The Reply to Mr. Johnsons second PAPER.
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 loth 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 Hypocrital 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 less hasty in sending you this Reply, because I desired you might have leisure to peruse a Book which I published since your last, (A Key for Catholikes;) seeing that I have there answered you already, and that more largely then I am like to do in this Reply. [Page 78] For the sharpness of that I must crave your patience; the persons and cause I thought required it.
Ad 1m. What explications were made to your Friend of your Thesis, I could not take notice of, who had nothing but your writing to Answer.
2. If you will not be precise in Arguing, you had little reason to expect (much less so strictly to exact) a precise Answer; which cannot be made as you prescribed, to an Argument not precise.
3. I therefore expect accordingly that the unlearned be not made the Judges of a dispute which they are not fit to judge of; seeing you desire us to avoid their road.
4. Again I say, if you will not be precise in arguing, I can hardly be so in answering. And by [a Congregation of Christians] you may mean [Christians politically related to one Head,] whether Christ, or the Pope: But the word [Assemblies] expresseth their actuall Assembling together, and so excludeth all Christians that are or were Members of no particular assemblies, from having Relation as Members of Christ (our Head) or the Pope (your Head,) and so from being of the Congregation, [Page 79] as you Call, The Church universall.
5. I had great reason to avoid the snare of an equivocation, or ambiguity, of which you gave me cause of jealousie by your [whatsoever] as I told you: as seeming to intimate a false supposition: To your Like, I answer, it is unlike, and still more intimates the false supposition. [Whatsoever Congregation of men is the Commonwealth of England] is a phrase that importeth that [There is a Congregation of men which is not the Common-wealth of England.] Which is true, there being more men in the world. So [whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church] doth seem to import, that you suppose [there is a Congregation of Christians (univocally so called) that are not the true Church] which you would distinguish from the other: Which I only let you know at the entrance, that I deny, that you may not think it granted.
Yet I must tell you that nothing is more ordinary then for the Body to be said to do that which a part of it only doth; As that [the Church administreth Sacraments, Discipline, Teatheth, &c. the Church is assembled in such a Council &c.] when yet it is [Page 80] but a small part of the Church that doth these things. And when Bellarmine, Gretser, &c. say [the Church is the infallible judge of Controversies of faith,] they mean not [the whole Church] which containeth every Christian, when they tell you that It is the Pope they mean. and therefore I had reason to enquire into your sense, unless I would willfully be over-reacht.
You now satisfie me that you mean it universally, viz. [ [...]ll that Congregation (or Church) of Christians which is now the true Church of Christ, doth acknowledge, &c.] which I told you I deny.
6. To my following distinction you say [that all the world knows that whatsoever is acknowledged to have been ever in the Church by Christs instiution, cannot be meant of any accidental thing, but of a necessary unchangeable and essentiall thing, in Christs true Church,] To which I Reply, Either you see the gross fallacy of this defence, or you do not: If you do not, then never more call for an exact Disputant, nor look to be delivered from your errors by argumentation, though never so convincing. If you do, then you are not faithfull to the truth. In your Major proposition the words being many (as you say, you penetrated divers [Page 81] arguments together,) ambiguities were the easier hidden in the heap. That which I told you is Accidental to the Church (and that but to a corrupted part) was [the Acknowledging of the Papacy as of Christs Institution,] and therefore if it were granted that a thing [of Christs Institution] could not be Accidental, yet [the Acknowledgment] that is, the Opinion or asserting of it may. If the Church by mistake should think that to be Essential to it which is not, though it will not thence follow that its Essence is but an Accident, yet it will follow that both the false opinion, and the thing it self so falsly conceited to be essential, are but accidents, or not essential. You say [It cannot be meant of any Accidental thing] But 1. That Meaning it self of theirs may be an Accident. 2. And the question is not what they [Mean, that is, Imagine or affirm] it to be; But what it is in deed and truth. That may be an Accident, which they think to be none.
2. But that which you say [all the world knows] is a thing that [all the world of Christians except your selves,] that ever I heard of, do know, or acknowledge to be false. What! doth all the world know that Christ hath instituted in his Church [Page 82] nothing but what is essential to it? I should hope that few in the Christian world would be so ignorant as ever to have such a thought, if they had the means of knowledge that Protestants would have them have. There is no natural body but hath natural Accidents as well as Essence: Nor is there any other society under heaven (Community or Policy) that hath not its Accidents as well as Essence: And yet hath Christ instituted, a Church that hath nothing but Essence without Accidents? Do you build upon such foundations? What! upon the denyal of common principles and sence? But if you did, you should not have feigned all the world to do so too. Were your asseriton true, then every soul were cut off from the Church, and so from salvation, that wanted any thing of Christs Institution, yea for a moment. And then what would become of you. You give me an instance in [the Eucharist] But 1. Will it follow that if the Eucharist be not Accidental or integral, but Essential, that therefore every thing Instituted by Christ is Essentiall? surely no? 2. The Question being not whether the Being of the Eucharist in the Church be Essential to the Universal Church: But [Page 83] whether the Belief or Acknowledgment of it by All and every one of the members, be Essential to the Members? I would crave your answer but to this Question (though it be nothing to my cause.) Was not a Baptized person in the primitive and ancient Churches a true Church-member, presently upon Baptism? And then tell me also, Did not the ancient Fathers and Churches unanimously hide from their Catechumens, even purposely hide, the mysterie of the Eucharist, as proper to the Church of understand? and never opened it to the auditors, till they were Baptized? This is most undenyable in the concurrent vote of the ancients. I think therefore that it follows that in the Judgement of the ancient Churches the Eucharist was but of the Integrity, and not the Essence of a member of the Church; and the acknowledgement of it by all the members, a thing that never was existent.
Where you say, your Major should have been granted or denyed without these distinctions: I Reply, 1. If you mean fairly, and not to abuse the truth by Confusion, such distinctions as you your self call [Learned and substantial] can do you no wrong. They do but secure our true understanding [Page 84] of one another: And a few lines in the beginning by way of distinction are not vain, that may prevent much vain altercation afterwards. When I once understand you, I have done: And I beseech you, take it not for an injury to be understood.
As to your conclusion, that you used no fallacy ex Accidente, and that my instances are not apposite; I Reply, thats the very life of the Controversie between us: And our main Question is not so to be begged. On the grounds I have shewed you, I still averr, that [the holding of the Papacy is as Accidental to the universal Church, as a Cancer in the breast is to a woman;] And though you say, It is Essential, and of Christs Institution, that maketh it neither Essential, nor of Christs Institution; nor doth it make all his institutions to be essentialls.
Now of your second Syllogism. 1. I shall never question the successive Visibility of the Church.
Whereas I told you out of your Fransc. à S. Clara, that many or most of your own Schoolmen agree not to that which you say [All Christians agree to,] you make no reply to it.
As to your Minor, I have given you the Reasons [Page 85] of the necessity and harmlesness of my distinctions: we need say no more to that [a Congregation of Christians] and [a Church] are Synonima: But the word [true] was not added to your first term by you or me; and therefore your instance here is delusory. But to say [whatsoever Congregation of Christians, is now the true Church] is all one as to say whatsoever Church of Christians is now the true Church.] When I know your meaning I have my end.
Though my syllogism say not that [the Church of Rome acknowledgeth those things alwaies done, and that by Christs institution] it nevertheless explicateth the weakness of yours, as to the fallacy accidentis: For 1. The holding it alwaies done, and that of Christs Institution, may be either an Accident, or but of the Integrity, and ad bene esse, yea possibly an errour. 2. And I might as easily have given you Instances of that kind.
To your 3. Syllogism I Reply. 1. When you say the Church [had Pastors] as you must speak of what existed, (and Universalls exist not of themselves) so it is necessary that I tell you, How far I grant your Minor, and how far I deny it.
My argument from the Indians and others, is not solved by you. For 1. You [Page 86] can never prove that the Pope was preached to the Iberians by the Captive maid, nor to the Indians by Frumentius. 2. Thousands were made Christians and baptized by the Apostles, without any preaching or profession of a papacy, Act. 2. & passim. 3. The Indians now Converted in America by the English and Dutch, hear nothing of the Pope, nor thousands in Ethiopia. 4. Your own do or may baptize many without their owning the Pope, who yet would be Christians. And a Pastor not known, or believed, or owned, is actually no Pastor to them.
To your confirmation, I Reply: You misread my words: I talk not of [Invisible.] I say it is true that the Universal Church is united to Christ as their universall Head: and is Visible 1. In the members. 2. In the Profession. 3. Christ himself is visible in the Heavens, and as much seen of most of the Church as the Pope is, that is, not at all. As the Pope is not Invisible, though one of a million see him not, no more is Christ, who is seen by most of the Church, and by the best part, even by the glorified. You know my meaning: Whether you will Call Christ visible or not, I leave to you: I think he is visible: But [Page 87] that which I affirm, is, that the universal Church hath no other visible universal Head or Pastor: But particular Churches have their particular Pastors all under Christ.
Of Eph. 4. I easily grant that the whole Church may be said to have Pastors, in that all the particular Churches have Pastors. But I deny that the whole have any one universal Pastor but Christ. Of that which is the point in controversie, you bring no proof. If you mean no more then I grant, that the whole Church hath Pastors both in that each particular Church hath Pastors, and in that unfixed Pastors are to preach to all as they have opportunity, then your Minor hath no denyall from me.
Instead of prosecuting your Argument, when you had cast the work of an Opponent upon me, you here appeal [to any true Logician or expert Lawyer] Content; I admit of your Appeal. But why then did you at all put on the face of an Opponent? could you not without this lost labour at first have called me to prove the successive visibility of our Church? But to your Appeal, Ho all you true Logicians, this Learned man and I refer it to your tribunal, [Page 88] whether it be the part of an Opponent, to contrive his Argument so as that the Negative shall be [...]is, and then change places, and become Respondent, and make his adversary Opponent at his Pleasure.] We leave this cause at your bar, and expect your sentence.
But before we come to the Lawyers bar, I must have leave more plainly to state our case.
We are all agreed that Christianity is the true Religion, and Christ the Churches Universal Head; and the holy Scriptures the Word of God. Papists tell us of another Head and Rule; the Pope and Tradition, and judgement of the Church. Protestants deny these Additionals, and hold to Christianity and Scripture only; Our Religion, being nothing but Christianity, we have no Controversie about: Their Papall Religion, superadded, is that which is Controverted: They affirm 1. the Right. 2. the Antiquity of it: We deny both: The Right we disprove from Scripture, though it belongs to them to prove it. The Antiquity is it that is now to be referred. Protestancy being the Denyall of Popery, it is we that Really have the Negative, and the Papists that have the Affirmative. The [Page 89] Essence of our Church (which is Christian) is confessed to have been successively visible: But we deny that theirs as Papal hath been so; and now they tell us, that it is Essential to ours to deny the succession of theirs, and therefore require us to prove a succession of ours, as one that still hath denyed theirs: Now we leave our case to the Lawyers, seeing to them you make your appeal, 1. Whether the substance of all our cause lie not in this Question, Whether the Papacy or universal Government by the Pope, be of heaven, or of men? and so whether it hath been from the beginning? which we deny, and therefore are called Protestants; and they affirm, and are therefore called Papists. 2. If they cannot first prove a successive visibility of their Papacy and Papal Church, then what Law can bind us to prove that it was denied, before it did arise in the world, or ever any pleaded for it? 3. And as to the point of Possession, I know not what can be pretended on your side. 1. The Possession of this or that particular Parish Church or Tythes, is not the thing in question; but the universal Headship is the thing: But if it were, yet it is I that am yet here in Possession; and Protestants before me for many ages successively: [Page 90] And when possessed you the Headship of the Ethiopian, Indian, and other extra-imperial Churches? never to this day. No nor of the Eastern Churches, though you had communion with them. 2. If the Question be, who hath Possession of the universal Church; we pretend not to it; but only to be a part, and the soundest safest part. 3. The case of Possession therefore is, whether we have not been longer in Possession of our Religion, which is bare Christianity, then you of your superadded Popery. Our Possession is not denied, of Christianity. Yours of Popery we deny: (and our denyal makes us called Protestants): Let therefore the reason of Logicians, Lawyers, or any rational sober man determine the case, whether it do not first and principally belong to you, to prove the visible succession of a Vice-Christ over the universal Church.
As to your contradictory impositions I Reply, 1. Your exception was not exprest, and your imposition was peremptory. 2. I told you I would be a Papist if you prove [that the whole visible Church in all ages hath held the Popes universal headship] you say that you [have proved it by this argument, that either he hath that supremacy, [Page 91] or some other Church; denying that he hath alwaies had it, hath been alwaies visible,] and that Church you require should be named. I Reply, 1. Had not you despaired of making good your cause, you should have gone on by Argumentation, till you had forced me to contradict some common principle. 2. If you should shew these Papers to the world, and tell them that you have no better proof of the succession of your Papacy, then that we prove not that it hath alwaies been denied by the visible Church, you would sure turn thousands from Popery, if there be so many rational considering impartial men that would peruse them, and believe you. For any man may know that it could not be expected that the Churches should deny a Vice-Christ before he was sprung up. Why did not all the precedent Roman Bishops disclaim the title of universal Bishop or Patriarch, till Pelagius and Gregory? but because there was none in the world that gave occasion for it. How should any Heresie be opposed or condemned before it doth arise?
But you fairly yield me somewhat here, and say that you [oblige me not to prove a continued visible Church formally and expresly [Page 92] denying it; but that it was of such a constitution as was inconsistent with any such supremacy, or could and did subsist without it.] Reply, I confess your first part is very ingenuous and fair. Remember it hereafter, that you have discharged me from proving [a Church that denied the Papacy formally & expresly.] But as to what you yet demand. 1. I have here given it you, because you shall not say [...]'le sail you: I have answered your desire. But 2. It is not as a thing necessary, but ex abundanti, as an overplus. For you may now see plainly, that to prove that the Church was without an universal Pastor, (which you require) is to prove the Negative, viz. that then there was none such; whereas its you that must prove that there was such. I prove our Religion: do you prove yours: though I say to pleasure you, I'le disprove it, and have done it in two books already.
My reason from the stress of necessity, which you lay on your Affirmative and Additions, was but subservient to the foregoing Reasons, not first to prove you bound, but to prove you the more bound to the proof of your Affirmative. And therefore your instance of Mahumetans is impertinent. He that saith, you shall be damned [Page 93] if you believe not this or that, is more obliged to prove it, then he that affirmeth a point as of no such moment.
To what I say of an accident and a corrupt part, you say you have answered, and do but say so, having said nothing to it that is considerable.
Me thinks you that make Christ to be corporally present in every Church in the Eucharist, should not say, that the King of the Church is absent. But when you have proved, 1. That Christ is so absent from his Church, that there's need of a Deputy to essentiate his Kingdom, and 2. That the Pope is so Deputed; you will have done more then is yet done for your cause. And yet let me tell you, that in the absence of a King, it is only the King and Subjects that are essential to the Kingdom. The Deputy is but an officer, and not essential.
Your naked assertion, that whatsoever Government Christ instituteth, of his Church, must be essential to his Church, is no proof, nor like the task of an Opponent. The Government of inferiour officers is not essential to the universal Church, no more then Judges and Justices to a Kingdom. And yet we must wait long before you will [Page 94] prove that Peter and the Pope of Rome are in Christs place, as Governours of the universal Church.
Sir, I desire open dealing, as between men that believe these matters are of eternal consequence. I watch not for any advantage against you. Though it be your part to prove the Affirmative which our Negative supposeth; yet I have begun the proof of our Negative; but it was on supposition that you will equally now prove your Affirmative, better then you have here done. I have proved a visible Church successively that h [...]ld not the Popes universal Government do you now prove [that the universal Church in all ages did hold the Popes universal Government] which is your part; or I must say again, I shall think you do but run away, and give up your cause as unable to defend it: I have not failed you; do not you fail me.
You complain of a deficiency in quality, though you confess that I abound in number. But where is the defect! you say, I must [assert both that these were one Congregation, and ever visible since Christs time] Reply, If by [one Congregation] you meant [one assembly met for personal Communion] [Page 95] which is the first sense of the word [Congregation] it were ridiculous to feign the universal Church to be such. If you mean, One as united in one visible humane Head, thats it that we deny, and therefore may not be required to prove. But that these Churches are One as united in Christ the Head, we easily prove; In that from him the whole family is named; the body is Christs body, 1 Cor. 12.12, 13. and one in him, Eph. 4.4, 5, 6, &c. All that are true Christians are one Kingdom or Church of Christ; but these of whom I speak are true Christians; therefore they are one Kingdom or Church of Christ. And that they have been visible since Christs time till now, all history, even your own affirms: As in Iudaea, & from the Apostles times, in Ethiopia, Egypt and other parts, (Rome was no Church in the time of Christs being on earth.) And to what purpose talk you of determinate Congregations? Do you mean individual assemblies? those cease when the persons die; or do you mean assemblies meeting in the same place? so they have not done still at Rome. I told you, and tell you still, that we hold not that God hath secured the perpetual visibility of his Church in any one City or Country: but if it cease in one [Page 96] place, it is still in others. It may cease at Ephesus, at Philippi, Colosse, &c. in Tenduc, Nubia, &c. and yet remain in other parts. I never said that the Church must needs be visible still in one Town or Country. And yet it hath been so de facto, as in Asia, Ethiopia, &c. But you say, I nominate none. Are you serious! must I nominate Christians of these Nations, to prove that there were such? you require not this of the Church Historians. It sufficeth that they tell you, that Ethiopia, Egypt, Armenia, Syria, &c. had Christians, without naming them. When all history tells you that these Countries were Christians, or had Churches, I must tell you [what and who they were]! must you have their names, sirnames, and Genealogies? I cannot name you one of a thousand in this small Nation, in the age I live in: How then should I name you the people of Armenia, Abassia, &c. so long ago? You can name but few of the Roman Church in each age: And had they wanted learning and records as much as the Abassins and Indians, and others, you might have been as much to seek for names as they. You ask [were they different Congregations?] Answ. As united in Christ they were one Church: but as assembling [Page 97] at one time, or in one place, or under the same guide, so they were not one, but divers Congregations.
That there were any Papists of 400. years after Christ, do you prove if you are able.
My conclusion, that all have been against you for many hundred years, must stand good, till you prove that some were for you: yet I have herewith proved that there were none, at least that could deserve the name of the Church.
Do you think to satisfie any reasonable man by calling for positive proof from Authors, of such Negatives? yet proof you shall not want, such as the nature of the point requireth, viz. That the said Churches; of Ethiopia, India, the outer Armenia, and other extra-imperial Nations, were not under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. 1. You find all these Churches, or most of them at this day (that remain) from under your jurisdiction: and you cannot tell us when or how they turned from you. If you could, it had been done. 2. These Nations profess it to be their Tradition, that the Pope was never their Governour. 3. No history or authority of the least regard, is brought by your own writers to prove these Churches [Page 98] under your jurisdiction: no not by Baronius himself, that is so copious, and so skilful in making much of nothing. No credible witnesses mention your Acts of jurisdiction over them, or their Acts of subjection, which Church history must needs have contained, if it had been true, that they were your subjects. 4. Their absence from general Councils, and no invitation of them thereunto, (that was ever proved, or is shewed by you) is sufficient evidence. 5. Their Liturgies, even the most ancient, bear no footsteps of any subjection to you. Though your forgeries have corrupted them: as I shall here (digressively) give one instance of: The Ethiopick Liturgy, because of a [Hoc est corpus meum] which we also use, is urged to prove that they are for the corporal presence, or Transubstantiation: But saith Vsher, de success. Eccles. In Ethiopicarum Ecclesiarum universali Canone, descriptum habebatur [Hic panis est corpus meum]: In Latina translatione contra fidem Ethiopic. Exemplarium (ut in prima operis editione confirmat Pontificius ipse Scholiastes) expunctum est nomen [Panis.] 6. Constantines Letters of request to the King of Persia for the Churches there (which Euseb. in vit. Constant. mentioneth) [Page 99] do intimate that then the Roman Bishop ruled not there. 7. Even at home, the Scots and Brittains obeyed not the Pope, nor conformed about the Easter observation, even in the daies of Gregory; but resisted his changes, and refused communion with his Ministers. 8. I have already elsewhere given you the testimony of some of your own writers: as Reynerius contra Waldens. Catal. in Biblioth. Patr. Tom. 4. p. 773. saying [The Churches of the Armenians, and Ethiopians, and Indians, and the rest which the Apostles converted, are not under the Church of Rome.] 9. I have proved from the Council of Chalcedon, that it was the Fathers, that is, the Councils that gave Rome its preheminence: But those Councils gave the Pope no preheminence over the extra-imperial Nations: For 1. Those Nations being not called to the Council, could not be bound by it. 2. The Emperours called and enforced the Councils, who had no power out of their Empire. 3. The Diocess are described and expresly confined within the verge of the Empire; see both the description, and full proof in Blondel de Primatu in Ecclesia. Gall. And 10. The Emperours themselves did sometime (giveing power to the Councils Acts) make [Page 100] Rome the chief; and sometime (as the Councils did also) give Constantinople equal priviledge; and sometime set Constantinople highest, as I have shewed in my Key, p. 174, 175. But the Emperours had no power to do thus with respect to those without the Empire.
But what say you now to the contrary? Why 1. You ask, [Were those Primitive Christians of another kind of Church order and Government then were those under the Roman Empire?] Answ. When the whole body of Church history satisfieth us that they were not subject to the Pope, which is the thing in question, is it any weakening of such evidence in a matter of such publick fact, to put such a question as this, Whether they were under another kind of Government? 1. We know that they were under Bishops or Pastors of their own: and so far their Government was of the same kind. 2. If any of them, or all, did suit their Church associations to the several Commonwealths in which they lived, and so held National Councils, and for order sake made one among them the Bishop primae sedis, then was that Government of the same kind with that of the Imperial Churches, and not of another kind. The Roman Government [Page 401] was no other, but One, thus Ordered, in one Empire: And if there were also One, so ordered, in England, one in Scotland, one in Ethiopia, &c. this was of the same kind with the Roman. Every Church suited to the form of the Common-wealth, is even (as to that humane mode) of the same kind (if a humane mode must be called a Kind.) It may be of that same kind, and mode, without being part of the same Individual.
But 2. You say that [How far from truth this is, appeareth from St. Leo in his Sermons de Natali suo, where he sayes, [Sedes Roma Perri; quicquid non possidet armis, Religione tenet.] Reply, If you take your Religion on trust, as you do your authorities that are made your ground of it, and bring others to it when you are deceived your selves, how will you look Christ in the the face when you must answer for such temerity? Leo hath no Sermons de Natali suo, but only one Sermon affixed to his Sermons, lately found in an oid book of Nicol. Fabers. And in that Sermon there is no such words as you here alledge. Neither doth he Poetize in his Sermons, nor there hath any such words which might occasion your mistake: and therefore [Page 102] doubtless you believed some body for this that told you an untruth; and yet ventured to make it the ground of charging my words with untruth. Yet let me tell you, that I will take Pope Leo for no competent judge or witness, though you call him a Saint: as long as we know what past between him and the Council of Chalcedon, and that he was one of the first tumified Bishops of Rome, he shall not be judge in his own cause.
3. But you add that [The Abassines of Ethiopia were under the Patriarch of Alexandria anciently, and he under the authority of the Roman Bishop.] Reply. 1. Your bare word without proof shall not perswade us that the Abassines were under the Patriarch of Alexandria for above three hundred, if not four hundred years after Christ. Prove it, and then your words are regardable. 2. At the Council of Nice the contrary is manifest by the sixth Can. [Mos antiquus perdurat in Aegypto, vel Lybia & Pentapoli, ut Alexandrinus Episcopus horum omnium habeat potestatem, &c.] And the common descriptions of the Alexandrian Patriarchate in those times confine it to the Empire, and leave out Aethiopia (Pisanus new inventions we regard not.) 3. I deny [Page 103] that the Patriarch of Alexandria was under the Government of the Bishop of Rome, any more then the Jury are under the Foremen, or the junior Justices on the bench are under the senior, or York is under London, or the other Earls of England are under the Earl of Arundel. 4. But if both these were proved, that Ethiopia was under Alexandria, and Alexandria under Rome, I deny the consequence, that Ethiopia was under Rome: for Alexandria was under Rome but secundum quid, and so far as it was within the Empire, and therefore those without the Empire that were under Alexandria, were not therefore under Rome. 5. And if it could (as it never can) be proved of Abassia, what is that to all the other Churches in India, Persia, and the rest of the world? Sir, If you have impartially read the ancient Church history, and yet can believe that all these Churches were then under the Pope, despair not of bringing your self to believe any thing imaginable that you would have to be true.
3. Your next question is [When the Roman Emperours were yet Heathens, had not the Bishops of Rome the supremacy over all other Bishops through the whole Church?] Answ. No: they had not; nor in the [Page 104] Empire neither. Prove it, I beseech you, better then by questioning. If you askt, Whether men rule not Angels? your Question proves not the Affirmative.
4. But you ask again [Did those Heathen Emperours give it him?] Answ. 1. Power over all Churches none ever gave him, till titularly his own Parasites of late. 2. Primacy of meer degree in the Empire, for the dignity and many advantages of the Emperial seat, the Bishops of the Empire gave him by consent (Blondel de primatu, gives you the proof and reason at large:) yet so as that [small regard was had to the Church of Rome before the Nicene Council] as saith your Aeneas Sylvius, Pope Pius the second.
5. [Whether the Bishop of Rome had power over the Bishop of Arles by Heathen Emperours,] is a frivolous question. Arles was in the Roman Patriarchate, and not out of the Empire. The Churches in the Empire, might by consent dispose themselves into the Patriarchal orders, without the Emperours, and yet not meddle out of the Empire. Yet indeed Cyprians words intimate no power Rome had over Arles, more then Arles had over Rome: that is, to reject communion with each other upon [Page 105] dissent. Nay it more confuteth you, that even under Heathen Emperours, when Church associations were by voluntary consent of Pastors only; and so if they had thought it necessary, they might have extended them to other Principalities: yet de facto they did not do it, as all history of the Church declareth, mentioning their Councils and associations, without these taken in.
See now how little your objections are worth; and how groundlesly you bid me [See now how little my allegations are to the purpose.]
As for the rabble of Hereticks which you reckon up, (as you esteem them,) some of them are no Christians univocally so called, and those cannot be of the Christian Church. Others of them were better Christians then the Romanists, and so were of the same Church with us: And it is not many reproachfull names put on them by malice that makes them no Christians, or of many Churches or Religions. If an arrogant usurper will put nick-names on all that will not bow to him as the Vice-Christ, and call them Iconoclasts, Berengarians, Waldensians, Albigenses, Wicklefifts, Hussites, Lutherans, Calvinists (you may as well [Page 106] give them a thousand more names) this makes them not of various Religions, nor blots out their names from the book of life. I have in my most retired thoughts perused the History of those mens lives, and of the lives of many of your Popes, together with their severall doctrines; and with death and judgement in my eyes, as before the great God of Heaven. I humbly beg of him, that I may rather have my everlasting portion with those holy men whom you burned, as Waldenses, Albigenses, Hussites, &c. then with the Popes that burned them, or those that follow them in that cruelty, unless reconciling grace have given them repentance unto life. The Religion of all these men was one, and they were all of one universall Church.
Where you again call for One Congregation, I tell you again that we know no Vnity essentiall, from whence the Church can be called one, but either Christ or the Vice-Christ: the former only is asserted by us, and the latter also by you, which we deny: And therefore we cannot call the universall Church One, in any other formal respects, but as it is Christian, and so One in Christ. Yet have I herewith satisfied your demand, but shewed you the unreasonableness of [Page 107] it, beyond all reasonable contradiction.
You next enquire whether [we account] Rome and us One Congregation of Christians?] I answer, the Roman Church hath two Heads, and ours but one, and thats the difference. They are Christians, and so One Church as united in Christ, with us and all other true Christians. If any so hold their Papacy and other errours as effectively and practically to destroy their Christianity, those are not Christians, and so not of the same Church as we. But those that do not so, but are so Papists, as yet to be truly and practically Christians, are and shall be of the same Church with us, whether they will or not: And your modest stile makes me hope that you and I are of one Church, though you never so much renounce it. As Papall, we are not of your Church; thats a new Church form; But as Christian, we are and will be of it, even when you are condemning, torturing and burning us (if such persecution can stand with your Christianity.)
But you aske [Why did you then separate your selves, and remain still separate from the Communion of the Roman Church.] Answ. 1. We never separated from you as [Page 108] you are Christians; We still remain of that Church as Christian, and we know (or will know) no other form; because that Scripture and primitive Churches knew no other. Either you have by Popery separated from the Church as Christian, or not; If you have, its you that are the (damnable) Separatists. If you have not, then we are not separated from you, in respect of the form of the Christian Church. And for your other form (the Papacy) 1. Neither I, nor my Grand-father, or great grand-father did separate from it: because they never entertained it. 2. Those that did so, did but Repent of their sin, and thats no sin. We still remain separated from you as Papists, even as we are separate from such as we are commanded to avoid, for impenitency in some corrupting doctrine or scandalous sin; Whether such mens sins or their professed Christianity be most predominant at the heart, we know not: but till they shew Repentance we must avoid them; yet admonishing them as brethren, and not taking them as men of another Church, but as finding them unfit for our Communion.
But O sir, what manner of dealing have we from you! must we be imprisoned, [Page 109] rackt, hang'd or burn'd, if we will not believe that bread & wine, are not bread and wine, contrary to our own and all mens senses; and if we will not worship them with Divine worship, and will not obey the Pope of Rome in all such matters contrary to our Consciences: and then must we be chidden for separating from you, if we [...] a while escape the strappado and the [...]? What! will you blame us for not believing that all mens senses are deceived, and the greater part of Christians and their Traditions (against you) are false, when we read, and study, and suspect our selves, and pray for light, and are willing to hear any of your reasons, but cannot force our own understandings to believe all such things that you believe, and meerly because the Pope commands it: and when we cannot thus force our own understandings, must we be burned, or else called Separatists? would you have the Communion of our Ashes, or else say, We forsake your Communion? In your Churches we cannot have leave to come, without lying against God and our consciences, and saying, We believe what our senses contradict; and without committing that which our consciences tell us are most heynous sins. We solemnly protest that [Page 110] we would do as you do, and say as you say, were it not for the love of truth and holiness, and for fear of the wrath of God, and the flames of hell: but we cannot, we dare not rush upon these errours, and sell our souls to please the Pope. And must we then either be murdered, or taken for uncha [...]ble? will you say to so many poor souls, that are ready to enter into another world [Either sin against your consciences, and so damn your souls, or else let us burn and murder you, or else you do not love us; you are uncharitable if you deny us leave to kill you, and you separate from the Communion of the Church.] We appeal from the Pope and all unreasonable men, to the great God of heaven and earth, to judge righteously between you and us concerning this dealing.
As for possessing our selves of your Bishopricks and Cures, if any particular person had personal injury in the change, being cast out without cause, they must answer for it that did it, and not I: though I never heard any thing to make me believe it. But must the Prince and people let alone delinquent Pastors for fear of being blamed for taking their Bishopricks? Ministers of the same Religion with us may be [Page 111] cast out for their crimes: Princes have power over Pastors as well as David, Solomon, and other Kings of Israel had. Guil. Barklay and some few of your own knew this. The Popes treasonable exemption of the Clergy from their Soveraigns judgement, will not warrant those Princes before God, that neglect to punish offe [...]ing Pastors. And I beseech you tell us, [...]hen our consciences (after the use of all means that we can use to be informed) cannot renounce all our sences, nor our reason, nor the judgement of the most of the Church, or of antiquity, or the Word of God, and yet we must do so, or be no members of your Church, what wrong is it to you if we choose us Pastors of our own, in the order that God hath appointed? Had not the people in all former ages the choice of their Pastors? we and our late forefathers here were never under your oversight: but we know not why we may not now choose our Pastors as well as formerly. We do it not by tumults: we kill not men, and tread not in their blood, while we choose our Pastors, as Pope Damasus was chosen. The tythes and other temporal maintenance we take from none, but the Magistrate disposeth of it as he seeth meet for the [Page 112] Churches good. And the maintenance is for the cure or work: and therefore they that are justly cast out of the cure, are justly deprived of the maintenance. And surely when they are dead, none of you can with any shew of reason, stand up and say, These Bishopricks are yours: or these Parsonages your [...] It is the Incumbent personally that only [...]an claim title; saving the supereminent title of Christ, to whom they are devoted. But the successive Popes cannot have title to all the tithes and Temples in the world; nor any of his Clergy that never were called to the charges. If this be disunion, it is you that are the Separatists and cause of all. If you will needs tell all the Christian world, that except they will be ruled by the Pope of Rome, and be burned if they believe not as he bids them in despight of all their senses, he will call them Separatists, Schismaticks, and say they disunite and are uncharitable: again, we appeal to God and all wise men that are impartial, whether it be he or we that is the divider?
You ask me [Is not charity, subordination, and obedience to the same state and Government, required as well to make one Congregation of Christians, as it is required to make a [Page 113] Congregation of Commonwealths men?] Answ. Yes, it is: But as all the world is one Kingdom under God the universal King, but yet hath no universal Vice-King, but every Commonwealth only hath its own Soveraign; even so all the Christian world is one Church under Christ the universal King of the Church, but ha [...] not one Vice-Christ, but every Church hath its own Pastors, as every School hath its own Schoolmaster. But all the anger is because we are loth to be ruled by a cruel usurper therefore we are uncharitable.
Your next reason against me, is, because [They cannot be parts of the Catholike Church, unless Arrians, and Pelagians, and Donatists be parts] and so Hereticks and Schismaticks be parts.] Reply 1. You know sure, that your own Divines are not agreed whether Hereticks and Schismaticks are parts of the Church. And if they were, yet it is not de fide with you, as not determined by the Pope. If it be, then all yours are Hereticks that are for the affirmative (Bellarmine nameth you some of them) If it be not, then how can you be sure its true, and so impose it on me, that they are no parts.
2. Arrians are no Christians, as denying [Page 114] that which is essential to Christ, and so to Christianity. Pelagianism is a thing that you are not agreed among your selves of the true nature of. Many of the Dominicans and Jansenists think the Jesuits Pelagianize, or Semipelagianize at least. I hope you will not shut them out. Donatists were [...]chismaticks, because they divided in the Catholike Church, and not absolutely from it▪ and because they divided from the particular Churches about them that held the most universal external Communion. I think they were still members of the universal Church: but I'le not contend with any that will plead for his uncharitable denyal. Its nothing to our case.
That the Aethiopians are Eutychian Hereticks, I will see better proved before I will believe it. Rosses words I so little regard, that I will not so much as open his book to see whether he say so or not. I know that Heresie is a personal crime, and cannot be charged on Nations, unless you have evidence that the Nations consent to it: which here you have none: Some are called Hereticks for denying points essential to Christianity: these are no Christians, and so not in the Church: but many also are called Hereticks by you, and by the Fathers, [Page 115] for lesser errors consistent with Christianity: and these may be in the Church. The Abassines, and all the rest have not been yet tryed, and convicted before any competent Judge: and slanderers we regard not.
2. Many of your own writers acquit them of Heresie, and say, the difference is now found to be but in words, or little more.
To what you say of their disclaiming us, unless we take the Patriarch of Constantinople for the Vice-Christ; you many waies mistake. 1. If this were true, that they rejected us, it were no proof that we are not of one universal Church. 2. They do not claim to be Vice Christi, the universal Governours of the Church: the title of universal Patriarch they extended but to the then Roman Empire; and that not to an universal Government, but Primacy. And many of them have been of brotherly charity to our Churches of late. Cyril I need not name to you, whom your party procured Murdered for being a Protestant. Meletius first Patriarch of Alexandria and then of Constantinople) was highly offended with the fiction of a submission of the Alexandrian Church to Rome, (under a [Page 116] counterfeit Patriarch-Gabriels name); and wrote thus of the Pope in his Letters to Sigismund King of Poland An. 1600. [Perspiceret Majestas tua, nos cum majoribus nostris, non ignorare (quem precaris ut agnoscamus) Pontificem scilicet Romanum veluti & Constantinopolitanum Pontificem, Pontificem Constant. Caeterosque Apostolicarum sedium Pontifices. Qui non unus omnium, sed inter omnes & ipse unus. — Vnum universale Caput, quod sit D. N. Iesus Christus; alius esse non possit, nisi biceps aliquod sit corpus, aut potius monstrum corporis. Perspiceres, Rex serenissime, (ut interim de Concilio illo Florentino, veluti de re silentio digna taceam) non Nos, è Patria, tum Orientalium, tum Occidentalium dogmatibus traditionibusque quae per septem universalia concilia nobis consignarunt atque obsignarunt, egressos: Illos egressos, qui novitatibus in dies delectantur.] in the same Letters he commendeth Cyril. And what can a Protestant say more against the Vice-Christship, and your novelties?
And for Ieremias his predecessor, whom you mention, though they that disputed with him by Letters (Stephanus Gerlochius, & Martinus Crusius) did not agree in all things with him, yet he still professed his [Page 117] desire of unity and concord with us, and in the beginning of his second answer rejoyceth, that we agreed with them in so many things. And Iohan. Zygomalas in his Letters to Crusius 1576. May 15. saith, [Perspicuum tibi & omnibus futurum est, quod in continuis, & causam fidei praecipue continentibus articulis, consentiamus: quae autem videntur consensum inter vos & nos impedire, talia sunt, si velit quis, ut facile ea corrigere possit. — Gaudium in caelo & super terram erit, si coibit in unitatem utraque Ecclesia, & idem sentiemus, & simul vivemus in omni concordia & pace secundum Deum & in sincerae charitatis vinculo.]
But as it is not the Patriarch that is the whole Greek Church, so it is not their errors in some lesser or tolerable points that prove us of two Churches or Religions.
Whereas you say, It is against all Antiquity and Christianity to admit condemned Hereticks into the Church. I Reply, 1. I hate their condemnation, rather then reverence it, that (even being non judices) dare condemn whole Nations without hearing one man of them speak for himself, or hearing one witness that ever heard them defend Heresie; and this meerly because some few Bishops have in the daies [Page 118] of old maintained Heresie, and perhaps some may do so still, or rather differ from you in words, while you misunderstand each other. Did I find such errors with them as with you, yet I durst charge them on no one man that I had not reason to hold guilty of them: I dare not accuse whole Nations of your errors. But of all these things (and of Sandys words which you cite) I have spoken already in two Books, and in the latter fully proved that you differ in many points of faith, and greater things then you call Heresies in others among your selves, even your Popes, Saints, and Councils, and yet neither part is judged by you to be out of the Church. See my Key, p. 124, 125, 127, 128, 129. p. 52. ad 62.
When you say so much to prove the Greeks guilty of manifest Heresie, and pretend that it is but some novel writers of ours that deny it, as forced by your arguments.] I must say, that you prove but your own uncharitableness instead of their Heresie: and you shew your self a stranger to your own writers, who frequently excuse the Greeks from Heresie, and say the difference at the Council of Florence was found to be more about words then faith. Thomas a [Page 119] Iesu de Convers. omn. gentium, lib. 6. cap. 8. p. 281. saith, [His tamen non obstantibus alii opinantur Graecos tantum esse schismaticos: Ita ex junioribus docet Pater Azorius 1. primae Institut. Moral. lib. 8. cap. 20. q. 10. Quare merito ab Ecclesia Catholica non haeretici, sed schismatici censentur & appellantur: Ita apert insinuat D. Bernardus (no Novel Protestant) in Epist. ad Eugenium, lib. 3. [Ego addo (inquit) de pertinacia Graecorum qui nobiscum sunt, & non sunt: juncti fide, pace divisi; quanquam & in fide ipsa claudicaverint à rectis semitis.] Idem aperte tenet D. Thomas Opuscul. 2. ubi docet patres Graecos in Catholico sensu esse exponendos. Ratio hujus Opinionis est quoniam ut praedictus author docet, in praedictis fidei articulis, de quibus Graeci accusantur ab aliquibus ut haeretici, potius Nomine, quam Re ab Ecclesia Romana dissident. Inprimis inficiantur illi Spiritum Sanctum à Patre Filioque procedere ut in Bulla Vnionis Eugenii 4. dicitur, existimantes Latinos sentire à Patre Filioque procedere tanquam à duobus principiis; cum tamen Latina doceat Ecclesia procedere à duabus personis tanquam ab uno principio & spiratore; quare Graeci ut unum principium significent, dicunt Spiritum Sanctum à Patre per Filium procedere ab omni aeternitate.]
[Page 120]Your Paulus Veridicus (Paul Harris Dean of your Academy lately in Dublin) in his Confutation of Bishop Vshers Sermon, saith that the Greeks Doctrine about the Procession of the Holy Ghost à Patre per Filium, and not à Patre Filioque, was such that [When they had explicated it, they were found to believe very Orthodoxly and Catholikely in the same matter, and for such were admitted] and that [He findeth not any substantial point that they differ from you in, but the Primacy] (So the Armenians were received in the same Council of Florence.) Many more I have read of your own writers that all vindicate the Greeks (and others that disown you) from Heresie, I think more then I have read of Protestants that do it. And do you think now that it is not a disgrace to your cause, that man of your learning, and one that I hear hath the confidence to draw others to your opinions, should yet be so unacquainted with the opinions of your own Divines, and upon this mistake so confidently feign that it is our Novel writers forced to it by your arguments that have been so charitable to these Churches against antiquity that knew better? If the Greeks and Latins tear the Church of Christ by their Condemnations [Page 121] of each other, they may both be schismatical, as guilty of making divisions in the Church, though not as dividing from the Church. And if they pretend the denyal of the Christian faith against each other as the cause, you shall not draw us into the guilt of the uncharitableness, by telling us that they know better then we. If wise men fall out and fight, I will not justifie either side, because they are wise and therefore likelier then I to know the cause. But what need we more to open your strange mistake and unjust dealing, then the authority of your so much approved Council of Florence, that received both Greeks and Armenians; and the very words of the Popes Bull of the union, which declare that the Greeks and Latins were found to mean Orthodoxly both? the words are these [Convenientes Latini & Graeci in hac sacrosancta Oecumenica synodo magno studio invicem usi sunt, ut inter alia articulus etiam ille de Divina Spiritus Sancti processione summa cum diligentia & assidua inquisitione discuteretur. Prolatis vero testimoniis ex Divinis Scripturis, plurimisque authoritatibus sanctorum doctorum orientalium & occidentelium, aliquibus quidem ex Patre & Filio, quibusdam vero ex Patre per Filium procedere dicentibus Spiritū [Page 122] Sanctum, & ad eandem intelligentiam aspicientibus omnibus sub diversis vocabulis: Graeci quidem asseruerunt quod id quod dicunt Spiritum Sanctum ex Patre procedere, non hac mente proferrent ut excludant Filiū, sed quia eis videbatur, ut aiunt, Latinos asserere spiritum Sanctum ex Patre Filioque procedere tanquam ex duobus principiis & duabus Spirationibus, ideo abstinuerunt à dicendo quod Spiritus Sanctus ex Patre procedat & Filio. Latini vero affirmaverunt non se hac mente dicere Spiritum Sanctum ex Filioque procedere ut excludant Patrem, quin sit fons ac principium totius Deitatis, Filii scilicet, & Spiritus Sancti, aut quod id quod Spiritus Sanctu procedat ex Filio, Filius à Patre non habeat, sive quod duo ponant esse principia, seu duas spirationes, sed ut unum tantum asserunt esse principium, unicamque spirationem Spiritus Sancti, prout hactenus asseruerunt; & cum ex his omnibus unus & idem eliciatur veritatis sensus, tandem, &c.—]
I pray you now tell it to no more, that it is same Novel writers of ours, prest by force of argument, that have been the authors of this extenuation. May heart even trembleth to think that there should be a thing called Religion among you, that can so far extinguish both Charity and Humanity, as to [Page 123] cause you to pass so direful a doom (without authority or tryal) on so great a part of the Christian world, for such a word as this, about so exceeding high a mysterie, when your Pope and Council have pronounced a union of meanings!
And what mean you in your Margin to refer me to Nilus, as if he asserted [That the Greeks left the Communion of the Roman Church upon that difference alone.] Verily Sir, in the high matters of God, this dealing is scarce fair! (pardon this plainness: consider of it your self.) The substance of Nilus book is about the Primacy 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 the dissension between the Latin and 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 Laws and actions of the Apostles and Fathers.]
And he begins his Book (after a few words) thus, [Causa itaque hujus dissidii, [Page 124] &c. The cause therefore of this difference, as I judge, is not the sublimity of the point exceeding mans capacity: 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 less is it 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 only as a Bishop ordained by him, as many other Bishops that originally were ordained by him in like manner do succeed him; and that his Primacy is no Governing power, nor given him by Peter, but by Princes and Councils for order sale: and this he proves at large, and makes this the main difference. Bellarmines answering his so many Arguments might have told you this, if you had never read Nilus himself. If you say that, This point was the first cause, I deny it; but if it were true, yet was it not the only or [Page 125] chief cause afterward. The Munner of bringing in the [filioque] by Papal authority without a general Council, was it that greatly offended the Greeks from the beginning.
But you say that when I have made the best of these 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 Popes supremacy, which was your proposition. Reply. I have oft told you we own no universal informing Head but Christ. In respect to him I have proved to you, that is not my interest or design 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. But as you are Papal, and set up a new informing head, I have proved that you differ from all the antient Churches, but yet that my cause requireth me not to make this proof, but to call you to prove your own universal succession.
You add your Reason, because these beforenamed were at first involved in your Congregation, and then fell off as dead branches. [Page 126] Reply. This is but an untruth in a most publick matter of fact. 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. 2 The Greeks, and all the rest within the Empire, without the Roman Patriarchate, are fallen from your Communion (if renouncing it be a fall) but not from your subjection, having given you but a Primacy, as Nilus shews, and not a Governing pewer over them. The withering therefore was in the Roman branches, if the corruptions of either part may be called a withering. You that are the lesser part of the Church may easily call your selves the Tree, and the greater part (two to one) the Branches; but these beggings do but proclaim your necessities.
In good time you come to give me here at last some proof of an ancient Papacy, as you think. But first, you quite forget (or worse) that it is not a man or two in the whole world in an age, but the universal [Page 127] Church, whose judgement (and form) we are now enquiring after. You are to prove [That all the Church in every age was for the Papal universal Government] and so that none can be saved that is not.
2. But instead of this which you should prove, you prove not that those very single persons named by you, had any opinion of the Papal Soveraignty.
1. Your first Testimony is from Liberatus, c. 16. [John Bishop of Antioch makes an appeal to Pope Simplicius.] Reply. 1. I see you are deceived by going upon trust: But its pitty so to deceive others. There was no such man as Iohn Bishop of Antioch in Simplicus raign. Iohn of Antioch was he that made the stirs and divisions for Nestorius, against Cyril, and called the Schismatical Council at Ephesus, and dyed, Anno 436. having raigned thirteen years, as Baronius saith, and eighteen as Nicephorus: He dyed in Sixtus the fifths time. But its said indeed that John Bishop of Alexandria made some address to Simplicius: of which Baronius citeth Liberatus words (not c. 16. but c. 18.) ad An. D. 483. that John being expelled by the Emperour Zeno's command, went first to Calendion Bishop of Antioch, and so to Rome to Simplicius, (if Baronius [Page 128] were to be believed, as his judge) Liberatus saith, that he took from Calendion Bishop of Antioch Letters to Simplicius, to whom he appealed as Athanasius had done, and perswaded him to write for him to Acacius Bishop of Constantinople; which Simplicius did: But Acacius upon the receipt of Simplicius Letters, writ flatly to him, that he knew no John Bishop of Alexandria, but had taken Petrus Mogus as Bishop of Alexandria, into his Communion, and that without Simplicius, for the Churches unity, at the Emperours command] Here you see how little regard Acacius made of your Pope: and that the appeal was but to procure his Letters to Acacius, which did him no good. 2. But do you in good earnest think that all such addresses, or appeals are ad superiorem judicem? What more common then to appeal or make such addresses to any that have advantage of interest, for the relief of the oppressed? Young men appeal to the aged in Controversies: and the less learned to the more learned: and the poor to the rich, or to the favorites of such as can relieve them. Iohns going first to Antioch was no acknowledgement of superiority. 3. But of this I must refer you to a full answer of Blondel against Perron, de Primatu [Page 129] in Eccles. cap. 25. sect. 76. where you may be satisfied of the vanity of your instance. Whereas therefore you infer (or you say nothing) that because this Iohn thus appealed to Rome, therefore he appealed thither as to the Vniversal Ruler of the Church.] The story derideth your consequence. Much more that [therefore the Vniversall Church held the Pope then to be the Vniversall Head or Governour.] Heres nothing of Government but intreaty, and that but within the Empire, and that but upon the seeking of one distressed man that would be apt to go to those of most interest that might relieve him, and all this rejected by Acacius and the Emperour. A fair proof!
2. Your 2. instance is, that Flavianus appeals to the Pope as to his Iudge. Epist. praeambul. Concil. Chalced.] Reply. I have perused all the Council of Chalcedon, as it is in Binnius, purposely to find the words you mention of Flavians appeal, and I find not any such words. In Flavianus own Epistle to Leo there are no such words, nor any other that I can find, but the word [appeal] once in one of the Emperours Epistles (as I remember) but without mentioning any Judge. I will not use to turn [Page 130] over Volumes thus in vain for your citations, while I see you take them on trust, and do not tell me in any narrow compasse of cap. sect. or pag. where to find them. But had you found such words, 1. An appeal is oft made from a partiall to an impartiall Judge, though of equal power. 2. He might appeal to the Bishop of Rome as one of his Judges in the Council where he was to be tried, and not as alone. And it is evident in the History, that it was not the Pope, but the Council that was his Iudge. 3. The greatnesse of Rome, and Primacy of Order (not of Jurisdiction) made that Bishop of speciall interest in the Empire: and distressed persecuted men will appeal to those that may any whit relieve them. But this proves no Governing power, nor so much as any Interest without the Empire.
It being the custome of the Churches in the Empire, to make the Votes of the Patriarchs necessary in their general Councils, no wonder if appellations be made from those Councils that wanted the Patriarchs consent to other Councils where they cons [...]nted; in which as they gave Constantin [...]ple the second place, without any pretence of a Divine Right, and frequent appeals [Page 131] were made to that Seat; so also they gave Rome the first Seat. Of this whole matter Perron is fully answered already by Blondell de primatu, cap. 25. sect. 63. to which I refer you, it being as easie to read it in Print as Writing. Adding this only, that as Flavian (in his necessity) seeking help from the Bishop of the prime Seat in the Empire, did acknowledge no more but his Primacy of Order by the Laws of the Empire and the Councils thereof, so the Empire was not all the world, nor Flavian all the Church, nor any more then one man, and therefore if he had held (as you will never prove he did) the Universall Government of the Pope, if you would thence argue that it was held by all the Church, your consequence must needs be marvelled at, by them that believe that One man is not the Catholick Church, no more then seeking of help was an acknowledging an Universal Headship or Governing power.
And it is undeniably evident, that the Church of Constantinople and all the Greek Churches did believe that Universal Primacy which in the Empire was set up, to be of humane right, and new, and changeable, as I prove not only by the expresse testimony of the Council of Chalcedon, but by the [Page 132] stating of the Primacy at last in Gregories dayes on Constantinople it self, whose pretence neither was nor could be any other then a humane late institution. And if the Greek Churches judged so of it in Gregories daies, and at the Council of Chalcedon in Leo's daies, we have no reason to think that they ever judged otherwise; at least not in Flavians dayes, that were the same as Leo's, and the businesse done about 449. This Argument I here set against all your instances at once; and it is unanswerable.
3. Your next instance is of Pope Leo's restoring Theodoret, upon an appeal to just judgement] Reply. 1. Every Bishop hath a power to discern who is fit for his own Communion; and so Leo and the Bishops of the West perceiving Theodoret to be Orthodox, received him as a Catholick into their Communion; and so might the Bishop of Constantinople have done. But when this was done, the Council did not hereupon receive him, and restore him to his Bishoprick, no nor would hear him read the passages between Pope Leo and him, no nor make a Confession of his faith, but cried out against him as a Nestorian, till he had expresly Anathematized Nestorius and Eutiches before the Council, and then they [Page 133] received and restored him: so that the finall judgement was not by Leo, but by the Council: But if in his distresse he appealed as you say, to a just judgement, from an unjust, or sought to make Leo his friend, no wonder; but this is no grant of an Universall Soveraignty in Leo: and if it had granted it in the Empire, thats nothing to the Churches in other Empires: Or if he had granted it as to all the world, he was but one man of the world, and not the Catholick Church. The Council expresly take on them the determination after Leo, and they slight the Legates of the Pope, and pronounce him a creature of the Fathers, and give Constantinople equall priviledges, though his Legates refuse to consent. But of the frivolousnesse of this your instance, see Dr. Field of the Church, lib. 5. cap. 35. pag. 537, 538. and more fully Blondell de primatu, ubi sup. cap. 25. sect. 63, 65.
4. Your next instance is of Cyprians desire that Stephen would depose Martian Bishop of Arles.] Reply 1. That Epistle cannot be proved to be Cyprians: for the Reasons I refer you to M. de Lanny on that subject, and Rivets Critica Sacra: only adding that there are eight copies of Cyprian, [Page 134] ancient M. S. S. in the English Universities, that have none of them this Epistle to Stephen (of which see Ierem. Stephens Edition of Cyprian de unitate Ecclesiae) 2. Could you prove this Epistle to be Cyprians, it makes against you more then for you. Not for you: for the distance of Cyprian, the nearnesse of Stephen might make it a matter more concerning him, and fitter for him to transact: And it was within his Patriarchate, and therefore no wonder if he were minded of it. And yet Cyprian only writes to him to write to the Bishops of France to restrain Martian: [§. 2. Quapropter facere te oportet plenissimas literas ad coepiscopos nostros in Gallia constitutos, ne ultra Maertianum pervicacem & superbum, & divinae pietatis ac fraternae salutis inimicum, collegio nostro insultare patiantur.] Cyprian did as much to Stephen, as he desired Stephen to do to the Bishops of France: This therefore is against you, if any thing to the purpose: Had you found but such words of a Pope to another Bishop as Cyprian useth to your Pope, you would have taken it as an evidence of his superiority. §. 3. Dirigantur in provinciam & plebem in Arelate c [...]xistentem à te literae, &c. [Let thy Letters be directed to the Province and people [Page 135] at Arles, &c.] And its plainly an act of non-Communion common to all Bishops towards those unfit for their Communion, that Cyprian speaks of [§. 3. Idcirco enim, frater charissime, copiosum corpus est sacerdotum concordiae mutuae glutino atque unitatis vinculo copulatum, ut siquis ex collegio nostro haeresim facere, & gregem Christi lacerare & vastare tentaverit, subveniant caeteri, & quasi pastores utiles & misericordes oves dominicas in gregem colligant.] You see it is a common duty of brotherhood, and not an act of jurisdiction that Cyprian speaks of.
5. Your next instance is, that [the Council of Sardis determined that no Bishop deposed by other neighbouring Bishops, pretending to be heard again, was to have any successor appointed till the case were defined by the Pope: Conc. Sard. cap. 4. cited by Athanas. Apol. 2. pag. 753.] Reply. It seems you are well acquainted with the Council, that know not of what place it was! It was the Council at Sardica, and not at Sardis, that you would mean. Sardis was a City of Lydia, apud Tmolum montem, olim Regio Craesi, inter Thiatiram & Philadelphiam. But this Sardica was a City of Thrace in the confines of the higher Mysia, inter Naissum [Page 136] Myssiae & Philippopolim Thraciae. As to the instance, 1. This Council was by Augustine rejected as hereticall, though I defend not his opinion. 2. It was of so little note and authority, that it was not known to the Council of Carthage to have the next antecedent Canons (which you would not have omitted if you had read them, its like) in which your writers glory as their chiefest strength; and which Bellarmine thinks Pope Zosimus call'd, the Nicene Canon: or rather is it not suspicious that this Canon is but forged, when those Carthage Fathers plainly say, In nullo Patrum concilio decretum invenimus; mentioning that antecedent Canon proposed by Hosius, to which this mentioned by you proposed by Gaudentius is but an addition or supplement. And it is not like that all these Africane Fathers could be ignorant of those Canons of Sardica, when such abundance of Africane Bishops were at the Council, and that but about 50 years before: you may see in Binnius how hard a strait he is put to, to give any tolerable reason of this, and only saith, that its like some how the Canons were lost: sure Tradition was then grown untrusty. Your Cardinal Cusanus de Concord. Cath. l. 2. c. 25. makes a doubt whether [Page 137] the Canon of appeals be indeed a Canon of this Council. 3. But grant it be, yet take these observations, and you shall find small cause of confidence in that Canon.
1. It was made in a Case of the distresse of Athanasius and other Orthodox Orientall Bishops, meerly in that strait, to save them and the Churrhes from the Arrians. The Arrians withdrew from the Council being the minor part, and excommunicated Iulius with Athanasius, and other Occidentals; and the Occidental Bishops excommunicated the Oriental. Athanasius himself was a chief man in the Council, and had before been rescued by the help of Iulius, and therefore no wonder if they desired this safety to their Churches. 2. Note, that this is a thing newly granted now by this Canon, and not any ancient thing. 3. Note, that therefore it was of Humane Right, and not of Divine. 4. Note, that yet this Canon was not received or practised in the Church, but after this the contrary maintained by Councils, and practised, as I shall anon prove. 5. That it is not any antecedent Governing Power that the Canon acknowledgeth in the Pope; but in honour of the Memory of S. Peter, as they say, (yet more for their present security) [Page 138] they give this much to Rome; it being the vulgar opinion that Peter had been there Bishop. 6. That it is not a Power of judging alone that they give, but of causing the re-examination of Causes by the Council, and adding his assistants in the judgement, and so to have the putting of another into the place forborn till it be done. 7. And I hope still you will remember, that at this Council were no Bishops without the Empire, and that the Roman world was narrower then the Christian world: and therefore, if these Bishops in a part of the Empire had now given (not a Ruling, but) a saving Power to the Pope, so far as is there expressed, this had been far from proving that he had a Ruling Power, as the Vice-Christ over all the world, and that by Divine right: Blame me not to call on you to prove this consequence. 8. There is as much for Appeals to Constantinople, that never claimed a Vice-Christship as Iure divino.
6. Your sixth instance out of Basils 74. Epistle I imagine you would have suppressed, if ever you had read that Epistle, and had thought that any others would be induced by your words to read it. I have given you out of this and other Epistles of [Page 139] Basil, a sufficient proof of his enmity to Popery, in my Key, cap. 26. pag. 170, 171, 172. and cap. 27. pag. 177. that very Epistle of Basils was written to the Western Bishops, and not to the Bishop of Rome only, nor so much as naming him: The help that he desireth is either a Visit, or perswasive Letters, never mentioning the least Power that the Pope had more then other Bishops, but only the interest of Credit that the Western Bishops had more then Basil and his Companions: saith he [For what we say is suspected by many, as if for certain private contentions, we would strike a fear and pusillanimity into their minds: But for you, the further you dwell from them, so much the more credit you have with the common people: to which this is added, that the grace of God is a help to you to care for the oppressed. And if many of you unanimously decree the same things, it is manifest that the Multitude of you decreeing the same things, will cause an undoubted reception of your opinion with all.] You see here upon what terms Liberius his Letters might bestead Eustathius: He having received him into his own Communion, and Eustathius being Orthodox in words, no wonder that the Synod of Tiana receive [Page 140] him upon an Orthodox confession, and their fellow-Bishops reception and Letters: No doubt but the Letters of many another Bishop might have perswaded them to his reception; though he had more advantages from Rome. Is it not now a fair Argument that you offer? Liberius (sometime an Arrian Pope of Rome) by his Letters prevailed with a Synod at Tyana to restore Eustathius (an Arrian) that dissembled an Orthodox confession: What then? Ergo the Pope of Rome is the Vice-Christ, or was then the Governour of all the Christian world. Soft and fair. 1. Basil gives you other reasons of his interest. 2. He never mentioneth his universall Government, when he had the greatest need to be helped by it, if he had known of such a thing. 3. The Empire is not all the world: If Basil knew the Roman Soveraignty, I am certain he was a wilfull Rebel against it.
7. Your seventh proof is from Chrysostome, who, you say [expresly desireth Pope Innocent not to punish his adversaries if they do repent: Chrys. Epist. 2. ad Innoc.] Reply. You much wrong your soul in taking your Religion thus on trust; some Book hath told you this untruth, and you believe it, and its like will perswade others of it [Page 141] as you would do me. There is no such word in the Epist. of Chrysostome to Innocent, nor any thing like it.
8. Your eighth proof is this [The like is written to the Pope by the Council of Ephesus in the Case of Iohn of Antioch: Concil. Ephes. p. 2. Act. 5.] Reply. 1. The first Council at Ephesus (which no doubt you mean) is in Binnius enough to make a considerable Volume, and divided into six Tomes, and each of those into Chapters, and not into Acts: And if you expect that I should exactly read six Tomes in Folio before I can answer your severall sentences or shreds, you will put me on a twelve-moneths work to answer a few sheets of Paper. If you mean by [p. 3.] [Tom. 2.] and by [Act. 5.] [Cap. 5.] then I must tell you there is not a word of that you say, nor like it. Only there is reference to Celestines and Cyrils Epistles; and Celestine in his Epistle recited Tom. 1. cap. 17. threatens Nestorius, that if he repent not, he will excommunicate him, and they will have no more communion with him, which others did as well as he; but not a word of Iohn Bishop of Antioch there. Nor can I find any such thing in the 4. Tome, where Iohn's cause is handled. Indeed the Notes of your [Page 142] Historian divide the Council into Sessions: But in his fifth Session there is nothing of Iohn, but of Nestorius. And in the 4. Sess. Iohn and his Party excommunicate Cyril, Memnon, and theirs. And it was the Council that suspended first, and after excommunicated Iohn. And it is the Emperour to whom he appeals. Indeed your Annotator in Sess. 6. mentions some words of Iuvenals; that he should at least have regarded the Roman Legates, it being the custome that his Church be directed by that: But I see no proof he brings of those words; and it is known, that Cyril of Alexandria did preside, and subscribed before the Roman Legates, even to the severall Letters of the Synod, as you may see in Tom. 2. cap. 23. & passim.
2. But if your words were there to be found, what are they to your purpose? The Pope can punish the Bishop of Antioch: But how? Why by excommunicating him. True, if he deserve it: that is, by pronouncing him unfit for Christian Communion, and requiring his flock, and exhorting all others to avoid him. And thus may another Bishop do: and thus did Iohn by Cyril of Alexandria, though he was himself of the inferiour Seat: and [Page 143] thus hath the Bishop of Constantinople done by the Bishop of Rome, and so may others.
9. Your ninth proof is from the applications that the Arrians and Athanasius made to Iulius: Ex Athan. ad solit. Epist. Iulius in Lit. ad Arian. apud Athan. Apol. 1. p. 753. Theodoret. lib. 2. c. 4. Athan. Apol. 2. Zozom. l. 3. c. 7.] Reply. I marvel you urge such rancid instances, to which you have been so fully and so often answered: I refer you to Blondell de Primatu cap. 25. sect. 14, 15. Whittaker de Roman. Pontif. p. 150. & passim. Dr. Field of the Ch. l. 5. c. 35, &c. Briefly, this may shew the vanity of your proof. 1. Sozomen in that place saith, that though he alone wrote for them, yet he wrote in the Name and by the consent of all the Bishops of the West. 2. The advantages of Rome by its reputation and greatness, and the number and quality of the Western Bishops, made their Judgement and Communion valuable to others: Basil before cited tells you on what grounds when Churches disagree, those that are distant are supposed to be impartiall, especially when numerous. To which is added, which Basil intimates, that some hope of help from the Secular [Page 144] powers, by the interposition of the Western Bishops, made them the more sought to. 3. And the Primacy of Rome (though it had no Soveraignty) made it seem irregular, that a Patriarch should be deposed without the knowledge and judgment of the Patriarchs of the precedent Seats. This was the custome that Iulius spoke of, and the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria might have said as much, if the Patriarch of Ierusalem or Antioch had been deposed without them. 4. Every Patriarch might absolve the Innocent, and hold communion with them in his own Patriarchate; and if any be against it, (as the Arrians here were, and sent false accusations against Athanasius to Iulius) he may require them to prove their accusations, if they will have him moved by them. Our own Communion with men, is to be directed by the judgment of our own well informed consciences. Iulius desired not any more then to be one with a Council that should decide the case. Councils then had the Rule, and Patriarchs were the most honourable Members of those Councils, but no Rulers of them. 5. Yet Sozomen and others tell you, that Iulius, when he had done his best to befriend Athanasius and [Page 145] Paulus could do no good, nor prevail with the Bishops of the East, till the Emperors commands prevailed: yea the Eastern Bishops tell him that he should not meddle with their proceedings no more then they did with his, when he dealt with the Novatians; seeing the greatness of Cities maketh not the power of one Bishop greater then another: and so they took it ill that he interposed, though but to call the matter to a Synod, when a Patriarch was deposed. Any Bishop might have attempted to relieve the oppressed as far as Iulius did: especially if he had such advantages as aforesaid to encourage him. All your consequences here therefore are denied. 1. It is denied, that because Iulius made this attempt, that therefore he was Universal Ruler in the Empire. 2. It is denied that it will thence follow, if he were so, that it had been by Divine Right, any more then Constantinople had equall priviledges by Divine Right. 3. It is denied that it hence followeth, that either by Divine or humane right, he had any Power to govern the rest of the world without the Empire. Had you all that you would rack these testimonies to speak, it is but that he was made by Councils and Emperours the chief Bishop [Page 146] or Patriarch in a Nationall Church (I mean, a Church in one Princes Dominion) as the Archbishop of Canterbury was in England. But a Nationall or Imperiall Church is not the Universall. And withall, oppressed men will seek relief from any that may help them.
In your Margin you adde that [Concerning S. Athanasius being judged, and rightly, by P. Julius, Chamier acknowledgeth the matter of fact to be so: but against all antiquity pretends that judgment to have been unjust.] Reply. Take it not ill Sir I beseech you, if I awake your conscience, to tell me, how you dare write so many untruths, which you knew, or might know, I could quickly manifest. Both parts of your saying of Chamier p. 497, are untrue. 1. The matter of fact is it that he denieth: He proveth to you from Sozomens words, that Athanasius did make no appeal to a Judge, but only fled for help to a friend: He shews you that Iulius did not play the Judge, but the helper of the spoiled, and that it was not an act of Judgement. 2. He therefore accuseth him not of wrong judgeing, but only mentioneth his not hearing the accused, to shew that he did not play the part of a Judge, but a friend, as Chrysostome [Page 147] did by some that fled to him. I pray answer his reasons.
And for what you say again in your Margin of Theodoret; I say again, that he appealeth to the Bishop of Rome for help; as a person who with the Western Bishops might sway much against his adversaries, but not as to an Universal Governour or Judge: no not as to the Universal Judge of the Church Imperiall; much less of all the Catholick Churches.
10. Your tenth proof is from Chrysostomes Case, where you say some things untrue, and some impertinent. 1. That Chrysostome appeals to Innocent from the Council of Constantinople is untrue, if you mean it of an Appeal to a superiour Court or Judge; much more if as to an Universal Judge: But indeed in his banishment, when all other help failed, he wrote to him to interpose and help him as far as he could. I need no other proof of the Negative then, 1. That there is no proof of the Affirmative, that ever he made any such appeal. 2. In his first Epistle to Innocent, he tells him over and over, that [he appealed to a Synod, and required Iudgement] and that he was cast into a ship for banishment [because he appealed to a Synod and a righteous judgement] [Page 148] never mentioning a word of any such appeal to the Pope. Yea he urgeth the Pope to befriend and help him, by that argument, that he was still ready to stand to uncorrupted Judges, never mentioning the Pope as Judge. By all which it appears it was but the assistance of his intercession that he requireth: and withall, perhaps the excommunicating of the wicked, which another Bishop might have done. Yea, and it seems it was not to Innocent only, but to others with him that he wrote; for he would scarce else have used the terms [ [...]] But what need we more then his own words to know his request: saith he [Let those that are found to have done so wickedly, be subject to the penalty of the Ecclesiasticall Laws: but for us that are not convicted, nor found guilty, grant us to enjoy your Letters, and your charity, and all others whose society we did formerly enjoy.] The Ecclesiastical Laws enabled each Patriarch and Bishop to sentence in his own Diocess; though the person sentenced lived out of their Diocess, yet they might renounce all communion with him: Churches that have no power over one another, may have communion with one another; and that communion [Page 149] they may hold and renounce as there is cause. Now if a neighbour Patriarch with so many Bishops of the West had renounc'd Communion with Chrysostomes enemies, and also written their Letters on his behalf, and taken him still as in their Communion, this he hoped would much further his restauration: which yet he doubted, as he had cause. For in his second Epistle he thanks him for doing his part, though it did no good, or did not avail.
And it is to be noted, that your Author Nicephorus tells you, lib. 13. cap. 31. that Chrysostomes Letters, and his fellow-Bishops also, and the Clergies of Constantinople, were all written both to the Emperour Honorius and to Innocent: And therefore you may see by that on what account it was, and what help they did expect. The Emperour was not to excommunicate, but his Letters might do much.
Well, but you alledge Niceph. l. 13. c. 34. to prove 1. Chrysostomes appeal: But you have better or worse eyes then I, for I can find there no such thing, but a seeking for help as aforesaid. 2. You say [Innocentius nulls his condemnation, and declares him innocent.] Ans. So might another Bishop have declared him: But how far it should [Page 150] be regarded, was not in his power. 3. You say he excommunicates Atticus and Theopilus, and 4. Arcadius the Emperor also, and Eudoxia.] Reply. 1. If he did so and did well, another Bishop might as well have done it. Mennas excommunicated Vigilius of Rome. Excommunicating is not alwayes an act of Jurisdiction, but a renouncing of Communion, with a Ministeriall binding, which any Pastor on a just occasion may exercise, even on those that are not of his Diocess; examples in Church-history are common. 2. But I would have you answer Dr. Whittakers Reasons, by which he proves that Nicephorus is a fabler in this relation, and that that Epistle is not Innocents which cap. 34. he reciteth, Lib. de pontif. Rom. Contr. 4. Qu. 4. pag. 454, 455. 1. Neither Socrates, Theodoret or Sozomen make any mention of this excommunication, who yet write much of the Case of Chrysostome and Arcadius: And would these men that lived so near that time have all silenced so great and rare a thing, as the excommunication of the Emperour and Empress, which would have made so great a noise and stir, that yet mention Ambrose his censure of Theodosius? 2. This Bull of Innocents, (as Nicephorus would [Page 151] have us believe it) hath such falshoods, contrary to more credible history, as bewray the forgery. For Socrates lib. 6. c. 19. writeth, that Eudoxia died the same year that Chrysostome was banished, and that Chrysostome died the third year of his banishment: And Sozomen saith l. 8. c. 28. that Chrysostome was in banishment three years after the death of Eudoxia: But, if Nicephorus were to be believed, Eudoxia was alive and excommunicated by Innocent after Chrysostomes death. Nor can it be said that Innocent knew not of her death; for his Legats were sent to Constantinople in Atticus time, who succeeded Arsacius, who outlived Eudoxia.] This is the summe of Dr. Whittakers confutation of Nicephorus. And withall, who knows not how full of fictions Nicephorus is?
In your Margin you pretend to confute Chamier p. 498. as saying [That other Bishops restored those wrongfully deposed as well as the Pope,] to which you say that [never single Bishop restored any who were out of their respective Diocess, &c. whereas the Bishop of Rome by his sole and single authority, restored Bishops wrongfully deposed all the Church over.] Reply. 1. It seems you took Chamiers words on trust: peruse [Page 152] that page, and see his words. 2. Single Bishops have censured, and therefore might as well remit their own censures. Ambrose censured Theodosius, who was no fixed Member of his charge, and he remitted the Censure. Epiphanius presumed even at Constantinople to excommunicate Dioscorus and his Brethren, Socrat. lib. 6. c. 14. And many instances may be brought both of excommunicating, and again receiving to communion by particular Bishops, even as to those that were not of their charge. And if the fact were not proved, yet the forbearance proveth not the want of power. 3. I deny your unproved assertion, that the Bishop of Rome singly restored all the Church over: It is a meer fiction. How many restored he out of the Empire? Or in the Empire out of his Patriarchate, but suasorily or Synodically.
Your next instance of Theodosius his not permitting the Council at Ephesus to be assembled, and his reconciling himself to the Church, is meerly impertinent: We know that he and other Princes usually wrote to Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, &c. or spoke or sent to more then one of the Patriarchs before they called a Council. You cannot but know that Councils have [Page 153] been called without the Pope: and that neither this, nor an Emperours forsaking his errour, is a sign of the Popes Universal Government. That Emperour gave sufficient testimony, and so did the Bishops that adhered to Dioscorus, that in those dayes the Pope was taken for fallible and controlable, when they excommunicated him: But when you cite out of any Author the words that you build on, I shall take more particular notice of them. Till then this is enough, with this addition, that the Emperours subjection, if he had been subject (not to an Ambrose, or other Bishop, but) only to Rome, would have been no proof that any without the Empire were his subjects: No more then the King of Englands subjection to the Archbishop of Canterbury, would have proved that the King of France was subject to him.
12. Your twelfth proof from the Council of Chalcedon, is from a witness alone sufficient to overthrow your cause, as I have proved to you. This Synod expresly determineth, that your Primacy is a novel humane invention; that it was given you by the Fathers, because Rome was the Imperial Seat. If you believe this Synod, the Controversie is at end: If you do not, why [Page 154] do you cite it? and why pretend you to believe Generall Councils?
But what have you from this Council against this Council? Why, 1. You say Martian wrote to Leo, that by the Popes Authority a generall Council might be gathered, in what City of the Eastern Church he should please to choose.] Reply. 1. Whereas for this you cite Act. Concil. Chalcedon. 1. You tell me not in what Author, whether Crabbe, Binnius, Surius, Nicolinus, or where I must seek it. I have perused the Act. 1. in Binnius, which is 63 pages in Folio (such tasks your citations set me) and find no such thing; and therefore take it to be your mistake. But in the preambul. Epist. I find that Valentinian and Martian desire Leo's prayers, and contrary to your words, that they say [Hoc ipsum nobis propriis liter is tua sanctitas manifestet, quatenus in omnem Orientem & in ipsam Thraciam & Illyricum sacrae nostrae literae dirigantur, ut ad quendam definitum locum qui nobis placuerit, omnes sanctissimi Episcopi debeant convenire.] It is not [qui vobis placuerit] but [qui nobis.] But what if you had spoke truth, doth it follow that Leo was Christs Vicar-general Governour of the world, because that the Soveraign of one Commonwealth [Page 155] did give him leave to choose the place of a Council? Serious things should not be thus jested with.
2. You say Anatolius and the rest of the Eastern Bishops sent to Pope Leo the professions of their faith by his order.] Reply. 1. And what then? therefore Pope Leo was both Governour of them and all the Christian world. You should not provoke men to laughter about serious things, I tell you. Can you prove this Consequence? Confessions were ordinarily sent in order to Communion, or to satisfie the offended, without respect to superiority. 2. But I see not the proof of your impertinent words. Pulcherius Epistle to Leo, expresseth that Leo had sent his Confession first to Anatolius, to which Anatolius consented. By your Rule then Leo was subject to Anatolius.
3. You say the Popes Legates sate first in Council.] Reply. What then? therefore the Pope was Governour of the Christian world, though not a man out of the Empire were of the Council. Are you still in jest? But if it must be so, then I can prove that others were the Universal Governours, because at Nice, and other Councils they sate before the Legates of the Pope, and in many his Legats had no place. Is this argument [Page 156] good think you? O unfaithful partiality in the matters of salvation!
4. You say, they prohibited Dioscorus to sit by his order] Reply. 1. What then? therefore he was Universal Governour of the Church. All alike. Any accuser in a Parliament or Synod may require that the Accused may not sit as judge, till he be tried. 2. But did you not know that Leo's Legates were not obeyed; but that the Gloriosissimi judices & amplissimus senatus, required that the cause should be first made known: and that it was not done till Eusebius Episcop. Dorylaei had read his bill of complaint? Binnius Act 1. pag. 5.
5. You say the Popes Legates pronounced the Church of Rome to be Caput omnium Ecclesiarum] Reply. 1. What then? therefore he was Governour of all the Christian world? I deny the consequence. You do nothing but beg: not a word of proof. Caput was but membrum principale, the Patriarch primae sedes, and that but in the Empire. 2. The Popes Legates were not the Council, nor judges in their own cause, and not opposing, signifies not alwayes a consent. 3. But the Council do as I said, expresly define the point, both what your Primacy is, and of how long standing, and of [Page 157] whose institution, and that Constantinople on the same grounds had equall priviledges.
6. You say, all the Fathers acknowledged thtmselves Leo's Children, and wrote to him as their Father.] Reply. Of this you give me not any proof, but leave me to read 190 pages in Folio, to see whether you say true or no. And what if you do, (as I believe you do) can a man of any reading be ignorant how ordinarily other Bishops were stiled Fathers, even by their fellow-Bishops as well as the Bishop of Rome?
7. You add, that they humbly begged of him that the Patriarch of Constantinople might h [...]ve the first place next Rome, which notwithstanding the Council had consented to, as had also the third general Council at Ephesus before, yet they esteemed their grants of no sufficient force, till they were confirmed by the Pope.] Reply. So far were the Council from what you falsly say of them, that they put it into their Canons, that Constantinople should have the second place, yea and equal priviledges with Rome, and that they had this on the same grounds as Rome had its Primacy, even because it was the Imperial Seat: Vid. Bin. pag. 133, 124. col. 2. And not only Ephesus, but the second general Council at [Page 158] Constantinople, they tell you had decreed the same before. You see then (contrary to your fiction) that three general Councils (of the greatest, likened by Gregory to the 4 Evangelists) not only judged without the Pope, but by your own confession against him (for you say, he consented not) yea so much did they slight the Popes consent, that when his Legates dissented, they were not heard: See Bin. pag. 134, 136. They persisted in the Council to maintain their Canon 38. notwithstanding the contradiction of Lucretius and Paschasinus, and by the Judges it was accordingly pronounced, p 137. And unanimously the whole Synod consented, never stopping at the Roman dissent. Pergamius Bishop of Antioch saith [in omnibus sanctissimum Archiepiscopum Regiae civitatis novae Romae in honore & cura sicut Patrem praecipuum habere nos convenit.] No man contradicted this: And is not this as much or more, then you alledge as spoke to Leo? They call Leo (you say) Father: And the Bishop of Constantinople is pronounced the Chief Father in all things, in honour and Cure. And Eusebius Bishop of Doryl. the chief adversary of Dioscorus, witnessed that he himself, in the presence of the Clergy of Constantinople, did read this Canon to the [Page 159] Pope at Rome, and he received it. Upon which your Historian hath no better an observation, then that [either Eusebius lyed, or else at that hour he deceived Leo.] Its true that the Synod writ to him for his consent: but not as suspending any of their Decrees on it; but telling him over and over, that the things were by them defined and confirmed already, pag. 140. that which they desired of him was, what Synods ordinarily did of Bishops of their Communion that were absent [Haec, sicut propria, & amica, & ad decorem convenientissima, dignare complecti, sanctissime & beatissime pater.]
13. In your Margin you tell me that Agapet in the time of Iustinian depo [...]ed Anthymius in Constantinople against the will of the Emperour & the Empress.] Reply. 1. 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 to Constantinople? Niceph. l. 17. c. 26. When Dioscorus excommunicated Leo, and an Eastern Synod excommunicated Iulius (Sozom. l. 3. c. 11.) that proves not that they did it justly, [Page 160] or as his Governours. Honorius the Emperour deposed Boniface 1. Othe with a Synod deposed Iohan. 13. Iustinian deposed Sylverius and Vigilius: Will you confess it therefore justly done? 2. As to the history I refer you to the full answer of Blondel to Perron. cap. 25. sect. 84, 85. 3. Usurpation and deposing one another by rash sentences was then no rare thing, Eusebius of Nicomedia threatened 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 others, 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 Iohan. Antiochen. and many such like? 4. Still you suppose one Empire to be all the Christian world: We must grant you that in all your instances!
14. For what you alledge 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 time were little enough to search after your citations, if you should thus write but [Page 161] many more sheets. (If a man had so much time and so little wit as to attend you) You turn me to Greg. cap. 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. 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. But if it had been otherwise, Constantinople and the Empire was not all the Christian world.
Your next citation is lib. 7. ep. 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.
15. You say Cyril would not break off Communion with Nestorius till Celestine had condemned him; of this you give us no proof: But what if it be true? Did you think that it proved the Pope to be the Vice-Christ? Prudence might well make Cyril [Page 162] 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. But that Nestorius was condemned by a Council needs no proof: And what if Celestine began and first condemned him? I she therefore the Universal Bishop? But it was not Celestine alone, but a Synod of the Western Bishops. And yet Cyril did not hereupon reject him without further warning: And what was it that he threatned, but to hold no Communion with him? Vid. Concil. Ephes. 1. Tom. 1. cap. 14. 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 Communion with a notorious Heretick, though he had been Pope.
The long story that you next tell, is but to fill up Paper, that Cyril received the Popes Letters, that Nestorius repented not, that he accused Cyril, that Theodosius wrote to Celestine about a Council; and many such impertinent words: But the proof is, that Cyril was the Popes chief Legate Ordinary! Forsooth because in his absence he was the chief Patriarch; therefore he is said Celestini [Page 163] locum tenere, which he desired. Well, let your Pope sit highest, seeing he so troubles all the world for it. Christ will shortly bid him come down lower, when he humbleth them that exalt themselves. That Cyril subscribed before Philip, you may see, Tom. 2. cap. 23. but where I may find that Philip subscribed first, you tell me not. But what if the Archbishop of Canterbury sate highest, and subscribed first in England? Doth it follow that he was Governour of all the world? no nor of York it self neither.
16. And here you tell us of Iuvenal, Act. 6. Repl. 1. The Council is not divided into Acts in Binnius, but many Tomes and Chapters: but your words are in the Notes added by your historian; but how to prove them Iuvenals words I know no [...], nor find in him or you. 2. But why were not the antecedent words of the Bishop of Antioch and his Clergy as valid to the contrary, as Iuvenals for this? 3. If these words were spoken, they only import a Iudgeing in Council as a chief member of it, and not of himself. And his apostolica ordinatione is expresly contrary to the [...]orecited Canon of the Council of Chalcedon, and therefore not to be believed. Yet some called things [Page 164] done Ordinatione apostolica, which were ordained by the Seats which were held Apostolike. 4. But still you resolve to forget that Antioch or the Empire extended not to the Antipodes, nor contained all the Catholick Church.
17. 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 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 word the Epistle as he desired; so that it is rather Leo's, then the Emperours originally: 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 Iustinian, 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 [Page 165] 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 Synod joyntly that he ascribeth it to. The Merit of Peter was nothing but the Motive upon which Leo would have men believe the Synod 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 martyred and buried, and his relicts lay, there he should be most honoured. 4. Here is not the least intimation that this Primacy was by Gods appointment, or the Apostles, but the Synods: Nor that it had continued so from Peters dayes, but that joyntly for Peters Merits (and honour) and the Cities dignity, it was given by the Synod. 5. And it was but Leo's fraud to perswade the raw Emperour of the authority of a Synod, which he would not name, because the Synod of Sardica was in little or no authority in those daies. The rest of the reasons were fraudulent also; which though they prevailed with this Emperour, yet they took not in the East. And Leo himself it seems durst not pretend to a Divine Right [Page 166] and Institution, nor to a succession of Primacy from the Apostles. 6. But nothing is more false then your assertion, that he extendeth the power [over the whole visible Church.] The word [Vniversitas] is all that you translate in your comment, [the whole visible Church] As if you knew not that there was a Roman Vniversality, & that Roman Councils were called Vniversall, when no Bishops out of that one Commonwealth were present; and that the Church in the Empire is oft called [the whole Church.] Yea [the Roman world] was not an unusuall phrase. And I pray you tell me, what power Valentinian had out of the Empire? who yet interpos [...]th his authority there, [Nequid praeter authoritatem sedis istiusilli [...]itum, &c.] [& ut p [...]x ubique servetur.] And in the end, it is All the Provinces, that is, the Vniversity that he extends his precepts to. 7. And for that annexed [that without the Emperours Letters, his authority was to be of force through France; for what shall not be lawfull, &c.] I Ans. No wonder: [...]or France was part of his Patriarcha [...]e, and the Laws of the Empire had confirmed his Patriarchal power: and those Laws might seem, with the reverence of Synods, without new Letters, to do [Page 167] much: But yet it seems, that the rising power needed this extraordinary secular help: Hilary it seems with his Bishops thought, that even to his Patriarch he owed no such obedience as Leo here by force exacteth. So that your highest witness (Leo by the mouth of Valentinian) is for no more then a Primacy, with a swelled power in the Roman Universality; but they never medled with the rest of the Christian world: It seems by all their writings and attempts, this never came into their thoughts.
And its no credit to your cause, that this Hilary was (by Baronius confession) a man of extraordinary holiness and knowledge, and is Sainted among you, and hath his Day in your Calendar. And yet Valentinian had great provocation to interpose (if Leo told him no untruths, for his own advantage): For it was no less then laying siege to Cities, to force Bishops on them without their consent, that he is accused of; which shews to what odious pride and usurpation, prosperity even then had raised the Clergy: fitter to be lamented with floods of tears, then to be defended by any honest Christian: Leo himself may be the principal instance.
18. You next return to the Council of Chalcedon, Act. 1. & seq. where 1. You refer me [Page 168] to that Act. 1. where is no such matter: but you add [& seq.] that I may have an hundred and ninety pages in Folio to peruse, and then you call for a speedy answer: But the Epistle to Leo is in the end of Act. 16. pag. (Bin.) 139. 2. And there you do but falsly thrust in the word [thou governst us] and so you have made your self a witness, because you could find none: The words are [Quibus tu quidem sicut membris caput praeeras, in his qui tuum tenebant ordinem benevolentiam praeferens: Imperatores vero adornandum decentissime praesidebant.] Now [to go before] with you must be [to Govern]: If so, then Aurelius at the Council of Carthage, and others in Councils that presided, did govern them. It was but [benevolentiam praetulisse] that they acknowledged: And that the Magistrates not only presided indeed, but did the work of Judges and Governours, is express in the Acts; its after wrote in that Epistle [Haec sunt, quae tecum, qui spiritu praesens eras, & complacere tanquam fratribus deliberasti, & qui pene per tuorum vicariorum sapientiam videbaris, à nobis effecimus] And [haec à tua sanctitate fuerint inchoata] and yet [Qui enim locum vestrae sanctitatis obtinent, iis ita constitutis vehementer resistere tentaverunt.] From all [Page 169] which it appeareth, that he only is acknowledged to lead the way, and to please them as his brethren, and to help them by the wisdome of his substitutes; and yet that the Council would not yield to their vehement resistance of one particular.
But I have told you oft enough that the Council shall be judge, not in a complementall Epistle, but in Can. 28. where your Primacy is acknowledged; but 1. As a gift of the Fathers. 2. And therefore as new. 3. For the Cities dignity. 4. And it can be of no further extent then the Empire; the Givers and this Council being but the Members of that one Commonwealth: So that all is but a novel Imperial Primacy.
19. And for the words of Vincentius Lirinensis, c. 9. what are they to your purpose? [quantum loci authoritate] signifieth no more then we confess, viz. that in those times the greatness of Rome, and humane Ordination thereupon, had given them that precedency, by which their [loci authoritas] had the advantage of any other Seat: Or else they had never swelled to their impious Usurpation.
I have plainly proved to you in the End of my [safe Religion] that Vincentius was no Papist.
[Page 170]But you draw an argument from the word [sanxit]. As if you were ignorant that bigger words then that are applied to them that have no governing power; Quantum in se sanxit, he charged them that they should not innovate: And what? is it P. Stephen that is the Law-giver of the Law against unjust innovation? Did not Cyprian believe that this was a Law of Christ before Stephen medled in that business? What Stephens authority was in those dayes, we need no other witnesses then Firmilian, Cyprian, and a Council of Carthage, who slighted the Pope as much as I do.
I pray answer Cyprians testimony and arguments against Popery, cited by me in the Disp. 3. of my [safe Religion.]
20. You say you will conclude with the saying of your priest Philip, and Arcadius at Ephesus: And 1. You take it for granted that all consented to what they contradicted not: But your word is all the proof of the consequence. Nothing more common, then in Senates and Synods to say nothing to many passages in speeches, not consented to. If no word not consented to in any mans speech must pass without contradiction, Senates and Synods would be no wiser Societies then Billingsgate affords; nor [Page 171] more harmonious then a Fair or vulgar rout: What confusion would contradictions make among them?
2. You turn me to Tom. 2. pag. 327. Act. 1. I began to hope of some expedition here: But you tell me not at all what Author you use: And in Binnius which I use, the Tomes are not divided into Acts, but Chapters, and p [...]g. 327. is long b [...]fore this Counc [...]l. So [...]hat I must believe you, or search paper enough for a weeks reading to disprove you: This once I will believe you, to save me that labour, and supposing all rightly cited, I reply: 1. Philip was not the Council. You bear witness to your selves, therefore your witness is not credible. Yet I have given you instances in my [Key] (which I would transcribe if I thought that you could not as well read Print as M. S.) of higher expressions then Caput and fundamentum, given to Andrew by Isychius, and equal expressions to others, as well as Rome and Peter. And who is ignorant that knowe [...]h any thing of Church-history, that others were called successours of Peter as well as the Bishop of Rome? And that the Claves regni were given to him, is no proof that they were not given also to all the rest of the Apostles. And [Page 172] where you say [Arcadius condemneth Nestorius for contemning the command of the Apostolick Sea.] (You tell me not where to find it.) I answer you still, that its long since your Sea begun to swell and rage, but if you must have us grant you all these consequences, [Celestine commanded, therefore he justly commanded, therefore another might not as well have commanded him: (as one Pastor may do another, though equall, in the name of Christ): and therefore he had power to command without the Empire, even over all the Catholick Church; and therefore the Council was of this mind: yea, therefore the universal Church was of this mind, that the Pope was its universal head.] You still are guilty of sporting about serious things, and moving pity, instead of offering the least proof.
Yet fear you not to say [that in the time of the holy Oecumenical Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, the universal consent of the whole Catholick Church was for you in this point.] The Lord keep our consciences from being the servants of our opinions or interests. 1. Was the Popes Legate the whole Catholick Church? 2. Was there one man at either of these Councils but within the Empire, yea a piece of the Empire? [Page 173] So that they were but such as we now call National Councils, that is, consisting only of the subjects of one Republick. 3. Did the Council speak a word for your power without the Empire? 4. Do they not determine it so expresly to be of humane right, that Bellarmine hath nothing regardable to say against it (Can. 28. Conc. Chalced.) but that they spoke falsly? And yet your opinion or interest hath tempted you to appeal. viz. to the Sun that there is no such thing as light.
21. After the conclusion you have a supernumerary in your Margin, from Greg. lib. 10. Epist. 30. But there is no such word in that Epistle, nor is it of any such subject. But is the 31. Epistle its like that your leader meant. And there's no more but that a Bishop not named (person or place) having fallen into Schism voluntarily, swore never more to depart from the Unity of the Catholick Church, or the sea of Rome. But 1. So may a Bishop of the Roman Province do (or Patriarchate) without believing Rome to be the Universal Head. So might one in any other Province have done: And yet it follows not that he ought to do so, because he did so. You see now what all your proofs are come to, and how shamefully [Page 174] naked you have left your cause.
In summ, of all the testimonies produced, 1. You have not named one man that was a Papist (Pope Leo was the nearest of any man) nor one testimony that ever a Pope of Rome had the Government of all the Church without the verge of the Roman Empire; but only that he was to the Roman Church, as the Archbishop of Canterbury to the English Church: And as between Canterbury and York, so between Rome and Constantinople, there have been contentions for preheminency: But if I can prove Canterbury to be before York, or Rome before Constantinople, that will prove neither of them to be Ruler at the Antipodes, or of all the Christian world. 2. Much less have you proved that ever any Church was of this opinion, that the Pope was by Divine Right the Governour of all the world, when you cannot prove one man of that opinion. 3. Much less have you proved a succession of such a Church from the Apostles, having said as much as nothing concerning the first 300 years. 4. And yet much less have you proved, that the whole Catholick Church was of this opinion. 5. And least of all have you proved, that the whole Church took this Primacy of Rome, to be of necessity [Page 175] to the very Being of the Church, and to our salvation; and not only ad melius esse, as a point of Order. So that you have left your Cause in shameful nakedness, as if you had confessed, that you can prove nothing.
In the end you return to terms. To what you say about the word [Christians] I only say, that its but equivocally applied to any that profess not all the Essentialls of Christianity, of which Popery is none, any more then Pride is.
About the word [Monarch] in good sadness, do you deny the Pope to be [an imperious sole Commander.] Which of these is it that you deny? not that he is [a Commander] not that he is [imperious] not that he is [sole] in his Soveraignty! I would either you or we knew what you hold or deny. But perhaps the next words shew the difference [as Temporal Kings.] But this saith not a word wherein they differ from [Temporal Kings]: sure your following words shew not the difference. 1. Kings may [receive power from Christ.] 2. Kings must rule [in meekness, charity and humility.] But I think the meekness, charity and humility of Popes, hath been far below even wicked Kings (if cruel murdering Christians for Religion, and setting the world [Page 176] on fire may be witness) as your own Histories assure us. 3. The Government of Kings also is for [mens eternal good] however Papists would make them but their executioners in such things. 4. Brethren, as such, are no subjects: and therefore if the Pope Rule men but as Brethren, he rules them not by Governing authority at all. 5. Children to him we are not: You must mean it but Metaphorically! And what mean you then? Is it that he must do it in Love for their good? So also must Kings: So that you have yet exprest no difference at all.
But our Question is not new, nor in unusuall terms: What Soveraignty you claim, you know or should know. Are you ignorant that Bellarmine, Boverius, and ordinarily your Writers labour to prove that the Government of the Church is Monarchicall, and that the Pope is the Monarch? the supream Head and Ruler, which in English is the Soveraign. Are you ashamed of the very Cause or Title of it, which you will have necessary to our salvation?
Next you say, that you [very much dislike the Title of Vice-Christ, as proud and insolent, and utterly disclaim from it, neither was it ever given by any sufficient authority [Page 177] to your Popes, or did they ever accept of it.] Reply. Now blessed be God that makes sin a shame to it self, that the Patrons of it dare scarce own it without some paint or vizard.
1. Is not the very life of the Cause between you and us, whether the Pope be the Universal Head of the Church, vice Christi. & vicarius Christi? Are not these the most common titles that Papists give them, and that they take unto themselves? Nay look back into your own papers here pag. 6. whether you say not that they are [Instituted Governours in Christs place of his whole Visible Church.] 2. Doth not Bellarmine (as I have cited elsewhere) labour to prove, that it is not as an Apostle that the Pope succeeds Peter, but as a Head of the Church in Christs stead? Doth not Boverius (cited in my Key) labour to prove him the Vicar of Christ, and to be Vice Christi? And what fitter English have we for the Kings deputy in a distant Kingdom, who is Vice Regis, then the Vice-King? Or a Chancelors deputy, then [the Vicechancellor]: Vice Christi is your own common word, and Vicarius Christi; none more common scarce then the latter: And what English is there fitter for this, then the Vice-Christ, or Vicar of Christ? [Page 178] It is indeed the very term that expresseth properly as man can speak, the true point and life of the Controversie between us. And how could you suffer your pen to set down that the Popes did never accept of this, when it is their own common phrase [Vice Christi, & Vicarius Christi?] But here again remember (and let it be a witness against you) that you dislike and utterly disclaim the very name that signifieth the Papal Power, as Proud and Insolent. And if you abhor Popery while you tice men to it, let my soul abhor it, and let all that regard their souls abhor it. Blessed be that Light that hath brought it to be numbred with the works of darkness.
Were it not more tedious then necessary, I would cite you the words [Vice Christi & Vicarius Christi] out of Popes and multitudes of your Writers. But alas thats not the highest: The Vice-God is a Title that they have not thought insolent, or words of the same signification. Would you have my proof? Pardon it then for proving your pen so false and deceitfull (thats not my fault.)
Pope Iulius the second in his General Council at the Laterane, saith (Cont. Pragmat. sanct. monitor. Binnius Vol. 4. pag. 560.) [Page 179] [Though the institutions of sacred Canons, holy fathers, and Popes of Rome—and their Decrees be judged immutable, as made by Divine inspiration; yet the Pope of Rome, who, though of unequal Merits, holdeth the place of the eternall King, and the Maker of all things, and all Laws on earth, may abrogate these decrees when they are abused.] Here from your Judge of faith it self, you hear [that the Pope holds the place of the eternal King, the Maker of all things and Laws.]
Pope Sixtus Quartus in passagio sive Bulla contra Turcos, sent to Philip Palatine Elector 1481. in Breheri Tom. 2. pag. 162. Vol. 2. saith [Vniversos Christianos Principes, ac omnes Christi fid [...]les requirere, eisque mandare Vice Dei, cujus loc [...]m, quamvi [...] immeriti tenemus in terris —] that is, we are constrained [to require all Christian Princes, and all believers of Christ, and to command them, in the stead of God, whose place on earth we hold, though undeserving —] Here is a Vice-God, holding his place on earth, and commanding all Princes and Christians to a War against the Turks in Gods stead
I know to a particular people Gods Embassadours are said to speak in his name and stead, as if God did beseech men by us, [Page 180] 2 Cor. 5.19. But this is only as to a narrow and limited Embassage, not that they hold Gods place on earth, as Rulers over the Universal Church, &c.
The same Pope Sixtus 4▪ saith ibid. pag. 163. [Sola superest Romana sedes: sedes utique immaculati agni: sedes Viventis in secula seculorum: Haec quippe praedictas Patriarchales genuit Ecclesias; quae quasi filiae in ejus gremio residebant, & in circuitu tanquam famulae in ipsius adsistebant obsequio.] that is, [Only the Roman seat remaineth: even the seat of the Immaculate Lambe: the seat of him that liveth for ever (my flesh trembleth to write these things): This did beget the foresaid Patriarchal Churches (notorious falshood!) which rested as daughters in her bosome, and as servants stood about in her obedience.] Here you see from the Pope himself, that the other Patriarchs are his servants, and so to obey him; and that Rome begot them all (that were before it, except Constantinople) and neither made Christians nor Patriarchs by it, and that Rome is now become the seat of the Immaculate Lambe, and of him that liveth for ever.] Truly the reading of your own Historians, and the Popes Bulls, &c. hath more perswaded me, that the Pope is Antichrist, then the [Page 181] Apocalyps hath done (because I distrusted my understanding of it.)
Benedictus de Benedictis wrote a Book against Dr. Whittaker, to prove that its as false that the Pope is Antichrist, as that Christ is Antichrist, and dedicated it to Pope Paul. 5. with this inscription, Paul. 5. Vice Deo: To Paul 5. the Vice-God.] printed at Bononia 1608.
Caraffa's Theses printed at Naples 1609. had the same inscription [Paulo 5. Vice Deo] to Paul 5. the Vice-God.
Alcazar in Apocal. in carmine ad Johannem Apostolum, saith of the same Pope Paul. 5. [Q [...]em numinis instar, Vera colit pietas.] [whom as a God true piety adores.]
Christopher Marcellus in his Oration before Pope Iulius 2. in the approved Council at Laterane, Sess. 4. (and you take not contradicting to be consenting; and verily to such blasphemy in a Council, so it is) saith thus [Quum tantae reipublicae unicus atque supremus Princeps fueris institutus, beatissime pontifex, cui summa data potestas, ad divinum injunctum imperium, &c.] — & ante [sub tuo imperio] & [Vnus princeps qui summam in terris habeat potestatem.] But these are small things [Teque omnis aevi, omnium seculorum, omnium gentium Principem [Page 182] & Caput appellant.] But yet [the Prince and Head of all ages and Nations] is too low [Cura Pater beatissime ut sponsae tuae forma decórque redeat.] But yet to make the Church [his spouse] is nothing [Cura denique ut salutem quam dedisti nobis, & vitam & spiritum non amittamus: Tu enim Pastor, tu medicus, tu gubernator, tu cultor, tu denique alter Deus in terris.] That is, [See that we l [...]se not the health that thou hast given us, and the life and spirit. For thou art the P [...]stor, the Physician—to conclude, thou art another God on earth.]
If you say that the Pope accepteth not this; I answer it was in an oration spoken in a Generall Council, in his presence, without contradiction, yea by his own command, as the Oratour professeth [Iussisti tu, Pater sancte, & parui] [you commanded me, Holy Father, and I obeyed,] Binnius pag. 562, 563, 564. you may find all this.
In Gl [...]ss extrav. g. Ioan. 22. de Verb. signific. c [...]p. Cum inter, in Gl [...]ssa: Credere Dominum n [...]strum D [...]um Papam conditorem dictae decretalis & istius, non potuisse statuere prout statuit, haereti [...]um censeatur.] So that by your Law we must believe the power of your Lord God the Pope, or be hereticks. [Page 183] If you meet with any Impressions that leave out [Deum] take Rivets note [haberi in editione formata jussu Greg. 12. [...] corectoribus Pontificiis, nec in censuris Gl [...]ssae j [...]ssu Pii 5. editis, quae in expurgatorio indice habintur, nomen Dei erasum fuisse.
Pope Nicolas 3. de El [...]ct. cap. fundamenta in 6. saith [that Peter was [...]ssumed into the Society of the individuall Trinity.
Angelus Polit. in Orat. ad Alex. 6. Pontificem ad Divinitatem ipsam subl [...]tum, asserit: He saith, the Pope was taken up to the Godhead it self.
At the foresaid Council at Laterane, Antonius Puccius in an Oration before Leo the tenth in the Council, and after published by his favour, said [Divinae tuae Majestatis conspectus, rutilante cujus fulgore imbecilles oculimei caligant.] His eyes were darkened with beholding the Popes Divine Majesty.] None contradicted this.
In the same Council, Simon B [...]gnius Modrusiensis Episcopus, in an O [...]acion S [...]ss. 6. calls Leo [The Lion of the Tribe of Juda, the root of Jesse, him whom they had looked for as the Saviour.]
In the same Council, S [...]ss. 10 Stephanus Patracensis Archiop. saith [Reges in compedibus magnitudinis magni Regis liga, & nobiles [Page 184] in manicis ferreis censurarum constringe, quoniam tibi data est omnis potestas in coelo & in terra —] and before [qui totum dicit, nihil excludit.] So that all Power in heaven and earth is given to the Pope.
Paulus Aemilius de gestis Francorum, lib. 7. saith, that the Sicilian Embassadours lay prostrate at the Popes feet, and thrice repeated, [Thou that takest away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.]
And prove to me that ever any such man was reprehended for these things by the Popes of late.
August. Triumphus in Praefat. sum. ad Ioan. 22. saith [That the Popes power is infinite: for great is the Lord, and great is his power, and of his greatness there is no end.
And qu. 36. ad 6. he saith that [the Pope influenceth (or giveth) the Motion of direction, and the sense of cognition, into all the Members of the Church, for in him we live and move and have our being.]
And a little after he saith, [The will of God, and consequently of the Pope, who is his Vicar, is the first and highest cause of all corporal and spiritual motions.]
Would you have any more witness of the falshood of your words: saith Zabarella I.C. [Page 185] lib. de schism. Innocent. 7. & Bened. pag. 20. [For this long time past, and even to this day, those that would please the Popes, perswaded them that they could do all things: and so that they might do what they pleased, even things unlawfull, and so more than God.]
Antonius parte 3. tit. 21. cap. 5. §. 4. saith [The Pope receiveth from the faithfull adorations, prostrations, and kisses of his feet, which Peter permitted not from Cornelius, nor the Angel from John the Evangelist.]
Cardinalis Bertrandus Tract. de origin. jurisd. q. 4. num. 4. (& in Glos. extrag. com. l. 1. fol. 12.) saith [Because Iesus Christ the son of God while he was in this world, and even from eternity, was a Naturall Lord, and by Naturall right could pronounce the sentence of deposition on Emperours, or any others, and the sentence of damnation, and any other, as upon the Persons which he had created, and endowed with naturall and free gifts, and also did conserve; it is his will that on his account his Vicar may do the same things. For the Lord should not seem discreet (that I may speak with his reverence) unless he had left behind him one Vicar that can do all these things.]
Tell me now whether you said true in [Page 186] the Paragraph about the Title Vice-Christ? yea, whether it be not much more that hath been given and accepted?
But what name else is it that you agree on as proper to express the power which is controverted? I know no name so fitted to the reall controversie? And therefore in disclaiming the Name, for ought I know, you disclaim your Cause, and confess the shame of Popery. If he that seeks to be King of England, should say he disclaimeth the Title of King as insolent and proud, doth he not allow me to conclude the like of the thing, which he concludeth of the proper name? The name [Papa] [Pope] you know (its like) was usually by the ancients given to other Bishops as well as to him of Rome; and therefore that cannot distinguish him from other men: The same I may say of the Titles [Dominus, Pater sanctissimus, beatissimus, Dei amantissimus, and many such like] — And for [summus Pontifex] Baronius tells you (Martyrol. Rom. April. 9.) that [it was the ancient custome of the Church to call all Bishops, not only Pontifices, Popes, but the Highest or Chief Popes] citing Hierom. Ep. 99. And for the word Head of the Church, or of all Bishops, it hath been given to Constantinople, that yet claimeth [Page 187] not (as Nilus tells you) neither a precedency to Rome, nor an Universall Government, much less as the Vice-Christ. And that the Bishop of Constantinople was called [the Apostolick Vniversal Bishop] Baronius testifieth from an old Vaticane monument, which on the other side calls Agapetus [Episcoporum Princeps.] The Title [Apostolick] was usually given to others. Hierusalem was called [the mother of the Churches.] A Council gave Constantinople the Title of [Vniversal Patriarch] which though Gregory pronounced so in pious and intolerable for any to use, yet the following Pop [...]s made an agreement with Constantinople, that their Patriarch should keep his Title of Vniversal Patriarch] and the Bishop of Rome be called [the Vniversal Pope;] which can signifie nothing proper to him (the name Pope being common) more then [Vniversal Patriarch] doth. The Foundations, and Pillars of the Church, and the Apostles successors, yea Peters successors, were Titles given to others as well as him: and more then these. It being therefore the point in controversie between us, whether the Bishop of Rome, be in the place of Christ or as his Vicar, the Head, Monarch, or Governour of the Church universal; and the [Page 188] terms [Vice Christi & Vicarius Christi] being those that Popes and Papists choose to signifie their claim, what other should I use?
As to what you say of the Council of Constance (which you must say also of Basil, and of the French Church, Venetians, &c.) you pretend the doubt to be only between Ordinary and extraordinary Governours. But 1. of old the Councils called Generall (indeed but of one Principality) were more ordinary, then now the Pope hath brought them to be: (and I blame him not, if he will hold his greatness, to take heed of them.) 2. The way not to have been extraordinary, if the Council of Const [...]nce had been infallible, or of sufficient power, who decreed that there should be one every ten years. 3. The Councils that continue so many years as that at Trent did, are then become an Ordinary Government. 4. What is given to the Church Representative, is by many of you given to the Church reall or essentiall (as you call it) which is ordinarily existent, only not capable of exerting the power it hath: The singulis major, at universis minor, is no rare doctrine with you. 5. But let it be as extraordinary as you please, if while these Councils sit, the [Page 189] Pope lose his Headship, your Church is then two Churches specifically distinct, and the form of it changeth when a Council sitteth: which is a two-headed, mutable Church, not like the Spouse of Jesus Christ. 6. As your Popes are said to live in their constitutions, and Laws, when the person dyeth; and your Church is not thought by you to die with them; so why may not Councils do? The Laws of Councils live when they sit not, and the French think that these Laws are above the Pope; though I shewed you even now that Iulius 2. in Conc. Later. concluded otherwise of Decrees, and the Council of the Popes power. 7. If a Nation be Governed by Trienniall (and so Decenniall) Parliaments as the highest power, and Councils of State in the intervalls, who shall be accountable to Parliaments; will you say that these Parliaments are extraordinary, and not the ordinary Soveraign? No doubt they are. And the Council of State is not the Soveraign, but the chief Officer or Magistrate for execution in the intervals.
Having begun this Reply May 2. I was again taken off it about May 5. or 6. And [Page 190] about May 11. I received a Letter from you, wherein you tell me of a quarter of a years expectation. Be patient good Sir! These matters concern Eternity: Believe it, I have somewhat else to do of greater hast and moment. Even some of your own friends find me more work. What if ten of you write to me at once, is it fair for each one of you to call for an answer as hastily as if I had but one in hand? This is not my case, but it is more then thus. Fear not lest I give you over, till you first prove the deserter, and turn your back (if God enable me:) Only I must tell you, that I take it for a flight already, and a forsaking of your Cause, that you turn to these rambling impertinent citations and discourses, in stead of a Syllogisticall arguing the case, and that when you had spoken so much for it. I have here (that you may have no cause of exception, nor pretence of cause) in this Paper replyed to your last; and in another proved the Visibility of our Church syllogistically; and (as overplus) also disproved yours, and proved it to be an upstart, the sprout of Pride, upon occasion of the greatness of the City of Rome, and of the forming the Church to the Civil State, in that one Empire. If now you will deny to do the like, I [Page 191] shall conclude you fly and forsake your Cause. Besides your Rejoinder to this Reply, I principally expect that you syllogistically (in close and faithfull Arguing) do prove to us the Affirmative of these Questions following.
Qu. [Whether the Church, of which the subjects of the Pope are Members, hath been visible ever since the dayes of Christ on earth.] In which these three Questions are involved, which you have to prove: 1. Whether the Papacy, that is, the Vniversal Monarchy, or Soveraign Government, or Vice-Christship of the Pope (take which term you like) hath continued from Christs dayes till now. 2 Whether all the Catholick Church did still submit to it, and were subjects of the Pope. 3. Whether those that did submit to it, did take it to be necessary to the Being of the Church, and the salvation of all believers, or only to the more peaceable and better being.] If you call for Catalogues, or proof of Visible succession, and pretend so high to it your selves, and yet will give us none when we importune you to it, you tell us that you seek not to reveal the truth and Church but to hide them. I urge you the harder (though it may seem immodest) because as the Cause doth lie upon your proof here, so I know [Page 192] you cannot do it: Pardon my confidence: I know you can do no more then Baronius, Bellarmine, Bullinger, &c. set together have done: and therefore I say, I know you cannot do it. I know your Vice-Christ (I doubt the Antichrist) is of humane introduction, springing out of a Nationall (I mean Imperiall) Primacy, which also was of humane invention. It was but one Civil Government or Commonwealth, in which your Bishop had his Primacy, and that long without a Governing power. And this National Primacy, because of the greatness of the Empire, was at last called Universal: And even this was long after the dayes of Christ (some hundreds of years) a stranger in the Church, unless as the Greatness of the Church of Rome, and advantages of the place, did give that Church such authority as ariseth from magnitude, splendour, honour, and accidental advantages from the populousness, wealth, and glory of the City of Rome.
The carnall Church is led by the Vice-Christ, the earthly Prince of Pride, contending in the world for command and superiority; and prosecuting his Cause with Strappados, fire, sword, and gunpowder, when Christ gave no Pastor a Coercive [Page 193] power, to touch mens bodies or estates. The true spirituall Church is Headed and commanded by Jesus Christ the Prince of Peace, and knoweth no other Universal Head, because no other hath either Capacity or Authority. It obeyeth his Laws; and learneth of him to be charitable, patient, meek, and lowly; and wonders not at errours and divisions on earth, nor therefore accuseth the providence of God: but knoweth by faith, that the Universal Judge of Controversies is at the door, and that it is but a very little while, and we shall see that the Church had an Universal Head, that was alone sufficient for his work; for he that cometh will come, and will not tarry: Amen, Even so come Lord Jesus!
Sir, I desire you presently to send me word, whether you will by close Syllogisticall arguing, prove the successive visibility of your Church as Papal, or not, that I may know what to expect?
And once more I pray you take the help of the ablest of your party, both that I may not be so troubled with wrong, or impertinent allegations, and that I may be sure that your insufficient arguings are not from any imperfection of the person, but of the Cause.
[Page 194]If you meet in these Papers with any passages which you think too confident and earnest; I beseech you charge them not with uncharitableness or passion, for I hope it proceeded not from either; but I confess I am inclined to speak confidently where I am certain, and to speak seriously about the things of God, which are of everlasting consequence.
May 18. 1659.
For Mr. William Iohnson.