Novelty represt, in a reply to Mr. Baxter's answer to William Johnson wherein the oecumenical power of the four first General Councils is vindicated, the authority of bishops asserted, the compleat hierarcy of church government established, his novel succession evacuated, and professed hereticks demonstrated to be no true parts of the visible Church of Christ / by William Johnson.

CHAP. VI.

Council of Chalcedon. ARGUMENT.

NUm 219. Mr. Baxters imposition upon his adversary. ibid. The legates precedency how it proves the Popes Supremacy. Num. 221. Dioscorus not sitting as a Father in the Council shews the Bishop of Romes authority over the Council. Num. 222. Mr. Baxter put to des∣perate shifts, read these words, Caput omnium Ecclesiarum, that Rome is the head of all the Churches. Num. 223. The Councils not con∣tradicting what the legates said, an undoubted sign of their assent. Num. 224. His weak answer, to the Councils calling the Pope their Father, and themselves his children. Num. 226. Mr. Baxter denyes most confidently the Council of Chalcedon to say, what it sayes most manifestly. Num. 227. Mr. Baxter dissembles his ad∣versaries answer. Num. 231. Of what autho∣rity

was the 28 canon of Chalcedon, in St. Leo's time, and after. Num. 132. General Councils never writ to exhort Bishops, and Patriarchs to con∣firm their decrees, in that manner as did the coun∣cil of Chalcedon to the Pope. ibid. two sleights of Mr. Baxters. discovered.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 219 You say the Popes Legates sate first in Council. Reply, what then? therefore the Pope was Governour of the Christirn world, though not a man out of the Empire were of the Council. corrup∣tion.

William Iohnson.

Num. 219. Your petty slights are grown so nume∣rous that they become intolerable. An unskilful Reader would easily perswade himself, this consequence is mine, which you so confidently impose upon me here, viz: that I deduce, or ought to deduce from the Popes legates sitting first in the Council, that the Pope was Governour of the Christian world though not a man out of the Em∣pire were of that Council, as If I had granted and were agreed with you in this, that there was not a man out of the Empire in that Council, and supposing that as a truth with you, yet, that not withstanding, I draw the Popes universal supremacy from the precedency of the Legates in that Council. Now I pray you where have I in my whole paper, supposed, or delivered that there was not a man out of the Empire in that Council, name the place and cite the words where I say so, or acknow∣ledge

that you have imposed a most fals injurious ca∣lumnie upon me. For you are not content to father your own error, (and so much your own, that you are the first and sole inventor of it) upon me, but upon that imposition you aske me in a bitter Sarcasmus, whe∣ther I be still in jest? that is, you put a consequence (as you esteem it ridiculous) of your own forging upon me, and then aske me: are you still in jest? is not this hand∣some? yet I Sr, give me leave to tell you thus much, that though I had granted, (which I constantly deny) that not a man out of the Empire had been in the Coun∣cil of Chalcedon, yet it would have been no jest, but a solid truth, that from the precedency of the Roman Le∣gates in the Council, follows, that the Pope was gover∣nour of the Christian world, for it is necessary to the making of a Council truly and absolutely general, and powerful over the Christian world, that any Bishop out of the Empire should be actually present in it, it is suffi∣cient that they be legitimately and Canonically called to it, as much as morally, all circumstances considered can be done; their actual sitting in it, may be obstructed by a hundred accidents, dangers, impossibilities, which hinders not those who can, and do present them∣selves to compose a Council absolutely oecumenical, as a sufficient representative of the Church, no more then a Parliament legally summoned ceases to be a representa∣tive of the kingdome, though the Knights of some Counties, or Burgesses of some Cities be accidentally ab∣sent: prove therefore in your next, that for this reason, that not a man out of the Empire was in that Council, the Popes universal government over the Christian world followes not from his legates sitting first in it.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 220. But if it must be so, then I can prove that others were the universal governours, because at Nice and other Councils they sate before the legates of the Pope, and in many his legates had no place. Is this argument good think you? O unfaithfull partiality in the matters of salvation. non proof.

William Iohnson.

Num. 220. O, you can do wonders; but I would gladly see you doe, what you say you can do. You have not yet done it, and I cannot believe you can do't, till I see you have don't: there is a great difference, betwixt saying and doing. Your groundless exclamation I re∣gard not, it is not partiality, what you call so, nor what you say you can prove to be so, prove it in your next to be partiality.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 221. 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 Iudge, till he be tried. falla∣cy 12.

William Iohnson.

Num. 221. Your reply, is fallacious proc••••ding ex falso supposito,* 1.1 Leo's order that Diosco∣rus should not sit in Council, was not because he was accused, but because he was condemned, nor was it a bare requi∣ring, but a strickt command, and injunction that he should not sit there, as a Bishop of that Council.

Mr. Baxter.

Num 222.2. But did you not know that Leo's legates were not obeyed; but that the Gloriosissimi ju∣dices & amplissimus senatus required that the cause should be first made known: and that it was not done ti•••• Eusebius Episcop. Dorylaei had read his bill of com∣plaint? Binius Act. 1. pag. 5. Fallacy, 13.

William Iohnson.

Num. 222. No really I know it not, nor I thinke you neither. You commit an other fallacy by an igno∣ratio elenchi, the Iudices Gloriosissimi &c, and the complaint read against him by Eusebius Epis. Dory∣laei, was not put as a remora to Dioscorus not sitting in the Council with the rest of the Fathers, but in order to his, and others publick condemnation, which with great applause of the whole Council, was performed in the end of the first action. So skilful are you in Church history, if you make not your self seem more unskilful then you are: to say something which may make a noise in the ears of the unlearned. It being

therefore clear, that Dioscorus was prohibited upon St. Leo's order to sit in Council, It followes that he was uni∣versal Governour of the Church, a paritate rationis (ut supra) for if he had power to remove the cheif Patriarch of the Church, next after himself, from having an Episcopal vote in a general Council, (which was an act of absolute jurisdiction over him:) much more had he power upon like grounds, to remove any other in∣feriour Patriarck or Prelate, through the whole Church, there having been, no proof alleadged by you, that this his power was limited to the sole Empire, and I having now produced many reasons, that there could be no such limitation.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 223. 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 sedis and that but in the Empire.

William Iohnson.

Num. 223. This consequence is made strong by the weakenes, of your reply. Is Caput omnium Ecclesiarum, the head of all Churches, no more with you, then the principal member of all Churhes, in the Empire? that is, in your new theologie, one who was to take of all other Churches, without any true and proper au∣thority over them? see you not in what straits you are put? should some new Sabellian or C••••rinthian rise up, and deny that our Saviour were any more then the

cheif person in the Church, that is, to take place before all others, but without any jurisdiction or authority o∣ver the whole Church; and a Catholick should labour to prove, he hath authority from that place of St. Paul, Coloss. 1.18. Ipse est Caput Corporis Ecclesiae, he is the head of his body the Church.

And the Sabellian having read this book of yours Should reply, as you do here to me; what then? therefore Christ is gover∣nour of the Christian world? I deny this consequence Caput is but membrum principale, head is no more then the principal part &c.

Would you not make pretty work with Scripture, and open a gap to every novellist to elude no less yours, then our proofs, for Christs supream government over his Church? but I see you care not whom you hurt, so you can but avoide the present stroak. Nay you have delivered here a precious doctrine, no lesse for your she citizens at London, then your good wives of Kidderminster, for when their hus∣bond teach them obedience and subjection to them from St. Paul 1 Cor. 11.3. Where he sayes that the hus∣band is head of the wife, they will have an answer ready at their fingers ends, from your doctrine here: that, that head, is no more then the principal part of the fami∣ly, in place, but not in authority over their wives; nay you have spun a fair thred also, for the independency of the Protestant English Church of its head, in giving ground to take away all Authority from his sacred Ma∣jestie, and his royal predecessors over it in quality of heads of the English Church, and making them to have no more then a bare precedency in the Church: as no more then the principal members in the Church in order and dignity, but not in authority. But had you a little attended to those words of the Popes Legates, you might have discovered they were spoke by them to prove not

the bare precedency in place, but soveraignty in autho∣rity, for they alleadge them, to corroborate the power of the Roman Church, as sufficient to prohibite the sitting of Dioscorus in the Council by vertue of Pope Leo's or∣der. And you were prest as hard to finde an answer, for omnium Ecclesiarum, all Churches, that is to say, non omnium, not all, but only those within the Empire: thus you can make all, some, and the whole, a sole part, when you have nothing else to say: see you not how you give advantage to the Manichees, and Menandri∣ans &c. who when, one should have prest them Iohn 1.2. That our Saviour is creatour of all things, they should have replyed as you do, thar is not of all, but only of some things, not of bodies, but of spirit only. Are you a person fit to dispute in matters concerning conscience and salvation, when rather then not reply to what cannot in reason be answered, you will quite de∣stroy the words opposed to you, by your glosse upon them, are not these desperate Intregues? But tis very strange that the ancient Councils, and Fathers when they call the Roman Church Caput omnium Ecclesia∣rum, head of all Churches, as they doe very familiarly, should allwayes according to you, mean no more then the Churches within the Empire, and yet should never signifie they mean no more then those: & if they ever doe signifie it, name the place and words in any one of them, and you shall be answered. As to the word, Caput, head, applied here to an original body. As St. Paul declares the Church to be, 1 Cor. 12.12. &c. it must not only have the propriety of being the highest part in the body, but also of having a power and capacity of governing and directing all the other parts, (as the head hath in natural bodies) whereby it is evident that the legates in stiling the Roman Church the head of all Churches,

must be properly understood to mean, that the Roman Church hath not only the cheif place, but the cheif vi∣sible government, and direction also over all other par∣ticular Churches. Now St. Paul 1 Cor. 12.21. Composing the Church of different organical parts, affirms that one amongst them is the head, and by head he cannot mean our Saviour, for he speaks of such a head, as cannot say to the feet, they are not necessary for it, which cannot be true of Christ; he must there∣fore mean a visible created head, which hath need of the inferiour members, as they have of it.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 224. The Popes legates were not the Council, nor judges in their own cause, and not opposing, signifies not alwaies a consent.

William Iohnson.

Num. 224. What if they were not the whole Coun∣cil? at least they spoke those words to the whole Coun∣cil, and I pretend no more. Why should they be Iudges in their own cause; seeing it was in a matter which no man then in the whole Council, call'd in question or re∣quired that any new judgement should be given about it? what if not opposing signifie, not alwaies consent? do I, or need I pretend that it alwaies doth so? it is suffi∣cient for me that it argues consent here, for certainly considering the matter they propose touches deeply upon the priviledges of the Fathers there assembled, had they not spoken a known and unquestionable truth, all the Fathers had been obliged to defend their liberties given them by our Saviour, and represse this injury done them by the legates in that expression: which seeing none

of them did, and yet every one had his full freedome to speak his minde, for the Emperour had then no particu∣lar affection to the Sea of Rome: it is an evident signe then, all held it for a received truth, so that it was the unanimous opinion and doctrine of the whole Council. All therefore which I affirm is this, that when any thing is publickly pronounced tending (as this did in your opinion) to the manifest and great disadvantage, of all those who hear it, some of them would contradict it; if therefore noe one amongst many hundreds present, offer to contradict it, it is a manifest signe, they conceived it no way injurious, or disadvantageous to them and there∣fore assented to it, as a most known, and undeniable truth in those dayes.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 225. This Council doe as I said, expresly de∣fine the point, both what your Primacy is, and of how long standing, and of what institution, and that Con∣stantinople on the same grounds, had equal priviledges.

William Iohnson.

Num. 225. This is already toucht and shall be more fully answered in its place.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 226. You say, all the Fathers acknowledged themselves Leo's children, and wrote to him as their Father. Reply, Of this you give me not any proof, but leave me to read a 190 pages in folio, to see whether you say true or not; and what if you do, (as I believe you

doe) can a man of any reading be ignorant how ordina∣rily other Bishops were stiled Fathers, even by their fellow Bishops as well as the Bishop of Rome.

William Iohnson.

Num. 226. You are deeply plunged in difficulties, that you have no way to make a seeming escape, but by throwing your self out of one fallacy into another;* 1.2 my argument is grounded in this, that the Chalcedon Fathers, call'd Pope Leo their Father, and themselves his children, and you might (as you did by printing it in a different character) easily perceive that the whole force of my argument, was grounded in those termes their Father, his children. Now you wholly dissemble the answer to this, and tell me, that ordinarily other Bishops were stiled Fathers, even by their fellow Bishops as well as the Bishop of Rome, which is a pure 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to my argument for one may stile another Father, be∣cause he is Father to those who are his spiritual children in the Church, as all Bishops are in relation to their diocesans, Thouhg their equals who writ to them, neither stile them, their Fathers, nor themselves their children, as the Fathers of this Council did here style Leo, and themselves. Whereas you should have given an in∣stance of some number or assembly of Bishops, stiling any one their Father, and themselves his children, to whom they were equal, and had no subjection to them, nor dependance in government of them: this you have not done, because you could not do it: whereby my ar∣gument hath received no solution from you, but remaines in its full force against you. As concerning your pains of reading a 190 pages in folio, to finde out my citati∣on,

I take so much pains to have been needless, for I cite in my text the precise Epistle of that Council to Pope Leo, saying in their Letter to Pope Leo, which is not a∣bove two or three pages at most, nor was I obliged to cite it more punctually then I did.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 227. You adde that they humbly begged of him that the Patriarch of Constantinople might have the first place next Rome which notwithstanding the Council had consented to, as had also the third general Council at Ephesus before, yet they esteemed their grants of no sufficient force till they were confirmed by the Pope. Reply, So farre were the Council from what you fastely say of them, that they put it into their canons, that Constantinople should have the second place, yea and equal priviledges with Rome, and that they had this on the same grounds as Rome had its Primacy, even because it was the Imperial ••••eate, vid. Bin. pag▪ 133.134. col. 2.

William Iohnson.

Num. 227. I am sorry to see you in passion, and that so deeply, as to accuse my words of falsity, either without duely examining whether they were true or false, or (if you did examine the place I cite) quite against your conscience: for these expresse words stand in the Councils Epistle to Pope Leo, cited by me, where speak∣ing of their canon about the privi∣ledges of Constantinople they say,* 1.3 rogamus igitur & tuis decretis no∣strum honor a Iudicium. Therefore honor, we beseech

you, our judgement also with your decree. Here there∣fore you wrong both your self and me, in affirming what I say to be false. To what you say about that other canon, I shall answer in the ensuing paragraph.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 228. You see then (contrary to your fiction) that three general Councils (of the greatest, likened by Gregory to the four Evangelists) not only judged with∣out the Pope, but by your own confession against him (for you say he consented not.) Yea so much did they slight the Popes consent, that when his legates dissented, they were not heard: see Bin. p. 134.136. They persisted in the Council to maintain their Canon 38 notwith∣standing the contradiction of Lucretius and and Pascha∣sinus.

William Iohnson.

Num. 228. That there was a canon composed in be∣half of the Bishops of Constantinople &c. I have ac∣knowledged, and you acknowledge, I have acknowledg∣ed it here, when you print those words of mine, which notwithstanding the Council had consented to &c, but you dissemble my answer; for I contend, that whatso∣ever they concluded amongst themselves, without the knowledge and against the protestations of the Popes legates, they here submit to the Popes judgement and decree, and tell him, they enacted that Canon at Con∣stantinople, grounding themselves upon a confidence they had, that (notwithstanding whatsoever his legates presse against it) he himself would yield to it, as being a thing conceived by them to be very reasonable, praesu∣mentes

dum noverimus quia quicquid rectitudinis a filiis fit, ad Patres recurrit, facientes hoc sibi proprium, presuming (say they) Seeing we know, that what is done justly by children recurrs to their Fathers, who make it to be their own act; seeing therefore this whole canon, was both decreed out of a confidence that Pope Leo would consent to it, and his consent desired by the Council, all you say here, either of those Fathers re∣sisting the legates, or persisting in the persuance of that canon, is of no force to prove, that either they desired not that his consent, or the denyall of it break not the legality of that canon. Moreover when you affirm this council decreed without and against the Pope, you fall into ano∣ther fallacy, for seeing (as I have now prov'd) those Fathers proceeded to that decree, through confidence they should obtain Leo's consent, they cannot properly be said to have done it without, much lesse against his consent: for they conceived themselves to have a con∣sent presumed, which is sufficient when no more can be had to regulate humane actions; and though Leo thought fit to deny his consent, yet that was after the canon was fram'd, for whilst they formed it, they had hope he would consent. I omit you call it the 38 canon when it is the 28, I suppose 'twas an errour in the print.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 229. And unanimously the whole Synod con∣sented, never stopping at the Roman dissent. Pergaminus Bishop of Antioch saith, in omnibus sanctissimum Ar∣chiepiscopum Regiae civitatis novae Romae in honore & cura sicut Patrem praecipuum habere nos convenit. No man contradicted this: and is not this as much or more, then you alledge as spoke to Leo?

William Iohnson.

Num. 229. Will you not expose your self to the deep censure of a considering reader, when you say here the whole Synod consented, viz, to this 28 canon, having said but just now, they persisted in the council in maintaining the the 38 (28.) canon, notwithstanding the contradiction of Lucretius, and Paschasinus, who were the Popes legates; and were not they the two cheif persons in the whole Council? how then could the whole Council consent to it, when these two contra∣dicted it?

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 230. They call Leo (you say) Father: And the Bishop of Constantinople is pronounced the cheif Father in all things in honour and cure.

William Iohnson.

Num. 330. They call Leo, say I, their father and themselves his children, prove they have given such a title to the Bishop of Constantinople. vide supra. nor yet call they him the chief Father, for the words, pater praecipuus, may properly signifie, a cheif Father, that is one of the chief Fathers of the Church, no, nor do they stile him absolutely a chief Father, but that he was to be honoured, sicut pater praecipuus, as a chief Father though he were not the chief above all.

Mr. Baxter.

231. And Eusebius Bishop of Doryl. the chief ad∣versary of Dioscorus witnessed that he himself, in the presence of the Clergy of Constantinople, did read this Canon to the Pope at Rome, and he received it; upon which your Historian hath no better an observation, then that either Eusebius lyed, or else at that hour he de∣ceived Leo.

William Iohnson.

Num. 231. Why cite you not your Author for this story? sure there's some reason fo'rt best known to your self, no wise man would be thought Author of so fond a Fable. First the thing it self is wholly improba∣ble (unless you suppose Leo to have been of an uncon∣stant brain) for he expresly rejects it in his answer to the Synodical Epistle; and secondly, to tell it as you do, that in the presence of the Clergy of Constantinople, Eusebius read this Canon to the Pope of Rome, will seem ridiculous, seeing that by the Clergy of Constanti∣nople is properly to be understood, either all the Clergy, or almost all, for had you meant only a small part of it, you would have said, in presence of some of the Cler∣gy, &c. of Constantinople; and not absolutely in presence of the Clergy of Constantinople, think you that almost the whole Clergy of Constantinople left their own Church without divine service or Government to go with Eu∣sebius; an ordinary Bishop of Rome? But that which makes this story as you tell it, not only false, but im∣possible is this, that what Eusebius said, was either be∣fore, or whilst this Canon was decreeing, Eusebius be∣ing then present in the Council; so that he must have

either read it at Rome to Leo before it was made, or in the time whilst it was decreeing, being then himself not at Rome, but at Chalcedon. All therefore that he could have said to Leo, was about the Canon of the 2. gene∣ral Council at Constantinople, something like to this, which was not approved neither by two, nor by any of his Predecessors: So that Cardinal Peron had reason to affirm the relation of this Eusebius to be false, because Leo was so far from confirming either of these Canons, that he expresly rejects them in his answer to the Syno∣dical Epistle from Chalcedon.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 232. It's true that the Synod writ to him for his Consent, but not as suspending any of their decrees on it; but telling him over and over, that the things were by them defined and confirmed already. pag. 140.

William Iohnson.

Num. 232. What mean you, by not suspending any of their decrees? that they raced them not out of the records wherein they were writ, that's true, but not to our purpose, or mean you, they desisted not from pro∣ceeding practically in conformity to them, as esteeming them absolutely and compleatly obligatory, whether the Pope yielded consent to them or no; that's not true. For to what purpose used they so many reasons and per∣swasions, so earnest entreaties, Rogamus, dignare, we be∣seech thee vouchsafe most blessed Father to imbrace them, &c. had they not thought his consent necessary to the confirmation of them? and that this very 28. had not the authority of a legitimate Canon of that Coun∣cil

(as having been secretly and illegally framed, neither the Judges nor Synode nor Popes Legates being pre∣sent at it, and very many Bishops, especially those of Alexandria, being departed, as Blundel acknowledges, pag. 966. and Leo refusing to confirm it) is witnessed by Theodoret who was present in the Council, by Dio∣nysius exiguus, and Theodorus Lector, and the rest both Latins and Greeks who writ the Ecclesiastical History in that age, and it is your task to quote some of them who inserted it into the number of the Canons of Chal∣cedon; so that it was excluded (and thereby at least suspended) from being numbred with the other Canons of that Council, till many years after, which happily might have given occasion to St. Gregory, of saying, that the Council of Chalcedon in one place was falsified by the Church of Constantinople, nor can it be found to have been cited as a true Canon of Chalcedon before the Trullan Conventicle, mentioned it as one of them, which was assembled a hundred and forty years after the council of Chalcedon.

Notes

• * 1.1

  p. 150. See the place cited in my p. 54. Con Chal. act. 3.
• * 1.2

  See Blondel, p. 997. acknow∣ledging these words.
• * 1.3

  See Blondel. p. 997. acknowledging these words.