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
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
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
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
Communion with a notorious Heretick though he had been Pope William Iohnson Num. 246. We have had essayes enough of what you can do I see you are much wiser and learneder then was St. Cyril who presided in the Ephesine Council He would be first informed from Pope Celestine whether Nestorius his opinion were Heresie or no before he avoided him you if you had liv'd in his time would have taken a wiser course and have had nothing to do with never a Celestine of them all but upon your own judgement avoided him And yet you thought just now that prudence made St. Cyril so cautelous as to proceed as he did and if it were prudence in him what was it think you that mov'd you to proceed otherwise yet you even in what you say here mistake grosly the state of the question which is not whether every one was then bound to avoid a notorious Heretick for none are notorious Heretiques but such as are sufficiently declared to be so by the Church and the very same authority which declared them obliged every one to avoid them but what was here questioned was this whether private men upon their particular judgement when a novelty ariseth not yet expresly condemned by the Church are to avoid the maintainers of it as Heretiques before they be declared to be so by publique authority of those who have power to judge them and their doctrine Mr. Baxter Num. 247. The long story that you next tell is but to fill up paper that Cyril received the Popes letters that Nestorius repented not that he accused Cyril that Theodosius wrote to Celestine about a Council and many such impertinent words 2. Non-proofs 3. Corruption of my words William Iohnson Num. 247. Here are more of your non-proofs all belike is impertinent which you call so had I indeed said no more then what you make me say here I had been impertinent look upon p. 56. your Edit and you 'l find another story I say there that Celestines letters to Cyril were to execute Nestorius his condemnation and to send his condemnatory letters unto him this you dissemble which only makes the Epistle of Celestine to be a proof of his power over St. Cyril the first of the three Patriarchs before I related there the irrepentance of Nestorius I say p. 57. in your Edit that Celestine had given order in his letters to Cyril to send Celestines condemnatory letters to Nestorius this also you dissemble which is not withstanding a strong proof against you and you make me say no more then that Nestorius repented not never mentioning the occasion given him to repent Then you say I write that Theodosius writ to Celestine about a Council neither declaring as I do p. 57. that it was the general Council of Ephesus nor mentioning Pope Celestines answer both consenting to the assembling that general Council and prescribing the manner how he would have it celebrated which was my proof of Celestines Soveraign authority nor say you any thing of Celestines order given to his Legates that the Council should not again examine the cause of Nestorius but without any farther examination put his precedent condemnation of him in execution All this that is all the force of my proofs you handsomly conceal and foisting in non-proofs of your own making in place of my proofs and all this done you say my words are impertinent in what School of conscience learn't you these duplicities Mr. Baxter Num. 248. But the proof is that Cyril was the Popes chief Legate ordinary forsooth because in his absence he was the chief Patriarch therefore he is said Celestini locum tenere which he desired Corruption William Iohnson Num. 248. No that 's neither my argument nor the reason of his being Legate my argument is this p. 58. your edit Cyril being constituted by Celestine his chief Legate ordinary in the East Con. Ephes. impres Heidelberg c. 16. ibid. c. 17. ibid. c. 18. ibid. c. 65. Concil Ephes. c. 15. Marcel comes in chron Liberat. in brev c. 5. Balsam in nomo can Prosp. in chron Id. contra collatorem c. and that before the Council of Ephesus was begun or indicted now his being constituted so by Celestine you again dissemble making me say only that he was the Popes chief Legate ordinary that is as you would have it by vertue of his being the first Patriarch of the East not by Pope Celestines institution whence appears you have given no answer to my argument but miserably mangled it because you could not answer it For sure Pope Celestine neither made Cyril in that letter Patriarch of Alexandria for he was so before nor that Patriarch the chief in the Eastern Church for he was declared to be so long before the Council of Nice but by vertue of a particular order constituted Cyril his Legate ordinary as he might have done any other Patriarch had he pleased Mr. Baxter Num. 249. Well let your Pope sit highest being he so troubles all the world for it Christ will shortly bid him come down lower when he humbleth them that exalt themselves William Iohnson Num. 249. This is not replying but prophesying and would better become an exclamation in a Country Pulpit then a reply in Controversie It had been timely enough to use such Phanaticismes as these after you had either prov'd unanswerably the Pope exalted himself too high or answered fully and cleerly the arguments which prove he hath not Mr. Baxter Num. 250. That Cyril subscribed before Philip you may see Tom. 2. cap. 23. but where I may find that Philip subscribed first you tell me not William Iohnson Num. 250. When I cited the sixt action immediately after those words you might have gathered that subscription as it is to have been in the fift Mr. Baxter Num. 251. But what if the Arch-bishop of Canterbury sate highest and subscribed first in England doth it follow that he was Governour of all the world no nor of York it self neither William Iohnson Num. 250. No. It follows not because such a Council would be only National not General as that of Ephesus was but it would follow according to the antient Canons that the Arch-bishop of Canterbury presiding as Primate of the English Church had power in Government over the Bishop of York in some cases as all true Primates have over all the Bishops and Metrolitans within their Primacies Mr. Baxter Num. 252. And here you tell us of Iuvenal Act. 6. Reply 1. The Council is not divided into Acts in Binius but many Tomes and Chapters but your words are in the Notes added by your Historian but how to prove them Juvenals words I know not nor find in him or you William Iohnson Num. 252 I think you would infuse the spirit of Prophesie into me too how should I know otherwise you had the Councils in no other Edition save that of Binius I cited the sixt action of the Council which is an usual citation and full
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