nor Synode nor Popes Legates being present at it and very many Bishops especially those of Alexandria being departed as Blundel acknowledges pag. 966. and Leo refusing to confirm it is witnessed by Theodoret who was present in the Council by Dionysius exiguus and Theodorus Lector and the rest both Latins and Greeks who writ the Ecclesiastical History in that age and it is your task to quote some of them who inserted it into the number of the Canons of Chalcedon so that it was excluded and thereby at least suspended from being numbred with the other Canons of that Council till many years after which happily might have given occasion to St. Gregory of saying that the Council of Chalcedon in one place was falsified by the Church of Constantinople nor can it be found to have been cited as a true Canon of Chalcedon before the Trullan Conventicle mentioned it as one of them which was assembled a hundred and forty years after the council of Chalcedon CHAP. VII Agapet Anthymus St. Cyril Nestorius ARGUMENT NUm 233. Whether Pope Agapets deprivation of Anthymus Bishop of Constantinople were unjust Num. 236. Mr. Baxter is put to another desperate shift to avoid the force of Pope Gregorie the great 's words Num. 140. St. Cyril and Nestorius acknowledge the Popes Supremacy Num. 241. Celestines condemning Nestorius proves his universal authority Num. 242. No National nor Patriarchal Synode is of force to oblige any out of that Nation or Patriarchate where it is celebrated Num. 245. Whether St. Cyril Patriarch of Alexandria and President in the first Ephesine Council or Mr. Richard Baxter Minister of Kiddermunster be the wiser Num. 246. A threefold corruption of his Adversaries words Num. 247. Another corruption of his Adversaries argument Num. 248. Mr. Baxters Prophesie Num. 250. and Num. 252. His instances inapposite Num. 254. He slights the Council of Chalcedon Mr. Baxter Num. 233. That which they desired of him was what Synodes ordinarily did of Bishops of their Communion that were absent haec sicut propria amica ad decorem convenientissima dignare complecti sanctissime beatissime pater Non-proof 23. William Iohnson Num. 233. Here 's another of your Non-proofs shew if you can that Oecumenical Councils such as this at Chalcedon was did ordinarily beseech rogamus and entreat other Bishops to yeeld to what they had decreed as did here this Council St. Leo in this their Epistle to him General Councils understood the extent of their authority too well to beg of any Patriarch save him of Rome to yeeld consent to their decrees for they esteemed them all obliged to assent to them when they were approved by the Roman Bishop as appears both in this Council by the Emperours writing to all Churches to know whether they consented to it and their punishing Dioscorus the first In Epistolis ad diversas Ecclesias in fine Conc. Chalced. and Iohn of Antioch the second Oriental Patriarch and the like in that of Ephesus in condemning Nestorius c. But you use a petty sleight or two here first you say they write to Leo for his consent in the former Paragraph not specifying the manner of their writing and thereby leaving your Reader an occasion to think they might write by way of command or exaction for there are very different manners of writing one to another whereas I have declared their writing to Leo to have been by humble requests and intreaties and then in this Paragraph you say Councils ordinarily writ to Bishops in the same manner as this Council did to Leo not expressing what Councils you mean For if you speak of such Councils as were accounted in their respective times only National or Provincial 't is true they might entreat other Patriarchs and Bishops to give their approbation of them but that 's a stranger to our present matter if of general Councils which is only in question you should not have supposed but proved it Such minute underminings as these will gain you no great credit Mr. Baxter Num. 233. In your Margin you tell me that Agapet in the time of Justinian deposed Arithymus in Constantinople against the will of the Emperour and the Empress Reply And doth it follow that because he did it therefore he did it justly yea and as the Governour of that Church when Menna Bishop of Constantinople excommunicated Pope Vigilius was he not even with him and did that prove that Rome was subject unto Constantinople Niceph. l. 17. c. 26. when Dioscorus excommunicated Leo and an Eastern Synode excommunicated Julius Zozom l. 3. c. 11. that proves not that they did it justly or as his Governours Honorius the Emperour deposed Boniface Otho with a Synode deposed Johan 13. Justinian deposed Sylverius and Vigilius will you confess it therefore justly done as to the History I refer you to the full answer of Blondel to Perron cap. 25. sect 84 85. usurpation and deposing one another by rash sentences was then no rare thing Eusebius of Nicomedia threatned the deposing of Alexander of Constantinople who sure was not his subject Socrat. lib. 1. c. 37. vel 25. Acacius of Caesarea and his party depose not only Eleusius Basilius and many other but with them also Macedonius Bishop of Constantinople Socrat. lib. 2. c. 33. vel 42. did this prove Acacius the Vice-Christ what should I instance in Theophilus actions against Chrysostome or Cyrils against Johan Antiochen and many such like William Iohnson Num. 234. What will not obstinacy do rather then yeeld hitherto you have laboured to evade all the Instances I brought against you as insufficient to prove the Bishops of Rome did any act of true jurisdiction over the other Patriarchs Blond p. 438. and 439. Iustifies this proceeding of Agapet and Bishops of the East Church Now seeing this act cannot be pretended not to shew an exercise of power and jurisdiction over the Patriarch of Constantinople you confess the fact to be an act of power and superiority but alleadge it was unjust that is above the power of the Roman Bishops and then to make your plea good you demand this question of me and doth it follow that because he did it therefore he did it justly and that done to prove that consequence null you instance in many who excommunicated both Popes and other Bishops unjustly But see you not a wide
disparity those whom you instance were condemned by such as were contemporary with them for having proceeded unjustly in those excommunications c. And this you and all who have learning know to be true But where can you find any classick Author or credible Record about those times which condemned this act of Agapet against Anthymus as unjust nay they are so far from having condemned it that they highly praise him and extol him for it Thus Iustinian Novel 42. saies it was done by the most holy Bishop of old Rome Agapet of most holy and glorious memory and the Council gathered presently after by Agapets appointment say they follow the injunctions of that most holy Pope in depriving Anthymus not Arithymus as you miscal him of his Bishoprick of Trebisonde and of all Offices and Dignities Ecclesiastical hence all your instances appear so many disparities to our present case yet would I insist upon them you have no small number of flaws in them v. g. where have you read that Mennas excommunicated Vigilius I wonder to see you cite Nicephorus for it whose authority you your self rejected p. 151. what actions mean you of Cyril against Iohn of Antioch were they depositions deprivations excommunications c. such as those of Agapet were against Anthymus if so why prove you them not if not why make you mention of them Beside was not St. Cyril as I have proved made Legate in the East by Pope Celestine Mr. Baxter Num. 235. Still you suppose one Empire to be all the Christian world we must grant you that in all your instances William Iohnson Num. 245. Still you are so short sighted that you cannot reach to the force of an argument grounded in paritate rationis I suppose no such matter as that one Empire is the whole Christian world 't is your imposition but I argue thus the Bishop of Rome exercised and that justly spiritual jurisdiction over all the Provinces and Patriarchates within the Empire and that before any general Council was assembled to confer such a power upon him alwayes alleading both by himself and other holy Bishops of antient times that this power issued primarily from his being successor to St. Peter to whom Christ gave the keyes of his Church absolutely as well without as within the Empire consequently it was in no mans power to restrain it to the sole Empire ergo he had as much power to excommunicate depose or deprive any Bishop without the Empire when occasions were given to exercise that power as he had through the whole Empire Now you only trifle in telling me so often that I make the Empire the whole Christian world I do not that but draw this consequence the Bishop of Rome exercised jurisdiction through the whole Empire as my instances demonstrate and there is no sufficient reason to restrain that power within the precincts of the Empire ergo à paritaete rationis for the same reason that power extends it self to all Christian Churches out of the Empire It is therefore your part to shew such a reason for restraining his power within the Verge of the Empire otherwise you suppose without reason it is limited to the Empire not I that it exceeds the Empire Mr. Baxter Num. 236. For what you alleadge from Gregory I shall give you enough of him anon for your satisfaction if you will be indifferent As to your citation what can I say A years times were little enough to search after your citations if you should thus write but many more sheets if a man had so much time and so little wit as to attend you You turn me to Gregory c. 7. ep 63. but what book or what indiction you tell me not but whatever it be false it must needs be there being no one book of his Epistles according to all the Editions that I have seen where c. 7. and ep 63. do agree or meet together but at last I found the words in lib. 7. c. 63. ep 63. William Iohnson Num. 236. The error is in the Copist for in a draught of mine I have it twice lib. 7. ep 63. as you found it and you might easily have discovered it to be the error of an Amanuensis for sure that 7. chap. must have been of some book or other Mr. Baxter Num. 237. To which I say that either your great Gregory by subject meant that the Bishop of Constantinople was of an Inferiour order as the Patriarch of Alexandria and Antioch were to Constantinople that yet had no government of them or else he could say and unsay but I doubt not but this was all his sense William Iohnson Num. 237. I see you were sore prest with this authority when it puts you upon so desperate glosses Are you really in earnest did you ever read that the word subjectus subject related to that which is above can properly signifie no more then of an inferiour order the Lord Mayor of York is of an inferiour order or ranke to the Lord Mayor of London is he therefore subject to him I see you would again preach pleasing things to your good wife of Kiddermunster for when they read in St. Peter 1 Pet. 3.5 that wives should be subject to their husbands they will have learnt from this book of yours that subject signifies only one of an inferiour ranke not that their husbands should have any government over them But for all this it signifies here say you no more then one of an inferiour order who has no government over the other and why so why you your self doubt not but this was all his sense nay if you doubt not of it I have done that must needs be enough to make it certain are you serious when you trifle thus yet at all adventures if haply you misse in this congruous construction you have another turne to save your self for if St Gregory truly meant subject as all the world meanes it for being under the power and government of an other then you say that Gregory sayes and unsayes it seems you have some particuler picquâ—â— against him because he converted our Nation from heathenisme to popery as you terme the Roman religion are not you the first that ever accused the great St. Gregory to say and unsay but as to the word it self subject subjectus being derived from sub under and jaceo to ly down it cannot signifie only not to be so high as is another or to be of an inferiour ranke quality order or place but to ly under him or at his feet which signifies that the other hath power over him for subjectus alteri subject to another is jactus sub altero cast under another or under the power or command of another and I would gladly know what one latin word signifies more cleerly that any one is under the government of another then does the word subjectus subject a good subject to his sacred Majestie should mean no more then you say is here meant by subject that
you are of an inferiour order to his Majesty and content he shall take place of you but withal deny he has any power over you were not he likely to be well serv'd by such subjects but sure you might have discovered had you read his words attentively that St. Gregory could not mean a subjection only of inferiority in order and not in government for he sayes in another place if there be any fault committed by Bishops l. 7. ep 64. secundum Blondel ep 65. Iâ—â—dictione 2. I know no Bishop which is not subject to the Apostolical Sea but if the fault require it not according to the reason of humility wee are all equal See you not the subjection which he asserts here is grounded in the delicts or faults of Bishops and is not that in order to correction reprehension and punishment for those faults and must not that proceed from power of government and authority over them is not this evident nor can he speak in the first part of this sentence of a subjection of order only for he affirms that supposing there be no fault the Bishop of Rome is the first Patriarch in order through the whole Church and consequently the rest unequal in ranke and place that is subject to him in your sense he must therefore mean another subjection besides that when he saith they are subject by reason of their faults would it not be ridiculous if the Mayor of London shoul write thus because all other Mayors are inferiour to him in order if any fault be committed by the Mayors of this Kingdome I know none of them all who is not subject to the Mayor of London but if no fault require it in humility we are all equal I hope by this time you will have cause to doubt whether your sense be the sense of St. Gregory here or no Mr. Baxter Num. 238. But if it had been otherwise Constantinople and the Empire was not all the Christian world William Iohnson Num. 238. This seemes to be the burthen of your song but I have shewed you just now that it s quite out of the tune Mr. Baxter Num. 239. Your next citation is lib. 7. epist. 37. but its falsly cited there is no such word and you are in so much haste for an answer that I will not read over all Gregories epistles William Iohnson Num. 239. There is an errour in the figures it should be lib. 7. ep 64. where you 'l finde what I cite And that very reason which you alleadge for not reading over St. Gregories epistles viz. hasting for an answer pleads the excuse of my friends in sending my answer away to you before I could return to town and read it over to wit your importunity for a speedy answer Mr. Baxter Num. 240. You say that Cyril would not breake of communion with Nestorius till Celestine had condemned him of this you gixe us no proof William Iohnson Num. 240. Doe I not looke in the Margin p. 56. in your edit lit o. you 'l finde the proof of it cited there I see you use not to read the places cited by your adversary otherwise you could not but have seen the proof of what I say in Cyrils epistle to Celestine Mr. Baxter Num. 241. But what if it be true did you think to prove the Pope to be the vice-Christ prudence might well make Cyril cautelous in excommunicating a Patriarch And we still grant you that the order of the Empire had given the Roman Bishop the Primacy therein and therefore no wonder if his consent were expected William Iohnson Num. 241. Yes indeed I really thought so if you understand by vice-Christ no more then what we ascribe to the Pope otherwise I would never have prest that instance to prove it And as really tooke I the writing of two and those as you would have it the cheif Patriarchs of the Eastern Church to the Pope of Rome the one to have his doctrine censured that is either allowed or condemned by the Pope the other to have the Popes authority for himself and the rest of the Eastern Bishops whether Nestorius his doctrine were formal heresie and they oblig'd to avoid communion with him this I tooke to be a forcible argument to prove the Pope to be a vice-Christ if you mean as we doe no more then this by it that he is the supream visible governour of the whole Christian militant Church in the place of Christ and truly I am in the same minde still for all you have brought against it Is it think you probable that Nestorius would have written to Celestine and required his authority for the approbation of his doctine had he esteemed him to have no more power over him then the Mayor of London hath over the Mayor of York nor was the question propounded by St. Cyril about a positive excommunication of Nestorius as you misconceiv'd but onlie a non-communion with him as you presently acknowledge Mr. Baxter Num. 242. But that Nestorius was comdemned by a Council needs no proof and what if Celestine began and first condemned him Is he therefore the universal Bishop William Iohnson Num. 242. Yes he is so as universal Bishop may be understood For if the condemnation of him in the Ephesine Council in conformity to the Popes precedent censure argu'd an universal authority in that council over the whole Church as all both Catholicks and Protestants you only excepted acknowledg much more the primacy and original condemnation of his doctrine argu'd an universal authority in Celestine Mr. Baxter Num. 243. But it was not Celestine alone but a Synod of the Western Bishops William Iohnson Num. 243. This is answered above where you put the same reply No national or patriarchal Council can upon their sole authority oblidge the rest of the Patriarchs as this did Mr. Baxter Num. 244. And yet Cyril did not hereupon reject him without further warning William Iohnson Num. 244. But that warning was ordered by Celestine as I have proved p. 56. in your edit Mr. Baxter Num. 245. And what was it that he threatned but to hold no communion with him William Iohnson Num. 245. And was that in your account a matter of smal moment you may please to take notice that the Bishop of Rome's denial to receive any one into his communion or the substracting himself from communicating with them was in those dayes an undoubted marke of their being cast out of the Church and that no Catholick Bishop was to excommunicate or to permit any under his charge to communicate with them as is proved at large in Schisme unmaskt or the conference with Dr. Gunning For the rule to know with whom every one was or was not to communicate was their Câ—â—mmunion or non-communion with the Roman Bishop Mr. Baxter Num. 246. And though pride made excommunication an Engine to advance one Bishop above others I can easily prove that if I had then lived it had been my duty to avoid
instructed me to help my ignorance in this I have no obligation at all to tell you what power Valentinian had out of the Empire for he might first declare as he did the power of the Roman Bishop to govern the whole Church in the beginning of this breif and in the end take care that all those Provinces which were under his Empire should observe that his law concerning so much as belonged unto him that the universal power of the Pope should be observed As may now the Emperour of Germany or the King of France or Spain first declare the universal power of the Roman Bishop over all Churches and then command all their Provinces to obey him which is all the Emperour does here For Valentinian sayes not as you falsifie his words omnium provinciarum of all the Provinces but aliarum provinciarum of other Provinces nor ut Pax ubique servetur as you corrupt him but tunc ubique servabitur then peace will be observ'd every where if the whole universality acknowledge their governour and that not in the law but in the declaration made of the Popes authority vide supra as an introduction to it You answer to Valentinians affirming the Popes authority and sentence was of force without any imperial law to back it is much deficient For seeing he had before declared that the Popes commands had been alwaies observed they must have been of force both before any Patriarchate was assign'd to him by any general Council as you imagine it was and before any Christian Emperours had enacted any lawes concerning it and the very law it self destroyes your glosse for Valentinian sayes presently what shall not be lawful for the authority of so great a Bishop to exercise upon the Churches Whereby he shews his power extends it self not only to his own but to all other Patriarchates nay your very restraining his words to the Empire and yet extending them to the whole Empire shew evidently that the Popes sentence had not been only of force independently of any imperial law within his own but also in all other jurisdictions of the Patriarchs within the imperial verge and hence the consequence which you draw from this authority whereas Valentinian sayes it needed not the imperial help that it needed this extraordinary secular support is as contrary as to draw darkness from light and as inconsequent is it to argue from Hilaries repugning against the Pope sentence for a time that the Pope had no such power over him which notwithstanding you granted just now as to argue that a lawful Prince hath no power over rebellious subjects because they resist it So that it could never seem to any considering person otherwise then that it came into the thoughts and words too of Valentinian here that the Popes supremacy exceeded the limits of the Roman Empire But it is evident enough through the vein that runs through this Paragraph that you are soundly netled with this law of Valentinian and yet because you are resolved what ere comes on 't to persist in your errour you fall foul upon Hosius Leo Valentinian Bishops Popes rather then yield to a manifest truth Hosius you make so shallow that he took things away weakly and facilly upon the custome of the times Leo you make proud and fraudulent and Valentinian a young and raw Prince subject to be perswaded to any thing The most part of considering readers will smile to see Hosius the most honoured Bishop of his time through the whole Church who presided in two general Councils and legate of the holy Pope Silvester for the Western Church Leo graced with the title of most blessed Father Nicene Sardican pronounced the head of the Catholick Church and universal Bishop stiled the mouth of St. Peter in the Council of Chalcedon and ever since honoured with the title of a Saint and Valentinian a most renowned Emperour both for fortitude and prudence for he was twenty seven years of age when he composed this edict so slighted reviled and debased by the Minister of Kiddermunster and that upon your surmises and guesses without any proof at all And others will pitty and compassionate your misery as I really do to see you so deeply plunged in adhesion to your own opinion that you will break all the bonds of Christian modesty and charity rathen then acknowledge your error or yield to a manifest truth Mr. Baxter 258. And it 's no credit to your cause that this Hilary was by Baroniu's confession a man of extraordiry holiness and knowledge and is sainted among you and hath his day in your Kalendar William Iohnson Num. 258. But does not Baronius in the very same place reprehend him at that time when he fell into those defaults and tell you that after his condemnation he came again to himself crav'd most humbly pardon of the Pope and shewed manifest signs of repentance and upon this his humiliation and perseverance in obedience to the See of Rome became both a famous defender of the Catholick Faith and a Saint Was it any disadvantage to the Catholique Church that Origen Tertullian or even St. Cyprian himself men of equal understanding and learning with St. Hilary opposed the doctrine of the Church and raised troubles in it Mr. Baxter Num. 259. And yet Valentinian had great provocation to interpose if Leo told him no untruth for his own advantage for it was no lesse then laying siege to Cities to force Bishops on them without their consent That he is accused of which shews to what odious pride and usurpation prosperity even then had raised the Clergy fitter to be lamented with floods of tears then to be defended by any honest Christian Leo himself may be the Principal Instance William Iohnson Num. 259. He had so indeed but must he therefore give more power to the Bishop of Rome then of right belonged to him Who either defends or is not ready to bewail these abuses But I see where you are you would cast a blot if you could upon Episcopal Government and cry down the power and possessions wherewith God and good men had even in those times inriched them Mr. Baxter Num. 260. You next return to the Council of Chalcedon Act. 1. seq where 1. you referre me to that Act. 1. where is no such matter but you adde seq that I may have a hundred and ninety pages in folio to peruse and then you call for a speedy answer but the Epistle to Leo is in the end of Act. 16. pag. Bin. 139. And there you do but falsly thrust in the word thou governest us and so you have made your selfe a witness because you could find none The words are Quibus tu quidem sicut membris caput praeeras in his qui tuum tenebant ordinem benevolentiam praeferens Imperatores vero ad ordinandum decentissime praefidebant Now to go before with you must be to govern if so then Aurelius at the Council of Carthage and others
much as I do William Iohnson Num. 266. You criticize again Signifies sanxit to charge one I ever yet thought that sanxit signified he made a decree or a Law look into the Dictionaries and you 'l find it so A father charges his child to rise at six a clock in the morning will you say sanxit shew me in any approved ancient author that sanxit is ever applied to any who have not power to command or to give Laws to others in regard of whom they do sancire establish any thing to be observed The question is not now what Stephen did or Cyprian believed but what Vincentius sayes of Stephen he sayes sanxit he sent or fram'd a Law or decree that in matter of baptism of those who had been baptized by heretiques nothing should be innovated but what was delivered by tradition of receiving them into the Church without rebaptizing them should be observed this St. Cyrian questioned and inclin'd too much to the contrary Nor is the question here what Stephens authority was in other particulars or was not but whether Lyrinensis say that he had power and actually did sancire enact and make a Law to oblige all those in Africa in this particular Why divert you the question by so many turnes I leave your answer to judgement You still take all occasions to enervate the Popes authority by alleadging the opposition of those who you know and all the learned with you were in error against it such were those in that Council of Carthage Firmilian and St. Cyprian then whilst they defended the error of rebaptization Whence appears the untruth of what you affirm here that St. Cyprian knew that the ancient custome maintain'd by Pope Stephen of non-rebaptization was to be observed for he with Firmilian and Council of Carthage c. practised and taught the quite contrary Mr. Baxter Num. 267. I pray answer Cyprians testimony and arguments against Popery cited by me in the Disp. 3. of my safe religion William Iohnson Mum. 267. I see you 'l give me work enough if I had nothing else to do then busie my self with the tasks you set me what have I to doe now with the third disputation of your safe religion I believe I shall finde it much of the same temper with your key or whether St. Cyprians arguments are with or against Popery Our question is about Vincentius Lyrinensis his authority answer that in the true sense of the Latin word Sanxit and then wee 'l talk with you about other questions when occasion requires it Mr. Baxter Num. 268. 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 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 Billinsgate affords nor more harmonious then a fair or vulgar rout what confusions would contradictions make amongst them William Iohnson Num. 268. Yet certainly if any one in your Council held at London an 1562 should have said as much of St. Peters and the Popes supremacy as this legate said in the Council of Ephesus he would have had all the new Bishops about his ears and a greater noise against him then was ever yet hard at Billingsgate which would have rung all the Kingdome over You answer to my difficulty is fallacious ex ignoratione elenchi you suppose me to argue thus in an universal proposition whatsoever is said by any particular person and not contradicted in Councils is consented to by the whole Council and upon this false supposition you frame your Reply Now I advance no such universal proposition at all in that place but argue from their silence or non contradiction to their consent out of the particuler instance of the legates delivering a doctrine in your principles absolutely destructive of the authority and jurisdiction of all the Bishops in the Council and therefore were obliged in conscience to contradict it their silence therefore evinces they conceived it was no disadvantage to them but a great advantage both to them and the whole Church and so argues they consented to it All therefore that I affirm is this whatsoever is said tending directly to the destruction of the authorities and priviledges of those to whom it is said as those words of the Legates must have done in your opinion would have been contradicted by them because they were all oblig'd to stand for the priviledges which Christ had given them and to oppose every one who delivered any doctrine contrary to them Seeing therefore not so much as any one in the Council speak the least word against the Legates its evident they esteemed not themselves to be injur'd or concern'd in them and consequently consented to their doctrine as Catholick and Orthodox nor any way abridging any Bishop there of those Episcopal dignities and jurisdictions conferr'd by our Saviours institution upon them Mr. Baxter Num. 269. You turne me to Tom. 2. pag. 327. Act. 1. I began to hope of some expedition here but you tell me not att all what author you use and in Binius which I use the Tomes are not divided into acts but chapters and pag. 327. is long before this Council so that 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 William Iohnson Num. 269. 'T was your want of books not mine of preciseness in citations for I cite Tome Act and page which created you this labour I had reason to think you were not ignorant that the edition of Paulus quintus ut supra was by actions not chap. And there you may finde it as I have cited it Mr. Baxter Num. 270. Phillip was not the Council you bare witnese to your selves therefore your witnesse is not credible William Iohnson Num. 270. Philip was not the council who sayes he was what then ergo his authority not contradicted by the Council as I have now declared is no good argument the Council consented to his doctrine make that good But suppose it had been Philip or Arcadius alone even speaking out of the Council it had concluded against you you have it seems forgot what you affirmed p. 2. your edit viz. But at least of four hundred years after Christ I never yet saw valid proof of one Papist in all the world that is one who was for the Popes universal monarchy or vice-Christship Now you know the Council of Ephesus was celebrated in the years 430 and 431. That is in a moral consideration of so many years 400 years after Christ and who can doubt that this Philip flourisht within the first 400 this testimony therefore
proves evidently that there was at least one papist that is one who was for the Popes univer +sal monarchy or vice-Christship in the extent of those ages wherein you profess not to have found so much as one single person in that whole tract of time For those legates give testimony not only for that precise time of the Council but also for all precedent ages before it as I have evidenced by their words Mr. Baxter Num. 271. Yet I have given you instances in my key which I would transcribe if I thought you could not as well read print as M. S. of higher expressions then Caput fundamentum given to Andrew by Isychius and equal expressions to others as well as Rome and Peter William Iohnson Num. 271. You might have pleased to have told me where thinke you I 'me bound to were your key at my girdle as if I had nothing to doe but busie my self in reading it over to finde your wild citations Mr. Baxter Num. 272. And who is ignorant that knoweth any thing of Church history that others were called successors of Peter as well as the Bishop of Rome William Iohnson Num. 272. What successors mean you such as were received by Christians to succeed in the place of St. Peter as he was fidei columna and ecclesiae Catholicae fundamentum the pillar of Faith and foundation of the Catholick Church as the legate speakes here of him truly Sr. I confesse I am so ignorant that I know no such matter as you talke of Mr. Baxter Num. 273. And that the the Claves regni were given him is no proof that they were not given also to all the rest of the Apostles William Iohnson Num. 273. The question is not at present whether it prove absolutely they were not given to others because they were given to St. Peter but whether the legate in this sentence must not mean this to have been a priviledge peculiar to St. Peter as much as all the former were understood by him to be peculiar to St. Peter Now he could not without manifest absurdity be understood in any other sense for seeing he intended to demonstrate to the Council the preheminence of St. Peter and his successors above all others he had fallen into a grosse inconsequence had he enumerated those excelencies to shew St. Peter to be greater then were the other Apostles and his successor higher in authority then the successors of any of the Apostles should he have specified such particulars as were common with him and the rest of the Apostles seeing those are so far from proving him to be above them that they prove the quite contrary for equal priviledges common to all prove all were equal in those priviledges Mr. Baxter Num. 274. And where you say Arcadius condemneth Nestorius for contemning the command of the Apostolick sea You tell me not where to finde 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 equal in the name of Christ And therefore he had power to command without the Empire over all the Catholick Church and therefore the Council was of this minde yea therefore the universal Church was of this minde that the Pope was its universal head You still are guilty of sporting about serious things and moving pitty instead of offering the least proof William Iohnson Num. 274. By what I have now writ in answer I think you will not have found me in jest in the proof of these consequences taken with due circumstances Celestine sayes the legate commanded and Nestorius was condemned by him for not obeying Celestines command and no man was either in the council or in the whole Church who had then the repute of an orthodox Christian either reprehended Celestine for commanding or justifyed Nestorius for not obeying and if any did so produce them in your next by good authority ergo it was a just command 2. It being a just command and must proceed from one who had true authority to command and against one whome you say by right of the first Council of Constantinople was the first Patriarch then in the Church had he true authority over him he must have had true authority over all those who were inferiour to him ergo there was no man to be found in the church who had power to command Celestine there the second consequence The third I prove thus he had power to command justly as is proved the highest Patriarch in the Empire and that Patriarch and the others also had power to command the Empire as I have proved above ergo Celestine had consequently power to command all those whom they commanded The fourth consequence I prove the legate said this in full and publick council and were all highly concern'd in it as is also prov'd and yet did not in the least contradict it ergo the council was of this mind that it was no abridgement to their priviledges but an establishment of their authority a prime preservative of the Churches unity and a fundamental institution of Christ in the perfect orders of Ecclesiastical Hierarchy as the legates had delivered it to the council You suppose here without any proof at all that one pastour though equal may command another in the name of Christ. Who ever taught this doctrine before you everts it not inevitably the order of Church government commanded by St. Paul for what is order but a due observance and subjection of inferiours to their respective superiours which is wholly subverted when an equal takes authority upon him to command his equal whatsoever pretence of the name of Christ he assume to glosse it for unless that conferre a real authority upon him who commands over him who is commanded he remaines his equal still that notwithstanding and then he commands without any true authority which destroyes order or if it communicate a reall authority over the person commanded it makes him superiour who commands and not equal to the other which destroyes your supposition of one equal commanding an other This made good the last consequence followes inevitably for seeing his Council has ever â—â—een reverenced and received as a true general Council and what such Councils consent to is the consent of the Catholick Church for all bodies diffusive are to confirm themselves to their true representatives it follows and that very seriously without all jesting that these consequences are so fast lockt up together that all the tuâ—â—nâ—â—s of your key will not be able to unlock them CHAP. VIII NUm 275. Why perpetual adherence to the Roman Church was promised by a Bishop who was reconciled from Schism to the Church Extra-imperial Bishops obeyed the Bishops of Rome Num. 276. Mr. Baxter forgets what his adversary undertook to prove and thereupon accuses him of not proving
what he was not obliged to prove Num. 277. Why the Roman supremacy in spirituals is necessary to the being of Christs visible Church Num 278. He proceeds fallaciously a sensu conjuncto ad sensu divisum The difference between temporal Kings and Popes government not understood by Mr. Baxter Num. 279. He proceeds a jure ad factum from what should be done to what is done Num. 280. He mistakes his adversaries meaning in governing others as Brethren Num. 281. Wâ—â—e her the Pope be absolutely the Monarch of the visible Church Mr. Baxter Num. 275. Yet fear you not to say that in the time of the holy oecumenical Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon the universal consent of the whole Catholick Church was for you in this point The Lord keep our consciences from being the servants of our opinions or interests 1. Was the Popes legate the whole Church 2. Was there one man at either of these Councils but within the Empire yea a piece of the Empire So that they were but such as we now call national Councils that is consisting only of the subjects of one republick 3. Did the Council speak a word for your power without the Empire 4. Do they not determine it so expresly to be of humane right that Bellarmine hath nothing regardable to say against it Can. 28. Con. Chal. but that they spoke falsly And yet your opinion or interest hath tempted you to appeal viz. to the Sun that there is no such thing as light William Iohnson Num. 275. Here 's nothing but a good face put upon a bad cause and a repetition of what is answered imboldned with a new confidence your first qu. about the Popes legate is answered To your second I answer yes there were no small number of extra-imperials but had there been none if all were summoned it ceased not to be a general Council To the third yes every decree it made was spoken to the whole Church and as it appeares by the letters of Leo the Emperour writ presently after the Council of Chalcedon to all Churches even the most distant in those parts it was universally received in their respective answers by every one of them To your fourth about can 28. Con. Chal. I have answered already and shall say more when it is more fully treated Mr. Baxter Num. 276. After the conclusion you have a supernumerary in your margin from Greg. lib. 10. Epist. 30. But there is no such word in that Epistle nor is it of any such subject But it s the 31 Epistle its like that your leader meant And there is no more but that a Bishop not named person or place having fallen into Schism voluntarily swore never more to depart from the unity of the Catholick Church or the Sea of Rome But. 1. So may a Bishop of the Roman Province do or Patriarchate without beleiving Rome to be the universal head William Iohnson Num. 276. Could they and yet make the communion with the Bishop of Rome to be the certification and evidence they reconciled themselves to the Catholick Church If any Schismatick in France should reconcile himself to the Catholick Church could he promise to remain allwayes in the communion of the Bishop of Rhemes suppose that Bishop should so be excommunicated or turne Schismatick as he might could he promise never to forsake his communion seeing therefore an absolute promise was made to remain alwayes in the communion of the Bishop of Rome it was presupposed that Bishop once lawfully chosen and installed could never be excommunicated or become a Schismatick so long as he remained Bishop of Rome otherwise the promise had been illegal and impious obliging them to communicate with Schismaticks Now there can be no other sufficient reason given why the Bishop of Rome can never be excommunicated or become a Schismatick so long as he is Bishop of that Sea then that he is the visible head of the whole Church from whose communion whosoever seperates becomes a Schismatick as he who seperates from the loyal obedience of the visible head of a Kingdome becomes a Rebel but because he has no power above him against whom he can rebel but as a King can never be a Rebell so not the highest visible governour of the Church can be excommunicated or commit Schisme by contempt of the lawful authority of the Church because he who is the highest of all has no authority in the Church over him for then he were not the highest Mr. Baxter Num. 277. So might any one in any other Province have done And yet it followes not that he ought to do so because he did so You see now what all your proofs are come too and how shamefully naked you have left your cause William Iohnson Num. 277. I have so illustrated and strengthened my instances to open them to your understanding that every one of them by an argument a paritate rationis onis ut supra evinces the Popes power to have been universal over all Christendome seeing those Patriarchs and Prelates that were within the verge of the Empire obeyed him upon no other score save this that they still conceived him to be by vertue of the priviledges and powers given by our Saviour to St. Peter and his lawful successors the cheif Governour of themselves and of all other Prelates whatsoever and of the whole Church and I challenge you to produce one sole instance of Authority from antiquity which sayes in expresse termes that those of the Empire obeyed them because they were members of the Empire or that his authority reached not without the Empire Nay even in time of the Council of Ephesus and Chalcedon Spain though seperate from the Empire obeyed the Roman Bishop for it was possest by the Gothes an 414. who have ever since kept it and the Council of Ephesus began 430. And not long after an 475. France was possest by barbarous Kings and never since returned to the Empire yet still remained under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome When England was after converted betwixt six and seven hundred years it was no part of the same Empire yet yeilded it obedience to the Bishop of Rome the like is of many other Western and Northern Countries out of the Empire converted about or after these times See more of this in my reasons against your grand noveltie in restraint of general councils what you mention here of a parity from Canterbury hath no parity at all For the English Church rendred obeisance to the Bishop of Canterbury as to the Primate of the English Church only whereas those in the Empire obeyed the Bishop of Rome not as cheif Bishop only of the Roman â—â—mpire but as having authority over the whole Church in vertue of succession from St. Peter who received it from Christ which I will demonstrate hereafter Mr. Baxter Num. 278. You have not named one man that was a Papist Pope Lâ—â—o was the nearest of any man nor one testimony that ever a
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 arch-bishop 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 you can prove Canterbury to be before York or Rome before Constantinople that will prove neither of them to be Ruler of the antipodes or of all the Christian world William Iohnson Num. 278. But if you can prove Canterbury to be not only in place and precedency but in authority and jurisdiction above York and withall above all the Metropolitans Primates and Patriarchs which were anciently within the Roman Empire because they acknowledged his authority to be above all the Prelates of God to have Christs vineyard committed to his care from Christ to be the Father to all the Bishops met in general Councils and they his professed children acknowledged by them to be their head and they as parts subject to him c. And never to have been acknowledged as supream in spirituals by these in the Empire because his authority reached as I have prov'd the Bishops of Rome to have been acknowledged by them no farther then the Empire When I say you shall have prov'd the Bishop of Canterbury to have been over all the Metropolitans Primates and Patriarchs within the Empire in this manner as I have proved the Bishop of Rome to be you will have proved Canterbury to have had all the preheminences given him by antiquity to be the Supream spiritual governour of the whole Church But seeing neither you nor any one in his right wits would ever undertake so great a peice of nonsence I should have wondered you dazle the eyes of your readers with such empty shewes as these had it not been so ordinary with you This very argument hath proved that not only one man but as you cannot deny all the Churches in the Empire acknowledge it and yet you say I have not proved one man to hold it whether this be to be termed confidence or impudence I leave to judgement Mr. Baxter Num. 279. Much less have you proved that ever any Church was of this opinion that the Pope was by divine Right the Governour of 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 to the first 300 yeares William Iohnson Num. 279. You forget and have proceeded in that act of oblivion through your whole reply that I undertook in these instances noe more then to prove against your bold assertion that within the first 600. 500. and 400 yeares there were some at least who testified the Supremacy of the Roman Bishop over the whole Church by Christs institution though therefore my proofs had not been taken out of those who flourished within the first 300 years seeing they were within the first 400 they had been of force against you But you may remember also that I cited St. Cyprian who was within the first 300 and Vincentius Lyrinensis who witnesses the same of Pope Stephen contemporary with St. Cyprian and very many of my cheif instances prove V. G. in the councils of Nice Ephesus and Chalcedon that it descended from our Saviour and had been in all ages since the Apostles and was to be in all future ages Mr. Baxter Num 380. And much less have you proved that the whole Catholique Church was of this opinion William Iohnson Num. 380. Whether I have or no let others judge Mr. Baxter Num. 381. And yet 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 to our salvation and not only ad melius esse as a point of order William Iohnson Num. 381. I have proved it to have been a matter ever necessary in the Church by Christs institution and therefore necessary ad esse to the being and not only ad bene esse to the perfection of the Church For seeing some Governours are essential to the Church as appears Ephes. 4. v. 11 12 13. in the order and Hierarchy of those Governours there must be some who are to be over all the rest in visible government otherwise neither could schism be avoided and unity preserved as Optatus cited hereafter affirms l. 2. contra Parmen nor would a visible body have a visible head which would be monstrous Mr. Baxter Num. 382. So that you have left your cause in shameful nakedness as if you had confessed that you can prove nothing William Iohnson N. 382. If you mean to such eyes as yours which I have demonstrated either discovered not or mis-saw the face of my arguments I grant it but all open and right sighted eyes I hope will have seen my cause so invested with grace and truth by what I have here replyed that it will have no shame to appear before heaven and earth before men and angels for its justification Mr. Baxter Num. 383. 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 essentials of Christianity of which Popery is none any more then pride is William Iohnson Num. 383. I leave it to judgement whether this answer related to my explication as of Christianity pag. 64. your edit have any sense in it For what though Popery as you conceit were no more essential to Christianity then pride is yet if a Papist hold all the essentials of Christianity as you hold he does he may be univocally a Christian. Will you say that because pride is none of the essentials of Christianity therefore no proud man holds all the essentialls of Christianity to what purpose then have you added this clause of Pride and Popery when I speak in general and abstractive terms not medling at all with particulars Now you give no satisfaction to your Reader about the clear notion of an univocal Christian you tell him here that an univocal Christian is he who believes all the essentials of Christianity but through this whole answer you never give him either a distinct catalogue of essentials or prescribe any direct rule or means to know which they are as we shall see hereafter Mr. Baxter Num. 384. About the word Monarch in good sadness do you deny the Pope to be an imperious sole Commander Which of these is it you do 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 William Iohnson 384. You are really a strange man to deal withal Can any one speak more
clearly then I have done I say we hold no such Monarch in the Church as is an imperious sole Commander as temporal Kings are c. And when I have said all this in sensu conjuncto and knit my words and sense together as close as I can you go and pull all in pieces and ask me if I understand them in sensu diviso Is not this very handsome think you Should I say that Iane Shore was no honest Christian woman would you have askt me which of these is it that I deny not that she was a woman not that she was a Christian not that she was honest in her conversation would it not have been ridiculous in a high degree and if upon this you should adde after I had said she was no honest Christian woman conform to what you do here I would either you or I could know what you hold about Iane Shore Would not every one laugh at you But in sober sadness did you not understand what I denyed as plainly as what I deny of Iane Shore Hold we him to be an Imperious sole Commander as temporal Kings are whom we unanimously affirm to have no power to deprive Church Officers at his pleasure as Kings have power to put out what Officer soever they please through their whole Kingdom who is not alone to govern the Church either immediately or mediately as Kings govern their Kingdoms according to Christs institution But every Bishop being Christs Officer and not the Popes as truly as the Pope is within the precincts of his Diocess are as true Governours of the different respective parts of the Church as the Pope is of the whole Now I hope at last you understand me how Popes differ from temporal Kings Mr. Baxter Num. 385. Sure your following words shew not the difference First Kings may receive power from Christ. 2. Kings must rule in meekness charity and humility William Iohnson When we say he receives power from Christ you cannot be ignorant that we understand it of Christ as author of Christian Religion and not as author of nature and morality nor can you but know that temporal Kings as such abstract from Christian Religion and are truly Kings whether they be Christians or no they cannot therefore be said in any formal proper sense to receive power from Christ as he is head of his Church but from God as author of nature and morality Mr. Baxter Num. 386. But I think the meekness charity and humility of Popes hath been far below even wicked Kings if cruel murthering Christians for Religion and setting the world on fire may be witness as your own Histories assure us William Iohnson You tear my discourse all in pieces I join that of governing in charity c. to this as Brethren and Children and you fallaciously divide it it is not contrary to the humility of a King to account all in his Kingdom to be his vassals Substitutes Officers but it would be contrary to the humility of a Pope A King will not be thought cruel and defective in meekness if he judge a person and condemn a malefactor to death but a Pope would The rest is a pure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I spake of the Office of Popes and you of the persons I of what we hold they ought to do and you of what they do or may hap to do If any personal cruelty have been exercised by Popes let them answer it not I who have not in the least medled with it here But I see such fallacies as these in passing à jure ad factum and the like are spread thick over your whole answer yet even in this objected cruelty we must take your honest word for here 's no other proof then that you affirm at a venture our Historians assure us it is so You 'l tell us I hope in your next who those Historians are Mr. Baxter Num. 387. The Government of Kings also is for mens eternal good how ever Papists would make them but their executioners in such things William Iohnson Num. 387. Of what Kings know you not we dispute now in sensu formali that is of temporal Kings for that was my term and would you have temporal Kings that is temporal Governours as such tend to a spiritual and eternal good for if as such they tend to a spiritual end then all temporal Princes even Turks and Heathens must do so Mr. Baxter Num. 388. 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 William Iohnson Num. 388. What mean you by brethren as such are no subjects abstractively to what purpose is it also true to say men and women as such are no subjects that is they are not subjects precisely quatenus under the formal notion of men and women for then all men and women should be subjects exclusively that is their being brethren repugnes to their being subjects Take heed that doctrine will be dangerous at Court what were not his Majesties brethren his subjects or because his Majesty ruled them but as brethren he ruled them not by any governing authority as you say here of the Pope the like is if any elder brother should be Schoolmaster or General or Magistrate over his younger brother did he not rule him by governing authority And have you not an express prophesie of two brethren major serviet minori the greater shall serve the lesser Nay calls not Christ himself his Apostles brethren will you therefore say he rul'd them not by governing authority But you I suppose very innocently fall into a grosse folly here when I say he governs them as brethren you would have my meaning to be as they are brethren by a reduplication upon the object whereas by the term as brethren I mean he governs them as brethren use or ought to be govern'd reduplicating upon the act of governing not upon the object that is to be govern'd that is the chief Governour of Christs Church is according to the will and institution of Christ to govern all Christians as a brother who is a Superiour and Governour of his brethren and ought to govern them to wit in meekness charity and humility and therefore I make all my reduplications and reflections upon the act when I say if only for one who hath received power from Christ in meekness charity and humility to govern all the rest for their eternal good as brethren or children I grant it Mr. Baxter Num. 398. 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 William Iohnson Num. 389. To what purpose trifle you thus do I say Christians are the Popes natural children Say I not as children and know you not that nullum simile est idem who can think they are otherwise then
metaphorical children and he a metaphorical Father but will you scruple at the Pater noster because we call God our Father and consequently our selves his children because we are not the proper and natural but his metaphorical children when you next talk of governing them in love for their good and affirm that Kings must do the like why leave you out the word eternal which is my epithite and wherein the force of my words consists and then tell me I have exprest no difference at all is this fair will not every one who hath but half an eye discover such petty slights as these Mr. Baxter Num. 390. But our question is not new nor in universal terms what Soveraignty you claim you know or should know Are you ignorant that Bellarmine Boverius and ordinarily your Writers labour to prove that the Government of the Church is Monarchical and that the Pope is the Monarch the supream head and Ruler which in English is Soveraign Are you ashamed of the very cause or Title of it which you will have necessary to our salvation William Iohnson 390. 'T is one thing to say the Government is Monarchical and another to affirm the Pope to be the Monarch as you do and Bell. cited by you does not of the whole Church without ever explicating what kind of Monarch you mean A government may be termed Monarchical which hath a great part of Monarchy in it though it be not strict and perfect Monarchy as a man may be called Angelical though he be no Angel thus our Authors and particularly Bellarmine put the Church-government to have something of the mixt in it Bell. l. 1. de Rom. pont c. 5. sect ultimo though he esteems it to incline more to Monarchy then to Aristocracy Whence appears that your inference drawn from a government thus imperfectly Monarchical to intitle the chief Governour in it the Monarch of it without all restriction as you do is of no force And of as little force is your other inference grounded in your former mistake that I am ashamed of any title which I hold necessary to salvation first prove we call the Pope Monarch and then say I am ashamed of it CHAP. IX Num. 391. Whether the title of the Vice-Christ be accounted either due or given by sufficient authority amongst Roman Catholiques to the Pope or accepted by them Num. 392. Mr. Baxter confounds Vice-Christi in place of Christ and Vice-Christus the Vice-Christ Num. 393. How far the Pope is understood to be in the place of Christ. Num. 394. He miscites his Adversaries words Num. 395. How the Vice-Christ and the Vicar of Christ differ Num. 396. Why a Deputy for a King may be called the Vice-King but a Deputy of Christ cannot be called the Vice-Christ Num. 397. Mr. Baxter makes Vice God to be a a higher title then Vice-Christ Num. 398. Mr. Baxter in place of alleadging a sufficient that is a publique authority cites Oratours Poets Encomiasticks c. and yet mistake most of those Mr. Baxter Num. 391. Next you say that you very much dislike the title of Vice-Christ as proved and insolent and utterly disclaim from it neither was it ever given by any sufficient authority to your Popes or did they ever accept of it Reply Now blessed be God that makes sin a shame to it self that the Patrons of it dare scarce own it without some paint or vizard William Iohnson Num. 391. Had you first confuted this answer and then broke out into this exclamation it had been much more seasonable but as it stands it relishes more of passion then of reason and will appear so to any who shall consider the weakness of your proofs against it whereof most consist in a pure digression by a fallacy usual to you proceeding à notione secunda ad primam from the second notion to the first or from the title to the thing it self as we shall now see Mr. Baxter Num. 392. Is not the very life of the cause between you and us whether the Pope be the universal head of the Church Vice-Christi Vicarius Christi Are not these the most common titles that Papists give them and that they take unto themselves William Iohnson Num. 392. Here you begin your fallacie Vicarius Christi is indeed a title but Vice-Christi is none the one signifies the Vicar of Christ but the other signifies in the place or stead of Christ which having no substantive or demonstrative annext to it cannot possibly be a title for of it self it signifies no determinate substance Now if you will joyn to it a substantive and say Papa est Vice-Christi the Pope is in place of Christ you may make some kind of title to it but you can never make it that about which we controvert for that is Vice-Christus the Vice-Christ so that all those who are Vice-Christi in the genitive case that is the place of Christ are not Vice-Christi in the nominative that is Vice-Christi which title onlie is in question betwixt us you were as some of your Parishioners esteemed you to govern those of Kidderminster Vice-Christi in the place of Christ were you therefore the Vice-Christ of Kiddermunster Nor is the title of universal head of the Church set down in your illimited terms here either a title acknowledged by us as due to the Pope or given to him by us For that Christ being the sole universal head of the Church which comprehends the Church militant and triumphant the term universal head signifies that which is due to Christ onlie we therefore acknowledge there is none but Christ himself according to your expression universal head of the Church nor is there any universal Vice-head nor Vice-Christ corresponding to that universal head to be found in the whole Church Nay even speaking of the sole militant Church we never say without some restriction the Pope is universal head of the Church for universal head comprises as well the internal and invisible as the visible Governour of the militant Church now we all deny that the Pope is head in the invisible government of the visible Church for that manner of government Christ only is the universal head nor say we that there is any Vice-christ or Vice-head constituted in the place of Christ in this invisible direction of the Church We therefore restrain the term universal head by this restrictive visible nor intend we to say any more then this that the Bishop of Rome is the visible head of the universal visible Church so far as it is capable of a visible government together with other Bishops who are as truely Christs officers and vice-gerents in their respective governments though subject to the Pope as he is in his government And in this sense only can he be termed a vice-Christ or vice-God that is holding the place of Christ in the visible government of his Militant Church But he cannot be stiled the vice-Christ which is the sole title about which we now contend
for that imports an absolute Vice-gerency under Christ in all things Now in the othet sense above explicated every lawful Bishop also or Pastor may be termed a Vice-Christ and every King a Vice-God in reference to those whom they govern as truly as the Pope can be yet neither we nor you attribute usually any such title to any of them because they seem neither to suite with Christian humility nor with the incomparable supereminency of Christ. Now to shew that even when they are attributed by some Encomiasticks to our Popes it is done with restrictions as v. g. in terris upon earth visibilis visible c. And every one who knowes any thing knows this is all we mean Mr. Baxter Num 393. Nay look back into your own papers here pag. 6. Whether you say not that they are instituted governours in Christs place of his whole visible Church William Iohnson Num. 393. You are a man of a strange confidence I have lookt back upon pag. 6. in your edition and finde evidently I say not so much as one word of what you cite here and had you lookt back with an even eye you would have seen no such words nor any thing like them in that place let all the world see and judge and in those pag where I advance a proposition about the Popes supremacy p. 23. I have not those words in Christs place in which only you ground your argument let the world again see and judge my proposition there is this that the Pope is cheif governour on earth in matters belonging to the soule next under Christ where I limit the extent of his government by saying on earth and the power in governing by not saying in all matters belonging to the soul but in matters belonging to the soul that is no other save those though not in all those to wit not in the internal illuminations graces and influences inspired by the holy ghost into the harts of Christians whereby it is evident I speak such things as are visible and external for that restriction was added to distinguish his power in government from that of temporal Princes who can govern only the external If you deal so unfairely in your citations even where every one with the turne of a leaf can discover you what credit can your readers afford to those which they cannot examine Corruption Mr. Baxter Num. 394. 2. Doth not Bellarmine as I have cited else where labour to prove that it is not as an Apostle that the Pope succeeds Peter but as a head of the Church in Christs stead doth not Boverius cited in my key labour to prove him the Vicar of Christ and to be Vice-Christi William Iohnson Num. 394. Both Bellarmine and Boverius make him head no farther in Christs place then in order to the visible government over the Militant Church nor make they him the vice-Christus the vice-Christ but to be vice-Christi in place of Christ or Vicarius Christi which I have shewed to be mainly different from the title of vice-Christus the vice-Christ for that put absolutely seems to impart that he is in the place of Christ in the intire government of the militant Church both visible and invisible and that the Pope as the vice-Christ can infuse illuminations and spiritual graces into soules and knew them and regulated them perfectly as Christ did whilst he was upon earth and in the visible government of the Church that he hath a power to displace any Bishop or Prelate at his pleasure through the whole Church as if they were his own officers and not the officers of Christ. And here appeares the disparity in that which you being for a parity of those who rule in the place of a King to be stiled vice-regis vice-kings for by reason that Kings have no other governing power save what is visible all the acts of that power may be communicated by way of vicegerency to him who is vicegerent of the King who therefore may be absolutely stiled the vice-King because all those acts are committed to him by the King but in our case the cheif and primacy only of government being the internal influxes into the soul are not committed to the Pope so that he cannot be absolutely termed vice-Christus the vice-Christ but still with a restraint and limitation or secundum quid And by thâ—â—s appeares also your fallacy that first you proceed a parte ad totum from one part of government to the whole and then a secundum quid ad simpliciter to one who in some consideration only is in the place of Christ to wit the Pope or vicar of Christ to an other who is in all respects and absolutely in place of a King that is a vice-roy or vice-King I never therefore contended with you that the Pope may not be stiled Vice-Christ with restriction or limitation but that the title of the vice-Christ absolutely put is not as you put it due to him Mr. Baxter Num. 395. And what fitter English have we for the Kings deputy in a distant Kingdome who is vice-Regis then the vice-King or a Chancellors deputy then the vice Chancelor vice-Christi is your own common word and vicarius Christi none more common scarce then the latter and what English is there fitter for this then the vice-Christ or vicar of Christ. William Iohnson Num. 395. Your joining together the vice-Christ and vicar of Christ as Sinonomas is frivilous for they have a quite different signification when vice-Christ is put absolutely and your making vice-Christi in place of Christ to be the same with vice-Christus vice-Christ is absonus the rest is answered The English therefore to signifie how the Pope is in place of Christ is the vicar of Christ not the vice-Christ Mr. Baxter Nume 396. It is evident indeed the very terme that expresseth properly as men can speak the true point and life of the controversie between us And how could you suffer your pen to set down that the Popes did never accept of this when it is their own common phrase vice-Christi vicarius Christi William Iohnson Num 396. I never suffered my pen to deny the title of Vicarius Christi the vicar of Christ nor that he is vice-Christi in place of Christ in his visible government but that which I deny is that we either use to stile them or they assume the title of vice-Christ and you have not the consideration to distinguish betwixt vice-Christi and vice-Christus which every school boy is able to distinguish Mr. Baxter Num. 397. But here againe remember and let it be a witnesse against you that you dislike and utterly disclaim the very name that signifieth the Papal power as proud and insolent And if you abhor Popery while you tice men to it let my soul abhor it and let all that regard their soules abhor it blessed be that light that hath brought it to be numbred with the works of darkness William Iohnson Num. 397. All will pitty you who see
then either the Church Canons or the consent of classick Authours warrant them If you had proceeded like a Scholar to confute my assertion you should have alleadged either some Popes who inserted Vice-Christus Vice-Christ into their titles or who taught it in their publick Bulls or writings to be due to them or at least some Council or consent of Catholick Doctours who give him that title or prove it to belong to him But to draw a solemn title from Orators Poets Rhetoritians Encomiasticks what is it but a trifle to give rather an intertainment then an argument to youâ—â— Readers And for Antonius Puccius he sayes no more here to the Pope then was gâ—â—ven in time of the Council of Chacedon to the Emperour Martian by Pulcheria the Empresse who sayes Literae Divinitatis ejus the letters of his Divinity and even by the Fathers of that Council Martian is called divinissimus most divine â—â—on Chal. Act. apud Binium Tom. 2. p. 106. Mr. Baxter Num. 413. In the same Council Simon Beginus Modrusiensis Episcopus in an oration Sess. 6. calls Leo the Lyon of the tribe of Juda the root of Jesse him whom they had looked for as the Saviour William Iohnson Num. 413. It seems you either took these authorities on trust or reade them very cursorily over Beginus says not Radix Iesses the root of Iesse as you have it but Radix David the root of David And his meaning is perverted by you culling out those words from the rest conjoyned to them in the Oration for it is evident that he gives Pope Leo these titles in allusion to his name and applies them only restrictively to the saving or preserving the Roman Church from the invasions of Turkes and Hereticks then appearing and threatning Christendome this is so evident that no man can read the oration and not see it Now what crime is there in calling him a Saviour in this particular external preservation Why did you not fall as heavie upon the holy Scripture Iudicum 3 15. for intitling Ehud a Saviour and 4 Reg. 13.5 that the same title is given to Ioas. But here you shew your spleen and cunning in translating the word Salvatorem the Saviour as if Beginus made the Pope to be Christ he only having due to him the title of being called the Saviour Mr. Baxter Num. 414. In the same Council Sess. 10. Steph. Patracensis Archiep. saith Reges in compedibus magnitudinis magni regis liga nobiles in manicis ferreis censurarum constringe quoniam tibi data est omnis potestas in coelo in terra and before qui totum dicit nihil excludit So that all power in Heaven and Earth is given to the Pope Paulus Emilius de gestis Francor lib. 7. saith that the Sicilian Embassadours lay prostrate at the Popes feet thrice repeated thou that takest away the sins of the world have mercy upon us And prove to me that ever any such man was reprehended for these things by the Popes of late Augustinus Triumphus in praefat sum ad Johan 22. saith that the Popes power is infinite for great is the Lord great is his power of his greatenesse there is no end And qu. 36. ad 6. He saith that the Pope influenceth or giveth the Motion of direction and the sense of cognition into all the members of the Church for in him we live and move and have our being And a little after he saith The will of God and consequently of the Pope who is his vicar is the first and highest cause of all Corporal and spiritual motions Would you have more witnesse of the falshood of your words Saith Zabarella I. C. lib de Schism Innocent 7. and Bened. pag. 20. For this long time past and even to this day those that would please the Popes perswaded them that they could do all things and so they might do what they pleased even things unlawful and so more then God Antonius parte 3. tit 21. cap. 5.4 Saith the Pope receiveth faithful adorations prostrations and kisses of his feet which Peter permitted not from Cornelius nor the Angel from John the Evangelist Cardinalis Bertrandus Tract de Origin jurisd q. 4. num 4. in Glos. extrag com l. 1. fol. 12. saith Because Iesus Christ the Son of God while he was in this world and even from Eternity was a natural Lord and by natural right could pronounce the sentence of deposition on Emperours or any others and the sentence of damnation and any other as upon the Persons which he had created and endowed with natural and free gifts and also did conserve it is his will that on his account his vicar may do the same things For the Lord should not seem discreet that I may speak with his reverence unless he had left behinde him one vicar that can do all these things Tell me now whether you said true in the Paragraph about the title Vice-Christ yea whether it be not much more that hath been given and accepted But what name else is that you agree on as proper to express the power which is controverted I know no name so fitted to the real controversie and therefore in disclaiming the Name for ought I know you disclaime your cause and confess the shame of Popery If he that seeks to the King of England should say he disclaimeth the title of the King as insolent and proud doth he not allow me to conclude the same of the thing which he concludeth of the proper name the Name Papa Pope you know its like was usually by the ancients given to other Bishops as well as to him of Rome and therfore that cannot distinguish him from other men the same I may say of the titles Dominus Pater sanctissimus Dei amantissimus and many such like And for summus Pontifex Baronius tells you Martirol Rom. April 9. that it was the ancient Custome of the Church to call all Bishops not only Pontifices Popes but the highest or chief Popes citing Hierom. Ep. 99. And for the word head of the Church or of all Bishops it hath been given to Constantinople that yet claimeth not as Nilus tells you neither a precedency to Rome nor an universal Government much less as the Vice-Christ And that the Bishop of Constantinople was called the Apostolick Vniversal Bishop Baronius testifieth from an old Vatican monument which on the other side calls Agapetus Episcoporum Princeps the Title Apostolick was usually given to others Hierusalem was called the Mother of the Churches A Council gave Constantinople the Title of universal Church which though Gregory pronounced so impious and intolerable for any to use yet the following Popes made an agreement with Constantinople that their Patriarch should keep his Title of universal Patriarch and the Bishop of Rome be called the universal Pope which can signifie nothing proper to him the name Pope being common more then universal Patriarch doth the foundations and Pillars of the Church
and the Apostles successors yea Peters successours 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 termes Vice-Christi Vicarius Christi being those that Popes and Papists choose to signifie their claim what other shoâ—â—lâ—â— I use William Iohnson Num. 414. This discourse of yours is defective many wayes First it is fallacious ex insufficiente enumeratione partium For amongst all the titles you have reckoned you have not that of Pontifex maximus and the like may be said of many others which is peculiar to the Bishop of Rome and was never attributed to any other nor was any other ever intituled Vicarius-Christi the Vicar of Christ nor Episcopus universalis Ecclesiae Bishop of the universal Church nor Caput omnium sacerdotum Dei the head of all Priests of God save the Pope see how much you are out in the accounts Secondly it is corrupt for you fall againe as you did in your key ut supra to translate Pontifex Pope and summus Pontifex Chief Pope Thirdly you assert the same things without proof as that Head of the Church was given to Constantinople that the Popes made an agreement with Constantinople that their Patriarch should keep the title of universal Patriarch and the Bishop of Rome be called the universal Pope Fourthly you speak equivocally for though summus Pontifex as Baronius notes was given anciently to all Bishops yet that was in relation to inferiour Clarks not to all even Bishops Metropolitanes and Patriarchs as it is given to the Bishop of Rome So that Summus Pontifex in Baronius his sense signifies no more then a chief or highest Priest but ascribed to the Pope it signifies the chief and the highest Bishop and is consignificant with Pontifex Maximus which Baronius affirms to be peculiar to the Pope as I have already noted you equivocate also in the title of Saint Peters successours as I have declared above for though other Bishops may be said to be his successours secundum quid in some part of his Ecclesiastical power viz as he was a Bishop yet none can be said to be his successour simpliciter absolutely and intirely that is in the fulnesse of his power as he was Prince of the Apostles and chief Bishop of Gods visible Church as it is visible save the Bishop of Rome for the reason above alleadged by me and thus much your self must grant according to your own principles for though you assert other Bishops to be his successours in his Episcopal dignity yet seeing you grant him a precedency of place before all other Bishops and Patriarchs as Saint Peter had precedency before all the rest of the Apostles for otherwise he could not have been as the Ancient Fathers familiarly call him Princeps Apostolorum the Prince and chief amongst the Apostles for that must at least signifie a principallity in place and rank seeing I say you yield him this precedency none can have been successour to Saint Peter in the full extent of his dignity save the Bishop of Rome As to the particular Authours you cite here you have very ill luck in your citations you first produce these words qui totum dicit nihil excludit as spoken by Stephanus Patracensis when they are St. Bernards words and cited by this Stephanus out of his book de consideratione to Eugenius the Pope and to which words of St. Bernard Stephanus Alcides in this place So that you cannot condemn him unlesse you condemn Saint Bernard for using that allusion out of Scripture to the Pope The meaning of this Author is no more then this that he having before termed the Church Coelum Heaven he prosecutes that metaphor and by Heaven meanes nothing but Ecclesiastical persons and by earth those of the laity for he speakes first of Bishops and Prelates and then of Christian Kings and Princes saying to the Pope Et vera reformatio fiat tam in spiritualibus quam in temporalibus ubicunque terrarum tuo decreto diffusa fuerit after which he adds immediately Accipe ergo gladium divinae potestatis c. Quia tibi data est omnis potestas in caelo in terra Antoninus whom you very leardnedly call Antonius in that place of his History if you mean that has not one word of what you cite here Paulius Emilius Augustin Triumphus Zabarella and Bertrandus I have not yet seen but these are only particular Authors not of sufficient authority which I required to conferre the title of the Vice-Christ upon Popes nor yet do they so much as mention any such title Now these authorities were either alleadged by you to confute my position denying the title of Vice-Christ was given him by sufficient authority or they so many pure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and proofs in the air you pretend by these allegations to prove against my assertion that the title of the Vice-Christ is given by authority to our Popes and accepted by them and to prove this you cite five particular Authors whereof not so much as one names the title of the Vice-Christ Is not this as much as to say they give him not the title of Vice-Christ ergo they give him the title of Vice-Christ Sure you dream'd of logick when you writ this yet farther if these five authorities prove any thing against us tis that they make the Pope not the Vice-Christ but Christ himself or of equal power with him and one of them that the Pope is of greater power then God himself which is directly contrary to your pretence for no Vice-King is the King nor of equal power with the King If you reply in proving they make him equal to God and Christ c. They prove more then was undertaken to be proved and that they make him higher then the Vice-Christ And secondly you may please to remember you had two things to prove the first that the Popes were held by sufficient authority amongst us to be the Vice-Christ and secondly that the Popes accepted of that title Now though you had prov'd that some have given them eulogiums sounding something more then the Vice-Christ yet that will neither prove it was done by sufficient authority nor unlesse you prove the Popes have accepted them which you never so much as essay to doe your intent in these prooss for the authorities you alledge are not sufficient to ground a publick solemn title so that your Thesis is left bare and naked yet without proof You say here the ancient Councils though câ—â—ld General yet were but of one principallity that is as you have often affirmed their authority extended no farther then the Empire so that in effect they were not truly general but national or provincial Now I have already produced many reasons to represse this your grand novelty and prov'd
manifestly that in some of these Councils were many Bishops out of Spain France and Germany or at least that these Councils had power and jurisdiction over the Churches in those Nations after they were separated from the Roman Empire under other Kings and Governours I will now indeavour to shew that there were extra-imperial Bishops in the four first Councils and that such as were out of the Empire subjected themselves to their determinations as to such as were obligatory through the whole Church concerning the first In the first Council of Nice Theophilus Gothiae Metropolis Bishop of Gothia in the farthest parts of the North beyond Germany Dominus Bospori Bishop of Bosporus a citty of Thracia Cimmeria or India as Cosmographers declare the Bishop of Botra a City of this name is found in Arabia and Sala a Town also of great Phrygia the higher Pannonia and Armenia is so called as Ptolomeus notes l. 4. c. 1. Iohanâ—â—es Persidis of Persia which was not under the Roman Empire as you acknowledge above In the first Council of Constantinople the second General were three Bishops of Scythia And Etherius Anchialensis now Anchialos is a City in Thracia not far from great Apollonia In the first Council of Ephesus the third General was Phebamon Coptorum Episcopus the Bishop of Kopti Theodulus Elusae Episcopus anciently a City of Arabia Theodorus Gadarorum Episcopus of that name is a City in Cavà -Syria In the Council of Chalcedon the fourth General was present Antipater Bostrorum Episcopus a City in Arabia ut supra Olympius Scythopoleos which is a City of the Scythians in Coele syria Eustathius Gentis Saxacenorum of Saraca there is a City so called in Arabia-Foelix Constantinus Episcopus Bostrorum in Arabia Subscripsit quidam pro Glaco Gerassae Episcopo Gerasa is a City in Coele-syria Now 't is evident that the Fathers of those general Councils in all their decrees constitutions and Canons intended to oblige all Christians through the whole world and thereby demonstrated themselves to have jurisdiction over the whole Church and never so much as insinuated that their authority was limited within the precincts of the Empire Thus the Council of Ephesus sayes their decrees was for the good of the whole world Thus the Council of Chalcedon act 7 apud Bin. tome 2. pag. 105. declares the Church of Antioch to have under its government Arabia and act 16. cap. 28. apud Bin. which you hold for a Genuine Canon that the Bishop of Constance should have under him certain Churches in barbarous Nations which you must prove to have been then under the Empire The first Council of Constance in that Canon which you admit about the authority of the Bishop of Constantinople makes a decree concerning those Churches which were amongst the Barbarians that they should be governed according to the ancient custome no wayes restraining the Canon to those only which were under the Empire Thus Nicephorus lib. 15. hist. Ecclesiast c. 16. relates that Leo the Emperour writ to the Bishops of all Provinces together circularibus per orbem literis ad Ecclesias missis Leo haec sic ad omnes ubique Episcopos misit which he accounts were above a thousand to have them subscribe to the Council of Chalcedon And in correspondence to those letters of the Emperour the Bishops of the second Armenia which seem to have been out of the Empire writ an answer wherein they affirm the Council of Nice conferr'd peace upon all the Catholick Churches founded thorough the whole world to wit by teaching them to defend 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against Arius and call the Council of Chalcedon twice occumenical and general and Adelphus a Bishop of Arabia subscribes amongst the rest to this Epistle The Bishops of the second Mesnia which you must prove to have then been under the Empire writ that the Council of Nice deliver'd the Faith toto orbi terrarum to the whole world they stile also the Roman Bishop the head of Bishops and that the Council of Chalcedon was gathered by Pope Leo's command who since they call him head of Bishops they extend his power and consequently the power of that general Council gather'd by him to all Bishops and Churches in the world To this Epistle subscribes Dita Bishop of Odyssa in Scythia It is manifest also that the Bishops of Spain France and Germany who were not under the Emperour in time of the third and fourth general Councils submitted themselves to their decrees and esteem'd themselves obliged to it as you cannot deny Mr. Baxter Num. 415. 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 General 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 William Iohnson Num. 415. I wonder you have the boldness to say general Councils were more ordinary that is more frequent of old then now they are seeing that from St. Peters dayes till 300. years after Christ there was not so much as one general Council in the Church was the Church think you all that time governed by general Councils as by its ordinary Governour but what mean you by more ordinary you equivocate in the word ordinary for you by that word can mean no more then frequent whereas I take ordinary as it is taken in the Canon Law for that which is of it self not frequently but alwayes required for the Churches government and without which the Church cannot be rightly governed Thus a King is the ordinary head and supream Governour in his Kingdom and though Parliaments be ordinarily that is frequently called yet they cannot be said to be the ordinary governours of the Kingdom You play and dally with words not understanding the sense but the sound of them Mr. Baxter Num. 416. The way not to have been extraordinary if the Council of Constance had been infallible or of sufficient power who decreed that there should be one every ten years William Iohnson Num. 416. Here you use the same equivocation in the word extraordinary that you did just now in the word ordinary you call that extraordinary which is not frequent or happens but seldom when the true sense in which I speak and which you should oppose is this that which is not alwayes of its own nature necessary for the Churches government nor perpetually in use and power whether it be frequent or not frequent that is ordinary or extraordinary in your mistaken sense But I would intreat you hereafter to reflect a little more of what you write you hasten so much that you leave sense behind you The way say you not to have been extraordinary if the Council of Constance had been infallible or of sufficient power
deliver'd in the Creed or propos'd to be expresly believed by Catecumens as necessarie to Baptism But they say you lived neer the Churches that were planted by the Apostles and how far lived your beginners from one of them were they not so neer it that everie one of them was of it before they began to novelize That 's not all say you but they were neer the Apostles daies and were those Christians who liv'd neer the Apostles daies to have another rule of faith and principles to confound Heretickes then those of succeeding ages Tertullians rule of prescription is universal and illimitted either to time or place is it not if it be not how came all insuing ages to make use of it against Hereticks of their respective ages And were the Christians in Brittanie Spain and Affrica neerer to those Churches then then they are now what perergons are these Or are those of Armenia and Graecia farther from them now then they were in Tertul. time Num. 1. pag. 232. It was the common Creed then say you and is it not now nay but you adde no other doctrine save that what mean you by other contrary doctrine to the Creed no more is it now not express'd in the Creed so were not many doctrines inculcated then by Tertullian as the holy Eucharist and Pennance where read you these express'd in the Creed which Christian mysteries notwithstanding Tertullian requires in his prescriptions Num. 2. pag. 132. if he would have all Apostolical Churches to be assured witnesses then sure Rome was not excluded why exclude you't now Num. 3. pag. 232 233. if he woâ—â—lâ—â— have the present Churches to the respective beginnings of Hereticks the immediate witnesses as you acknowledge here why refus'd you the witnesse of all immediate Churches existent in the world in your beginnings did they not all celebrate Mass pray for the dead fast Lent desire the prayer of Saints held merits of good works Confession Purgatorie c. Name those who did not hold some or all of these in those times Pag. 232. you cite Latin Texts without rendring them into English there 's something in 't what mean you when you say Tertullian understands not the Church of Rome by una Ecclesia no more then this that it was not the Church of Rome when it first begun in Jerusalem who ever contradicted you in this mean you that it was not made one visible Church by the same visible government first under our Saviour whilst he remain'd on earth then under St. Peter both before and after he became Bishop of Rome which it had under his lawful Successors the Roman Bishops in all ensuing ages that 's indeed the question and seeing Tertullian speaks here of one Church as propagated thorough the world successively from the Apostolical Churches and that of Rome was one and the chief amongst them how can Tertullian speak of the Church and not speak of the Church of Rome in this sentence and seeing also he treats here of a Church as one visible and there is no other means to render it so one if it have not one supream visible ordinary Tribunal to whom all are subject as Optatus had said above and that can neither be the Bishops diffus'd thorough the whole Church nor assembled in a general Council for that is an extraordinarie Tribunal as I have proved there must be some one supream ordinarie Pastor over all other Bishops which if it be not the Bishop of Rome pray tell me in your next who it is By this is satisfied your seven notanda pag. 234. for though Tertullian instance in the Apostolical Churches of his time whilst they agreed in faith with that of Rome as paterns of Christian faith yet experience hath told us and you cannot denie it that all the rest by departing from the faith profest in Rome fell by degrees into heresie so that now you must either say there is no Apostolical not fallen into Heresie or that the sole Roman remains pure from it and a pattern of unitie and puritie of faith to all Christians even till and at this day 29. Pag. 235. you make Tertullian speak both false Latin and non-sence by putting tenentem for tenendum 'T is not put amongst your errata's your English parenthesises as you larded the Latin Text with them three in number look methinks something odlie 30. Pag. 235. what if Tertullian in that passage send us not to the Roman Church would you have him to write nothing in his whole works but dispatches to Rome what if he call the holy Ghost only Vicarius Christi in that place sayes he therefore that he only is his Vicar cannot Christ have one invisible and another visible Vicar Why not sayes Tertullian as you here acknowledge that it is the holy Ghosts office to procure that all the Churches lose not the Apostles doctrine why then say you they have all lost it you 'l replie they have not all lost it in its essentials names Tertullian essentials he sayes the holy Ghost would never permit all Churches to leave the Apostles doctrine now that which you account non-essential was as we now suppose as much their doctrine as was that which you account essential besides ut supra what essentials were contradicted by the Millenaries Nicolaitans c yet they in Tertullians account left the Apostles doctrine but you 'l reply again those onlie are said to leave the Apostles doctrine who leave all their doctrine not those who hold some points though they leave others Then no Heretick can be said to have left the Apostles doctrine for never did any leave it all then though the Church should deny some articles of the Creed and hold others it could not be said to have left the Apostles doctrine you 'l bring I see the Church at last to a fair pass I am glad to see you so ingenuous as to cite the words of Tertullian ecquid verisimili est c. but should have been more satisfied had you English'd them He saies there that it is unlikely all Churches should agree in one and the same errour so that when many agree in one it is no errour but tradition and then demands whether any one have the audaciousness to say those err'd who deliver'd such a doctrine How like you this did not all the visible Churches in the world deriveable from the Apostles agree in the celebration of Mass real Sacrifice desiring the prayers of Saints in heaven praying for the dead fasting in Lent c. immediately before Luther begun to play the Novelist name me any such Church who did not ergo non est erratum sed traditum therefore these are no errours but traditions according to Tertullians doctrine here you are an excellent confuter of your self 31. Pag. 236. you cite Tertullian again reckoning Smirna with many others before Rome Answer it was enough for illustrating Tertullians argument prest there of reducing Churches to their first Originals to bring any instance
Apostoloâ—â—um Capuâ—â— Petrus unde Cephas appellatus est In qua una Cathedra unitâ—â—s ab omnibus servaretur ne caeteri Apostoli singuli sibi quisque defenderent Ut jam Schismaticus peccator esset qui contra singularem Cathedram alteram collocaret Ergo Cathedra unica quae est prima de dotibus sedit prior Petrus cui successit Linus c. Therefore sayes Optatus thou canst not deny that thou knowest in the City of Rome the Episcopal chaire was first given to Peter wherein sate the head of all the Apostles Peter whence he is called Cephas In which one chaire unity should be kept by all least every one of the rest of the Apostles should defend another chair to himselfe That now he should be a Schismatick and a sinner who should erect another chaire against this that is single or one only therefore in this only chair which is one of the dowries of the Church first sate Peter to whom Linus succeeded c. Thus farr Optatus and then he reckons up seven and thirtie Popes succeeding one another to Ciricius who sate in his time then adds Cum quo nobis totus orbis commercio formarum in una communionis societate concordat Literarum supplendum videtur with whom Ciricius the whole world accords with us by the correspondence of formed Letters This done he relates that this truth of unity in faith and communion was then a thing so notoriously known throughout the whole Christian world for a mark of a true Christian that the Donatists themselves to have some pretence to it even from their first beginning sent one of their partie to be Bishop of the African Donatists in Rome and still continued the succession of those Donatists Bishops there to the number of four whose names he mentions so ambitious were they of having at least a shadow of communicating with a Bishop at Rome seeing they could never have it with the true Bishop of Rome as Optatus notes here St. Chrysostome (t) Orat. Encom in Petrum Paulum orat 5. contr Iudeos hom 83 in Math. hom 87. in Ioan. hom 80. ad po Anteoch stiles St. Peter Doctour or Teacher of the Apostles and that he was the first of the Apostles brought under his subjection the whole world and that Christ built his Church upon him The top of the Apostolical Colledge that he was President of the Church throughout the whole world St. Augustine (u) In questi novi test q. 75 in fine That all titles of Authority next after Christ were in St. Peter that he was the head to be Pastor of Christs flock that our Saviour praying for St. Peter pray'd for all the Apostles (x) Serm. 15. de Sanctis Serm. 16. because what is done for a Superiour or Governour is done for all those who are under his charge that he was the foundation of the Church by virtue of our Saviours words upon this rock I will build my Church he calls the Roman Sea the Sea Apostolick absolutely (y) Lit. 2. contr lit petil c. 51. (z) Himno cont partem Donati in initio That the succession of the Roman Bishops is the rock which the gates of Hell do not overcome I omit for brevity sake many other holy Fathers of those ages hoping these will be a sufficient testimony of St. Peters and the Roman Bishops authority not within the Empire only but through the whole Christian world 44. To your fift Argument p. 251. I deny your Antecedent you prove it by an outfacing confidence in five particulars to the first and second I answer it is not necessary he should either have chosen or ordain'd them nor authorize any other to the validitie of ordaining them nor that they should receive their Episcopal power of ordaining from him but their Patriarchal power was from him as I have proved above in that he both restored and deposed those Patriarchs as occasion requir'd To your third the lawes and canons of the Church they receiv'd and those were confirm'd by his authority To your fourth I have evidenced they were commanded and judged by him To your fift I deny the Patriarch of Constantinople to be equal with him in all things nor can you prove it No nor so much as essay to prove it without contradicting your self who grant him a precedency of place before the Bishop of Constantinople which is one priviledge CHAP. IV. St. Gregories doctrine about universal Bishop Num. 45. In what sence St. Gregory condemn'd the title of universal Bishop how cleerly he attributes to St. Peter the Soveraign authority over the whole Church by Christs authority and consequently to his lawful Succâ—â—ssors after his death the Bishops of Rome Num. 47 Whether the title of universal were offered St. Leo by the Council of Chalcedon why St. Gregory refus'd and condemn'd that title Num. 52. Mr. Baxter contradicts St. Gregory and himself and brings all he hath objected in 8. or 10. pages to nothing Num. 53 54 55. how various he is in his accounts Num. 57. into what difficulties Mr. Baxter casts himself 45. Pag. 253. You trifle about the title of universal Bishop or Patriarch this St. Gregory took to be full of pride and insolency and injurious to all Patriarchs and Bishops in the Church because it was capable of this signification that he was the universal Bishop of the whole Church so that there were no other true and effectual Bishops in the whole Church save himself and the rest were not Christs but his officers nor receiving their power from Christ but from him this he insinuates in the words you cite here and after sayes Iam vos Episcopi non estis if once an universal Bishop were admitted in the Church then all the rest were no longer Bishops for this reason this holy Pope refused and condemn'd this title but as for the thing it self which is in controversie betwixt us that the Pope hath power and jurisdiction over the whole Church we have above proved St. Gregory to be most positive in it in several passages of his works See St. Gregories Epistles throughout nor was there every any Pope exercised more acts of jurisdiction through the whole Church as occasion required then he did And in his Epistles themselves even in those he writ in time of this controversie with Iohn of Constantinople he gives most evident proofs of it Ep. lib. 1. ep 24. he sayes thus Hinc namque est quod Petrus authore Deo principatum tenens a bene urgente Cornelio sese ei humiliter prosternanti immoderatius venerari recusavit Hence it is that Peter holding the principality by Gods authority or God being the author refused to be immoderately venerated by good Cornelius who prostrated himself unto him where he attributes St. Peters principality to the institution of God that is of our Saviour but then presently St. Gregory addes that when St. Peter dealt with Ananias
mox quanta potentia super caeteros excussit ostendit summum se intra Ecclesiam contra peccata recoluit He corroborated himself as the highest within the Church against sin N. B. he sayes summā intra Ecclesiam non intra imperium the highest within the Church not within the Empire And ep 32. ad Maurit Cunctis ergo Evangelium scientibus liquet quod voce dominica sancto omnium Apostolorum Petro principi Apostolo totius Ecclesiae cura commissa est cum totius Ecclesiae principatus ei committitur tamen universalis Episcopus non vocatur It is manifest to all who know the Gospel that by the voice of our Lord the care of the whole Church is committed to Peter the care and principality of the whole Church is committed to him and yet he is not call'd the universal Bishop Nor can you say with reason as you pretend that the rest of the Apostles had the care of the whole Church committed to them by our Saviour as St. Peter had For he had it sayes St. Gregory as being Prince of the Apostles themselves and so had not only the care of the people and inferiour Pastors and Prelates but of the very Apostles committed to him and in this exceeded all the other Apostles as having the care of the whole Church people Pastors Bishops Apostles committed to him by our Saviour which no other had the same nor said he to any of them absolutely feed my Lambes feed my Sheep that is all my Lambes all my Sheep but to him Thus St. Paul when he saith the care of all Churches lay upon him he includes not the Apostles themselves as never having challenged nor ever having ascribed to him by antiquity to be princeps Apostolorum Prince of the Apostles as St. Peter had Beside the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. 11.28 signifies a soliditude or anctious care which he took for all the Churches which might have been taken for them out of an excess of charity extended to all though he had had no power or care commited to him by our Saviour as St. Peter had over them See you not the care not of the Churches within the Empire as you fancy but of the whole Church as now declared not by humane right from Fathers or Councils as you imagin but by the voice of Christ himself was committed to St. Peter and this was no secret in St. Gregories dayes nor a thing known to many or most but to all sayes this holy Doctor who knew the Gospel And hence also appears the difference betwixt the title of universal and the thing it self controverted betwixt you and me which you would have signified by that title of having care and power committed to one from Christ over the whole Church this second sayes St. Gregory St. Peter had but not the first and this difference appears yet more evidently for the holy Pope instances also in the high Priest in Moses Law as you acknowledge page 265. who as all men know had not only precedency of place but real power and authority over the whole Church of the Jews and yet sayes he was not call'd universal Now this being St. Gregories doctrine in relation to St. Peter and our Saviour having subjected his Church under the care and providence of St. Peter as supream visible Governour in his place after his Ascention into Heaven it will follow that our Saviour judged this government alwayes necessary for his Church for the very same reason which made it necessary in the Apostles time evince it to be necessary in all succeeding ages this government therefore was to be perpetuated in his Church and seeing it was fix'd upon St. Peter by our Saviour it must fall upon St. Peters lawful successors after his death and seeing none can claim that succession save the supream Bishop for he of Antioch succeeded him in his life time and therefore could not have that soveraign power derived to him for St. Peter retained that as long as he lived as all acknowledge none save the Bishop of Rome can claim the care of the universal Church committed to him by vertue of Christs institution Ergo he and he only is the ordinary supream visible Governour of the whole Church of Christ in St. Gregories principles 46. But St. Gregory is not only positive in the principle but in the sequel also in relation to St. Peters successour at Rome for l. 4. ep 36. ad Eulog Alexandrinum Anastas Antioch speaking of the Constantinopolitane Synod which had given the title of universal to Iohn of Canstantinople he sayes thus Idem decessor meus ex authoritate sancti Petri directis litteris cassavit That his Predecessor had annul'd that Council by the authority of St. Peter behold the Roman Bishops used the authority of St. Peter and by power of that invalidated a Council collected out of their Patriarchate which shews that St. Peters authority descends down to his successors the Roman Bishops and that having been extended over the universal Church the successors also have the same extent of authority in vertue of their first predecessor St. Peter Now this phrase of exercising acts of government in the Church was ordinarily exprest by doing them by the authority of St. Peter as appears in a hundred passages of the ancients This annulling the acts of that Constantinopolitan Synod is again asserted by St. Gregory lib. 4. ep 34. ad Constant. Agustam where treating of Iohn of Constantinople he sayes Ita ut sanctae memoriae decessoris mei tempore ascribi se in Synodo See the like Text cited above lib. 7. ep 65. lib. 2. ep 37. lib. 7. ep 64. lib. 1. ep 72. tali hoc superbo vocabulo faceret quamvis cuncta acta illius Synodi sede contradicente Apostolicâ soluta sunt So that he John of Constantinople procur'd himself to be honour'd with that proud title in a Synod although all the acts of that Synod be dissolved the Apostolical See contradicting them Nor shews St. Gregory the authority of his predecessor only but his own also over the Bishops of Constantinople for lib. 4. ep ep 38. ad Ioan. constant Quicquid facere humiliter debui non omisi sed si in mea correptione despiciar restat at Ecclesiam debeam adhibere whatsoever I ought to do in humility I have not omitted but if I be despis'd in my correction it remains that I must use the Church that is as he treats immediately before use the authority of the Church in casting him out of it as a Heathen and Publican because he refused to hear the Church And again lib. 7. ep ep 70. ad Episcop Thessalon alios complures After he had strictly prohibited them to give any consent to the title of universal Bishop he addes si quis neglexerit a beati Petri Apostolorum principis pace se noverit segregatum If any one of you neglect this my command let him know
Patents and Commissions immediately from the King subject to the general in order to their respective commands but are as truly Officers of the King as the general is nor can the General displace any of them at his pleasure as the King can do though he has power to command them upon the Kings service or to correct punish or displace them when they give sufficient cause for that is also belonging to the Kings service Now you had not consideration enough to see this difference t' was not some will say for want of ignorance Now if we take the word universal in the malignant signification it will follow that if such an universal Bishop fall the Church falls with him because there will be no other true Pastour to maintain her in the truth through the whole Church the rest being not absolute pastours but his Officers 50. Page 257. Is spent in reciting St. Gregories execrations against the title of universal which touch'd not our controversie 51. Page 258. Whether your reply or Bellar. answer be more miserable I leave to the Reader he speaks of a Vicar to sinful man and you answer t is no indignity to a Bishop to be a Vicar of Christ the eternal God next you equivocate again num 2. the question is not what Iohn thought or pretended by that title who can prove or disprove evidently what were his secret thoughts but what St. Gregory expresses himself to judge of his pretences either what he did think or probably speaking might be judged to think by assuming that title Now that St. Gregory thought such to be Iohns pretensions by that title is out of question 52. Page 258.259 num 3. You make Pope Gregory his exceed in censure of Iohns pretensions in assuming that title and thereby take away all force from those very citations which you cite against us so strong a disputant are you against your self why should you think groundless discourses should be of any force against your adversarie nay you are so favourable to St. Iohn and so froward to St. Gregory that you make the one pretend no farther then to a precedency of place before all other Bishops which he had before in relation to all save only the Bishop of Rome so that it was not in reallity a subjection of all the members of Christ to him which he sought by that title supposing that it included no more then a primacy of order or precedency but that he sought only by that title having before precedency before all the rest to obtain precedencie before one more then he had that is the Bishop of Rome And for St. Gregory you make him an arrand lyer for he sayes neither himself nor any of his predecessours ever accepted of that proud title and yet if it were no more but a supremacy of place before all not an universal government as you say here it was not you your felf acknowledge that he and all his predecessors at least since the Council of Nice accepted of it nay you will make St. Gregory speak absurdly and ridiculously in inveighing so earnestly against Iohn of Constantinople as a forerunner of Anti-Christ a prophane person a destroyer of Episcopal dignitie c. For having pretended no more then to take place of the Pope whereas you say here the Pope had then no rite to nor possession in that precedency of place but only striv'd for it and why then might not Iohn strive also for't against him without blasphemy or Anti-Christanism What say you of the Greeks refusing to have the universal government of the Church I have above confuted out of Hieremius against the Lutherans 53. Page 259. The text you urge proves no more then the former and shews the truth of my answer the like is of page 260. That title as subjecting all Christs members to one as their universal Bishop as though they had no other Bishop nor true Pastour but him is as manifestly against Christ as if a General should subject all the souldiers and Officers under him as if he were their sole commander by immediate commission from the King and the rest by commission from him would be against the King 54. Page 261. The words you urge do manifestly illustrate my interpretation of St. Gregory when he sayes Et solus omnibus praeesse videretur for in our opinion it is not true that the Pope solus omnibus praeest is alone above all for all Christians have some other above them then the Pope as he is supream governour of the Church videlicet their respective Bishops and Pastours but in the sense St. Gregory speakes of the universal Bishop only is above all there being no others but such as have their authority from him and govern as his Officers in his place and by his authority 55. Page 261. Your first reply to Bellarm. is now answer'd t' was but two Deacons three leaves of and now t is two or three they 'l increase in time like Falstafs blades in buckerome The Fathers of the Council cal'd him not only head or head-Bishop as London is cal'd the head City but they cal'd him their head and themselves the members of that body whereof he was head and said that he governed them as the head governs the members Tu sicut caput Membris prae eras ut supra To number the third p. 262. t' was first two then on the other side of the leaf it increased to two or three Deacons who offer'd St. Leo this title and without the Councils approbation and on this side it is the whole Council according to St. Gregory whose words you cite against us and therefore must esteem them true which consisted of thrice 200 Bishops Falstafs bounce buckerome was nothing to this increase Next you fall into a fallacie ex insufficiente enumeratione partium It was neither in the sense now explicated he thought it was offered by the Council nor as he was Episcopus primae sedis Bishop of the first sea in your sense i. e. The first in place order or precedency only but as it signified the supream Bishop who governed all other Bishops though they were as true and proper governours of their respective flocks as he was of his which immediate power and commission from our Saviour as Colonels and Captaines are govern'd by their General To num 3. Nor have to this day any Roman Bishop incerted this name of universal into their titles as the Bishops of Constantinople doe But contrary wise ever since this proud title was assumed by the Bishops of Constantinople the Bishops of Rome have inserted this humble title into theirs of Servi servorum Dei Servant of the servants of God as may be seen in St. Gregories Epistles written after that time to which is prefixed by him that humble title Gregorius servus servorum Dei But if it signified no more then that the Roman Bishop is the first in place before all others why might he not use it seeing you
jejune gloss upon the title of universalis Ecclesiae Episcopus for in effect it comprehends all the authority which we ascribe to the Roman Bishop over the Church and as much nay much more then you would have signified by the title of the universal Bishop conformable to this title in its genuine signification are others of the like nature given to the Popes by the ancient Fathers Thus writes St. Ambrose ep 81. Ad Cyricium Papam Recognovimus literis sanctitatis tuae boni pastoris excubias quam fideliter tibi commissam januam serves pia solicitudine Christi ovile custodias we discover by your Holiness letters the watchfulness of a good Pastor how faithfully you keep the door committed to you and with how holy a care you preserve the fold of Christ. And again in 1. ad Tim. 3. Domus Dei est Ecclesia cujus hodie Rector est Damasus the house of God is the Church the Governor whereof is Damasus who was then the Bishop of Rome The Council of Chalcedon as we have already seen â—â—p ad Leonem sayes thus in super contra ipsum â—â—ui vineae custodia a Salvatore commissa est id est contra tuam Apostolicam sanctitatem extendit insaniam Moreover Dioscorus extends his madness against him to whom the care of the Vineyard was committed by our Saviour that is against this Apostolical sanctity An. Ed. Binnii p. 141. The Popes Legates in the Council of Chalcedon intitle Leo Caput universalis Ecclesiae head of the universal Church Now to imbroyle the controversie and cast a slurre upon Bellar. you put St. Greg. at odds with him and then ask which of those two is the wiser whereas Bell. promises first a distinction of two different significations of universalis Episcopus universal Bishops In the one he accords with St Gregory that the said title is prophane sacrilegious and Anti-christian and proves that St. Greg. took the words in that sence when he inveighed so highly against them and never asserts that Episcopus universalis taken in that prophane sence and Episcopus universalis Ecclesiae are of the same force Then he accommodates as you your self do though another way another signification to those words universal Bishop wherein they were taken in the bills directed to St. Leo in the Council of Chalcedon for neither would the Council have permitted nor those Catholiques and Clericks have ascribed a prophane sacrilegious and Anti-christian title to Pope Leo and it appears that as they took the word universal it had no more of the prophane c. in it as applyed to St. Leo then it had as apply'd to the Council of Chalcedon for to both of them they attribute universal as therefore the Council was truly universal in a most Catholique sence without any prejudice to other Bishops or the Hierarchy of the Church in the like sence did they understand Pope Leo to be universal Archbishop his universal jurisdiction suiting as well with the compleat authority of all other Bishops as did that of the Council for though the Council was truly universal in jurisdiction over the whole Church as I have proved yet that notwithstanding the Patholick Bishops became no substitutes Vicars or Officers to those of the Council but still remain'd absolute Officers of Christ and true Pastours Bishops Governors in place of Christ in their respective districts c. In like manner the Popes being universal in jurisdiction took not away any part of the full power and authority of other Bishops but consisted together with it as did the universal jurisdiction of the Council Now in this second and Catholick sense only Bellar. affirms that universal Bishop and Bishop of universal Church are the same in sense wherein there is no debate between him and St. Gregory Thus you cunningly delude your Readers by casting such confused mists as these before their eyes 59. By this the weakness of what you say next p. 264. is clearly discover'd where you vent rather your passion then speak reason against Bellar. for who can doubt but St. Gregory had ground enough to execrate as he did that title when it was so obnoxious in it self to prophaness c. And pretended by a person of so ambitious a spirit as was that Iohn of Constantinople that he was in danger to make the worse use of it for his own advantage Thus though Christotocos be capable of a true and Catholick sense yet because it is also capable and obnoxius since Nestorius his heresie to be taken in an heretical signification the Church forbade it as sacrilegious and prophane and much more as it was then used by Nestorius 60. In your answer to Bellar. second reason p. 264. you abuse both him and St. Gregory Bell. sayes the title of universal was not due to Iohn of Constantinople in neither of the two senses now delivered which you conceal and therefore was absolutely prophane and sacrilegious as applied to him in any sense whatsoever and yet even St. Gregory himself refus'd it as prophane c. Though in some sense it might be due to him to beat down the pride of Iohn you abuse St. Gregory in saying p. 265. That he approv'd that title for himself or that Bell. affirms he approved of it as for himself neither of them say any such matter prove they do Know you not that Malum ex quocunque defectu that every defect makes a thing evil seeing therefore there was a defect of a prophane signification and scandal in the title of universal for that defect he accounted it evil and absolutely disallowed of it nor could the capacity of that word to be taken in a more moderate sense prevail with him to approve of it quia malum ex quocunque defectu the other defect had corrupted it nor sayes Bellarmine that he approved it even for himself but that in some sence it agreed with him yet the danger of scandal in accepting a title so subject to bear a prophane sense deterr'd him from approving of it even for himself as knowing the curse which lyes upon those which give scandal to their weak brethren and that Christians are to avoy'd all appearance of evil 61. In your last clause of this paragraph you fall again into your old fallacie proceeding a notione secunda ad primam from the titles which hath two significations to the thing controverted which corresponds but to one of those significations I have proved though St. Greg. disallowed of that scandalous title yet both he and his predecessors allwaies admitted of an universal Soveraignty as it was explicated above most untrue therefore is your illation that it sprung up since St. Greg. dayes your next citation out of St. Gregory confirmes what I have now said he thought the title of universal by reason of the scandal comprized in it absolutely to be refus'd by all good Prelats And so does the rest that followes out of St. Gregory page 266. only in these words sed
best serves your turne and covers your falsitie Canus sayes there ab aliis plerisque totius orbis Episcopis which you translate thus but almost all the rest of the Bishops of the whole world so that alii plerique very many others is with you almost all the rest had you only said a great sort or the most part even that had bin to stretch the word plerique to its full length but to translate it almost all is too too bad and cryes shame of the translator for by this meanes you would perswade your Reader that scarce any Bishop at all adher'd to the Bishop of Rome according to this Author whereas he in the beginning of this seventh Chapter saith that not only the Bishops but Ecclesia the Church from the time of the Apostles alwayes acknowledg'd that the Roman Bishops succeeded place Faith and authority of St Peter and that all Catholicks respected his judgement in the controversies of Religion and this is most cleer and evident but yet this is not all your foul play You had undertook to prove Papists affirm that univocal Christians composing visible Churches have bin opposers of the Pope And here you seem'd to have cull'd out a text for your pupose for Canus acknowledges in this place that a very great number of Bishops and the greater number of Churches were against the Pope and who could he suppose these to be but true Catholick Bishops and Churches here you think you have your Reader sure but why cited you not these words the next following O that would have marr'd your market Canus is so farr from holding these mutineering Bishops and Churches to be true univocal Christians that he affirms expresly they were either Schismaticks or Hereticks Quinimo qui à Romanâ quidem sede defecerunt hi Schismatici semper ab ecclesia sunt habiti qui vero hujus sedis de fide judicia detrectarunt heretici But those sayes Canus who made a defection from the Roman Sea were alwaies accounted Schismaticks by the Church and those who refused to stand to the judgement of this Sea in matters of faith were esteemed Hereticks these are fair characters of your great sincerity If you should reply though Canus account them not univocal Christians nor true Churches who made those oppositions yet them not to be no true Churches nor no univocal Christians I reply it makes thus much at least that Canus his testimony proves not that any true Catholick Christians or Churches withstood the Pope for the proof whereof you cited this his testimony 66. Ibid You have a third bout with Raynerius I answer whatsoever he may hold of the antiquity of the Waldenses is nothing to me now holds he them to be univocal Christians prove that thus in all the testimonies you have alleadged for the proof of your antecedent against my distinction you have not so much as one that assayes to prove it Your eight Argument page 269. Is a pure non-proof that which you undertake to prove as appears by your question premised in the beginning of this second part page 197. Is to prove the Church whereof Protestants are members hath been visible ever since the dayes of Christ on earth and your title upon every page pretends to shew the successive visibility of the Church of which the Protestants are members Now as if you had quite forgot what you were about you pretend in this your Argument to shew that anciently the Papal soveraignty was not part of the Churches faith nor own'd by the Ancients when therefore you shall have logically deduced this consequence the Papal soveraingty hath not been alwayes visible Ergo the Church whereof Protestants are members hath bin alwayes visible I will esteem my self obliged to answer the proofs from your testimonies till then I purely omit your antecedent and deny the consequence which you ought to draw from it thence follows not that the Church whereof you Protestants are members hath bin alwaies visible though your antecedent were true the truth whereof I neither grant nor deny for the present but omit it as not being now to our purpose 67. Page 271. Your ninth argument halts of the same leg it follows not that though our Church as papal had no successive visibilitie that the Church whereof the Protestants are members had ever since Christs time on earth a successive visibility when you have proved this consequence which you do not so much as mention in your argument I oblige my self to answer every one of your instances till that be done all I am obliged to do by force of logical forme is to omit your antecedent as nothing to our purpose for you undertake not in this second part to disprove ours but to prove your own perpetual visibility and I deny again your consequence which you ought to draw logically from your antecedent to wit that it follows not from this argument that the Church whereof the Protestant are members hath bin visible ever since the dayes of Christ on earth 68. Your 10. argument is sick of the same disease is propounded p. 275. this reaches no further then to prove that there hath bin a succession of visible professors of Christianity that were no Papists Transeat pro praesente I let that pass for the present neither granting it nor denying it nor medling at all with it because I judge it of no present concern to our purpose but whatsoever is of that I deny it follows thence what you are to prove that the Church whereof the Protestants are members hath bin visible ever since the daies of Christ upon earth Moreover by this manner of illogical proceeding you change the part of the respondent which only was yours into the part of an opponent you were to shew some other Church beside the Roman to have bin perpetually visible and this you undertake in this second part by proving the Protestants to be so Now you turne the scales and labour by 10. arguments to prove the Roman Church as Roman is not so You promis'd in the beginning a fair logical answer keep your word and turne not opponent whil'st you are to be respondent stick to something otherwise you confound all and render it impossible to draw any controversie to a period or open a passage to truth acquit your self of your present obligation prove your said consequence that accomplished when your instances come into logical course I here oblige my self again to answer every one of them but first let us dispatch this shew your consequence undertaken here of the perpetual visibility of the Protestant Church to follow from the want of perpetual visibilitie in the Roman no more then your perpetual visibility follows from the want of it in the Greek or Abissme Church what if neither of them have bin perpetually visible For there is no Heretick in the world no neither Arrian or Sabellian c. whom you hold no Christians which may not argue in the same manner against
us as you do p. 242. were they to prove the succession of their Church as you do of yours what would you have us answer but deny the consequence for it will never follow because we have not bin that Arrians have bin perpetually visible Nay should he argue thus against you Protestants have not bin perpetually visible Ergo Arrians have bin might you not omitting his antecedent deny his consequence judge therefore by your own cause and prove your consequence nay should we argue thus against you Protestants qua tales have not bin perpetualy visible Ergo the Church whereof Papists are members hath bin perpetually visible might you deny our consequence the reason why this consequence is denyed by all true Christians is this because ours not being perpetually visible confers nothing to your being perpetually visible no more then Cayphas his not being a good Priest made Annas to be a good one And as little followes it that though multitudes of Christians as you have it in your 10 argument page 275. the like you have page 249. argument the fourth and page 251. argu 5. c. Had bin ignorant of Poperie not of Christianity and a succession of visible professors of Christianity that were no Papists that therefore the Church whereof Protestants are members hath bin alwayes visible unless you first prove that all who are profess'd Christians but no Papists are of that Church whereof Protestants are members which I have shewed to be false Suppose therefore ex suppositione impossibili that the Roman Church had not bin alwaies visible thence will not follow that the Church whereof Protestants are members has bin alwaies visible this only will follow that neither it nor Protestants is the true Church I press you therefore once more to prove your consequence and till that be prov'd I am free from all obligation of answering to the proof of your antecedent for no man according to logical form is oblig'd to answer the proofs of any proposition which is neither denied nor distinguished by the respondent but purely omitted 69. I will only ex abundanti clear one difficultie which touches somthing of the main point about the Ogin of the Popes supremacy and is in every pedants mouth who can chatter against us this you have rais'd as a fierce batterie against the walls of Rome and have placed eight pieces of canon upon it Regino contractus Marianus Sigibertus Rumbaldis Pomponius c. And these make a fearful thundering about our ears but sure you did it rather to fright us then to hurt us otherwise you would have taken care to charge them with something else then powder see you not how they vanish away all into smoak have you indeed produced a Caput sieret should be made head of all Churches you had made some breach but to bring no more then ut Caput esset caput esse Phocas constituted the Roman Church should be head or to be head of all Churches is an emptie puffe and no more Did not a late Parliament immediately before his Sacred Majesties return vote and constitute Charles the second to be King of England c. or that he ought to be King of England c. dare you therefore say that he had no other right precedent to be our Soveraign before the Vote and constitution of that Parliament know you not when titles and rights are controverted as it was in Phocas his time the soveraign tribunal decrees to whom the right or title belongs not by conferring it upon them as a free gift but by declaring it to be their right and giving them what they judge to be their due now that this was so in the case of Boniface 3. is manifest first out of Platina who was no extraordinary favourer of Popes in Boniface 3. Bonifacius tertius patria Romanus à Phoca Imperatore obtinuit magna tamen contentione ut sedes Beati Petri Apostoli quae est caput omnium Ecclesiarum ita diceretur haberetur ab omnibus Bonifacius the third sayes Platina by Nation a Roman obtein'd of Phocas the Emperour that the seat of Blessed Peter the Apostle which is head of all Churches should be so call'd and esteem'd of all 2. from Carion p. 229. Sabiniano defuncto creatus est Pontifex 65. Bonifacius tertius hic autem Pontifex ab Imperatore Phochà Augusto obtinuit ut Ecclesia Romana Beati Petri Apostolorum principis sedes quae jure Caput est omnium Ecclesiarum ita diceretur haberetur ab omnibus c. Sabinianus being dead Boniface the third was made Bishop this Bishop obtein'd of the Emperour Phocas that the Roman Church the Sea of St. Peter Prince of the Apostles which by right is head of all Churches should be so call'd and esteem'd by all and he cites for this Onuphrius Panninius and Pompeius Letus 3. Illesius in his spanish history of Popes delivers the substance of Phocas his decree wherein it appeares he constituted no more then this that the Roman Bishop and no other was supream visible governour of the Militant Church and that neither Constantinople nor Ravenna nor any other City save old Rome was deputed by our Saaviour and by St. Peter and Paul for the seat of Christs vicar and Prelates of the whole Church now it is most evident that this constitution of Phocas was not as you ungroundedly imagine the beginning of the Popes universal headship for besides the many texts whâ—â—ch I have already alleadged and you acknowledged from Councils and Fathers long before the time of Phocas wherein the Bishop and Church of Rome is acknowledged to be head of all Churches Iustinian much ancienter then Phocas in codice parte prima lib. 1. Tit. 5. de sacro Sanctis Ecclesiis c. (a) Nec patimur ut non vestrae innotescat sanctitati quod caput est omnium sanctarum Ecclesiaerum omnes vero sacerdotes sanctae Catholicae Apostolicae Ecclesiae Reverendissimae Archemandritae sanctorum Monasteriorum sequentes sanctitatem vestram custodientes statum unitatem sanctarum Dei Ecclesiarum quam habent ab apostolica vestrae sanctitatis sede nihil penitus in mutantes de Ecclesiastiâ—â—o statu quam hactenus ob inuit utque obtinet uno consensu confitetur c. lege 4. nos Reddentes in Epist. Iustinian ad Iohannem Papam 15. Imp. August annoo 1576. affirms the Bishop of Rome to be the head of all the holy Churches and that the unitie of the whole Church derives it self from him that all Priests of the Catholick and Apostolick Church follow the Bishop of Rome changing nothing of the state Ecclesiastical which he to that time had continued and then did continue and many years before Iustinian Gratian Valentinianus and Theodosius Emperours lib 1. cod Tit. 3 desumma Trinitate c. 1. Cunctos populos c command that all who were within their Empire were to follow the doctrine of St. Peter delivered to the Romans
as the Religion continued in Rome to that day declared and which Pope Damasus then followed and Peter Bishop of Alexandria and that those only who followed that Religion ought to imbrace the name of Catholicks and all others to be accounted as mad men and Hereticks and Iohn Bishop of Rome writes thus to Iustinian Ibid. lege quarta long before Phocas raign'd That both the Rules of the Fathers the statutes of the Emperours declares the Sea of Rome is truly the head of all Churches Quam esse omnium vere Ecclesiarum caput Patrum Regulae principum statuta declarant And this done Pope Iohn delivers this doctrine precept that all those who yield not obedience to his commands and laws should be esteemed as câ—â—st out of the Church therefore affirmes that all those who adhere to the doctrine of their own Bishops refuse to hear the voice of him their Pastor he receiv'd not into his communion but commanded them to be Aliens from the whole Catholick Church ab omni Ecclesia Catholica esse jussimus alienos n. b. ab omni Ecclesia it reaches to all Churches none excepted and jussimus it is a command from the Pope In the Council of Chalcedon many years before Iustinian it is said to be the head of all Churches to have alwaies had the Primatum the primacy which word I have proved signifies Eccclesiastical power authoritie and yet some years before Valentinian ut supra ascribes the same authority to the Roman Bishop Thus much in answer to your second part 70. From page 293 to page 305. You busie your self in answering a question I propounded to you which only say you page 292. you receiv'd instead of an answer I wonder not you write this but that you printed it for before this was or could be printed it was sufficiently intimated to you that Mr. Iohnson intended to answer your paper and obliged himself to answer it wherewith you seem to be satisfied and sure if he had before patience to expect your answer almost three quarters of a year upon your excuse of being hindr'd by other more weighty imployments all equal proceeding should have obliged you to excuse him also alleadging the like reason CHAP. VI. Of Hereticks and Schismaticks NUm 71. Whether some Hereticks are parts of the Church Mr. Baxter is in the affirmative his explications unnecessarie to the question Num. 72. His distinctions excluded in the termes of the question Num 73. His Citations from Alphonsus a Castro Bellar. and Canus prove nothing Num. 74. The negative is proved from scriptures and Fathers Num. 75. The same is proved by reason 71. The question I propounded was this as you have printed it page 293. a Whether any professed Heretiques 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 And you first gave it this answer b My words are plain 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 word by your properly so called you are answered already Now the former answer to which you relate is mentioned in my other to you and printed by you page 292. c Some are Heretiques for denying points essential to Christianty and those are no Christians and so not in the Church but many are also called Heretiques by you and by the Fathers for lesser errors consistent with Christianity and those may be in the Church You therefore grant the thing it self that some profess Heretiques are true members of the universal visible Church this I confess is a categorical answer to my question and you had no reason to add any more but I see you love to be doing and cannot remain quiet when the thing is well but must be tampering with it though you marr it in the moulding you take an occasion upon my words Heretick properly so called to intangle your self and your Reader through twelve pages in twelve distinctions twelve conclusions and twelve observations and in this you descant upon universal Church Heretique Schismatique properly so called c being the principal words used in my question now to what purpose all this had not you the word universal Church Heretique Schismatique repeated often over through your whoâ—â—e writing and did you not think your self sufficiently understood when you writ them if you did not why omitted you then to explicate the termes so that you might be understood if you did then speak clearly and distinctly what need had you now to give any further explication did I complain that I understood not what you meant by these termes 72. But it is much more absonous to heare you distinguish termes in order to the answer of my question by distinctions excluded in the proposition of the question p 293. I mention the universal visible Church of Christ can any Christian speak more distinctly then I do in the expression of the Church you say page 294. We are not agreed what the universal visible Church is what of that are we not agreed there is such a thing think you or I what we will of the definition of it t' is sufficient to give an answer pro or con to my question whether Heretiques be true members of the Church that we agree there is such a thing as the universal visible Church of Christ and it will be timely enough to explicate what you mean by the universal visible Church when your answer is impugned Then page 294. you distinguish Heritique properly so called into Etimological Canonical usual all these you reject as insufficient to know what is meant by an Heretick properly so called so that after you have so often treated in this and other books of Heretiques either you speak of them alwaies improperly or know not what you say when you speak of them as properly understood or you have here made an insufficient division of an Heretique properly so called but see you not again that whatsoever you or I understand by Heretique properly so called we both agre there are Heretiques properly so call'd that 's enough to answer my question then page 295 you distinguish Heretique first into Heretique in opinion and in communion and then you run into seven more distinctions of Heretiques never considering that I had exprest my question in such termes that all these distinctions were excluded by the very termes I say thus whether any professed Heretiques c. now could you not have said that some professed Heretiques are parts of the Cathlique Chucrch without making such a pudder with so many distinctions what was it to my question that some are convict others tryed some judged by Pastors others by others some by usurpers some by lawful Iudges c. I did not demand what sort of Heretiques properly so called were held by you to be of
falcibus amputati errando rebelles abcedunt The Catholique mother that is the Church being forsaken wicked children run abroad and separate themselves as you have done being cut off from the root of their mother the Church by erring as rebels depart from her Now was it the unanimous consent alone of the holy ancient Fathers and all later authors yours and ours but the universal agreement of all Christendom for even in St. Cyprians time when the matter of rebaptization was so hotly agitated through the whole Church both parties and consequently all Christian Churches agreed in this that all professed hereticks and schismaticks properly so called were out of the Catholique visible Church of Christ for this was the very ground whereupon St. Cyprian and his party founded their opinion as appears in the said citations and is deliver'd by all authors that treat of it that they were to be rebaptized nor was this presupposed ground of their being no members of the Church ever called so much in question as by the opposers of Rebaptization but supposed as a known undeniable truth by the whole Church insomuch that the Council of Nice it self supposing this as a manifest truth condemned the doctrine of Rebaptization as an heresie as St. Aug. witnesseth in his book de Baptismo contra Donatistas which is largely explicated in Schism unmask'd now cited from page 557 to page 566 this universal perswasion continued ever since amongst Christians and I provoke you to cite any Author ancient or modern yours ours or of any other Professor amongst the Christians who before you taught that professed hereticks properly so called were true parts of the visible Church of Christ. St. Cyprian epist. 40. Paenas quas meruerunt perpendêrunt ut a vobis non ejecti ultro se ejicerunt de Ecclesiâ sponté se pellerent St. Hierom cited by Dr. Hammond in his book of Schism Marg. 14. Propriae conscientiae videtur esse damnatio cum quispiam suo arbitrio ab Ecclesiâ recesserit This is also the undoubted and constant doctrine of St. Cyprian lib. 5. epist. 6. ad magnum Schismaticicos v. g. Novatianum in Ecclesia non esse nec gregis pastorem That Schismatiques were not in the Church v. g. Novatian nor Pastor of the flock Si autem Grex unus est quomodo gregi connumerari potest qui in Numero gregis non est But saith he If the flock be one how can he be annumerated to the flock who is not in the number of the flock aut Pastor haberi quomodo potest qui alienus fit prophanus Or how can he be estem'd a Pastor who is become an Alien and a prophane person Non habitans in domo Dei not dwelling in the house of God that is in the Church of God and it is most evident that St. Cyprian was of this opinion for it appeares in his works that he held the rebaptization of those which were baptised by Schismatiques as well as by Heretiques because he esteem'd them both equally out of the Church St. Cyprian lib. 2. ep ad Septianum Epist. 9. ad eundem And Lucius a Castra galba in consilio Carthaginensi sub Cypriano Item Schismaticos non posse condire sapientia spirituali cum ipsi ab Ecclesia quae una est recedendo infatuati contrarii facti sunt Neither can Schismaticks season with spiritual wisdome because they being corrupted by receding from the Church become contrary or adversaries This is also taught most Emphatically by St. Augustine lib. de unitate Ecclesiae cap. 4. cited by you in your second part Quicunque credunt quidem quod Iesus Christus ita ut dictum est in carne venerit in eadem carne in qua natus passus est resurrexerit ipse sit filius Dei Deus apud Deum c. Si tamen ab ejus corpore quod est Ecclesia ita differentiant ut eorum communio non sit cum tota quacunque diffunditur sed in aliqua parte separata inveniatur manifestum est eos non esse in Catholica Ecclesia Whosoever believes that Jesus Christ as is said is come in flesh and that he rose again in the same flesh wherein he was born and suffered and that he is the Son of God and God with God c. Notwithstanding if they discent so from his body which is the Church that their communion be not with the whole Church wheresoever it be diffus'd but be found in some separate part it is manifest that they are not in the Catholique Church Which words cannot be understood of any but Schismatiques St. Fulgent de fide ad Petrum cap. 38. Firmissiime tene nullatenus dubita non solum omnes Paganos sed etiam omnes Iudeos Haereticos Schismaticos qui extra Eeclesiam Catholicam presentem finiunt vitam in ignem aeternum ituros c. Believe most firmly and doubt not at all that not only all Pagans but also all Jewes Heretiques and Schismatiques which end their lives out of the Catholique Church shall go into eternal fire St Cyprian also Ep. 40. above cited supposes some Schismatiques and a fortiore all Heretiques to be out of the Catholique Church And the separation of all Heretiques from the Church St. Austin treats Tom. 9. de symbolo lib. 2. c. 5. Haereses omnes de illa exieruut scilicot Ecclesia tanquam sarmenta inutilia de vite praecisa ipsa autem manet in sua radice Portae inferorum non vincent eam All Heresies have gon out of her that is the Chucrch as unprofitable branches cut of from the vine but she the Church remaines in her root the gates of Hell shall not overcome her St. Cyprian Epist. ad Florentium Pupianum Epist. 69. In which Epistle he reprehends Pupianus for his insolency Et quia fecit se Episcopum Episcopi and proves himself a holy Catholique by his communion with the Church and with the chief Pastor and demonstrate Schism by the contrary Inde Schismata Haereses obortae sunt oriuntur dum Episcopus qui unus est Ecclesia praest superba quorundam praesumptione contemnitur homo dignatione Dei honoratus indignus hominibus judicatur From hence arise Schisms when the Bishop that is one and who is the Governor of the Church is contemned by the proud persumption of some and the man of God honor'd by him is dishonored by men Epist. ad Rogatianum Epist. de superbo Diacono Haec sunt enim initia Haereticoruus ortus conatus Schismaticorum male cogitantium ut sibi placeant ut praepositum superbo tumore contemnant sic de Ecclesia receditur sic Altare prophanum foris collocatur sic contra pacem Christi ordinationem unitatem Dei rebellatur These are the Origine of heretiques and Schismatiques who to please themselves contemn the president of the Church and so rebel against the peace of Christ and the ordination and unitie of
mistake me I speak of a Rejection and contempt of a subject as appears by my words and your Reply mentions the independance without Rejection of such as are no subjects now the Rejection or contempt of Superiouâ—â—s Authority in a Subject takes away this dependance of that Superiour and his very working independently of them cannot be done without Rejection and contempt of their Authority so long as he remains a subject I pray minde a little better to what you Reply Reply I further Reply 1. It seems then it is not onely the Pope but every Priest respectively that is an essential member of your Church or to whom each member must be subject necessarily ad esse If so then in every man that by falling out or prejudice doth culpably Reject the Authority of any one Pastour or Priest among a swarm is damned or none of the Church though he believe in the Pope and twenty thousand Priests besides 2. And then have we not cause to pray God to blesse us from the company of your Priests or at least that we may not have too many among a multitude we may be in danger of Rejecting some one and then we are cast out of that Church what if a Gentleman should find some such as Watson or Montaltus described in bed with his wife or a Prince finde a Garnet a Campian or a Parsons in Treason and by such temptation should be so weak as to contemn or reject the Authority of that single Priest while he obeyeth all the rest It is certain that such a man is none of the Catholique Church for that how hard it is in France Italy then to be a Catholick where Priests are so numerous that it 's ten to one but among that croud the Authority of some one may be Rejected 3. But is it all the Priests that we never knew or knew not to be Priests that we must depend on or is it onely those whose Authority is manifested to us by sufficient Evidence doubtless if you will confine our dependanâ—â—e to these onely or else no man could be a Christian. And if so be you know we are never the nearer a Resolution for your Answer till you yet tell us how we must know our Pastours to have Authority indeed William Iohnson Sir you mistake again I speak onely of all Respectively to each subject that is of such as are properly the Pastours of such soules mediate or immediate and you wave the consideration of the word Respectively and thereby would extend my words to all Priests in the whole Church know you not the difference betwixt Pastours and Priests are there not millions of Priests amongst us and a number of Ministers amongst you which are no Pastours that is have no care or cure of souls committed to them my Assertion therefore is that a private christian rejecting the authority of his Parish-Priest Bishop Arch-bishop Metrapolitane Primate Patriarch or supream Bishop who are in some cases at least his Pastour becomes a Schismatick casts himself out of the Church now for all the rest who are not his proper Pastours though they may be Pastours to others his rejecting or contemning them will be a grevious fin of pride but not sufficient alone to cast men out of the Church because he remaines still dependent of his own Pastours and here falls to ground all your ensuing discourse of the multitude of Priests c. Where I will not take notice of an accusation made without proof and relishing too little of Christian charity against some particuler persons humbly beseeching God to forgive you for it and hoping so to temper my expressions that they still run peaceably on within the bank of Charity Mr. Baxter What if they shew me the Bishops orders and I know that many have had forged orders am I bound to believe in this authority William Iohnson As much as you can be assured of any being Pastour of such a Church or Bishop of such a Diocesse or Justice of peace or Earle or Baron by his Majesties Patents or publick orders Reply What if I be utterly ignorant whether he that ordained were himself ordained per intentionem ordinandi how shall I then be sure of his authority that he is ordained Rejoynder As sure as you can be that you were the lawful child of your Father and Mother who could not be truly married without intention of being Husband and Wife one to the other how know you that they had such an intention solve this and you solve your own argument Mr Baxter And how can the People be acquainted with the passages in Election and ordination that are necessary to the knowledge of their authority especially of the Popes and Prelates and what if you tell me your own opinion of the â—â—ufficient meanes by which I must be convicted of the Popes and the Priests authority William Iohnson When it is publickly allowed in the Church witnessed to be performed according to the Canonical prescription by such as were present and derived to the people without contradiction by publick fame Mr Baxter How shall I know that you are not deceived and that these are the sufficient meanes indeed unless a general Council have defined them to be sufficient and if they have If it were not as an Article of Faith you will say I am not bound of necessity to believe their definition William Iohnson The orders prescrihed in the canon law and universally received are sufficient for this without decrees of General Councils for these are no points of faith but of order and discipline whereof a moral certainty and ecclesiastical authority is sufficient Mr. Baxter And what if I have sufficient meanes to know the Authority of a thousand Bishops but am culpably ignorant of some few through my neglect doth it follow that I am out of the Church Is my obedience to each Priest as necessary as my belief of every Article or multyplying Priests doth fill Hell faster If men must be judged by your laws Rejoynder This is grounded in your former mistake and solved above it is not all Priests but all Pastours in relation to their flocks that I speak of Mr. Baxter But is it our allegiance to our Soveraign that is the character of a subject in the common wealth and not our allegiance or duty to every inferiour Magistrate the rejection of one of them may stand with subjection though not with innocency It is not reason to reject a Constable why then should it more be necessary to our Church membership and Salvation But still you make your Church invisible for as no man can know that liveth in the remote parts of the world whether your Popes themselves are truely Popes as being duly qualified and elected now which is that true Pope when you have often more then one at once so you can never know concerning your members whether their dependance on their Pastors be extensively proportionate to the meanes that discovers their Authority
and whether their disobedience unchurch them or not Rejoynder But if you reject the Constable and with him all superiour Magistrates who maintain his Authoritie and come at last so far that you reject the Authority of the supreme or Soveraign power rather then depend on the Constable you will become a Rebel this is my case for the Church being visible is governed in this world by visible governours if therefore one Reject the Authority first of a parish Priest and then of the Bishop of the Diocesse and after of all those who are Superiour to that Bishop even to the highest authority whether this be in one single person or in the assembly of these Pastours in general Council imports little for the present question he becomes a Rebell to the visible Church and casts himself out of it and by consequence because our Saviour hath said he who heareth you heareth me and he who contemneth you contemneth me rejects also Christ's Authority by rejecting them and thereby casts himself from being any longer whilst he remains in that contempt of the Flock and Kingdome of Christ which is his Church For this contempt must be the same kind in respect of Christ that it is in regard of all the aforesaid visible Governours and therefore must reject the Authority of Christ because it rejects their Authority but none of those who reject Christ's Authority over them can be parts of his Flock or Kingdome Ergo note the fallacie of your Assertion in making many Hereticks and Schismaticks properly so called Real parts of the Catholick Church Reply I earnestly crave your Answer to the uncertainties which I have mentioned in my Safe Religion pag. 9 3. to 104. and tell us how all our Pastours may be known and whether every particular sin un-Church men and if not why the contempt and rejection of a drunken Priest doth it while all the rest are perhaps too much honoured Rejoynder Really Sir I am too full of employments either to Answer or peruse your Books I never oblig'd my self to answer them You make a visible Body with an invisible Head that is you admit no other head or supreme Ecclesiastical Magistrate over the visible Church save Christ who is invisible to the Church as he is head of it and whose government is internal and invisible if you abstract from all visible supreme Authority and hence you assert that though all the Respective visible governours in spiritual things be rejected by a subject yet he may be a part of the visible Church because he is still subject to Christ who is invisible to to him in his Head-ship I suppose I have said enough above to what you demand here and take those Arguments in your safe Religion to be much of the same nature with these Mr. Baxter Qu. 4. Why exclude you the chief Pastours that depend on none William Iohnson Ans. I exclude them not but include them as those of whom all the rest depend as St. Ierome does in his definition Ecclesia est plebs Episcopo unita Mr. Baxter How inconstant are you among your selves in the use of Terms how frequent is it with you to appropriate the name of the Church to the Clergie but remember hereafter when you tell us of the Determinations Traditions of the Church that it is the people that you mean and not onely the Pastours in Council much lesse the Pope alone Rejoynder This Requires no Answer as opposing nothing against what I say to that Question who knowes not that Termes have different acceptions both amongst you and us both in Scripture Ecclesiastical and Civil Authors Of HERESIE Heresie is an obstinate intellectual Opposition against Divine Authority revealed when it is sufficiently propounded Mr. Baxter Qu. 1. Is the obstinacie that makes Heresie in that Intellectual Will William Iohnson Answ. In the will by an imperate act restraining the understanding to that Mr. Baxter Still your descriptions signifie just nothing you describe it to be an Intellectual obstinate opposition and yet say that this is in the will William Iohnson You still Reply lesse then nothing to what I say yes it is an intellectual obstinate opposition but I say not that the intellectualtie is in the will or do you demand that Read I pray my description and your question and you will find no such matter I say the obstinacy is in the will directly to your question but the heresie is in the understanding and therefore comes it to be an intellectual obstinate opposition because that obstinacie in the will imperates a kind of immobility in the understanding whereby it adheres firmly to it's Errour Intellectual therefore it is from the understanding and obstinate from the will Mr. Baxter And yet again you contradict your self by saying that it is an Imperate act William Iohnson Where say I that imperate act is in the will prove from my words I say so I say indeed that obstinacy is in the will by an imperate restraining the understanding to that Errour but I never said that imperate act was in the will nay I insinuate sufficiently that it is in the understanding by affirming that it restrains the understanding for the imperate act is a kind of immoveable judgement imperated in the understanding by the obstinacy of the will all therefore that I say is this that there is an obstinacy in the will shewing it self to be there by that immobility which it imperates in the understanding and adheres to that errour when therefore I say by that imperate act I mean not formally by that but causally Reply No imperate act is in the will though it be from the will it is voluntary but not in volunte an imperate act may be in the will but not an imperate all imperate acts are in and immediately by the commanded faculties The Intelligere which is the imperate act is in the intellect though the velle intelligere which is an elicite act be in the will Rejoynder You seem to discourse very strangely and inconsequently of imperate acts what Philosopher before you ever said no imperate act is in the will though it be from the will shew your Authours for this is not the quite contrary the common assertion of the schools does not the will by an imperant act of charity e. g. imperate within it self an act of obedience contrition patience c. Nay do not many Philosophers from hence argue that the will and the understanding must be one and the same soul and not two powers really distinct because the will imperates acts in the understanding not by way of production or proper efficiency but by a certain Sympathetical emanation of an act imperated from the act imperating Mr. Baxter 2. From hence it is plain that you cannot prove me or any man to be an Heretick that is unfeignedly willing to know the truth and is not obstinately willing in opposing it which are things you cannot ordinarily discern and prove by others that are ready
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 and who knowes what Custome and of what continuance you mean Primitive Custome went one way and afterward Custome went another way and latter Custome hath varied from both and hath the power of Election changed so often and who is it that must approve this Custome and what approbation must there be all these are meer hiding and no Resolving of the Doubt and tell us that a Pope is a thing invisible or unknown 5. and your last assures us that your Succession was interrupted through many usurpations yea indeed that you never had a Pope for the Church was vnsatisfied with the Election of abundance of your Popes when whores and Simony and murder and power set them up and most of the Churches through the world is unsatisfied with them still unto 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 signe of satisfaction where men have no opportuny 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 William Iohnson What is hidden from your understanding you take to be hidden in it self my Answer is Categorick as it stands conjunctly in my words and you mangling them in pieces have made them obscure take them as they stand and I am content in materia subjecta to submit them to the censure of any of your learned Devines esteemed Impartial to judge whether they be not as clear as need to be given in the qualifying of Electours for Elective Princes or Magistrates where when Different occasions require they admit of Different Determinations of Electours as here it hath hapned and whether your Exceptions be not pure fallacies proceeding à sensu conjuncto ad sensum divisum which is indeed as I have marked too ordinary a fallacie with you your 4. Number is a parergon If the Church did really acquiesce in such an Elected person as Pope it was satisfied according to the substance of the Election which is all I intended though haply it might be unsatisfied in the circumstances if the Church never accepted them as Popes they are not to be accounted Legal Popes nor in the number of St. Peter's successors what abuses have hapned in the Election of some Popes happened most commonly when Lay persons intruded their power and violence into those Elections mingling Lay authority with Church Government which is out of their Sphear now this abuse is much consonant with the Doctrine of Protestants so that those for the most part who confirm their practice according to Protestants principles introduc't this abuse into the Popes Election Mr. Baxter Qu. Is Consecration necessary and by whom ad esse William Iohnson It is not absolutely necessary ad esse Mr Baxter If Consecration be not necessary to 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 William Iohnson Neither Papal nor Episcopal Jurisdiction as all the Learned know depends of Episcopal or Papal ordination nor was there ever Interruptions of Successions in Episcopal Jurisdiction in any Sea for the want of that alone that is necessary for consecrating others validly and not for Jurisdiction over them Mr. Baxter Qu. 5. What notice or proof is necessary to the Subjects William Iohnson Ans. So much as is necessary to oblige Subjects to accept of other Elected Princes to be their Soveraignes Mr. Baxter When you have answered to the afore mentioned three Doubts we shall know what that General signifieth Rejoynder I have now answered and therefore you are satisfied BISHOP I mean by Bishop such a Christian Pastour as hath power jurisdiction to govern the inferiour Pastours Clergie and people within his Diocess and to confirm and give Holy Orders to such as are subjects to him Mr. Baxter Qu. Do you mean that he must have this power jure Divino whether mediately or immediately William Iohnson Answ. The Definition abstracts from particulars and subsists without determining that Question Mr. Baxter You seem to yield the Papacy is Jure humano and sure of no necessity to salvation for if man can change the power of Election and the foundation be humane it is like that Relation is but his name and therefore if Bishops must be Jure Divino they are more excellent and necessary then the Pope William Iohnson Where yielded I that where said I the Election was Iure humano shew where that there should be an election of him by competent electours is Ius Divinum the Determination who hic nunc are competent is Ius Ecclesiasticum therefore the Papacy it self is onely Jure humano how follows that know you not that neither the electours nor consecratours of him give him Papal Jurisdiction that is given him from Christ as S. Peters Successour the election therefore is not the foundation of Papal Authority but the promise of Christ. Nor are BB. more excellent then Popes because both are Iure Divino and as the manner of the election in particular may be and often is changed in the one so is it in the other Mr. Baxter 2. How grosse a subterfuge is this either the Bishop in question is a Divine creature or humane If a Divine as you may manifest it or expresse 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 Churth nor to salvation Rejoynder What mean you by Divine creature who ever spake so but you the Bishop is a humane creature but his office is Divine Right will you have all particulars exprest in Definitions are they to contain more then the abstract notions of genus differentia the question is not what ought to be expressed in a full Treatise concerning Bishops but what in a definition ought to be the Genus and differentia of Bishop I intended not to make a precise definition neither but onely to shew you how I take it in my paper as appears by my words Mr Baxter And yet thus your R. Smith Bishop of Chalcedon ubi supra confesseth it to be no point of your faith that the Pope is S. Peters Successour Jure Divino William Iohnson You should have done well to cite the place for I have no time to seek whole books over nor should you have drawn consequences upon so large citations of Authours Mr. Baxter And if you leave it indifferent to be believed or not that both your Popes and Bishops are Jure
Divino you confesse you are but a humane Policie and Society and therefore that no man need to fear the lesse of his salvation by renouncing you William Iohnson Who leaves it indifferent must all things which are not exprest in Definitions be left indifferent there is no mention of Risibile in the definition of homo do Philosophers therefore leave it indifferent whether homo be Risibilis or no. Qu. 4. 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 William Iohnson 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 to true Episcopal jurisdiction Reply How now are al the Mysteries of your Succession and Mission resolved into popular consent William Iohnson Why how now what is the matter who sayes our Succession and Mission is resolved into popular consent things use to be resolved into their principles where have I constituted popular consent the principle of election the first part of the question propounded here by you was not what election was of what principle it consisted but how it should be known I pray if you mark not my words at least reflect upon your own how shall we know say you who hath this power to this I answer directly thus as you know who hath temporal power by an universal or most common consent of the people Is there no difference with you betwixt the Mysteries of our Succession and Mission and the manner how to know them The Mysterie of the most blessed Trinity c. is known to your Parishoners by your Preaching and Chatechising is it therefore resolved into your Preaching and Chatechising resolved I say into its formal object for that is the question and the absurdity which you would infer against me Mr. Baxter Is no one way of election necessary do you leave that to be varied as a thing indifferent William Iohnson Why should it it is sufficient that some generalities of it be determined Iure Divino as that it be done by Christians by such as are capable to know who is a fit person for the Office choosing freely according to the Laws of God the further Determinations are left to the Church according to the different wayes of proceeding in different Churches Nations Diocesses what is there to be wondered at in this have you not this practice among you Mr. Baxter And is Episcopal consecration also necessary I pray you here again remember 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 Pastours have had our peoples consent they have been true Pastours But we have more 2. By this rule we cannot tell of one Bishop of an hundred whether he be a Bishop or no for we cannot know whether that he hath the consent of the people yea we know that abundance of your Bishops have no such consent William Iohnson No man argues you of the want of Succession in your Respective Seas because you want Episcopal consecration but because you want Episcopal election confirmation vocation Mission Jurisdiction for your first Bishops in Queen Elizabeths time and the same is of your Ministers of Parishes were intruded by secular power into their Respective Seas and Parishes the proper Bishops and Pastours of those Churches yet living and that without legal deposition or deprivation of them by their lawfull Superiours or true election by those Respective capitula who had the present power of electing the Bishops of their Diocesse in such Diocesses as had then no Bishops or of constituting Parish Priests in such places as wanted them they had no Jurisdiction but from the Queen and Parliament as is manifest by the publick Statutes yet extant cited in Erastus Iunior part 2. All those who succeeded to those Intruders can have no more Jurisdiction then they first had nor had you ever the full consent of the People for all those of the Roman party who in the first institution of your Elizabeth Bishops were a great part of the Kingdome if not the greatest never elected them nor was there any such popular eâ—â—ction required or admitted in those times Mr. Baxter Yea we know that your Popes have none of the consent of the most of the Christians in the world nor for ought you or any man knows of most in Europe William Iohnson Of what Christians such as you and your Associates are we regard that no more then did the Ancient holy Popes not to have had the consent of Nestorians Eutichians Pelagians Donatists Arians c. Mr. Baxter It is few of your own party that know who is Pope much lesse are called to consent till after he is setled in possession William Iohnson What then is not the same in all Elective Princes where the extent of their Dominions are exceeding large Reply 3. According to this rule your Successions have been frequently interrupsed when against the will of General Councils and of the farre greatest part of Christians your Popes have kept the seat by force Rejoynder These are Generalities what Popes what Councils in particular name and prove if you will be answered Mr. Baxter 4. In temporals your Rule is not universally true what if the people be ingaged to one Prince and afterward break their vow and consent to an usurper though in this case a particular person may be obliged to submission and obedience in judicial administrations yet the Vsurper 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 preingagement to another though some part of the truth be found in your Assertion William Iohnson The people cannot be supposed to consent freely lawfully and effectually to an usurper now I suppose to consent I speak of to be lawfull for I speak of ordinary causes and not of what seldome or never happens for where shall you finde an universal or common consent to a known usurper acknowledging him to have a temporal power over them it is one thing to tolerate or not resist and another to consent to his power now I speak of a free universal consent where no force or constraint is used Mr. Baxter Qu. 3. Will any Diocesse suffice ad esse what if it be but in particular Assemblies William Iohnson It must be more then a Parish or then one single Congregation which hath not different inferiour Pastours and one who is their Superiour for a Bishop when consecrated as he hath a higher power then single Priests have in acts of Order so hath he a power over single Pastours in acts of Jurisdiction when he is installed in a Diocess for he is to govern not onely the people as
interiour Pastours do but interiour Pastours also Mr. Baxter This is but your naked affirmation I have proved the Contrary from Scriptures Fathers and Councils in my dispute of Episcopacy viz. that a Bishop may be and of old ordinarily was over the Presbyters onely of one parish of 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 Neocaesarâ—â—a he had but seventeen soules in his Charge the like I may say of many more Rejoynder Am I obliged to Answer in this paper all the reasons you alledged in your Book of Episcopacy what you say here of Gregory Thaumaturgus is easily answered he was sent to be Bishop of Caesarea and of the country about it or under it's Command and though there had been no more then seventeen Christians in the Citie yet how know you there were no more in all the Countrey adjacent whereof he was Bishop But suppose there had been no more then that small number neither in that City nor Countrey know you not that he was sent to multiply Christians there as he did and thereby to make himself a Competent Diocesse the Apostle S. Iames is recorded to have converted no more the seven persons at the first coming in Spain would you thence deduce that the Apostolical office did not include in it a superiority over both Priests Bishops TRADITION I understand by Tradition the visible Delivery from hand to hand in all cases of the Revealed Will of God either written or unwritten Mr. Baxter Qu. But all the Doubt is by whom this Traditions that is valid must be by the Pastour 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 William Iohnson By such and so many proportionably as suffice in a Kingdome to certifie the people which are the ancient universal received Customes in that Kingdome which is to be morally considered Mr. Baxter I consent to this General But then 1. how certainly is Tradition against you when most of the Christian World yea all except an Interested Party doe deny your Soveraignty and plead Tradition against it And how lame is your Tradition when it is carried on your private Affirmations and is nothing but the improved Saying of a Sect. William Iohnson The Intention both of you and me was to know what was meant by our Terms that we might come to some Agreement about them here we are as appears by your Reply agreed about what is meant by Tradition first your Objection how this agrees not with our Tradition is now out of season and should have it's place when we come to the main Controversie If the notion of Tradition wherein we are agreed make against me so much the better for you who denyed our Soveraignty as I describe it in my Thesis or had a Church Government inconsistent with it in the First three and four hundred yeares Let those Churches be named and since those times nominate any particular body of Christians which opposed it whom I cannot shew evidently to have sprang up of new since those times Mr. Baxter Qu. 2. What proof or notice of it must satisfie me in particulars that it is so past William Iohnson Answ. Such as with proportion is a sufficient proof or notice of the Lawes and Customes of temporal Kingdomes Mr. Baxter But is it necessary for every Christian to be able to weigh the credit of Contradicting parties when one half of the world say one thing and the other another thing what opportunity have ordinary Christians to compare them and discern the moral advantages on each side William Iohnson As much as they have to know which Books are and which are not Canonical Scripture amongst those which are in Controversie Mr. Baxter As in case of the Popes Soveraignty when two or three parts of the Christian world is against it and the rest for it can private men try which party is the more credible or is it necessary to their Salvation William Iohnson As much as they can try which is Canonical Scripture in Books Controverted Mr. Baxter If so they are cast upon unavoidable despair if not must they all take the words of their present teacher William Iohnson As much as they do for the Determination of Canonical Scriptures Mr. Baxter That most of the World must believe against you because most of the Teachers are against you There is no Congregation of Christians united in the same profession of Faith External Communion and dependance of Pastours which is contrary in Belief to us any way to be Parallel with us in Extent and Multitude prove there is and name it All our Adversaries together are a patcht body of a thousand different professions and as much Adversaries one to another as they are to us the one Justifying us in that wherein the other condemn us so that no heed is to be taken to their Testimonies non sunt Convenientia Mr. Baxter And it seems mens faith is resolved into the Authority of the Parish Priest or their Confessour the Lawes of a Kingdome may be easilier known then Christian Doctrine can be known especially such as are controverted among us by mere unwritten Tradition Kingdomes are of narrower compass then the world And though the sense of Lawes is often in question yet the being of them is seldome matter of Controversie because men conversing constantly and familiarly with each other may plainly and fully reveal their mindes when God that condescendeth not to such a familiarity hath his minde by inspired persons long agoe with much lesse sensible Advantages because it is a Life of Faith that he directeth us to Live VVilliam Iohnson No such matter no more then the belief of such a Determinate Canon of Scipture is Resolved by your Parishioners into your Authority can you not distinguish betwixt a Propounder and a Revealer good Christians Resolve their Faith into God Revealing and so pronouncing their Creed say I believe in God c. when did you ever hear any of ours say I believe in my Parish Priest he indeed is the means whereby they came to believe as God's Instrument but he is no principle or formal object of Faith into which it is Resolved But constitute you what Systeme you please of the Christian Religion let us for the present suppose it be that which you mention in your papers that all Christians even heretiques and schismatiques compose onâ—â— Catholique Church whereof Christ is the head now you say there that some heretiques are not Christians of which sort the Church is not composed how shall your Parishioners know as the like is of all the unlearned which Heretiques were Christians which not nay or what Heretiques there have been in all succeeding ages or whether at
from a particular Church unlesse from the whole William Iohnson Answ. No it is no Schism as Schism is taken in the holy Fathers for that great and capital crime so severely censured by them in which sense onely I take it here Mr. Baxter Though I take Schisme more comprehensibly and I think aptly my self yet hence I observe your justification of the Protestants from the Schisme seeing they separate and not from the Catholique Church for they separate not from the Armenian Ethiopian Greek William Iohnson Here you allow of my definition at least you disclaim not from it but use your objections how it makes against my party this I have told often is not now our work but belongs to our dispute in taking your best advantages of my explications Did not your first Protestants in Germany separate as much from the Armenians Ethiopians Greeks as they did from uhe Romans if they did not shew the communion they had with them did you first Ministers either take mission or jurisdiction to preach from any of their Bishops or Patriarks did they take the prescription of their Liturgie Discipline or Hirearchie from them did they upon occasion joyn in Prayer Sacraments or Sacrifice with them and did they profess the same faith in all points of faith and those the very same wherein they dissented from the Church of Rome and all this notwithstanding were they in external communion with them If so they may as well be said not to have separated from the external communion of the Roman Church and if they separate from that they also separated from the other for the very same reasons Mr. Baxter Nor from you as Christians William Iohnson Nor from us say you as Christians no sure for if you did you must be Jewes Turks or Infidels Mr. Baxter But as scandalous offenders when we are commanded to avoide we separate not from any but as they separate from Christ. William Iohnson Was there no more in 't did not the Primitive Persons who begun your breach and party ow subjection to their respective Ecclesiastical Superiours Diocesans and Pastors immediately before they revolted from them and is it lawful for a subject to subtract himself from the obedience of his lawful Pastour because that Pastour is a scandalous offender remaines he not in his former power notwithstanding those scandelous offences till he be legally deposed if you say he does not you contradict our Saviour commanding obedience to be given to the scandalous Pharises who sate in Moyses his chaire you destroy all Ecclesiastical Government and open a way to tread underfoot all temporal authority also in desisting to acknowledge their authority by reason of Scandelous offences if you hold these offences deprive him ipso facto from all Ecclesiastical power why shall not another say they deprive Kings and Magistrates nay even Fathers and Mothers of their authority over those whom they Govern and then you would have spun a fair thred and laid a more open passage to rebellion then any you can finde or shew amongst those whom you term Papists and will make this good against your self that a man cannot be a good subject unless he cease to be of your party such I suppose you esteem those to be who follow your doctrine nor yet did you only refuse obedience to them in what you thought to be scandelous and against God but you absolutely rejected their Ecclesiastical authority and refused to have any dependance at all of them as your lawful Pastour neither acknowledging those under whose immediate jurisdiction you then were nor any of the Ecclesiastical authority in that time Mr. Baxter Qu. 2. Or no Schism unless willfull W. Iohnson Noe. Mr. Baxter Again your further justifie us from Schism if it be wilful it must be against knowledge but we are farr from separating willfully or knowingly from the whole Church that we abhor the very thought of such a thing as Impious and Damnable William Iohnson Abhorr it as much as you please for your own particular I know not what excuse may be pleaded for you I am certain that your first beginners did it and that knowingly and willfully and you still maintaining what they begun must by all considering Christians be judged guilty of the same crime for still you remain separate from all those Churches from which they departed that is from all the visibe Churches existant immediately before they sprung up and in their time and still continue through the whole world Mr. Baxter Qu. 3. Is it none if you make it a division in the Church and not from the Church William Iohnson Answ. Not as we are here to understand it and as the Fathers treat it for the Church of Christ being perfectly one cannot admit of any proper Schism within it self for that would divide it into two which it cannot be Mr. Baxter Though I am sure Paul calls it Schism when men makes divisions in the Church though not from it not making it two Churches but dislocating some members and abating Charity and causing contentions where there should be peace yet I accept your continued justification of us who if we should be tempted to be dividers in the Church should yet hate to be dividers from it as believing that he that is sepâ—â—ate from the whole body is also separate from the head William Iohnson I am glad to see you accept of some thing at the last upshot If it be for your advantage God give you good on 't See Dr. Ham. in his Book of schism c. 1 2 3 I speak not of Schism taken in a large sense but of that onely which is treated by the Fathers and reckoned up amongst the most horrid sinnes which a Christian can commit and that separates from the whole Church Sir urgent and unavoidable businesse constrained me to delay my return to your Solutions or Explications of your Definitions till this Iune 29. 1660. Mr. Baxter When you desire me to Answer any such Questions or Explain any doubtfull passages of mine I shall willingly doe it In the mean time you may see while your Termes are Explained and your Explications or Definitions so insignificant how unfit we are to proceed any further in dispute till we better understand each other as to our Termes and Subject which when you have done your part to I shall gladly if God enable me go on with you till we come if it may be to our desired Issue But still I crave your performance of the double task you are ingaged in RICHARD BAXTER William Iohnson Sir I have thus far endeavoured to satisfie your expectation and to acquit my self of all my obligations wherein I have sought as I strongly hope first God's eternal glory and in the next place your eternal good with his for whom I undertake this labour and of all those who attentively and unpartially peruse this Treatise WILLIAM IOHNSON ERRATA Page 75. line 13. ad neither p. 78. l. 6 dele my answering
that is to such a one to whom every Bishop might appeal in the like case Mr. Baxter Num. 185. Your tenth proof is from Chrysostome's case where you say some things untrue and some impertinent 1. That Chrysostome appeals to Innocent from the Council of Constantinople is untrue if you mean it of an appeal to a superiour Court or Iudge much more if as to an universal Iudge But indeed in his banishment when all other help failed he wrote to him to interpose and helps him as far as he could I need no other proof of the Negative then 1. That there is no proof of the Affirmative that ever he made any such appeal William Iohnson Num. 185. Every appeal from a juridical sentence to have it reversed and the injured person restored to his former right and the unjust Judges punished by the authority of him to whom the appeal is made is to a superiour Court or Judge But St. Chrysostome's appeal was such Ergo it was to a superiour Court or Judge the Minor is evident from the matter of fact for St. Chrysostome writes thus to Pope Innocent Scribite precor authoritate vestra discernite St. Chrys. ep ad Inocent Papam apud Palladium in Dialogo hujusmodi iniqua gesta nobis absentibus judicium non declinantibus nullius esse roboris sicut per suam naturam sunt profecto irrita nulla porro qui talia gessere eos Ecclesiae censurae subjicite nos autem insontes neque convictos neque deprensos neque ullius criminis reos comprobate Ecclesiis nostris jubete restitui ut charitate frui pace confratibus nostris consuetâ possimus Write I beseech you and decree by your Authority that the unjust proceedings against us who were absent and not refusing Iudgement are of no force as indeed in their own nature they are void and null moreover make those to lye under the Churches censure who have committed such injustices but command that we who are innocent unconvicted and unguilty be restored to our Churches that we may re-enjoy our wanted charity and peace with our Brethren Is not this a full proof of the Minor The Major is also evident for none have power when appealed to perform those acts of authority over those of any Court unless they be a higher Court and Judge then the other from whom the appeal is made as all Jurists know and confess Mr. Baxter Num. 186. In his first Epistle to Innocent he tells him over and over that he appealed to a Synode and required Iudgement and that he was cast into a Ship for banishment because he appealed to a Synode and a righteous Iudgement never mentioning a word of any such appeal to the Pope William Iohnson Num. 186. What then Ergo he appealed not to Innocent as a superiour Iudge prove that consequence Was it not the custom then of approved Prelates as also in all well ordered Common-wealths first to appeal to the next ordinary Court and if Justice were done there to acquiesce and not to come to the highest Tribunal till no Justice could be had in the inferiour Did not St. Chrysostome all this must he needs mention his appeal to the Pope before he made it I think in earnest you were in jest here Mr. Baxter Num. 187. Yea he urgeth the Pope to befriend and help him by that Argument that he was still ready to stand to uncorrupted Iudges never mentioning the Pope as Iudge William Iohnson Num. 187. And was it not his duty to do so according to Canonical proceeding what need had he in that Epistle whilst he was in hopes of an inferiour tryal to mention an appeal to the highest Court must he upon all occasions mention every thing was it not sufficient that he did it when necessity required it Mr. Baxter Num. 188. By all which it appears it was but the assistance of his intercession that he requireth and withal perhaps the excommunicating of the wicked which another Bishop might have done William Iohnson Num. 188. But could any Bishop who was not a superiour Judge which make against you annul the Sentence of a Council by his Authority inflict Ecclesiastical censures upon those Judges and command the injured persons to be restored to their Seas as we have seen St. Chrysostome beseeched Innocent to do If you will undertake the writing of Controversies answer like a Scholar to the proofs alleadged against you and be sure in your next you fall no more into this fault for by dallying thus you may write to the worlds end to no purpose at all whilst you neither answer nor so much as mention the words which make aginst you pardon me if I tell you my mind plainly it is for your good Mr. Baxter Num. 189. Yea and it seems it was not to Innocent only but to others with him that he wrote for he would scarce else have used the termes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 William Iohnson Num. 189. How familiar is it in writing to persons of most eminent Authority to use the plural number how usual is this both in Scripture and other Authors Mr. Baxter Num. 190. But what need we more then his own words to know his request Saith he let those that are found to have done so wickedly be subject to the penalty of the Ecclesiastical Laws but as for us that are not convicted nor found guilty grant us to enjoy your letters and your charity and all others whose socâ—â—ety we did formerly enjoy Corruption William Iohnson Num. 190. This is a strange Metamorphosis of St. Chrysostomes words why leave you out the beginning of the Sentence scribite precor c. I beseech you to write and decree that by your authority those unjust acts are void and null I see this was not for your purpose nor could well admit of a handsom mistranslation 2. Why cite you not the Latin or Greek words that the equity of your Translation might appear O that would have spoyled your market Signifies then subjicite let them be subject what Grammer hath taught you that what word is there in the Latin Sentence that signifies your letters or your charity and what English word is there here which answers to jubete command or to restitui Ecclesiis vestris to be restored to our Churches See the Latin Text of St. Chrysostom cited above num Sir give me leave once more to be plain with you it had been much better for you and thousands of your too credulous Readers that you had never set pen to paper then to delude your own soul and theirs with such sophistications as these are and I pray God you come not one day with a great Patron of your Religion to curse the time that you ever writ Controversies which notwithstanding were rather to be wished then feared if the Grace of true Repentance accompany it Mr. Baxter Num. 191. The Ecclesiastical Laws enabled each Patriarch and Bishop to Sentence in his own
It is evident that the principallity of Rome before all other Patriarchal Churches was not only in precedency of place and order but in power jurisdiction and authority over them for Damascus as Photius witnesse ep 125 confirm'd that Constantinopolitan Council which was an act of Supream jurisdiction 4 That addition to the second canon about Constantinople priviledges Con. Const. 1 c. 2. must have been annexed to the canon by some sinister meanes after the Council was dissolved for it is both dissonant from the former part of the canon which decrees that the Canon of Nice c. 6. be observed in exercise of jurisdiction within their districts prescribed in that canon and yet this addition infringes the very canon of Nice where the Bishop of Alexandria was the first and of Antioch the second both before Constantinople Second when Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria with a Council celebrated by his authority pretended to exercise authority over St. Chrysostome neither St. Chrysostome nor his adherents ever mentioned this addition to the second canon of Constantinople which had it been held authentical in their time they would doubtless have done as being so powerful to defend their cause Thirdly when Sicinius successour to Atticus at Constantinople had ordain'd Proclus his competitor Bishop of Sizicene by virtue of a canon that none should be ordain'd Bishop without the consent of the Constantinopolitan Bishop those of Sizicene rejected Proclus and affirm'd that canon to have been made only for Atticus nor did Sicinius so much as mention this canon of the first Council of Constantinople which he would have don Socrat lib. 7. c. 28. had he esteemed it a genuine part of the canon in his time now what is said of equal priviledges with Rome cannot be understood of all priviledges w ch Rome had for then Constantinople should not have been next after Rome but equal with Rome but it must be limited to some particular priviledges then though it had been made equal in them it might in others remain inferiour nay subject to it 38. To what you most urge that Romes priviledges were given to it by the Fathers and consequently are not derived from our Saviours institutions besides that of the greek word now observed I answer the Council of Chalcedon could not mean that the Fathers gave as by a new gift the priviledges to Rome without a plain contradiction for in the Council of Chalcedon the sixt canon of the Nicene Council is alledged thus Ecclesia Romana semper habuit primatum the Roman Church had alwaies the primacy now if it had alwaies the primacie how could the same Council say it recieved its priviledges and consequently its primacy as you collect here from the Fathers in succeeding times Either therefore you must say that supposing as you do this canon is a genuine canon of the Council that the Council contradicts it self or that they mean not these words the Fathers gave as a new gift all the priviledges to Rome or you must say that this canon is false supposititious fram'd surreptitiously and rejected by St. Leo destructive of the Nicene canon and ancient priviledges of other Churches and coin'd by Anatolius his adherents perswasion out of pride ambition as it is most manifest it is so of no force as Leo declares in his epistle to Anatolius And Anatolius himself in part acknowledges in his answer to Leo. To what you say of the ground of these priviledges the imperialitie of the Roman city I have told you that was not urged as the sole but as a partial ground of those priviledges as it is also in the letters of Valentinian cited above but yet that only was mentioned here because it made most for Anatolius his pretension 39. Your second argument is page 244 245 246 247. You ground your arguments in a patent falshood those Fathers and others as occasion served prest mainly and largely this argument so Bellar. Baron Perrone Coccius Gualterus Stapleton and others of this subject and no smal number of them are cited by me in this answer But you call all their citations scraps and it must be so if you have once said it your word is a proof at any time but you should have don well to have cited those scraps that the world might have seen whether they be so or no are you a disputant when you have no other reason for your saying then an I say so but if you make so slight of those proofs how will you prove from the Fathers either the baptisme of Infants or the necessity of Ministers or the precedency of the Roman Bishop which you hold but by those which here you call scraps out of these Fathers 40. Your next argument page 248. is an abominable untruth set down by a fore-head of brass you might as well have out-brav'd the loyal subjects of his most excellent Majesty in time of the rebellion by teling them the tradition of the greater part of the Nation was against him and his title what man in his right wits would have had the confidence to utter so loud a falshood without any proof at all if there be any perpetual tradition receiv'd as you affirm from generation to generation that the Papal viccar-ship or soveraignty is an innovation or usurpation and that the Catholick Church hath bin many hundred years without it as known and notorious as that the Turks believe in Mahomet by common consent of histories and Travelers shew this tradition from the year 300 to the year 600 to have bin as notoriously known and credited as it is that the Turks believe in Mahomet which if you cannot do all the world will see you are one of the most insufferable out-facers of truth and assertors of open falshood that ever yet set pen to paper and if you do it I 'le leave the papacy But see you not what an obligation you have now brought upon your self by your confidence of proving what you have hitherto denyed you had any obligation to prove you seem not to understand what tradition from generation to generation is nominate to me any one profession of Christians which held the Popes soveraignty as it is proposed by the Church of Rome to be an usurpation and I here oblige my self to shew the time since Christ when that profession was not in the Chrstian world as cleerly as you can shew when the prosession of the Turks in the belief of the Mahomets doctrine was not in those Nations wherein it is now when the profession it self was not how could it have any tradition 41. Page 249 250 251. Is first spent in five non-proofs let them be prov'd in your next concerning the Indians Persians c. Armenians Parthians and Abbasins wee have already spoken as occasion served which needs no repetition Now if I can prove as I have proved that any one extra-imperial Church was subject to the Bishop of Rome and you cannot shew some evident