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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
by both parties agreeing in the choice of them so that no one party without the consent of the other is sufficient to constitute an Arbitrator Now it is evident that upon this submission of the Arians Iulius writ to St. Athan. to appear peremptorily by way of citation never requiring whether he gave his free Election to have him Arbitrator in his cause as appears from Theodoret Hist. Eccles l. 2. c. 4. and St. Athan. Ap. 2. where he cites Iulius affirming that St. Athanasius came not then to Rome of his own free Election or of himself but being called by the Letters of Iulius to Rome nor hath Blondel any ground to say in the words he cites Ep. 73. that the Arian Legates chose Iulius directly for their defence nor onely to have a Synode called wherein a definitive Sentence might be given nor had those Arrian Legates any reason to pitch upon Iulius for their Arbitrator had the choice of a Judge been left to them for they both knew he was a profest Adversary to their Heresie and sufficiently informed against them And for Field he sayes nothing that can give any shew of satisfaction to my Instances if he do cite his Answer in your next and I here undertake to shew it to be unsatisfactory Mr. Baxter Num. 170. Briefly this may shew the vanity of your proof Zozomon in that place saith that though he alone wrote for them yet he wrote in the name and by the consent of all the Bishops of the West William Iohnson Num. 170. Why cite you not his words there 's something in 't for you spare no pains in that where they serve your turn Sayes Zozomen upon your honest word for that 's all we have for it that Iulius writ that Epistle in the name and by the consent of all the BB. of the West What of all the Gothes had then there BB. then you must acknowledge in your principles he writ an untruth Had Iulius their consent and writ he in the name of them Then Iulius in this his Epistle had as well an Extra-Imperial as an Imperial Authority that is had the Authority not onely of the BB. within but of those also who were without the Empire which you expresly deny in the next leaf page 149. num 3. and it is strange that all those of the West consented when there were no more than 50. Bishops as Baron affirms ad an 341. n. 13. in Epist. of spondani in that Council Tradition Mr. Baxter Num. 171. The advantages of Rome by its reputation and greatness and the number and quality of the Western Bishops made their Iudgement and Communion valuable to others William Iohnson Num. 171. But how far What even to cite and summon parties to appear before their Tribunal and in case they refused to pronounce Sentence against them and acquit and restore their Adversaries The Imperial City of London hath a proportionable preheminence with Rome before all other Cities through the whole Kingdom hath therefore my Lord Major and the Common Council power to summon in this kind any other Magistrates of inferiour Cities to appear before them and in case of non-appearance to justifie and re-establish their Adversaries Mr. Baxter Num 172. Basil before cited tells you on what grounds when Churches disagree those that are distant are supposed to be impartial especially when numerous William Iohnson Num. 172. Be it so but sayes St. Basil there that distance of place is enough to give power of summoning condemning and acquitting parties legally that 's the question where sayes St. Basil that produce his words or rather give a second reflection upon his words cited by you p. 139. and you 'l find no such matter Mr. Baxter Num. 173. To which is added which Basil intimates that some hope of help from the secular powers by the interposition of the Western Bishops made them the more sought to William Iohnson Num. 173. How sought to As to friends and assistants that 's not our question now as to Superiours and Judges that 's indeed the question but sure the prime urgent and necessitating motive why I have recourse to a Judge and Superiour is his coercive power over me the others are secondary and by respects in the matter Mr. Baxter Num. 174. And the Primacy of Rome though it had no Soveraignity made it seem irregular that a Patriarch should be deposed without the knowledge and judgement of the Patriarchs of the precedent Seats This was the custom that Julius spake of and the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria might have said as much if the Patriarch of Jerusalem or Antioch had been deposed without them William Iohnson Num. 174. If there had been no more then bare precedency why should not the Metropolitans who had the precedency of other Metropolitans have had the like priviledge who told you or where ever read you that this novelty which you have newly hatched to have recourse to the Bishop of Rome and acquaint him with Ecclesiastical matters by reason of his Primacy in sole precedency of place was the custom whereof Iulius speaks See you not that Iulius his words and proceedings in this affair speak loudly a supereminent power and jurisdiction over those Bishops whose cause he then heard and summoned them to appear before him and not a naked precedency of place before all others who told you or where ever read you that the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria might have said as much if the Patriarchs of Antioch or Ierusalem had been deposed without them you are excellent at guessing what might be done when you have no proof what was ever done for shame bring proofs or cease to play the part of a Disputant Non-proof 17. Mr. Baxter Num. 175. Every Patriarch might absolve the Innocent and hold Communion with him in his own Patriarchate and if any be against it as the Arians here were and sent false accusations against Athanasius to Julius he may require them to prove their accusations if they will have him more by them William Iohnson Num. 175. Here are a couple more of non-proofs I think we shall never come to an end of them The question is not what one may require in courtesie and condescendency of another nor whether the Arians were obliged only conditionally viz. if they would have Iulius to be moved by the accusations they had sent him as you surmise here but how the Bishops of Rome came to summon them to appearance and upon their defaillance to proceed juridically to Sentence against them and to acquit and restore the persons they accused to the Dignities from which they had deposed them if he had no true and real jurisdiction over them for had there been no more in the case then what of their non-appearance he should have surceased from any further proceeding and neither helpt nor hurt them Should you send accusations to the Chancellour of Scotland against some of your brethren here in England that by reason of
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
in Councils that presided did govern them Mr. Baxter Num. 260. We must have new Grammars and Dictionaries to understand your translations Who ever said before you that praeesse signifies to go before I was alwayes taught and I think you too or you had a Sir Iohn lack-Latin for your Master that esse signifies to be and not to go and so praeesse is to be before or above another and not to go before them A servant may go before his Lady to usher her can it therefore be said praeest Dominae a horse goes before the Cart can you therefore say praeest currui We read Gen. 1. v. 16. that God made the Sun ut praeesset diâ—â—i would you translate that it might go before the day and v. 26. he gave power to man ut praeesset piscibus maris volucribus caeli c. will you translate that he might go before the beasts of the Earth and the birds of the Air and the 1. Tim. 3.5 si quis quis autem Domui suae praeesse nescit if any know not how to go before his family c. But to be more serious I challenge you to give me any one instance where praeesse signifies not to govern others as I translate it either in Scripture or antiquity Indeed Sir you are a worse Critick then you are a Controvertist I say not therefore 't is you who mistake it that to go before must be to govern but that praeesse aliis to govern them which all the world sayes with me Whence also that if Aurelius in quality of Primate in Africa did praeesse conciliis he also governed them as did anciently the Primate of England the Councils in England Mr. Baxter Num. 261. It was but benevolentiam praetulisse that they acknowledged and that the Magistrates not only presided indeed but did the work of Iudges and Governours is expresse in the Acts it s after wrote in that Epistle Haec sunt quae tecum qui spiritu praesens eras complacere tanquam fratribus deliberasti qui pene per tuorum vicariorum sapientiam videbaris à nobis effecimus William Iohnson Num. 261. Will you venture to Criticize again after your late foyle know you not that the Greek language is ful of courteous and friendly expressions it was indeed Leo's good will to send his Legates with their instructions to them but was it therefore no act of power and authority is it not benevolentia Principis to confer new honours upon his well deserving subjects seems it not therefore to be an act of Royal power over them who denies the Magistrates did the work of Judges but still in their kind and within their Sphere to see good order justice and peace observed amongst the Bishops But prove if you can they ever as Judges gave their suffrages and votes together with the Bishops in definitions of faith or framing Ecclesiastical decrees Mr. Baxter Num. 262. And haec à tua sanctitate fuerunt inthoata and yet qui enim locum vestrae sanctitatis obtinent iis ita constitutis vehementer resistere tentaverunt from all which it appeareth that he only is acknowledged to lead the way and to please them as his brethren and to help them by the wisdom of his substitutes yet that the Council would not yeild to their vehement resistance of one particular William Iohnson Num. 262. These consequences I understand as little as I do your translations I beseech you in your next draw something against my assertion from them Mr. Baxter Num. 263. But I have told you oft enough that the Council shall be judge not in a complemental Epistle but in Can. 28. where your Primacy is acknowledged but 1. as a gift of the Fathers 2. And therefore as new 3. For the Cities dignity 4. And it can be of no farther extent then the Empire the givers and this Council being but the members of that one Common-wealth so that all is but a novel Imperial Primacy William Iohnson Num. 263. This is already answered in part and shall be more fully when we come to it Mr. Baxter Num. 264. And for the words of Vincentius Lyrinensis c. 9. what are they to your purpose quantum loci authoritate signifieth no more then we confess viz. that in those times the greatness of Rome and humane ordination thereupon had given them that precedency by which their loci authoritate had the advantage of any other Seat Or else they had never swelled to their impious usurpation William Iohnson Num. 264. I see here you are as skilful in Chronologie as you are in Criticismes know you not that Vincentius speaks of St. Stephen Pope and Martyr who sate in the year 258. till 260. in whose time the temporal greatness of Rome served for nothing but to render its Bishops objects of tyranny and subjects of torments nor was there then any humane ordination at all either from general Councils or Christian Emperours from whom only you derive it for it was many years before them both which notwithstanding this ancient Catholique author sayes that even then in those purest times the Roman Bishop surpassed all other Bishops loci authoritate not in precedency only but in authority of his place Now I hope you will tell us in your next who if not our Saviour gave that Soveraign authority to the Bishop of Rome in those dayes Should one say the Lord Mayor of London surpasses all those of the City in the authority of his place signifies no more then that in publique meetings he is to take place of all the other Aldermen c. without any governing power over them would any rational man think he speaks sense Mr. Baxter Num. 264. I have plainly proved to you in the end of my safe Religion that Vincentius was no Papist William Iohnson Num. 265. I am subject to believe your proofs there wil be much like those which I lately examined in your Key The question is not now of what Religion Vincentius was but whether in this place he gave an unanswerable testimony of the Popes Supremacy I am sure the answer you have given to it is fallacious not distinguishing the time wherein Vincentius writ from the time whereof he writes in that Chapter and it is no less untrue and inconsistent in it self your constituting humane ordination for the Popes authority when there was none Mr. Baxter Num. 266. But you draw an argument from the word sanxit as if you were ignorant that bigger words then that are applyed to them that have no governing power Quantum in se sanxit he charged them that they should not innovate And what is it P. Stephen that is the Law-giver of the Law against unjust innovation did not Cyprian believe that this was a Law of Christ before Stephen medled in that business what Stephen's authority was in those dayes we need no other witnesses then Firmilian Cyprian and a Council of Carthage who slighted the Pope as
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
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
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
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
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