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.

The Second part. (Book 2)

CHAP. I.

ARGUMENT. Iohannes Thalaida and Flavianus.

NUm 124. The interest of producing the in∣suing instances misreported by Mr. Baxter, whereupon he imposes a false obligation upon his adversarie almost in every page. the appeale of Iohn Thalaida, patriarch of Alexandria, to Pope Felix, defended. Thalaidas age, according to Mr. Baxters account. what kind of persons Zeno, Aca∣cius, Petrus Mogas, Petrus Fullonis, Thalaida, and Calendion were. Num. 125. No Authors of those ages reprehend Simplicius, or Felix, in condemning Acacius, and justifying Thalaida. Num. 127. Thalaidas appeale, whether it were a strict & rigorous appeale or no, proves the Popes supremacy. Num. 128. The Popes power exer∣cised over the three cheif Patriarchs of the East. Num. 129. The whole Church allowed Pope Felix

his deprivation of Acacius &c. Num. 131. &c. It had been ridiculous, if Flavianus patriarch of Constantinople, had apealed from the second Council of Ephesus, which was then esteemed a general Council; the Pope and his provincial Council, (had not the Pope as Pope) had power to reverse the sentence of that Ephesine Council. Num. 137. How farre the second Council of Ephesus was a general Council.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 124. In good time you come to give me here at last some proof of an ancient Popery, as you think, But first you quite forget, (or worse) that it is not a man or two in the whole world in an Age, but the uni∣versal Church whose judgement (and form) we are now inquiring after; you are to prove, that all the Churches in every age were for the Papal universal Government, and so that none can be saved that is not.

William Iohnson.

Num. 124. Sir, please I may tell you, that you would impose upon me, an obligation of proving that which cannot be inferd from the argument I sent you, (as I have shewed above.) so would you now perswade your Reader, by the insueing instances that I under∣took to prove what was never undertaken by me. I give indeed some proof of an ancient Popery, and I have proved by force of my argument, which you undertake to answer, that all the Church in every age was for the Papal universal Government. But I never undertooke in

my treating with you, to prove this by instances from age to age, for this I still denyed (as I yet do) to be a∣ny obligation of mine, contracted by virtue of my ar∣guments; which requirs your proof only, and meddles not with mine▪ such a proof as that, from age to age, may in its due time be effected, when you have given a satisfactory answer to my Argument▪ all therefore, that I undertake here, is occasionally fallen upon me, by reason of your bold Assertion, that within four hun∣dred years, you never saw valid proof of one Papist in all the world, that is, one that was for the Popes univer∣sal monarchy or vice-Christ-ship, thus you p. 23. whereupon I took occasion to give you som essayes in ancienter times, as appears by my words, p. 49. in your edit, where I say thus;

Though therefore you pro∣fess never to have some convincing proof of this in the first four hundred years, and labour to infringe it in the next ages, I will make an essay to give you a taste of those innumerable proofs, of the Bishops of Romes supremacy, not in order only, but of Power, Autho∣rity, and Iurisdiction over all other Bishops, in the ensuing instances within the first 400, 500, or 600 years, whence it is evident I intended no demon∣stration of our perpetual visibility, but only a confuta∣tion of what you pretended within, or about the first five hundred years, by shewing some few instances to the contrary.

And indeed had I undertaken to prove it in all ages since Christ, I had most grosly faild in my proof, since I produce none after the first six hundred years, whence appears, how palpably you impose upon your Reader, by proceeding upon this false supposition, which you repeat almost in every page, in your Answer to my instances, that I have not brought the consent of the whole Church in them; whereas it was sufficient for

my intent in confutation of your Assertion, to produce any one solid instance for it, in those ages.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 125. Your first testimony is from Liberatus, c. 16. John Bishop of Antioch makes an appeal to Pope Simplicius. Reply, 1 I see you are deceived by going upon trust; But its pitty to deceive others there was no such man as John Bishop of Antioch in Simplicius raigne, John of Antioch was he that made the stirs and divisions for Nestorius against Cyril, and called the schismatical council at Ephesus, and dyed anno 436. having raigned thirteene years, as Baronius saith, and eighteene as Nicephorus, he dyed in Sixtus the fift's time. but, its said indeed that John Bishop of Alexandria made some addresse to Simplicius; of which Baronius citeth Liberatus words, not, c. 16, but c, 18, ad Anno Dom. 483. that John being expelled by the Emperour Zenos command, went first to Calendion Bishop of An∣tioch, and so to Rome to Simplicius (if Baronius were to be believed as his iudge) Liberatus saith that he took from Calendion Bishop of Antioch letters to Sim∣plicius, to whom he appealed as Athanasius had done, and perswaded him to write for him to Acacius Bishop of Constantinople, which Simplicius did, but Acacius upon the receipt of Simplicius letters, writ flatly to him that he knew no John Bishop of Alexandria, but had taken Petrus Mogas as Bishop of Alexandria into his communion, and that without Simplicius, for the Churches unity at the Emperours command.

William Iohnson.

Num. 125. It was indeed Ioannes Thalaida, chosen Bishop of Alexandria, but presently disturbed by Zeno the Emperour, through Acacius his meanes, and Petrus Mogas setled in his place by the Emperours au∣thority, and by Acacius Bishop of Constantinople: this Ioannes Thalaida being a Catholick Bishop, appealed as Liberatus saith, and you acknowledge, to Simplicius; being dead before Iohn arrived at Rome, Pope Felix, his successor received the appeal, and gathered a council upon it, sent Legates, and redargvitory letters, to Zeno and Acacius: where in his letter to Zeno, he exhorted him to send Acacius to Rome according to the Ecclesi∣astical lawes and cited Acacius, a fauourer of Hereticks, to hasten thither, to defend himself against the deposi∣tions of Ioannes Thalaida, and to answer juridically to the objections made by his accuser, and then to have his cause tryed in judgement, this is the history. By the way I wonder much to hear you say, that Iohn Bishop of Antioch, dyed in Sixtus the fift's time, when as all the world knowes this Iohn of Antioch flourished in the year 1585. surely that Iohn must have been a no∣table old man, of eleven hundred and odd years at least, Mathuselah was nothing to him, and which is yet a greater miracle, he must have lived above a thousand years, after he was dead, I should have taken no notice at all of this (for I know you would have said Sixtus the third) but only to let you reflect, how carefull you ought to have been in your own accounts, Names, and Figures, when you are so punctual to note every smal slip in the writings of your adversary: I might also have noted, your errour in affirming this Iohn of Antioch

dyed, an. 436. citing Baronius for it, whereas Baronius as abreviated by spondanus, sayes expresly he dyed Anno 440. But I have no reason to pass in silence your not informing your Reader, what Zeno, Acacius, Petrus Mogas, Petrus Fullonis, Iohn Thalaida, and Calen∣dion were; you say, Zeno expelled Iohn Thalaida, that Acacius disowned him, and acknowledged Petrus Mo∣gas, as Bishop of Alexandria, and thence inferre how little regard Acacius made of our Pope; by which ob∣surdity in writing, your ignorant Reader may well sup∣pose, that Zeno was a good Christian Emperour, Aca∣cius and Petrus Mogas found Catholick Bishops, Iohn and Calendion turbulent intruders or Schismaticks; whereas you could not but know (seeing you profess to read the A••••thours you quote) that Zeno, Acacius, Pe∣trus Mogas, Petrus Fullonis, and their abbetters were either Hereticks or first favorites secretly, and after pub∣lickly, of the Eutychian heresie, and the cheif of them were after by a sentence given of Pope Felix, excommu∣nicated and deprived of Episcopal dignitie and juris∣diction, as I have proved above; whereas Iohn Thala∣ida and Calendion were most Orthodox and Catholick Bishops, quietly and canonically elected, and installed the one in the sea of Alexandria, and the other in that of Antioch: which had it been declared, (as all open and fair dealing required) it had proved rather a credit then a disadvantage to the Roman sea, to have been opposed by such notorious Hereticks and Schisma∣ticks as those were; and appealed to, by Thalaida, and Calendion, Catholick and lawful Bishops.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 126. Here you see how little regard Acacius made of your Pope; and that the appeal was but to pro∣cure his letters to Acacius which did him no good.

William Iohnson.

Num. 126. I am glad to see how Hereticks, and Favourers of hereticks have still contemned the autho∣rity of that Sea, but I see not, that the appeal was only to procure the Popes letters to Acacius, for it was also to summon Acacius to answer Iohns accusations against him at Rome, and there to trie his cause in judgement with him; now that nothing was effected by this, was only Acacius his pertinacy, for which he is condemned by all the Catholick writers of his proceedings in those times, and not one of them blame Simplicius or Felix as exceeding the limits of their authority, in sentencing and deposing Acacius and his adherents, as we have seen he did; produce in your next, those authours who speak against it in their times.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 127. But do you in good earnest think, that all such addresses or appeales are, ad superiorem judicem, what more cōmon then to appeal or make such addresses to any that have advantages of interest, for the releif of the oppressed, young men appeal to the aged in contro∣versies; and the lesse learned, to the more learned; and the poor to the rich, or to the favorites of such as can relieve them: Johns going first to Antioch was no ac∣knowledgement of Superiority.

William Iohnson.

Num. 127. Yes I think so in very good earnest, and when you shall have fixt your second thoughts upon what past in this affaire, I doubt not but your own in∣genuity will induce you to think so too. 'tis not every appeal made from any tribunal or Judge to another, who hath power to summon the defendant and to pronounce sentence against him, in case of not appearance to de∣fend his cause, a strict and juridical appeal to a higher Court or Tribunal? was not this appeal such? I know when you consider the letters and sentence given by Felix against Acacius; you neither will, nor can deny it; whence appeares, how far your instances of im∣proper, and nominal appeales are from the present mat∣ter. Should a poor Peasant of Northumberland being wronged by some inferiour persons, having the Lord Mayor of London his friend, appeal to him, and require of him, that he cite those Judges to appear before him, and in case they did refuse to appear, pronounce sen∣tence against them, and deprive them of their offices, lands, and possessions? would it not be highly ridiculous? seeing therefore such a proceeding as this, was held by virtue of this appeal of Iohn Thalaida, and no Catho∣lick of those times, ever condemned Felix for doing it, nor Iohn for requiring it, as is most evident, it was an appeal or complaint (as Baronius affirms) to an higher Judge. Now seeing an appeal made from one Judge to another, as all solemn and proper appeals are made, and understood in law, must be from a lower to a higher Judge, and the word appeal (as all other words) must be taken in a proper sense, where nothing constraines us, to take it improperly: it is most manifest that this

appeal must be understood to have been made to a higher Judge, then were those who deposed Thalaida.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 128. But of this I must referre you to a full answer of Blondel against Perron, de Primatu in Ec∣clesia, cap. 25. sect. 76. where you may be satisfied of the vanity of your instance.

William Iohnson.

Num. 128. I could wish you had alleaged Blondels reasons, for by thus giving me Authours at every turne, you will oblige me to peruse and answer whole libra∣ries; if Blondel have any thing worth taking notice of, you may please to insert it into your rejoynder to this Reply, and it shall be answered. thus much only I am bold to tel you, aforehand, that Blondel trifles ex∣ceedingly, for whether Thalaida were cited by Acacius legally or no, which might make the wrong done him rather violence then juridical condemnation, yet seeing Blondel confesses injuries done him by Acacius, and his adherents, upon pretence of perjury, wherof he was though illegally, judged guilty, and solemnly deposed: it was an appeal properly so called to reverse that unjust judgement, by virtue of a sentence pronounced by an higher judge, otherwise if an innocent person, should be unjustly condemned in his absence, without either ci∣tation or hearing, he could not properly appeal from that sentence to an higher Court; that which Blondel alleadges in the second place, is yet more childish, for seeing Zeno, Acacius and their complices, never treat∣ed with Thalaida about a joynt consent to chose Felix

their Arbiter, nay seeing the appeal was made to Felix whether they would or no, they refuseing to appear in defence of themselves, and make good their accusations against Thalaida; it is most manifest that Felix was not made Arbiter of the cause by joynt consent as all Arbi∣ters must be, but had of himself the power of judging both parties. Now though it was admitted, not granted, that the recourse of Thalaida to Simplicius and Felix, was rather a complaint of violence & injury done him by force, then of an unjust juridical sentence pronoun∣ced against him, yet my intent will evidently follow from it: or it had been ridiculous in Thalaida, to have sought redress from that injury, and a condemna∣tory sentence against Acacius &c. from one who had no power or jurisdiction over them, and it had been a most insufferable injustice, and presumption in Felix to have deposed and deprived Acacius, had he had no jurisdiction over him, and the rest of his complices. Hence your fallacy consists in this, that you proceed from secundum quid to simpliciter, that is, from appeales improperly so called, or vulgar appeales, to juridical or proper appeales, whereas you should have given some in∣stance, where an appeal, made from an unjust sentence, to another Judge, who hath power to cite, and condemn those from whom the appeal is made, is not alwayes made to an higher judge: for such was the appeal of Tha∣laida to Simplicius, as I have proved.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 129. Whereas therefore you inferre (or you say nothing) that because this John thus appealed to Rome, therefore he appealed thither, as to the universal Ruler of the Church.

William Iohnson.

Num. 129. The story proves it most manifestly there were but three cheif Patriarck's then in the Church, besides the Pope, viz. of Constantinople, Alex∣andria, and Antioch, now if the Pope had authority to summon, sentence, condemn, excommunicate or deprive them of the communion of the faithful, depose, and dis-Bishop them, as Felix undeniably did in his sen∣tence, against Acacius and his adherents, the intruded Patriarkes of Alexandria and Antioch; he must have had power and jurisdiction over all the inferiour Church governours, for qui valet ad majus, valet ad minus; and to limit this papal power to the Empire, I have shewed it groundlesse, for if the Bishop of Con∣stantinople censured here by the Pope, had power over the barbarous, that is extra-imperial Provinces, as I have proved above, why should not the Pope, that had power over him, seeing there is not the least appearance in an∣tiquity, that he had power over the Patriarkes as they were subjects of the Roman Empire, and if there be, shew it.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 130. The story derideth your consequence, much more, that therefore the universal Church held the Pope then to be the universal head or Governour.

William Iohnson.

Num. 130. What story? wherein? how derides it my consequence? why, you say it does, and that's e∣nough, this second consequence follows also undeniably

for seeing these proceedings were notorious to the whole Church, and no Catholick Prelate, or Church, disallowed of them, but all Authours of those times, ap∣prove them, that it was either then the unanimous con∣sent of the Church, that the Pope had the power, or there is no meanes left to know by Authentical t••••stimo∣nies what the Church held or held not in those Ages.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 131. Here is nothing of Gov••••••ment but, intreaty, and that but within the Empire, and that but upon the seeking of one distressed man that would be apt to go to those of most interest that might relieve him, and all this rejected by Acacius, and the Emperour; a fair proof.

William Iohnson.

Num. 131. Here is nothing but a most supream vi∣sible authority in Government, over the three cheif Patriarchs of the Church in repealing their sentence, ex∣communicating, depriving, and deposing them, and consequently, seeing some of them at least had authori∣ty over extra-imperial or barbarous provinces (as I have proved) the Pope had government over some who were out of the Empire; yet withall, I minde you, I un∣dertook no more, then to prove against you, that some at least in those times, held the universal jurisdiction of the Pope. now whether my proof, or your answer be the fairer, I leave it to the impartial Reader.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 132. Your second Instance is that Flavianus appeals to the Pope as to his judge; Epist. praeambul. Concil Chalced. Reply, I have perused all the Coun∣cil of Chalcedon, as it is in Binius, purposely to finde the words you mencion of Flavianus appeal, and I finde not any such words, in Flavianus own epistle to Leo, there are such words, nor any other that I can finde but the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 (appeal,) once in one of the Emperours Epistles as I Remember, but without mencioning any judge. I will not turne over volumes thus in vain for your Citations, while I see you take them on trust, and do not tel me in any narrow compasse of cap. sect, or pag. where to finde them.

William Iohnson.

Num. 132. I am sory you were put to so much paines, but I take it not to have been occasioned by me: I cite, Epist. praeambulat. Con. Chalced. and you con∣fess you found it in one of the Epistles, whether the word, (Judge) be there or no imports nothing; for the na∣ture of the appeal, and circumstances wherein it was made, shew him to be a Judge, as wee shall now see.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 133. But had you found such words, an ap∣peal is oft made from a partial to an impartial Iudge thought of equal power.

William Iohnson.

Num. 133. What a juridical appeal, made both viva voce, and per libellum, by a bill of appeal in and from a generall Councill, to another of no greater au∣thority then that Councill was, nay, in your principles of inferiour Authority to a generall Councill, would not this have been ridiculous? should a Citizen of Newscastle injured in the Mayors court, publikly appeal to the Mayor of Bristol and his court, as knowing him to be a more impartial Judge, and of equal authority with the other, would not all knowing men, nay the common people laugh at him?

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 134. He might appeal to the Bishop of Rome as one of his Iudges in the Council, where he was to be tryed and not as alone.

William Iohnson.

Num. 134. This is worse then the former, think you that Flavianus, was so great a fool, as to frame a So∣lemn appeal in writing in the presence of a general Councill, from the authority of it, which is to be este∣med, and then esteemed it self the highest Congregatio∣nall tribunall in the Christian world, to a particular Councill of some few Bishops in Italy, as to a higher Judge then was a general Councill? this is just, as if one should appeal from the Parliament, to the common Council of London.

Mr Baxter.

Num. 135. And it is evident in the history, that it was not the Pope but the Council that was his Iudge.

William Iohnson.

Num. 135. But made that appeal, the Bishop of Rome or the Council either, an higher Judge then a general Council? that's the question here. if it did, then you must confess the Pope in a provincial Council at least iure Ecclesiastico, above a general Council in Power and Authority. How will your Brethren like that?

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 136. The greatness of Rome and Primacy of order, (not of jurisdiction) made that Bishop of spe∣cial interest in the Empire.

William Iohnson.

Num. 136. But withal you must suppose them in their right witts, and of ordinary Learning and Pru∣dence, as Flavianus surely was; and then they will find it absurd and foolish to appeal from a general Council to a particular, or to make one who has no more then Patriarchal authority (as you hold the Pope has no more) above a general Council.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 137. And distressed persecuted men will ap∣peal to those that may any whit releive them. But this proves no governing power nor so much as any interest without the Empire, to make the voices of Patriarks necessary in their general Councils, no wonder! if appel∣lations be made from those Councils that wanted the Patriarchs consent to other Councils where they consen∣ted.

William Iohnson.

Num. 137. But here in the beginning of the Coun∣cil, the patriarchs were present, even he of Rome by his legates, so that it was not conven'd wholly a∣gainst the Popes wil, and had things been carried justly and canonically, there might have been a perfect con∣sent of all the Patriarchs, at least there was the con∣sent of three of them, and why a particular Council gathered by consent of one only patriarck (as was that in Italy) should be an higher tribunal then a general Council where three were present, I cannot see, nor I suppose you neither.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 138. In which as they gave Constantinople the second place, without any pretence of Divine Right, and frequent appeals were made to that Sea: so also they gave Rome the first Sea.

William Iohnson.

Num. 138. But was there ever a solemn Canoni∣cal appeal, made in and from a general Council, to any Bishop of Constantinople with his provincial Council, as was made here, from this of Ephesus, to the Pope with his? that's the point: and I hope you will give some instance of it from antiquity in your next.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 139. Adding this only that as Flavian (in his necessity) seeking help from the Bishop of the prime Seat in the Empire, did acknowledg no more but his primacy of order by the lawes of the Empire, and the Councils thereof: so the Empire was not all the world, nor Flavian all the Church nor any more then one man, & therefore if he had held (as you wil never prove he did) the universal Government of the Pope, if you will thence argue, that it was held by all the Church, your consequence must needs be marvelled at, by them that be∣lieve that one man is not the Catholick Church, no more then seeking of help, was an acknowledging an universal headship or governing power.

William Iohnson.

Num. 139. All this is answered in the former in∣stance, though Flavian were not all the Church, nor half neither, (for where did I ever say he was, or need∣ed to say so) yet he was one man at least, and a good Orthodox Christian, and that's enough, to confute your former assertion, that within the first four hundered

years, you never saw any one who was for the Popes uni∣versal monarchy or vice-Christs-ship▪ now this was all I undertook to make good in my instances, as I have de∣monstrated above▪ what you add, that this appeal having been addressed to Simplicius by Flavianus, argu'd no more then a primacy of order in Simplicius before all o∣ther Bishops, will seem as strange to considering per∣sons, as if a malefactour condemned by a younger Judge at the assizes, should appeal to some other more ancient amongst the Judges, because he would take place of the other in Parliament.

CHAP. II.

ARGUMENT. Theodoret, the council of Sardica, St. Leo

NUm. 140. Mr. Baxter crownes his argu∣ments, before he gives them a being. The∣odoret seeks in his appeal to be restored to his Bishopprick of Cyre, as he was by the Popes autho∣rity. Num. 143. The Councill gave no new judge∣ment of Leo. Num. 145. In virtue of the Popes having authority over general Councils, it follows he had power also over extra-imperiall Churches. The Sardican council rightly cited; but not fully Englished me. Num. 150. Of what authority the Sardican council was. Num. 151. The Sar∣dican

council falsified, and sent into Africa by the Donatists. Num. 153. Canons of the council of perpetual force in the Church. Num. 164. St. Peter unsainted by Mr. Baxter, ibid. His disrepect to General Councils. Num. 165. ibid. The Sardi∣can canons give not, but presuppose a Supr••••am power in the Pope.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 140. And it is undeniably evident that the Church of Constantinople, and all the Greek Churches, did believe the universal Primacy, which in the Em∣pire was set up, to be of humane right, and now change∣able, as I prove not only by the express testimonies of the council of Chalcedon, but by the slacking of the Pri∣macy at last in Gregories dayes on Constantinople it self, whose pretence, neither was nor could be any other then a humane late institution.

William Iohnson.

Num. 140. These authorities shall be answered in your second part, where you urge them at large: to the Council of Chalcedon something is said already.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 141. And if the Greek Churches judged so of it in Gregories dayes, and the Council of Chalcedon, in Leo's dayes, wee have no reason to think that they e∣ver judged otherwise; at least not in Flavianus dayes, that were the same as Leo's, and business done about

149. This argument I here set against all your in∣stances at once, and it is unanswerable.

William Iohnson.

Num. 141. It is really unanswerable, for I see no∣thing to be answered in it, you only say you prove it by the testimony of the Council of Chalcedon, and stating the primacy at least in St. Gregories dayes in Constan∣tinople, but neither produce here any authority of that Council nor of the Pope; then you come with an if it be so &c. when you have not proved it is so; and then say, your Argument is unanswerable: 'tis so indeed, for no man can answer an argument before it be made, considering men will think it had been soon enough to honour your own arguments with the illustrious title of unanswerable, when you have set them out in their full glory, but very unseasonable before you have given them a being: now how unanswerable your argument will prove, when it has a being, time will inform us.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 142. Your next instance is of Pope Leo's re∣storing Theodoret, upon an appeal to just judgement. Reply, every Bishop hath a power to discerne who is fie for his own Communion; and so Leo and the Bishops of the West perceiving Theodoret to be Orthodox recei∣ved him as a Catholick into their communion, and so might the Bishop of Constantinople have done.

William Iohnson.

Num. 142. Was there no more in it, think you, men a bare receiving an Orthodox Bishop into commu∣nion?

what need was there of that? for I read not, that Theodoret was excommunicated by the false Councill of Ephesus, but deposed from his Bishopprick; but ha∣ving been accused of Nestorianisme, and as such, con∣demned in this Councill, the Pope according to the usu∣al custome declared him Orthodox, and received him in∣to his communion; it was a restoration to his Episco∣pal Sea which he appealed for, and a reversing the un∣just sentence (in his absence, and having no warning given him to plead his cause, and defence) which he sought for to Pope Leo, and he was accordingly restored in the first Session of the Councill of Chalcedon, and con∣sequently by the Authority of Pope Leo, and took his seat in the Councill with the other Fathers: because the Bishop of Rome had judged him innocent, and restored him: nor is there any mencion made of the Bishops of the West, but only of a restauration ordered by Leo's authority, nor could the Bishop of Constantinople have don any such soveraign act, as this was. (which you say but prove not.) shew me if you can, ever nay appeal like this of Theodorets made from the sentence of a generall Council, to any patriarch in the world? save the Bishop of Rome. or any Bishop thus appealing restored to his sea after deposition by a general Council, save only by the Popes authority.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 143. But when this was done: the Council did not thereupon receive him, and restore him to his Bishop∣prick, no, nor would heare him read the passage between Pope Leo and him, no nor make a confession of his Faith, but cryed out against him as a Nestorian till he had ex∣presly Anathematiz'd Nestorius and Eutiches before

the Councill, and then received and Restored him, so that the finall judgement was not by Leo, but by the Council.

William Iohnson.

Num. 143. Here are many untruths put up together, 1. First it is most certain the Councill did receive him and he sat amongst them, as Bishop of Cyrus upon his Restitution by Leo; though the Bishops of Palestine, Egypt and Illyria, excepted and exclaimed against him. 2. It was not the Councill but those Bishops which opposed him,* 1.1 for whose satisfaction he Anathemis'd Nestorius, 3. The Coun∣cill did not restore him otherwise, then by ratifying and approving Pope Leo's act of Restaurations which is not to have the final judgement of the cause, but to consent and approve by a publick act, what was justly, and Canonically adjudged before, which may be, and is ve∣ry frequently don by equall, or inferiour judges: if in∣deed the judgement of Leo had been reverst in the Councill, without the recourse had to him about it, you might have had some Colour to affirm, the finall judge∣ment was by the Councill.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 244. But if in his distress he appealed as you say, to a just judgement, from an unjust: or sought to make Leo his friend no wonder! but this is no grant of an universal Sover••••ignty in Leo,

William Iohnson.

Num. 144. It was an act of jurisdiction out of

the Western Patriarchs, therefore it could not proceed from Leo as he was Patriarch of the West; so that he must have done it, as having authority, and judicatory power over other Patriarchals; and seeing there is no reason alleadgeable, why he should have power in the Patriarchals where Theodoret was Bishop, more then in any other: à paritate rationis, it proves that he had juridical power over all the Patriarchals, ergo an uni∣versal power over the whole Church, at least within the Empire. if you will solve this argument, you must shew a disparity, why Theodoret was more subject to the Sea of Rome then any other Bishop within the Empire, or the rest of the Patriarchs.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 145. And if it had granted it in the Empire, that is nothing to the Churches in other Empires.

William Iohnson.

Num. 145. It is manifest by this instance, that Leo had power to annull the sentence of a general Council, at least which esteemed it self so; nor can I see why Protestants in their principles, should not account it as true a general Council, as others of those times, there having been present both the Emperour and the Patri∣archs, either by themselves or their Legates and as many or more Bishops, then were in ••••her general Councils; now seeing general Councils had power over the extra-imperial Provinces, as is manifest above, from the Cou••••∣cils of Nice, and Chalcedon, which subjected the barba∣rous Provinces, that is, Russia, and Muscovia, &c. to the Bishop of Constantinople and the two Arabia's to

the Patriarch of Antioch, of which some were the ex∣tra-imperial; seeing, I say, that this instance evidences that the Bishop of Rome had power to judge of the sen∣tence of a general Council, and reverse it too, he must have had power also over that which is subject to gene∣ral Councils, that is, over the extra-imperial Provinces.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 146. Or, if he had granted it as to all the world; he was but one man of the world and not the Ca∣tholick Church.

William Iohnson.

Num. 146. 'Tis true, Theodoret was but one man, but it was not Theodoret alone who thought this appeal lawful, but it was approved as such by the whole general Council of Chalcedon, which was the Church representa∣tive, having exercised power, as well without, as within the Empire; and after this the whole Catholick Church was satisfied with it, never having accepted against it, by any Orthodox writer in or about these times, nor a∣ny memory lost, that the Church or any true parts of it, excepted against it. in your next it will be expected, you either produce some exception, witnessed b•••• Catholick antiquity, made against it, or grant, it was accepted by the whole Church, yet had it been Theodoret alone who approved that appeal, I had prov'd, there was at least one Orthodox christian, who held the Popes supremacy in those ages, which was all I undertook to prove, to infringe your assertion. ut Supra

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 147. 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 D. Field of the Church lib. 5. cap. 35. pag. 537.538. and more fully, Blondel de pri∣matu, ubi sup. cap. 25. sect. 63.65.

William Iohnson.

Num. 147. Here is much said and nothing proved: part of what you say is just now satisfied, when in your rejoynder you alleadge the reasons of those two Doctors of yours, you shall have an answer,.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 148. Your next instance is, that the Council of Sardis determined, that no Bishop deposed by other neighouring Bishops, pretended to be heard againe, was to have any successor appointed till the case were defined by the Pope Conc. Sard. cap. 4. cited by Anthanas. apol. 2. pag. 753. Reply, It seems you ar 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 Tmo∣lum, olim Regio Coersi inter Thyatiram & Philadelphi∣am. But this Sardica was a•••• City of Thrace in the con∣fines of the higher Mysia, inter Naissum Mysiae & Phil∣lippopolim Thraciae, as to the instance.

William Iohnson.

Num. 148. Had you seen my citation in the mar∣gin, you might have saved this labour, for I find it cited in two different copies of mine. Concilium Sardicense, not Sardiense, and in a third, Con: Sardic. which haply was contracted in the copie sent to you, as you have printed it. Con. Sard: whereby it is manifest, I know what I cited, and all the defect was in English∣ing the latine word Sardicense, wherein such as have lived most part of their lives beyond Sea, are not so well verst, as those who never stept out of England; and indeed you might as well blame the common strain of our English writers, as me in this; who ordinarily translate Nicea Nice, when it should be Nicee. for Ni∣ce and Nicea are all as different Cities as Sardis and Sardica: yet the very name Sardis for Sardica was used long before me; for I am not the first who con∣founded the names of those two Cities as Baronius witnesses, an. 347.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 149. This Council is by Augustine rejected as Heretical, though I defend not his opinion.

William Iohnson.

Num. 149. Why then loose you time in mentioning it?* 1.2 but by your leave St. Augustine ne∣ver rejected this Council of Sardica, for it is probable it was unknown to him to be different from that of Nice: But that of Philippopolis, not far from Sardica, where the Arian Bishops assembled a conventicle, and gave it out, under the name of the Arian Council.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 150 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 have omitted if you had read them, its like) in which your writers glory, as their cheifest strength; and which Bellarmine thinkes Pope Zosimus called the Nicene.

William Iohnson.

Num. 150 I can scarce think you were in earnest, when you writ this, was the Sardican Council of little note, when Socrates, Zozomen, Severus, Theodoret, Vigilius episc. Tadentinus, Hilarius, Epiphanius, and above all St. Athanasius, who was present in it, make most honourable mention of it, as of a famous general Council, wherein, as many of them say, were above 308 Bishops, all Catholicks, wherein the Nicene Faith was confirmed against the Arians & which for its great and unblemisht authority, so fully consonant with the Nicene doctrine, deserved to be accounted the same with it, and to passe under the name and notion of the Council of Nice. now this Council was celebrated by consent of both the Emperours of the East amd West, and therein were Bishops (as St. Athanasius and Theodoret witness) from all the Pro∣vinces of Christendome,* 1.3 even from Arabia it self, though extra-imperial.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 151. Or rather is it not suspicious? that this Canon is forged, when those Carthage Fathers plainly say, in nullo patrum concilio 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 African Fathers could be ignorant of those canons of Sardica, when such abundance of African Bishops were at the Council, and that but about 50 years before. You may see in Binius how hard a strait he is put to, to give any tolerable reason of this, and onely saith that its like, some of the Canons were lost. sure tradition was then grown untrusty.

William Iohnson.

Num. 151. Had you but perused at leisure what the malice of the Donatists had wrought in Africa con∣cerning the acts of the true Sardican Council in sup∣pressing the canons of that Council, and obtruding those of the false council of Philippopolis, composed of Arians under the title and name of the Council of Sardica, you had had smal reason to judge that the Affrican Fathers could not be ignorant of those canons of Sardica. Now that the foresaid Arian Council was given out by the Donatists under the name of the Sardican Council; it was most evident from St. Aug. ep. 163. where he affirms that in a book containing the Council of Sar∣dica, he found St. Athanasius and Iulius Bishop of Rome condemned, whence he collected, it was a Coun∣cil of Arians and contra. l. 3. c. 24. He tells his ad∣versary

the Council of Sardica, was a conventicle of Arians, as was evident by the copies which in his time they had of it, amongst them, having been assembled principally against St. Athansius, whereas it is mani∣fest (as the authors witnesse in the former paragraph) the true Council of Sardica was in favour and defence of St Athanasius and in con∣firmation of the Nicene Faith:* 1.4 that this fraud was practised by the Do∣natists, St. Aug. witnesseth Ep. 163. where he affirmes that Spurious book was shewed him by Fortunius the Donatist, and gives also there the reason of this perfidious dealing; because they found in that Arian Council a writing addrest to the African Bishops, of their communion with Donatus the first be∣ginner and then Bishop of the Donatists. whence ap∣pears undeniably that in St. Aug's, and so in time of the African Council, there was no other copy of the Sardican Council, save that false one of the Arians, fraudently given out for the true one of Sardica. Now if St Augustine the light not only of Africa but of the whole Church, was ignorant of the true canons of the Sardican Council, the copies of it having been sup∣prest by the Donatists, what need you wonder that the rest of the African Bishops were ignorant of them? and this is the reason why the African Fathers writ, they found not the canons in any Council of the Fathers, because they had not the true copy of the Sardican, wherein they were: yet it is true that these very canons were acknowledged by the African Churches within very few years after this African Council, both by the practise of that Church,* 1.5 where (as St. Leo witnesses) an African Bishop appealed to him who succeeded within eight years of Celestine, and

his appeal was received: and by inserting these very ca∣nons of the Sardican Council into the canon law of A∣frica, for Fulgentius Ferrandus Deacon of Carthag. not long after St. August. and Contemporanean with St. Fulgentius,* 1.6 hath registred them into his collection of the canons amongst the rest.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 152. It was made in a case of Athanasius and other Orthodox Oriental Bishops meerly in that strait to save them, and the Churches from the Arians.

William Iohnson.

Num. 152. But if it were only for this strait, why was it many years after put into the canon law of A∣frica, (as I have now proved) and practised to this ve∣ry day ever since in the Church? Who ever before you said, it was only for that strait? name any one clasick author of antiquity, if you can, who said so? Canons of general Councils though occasioned by sever∣al accidents, are to be supposed as perpetual to the whole Church, till they be either repealed by some authority equal to a general Council, or some manifest action given in the institution of them, that they are only pro∣visionary for a time: prove if you can by the words of this Council? that it intends them only to be obligatory only for that strait and not to be perpetual. This in∣deed were an excellent way to infringe the obligation of all or the most part of the Ecclesiastical canons by saying, they were in aid upon such a strait, (as all were made by some or other,) and therefore binde not, after

that occasion is past. But what if in effect, either the same or the like occasion and strait, more or lesse, be still found in the Churches. For after the Arians the Nestorians, Eu∣tychians, Monothelites, image breakers & others, perse∣cuted Catholick Bishops as wrongfully as did the Arians; why then was this canon not to remaine necessary after that strait of the Arian opposition? I see the strait was yours, being much pinched for an answer, when you fell upon such a strait as this.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 153. The Arians withdrew from the Coun∣cil being the Minor part; and excommunicated Julius and Athanasius and other occidentals; and the occiden∣tal Bishops excommunicated the oriental. Athanasius himself was a cheif man in the Council, and had before been rescued by the help of Julius, and therefore no won∣der if they desired this safety to their Churches.

William Iohnson.

Num. 153. But yet because it was morally certain, even after this strait was past that as before this Coun∣cil was assembled, or the Council of Nice either; ma∣ny Bishops were opprest by their neighbour Bishops and stood in need of appeals: so in all future times more or lesse such occasions would happen as continual experience ever since hath taught, as they have hapned▪ for these reasons I say it was necessary that these and the like canons should be of perpetual force or remedy against perpetual dangers, equal, or like to those of the Arians. This ground of yours, would have stood our late Republicans in good stead, who might have cancel∣led most of the ancient lawes of our Kingdomes upon

the same pretence, with yours, that they were enacted first upon some strait or other, which being past over many years agoe, they are now no more necessary, nor any way obligatory. See you not, what foundations you lay, for the overthrow of the lawes both of Church and Kingdome?

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 154. Note that this is a thing newly granted now, by this canon, and not any ancient thing.

William Iohnson.

Num. 154. Prove it is a new thing: this decree was not before it was made, but the matter of the decree, that is, the power of the Bishops of Rome to judge all other prelats was before this Council, for otherwise St. Athanasius and the other Bishops could ne∣ver have appealed to the Bishops of Rome as to their judges, or would their appeales have been accepted by those holy Bishops, or approved in general Councils, or had the effects of restauration &c. In the Church▪ which notwithstanding, you your self confesse here, was done before this Council.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 155. Note that therefore it was of humane Right, and not of Divine.

William Iohnson.

Num. 155. Therefore, whence deduce you that to prove first your premises before you infer your conclu∣sion? may not the Church order that divine Lawes and institutons be observed, and are they therefore not of

divine right, because the Church hath commanded the observance of them? did not the fourth Council of La∣teran command all Christians to receive at Easter? Is therefore the reception of the Sacrament not of divine right? true it is, the circumstances of Executing divine commands may be determined by the Church, as they were in this Council: but the substance is still divine▪ shew by any word in those canons that they give the power of judging the causes of all Bishops to the Pope, as if he had it not before?

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 156. Note that yet this canon was not re∣ceived, or practised in the Church, but after this, the contrary maintained by Councils, and practised, as I shall anon prove.

William Iohnson.

Num. 156. When you prove it, I hope, I shall answer it.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 157. That it is not any antecedent Govern∣ing power, that the Canon acknowledgeth in the Pope, but in honor of the memory of St. Peter, as they say; (yet more for their present security) they give thus much to Rome, it being the vulgar opinion that Peter had been their Bishop.

William Iohnson.

Num. 157. I am heartily sorry to discover so bad a

spirit in you, as these expressions demonstrate. why give you not the title of St. to him, to whom this holy oecu∣menicall Council (as you here acknowledg) gave it they call him (say you) St. Peter and you unsaint him, & cal him, as it were in derision of the Council, plain Peter. why call you that a vulgar opinion? which was imbra∣ced as an unquestioned certainty, by this reverend, Learned, and general assembly of the catholick Church. why impose you upon this holy Council? that they had preferred their own security before the memory of St. Peter. I am really struck with compassion to see so much of the Lucian in you.

I have denyed any power at all to be given to the Bishops of Rome by these canons; they only determine the use which was to be made of his presupposed power, by whom, and when. If an order be made in Parlia∣ments, That such particular persons as have been op∣pressed by others in inferiour courts, shall have recourse by appeal to one of the Lords cheif Justices. Does that Parlianent by virtue of that order create or institute the Lord cheif Justice? or rather, is it not evident it supposes him to have the power of cheif Justice, pre∣cedently to that order, and only ordaines that others have recourse to him: But yet the power they mention of redresse and appeal to the Roman Bishops is to him only as Judge; for the canon sayes nothing of any Council joyned to him, nor names any other Judge, save the Pope. when a Judge sits in judgement at the assizes, though the bench be filled with other justices who inform and assist, yet the sentence proceeds only from the Judge. Thus though the Bishops of Rome u∣sed in matters of great concernment to the whole Church, to call some neighbouring Bishops to sit in Council with him for his better information, and grea∣ter

solemnity in the judgement: yet he alone had the power of pronouncing a definitive sentence in be∣half of Bishops wrongfully deposed &c. It is mani∣fest by this, that the restauration is ascribed as done by him, and not by him and his Council, and so having no authority in itself out of the Roman or Western Pa∣triarchate, and serving only for an assistance to the Pope in framing his judgement of the case propounded, not in a decisive voyce in pronouncing the sentence, or legal power in granting the restauration.

How expect you to be spoke of after your death, when you slight so much the Fathers of the first general Council of Nice (for a great number of them were in this) and how can you live without fear,* 1.7 that you are led with the spi∣rit of errour (when you refuse to hear and beleive those who were the lawful pastours in a full representative of Gods holy Church? but to shew how far you fal from trueth in saying those canons acknow∣ledge no antecedent governing power in the Pope, please to reflect on what is said in the third of them, where they leave it to the Popes prudence, to accept of what appeales he thinks fit, and intreat him to vouchsafe to write to the neighbouring Bishops, or to send legats of his own to examine the case, as he judges best: now had they conferd this power upon the Pope by virtue of those acts, they should not have proceded by way of in∣treaty, but by way of precept, and injunction, nor left matters to his disposition, but ordered him by theirs, what he was to doe.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 158. That it is not a power of judging alone, that they give, but of Causing the re-examination of causes by the Council, and adding his assistance in the the judgement, and so to have the putting of another in∣to the place forborne, till it be done.

William Iohnson.

Num. 158. But does not the first of these canons, give expresse order, that the Pope appoint the judges, and the second, that the Pope himself pronounce the last juridical sentence, & the third, that it is left to the Popes free election either to refer the farther exami∣nation to the neighbour Bishops, or send judges of his own appointment. Can there be more evident markes of an absolute judge, than these are? If the Pope had power only to examine the causes: who had the power to judge them according to these Canons? or to what purpose where those examinations made, if none were impowred to passe judgement, after the causes were examined? Now seeing the canons attribute the power of judging to no other, save the Bishops of Rome: for they make no mention at all of any Council; then the Council sup∣posed the power of judgeing to be in him alone, and not joyntly in the provincial Council and him.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 159. And I hope still you will remember, that at this Council were no Bishops without the Empire, and that the Roman world was narrower, then

the Christian world: and therefore if these Bishops in a part of the Empire had now given (not a ruling) but a saving power to the Pope so far as is there expressed; this had been far from proving, that he had a ruling power, as the vice-Christ over all the world, and that by divine right: Blame me not to call on you to prove this Consequence?

William Iohnson.

Num. 159. I hope you will also remember what I have answered to these exceptions: and that I have proved that Bishops from the three Arabia's were pre∣sent in this Council, all which were not under the Em∣pire: and that the Roman world in order to spiritual Government was as large, as the Christian world uni∣vocally so called, as I have prov'd from St. Prosper, and St. Leo.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 160. There is as much for appeales to Con∣stantinople, that never claimed as vice-Christ-ship, as jure divino.

William Iohnson.

Num. 160. 'Tis your pleasure to say so, but your word with me is not arrived to the authority of an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. it is your proofes, not the bare sayings I expect here. non proof 17.

CHAP. III.

ARGUMENT. St. Basil.

NUm 160. Mr. Baxter, in lieu of answering to his adversaries objection, treats other matters, to draw his Reader from considering the force of the argument. Num. 161. whether Mr. Baxter, or his adversarie, say true, concerning the words of St. Chrysostome, in his second epistle to Pope Innocent the first. Num. 162. what the first Council of Ephesus writ to pope Celestine, about Iohn Bishop of Antioch. Mr. Baxters strange confidence in both these authorities. Num. 163. Mr. Baxter flies to Hereticks to maintayn his cause, by their wicked practises. ibid. what Iuve∣nal Bishop of Hierusalem, said of the Roman and Antiochian Church. ibid. Mr. Baxter clips off the cheif part from Iuvenals words. Num. 164. St. Cyril presided in the first Council of Ephesus, as being the Popes legate. Num. 166. Mr. Baxter recurrs again to the criminal procedings of Here∣ticks, to maintaine his cause. ibid. He minces the force of excomunication, to lessen the Popes autho∣rity. Num. 168. Whether Blondel, Whitaker, and Feild, give satisfaction to that, which Mr.

Baxter calls a rancid instance. Num. 171. What St. Basil sayes about the Popes authority. Num. 172.173.174. Many non proofs heap't up to∣gether by Mr. Baxter. Num. 179. He flies a∣gaine, to patronize his cause by the crimes of He∣reticks.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 161. The sixt instance out of Basil's 74 Epistle, I imagine, you would have suppressed, if ever you had read that Epistle, and had thought that any o∣thers would be induced by your words to read it.

William Iohnson.

Num. 161. This is a strange way of answering. I cite not St. Basil as it comprises those matters which treated in regard of himself, or of the Western Bishops: but only, as it contains his testimony of Eustathius ha∣ving been restored to his Bishopprick by force of the letters of Liberius, which he clearly witnesses. Now that this was done not by way of recommendation on∣ly, and testification of his profession of the Catholick Nicene faith, in consideration whereof he desired he might be restored to the Bishoppricks, is manifest; see∣ing he actually restored him, by an absolute command. For you to alleadge other passages of a different nature, and nothing contrary to what I say, and unfit to shew the thing I cite, to be untrue, is a meer 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. why trifle you thus? answer the wordes of St. Basil relat∣ing to Eustathius and Liberius? It is not proofs from your key, that I expect here, but answers to my Argu∣ments. non proof 18.

Your branding Liberius with the note of an Ar∣ian, without proof, is as easily rejected by me, as said by you; what had such a parenthesis as that, to do in the argument? But I see it is hard to hide rancor, where it is excessive: For being universal authority drawn from these, and the like instances, is of force by an argument a paritate Rationis. What reason can be alleadged, why Pope Liberius should command the restauration of Eustathius a Bishop of the Eastern Patriarck, save this? that he had power to restore any one wrongfully ejected through the whole Church. You assert, that all the preheminence he had given him over all the Bishops within the Empire, was no more then a Primacy of place and precedency, how then came he to have a Pri∣macy of authority and jurisdiction over all the imperi∣al Bishops, to judge, condemn, and restore them? shew me who gave him that imperial power? this you ne∣ver resolved in your whole book; and I know the reason, you could not resolve it into any other grant, then into that of Christs institution; from the Council of Nice it could not be, both because that Council (according to your principles) ra∣ther restraines his power to the Western Churches then extends it into the wole Empire, and the Popes exer∣cised power through the wole Empire long before the Council of Nice, so that neither that nor any other sub∣sequent Council could give it him, nor could the Christian Emperours give him that power, for he exer∣cised it long before the Emperours were Christians, both in the East, and West, nor did the the primitive Bishops through the whole Empire give it him, for there is no proof in antiquity of any such grant: ergo, there is no appearance, that any such authority was given to the Bishops of Rome from any, save Christ himself. Now

Christ never restrained the power he gave him to the Empire, but rather intended it to the whole Church. and if he did restrain it, shew where and how?

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 162. Your seventh proof is from Chrysostome. who you say, expresly desireth Pope Innocent not to punish his adversaries, if they do repent. Chrys. Epist. 2. ad Innoc. Reply, you much wrong your soul in taking your religion thus on trust, some book hath told you this untruth, and you beleive it; and its like you will per∣swade others of it as you would do me. There is no such word in the Epist. of Chrysostome to Innocent, nor any thing like it.

William Iohnson.

Num. 162. Either you or I must be in a mighty errour; I affirm those very words are in: you accuse me of taking things on trust, and thereby deceive my self and others; and you flatly deny there is any such word in the Epistle of St. Chrys. to Innocent or any thing like it. in which Epist. 1 ad Innocentium I again affirm those words are, and refer my self to the inspection of the Greek and Latine copies where St. Chrysostome intreates Pope Innocent, that in case his opposers would put a remedy to their crimes, and Illegalities they might not be punished.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 163 Your eight proof is this (the like is written to the Pope by the Council of Ephesus,) which

no doubt you mean) is in Binius enough to make a consi∣derable volume and divided it into six tomes and each of those into Chapters and not into acts: and if you expect, that I should read six Tomes in Folio, before I can an∣swer your several sentences or shredds: you will put me on a twelve moneths to answer a few sheets of paper. If you mean by p. 2. Tom. 2. and by Act. 5. cap. 5. then I must tell you there is not a word of that you say, nor like it, only there is reference to Celestines and Cyrils Epistles; and Celestine in his Epistle recited Tom. 1. cap. 17. threatens Nestorius, that if he re∣pent not, he will excommunicate him, and they will have no communion with him: which others did as well as he, but not a word of John Bishop af Antioch there, nor can I finde any such time in the fourth ••••ome where John's cause is handled. Indeed the notes of your histo∣rians divide the Council into sessions, but in his fift session there is nothing of John, but of Nestorius: and in the fourth session John and his party excommunicate Cyril, Memnon, and others: and it was the Council that suspended first and after excommunicated John, and it is the Emperour to whom he appeales.

William Iohnson.

Num. 163. Had I been sufficiently informed, before I writ this answer, you had no other edition of the Council then that of Binius, I should easily have fram∣ed my citations according to that, to save you the la∣bour of turning volums over, but how should I know that, before you told it me? I had reason to suppose, that you who are and have been for many years so fa∣mous a writer of controversies, had the Council ready in all sorts of Editions, so that none could fall amisse

to you. If therefore you please to peruse in the Ed: of Paul. quintus, you shall finde the words cited by me conc. Ephes. 1. p. 2. Act. 5. in relatione ad Celesti∣num, where writing of Iohn Bishop of Antioch to Pope Celestine, the Fathers reserve or remit him to the judg∣ement of Celestine, & in the interim had provisionally declared him excōmunicate & deprived him of sacerdo∣tal power, whereby it appears how the Council excomuni∣cated him, and not only that, but declared him also de∣prived of sacerdotal power. Now seeing they reserve this very sentence to the Popes further censure, It is mani∣fest they both prefer his sentence before their own, and that the sentence was not only negatively to avoide him, or not communicate with him, but positively to de∣prive him of the commuion of the faithful, which al∣wayes argues superiority in power (as we have seen a∣bove in Acatius) and tooke the Priestly power from him by his disposition &c. your strange confidence in out-facing two so manifest authorities will neither credit your cause, nor your self.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 164. Indeed your annotator, in sess. 6. men∣tions some words of Juvenals, that he should at least have regarded the Roman legates, it being the custome that his Church de directed by that, but I see no proof he brings of those words corruption.

William Iohnson.

Num. 164. My citation mentions neither Iohns appeales, nor Iuvenals denuntiation but the Ephesine Councils letters to Pope Celestine, wherein they reserve the last judgement concerning Iohn of Antioch to

Celestine, yet sure Iohns appealing to the Emperours, prove no more, then that it is the Custome of Here∣ticks to appeal from general Councils, to secular Princes: and Iuvenals denunciation against Iohn was not only, that the Church of Antioch was to be directed, but judged also (which you are pleased to omit) by the Church of Rome: and that was not only a Custome, as you barely terme it, but an Apostolical ordination, ut Apostolica ordinatione,* 1.8 & antiqua tra∣ditione (sayes Juvenal) Antiochena sedes perpetuo a Romana dirigeretur judicare∣turque. Whence appears that these words are not the words of any Historian, but are yet extant in the Council, and thereby proved to be true, and by them is clearly witnessed the perpetual power and authority of judging all other Seas, by an argument, a paritate rationis.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 165. And it is known that Cyril of Alexan∣dria did preside and subscribed before the Roman Le∣gates, even to the several letters of the Synode. As you may see in Tom. 2. cap, 23. & passim.

William Iohnson.

Num. 165. It is known also he was Pope Celestine,* 1.9 legate in ordinary, & there∣fore sate as president in the Council, and subscribed first as being constituted by Ce∣lestine to supply his place in the examination and sen∣tencing of Nestorius, in token of which, he wore the Pall in celebration of Mass (sent him from Celestine)

in time of the Councils of Ephesus, which was the habit of the Roman Bishop.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 166. But if your words were there to be found, what are they to the purpose: the Pope can punish the Bishops of Antioch: but how? why by excommuni∣cating him, true: If he deserve it, that is, by pronoun∣cing him unfit for Christian communion, and requiring his flock, and exhorting all others to avoide him.

William Iohnson.

Num. 166. I have before answered this in the ex∣ample of Acatius punisht by Felix, and this instance it self (vt supra) convinces, that it was not only a nega∣tive declaration of himself and others avoiding him, but of deposing him also from his Priestly office.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 167. And thus may another Bishop do: and thus did John by Cyril of Alexandria though he was himself of the inferiour seat: and thus hath the Bishop of Constantinople done by the Bishops of Rome, & so may others.

William Iohnson.

Num. 167. What Bishops were those? Iohn of Antioch a ringleader of the Nestorians, and some Bishops of Constantinople, why name you them not? none but ejusdem farinae with Iohn of Antioch, Hereticks, or

Schismaticks: name any Bishop of Constantinople, who excommunicated the Bishop of Rome, and I undertake here to prove him to be either an Heretick or a Schis∣matick, and accounted such by the Catholicks of his time. That was that great and Capital crime so much ex∣claimed against in the Empeachment of Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria, before the Fathers assembled at Chalcedon, was it not that he had extended his felonious hand against Pope Leo in pronouncing an excommuni∣cation against him? but shew me also, that ever any in∣feriour or equal prelate gave out a sentence of excommu∣nication against another of higher or equal dignity, who in so doing, was not condemned by the Catholicks of those times and then shew who in those dayes con∣demned Pope Celestine for punishing, and sentencing Nestorius, or Iohn of Antioch.

You mince all you can, to depresse the Popes autho∣rity, the sentence of excommunication: who told you that the Pope only exhorted all others out of his proper Diocess, to avoide a person excommunicated by him? was not Constantinople out of the Popes flock (in your opinion?) and did not the Pope command with threats of Gods wrath that none should give the communion to those, whom he had deprived of it? so my instance above in the excommunication of Acatius. Or whence learnt you that excommunication was no more then to pronounce one unfit for Christian communion, and no command to abstain from them? produce your authori∣ties, or reject your Novelties.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 198.* 1.10 Your ninth proof is from the applications that the Arians and Atha∣nasius

made to Julius. ex Athan: ad solit. Epist. Julius in Litt. ad Arian apud Athan: Apol. 1. p. 753. Theo∣doret lib. 2. c. 4. Athan. Apol. Zozom lib. 3. c. 7. Reply, I marvell you urge such rancid instances, to which you have been so fully and so often answered.

William Iohnson.

Num. 168. But I marvell not to hear you speak so confidently, as you do, without giving reason for your confidence, it is so ordinary a thing with you. If you call an instance rancid, all the world must without scruple, beleive it, because you call it so: if you say that has been often and fully answered, it must be accounted as certain, as if it proceed from an Oracle. Think you wise men will be moved to any thing but laughter, by such non proofs? will any rational person yeild to you both the place of Judge and partie?

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 169. I refer you to Blondel de primatu cap. 25. sect. 14.15. Whitaker de Roman. Pontif, p. 150 & passim. Dr. Feild of the Ch. l. 5. c. 35. &c.

William Iohnson.

Num. 169. 'Tis a shrewd signe you aad no answer of your own worth the mentioning, when you send me to Blondel, Whitaker, and Feild, for an answer.

Truly Sr I have my hands too full to spend time in such needlesse messages, yet had I undertaken them, I perceive I had lost my labour: for Whitaker, in the place you cite de Roman. Pontifice p. 150. hath never a

word of these instances, nor of the Bishops of Rome. And your other citation of passim is as much as if you had said, you know not where, and thereby send me you know not whither. Are such citations fit amongst Scho∣lars, in controversies of Religion? Blondel first trifles in time, figures, words, translations, to amuse his Rea∣der, and then hath no other shift, but to feign Iulius to have been freely chosen as an Arbitrator for that sole time and occasion, by the Arian Legates, as they might have chosen any other Bishop, not considering that Arbitrators must be equally chosen by both parties agreeing in the choice of them; so that no one party without the consent of the other, is sufficient to consti∣tute an Arbitrator. Now it is evident, that upon this submission of the Arians, Iulius writ to St. Athan. to appear peremptorily by way of citation, never requi∣ring whether he gave his free Election to have him Ar∣bitrator in his cause, as appears from Theodoret Hist. Ec∣cles. l. 2. c. 4. and St. Athan. Ap. 2. where he cites Iulius, affirming that St. Athanasius came not then to Rome of his own free Election, or of himself, but being called by the Letters of Iulius to Rome; nor hath Blon∣del any ground to say in the words he cites, Ep. 73. that the Arian Legates chose Iulius directly for their de∣fence, nor onely to have a Synode called, wherein a de∣finitive Sentence might be given: nor had those Arrian Legates any reason to pitch upon Iulius for their Ar∣bitrator, had the choice of a Judge been left to them: for they both knew he was a profest Adversary to their Heresie, and sufficiently informed against them. And for Field, he sayes nothing that can give any shew of sa∣tisfaction to my Instances, if he do, cite his Answer in your next, and I here undertake to shew it to be unsatis∣factory.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 170. Briefly this may shew the vanity of your proof; Zozomon in that place saith, that though he alone wrote for them, yet he wrote in the name, and by the consent of all the Bishops of the West.

William Iohnson.

Num. 170. Why cite you not his words? there's something in't; for you spare no pains in that, where they serve your turn. Sayes Zozomen upon your honest word (for that's all we have for it) that Iulius writ that Epistle in the name, and by the consent of all the BB. of the West? What, of all? the Gothes had then there BB. then you must acknowledge in your principles he writ an untruth: Had Iulius their consent, and writ he in the name of them? Then Iulius in this his Epi∣stle, had as well an Extra-Imperial as an Imperial Au∣thority, that is, had the Authority not onely of the BB. within, but of those also who were without the Empire, which you expresly deny in the next leaf, page 149. num. 3. and it is strange that all those of the West consented when there were no more than 50. Bishops, as Baron. affirms, ad. an. 341. n. 13. in Epist. of spon∣dani in that Council. Tradition.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 171. The advantages of Rome, by its repu∣tation and greatness, and the number and quality of the Western Bishops, made their Iudgement and Communion valuable to others.

William Iohnson.

Num. 171. But how far? What, even to cite and summon parties to appear before their Tribunal, and in case they refused, to pronounce Sentence against them, and acquit and restore their Adversaries? The Imperial City of London hath a proportionable preheminence with Rome, before all other Cities through the whole Kingdom; hath therefore my Lord Major, and the Common Council power to summon in this kind any other Magistrates of inferiour Cities to appear before them, and in case of non-appearance to justifie and re∣establish their Adversaries?

Mr. Baxter.

Num 172. Basil before cited, tells you on what grounds, when Churches disagree, those that are distant are supposed to be impartial, especially when numerous.

William Iohnson.

Num. 172. Be it so: but sayes St. Basil there, that distance of place is enough to give power of summoning, condemning and acquitting parties legally? that's the question, where sayes St. Basil that? produce his words, or rather give a second reflection upon his words, cited by you p. 139. and you'l find no such matter.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 173. To which is added, which Basil inti∣mates that some hope of help from the secular powers by

the interposition of the Western Bishops, made them the more sought to.

William Iohnson.

Num. 173. How sought to? As to friends and as∣sistants? that's not our question now; as to Superiours and Judges? that's indeed the question, but sure the prime urgent and necessitating motive, why I have re∣course to a Judge and Superiour, is his coercive power over me, the others are secondary and by respects in the matter.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 174. And the Primacy of Rome (though it had no Soveraignity) made it seem irregular, that a Patriarch should be deposed without the knowledge and judgement of the Patriarchs of the precedent Seats: This was the custom that Julius spake of, and the Pa∣triarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria might have said as much, if the Patriarch of Jerusalem or Antioch had been deposed without them.

William Iohnson.

Num. 174. If there had been no more then bare precedency, why should not the Metropolitans, who had the precedency of other Metropolitans, have had the like priviledge? who told you, or where ever read you, that this novelty which you have newly hatched, to have recourse to the Bishop of Rome, and acquaint him with Ecclesiastical matters, by reason of his Primacy in sole precedency of place, was the custom whereof Iulius speaks? See you not that Iulius his words and procee∣dings

in this affair speak loudly, a supereminent power and jurisdiction over those Bishops, whose cause he then heard, and summoned them to appear before him, and not a naked precedency of place before all others? who told you, or where ever read you, that the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria might have said as much, if the Patriarchs of Antioch or Ierusalem had been deposed without them? you are excellent at gues∣sing what might be done, when you have no proof what was ever done; for shame bring proofs, or cease to play the part of a Disputant. Non-proof 17.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 175. Every Patriarch might absolve the In∣nocent and hold Communion with him in his own Pa∣triarchate; and if any be against it (as the Arians here were, and sent false accusations against Athanasius to Julius) he may require them to prove their accusations, if they will have him more by them.

William Iohnson.

Num. 175. Here are a couple more of non-proofs, I think we shall never come to an end of them. The question is not what one may require in courtesie and condescendency of another, nor whether the Arians were obliged only conditionally, (viz.) if they would have Iulius to be moved by the accusations they had sent him, as you surmise here; but how the Bishops of Rome came to summon them to appearance, and upon their defaillance to proceed juridically to Sentence a∣gainst them, and to acquit and restore the persons they accused to the Dignities, from which they had deposed

them, if he had no true and real jurisdiction over them; for had there been no more in the case, then what of their non-appearance, he should have surceased from any further proceeding, and neither helpt nor hurt them. Should you send accusations to the Chancellour of Scot∣land, against some of your brethren here in England, that by reason of his eminent authority in that King∣dom he might do you some favour; and he upon the receipt of those accusations should summon those Bre∣thren of yours to appear before him, and for not ap∣pearance condemn them, and acquit and restore you, would not all the World see that he exceeded his Com∣mission? No Patriarch by vertue of his Patriarchal dig∣nity, though preceeding the other in place, had power to condemn any belonging to another Patriarchate (if the fact were not committed within his jurisdiction) without the consent of that Patriarch, under whose Au∣thority he was, according to the Council of Nice.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 176. Our own Communion with men, is to be directed by the judgement of our own well informed consciences.

William Iohnson.

Num. 176. But our consciences, if well regulated, must avoid all those whose Communion is prohibited by the lawful Governours of Gods Church; nor are private persons to avoid any, whom the lawful Prelates of the Church retain in their Communion.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 177. Julius desired not any man then to be one with a Council that should decide the Case.

William Iohnson.

Num. 177. There's another non-proof, make that appear. Non-proof 18.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 178. Councils then had the Rule, and the Pa∣triarchs were the most honourable members of those Councils, but no Rulers of them. Non-proof 19.

William Iohnson.

Num. 178. And that's another; let us see that prov'd.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 179. Yet Zozomen and others tell you that Julius, when he had done his best to befriend Athanasius and Paulus, could do no good, nor prevail with the Bi∣shops of the East, till the Emperours commands pre∣vailed. Non-proof 20.

William Iohnson.

Num. 179. And that's another; cite the place in Zozomen, who be those others?

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 180. Yea, the Eastern Bishops tell him that he should not meddle with their proceedings, no more then they did with his, when he dealt with the Novati∣ans: seeing the greatness of Cities maketh not the power of one Bishop greater then another. And so they took it ill that he interposed, though but to call the matter to a Synode, when a Patriarch was deposed.

William Iohnson.

Num. 180. What then? Ergo the Pope had no Authority over them. So did the Pharisees resist our Saviour, the Jews Moses and Aaron, and the late Re∣bels our most gratious Soveraign; Ergo, will you de∣duce thence they had no Authority over them? But see you not how inconsequent you are to your self? you said just now, p. 148. that it seemed irregular, that any Patriarch should be deposed without the knowledge of the Patriarch of the preceeding Sea; Ergo, say you, the Eastern Bishops seem (I suppose you mean truly and with reason, or you urge that reason, p. 148. without reason) to have proceeded irregularly in opposing Iulius: If so, either this your first reason is against reason, or you against your self. Tradition.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 181. Any Bishops might have attempted to relieve the oppressed as far as Julius did, especially if he had such advantages as aforesaid to encourage him.

William Iohnson.

Num. 181. Another non proof, why give you neither instance, nor reason for what you say?

Mr Baxter.

Num. 182. All your consequences here therefore are denyed. It is denyed that because Julius made this attempt, that therefore he was universal Ruler in the Empire. 2. It is denyed that it will thence follow if he were so, that it had been by divine right, any more then Constantinople had equal previledges by divine right. 3 It is denyed that it hence followeth that either by di∣vine or humane right, he had any power to govern the rest of the world without the Empire. Had you all you would rack these testimonies to speak, it is but that he was mad by Councils and Emperours the cheif Bishop or Patriarck in a National Church (I mean a Church in one Princes Dominion,) as the arch-Bishop of Canter∣bury was in England. But a national or imperial Church is not the universal, and withal oppressed men will seek releif from any that may help them,

William Iohnson.

Num. 182. All those consequences are proved at large in other parts of this treatise. The first because this proceeding of Iulius having been approved in all ages by the whole Church, there can be no other reason given of his power over the Bishops of Alexandria and o∣thers of the East, save this, that he was head in Govern∣ment over all the Churches through the whole Empire.

The second that it was by divine right, for it was exer∣cised by virtue of an ancient rule or canon received in the Church as Iulius affirms, which could not be, that of Nice, for that was instituted a very few years before. Hence followes the third, for Christs institution was for the whole Church, not for the sole Empire.

CHAP. IV.

ARGUMENT. St. Athanasius, Theodoret, St. Chrysostome, Innocentius

NUm 182. Mr. Baxter, miscites his adversa∣ries words, and then accuses him of want of Conscience, for writing what he never wrote. ibid. What sense Chamiers words can have, whe∣ther they be referred to a Iudge, or to a friend. ibid. &c. St. Athanasius his recourse to Iulius, and ef∣fectual proceding in it; and that Iulius had autho∣rity to restore him. ibid. Theodorets appeal as to a Iudge, acknowledged by Chamier: nor is it directly contradicted by Mr. Baxter. If the Pope were Theodorets lawful Iudge, by way of appeal, then was he also Iudge of all the Bishops in the Church. Num. 184. St. Chrysostomes appeal convinces the Popes soveraign power. Num. 185. & 186. His appealing first to a Council, hindred not his appeal afterward made to the Bishop of

Rome. Num. 187. None but superiours to a Council can reverse the sentence given by that Council. Num. 187.188.189. How Mr. Bax∣ter declines and Sophisticates the words of St. Chry∣sostome. Num. 193. Whether Arcadius, and Eudoxia were excommunicated by Pope Innocen∣tius. In what year Eudoxia dyed. Num. 194. Mr. Baxter involves, and lames the words of his adversarie. Num. 201. What authority St. Am∣brose had to excommunicate Theodosius, which act is falliciously instanced by Mr. Baxter.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 183. In your margin you add (that concer∣ning St. Athanasius being judged and rightly by Pope Juliu(s Chamier acknowledgeth the matter of fact to be so, but against all antiquity pretends that judgement to have been unjust. Corruption. Reply, Take it not ill Sr I beseech you, If I awake your conscience, to tell me how you dare to write so many untruths which you knew or might know, I could quickly manifest. Both parts of your saying of Chamier p. 497. are untrue 1 the matter of fact is it, that he denyeth. He proveth to you from Zozomen's words that Athanasius did make no ap∣peal to a judge, but only fled for help to a friend; he shewes you that Julius did not play the Iudge, but the helper of the spoiled, and that it was not an act of judgement. 2 He therefore accuseth him not of wrong judging, but only mentioneth his not hearing the accused, to shew that he did not play the part of a judge, but of

a friend, as Chrysostome did by some that fled to him. I pray answer his reasons.

William Iohnson.

Num. 183. Had I written, as you print my words, I had indeed deserved a sharper reprehension then you gave me. Now whether I writ so or no; I leave it to your judgement; Here you cite my words thus: in your margent (say you) you add, that concerning St. Atha∣nasius being judged and rightly, Chamier acknowledgeth the matter of fact to be so, but against all antiquity pre∣tends that judgement to have been unjust. In which words you make me first wrong Chamier by affirming he sayes Athanasius was judged rightly by Iulius, and then you make me wrong my self by delivering a mani∣fest contradiction in two lines: for first in your citation I say, that Chamier affirms that judgement to have been rightly done, and then presently that I affirm Chamier to have said, that judgement to have been unjust, that is not rightly done. Now whether I affirm Chamier to have said the matter of fact, to have been so, that is, to have been rightly done, your own printing of my words will put the matter out of question: therefore pag. 52. in the margin you cite my words thus: concerning St. A∣thanasius being judged and righted by Pope Iulius, Chamier cit: acknowledges the matter of fact to be so. Now one may be judged and righted, that is set again into his right, by one who hath no power to judge him, and consequently judges not rightly, that is, duly, juridically and Canonically: now by changing righted into rightly you change the whole tenure and meaning of my words, and then grate on me upon the Conscience, with what not I, but you or your printer

was guilty of, and truly I should have been most willing to have cast it upon him, had your written copy shewed the contrary, so here you have not righted but rightly, neither do I finde these words, to be so, in my marginal copy, but only thus, Chamier confesses the matter of fact, without to be so, though I will not contend with you in this; as not having seen the copy which was sent you. True it is, Chamier would have this judgement to have passed as from a freind, but to prove this he contends that it could not be from a competent and canonical Judge, because it was under the notion of a judgement unjust, seeing both parties were not present to be heard in judgement, so that he holds this to have been an unjust judgement, if taken in a rigorous sense, which is all that I said. But in the mean time you answer not my argu∣ments whereby I prove it just, nor could you answer them without impeaching St. Athanasius of concurring with Iulius to an unjust judgement, for though Iulius had past this judgement as a freind, yet to pro∣ceed to execution, before the adverse party was heard, or things made so evident that there was no place for defence, would have been an unjust proceeding: and if matters were so undeniably clear, it was not unjust for want of that formality, so that if it were unjust in a freind, according to equity or justice, can justify a per∣son accused without hearing what his accusers are able to make good against him: much lesse can those accusors be condemned as manifest detractors and lyars, when they are not permitted to speak for themselves, and pro∣duce their evidences in quality of a judgement, for want of the defendants being heard, it would have been unjust in quality of freind-ship for the same reason, for now to say that St. Athanasius concurred with Iulius either as an unjust Judge, or as an unjust freind, would

to wrong that blessed Saint and your self too, but I would gladly be satisfyed in this, how one who had no judi∣catory authority above another Court, could reverse the Sentence of that Court, and restore the person injured by it, to his right, as Iulius here did, by the Sentence gi∣ven in a Council against St. Athanasius; or what man in his right wits, would address himself to a friend for relief, in that which he knows is above his power? should a Citizen of York, injured in the Mayors Court, frame an appeal to the Lord Mayor of London, because he is his friend, and the prime Mayor in England, being the chief Officer of the Imperial City, to reverse the sentence given at York against him? would he not be∣come a laughing-stock both to York and London?

Mr. Baxter.

184. And for what you say again in your Margin of Theodoret; I say again, that he appealeth to the Bi∣shop of Rome for help, as a person who with the Western Bishops might sway much against his Adversaries, but not as to an universal Governour or Iudge; no, not as to the universal Iudge of the Church Imperial, much less of all the Catholick Churches.

William Iohnson.

Num. 184. Here you say nothing at all to Cha∣miers granting it to be an appeal as to a Judge, that was so plain belike, that you could not answer it; nor yet would you expresly grant it neither, that had been too flat against you; So you thought it best to huddle it up in silence, and say nothing of it, and thought (it may be) your adversaries would have past it over too, but I hope all wise men will see your failing in this.

Baxter p. 51. in Margin. The question in my Mar∣gin, there is not what you say to it, but what Chamier said: Now lest it should appear that you and Chamier clash in this, you give me only your opinion, but dis∣semble his; and yet sure his was as much the better, as it was the ••••iuer. Nor yet do you deny this appeal to have been, as to a Iudge, which was the only question in the Margin, p. 51. Baxter, but not to have been, as to an universal Governour or Iudge; no, not within the Empire (say you.) But by your good leave, if this were not a forcible Instance, supposing it were as to a Iudge (which Chamier grants, and you deny not) to prove à paritate rationis, that every Bishop, both with∣in the Empire and Church, might have as well appealed to the Roman Bishop as to a Iudge, as Theodoret did; had he been injured as he was? If I say this was not of force, shew in your next some particular reason, why the Bishop of Rome had power to judge the case of Theodo∣ret, rather then of any other Bishop in the Church? which till you do,* 1.11 your effugium that this appeal was not made as to an uni∣versal Governour or Judge, speaks nothing, for if he (as in our sense) be an universal Judge or Governour, to whom every Bishop of the Church may appeal, as to his Judge, then seeing Theodoret's ap∣peal to him as such, proves every Bishop had as much right in the like circumstances, which Theodoret then had; it proves also, that he appealed to him as to an uni∣versal Governour or Judge, that is, to such a one to whom every Bishop might appeal in the like case.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 185. Your tenth proof is from Chrysostome's

case, where you say some things untrue, and some im∣pertinent. 1. That Chrysostome appeals to Innocent from the Council of Constantinople, is untrue, if you mean it of an appeal to a superiour Court or Iudge, much more if as to an universal Iudge: But indeed in his ba∣nishment, when all other help failed, he wrote to him to interpose and helps him as far as he could; I need no o∣ther proof of the Negative, then 1. That there is no proof of the Affirmative, that ever he made any such appeal.

William Iohnson.

Num. 185. Every appeal from a juridical sentence to have it reversed, and the injured person restored to his former right, and the unjust Judges punished by the authority of him to whom the appeal is made, is to a su∣periour Court or Judge: But St. Chrysostome's appeal was such: Ergo it was to a superiour Court or Judge. the Minor is evident from the matter of fact, for St. Chrysostome writes thus to Pope Innocent: Scribite, pre∣cor, & authoritate vestra discerni∣te,* 1.12 hujusmodi iniqua gesta nobis absentibus & judicium non decli∣nantibus nullius esse roboris, sicut per suam naturam sunt profecto & irrita & nulla, porro qui talia gessere eos Ecclesiae censurae subjicite, nos autem insontes, neque convictos, neque deprensos, neque ullius criminis reos comprobate, Ecclesiis nostris jubete restitui, ut charita∣te frui & pace confratibus nostris consuetâ possimus. Write I beseech you, and decree by your Authority, that the unjust proceedings against us, who were absent, and not refusing Iudgement, are of no force, as indeed in their own nature they are void and null; moreover,

make those to lye under the Churches censure, who have committed such injustices, but command that we who are innocent, unconvicted, and unguilty, be restored to our Churches, that we may re-enjoy our wanted charity and peace with our Brethren. Is not this a full proof of the Minor? The Major is also evident, for none have power when appealed to perform those acts of authority over those of any Court, unless they be a higher Court and Judge then the other from whom the appeal is made, as all Jurists know and confess.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 186. In his first Epistle to Innocent, he tells him over and over, that (he appealed to a Synode, and required Iudgement) and that he was cast into a Ship for banishment (because he appealed to a Synode, and a righteous Iudgement) never mentioning a word of any such appeal to the Pope.

William Iohnson.

Num. 186. What then? Ergo he appealed not to Innocent as a superiour Iudge; prove that consequence. Was it not the custom then of approved Prelates (as al∣so in all well ordered Common-wealths) first to appeal to the next ordinary Court, and if Justice were done there, to acquiesce. and not to come to the highest Tri∣bunal, till no Justice could be had in the inferiour? Did not St. Chrysostome all this? must he needs mention his appeal to the Pope before he made it? I think in earnest you were in jest here.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 187. Yea, he urgeth the Pope to befriend and help him by that Argument, that he was still ready to stand to uncorrupted Iudges; never mentioning the Pope as Iudge.

William Iohnson.

Num. 187. And was it not his duty to do so, accor∣ding to Canonical proceeding? what need had he in that Epistle, whilst he was in hopes of an inferiour try∣al, to mention an appeal to the highest Court? must he upon all occasions mention every thing? was it not suf∣ficient that he did it when necessity required it?

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 188. By all which it appears, it was but the assistance of his intercession that he requireth, and with∣al, perhaps the excommunicating of the wicked, which another Bishop might have done.

William Iohnson.

Num. 188. But could any Bishop who was not a superiour Judge, which make against you, annul the Sentence of a Council by his Authority, inflict Eccle∣siastical censures upon those Judges, and command the injured persons to be restored to their Seas, as we have seen St. Chrysostome beseeched Innocent to do?

If you will undertake the writing of Controversies, answer like a Scholar to the proofs alleadged against

you, and be sure in your next you fall no more into this fault; for by dallying thus, you may write to the worlds end to no purpose at all, whilst you neither an∣swer, nor so much as mention the words, which make a∣ginst you▪ pardon me; if I tell you my mind plainly, it is for your good.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 189. Yea, and it seems it was not to Inno∣cent only, but to others with him, that he wrote; for he would scarce else have used the termes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

William Iohnson.

Num. 189. How familiar is it in writing, to per∣sons of most eminent Authority, to use the plural num∣ber? how usual is this, both in Scripture and other Au∣thors?

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 190. But what need we more then his own words to know his request: Saith he, (let those that are found to have done so wickedly, be subject to the penal∣ty of the Ecclesiastical Laws; but as for us that are not convicted nor found guilty, grant us to enjoy your letters and your charity, and all others whose soc••••ety we did formerly enjoy.) Corruption.

William Iohnson.

Num. 190. This is a strange Metamorphosis of St. Chrysostomes words; why leave you out the beginning

of the Sentence, scribite precor, &c. I beseech you to write and decree that by your authority, those unjust acts are void and null: I see this was not for your pur∣pose, nor could well admit of a handsom mistranslation. 2. Why cite you not the Latin or Greek words, that the equity of your Translation might appear: O that would have spoyled your market. Signifies then, subji∣cite, let them be subject; what Grammer hath taught you that? what word is there in the Latin Sentence, that signifies your letters, or your charity, and what English word is there here, which answers to jubete, command, or to restitui Ecclesiis vestris, to be restored to our Churches?* 1.13 Sir, give me leave once more to be plain with you; it had been much better for you and thousands of your too credulous Rea¦ders, that you had never set pen to paper, then to delude your own soul and theirs, with such sophistications as these are; and I pray God you come not one day, with a great Patron of your Religion, to curse the time that you ever writ Controversies, which notwithstanding, were rather to be wished then feared, if the Grace of true Repentance accompany it.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 191. The Ecclesiastical Laws enabled each Patriarch and Bishop to Sentence in his own 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 Commu∣nion they may hold and renounce as there is cause. Now if a neighbour Patriarch with so many Bishops of the

West, had renounced Communion with Chrysostome's Enemies, and also written their letters on his behalf, and taken him still as in their communion, this he hoped would much further his restauration: which yet he doubted, as he had cause. For in his second Epistle he thanks him for doing his part, though it do no good, or did not availe.

William Iohnson.

Num. 191. St. Chrysostomes words now cited evince, there was more then bare avoiding of anothers communion. Nay it is evident the a••••oresaid authorties, that Pope Innocent kept communion with both parties, till a further trial of the cause was heard. vide S. Chry∣sostome Ep. 5. ad innoc. papam supra citatam.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 191. And it is to be noted, that your author, Nicephorus, tels you, lib. 13. cap. 31. that Chry∣sostomes 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 excom∣nicate, but his letters might do much.

William Iohnson.

Num. 192. But sayes Nicephorus, the same letters, which were writ to Pope Innocent, were writ to the Em∣perour? prove that.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 193. Well; but to alleadge Niceph. lib. 13. cap. 34. to prove 1 Chrysostomes appeal. But you have better, or worse eyes then I, for I can finde no such thing, but a seeking for help, as aforesaid. 2 You say, Innocentius nuls his condemnation, and declares him in∣nocent. Ans. So might another Bishop have declared him: But how far it should be regarded, was not in his power.

William Iohnson.

Num. 193. Now at last you confess, there was more then a bare avoiding the communion with others. Doe you really think, that any Bishop whatsoever could null the sentence of a Council, both out of his Diocess and his Patriarchate, as Innocent did that of Constantinople, that is to say, validly and lawfully? I cannot perswade my self you doe; now had it been unlawful, St. Chry∣sostome would never have intreated Innocent to do it. If you mean, any Bishop can do it invalidly and unlaw∣fully, you say nothing to the purpose, it was not indeed in his power how far it was regarded, nor is it the power of a King how far his commands are regarded by power∣ful Rebels: but what of that? he had power to com∣mand and censure, to annul and restore, and so it was in his power to oblige others, and procured that it ought to have been regarded & that they sinned griev∣ously in disobeying his command, which is enough for my purpose. But whilst you thus measure out the power of others by the rejection of their commands, made by unjust oppressors, you shew what spirit you had when you

writ this in matter of Monarchial government, it im∣ports little what may be said of excommunication in general, it is sufficient that this now treated included ju∣risdiction.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 194.3. You say he excommunicated At∣ticus and Theophilus, and 4. Arcadius the Emperour also, and Eudoxia. Reply, 1. If he did so and did well, another Bishop might aswel have done it.

William Iohnson.

Num. 194. Now let you and me try, whether the sentence of Innocent against these persons, were nothing save a bare excomunication in your sense, that is, a de∣claration of avoiding them,* 1.14 or that they were unworthy of Christian cōmunion or not com∣municating with them (utsupra) The words are these, [Itaque ego mini∣mus & peccator, cui thronus magni Petri Apostoli creditus est, segrego & rejicio te & illam (i. e. Arcadium & Eudox∣iam) a perceptione immaculatorum mysteriorum Christi Dei nostri; Episcopum etiam omnem & clericum ordinis Sanctae Dei Ecclesiae, qui administrare aut exhibere ea vobis ausus fuerit, ab ea hora qua praesentes vinculi mei legeritis literas, dignitate sua excidisse decerno. Quod si ut homines potentes, quenquam ad id vi adegeritis, & Canones nobis a Salvatore per Sanctos Apostolos tradi∣tos transgressi fueritis, scitote id vobis non parvum pec∣catum fore, in horrenda illa judicii die, cum neminem, hujus vitae honor & dignitas adjuvare poterit, arcana au∣tem

& abdita cordium sub occulos omnium effundentur atque exhibebuntur. Arsacium quem pro magno Joanne in thronum Episcopalem produxistis, etiam post obitum exauthoramus, unà cum omnibus qui consultò cum eo communicarunt Episcopi, cujus etiam nomen Sacro E∣piscoporum albo non inscribatur. Indignus eo honore est quum Episcopatum quasi adulterio polluerit. Omnis siquidem planta quae a Patre nostro in coelis plantata non est, eradicabitur. Ad Theophili anathematismum addimus abrogationem, & absolutam a Christianismo absolutionem. I the least of all, and a Sinner, to whom the throne of the great Apostle Peter is committed, se∣gregate and reject thee and her (that is Arcadius the Emperour, and Eudoxia the Empresse) from the recei∣ving of the immaculate misteries of Christ our God, and I decree that every Bishop and Clerk of the order of the holy Church, to be fallen from his dignity, who shall dare to give them to you, from that hour wherin you shall have read these obligatory letters of mine. But if you, as being powerful, shall force any of them to ex∣hibite them to you; and shall transgress the rules deli∣vered to us from Christ by the holy Apostles, it will be no smal sin upon your Conscien••••s at the terrible day of judgement when the Honor, and Dignity, of this world can help no man, but the secrets of hearts shall be powred out & manifested before the whole world. Arsacius whom you have intruded into the Episcopal throne in place of that worthy and great John (Chrysostome,) we accurse even after his death, together with all the Bishops who wittingly communicated with him, whose name is not to be written in the Catologue of the holy Bishops. He is unworthy of that Honor, who hath polluted his Bishop∣prick as it were with adultery. For every plant which is not planted by our Father which is in heaven, shall be

pluckt up by the roots. To Theophilus his curse, we add an abrogation, (or deposition,) and an absolute re∣jection from Christianity. Whatsoever Blondel presses against the creditableness of this Author, yet in matter of this consequence, hapning so neer his time, citing the precise words of Pope Innocent's Bull then extant, he could not be morally supposed to erre in this, though he fail in other matters: and if it be a good argument, such an Author often failes in history, therefore nothing which he saith can be beleived; even Socrates himself, the only occasional Author of the contrary relation, would not be of credit in what he saith of Pulcheria: for he often, not only through ignorance but malice and spite also against Catholicks, and particularly against St. Chrysostome either reports falsities, or conceals truths. Blundel p. 275. glories much in the authority of Emapi∣us, cited by Photius, who affirms he brought his histo∣ry no farther then to the banishment of St. Chrysostome, and intrusion of Arsacius into his place: and the death of Pulcheria, who dyed (saith Blondel,) according to Photius his relation from this Eunapius, immediately after she was delivered of a child. But neither saith Photius, nor cites he Eunapius, as relating, that Pul∣cheria dyed presently after the banishment of St. Chry∣sostome, or intrusion of Arsacius: but only in the time of his banishment, and the others possessing the Sea of Constantinople which taking up three years time, shews the account may be true, notwithstanding all that Pho∣tius saith of Eunapius.

Here is much more then your minute excommunicati∣on, or bare avoiding to communicate with them, or I am much deceiv'd.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 195. Mennas excommunicated Vigilius of Rome. non proof. 22.

William Iohnson.

Num. 195. Your assertion of this had been more vigorous, had you backt it with some authority. who, think you (save those who have sworn to your placet) will be moved by such bare affirmations of your own? But had he done that, did he also depose him: and for∣bid any one to give him the Sacrament, as Innocentius did here? and had he don all this, was his authority acknowledged: either by the Roman Bishop, or by the common consent of Catholicks approving his act, as was this of Innocent? see you not how far your instances fall short of the mark? Mennas excommunicated Vi∣gilius Bishop of Rome; who saith so? Mr. Baxter. what then?

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 196. Excommunicating is not alwayes an act of jurisdiction, but a renouncing of Communion, with a ministerial binding, which any Pastor on a just occasion may exercise, even on those that are not of his Diocess: examples in Church-history are common. more non proofs.

William Iohnson.

Num. 196. These proofless positions might have force in your own parish, they have none with me.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 197, 2. But I would have you answer Dr. Whitaker's reasons by which he proves, that Nicepho∣rus is a fabler in his relation, and that, that Epistle is not Innocents which cap. 34. he reciteth, lib. de Pont. Rom. Contr. 4. Qu. 4. pag. 454.455.

William Iohnson.

Num. 196. This is the handsom'st difficulty I finde in your whole reply, and, as it deserves, so I hope it shall have an answer.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 198. Neither, Socrates Theodoret, or Zo∣zomen, make any mention of this excommunication, who write much of the case of Chrysostome and Arcadius. And would these men that lived so near that time, have all silenced so great and rare a thing: as the excommu∣nication of the Emperour and Empress, which would have made so great a noise and stir? that y••••t mention Ambrose his censure of Theodosius.

William Iohnson.

Num. 198. One reason why those three Authors made no mention of this excommunicati∣on may be,* 1.15 because it was so present in memory: and concerning such imperial dignities, that it was not convenient, and might have been prejudicial to them, to have published

it in those times. Another, that Zozomen and So∣crates being novatian Hereticks, would not give notice to all posterity of the most eminent authority of the Ro∣man Bishop, over the Patriarks of Alexandria and Constantinople, & the Emperour himself. 3 That because Arcadius and Eudoxia presently repented, craved par∣don, and were absolved: the matter made not so great a noise in the Church, that these authors had in their times full notice of it, it having been almost as soon re∣called by their repentance, as it was inserted: as Baronius testifyes out of Arcadiu's responsory Epistle to Innocen∣tius & Innocentius his answer to Arcadius, recited by Glicas, Annal. par. 4.4. Your argument is not only nega∣tive, but fallacious. For though those three historians mention it not: yet Leo Augustus, Metraphrastes, Ce∣drenus, Zonaras, Gennadius, Nicephorus, Glicas, Georgius Alexandrinus, whereof some are ancient Historians, record it; and the very Epistles which were written betwixt Innocentius and Arcadius (yet extant in an ancient codex in the Vatican, as Baronius wit∣nesseth) give full testimony to the truth of it. Now had you produced a full negative argument against this ex∣communication, you should have proved, that neither any of the three authors you mention, nor any other creditable ancient author or records testify the truth of it. Nor concludes your parity from the recording of St. Ambrose his excommunication of Theodorus. For, first, I finde not that Socrates hath mentioned it in his history: so that you suppose a falshood in affirming it to be recorded by those three Authors. Secondly, that hapned by a publick notorious act in a great Church of Milan: this was only contained in a letter, and so soon recalled by pennance, that it is not certain, whether it came to publick execution or not. 3 That was a pro∣hibition

from entring into the Church, this was only from receiving the Sacrament, the first being much more to be taken notice of then the second, because many came to Church, who received not every time they came.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 199. 2 This Bull of Innocents (as Ni∣cephorus would have us believe it,) hath such falshoods, contrary to more credible history, as bewray the forgery. For Socrates, lib. 6. c. 19. writeth, that Eudoxia died the same year that Chrysostome was banished, and that Chrysostom dyed the third year of his banishment. And Zozomen saith l. 8. c. 28. That Chrysostome was in banishment three years after the death of Eudoxia: but if Nichephorus were to be believed, Eudoxia was alive and excommunicated by Innocent, after Chry∣sostome's death. Nor can it be said, that Innocent knew not of her death: for his legates were sent to Con∣stantinople in Atticus time, who succeeded Acacius, who outlived Eudoxia. This is the Summe of Dr. Whita∣kers confutation of Nicephorus. And withal who knows not how full of fictions Nicephorus is?

William Iohnson.

Socrates might have been deceived by the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which amongst the Grecians signifieth as ordinarily death as banishment, whereby he by mistake thought that to be spoken of his banishment, which the Author from whom he took that his story, spoke of his death; for it is evident, both from Zozymus a Heathen Histo∣rian, who lived in that very time, for lib. 5. he testifies that after the great fire at Constantinople, which happen∣ed

after St. Chrysostome's banishment, Arbazachius was sent by the Emperour against the Isaurians, where after he had spent some time, depraving himself, and exercising so many corrupt proceedings and oppressions as he was guilty of, &c. which would require the space of a year or two, and thereby extend to the year 407. or thereabouts, wherein St. Chrysostome died; being ac∣cused, and cited to answer the accusations made against him, gave rich presents to the Empress, and thereby escaped punishment. Now these things could not hap∣pen but in a long tract of time; & it is not morally pos∣sible they should have been done in four dayes, as those say who follow Socrates; and Marcellinus Comes af∣firms, that the troubles of Isauria happened anno 405. under the Consulate of Stilico and Anthemius. So that Arbazachius must have had much more time be∣fore he was accused; and consequently the Empress must have lived some years after the banishment of St. Chry∣sostome. Nor makes Palladius any mention of her pro∣digious death so suddenly after the banishment of St. Chrysostome. And George Patriarch of Alexandria, who wrote 1000. years ago, and is cited by St. Io. Da∣masc. Orat. de Imagin. affirms that Arcadius and Eu∣doxia were excommunicated by Innocentius: and Zona∣ras affirmes the same. Nor do the Authors you cite against this Bull, affirm what you say. Socrates, lib. 6. c. 19. hath not a word of Eudoxia's death, or that St. Chrysostome died three years after his banishment; there's your two first errors. Zozomen seems to put the death of Eudoxia before that of St. Chrysostome, but speaks not a word in that place here cited by you, that he was in banishment three years after the death of Eu∣doxia; there's your third error. Blondel p. 277. cannot deny this relation of Zozimus, but questions whether

the Empress he mentions were Eudoxia. Now if it were not Eudoxia, he should have told us what other Em∣press there was living at that time in Constantinople, to whom those presents were given. For Arcadius lived six years after this, and Theodosius his Son, was not ca∣pable of marriage presently after his Fathers death, be∣ing then a child of no more then seven years of age, ha∣ving been born in the year 401. and Arcadius dying the year 408. Nor can it be thought that Arbazachius remained in Isauria till Theodosius junior was married, for the expedition in a short time was finished against the Isaurians. And presently upon that victory, Arba∣zachius fell upon oppressions, and complaints were not long after raised against him.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 200. In your, Margin you pretend to con∣fute Chamier, p. 498. as saying, [That other Bishops restored those wrongfully deposed, as well as the Pope,] to which you say, that [never single Bishop restored any who were out of their respective Diocess, &c. whereas the Bishop of Rome, by his sole & single authority, re∣stored Bishops wrongfully deposed, all the Church over.]

William Iohnson.

Num. 200. I like not your writing my words by halves; they were not so many but you might have quo∣ted them intirely as they lay, as you printed them, pag. 52. I adde there, after Diocesses, these words, viz. [But alwayes collected together in a Synode, by common voice, and that in regard only of their neigbouring Bishops,]

which you mask under an (&c.) And then I adde [whereas the Bishop of Rome, by his sole and single au∣thority, restored Bishops wrongfully deposed] as you have it here; whereby the difference appeared more clearly betwixt the authority of the Roman and other Bishops, which you, by your (&c.) have rendred obscure, there being no express reason by way of opposition in their proceedings, to adde this, all the Church over, which is clearly opposed to this other, in regard only of their neighbouring Bishops, in my words, and by omitting those words, but alwayes collected in a Synode by com∣mon voice, you hide from your Reader, that their con∣vening was by order of their Arch-bishop, Metropo∣litan, Primate, or Patriarch respectively, who common∣ly had authority over those who were restored. For all Synodes were to be Canonically convened, by consent and authority of Ecclesiastical Superiours, either gran∣ted or presumed. And this happily may be one reason, why you wish those to whom you recommend this book (as I am certainly informed from a person of great worth who heard you) to read your last answer only, and not to trouble themselves with perusing my Text, to which you pretend to answer.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 201. Reply 1. It seems you took Chamier's words on trust; peruse that page, and see his words.

William Iohnson.

Num. 201. I took only upon trust of my own eyes, and I think they deceived me not.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 202. 2. Single Bishops have censured, and therefore might as well remit their own censures. Am∣brose censured Theodosius, who was no fixed member of his charge, and he remitted the censure. Fallacy.

William Iohnson.

Num. 202. You answer fallaciously, proceeding à toto ad partem. When I speak of persons out of their Diocesses, I mean clearly, such as are neither in them actually by way of habitation, nor habitually by birth and education; for my words are general. And you give an instance of one, who though not habitually, yet actu∣ally was within the Diocess of him who censured him, as then Theodosius was in the Diocess of Milan, where St. Ambrose was Bishop. You cannot sure be igno∣rant, that domicilium fixum, a settled habitation, makes one an inhabitant and part of that City where he lives, and that crimen commissum, a crime committed in that place, makes one subject to the Tribunal of that City. Besides, the Emperour could not be said, by reason of his universal dominion, to be fixt to any part of his Em∣pire, for his Empire was his dwelling; so that whereso∣ever he was actually, and committing any thing deser∣ving excommunication, there the Bishop of that City had power to excommunicate him. With such sophismes as these, you inveigle your credulous Readers: I beseech God to forgive you, and enlighten you.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 203. Epiphanius presumed even at Constantino∣ple to excommunicate Dioscorus and his Brethren. So∣crat. l. 6. c. 14.

William Iohnson.

Num. 203. Socrates hath no such matter in that Chapter, nor any thing like it, nor indeed could he, for either you mean Epiphanius Bishop of Salamina, who was dead 42. years before Dioscorus was excommuni∣cated, for that Epiphanius died anno 402. and Dios∣corus was excommunicated anno 451. or (as I think you do) Epiphanius Bishop of Constantinople, and Diosco∣rus was dead 70. years before Epiphanius was installed in the See of Constantinople. Nor did Socrates pro∣duce his History farther then to the year 439. that is, 90. years before Epiphanius was Bishop of Constantino∣ple. Who wrongs his soul now, by taking authorities upon trust?

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 204. And many instances may be brought, both of excommunicating and again receiving to Com∣munion, by particular Bishops, even as to those that were not of their charge. Non-proof.

William Iohnson.

Num. 204. I wonder you being a Scholar, should perswade your self any prudent man will be moved by

your may bees, upon no other ground then that you say them without proof. If you have such instances, alleadge them; if you alleadge them not say, nothing of them: 'tis not for your credit thus to trifle in serious matters.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 205. And if the fact were not proved, yet the forbearance proves not the want of power.

William Iohnson.

Num. 205. But sure, if it can be proved, a man of your learning can prove it, and then why have you not done it? is it not a shrewd sign there was no such po∣wer, when there can be given no instance in so many hundred years, that it was ever brought into practice? you know, frustra datur potentia quae nunquam redu∣citur in actum: and if such a power, whereof you say many instances may be given, had ever been, sure it was either frustraneous, and thereby not from God: or fome steps of the exercice of it would have appeared in anti∣quity. We speak not here of what is or is not in it self unknown to us, but of what can be proved to have been: and that must appear by the acts and exercise of such a power, recorded in some ancient Authors or Records.

CHAP. V.

Theodosius, St. Leo. ARGUMENT.

NUm 205. Many instances of Bishops resto∣red out of the Empire, by the Bishop of Rome. Num. 206. St. Leo's affirming the Popes power in calling General Councils, to come from divine Institution. Num. 116. Mr. Baxter misre∣ports his Adversaries argument, and then esteems what he himself hath done, ridiculous. Num. 217. Pulchelius for pulcheria. ibidem. Her let∣ter about Anatolius his sending the Confession of his Faith to Leo, miserably misconstrued by Mr. Baxter.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 206. 3. I deny your unproved assertion, that the Bishop of Rome singly restored all the Church over; it is a meer fiction. How many restored he out of the Empire? Or in the Empire, out of his Patriarchate? but swasorily or Synodically.

William Iohnson.

Num. 206. Very many. Such were all those Bishops who about the year 400. in Spain, in France, anno 475.

in England, anno 595. in Germany, anno 499. and o∣ther Western and Northern Kingdoms, which were ta∣ken either from under the command of the Romane Em∣perours, or were never under it, who were restored by the Bishop of Rome's authority, when wrongfully depo∣sed from their Sees, addressing themselves to him, and requiring justice from him, whereof all Ecclesiastical Histories of those Nations are full of instances. And in more antient times, whilst the Emperours were Hea∣thens, the cause of the Pope's authority, out of the We∣stern Patriarchate could not be the subjection those Bi∣shops had to the Emperour of Rome, but must have been derived from a spiritual authority instituted by Christ himself. For neither had there been any General Coun∣cil in those times to invest Rome in that authority, nor can it be ever proved from antiquity, that it was given him by the unanimous consent of all Bishops, other∣wise then as supposing it still due to him before their re∣spective times, by the power granted by our Saviour to St. Peter and his lawfully Successors, as I have already af∣firmed, the Bishop of Rome to have received all the Pri∣macy you esteem him to have from a Council, as shall be proved hereafter: And I press you to produce any au∣thority in those times, which witnesseth it was origi∣nally given him by consent. Now that the Bishop of Rome exercised jurisdiction over the Eastern Bishops in St. Victor's time, and over Firmilian and those of Cap∣padocia in Pope Stephens time, is so evident that it can∣not be denyed. See St. Irenaeus. Nor will it avail to say, those instances of France and Spain, &c. were in latter times,* 1.16 where we dispute about the four first ages; for if in all those ages it had been a common known tradition, that the Pope had no ju∣risdiction

of the Verge of the Roman Empire, that tra∣dition would have been publiquely and universally received in the years 500. and 600. even to the first ere∣ction of those new Kingdoms in the West and North,* 1.17 so that every one would have known, they were no longer bound to be under the Ro∣man Bishop then whilst they were under the Roman Empire, because all knew (in your novel supposition) that the jurisdiction of the Pope extended no farther then the Roman Empire. Why then did those Kings, and all the Bishops and Churches in their Kingdoms, esteem themselves as much obliged to the obedience of the Bishop of Rome, after they were freed from the com∣mand of the Roman Emperour, as they were before; and never alleadged any such reason, as you have in∣vented, of the Popes authority limited to the precincts of the Roman Empire, to plead thereupon his not having any longer jurisdiction over them, as being now no sub∣ject of that Empire? What I say therefore, is no fiction, but a solide and manifest truth; that he had authority of restoring Bishops wrongfully deposed, all the Church over, even out of the Empire: but yours is a pure fi∣ction, to assert that as a publick tenet and practice, which was manifestly unknown to those, either of the four first, or any subsequent ages, coined lately from your own brain, upon which, I pray God heartily, it lie not heavy one day, as novelties in Religion use to do upon the heads of their first Inventors. What you say of swasorily, and Synodically, I have above clearly con∣futed, by shewing that the Councils of neighbouring Bishops in Italy, were only assistants to the Pope, but could have no juridical power over the whole Church, or in parts remote, and without the Western Patriar∣chate.

Now to what you usually presse of Ethiopia, Per∣sia, outer Armenia, &c. that no instance can be given, of any Bishop of those Churches restored by the Popes authority. I answer, that I can prove as effectually by instances their restoration by the Pope, as you can prove them to have been restored by their own Primates, Me∣tropolitans, Provincial Councils, or Collections of Bi∣shops, within their own Charters; nay, as you can shew, that any of them were restored. The reason therefore, that no such instance is given in the primitive times, is not as you imagine, and would impose upon your Rea∣der, that none of them were subject to the Pope, but be∣cause there is no Records, or mention in Ecclesiastical History, that any were restored, either by this or any other authority; and if there be, produce them. The reason whereof is, because the Roman Emperours then Hea∣thens permitted no publique correspondence of those who were out of the Empire, being their enemies, with those who were within it; and after the Christian Emperours being in war with those barbarous Na∣tions, refused to admit (unlesse upon very urgent occasions) such correspondences; nor have we extant any authentick Authors of those Provinces, who have recorded the Histories, and transactions of the said Churches, so that 'tis unknown to us what either passed betwixt them and the Bishop of Rome, or amongst themselves,

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 207. Your next instance of Theodosius his not permitting the Council at Ephesus to be assembled, and his reconciling himself to the Church, is meerly im∣pertinent. We know, that he and other Princes usually

wrote to Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria &c. Or spoke or sent to more then one of the Patriarcks, before they called a Council.

William Iohnson.

Num. 207. You still seek diversions to avoid the difficulty. The question is not now whether Theodosius and other Emperours, did, or might write to other Pa∣triarcks about the celebration of Councils, as well as the Roman: but it is this, whether they wrote in the same manner to them as they did to him; that is, as Pope Leo witnesses, epist. 15. that he (Theodosius) bare this respect to the divine institution, that he would use the authority of the Apostolick Sea for the effecting of his holy disposition. And this was celebrating that Council, the 2d of Ephesus, which as then appeared to the Pope to be good and holy. Finde me such a sentence of his, writ by Theodosius or other Emperours, to any of the Patriarcks beside the Roman, that their authority was necessary, according to divine institution for the cele∣brating of a general Council? and you will have done something: without which you trifle.

Mr Baxter.

Num. 208. You cannot but know, that Councils have been called without the Pope.

William Iohnson.

Num. 208. Truly, if you speak of lawful general ••••ouncils, I am so unknowing that I know it not (sup∣posing there were a known undoubted Pope in the

Church, as there was in Theodosius's time:) and I fear I shall be so dull, that you will not be able to make me know it: I am sure, yet you have not gone about it, and I presse you to nominate any such lawful general Coun∣cils call'd without the B. of Romes consent, and au∣thority.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 209. And that neither this, nor an Empe∣rours forsaking his errour, is a sign of the Popes uni∣versal Government.

William Iohnson.

Num. 209. Take the context of my proofs along with you (which you conceal here) and you confess, this demanding the Popes authority as necessary to the cele∣bration of a general Council, and in that, giving respect to divine restitution, is a sign of his universal govern∣ment, seeing general Councils (as I have proved) are representatives, not of the Empire, but of the whole vi∣sible Church. And Theodosius his pennance, whereof one effect was that he required the confirmation of Anatoli∣us in the Sea of Constantinople, from Pope Leo, and thereby attested his power over that Patriarck, and, a simili, over all the rest; he shewed himself to believe, that the Roman Bishop was supream governour of the universal Church.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 210. That Emperour gave sufficient testimony, and so did the Bishops that adhered to Dioscorus, that in those dayes the Pope was taken for fallible and con∣troulable, when they excommunicated him.

William Iohnson.

Num. 210. No more then the Clergy of Sweden would shew it now, if they ventured so far as to excom∣municate the Pope. Is, think you, authority overthrown, or rendred, or argued null, because it is opposed and contemned by Rebels? you shew in this, what your spi∣rit is, and how inconsistent with true Government, when you make the contempt of Rebels, an argument that all whom they reject have no lawful power over them: a thing seasonable enough when you wrote this, having then rebellious times, and persons well suiting with it, but yet demonstrative what you thought then, and may still be esteemed one of your principles. But I wonder much you were so venturous as to let it passe the print, and see light since the happy return of our most gracious Soveraign. For think you men are so blind as not to see this consequence, that if Hereticks, outing and contemning the authority of a Catholique Bishop (as Dioscorus an Eutychian, and his party did that of Leo) be a good argument (as you make it) to prove he had no authority over the Church, nor over Dioscorus who excommunicated him: you must also hold, that a pub∣lique Rebel's deposing a Soveraign, is a good argu∣ment to justifie the fact, and to prove that Soveraign had no authority over him. Or if you your self dare not

go so far, you have laid a principle, emboldning all Re∣bels to do it.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 211. But when you cite out of any Author the words that you build on, I shall take more particular notice of them.

William Iohnson.

Num. 211. I have cited them out of St. Leo, and ex∣pect your answer.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 212. Till then this is enough, with this ad∣dition, that the Emperours subjection, if he had been subject (not to an Ambrose, or other Bishop, but) only to Rome, would have been no proof, that any without the Empire were his subjects; no more then the King of Englands subjection to the Arch-bishop of Canter∣bury, would have proved that the King of France was subject to him.

William Iohnson.

Num. 112. You flie again the difficulty. I make not this argument: the Emperour was subject to the Pope in spirituals, Ergo all those Christians who were Extra-Imperial, were also subject to him. This is no argument of mine, but your imposition. My argument is this: The Emperour and all Christians, within this Empire, were subject to the Pope, as to St. Peters Successor and Su∣pream

Pastor of the whole flock and Vineyard of Christ, by Christs institution: Ergo all Extra-Imperial Churches were also subject to him. Now this to have been the reason of their subjection, is evident, both from St. Leo's Epistle lately cited concerning Theodosius, and from the Council of Chalcedon, treated by me hereafter; and from the command of Martian, and all the other declaratives of the Bishop of Romes supereminent au∣thority, delivered and received in antiquity: where not so much as any one of them hath chained it up within the circuit of the Roman Empire, or given that for a measure or reason of his power; and it still remained in full force in such Kingdoms as were taken by Chri∣stians from the Roman Emperors, who (as I have said) never affirmed their freedom from the Emperours com∣mand, to have franchised them from the Bishop of Romes authority. Whence is clearly answered your pa∣rity in the Kings of Englands subjection to the Bishop of Canterbury: for the Kings of England never subje∣cted themselves to the Bishop of Canterbury as to the Supream visible Governour in spirituals of the whole Catholique Church, no not as to one who had any ju∣risdiction out of England at all.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 112. Your twelfth proof from the Council of Chalcedon, is from a witness alone sufficient to over∣throw your cause, as I have proved to you. This Synode expresly determineth, that your Primacy is a novel hu∣mane invention; that it was given you by the Fathers, because Rome was the Imperial Seat. If you believe this Synode, the Controversie is at an end: if you do not, why do you cite it? and why pretend you to believe Ge∣neral Councils?

William Iohnson.

Num. 213. You have a strange way of shifting off the force of an argument, and that quite out of form, and that illogical; and it is, to bring in some pre∣face or other, to weaken the authority of those whence this proof is brought, before you give a Categorical an∣swer. What have we now to do with your proof al∣leadged many leaves after? Part. 2. Is there not time enough to answer it when it comes in treaty? Have you forgot that you are a Respondent, not an Opponent? are you so much inamoured with your own arguments, that you must shew them at every turn, even when there is no just occasion to mention them? one would think it timely enough to boast of them, when you and all men see no satisfactory answer given to them. Have pa∣tience a while, and you shall see ere long, you autho∣rity from Chalcedon hurts us nothing. It is partly shew∣ed already, and when it shall be treated in its place, I hope you'l have no cause to brag of it.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 214. But what have you from this Council against this Council? Why, 1. you say, Martian wrote to Leo, that by the Pope's authority a General Council might be gathered, in what City of the Eastern Church he should please. Reply 1. Whereas for this you write, Act. Concil. Chalced. 1. You tell me not what Author, Crab, Binius, Surius, Nicolinus, or where I must seek it. I have perused the Act. 1. in Binius, which is 74. pages in folio (such tasks your citations set me) and find no such thing: and therefore take it to be your mistake.

William Iohnson.

Num. 214. I am sorry you have taken so much pains and lost your labour, but sure I gave you no oc∣casion of it; for as I cited in the margin, Con. Chalced. Act. 1. so I quoted in the Text Martian's Epistle to Leo, when I said, Martian wrote to Leo; so that you had no more to do then to turn to the first Action of that Council, and seek Martian's Epistle to Pope Leo; which because it is in the full editions of Councils, I thought it needless to name any. Now this might have been done in a very short time; nor could it be more exactly cited then I cited it, giving both the Action, and the Epistle extant in that Action. Could you not as well have found the Epistle of Martian, as of Valentinian and Martian (if they be different Epistles?) Sure the one was as visible and legible as the other. I tell you, 'tis no mistake of mine, but your mishap, that you found it not. Please to look again, and you will find those ve∣ry words which I cite, in that very Epistle which I quote.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 215. But in the Preambul. Epistle, I find, that Valentinian and Martian desire Leo's prayers, and contrary to your words, that they say, [hoc ipsum nobis propiis literis tua sanctitas manifestet, quatenus in omnem Orientem & in ipsam Thraciam & Illyricum sacrae nostrae literae dirigantur, ut ad quendam defini∣tum locum qui nobis placuerit, omnes sanctissimi Episco∣pi debeant convenire.] It is not, qui vobis placuerit, but, qui nobis.

William Iohnson.

Num. 215. Your words from the Epistle of Valen∣tinian and Martian, infringe not those mentioned by me: for it may well be, that Pope Leo remitted the de∣signation of the place to the Emperour, as judging it more belonging to them then to himself, as a thing wholly temporal, though the precise words, qui nobis placuerit, may be, in rigor, applied both to the Empe∣rour and Pope. My first authority therefore from that Council, is not answered at all in this your paper.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 216. But what if you had spoke truth, doth it follow that Pope Leo was Christs Vicar-general Go∣vernour of the world, because that the Soveraign of one Common-wealth did give him leave to chuse the place of a Council? Serious things should not be thus jested with.

William Iohnson.

Num. 216. I argue not so: you proceed fallacious∣ly, a secundum quid ad simpliciter. The force of my ar∣gument consists not in the chusing of the place by the Pope, that's a pure circumstance: but the strength of my reason consists in this, that the Council was gathered by the Popes authority. And to this you say nothing; which notwithstanding is an evident proof that the Pope had authority over the whole Church, as I shall prove here∣after. Serious things should be seriously answered, and not be thus jested at by fraudulent fallacies and disgui∣ses.

Now in my words here cited, viz. Martian wrote to Leo, that by the Bishops authority a General Coun∣cil might be gathered in what City of the Eastern Church he should please to chuse; the word, he, may as well be related to Martian as to the Pope. So that you cannot inforce from the precise words, that I say, the place was left to the Pope's choice.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 217.2. You say, Anatolius & the rest of the Eastern Bishops sent to Pope Leo, the professions of their Faith, by his Order. Reply 1. And what then? Therefore Pope Leo was both Governour of them and all the Chri∣stian world. You should not provoke men to laughter about serious things, I tell you. Can you prove this Con∣sequence? Confessions were ordinarily sent in order to communion, or to satisfie the offended, without respect to superiority. Corruption.

William Iohnson.

Num. 217. I see y'are merrily disposed, y'are so full of jesting and laughing; but truly see no other jest here, ••••hen your misreporting my argument, and then saying, it moves laughter. I spake of confessions of Faith, ex∣acted from others by command or order of the Pope: and this I alleadge to be a proof of the Popes universal supremacy. And you answer, that Confessions were or∣dinarily sent in order to Communion, or to satisfie the offended, without respect to superiority. As if I made the bare sending a Confession of Faith to another, an argu∣ment, that he to whom it is sent, is superiour to him that sends it. Whereas I say in express termes, that it is the

ordering such a Confession to be sent to him who or∣ders it, and not the bare sending, without order, which argues superiority in him who orders the sending such professions. Might I not here deservedly retort your Sarcasmus, and tell you, you should not provoke men to laughter (by such gross perversions as these) in serious things. But I spare and pitty you.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 218.2. But I see not the proof of your imper∣tinent words: Pulcherius Epistle to Leo, expresseth that Leo had sent his Confession first to Anatolius, to which Anatolius consented. By your Rule then Leo was subject to Anatolius. Corruption.

William Iohnson.

Num. 218. I find no Epistle of Pulcherius to Leo, nor so much as any such man in those times. You would say, I suppose, Pulcheria, the Empress: But you should have dealt more fairly, if you had declared in what manner Pulcheria mentions the Confession of Faith sent by Leo. Really Sir, the cunning which you use here, is unsufferable. First, you say, that Confession of Faith from Leo, was sent to Anatolius. Which is mani∣festlie untrue; for the Empress Pulcheria saith, it was sent to Flavianus, his Predecessor: This may pass as an error, in Historie onlie. Secondlie, you say, that A∣natolius consented to that Faith, which is true, but you express not in what manner he consented to it: for equals may consent in Faith one with another, but the Empresse saith, that Anatolius subscribed to the con∣fession of Faith sent to Flavianus from Pope Leo, and

that without the least difficulty or demurr, which argue that Leo's confession was sent to this end, that the Pope required the Bishops of Constantinople to subscribe to what he wrote there, to shew that they believed the Catholick Faith. [Et Epistolae similiter Catholicae fi∣dei quam ad sanctae memoriae Flavianum Episcopum tua Beatitudo decrevit, sine ulla dilatione subscripsit Ana∣tolius] The Empresse writes thus. [And he Anato∣lius, without any delay, subscribed to the Epistle of Faith, which thy blessedness directed to Flavianus] Thirdly, whereas this Epistle or Confession of Faith, was sent as from a superiour, to be subscribed by those Patriarcks, that he might know whether they held the right Faith or no, and thereby judge whether he were to admit them into his communion (as was then the or∣dinary custome,) you would make it to be a confession sent as from an equal, to give them to whom he sent it, an account of his Eaith. Fourthly whereas I speak of a confession, ordered by the Bishop of Rome, to be sent from the Bishop of Constantinople to him, that the Pope might thereby judge of his Faith: you in answer, return a confession of Faith, as freely sent from the Bishop of Rome to the Bishop of Constantinople, as though the Pope had given an account of his Faith to that Bishop, now all know it to be a rule of Faith, sent Vide verba Pulcheriae, by Leo, to which was required the in ep. ad Leonem. Bishop of Constantinople should sub∣scribe, to shew that he held the same Faith with the Bishop of Rome, and thereby deserved to be received, as a Catholick into his communion. And lastly, you make that to be a confession of Pope Leo's faith made to Anatolius, when it was only a summe of the Catho∣lick Faith. [Epistola fidei Catholicae] in general, that those Bishops were to subscribe by the Popes order.

For this very same Epistle, in a Council held by the Popes legates in Constantinople, Council Chalced in gracis was sent by their order, to all the codicibus, post Act, •••• tam. Metropolitans in those parts, (as Pope Leo had given them order) to be subscribed by them.

CHAP. VI.

Council of Chalcedon. ARGUMENT.

NUm 219. Mr. Baxters imposition upon his adversary. ibid. The legates precedency how it proves the Popes Supremacy. Num. 221. Dioscorus not sitting as a Father in the Council shews the Bishop of Romes authority over the Council. Num. 222. Mr. Baxter put to 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,* 1.18 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;* 1.19 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,* 1.20 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.

CHAP. VII.

Agapet, Anthymus, St. Cyril, Nestorius. ARGUMENT.

NUm 233. Whether Pope Agapets depriva∣tion of Anthymus Bishop of Constantino∣ple were unjust. Num. 236. Mr. Baxter is put to another desperate shift to avoid the force of Pope

Gregorie the great's words. Num. 140. St. Cyril, and Nestorius acknowledge the Popes Su∣premacy. Num. 241. Celestines condemning Nestorius, proves his universal authority. Num. 242. No National, nor Patriarchal Synode, is of force to oblige any out of that Nation or Patriar∣chate, where it is celebrated. Num. 245. Whe∣ther St. Cyril Patriarch of Alexandria, and Presi∣dent in the first Ephesine Council, or Mr. Richard Baxter, Minister of Kiddermunster be the wiser? Num. 246. A threefold corruption of his Adver∣saries words. Num. 247. Another corruption of his Adversaries argument. Num. 248. Mr. Baxters Prophesie. Num. 250. and Num. 252. His instances inapposite. Num. 254. He slights the Council of Chalcedon.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 233. That which they desired of him was, what Synodes ordinarily did of Bishops of their Communion that were absent; haec sicut propria, & amica, & ad decorem convenientissima, dignare complecti, sanctis∣sime & beatissime pater. Non-proof 23.

William Iohnson.

Num. 233. Here's another of your Non-proofs, shew if you can that Oecumenical Councils, such as this at Chalcedon was, did ordinarily beseech, rogamus, and en∣treat other Bishops to yeeld to what they had decreed,

as did here this Council St. Leo, in this their Epistle to him. General Councils understood the extent of their authority too well to beg of any Patriarch, save him of Rome, to yeeld consent to their decrees, for they esteem∣ed them all obliged to assent to them, when they were approved by the Roman Bishop, as appears both in this Council by the Emperours writing to all Churches, to know whether they consented to it, and their punishing Dioscorus the first,* 1.21 and Iohn of Antioch the second Oriental Patriarch, and the like in that of Ephesus in condemning Ne∣storius. &c.

But you use a petty sleight or two here; first, you say they write to Leo, for his consent in the former Para∣graph, not specifying the manner of their writing, and thereby leaving your Reader an occasion to think, they might write by way of command or exaction, (for there are very different manners of writing one to another) whereas I have declared their writing to Leo, to have been by humble requests and intreaties: and then in this Paragraph, you say Councils ordinarily writ to Bishops in the same manner as this Council did to Leo, not ex∣pressing what Councils you mean. For if you speak of such Councils as were accounted in their respective times, only National or Provincial; 'tis true, they might entreat other Patriarchs and Bishops to give their ap∣probation of them, but that's a stranger to our pre∣sent matter: if of general Councils which is only in question, you should not have supposed but proved it. Such minute underminings as these will gain you no great credit.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 233. In your Margin you tell me that Aga∣pet in the time of Justinian deposed Arithymus in Con∣stantinople against the will of the Emperour and the Empress. Reply. And doth it follow, that because he did it, therefore he did it justly, yea, and as the Gover∣nour of that Church? when Menna Bishop of Constanti∣nople excommunicated Pope Vigilius, was he not even with him? and did that prove that Rome was subject unto Constantinople? Niceph. l. 17. c. 26. when Dios∣corus excommunicated Leo, and an Eastern Synode ex∣communicated Julius (Zozom. l. 3. c. 11.) that proves not that they did it justly, or as his Governours. Hono∣rius the Emperour deposed Boniface. Otho with a Sy∣node deposed Johan. 13. Justinian deposed Sylverius and Vigilius: will you confess it therefore justly done, as to the History I refer you to the full answer of Blondel to Perron. cap. 25. sect. 84, 85. usurpation and deposing one another by rash sentences was then no rare thing. Eusebius of Nicomedia threatned the deposing of Alexan∣der of Constantinople, who sure was not his subject. Socrat. lib. 1. c. 37. (vel 25.) Acacius of Caesarea and his party depose not only Eleusius, Basilius, and many other, but with them also Macedonius Bishop of Con∣stantinople, Socrat. lib. 2. c. 33. (vel 42.) did this prove Acacius the Vice-Christ? what should I instance in Theophilus actions against Chrysostome, or Cyrils against Johan. Antiochen. and many such like.

William Iohnson.

Num. 234. What will not obstinacy do, rather then yeeld? hitherto you have laboured to evade all the In∣stances I brought against you, as insuf∣ficient to prove the Bishops of Rome did any act of true jurisdiction over the other Patriarchs,* 1.22 and Bishops of the East Church. Now seeing this act cannot be pretended, not to shew an exercise of power and jurisdiction over the Patriarch of Constantinople, you confess the fact to be an act of power and superiority, but alleadge it was unjust, that is, above the power of the Roman Bishops: and then to make your plea good, you demand this question of me, and doth it follow, that because he did it, therefore he did it justly? and that done, to prove that consequence null, you instance in many, who excommunicated both Popes and other Bishops unjustly. But see you not a wide disparity? those whom you instance, were condemned by such as were contemporary with them, for having proceeded unjustly in those excommunications, &c. And this you, and all who have learning know to be true. But where can you find any classick Author, or credible Record about those times, which condemned this act of Aga∣pet against Anthymus as unjust; nay, they are so far from having condemned it, that they highly praise him and extol him for it. Thus Iustinian. Novel. 42. saies, it was done by the most holy Bishop of old Rome, Aga∣pet of most holy and glorious memory; and the Coun∣cil gathered presently after by Agapets appointment, say, they follow the injunctions of that most holy Pope

in depriving Anthymus (not Arithymus as you miscal him) of his Bishoprick of Trebisonde, and of all Offices and Dignities Ecclesiastical; hence all your instances appear so many disparities to our present case, yet would I insist upon them, you have no small number of flaws in them. v. g. where have you read that Mennas excom∣municated Vigilius? I wonder to see you cite Nice∣phorus for it, whose authority you your self rejected, p. 151. what actions mean you of Cyril against Iohn of Antioch? were they depositions, deprivations, ex∣communications, &c. such as those of Agapet, were a∣gainst Anthymus? if so, why prove you them not? if not, why make you mention of them? Beside, was not St. Cyril, as I have proved, made Legate in the East by Pope Celestine?

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 235. Still you suppose one Empire to be all the Christian world: we must grant you that in all your instances.

William Iohnson.

Num. 245. Still you are so short sighted, that you cannot reach to the force of an argument grounded in paritate rationis. I suppose no such matter, as that one Empire is the whole Christian world, 'tis your impo∣sition, but I argue thus, the Bishop of Rome exercised, and that justly, spiritual jurisdiction over all the Pro∣vinces and Patriarchates within the Empire, and that before any general Council was assembled, to confer such a power upon him, alwayes alleading, both by him∣self, and other holy Bishops of antient times, that this

power issued primarily from his being successor to St. Peter, to whom Christ gave the keyes of his Church ab∣solutely, as well without as within the Empire, conse∣quently it was in no mans power to restrain it to the sole Empire, ergo he had as much power to excommuni∣cate, depose, or deprive any Bishop without the Empire (when occasions were given to exercise that power) as he had through the whole Empire. Now you only trifle, in telling me so often, that I make the Empire the whole Christian world; I do not that, but draw this conse∣quence, the Bishop of Rome exercised jurisdiction through the whole Empire as my instances demonstrate, and there is no sufficient reason to restrain that power within the precincts of the Empire; ergo à paritaete ra∣tionis, for the same reason, that power extends it self to all Christian Churches out of the Empire. It is there∣fore your part, to shew such a reason for restraining his power within the Verge of the Empire, otherwise you suppose without reason it is limited to the Empire, not I, that it exceeds the Empire.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 236. For what you alleadge from Gregory, I shall give you enough of him anon for your satisfa∣ction, if you will be indifferent. As to your citation what can I say? A years times were little enough to search after your citations, if you should thus write but many more sheets, (if a man had so much time and so little wit as to attend you). You turn me to Gregory, c. 7. ep. 63. but what book, or what indiction you tell me not: but whatever it be, false it must needs be, there be∣ing no one book of his Epistles (according to all the Edi∣tions that I have seen) where c. 7. and ep. 63. do agree

or meet together; but at last I found the words in lib. 7. c. 63. ep. 63.

William Iohnson.

Num. 236. The error is in the Copist, for in a draught of mine I have it twice, lib. 7. ep. 63. as you found it, and you might easily have discovered it to be the error of an Amanuensis, for sure that 7. chap. must have been of some book or other.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 237. To which I say, that either your great Gregory, by subject, meant that the Bishop of Constan∣tinople was of an Inferiour order, as the Patriarch of Alexandria and Antioch were to Constantinople, that yet had no government of them, or else he could say and unsay; but I doubt not but this was all his sense.

William Iohnson.

Num. 237. I see you were sore prest with this autho∣rity, when it puts you upon so desperate glosses. Are you really in earnest? did you ever read that the word (subjectus) subject, related to that which is above, can properly signifie no more then of an inferiour order? the Lord Mayor of York is of an inferiour order, or ranke to the Lord Mayor of London, is he therefore subject to him? I see you would again preach pleasing things to your good wife of Kiddermunster, for when they read in St. Peter 1 Pet. 3.5. that wives should be subject to their husbands, they will have learnt from

this book of yours, that subject signifies only one of an inferiour ranke, not that their husbands should have any government over them. But for all this it signifies here, say you, no more then one of an inferiour order who has no government over the other: and why so? why: you your self doubt not but this was all his sense. nay, if you doubt not of it, I have done; that must needs be enough to make it certain, are you serious when you trifle thus? yet at all adventures, if haply you misse in this congruous construction, you have another turne to save your self, for if St Gregory truly meant, subject, (as all the world meanes it) for being under the power and government of an other, then you say that Gregory sayes, and unsayes? it seems you have some particuler picqu•••• against him, because he converted our Nation from heathenisme to popery; (as you terme the Roman religion:) are not you the first that ever accused the great St. Gregory, to say, and unsay? but as to the word it self subject, subjectus, being derived, from sub, under and jaceo, to ly down, it cannot signifie only not to be so high as is another, or to be of an inferiour ranke, quality, order, or place, but to ly under him, or at his feet, which signifies that the other hath power over him, for subjectus alteri, subject to another, is jactus sub altero cast under another, or under the power or com∣mand of another, and I would gladly know, what one latin word signifies more cleerly that any one is under the government of another, then does the word sub∣jectus subject; a good subject to his sacred Majestie, should mean no more then you say is here meant by sub∣ject, that you are of an inferiour order to his Majesty, and content he shall take place of you, but withal deny he has any power over you, were not he likely to be well serv'd by such subjects? but sure, you might have

discovered, had you read his words attentively that, St. Gregory could not mean a subjection only of inferiority in order, and not in government, for he sayes, in ano∣ther place if there be any fault committed by Bishops,* 1.23 I know no Bishop, which is not subject to the Apostolical Sea, but if the fault require it not, according to the reason of humility wee are all equal. See you not the subjection which he asserts here, is grounded in the de∣licts or faults of Bishops, and is not that, in order to correction, reprehension, and punishment for those faults? and must not that proceed from power of govern∣ment, and authority over them? is not this evident? nor can he speak in the first part of this sentence of a subjection of order only, for he affirms, that supposing there be no fault, the Bishop of Rome is the first Patri∣arch in order through the whole Church, and conse∣quently the rest unequal in ranke and place, that is sub∣ject to him in your sense, he must therefore mean ano∣ther subjection besides that, when he saith they are sub∣ject by reason of their faults; would it not be ridiculous if the Mayor of London shoul write thus, because all other Mayors are inferiour to him in order; if any fault be committed by the Mayors of this Kingdome, I know none of them all, who is not subject to the May∣or of London, but if no fault require it, in humility we are all equal. I hope by this time you will have cause to doubt whether your sense be the sense of St. Gregory here, or no?

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 238. But if it had been otherwise, Constanti∣nople and the Empire was not all the Christian world.

William Iohnson.

Num. 238. This seemes to be the burthen of your song, but I have shewed you just now that its quite out of the tune.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 239. Your next citation is lib. 7. epist. 37. but its falsly cited: there is no such word; and you are in so much haste for an answer, that I will not read over all Gregories epistles.

William Iohnson.

Num. 239. There is an errour in the figures, it should be lib. 7. ep. 64. where you'l finde what I cite. And that very reason which you alleadge, for not reading over St. Gregories epistles, viz. hasting for an answer, pleads the excuse of my friends, in sending my answer away to you, before I could return to town, and read it over, to wit your importunity for a speedy an∣swer.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 240. You say that Cyril would not breake of communion with Nestorius till Celestine had con∣demned him; of this you gixe us no proof.

William Iohnson.

Num. 240. Doe I not? looke in the Margin p. 56.

in your edit. lit. o. you'l finde the proof of it cited there. I see you use not to read the places cited by your adversary, otherwise you could not but have seen the proof of what I say in Cyrils epistle to Celestine.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 241. But what if it be true? did you think to prove the Pope to be the vice-Christ? prudence might well make Cyril cautelous in excommunicating a Patriarch. And we still grant you, that the order of the Empire had given the Roman Bishop the Primacy therein: and therefore no wonder if his consent were ex∣pected.

William Iohnson.

Num. 241. Yes indeed I really thought so (if you understand by vice-Christ, no more then what we ascribe to the Pope) otherwise I would never have prest that instance to prove it. And as really tooke I the writing of two and those (as you would have it) the cheif Patriarchs of the Eastern Church, to the Pope of Rome, the one to have his doctrine censured, that is ei∣ther allowed or condemned by the Pope, the other to have the Popes authority for himself and the rest of the Eastern Bishops, whether Nestorius his doctrine were formal heresie, and they oblig'd to avoid communion with him; this I tooke to be a forcible argument to prove the Pope to be a vice-Christ, if you mean as we doe, no more, then this by it, that he is the supream visible governour of the whole Christian militant Church in the place of Christ: and truly I am in the same minde still, for all you have brought against it. Is it think you

probable, that Nestorius would have written to Ce∣lestine, and required his authority for the approbation of his doctine, had he esteemed him to have no more power over him, then the Mayor of London hath over the Mayor of York? nor was the question propounded by St. Cyril about a positive excommunication of Nesto∣rius (as you misconceiv'd) but onlie a non-communion with him as you presently acknowledge.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 242. But that Nestorius was comdemned by a Council needs no proof: and what if Celestine be∣gan and first condemned him. Is he therefore the univer∣sal Bishop?

William Iohnson.

Num. 242. Yes, he is so, (as universal Bishop may be understood.) For if the condemnation of him in the Ephesine Council in conformity to the Popes precedent censure, argu'd an universal authority in that council o∣ver the whole Church, (as all both Catholicks and Protestants, you only excepted acknowledg) much more the primacy, and original condemnation of his doctrine argu'd an universal authority in Celestine.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 243. But it was not Celestine alone, but a Synod of the Western Bishops.

William Iohnson.

Num. 243. This is answered above, where you put the same reply. No national or patriarchal Council, can upon their sole authority, oblidge the rest of the Patriarchs, as this did.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 244. And yet Cyril did not hereupon reject him without further warning.

William Iohnson.

Num. 244. But that warning was ordered by Ce∣lestine as I have proved p. 56. in your edit.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 245. And what was it that he threatned? but to hold no communion with him.

William Iohnson.

Num. 245. And was that in your account a matter of smal moment? you may please to take notice, that the Bishop of Rome's denial to receive any one into his communion, or the substracting himself from commu∣nicating with them, was in those dayes, an undoubted marke of their being cast out of the Church, and that no Catholick Bishop was to excommunicate, or to per∣mit any under his charge to communicate with them, as is proved at large in Schisme unmaskt, or the conference

with Dr. Gunning. For the rule to know with whom every one was, or was not to communicate, was their C••••mmunion or non-communion with the Roman Bi∣shop.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 246. And though pride made excommuni∣cation 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.

William Iohnson

Num. 246. We have had essayes enough, of what you can do: I see you are much wiser and learneder then was St. Cyril, who presided in the Ephesine Council. He would be first informed from Pope Cele∣stine, whether Nestorius his opinion were Heresie or no, before he avoided him; you, if you had liv'd in his time, would have taken a wiser course, and have had nothing to do with never a Celestine of them all, but upon your own judgement avoided him. And yet you thought just now, that prudence made St. Cyril so cau∣telous, as to proceed as he did, and if it were prudence in him, what was it think you that mov'd you to pro∣ceed otherwise? yet you, even in what you say here, mi∣stake grosly the state of the question: which is not whe∣ther every one was then bound to avoid a notorious He∣retick, for none are notorious Heretiques but such as are sufficiently declared to be so by the Church, and the very same authority which declared them, obliged eve∣ry one to avoid them, but what was here questioned was

this, whether private men upon their particular judge∣ment, when a novelty ariseth, not yet expresly con∣demned by the Church, are to avoid the maintainers of it as Heretiques, before they be declared to be so by publique authority of those who have power to judge them and their doctrine?

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 247. The long story that you next tell, is but to fill up paper, that Cyril received the Popes letters, that Nestorius repented not that he accused Cyril, that Theodosius wrote to Celestine about a Council, and ma∣ny such impertinent words. 2. Non-proofs. 3. Cor∣ruption of my words.

William Iohnson.

Num. 247. Here are more of your non-proofs, all belike is impertinent, which you call so; had I indeed said no more then what you make me say here, I had been impertinent; look upon p. 56. your Edit. and you'l find another story; I say there, that Celestines letters to Cyril were to execute Nestorius his condemna∣tion, and to send his condemnatory letters unto him; this you dissemble, which only makes the Epistle of Ce∣lestine to be a proof of his power over St. Cyril, the first of the three Patriarchs; before I related there the irre∣pentance of Nestorius, I say p. 57. in your Edit. that Celestine had given order in his letters to Cyril, to send Celestines condemnatory letters to Nestorius; this also you dissemble, which is not withstanding a strong proof against you, and you make me say no more, then that Nestorius repented not, never mentioning the occa∣sion

given him to repent. Then you say, I write that Theodosius writ to Celestine about a Council, neither de∣claring as I do, p. 57. that it was the general Council of Ephesus, nor mentioning Pope Celestines answer, both consenting to the assembling that general Coun∣cil, and prescribing the manner how he would have it celebrated, which was my proof of Celestines Soveraign authority, nor say you any thing of Celestines order given to his Legates, that the Council should not again examine the cause of Nestorius, but without any farther examination, put his precedent condemnation of him, in execution: All this, that is all the force of my proofs you handsomly conceal, and foisting in non-proofs of your own making in place of my proofs; and all this done, you say my words are impertinent; in what School of conscience learn't you these duplicities?

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 248. But the proof is, that Cyril was the Popes chief Legate ordinary, forsooth, because in his ab∣sence he was the chief Patriarch, therefore he is said, Celestini locum tenere, which he desired. Corruption.

William Iohnson.

Num. 248. No, that's neither my argument, nor the reason of his being Legate; my argument is this p. 58. your edit. Cyril being constituted by Celestine his chief Legate ordinary in the East,* 1.24 &c. and that be∣fore the Council of E∣phesus was begun, or in∣dicted; now his being

constituted so by Celestine, you again dissemble, making me say only, that he was the Popes chief Legate ordina∣ry (that is, as you would have it) by vertue of his being the first Patriarch of the East, not by Pope Celestines institution; whence appears you have given no answer to my argument, but miserably mangled it, because you could not answer it. For sure Pope Celestine neither made Cyril in that letter Patriarch of Alexandria, for he was so before; nor that Patriarch the chief in the Eastern Church, for he was declared to be so long be∣fore the Council of Nice: but by vertue of a particular order, constituted Cyril his Legate ordinary, as he might have done any other Patriarch, had he pleased.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 249. Well, let your Pope sit highest, being he so troubles all the world for it. Christ will shortly bid him come down lower, when he humbleth them that ex∣alt themselves.

William Iohnson.

Num. 249. This is not replying, but prophesying, and would better become an exclamation in a Country Pulpit, then a reply in Controversie. It had been time∣ly enough to use such Phanaticismes as these, after you had either prov'd unanswerably the Pope exalted himself too high: or answered fully and cleerly, the arguments which prove he hath not.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 250. That Cyril subscribed before Philip,

you may see, Tom. 2. cap. 23. but where I may find that Philip subscribed first, you tell me not.

William Iohnson.

Num. 250. When I cited the sixt action immediate∣ly after those words, you might have gathered that sub∣scription, (as it is) to have been in the fift.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 251. But what if the Arch-bishop of Can∣terbury sate highest, and subscribed first in England? doth it follow that he was Governour of all the world? no, nor of York it self neither.

William Iohnson.

Num. 250. No. It follows not, because such a Coun∣cil would be only National, not General as that of Ephesus was; but it would follow according to the an∣tient Canons, that the Arch-bishop of Canterbury pre∣siding as Primate of the English Church, had power in Government over the Bishop of York in some cases, as all true Primates have over all the Bishops and Metro∣litans within their Primacies.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 252. And here you tell us of Iuvenal, Act. 6. Reply. 1. The Council is not divided into Acts in Binius, but many Tomes and Chapters: but your words are in the Notes added by your Historian; but how to prove them Juvenals words I know not, nor find in him or you.

William Iohnson.

Num. 252, I think you would infuse the spirit of Prophesie into me too, how should I know otherwise, you had the Councils in no other Edition save that of Bi∣nius? I cited the sixt action of the Council, which is an usual citation and full enough, look into that action, and you'l find it, in the Edition of Paulus Quintus.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 253. But why were not the antecedent words of the Bishop of Antioch and his Clergy, as valid to the contrary as Juvenals for this?

William Iohnson.

Num. 253. Because Iuvenal was a known Catho∣lique Bishop,* 1.25 and consented to the council, and Iohn of An∣tioch, with his complices, were fa∣vourers of Nestorius, restorers of the Pelagian Heresie, and open Schismatiques, celebra∣ting a conventicle against the Ephesine council.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 254. If these words were spoken, they only import a judging in Council as a chief member of it, and not of himself. Non-proof 24.

William Iohnson.

Num. 254. Yes sure, it must needs be so, because you say 'tis so, shall we never have an end of your non-proofs? what kinde of Council mean you? a general Council? that was never thought necessary for the Ro∣man Bishops censuring of others; a particular? that could have no juridical authority out of the Western Church, ergo the power of judging out of the Western Patriarchate, was only in the Pope.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 255. And his Apostolica ordinatione is expresly contrary to the fore-cited Canon of the Council of Chalcedon, and therefore not to be believed. Non-proof.

William Iohnson.

Num. 255. Still more non-proofs, why is it expres∣ly contrary? why? you say 'tis so; I deny it to be con∣trary, that's as good as your affirmation. I have expli∣cated that Canon of Chalcedon above, and made it con∣sonant to these words of Iuvenal. But what if it were contrary? I have also shewed the uncanonicalness, and illegality of that Canon. But at least, you cannot deny that I have brought one instance here, that the Popes authority over a Patriarch, was by Apostolical ordina∣tion. Is it not manifest, by this your answer? that you slight the Council of Chalcedon, in granting in one Session, to approve of Iuvenals sayings, and in another to contradict them.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 256. Yet some called things done ordinatione Apostolica, which were ordained by the seats which were held Apostolick. Non-proof 25.

William Iohnson.

Num. 256. Some? which some? why say you some, and name none? nor prove any: still more and more non-proofs.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 257. But still you resolve to forget that An∣tioch or the Empire, extended not to the Antipodes, nor contained all the Catholick Church.

William Iohnson.

Num. 257. Your burthen must still bear up the Song, we have had enough of that already. Shew some solid reason, why the Pope had rather power over the Church and Patriarch of Antioch, then over all other Prelates and Churches, and you say something.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 258. You next tell me of Valentinians words, A.D. 445. Reply. It is the most plausible of all your te∣stimonies, but worth nothing to your end; for 1. Though Theodosius's name pro forma, were at it, yet it was only Valentinians act, and done at Rome, where Leo prevail∣ed

with a raw unexperienced Prince to ¹ word the Epistle as he desired; so that it is rather ² Leo's then the Empe∣rours original: 13. Non-proofs more, noted in fi∣gures in the Text.³ And Leo was the first that attempted the excessive advancement of his seat above the rest of the Patriarchs. 2. It is known that the Emperours sometime gave the Primacy to Rome, and sometime to Constantinople, as they were pleased or displeased by each of them. So did Justinian, who A. D. 530. Lam∣padio & 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 Va∣lentinian (or Leo) that the succession from Peter was the foundation of Romes Primacy. It was then belie∣ved that Antioch and other Churches had a succession from Peter. It is the merit of Peter, and the dignity of the City of Rome, and the authority of the Synode joint∣ly that he ascribeth it to. The ⁴ merit of Peter was no∣thing but the motive upon which Leo would have men believe the Synode gave the Primacy to Rome: And Hosius in the Council of Sardica, indeed useth that as his motive, Let us for the honour of Peter, &c. They had a conceit, that where Peter last preached, and was martired and buried, and his relicks lay, there he should be most honoured. 4. Heres is not the least intitation, that this Primacy was by Gods appointment, or the A∣postles, but the Synodes: nor that it had continued so from Peters dayes, but that jointly for Peters merits (and honour) and the Cities dignity, it was given by the Synode. 5. And it ⁶ was but Leo's fraud to perswade the raw Emperour of the authority of a Synode, which he would not name, because the Synode of Sardica ⁷ was in little or no authority in those dayes. The rest of the

reasons were fraudulent also, which though they pre∣vailed with this ⁸ Emperour, yet they took not in the East. And Leo himself it seems durst not pretend to a divine right and ⁹ institution, nor to a succession of Pri∣macy from the Apostles. 6. But nothing is more false then your assertion, that he extendeth the power over the whole visible Church; The word universitas, is all that you translate in your Comment, the whole visible Church. As if you knew not that there was a Roman universa∣lity, and that Roman Councils were called universal, when no Bishops out of that one Common-wealth were present▪ and that the Church in the Empire ¹0 is oft called the whole Church, yea, the Roman world was not an unusual. And I pray you tell me, what power Va∣lentinian had out of the Empire? who yet interpo∣seth his authority there, Neque praeter autho∣ritatem sedis istius illicitum, &c. & ut pax ubique serve∣tur. And in the end, it is all the Provinces, that is, the university that he extends his precepts to. 7. And for that annexed, that without the Emperours letters, his authority was to be of force through France, (for what shall not be lawful, &c.) I answ. No wonder, for France was part of his Patriarchate, and the Laws of the Em∣pire had confirmed his Patriarchal power, and those Laws might seem with the reverence of Synodes, with∣out new letters to do much: But yet it ¹¹ seems, that the rising power needed this extraordinary secular help: Hilary it seems with his Bishops thought, that even to his Patriarch he owed no such obedience as Leo here by force exacteth. So that your highest witness (Leo by the mouth of Valentinian) is for no more then a Primacy, with a swelled power in the Roman universality: but they never 12 medled with the rest of the Christian world: It seems by all their writings and ¹³ attempts, this ne∣ver came into their thoughts.

William Iohnson.

Num. 258. In this paragraph you have no lesse then a bakers dozen of non proofs, I have noted them by figures in your text, let them be prov'd, and then they shall be answered, till then they deserve no answer. To what has any seeming ground or proof, I answer. First it imports little whether Theodosius had any hand in this Epistle or no, I say nothing of him in my text, p. 59.60.61. Secondly Your proof from Iustini∣an is already answered in my observation made upon p. 174. of your key, only I see you have mended your ci∣tation, and put lib. in place of lege 3. Must it needs follow that it is my fiction? because it is not the words of Valentinian, that the succession from St. Peter is the foundation of Romes primacy. May not a medium be given betwixt those two extremes, what if it were the true sense of Valentinians words? it was then neither his words, nor my fiction, but a true interpretation of his words; and that it is so, is manifest, for there must be some reason sure, why the merit of St. Peter, conferr'd a primacy rather upon the Bishop of Rome, then upon any other Bishop, but none can be imagined, save this, that the Bishops of Rome succeeded St. Peter in the sea of Rome, ergo it must be that succession, or nothing. You seem to say, that because St. Peter last preached, and was martired, and buried, and his relicks lay there he should be most honoured, and by, honoured, you must mean, as Hosius cited by you here, and Valentinian doe, in the power acknowledged in the Bishops of Rome. But this cannot subsist, for St. Paul preached last at Rome also, was martyred, and buried, and his relicks lay there, yet no authors say, the primacy of the Roman

Bishops was founded in St. Pauls merits, now no reason can be given of this, save that which I gave, viz, that the Roman Bishops succeed not to St. Paul, as they doe to St. Peter, because St. Paul was never Bishop of Rome, as St. Peter was. What you say of the succession from St. Peter in Antioch, availes nothing; for he, having deser∣ted the Bishopprick of Antioch in his life time, and transferr'd his seate to Rome, were he dyed Bishop of the Roman see, was to have his proper successour there; for by tranferring his see to Rome, he transferr'd the digni∣ty of Primacy of the Episcopal crown, (as Valentinian sayes there) appropriated to him, and took it from An∣tioch, and by dying Bishop of Rome left it there to his successours; whence appears that the Bishop of Antioch was a successor to St. Peter, as were other Bishops, but no successor to his supereminent dignity and primacy o∣ver the Church, because so long as St. Peter lived, it could not descend upon any other. Fourthly, I deny not, that he ascribes the establishment of Romes prima∣cy to those three, St. Peter, the city and the Synod; yet he makes the first foundation of it, the dignity of St. Peter, and therefore prefixes it before the other two, and that it may appear he makes this the first and funda∣mental reason, and not the Synod, he addes these words, haec cum fuerint hactenus inviolabiter custodita, since these things (i. e. that nothing of great concern should be done without the authority of the Roman see) have been hitherto inviolably observ'd; for if the Synod had conferr'd that dignity to the Bishop of Rome, he could not have said with truth, that those things had been alwayes observ'd, for before the Synod which gave it, which was three hundred years and more after the re-Surrection of our Saviour, they were observed: see∣ing therefore they were alwayes observed, that power

& authority must have been, in the Bishop of Rome long in being before those Synods were celebrated. Now how the dignity of the Roman city concurr'd to this primacy I have above declared, whence appears, the loud untruth which you pronounce, n. 4. Here is not the least inti∣mation that this primacy was but by the appointment of the Synod, nor that it had continued so from St. Peters dayes. Since you use not to read over the texts which are brought against you, I pray you what signifie these words, haec cum fuerint hactenus inviolabiliter obser∣vata, these things have been hitherto inviolably observed, what signifies hitherto, but from St. Peters time to his? Your guess at the Synod of Sardica, as aimed at by Valentinian, though say you it was of little credit in those dayes (which I have numbred amongst your non-proofs,) is a pure mistake; for the Synod he alludes to, is that of Nice, which in the 6 canon, as it is recited in the Council of Chalcedon, sayes thus. Ecclesia Romana sem∣per habuit primatum, the Church of Rome hath allwaies had the primacy, where that holy council gives it not as you surmise, but declares it to have been alwaies due to that see since the Apostles time: whence also appears the falshood of what you say next, that Leo durst not pretend divine right and institution, nor to a succession of Primacy from the Apostle, for this very Synod to which Leo alludes, warrants both. For if it were alwayes due to it, or that it had alwayes possession of it, semper habuit, it must have come not only from the time of the Apostles but from Christ himself, otherwise it had been semper, for in the time of the Apostles, it had not been due to it. When you say next, I translate the word universitas, the whole visible Church, you wrong me, for I translate it universality, see pag. 59. and when I name the whole visible Church, p. 60. I make

no translation of his words, but deliver that which I think to be the sense of them. To what you say, there was a Roman universality. If you mean, that those who were under the sole Roman Empire with exclusion of all extra-imperial Churches communicating with them, were called anciently the universal Church, or the uni∣versality of Christians, you are much deceived, where prove you that? if as united with them, and giving the denomination to the whole, 'tis true and confirms what I say. Now to shew that Valentinian meanes by univer∣salities, not those of the Roman Empire exclusively to all others, he joynes to universalitie, ubique; for then sayes he, the peace of the Church will be kept every where, when the whole universality acknowledges their gover∣nour: but certainly Valentinian was not so ignorant, as not to know, there were then many Churches out of the Roman Empire. For about the year 414. that is a∣bove 20 years before Valentinian enacted this law, Spain was possest by the Goths, and divided from the Roman Empire: and was Valentinian think you igno∣rant of that? so that I am not ashamed to confesse my ignorance, that I really know not any Roman universa∣lity Ecclesiastical in your precisive and exclusive sense, nor know I any Council anciently stiled oecumenical, or universal, where no Bishops out of that one (the Ro∣man) common-wealth, were present, and you have not yet instructed me to help my ignorance in this. I have no obligation at all to tell you, what power Valentinian had out of the Empire, for he might first declare (as he did) the power of the Roman Bishop to govern the whole Church in the beginning of this breif, and in the end, take care, that all those Provinces which were un∣der his Empire should observe that his law, concerning so much as belonged unto him, that the universal power

of the Pope should be observed: As may now the Em∣perour of Germany, or the King of France, or Spain first declare the universal power of the Roman Bishop over all Churches, and then command all their Provin∣ces to obey him, which is all the Emperour does here. For Valentinian sayes not (as you falsifie his words, omnium provinciarum of all the Provinces, but aliarum provinciarum, of other Provinces, nor (ut Pax ubique servetur,) as you corrupt him, but tunc ubique servabitur, then peace will be observ'd every where, if the whole universality acknowledge their governour; and that not in the law but in the declaration made of the Popes authority,* 1.26 as an introduction to it. You answer to Valentinians af∣firming the Popes authority and sentence was of force without any imperial law to back it, is much deficient. For seeing he had before declared that the Popes com∣mands had been alwaies observed, they must have been of force, both before any Patriarchate was assign'd to him by any general Council, (as you imagine it was) and before any Christian Emperours had enacted any lawes concerning it, and the very law it self destroyes your glosse, for Valentinian sayes presently, what shall not be lawful for the authority of so great a Bishop to exercise upon the Churches. Whereby he shews his pow∣er extends it self not only to his own, but to all other Patriarchates; nay your very restraining his words to the Empire and yet extending them to the whole Empire, shew evidently, that the Popes sentence had not been on∣ly of force independently of any imperial law within his own, but also in all other jurisdictions of the Patri∣archs within the imperial verge; and hence the conse∣quence which you draw from this authority, whereas Valentinian sayes it needed not the imperial help, that

it needed this extraordinary secular support, is as con∣trary as to draw darkness from light: and as inconse∣quent is it to argue from Hilaries repugning against the Pope sentence for a time, that the Pope had no such power over him (which notwithstanding you granted just now,) as to argue that a lawful Prince hath no power over rebellious subjects, because they resist it. So that it could never seem to any considering person, o∣therwise then that it came into the thoughts and words too of Valentinian here, that the Popes supremacy ex∣ceeded the limits of the Roman Empire. But it is evi∣dent enough, through the vein that runs through this Paragraph, that you are soundly netled with this law of Valentinian, and yet because you are resolved, what ere comes on't to persist in your errour, you fall foul upon Hosius, Leo, Valentinian, Bishops, Popes, rather then yield to a manifest truth; Hosius you make so shallow, that he took things away weakly and facilly upon the custome of the times, Leo you make proud and fraudu∣lent, and Valentinian a young and raw Prince, subject to be perswaded to any thing. The most part of consider∣ing readers will smile to see Hosius the most honoured Bishop of his time through the whole Church, who presided in two general Councils, and legate of the holy Pope Silvester for the Western Church, Leo graced with the title of most blessed Father,* 1.27 pronounced the head of the Catho∣lick Church, and universal Bishop, stiled the mouth of St. Peter in the Council of Chalcedon, and ever since honoured with the title of a Saint, and Valentinian a most renowned Emperour, both for for∣titude and prudence, for he was twenty seven years of age when he composed this edict, so slighted, reviled, and debased by the Minister of Kiddermunster, and that

upon your surmises and guesses without any proof at all. And others will pitty and compassionate your misery (as I really do), to see you so deeply plunged in adhesion to your own opinion, that you will break all the bonds of Christian modesty and charity, rathen then acknow∣ledge your error, or yield to a manifest truth.

Mr. Baxter.

258. And it's no credit to your cause, that this Hi∣lary was (by Baroniu's confession) a man of extraordi∣ry holiness and knowledge, and is sainted among you, and hath his day in your Kalendar.

William Iohnson.

Num. 258. But does not Baronius, in the very same place, reprehend him at that time when he fell in∣to those defaults, and tell you that after his condemna∣tion, he came again to himself, crav'd most humbly par∣don of the Pope, and shewed manifest signs of repen∣tance, and upon this his humiliation and perseverance in obedience to the See of Rome, became both a famous defender of the Catholick Faith, and a Saint. Was it any disadvantage to the Catholique Church, that Ori∣gen, Tertullian, or even St. Cyprian himself, men of e∣qual understanding and learning with St. Hilary, op∣posed the doctrine of the Church, and raised trou∣bles in it?

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 259. And yet Valentinian had great provo∣cation to interpose (if Leo told him no untruth, for his

own advantage): for it was no lesse then laying siege to Ci∣ties, 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 de∣fended by any honest Christian: Leo himself may be the Principal Instance.

William Iohnson.

Num. 259. He had so indeed, but must he there∣fore give more power to the Bishop of Rome then of right belonged to him. Who either defends, or is not ready to bewail these abuses? But I see where you are, you would cast a blot, if you could, upon Episcopal Go∣vernment, and cry down the power and possessions wherewith God and good men had even in those times inriched them.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 260. You next return to the Council of Chal∣cedon, Act. 1. & seq. where 1. you referre me to that Act. 1. where is no such matter: but you adde, (& seq.) that I may have a hundred and ninety pages in folio to peruse, and then you call for a speedy an∣swer: but the Epistle to Leo is in the end of Act. 16. pag. (Bin.) 139. And there you do but falsly thrust in the word (thou governest us), and so you have made your selfe a witness, because you could find none. The words are, Quibus tu quidem, sicut membris caput, praee∣ras, in his qui tuum tenebant ordinem benevolentiam praeferens: Imperatores vero ad ordinandum decentis∣sime praefidebant. Now (to go before) with you must be

(to govern); if so, then Aurelius at the Council of Car∣thage, and others in Councils that presided, did govern them.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 260. We must have new Grammars and Di∣ctionaries, to understand your translations. Who ever said before you, that praeesse, signifies to go before? I was alwayes taught, and I think you too, or you had a Sir Iohn lack-Latin for your Master, that esse signifies to be, and not to go, and so praeesse is to be before, or a∣bove another, and not to go before them. A servant may go before his Lady to usher her, can it therefore be said, praeest Dominae? a horse goes before the Cart, can you therefore say praeest currui? We read Gen. 1. v. 16. that God made the Sun, ut praeesset di••••i, would you translate, that it might go before the day? and v. 26. he gave power to man, ut praeesset piscibus maris, & volucribus caeli, &c. will you translate, that he might go before the beasts of the Earth, and the birds of the Air? and the 1. Tim. 3.5. si quis quis autem Domui suae praeesse nescit, if any know not how to go before his fa∣mily, &c. But to be more serious. I challenge you to give me any one instance, where praeesse signifies not to govern others as I translate it, either in Scripture or an∣tiquity. Indeed Sir you are a worse Critick then you are a Controvertist: I say not therefore, 'tis you who mistake it; that to go before, must be to govern, but that praeesse aliis, to govern them, which all the world sayes with me. Whence also, that if Aurelius in quality of Primate in Africa, did praeesse conciliis, he also govern∣ed them, as did anciently the Primate of England the Councils in England.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 261. It was but (benevolentiam praetulisse) that they acknowledged: and that the Magistrates not only presided indeed, but did the work of Iudges and Governours, is expresse in the Acts, 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.

William Iohnson.

Num. 261. Will you venture to Criticize again, after your late foyle? know you not that the Greek language is ful of courteous and friendly expressions? it was indeed Leo's good will to send his Legates with their instructi∣ons to them, but was it therefore no act of power and authority? is it not benevolentia Principis, to confer new honours upon his well deserving subjects? seems it not therefore to be an act of Royal power over them? who denies the Magistrates did the work of Judges? but still in their kind, and within their Sphere, to see good or∣der, justice, and peace observed amongst the Bishops. But prove, if you can, they ever as Judges gave their suf∣frages and votes together with the Bishops in definiti∣ons of faith, or framing Ecclesiastical decrees?

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 262. And (haec à tua sanctitate fuerunt in∣thoata, and yet, qui enim locum vestrae sanctitatis obti∣nent, iis ita constitutis vehementer resistere tentaverunt)

from all which it appeareth, that he only is acknowledged to lead the way, and to please them, as his brethren, and to help them by the wisdom of his substitutes, & yet that the Council would not yeild to their vehement resistance of one particular.

William Iohnson.

Num. 262. These consequences I understand as lit∣tle as I do your translations: I beseech you in your next, draw something against my assertion, from them.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 263. But I have told you oft enough that the Council shall be judge, not in a complemental Epistle, but in Can. 28. where your Primacy is acknowledged, but 1. as a gift of the Fathers. 2. And therefore as new. 3. For the Cities dignity. 4. And it can be of no farther extent then the Empire, the givers and this Council be∣ing but the members of that one Common-wealth: so that all is but a novel Imperial Primacy.

William Iohnson.

Num. 263. This is already answered in part, and shall be more fully, when we come to it.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 264. And for the words of Vincentius Lyri∣nensis, c. 9. what are they to your purpose (quantum loci authoritate) signifieth no more then we confess, viz.

that in those times the greatness of Rome, and humane ordination thereupon, had given them that precedency, by which their (loci authoritate) had the advantage of any other Seat: Or else they had never swelled to their impious usurpation.

William Iohnson.

Num. 264. I see here you are as skilful in Chrono∣logie, as you are in Criticismes: know you not that Vincentius speaks of St. Stephen Pope and Martyr, who sate in the year 258. till 260. in whose time, the temporal greatness of Rome served for nothing, but to render its Bishops objects of tyranny, and subjects of torments; nor was there then any humane ordination at all, either from general Councils, or Christian Em∣perours, from whom only you derive it, for it was ma∣ny years before them both, which notwithstanding, this ancient Catholique author sayes, that even then in those purest times, the Roman Bishop surpassed all other Bishops, loci authoritate not in precedency only, but in authority of his place. Now I hope you will tell us in your next, who, if not our Saviour, gave that Soveraign authority to the Bishop of Rome in those dayes. Should one say, the Lord Mayor of London, surpasses all those of the City, in the authority of his place, signifies no more, then that in publique meetings he is to take place of all the other Aldermen, &c. without any governing power over them, would any rational man think he speaks sense?

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 264. I have plainly proved to you in the end

of my (safe Religion) that Vincentius was no Pa∣pist.

William Iohnson.

Num. 265. I am subject to believe your proofs there wil be much like those which I lately examined in your Key. The question is not now of what Religion Vincentius was, but whether in this place, he gave an unanswerable testimony of the Popes Supremacy. I am sure the answer you have given to it, is fallacious, not distinguishing the time wherein Vincentius writ, from the time whereof he writes in that Chapter, and it is no less untrue and inconsistent in it self, your constituting humane ordi∣nation for the Popes authority, when there was none.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 266. But you draw an argument from the word (sanxit), as if you were ignorant that bigger words then that, are applyed to them that have no go∣verning 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 bu∣siness? what Stephen's authority was in those dayes, we need no other witnesses then, Firmilian, Cyprian, and a Council of Carthage, who slighted the Pope as much as I do.

William Iohnson.

Num. 266. You criticize again: Signifies sanxit,

to charge one? I ever yet thought, that sanxit, signi∣fied, he made a decree, or a Law, look into the Dictio∣naries, and you'l find it so. A father charges his child to rise at six a clock in the morning, will you say? sanxit; shew me in any approved ancient author, that (sanxit) is ever applied to any, who have not power to command, or to give Laws to others, in regard of whom they do sancire, establish any thing to be observed. The que∣stion is not now, what Stephen did, or Cyprian belie∣ved, but what Vincentius sayes of Stephen, he sayes, sanxit, he sent or fram'd a Law or decree, that in mat∣ter of baptism of those who had been baptized by here∣tiques, nothing should be innovated: but what was de∣livered by tradition of receiving them into the Church without rebaptizing them, should be observed: this St. Cyrian questioned, and inclin'd too much to the con∣trary. Nor is the question here what Stephens authority was in other particulars, or was not, but whether Lyri∣nensis say that he had power, and actually did sancire, enact and make a Law to oblige all those in Africa in this particular. Why divert you the question by so ma∣ny turnes, I leave your answer to judgement. You still take all occasions to enervate the Popes authority, by al∣leadging the opposition of those who (you know, and all the learned with you,) were in error against it, such were those in that Council of Carthage, Firmilian, and St. Cyprian then, whilst they defended the error of rebapti∣zation. Whence appears the untruth of what you affirm here, that St. Cyprian knew that the ancient custome maintain'd by Pope Stephen, of non-rebaptization, was to be observed, for he with Firmilian, and Council of Carthage, &c. practised and taught the quite contrary.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 267. I pray answer Cyprians testimony and arguments against Popery, cited by me in the Disp. 3. of my (safe religion.)

William Iohnson.

Mum. 267. I see you'l give me work enough, if I had nothing else to do then busie my self with the tasks you set me; what have I to doe now with the third dis∣putation of your safe religion (I believe I shall finde it much of the same temper with your key) or whether St. Cyprians arguments are with or against Popery? Our question is about Vincentius Lyrinensis his authority; answer that in the true sense of the Latin word, Sanxit, and then wee'l talk with you about other questions, when occasion requires it.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 268. You say you will conclude with the say∣ing of your Priest Philip, and Arcadius at Ephesus: and 1. you take it for granted that all consented to what they contradicted not: but your word is all the proof of the consequence. Nothing more common, then Senates and Synods to say nothing to many passages in speeches not consented to. If no word not consented to in any mans speech must pass without contradiction, Senates and Synods would be no wiser societies then Billinsgate affords, nor more harmonious then a fair or vulgar rout: what confusions would contradictions make amongst them.

William Iohnson.

Num. 268. Yet certainly, if any one in your Council held at London an. 1562 should have said as much of St. Peters and the Popes supremacy, as this le∣gate said in the Council of Ephesus, he would have had all the new Bishops about his ears, and a greater noise against him then was ever yet hard at Billingsgate, which would have rung all the Kingdome over. You an∣swer to my difficulty is fallacious, ex ignoratione elenchi, you suppose me to argue thus in an universal proposition, whatsoever is said by any particular person and not con∣tradicted in Councils is consented to by the whole Coun∣cil; and upon this false supposition you frame your Re∣ply. Now I advance no such universal proposition at all in that place, but argue from their silence or non con∣tradiction, to their consent out of the particuler in∣stance of the legates delivering a doctrine (in your prin∣ciples) absolutely destructive of the authority, and juris∣diction, of all the Bishops in the Council, and there∣fore were obliged in conscience to contradict it: their silence therefore, evinces they conceived it was no dis∣advantage to them, but a great advantage both to them and the whole Church, and so argues they consented to it. All therefore that I affirm is this, whatsoever is said tending directly to the destruction of the authorities, and priviledges of those to whom it is said (as those words of the Legates must have done in your opinion) would have been contradicted by them, because they were all oblig'd to stand for the priviledges which Christ had given them, and to oppose every one who delive∣red any doctrine contrary to them. Seeing therefore not so much as any one in the Council speak the least word

against the Legates, its evident they esteemed not them∣selves to be injur'd or concern'd in them, and conse∣quently consented to their doctrine as Catholick, and Orthodox, nor any way abridging any Bishop there of those Episcopal dignities and jurisdictions conferr'd by our Saviours institution upon them.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 269. You turne me to Tom. 2. pag. 327. Act. 1. I began to hope of some expedition here: but you tell me not att all what author you use, and in Bi∣nius which I use, the Tomes are not divided into acts, but chapters, and pag. 327. is long before this Coun∣cil; so that I must believe you, or search paper enough for a weeks reading to disprove you: this once I will be∣lieve you, to save me that labour, and supposing all rightly cited. I reply.

William Iohnson.

Num. 269. 'Twas your want of books, not mine of preciseness in citations (for I cite Tome, Act and page) which created you this labour, I had reason to think you were not ignorant that the edition of Paulus quintus (ut supra) was by actions, not chap. And there you may finde it as I have cited it.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 270. Phillip was not the Council, you bare witnese to your selves; therefore your witnesse is not credible.

William Iohnson.

Num. 270. Philip was not the council, who sayes he was? what then? ergo his authority not contradicted by the Council (as I have now declared) is no good argument, the Council consented to his doctrine: make that good. But suppose it had been Philip, or Arcadi∣us alone even speaking out of the Council, it had con∣cluded against you, you have it seems forgot, what you affirmed p. 2. your edit. viz. But at least, of four hun∣dred years after Christ, I never yet saw valid proof of one Papist in all the world, that is one who was for the Popes universal monarchy or vice-Christship. Now you know the Council of Ephesus was celebrated in the years 430 and 431. That is in a moral consideration of so many years, 400 years after Christ, and who can doubt that this Philip flourisht within the first 400, this testimony therefore proves evidently that there was at least one papist, that is one who was for the Popes univer,+sal monarchy or vice-Christship, in the extent of those ages wherein you profess not to have found so much as one single person in that whole tract of time. For those legates give testimony not only for that precise time of the Council, but also for all precedent ages before it, as I have evidenced by their words.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 271. Yet I have given you instances in my key, which I would transcribe, if I thought you could not as well read print as M. S. of higher expressions then Caput & fundamentum given to Andrew by Isychi∣us, and equal expressions to others as well as Rome and Peter.

William Iohnson.

Num. 271. You might have pleased to have told me where, thinke you I'me bound to were your key at my girdle, as if I had nothing to doe but busie my self in reading it over to finde your wild citations?

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 272. And who is ignorant that knoweth a∣ny thing of Church history, that others were called suc∣cessors of Peter as, well as the Bishop of Rome.

William Iohnson.

Num. 272. What successors mean you? such as were received by Christians to succeed in the place of St. Peter as he was, fidei columna, and ecclesiae Catholi∣cae fundamentum, the pillar of Faith, and foundation of the Catholick Church, as the legate speakes here of him? truly Sr. I confesse I am so ignorant, that I know no such matter as you talke of.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 273. And that the the Claves regni were given him, is no proof that they were not given also to all the rest of the Apostles.

William Iohnson.

Num. 273. The question is not at present, whether it prove absolutely they were not given to others, be∣cause

they were given to St. Peter: but, whether the le∣gate in this sentence must not mean, this to have been a priviledge peculiar to St. Peter, as much as all the for∣mer were understood by him to be peculiar to St. Peter. Now, he could not without manifest absurdity be understood in any other sense, for seeing he intended to demonstrate to the Council the preheminence of St. Peter and his successors above all others, he had fallen into a grosse inconsequence, had he enumerated those excelencies to shew St. Peter to be greater then were the other Apostles and his successor higher in authority then the successors of any of the Apostles, should he have specified such particulars as were common with him and the rest of the Apostles, seeing those are so far from proving him to be above them, that they prove the quite contrary, for equal priviledges common to all, prove all were equal in those priviledges.

Mr. Baxter

Num. 274. And where you say Arcadius condemneth Nestorius for contemning the command of the Aposto∣lick sea. You tell me not where to finde it. I answer you still, that its long since your sea begun to swell and rage, but if you must have us grant you all these conse∣quences, Celestine commanded, therefore he justly com∣manded; therefore another might not as well have com∣manded him, as one Pastor may do another, though equal in the name of Christ, And therefore he had power to command without the Empire over all the Ca∣tholick Church; and therefore the Council was of this minde: yea therefore the universal Church was of this minde, that the Pope was its universal head. You still

are guilty of sporting about serious things, and moving pitty, instead of offering the least proof.

William Iohnson.

Num. 274. By what I have now writ in answer I think you will not have found me in jest, in the proof of these consequences taken with due circumstances. Celestine, sayes the legate, commanded, and Nestorius was condemned by him, for not obeying Celestines com∣mand, and no man was either in the council or in the whole Church, who had then the repute of an orthodox Christian, either reprehended Celestine for commanding, or justifyed Nestorius for not obeying and if any did so, produce them in your next by good authority, ergo it was a just command. 2. It being a just command, and must proceed from one who had true authority to com∣mand, and against one whome you say by right of the first Council of Constantinople, was the first Patriarch then in the Church, had he true authority over him, he must have had true authority over all those who were inferiour to him, ergo there was no man to be found in the church who had power to command Celestine, there; the second consequence. The third I prove thus, he had power to command justly (as is proved) the highest Patriarch in the Empire, and that Patriarch, and the o∣thers also, had power to command the Empire, (as I have proved above) ergo Celestine had consequently power to command all those, whom they commanded. The fourth consequence, I prove the legate said this in full and publick council, and were all highly concern'd in it, (as is also prov'd,) and yet did not in the least contradict it, ergo the council was of this mind, that it was no abridgement to their priviledges, but an e∣stablishment

of their authority, a prime preservative of the Churches unity and a fundamental institution of Christ, in the perfect orders of Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, as the legates had delivered it to the council. You sup∣pose here without any proof at all, that one pastour though equal may command another in the name of Christ. Who ever taught this doctrine before you? e∣verts it not inevitably the order of Church government, commanded by St. Paul? for what is order but a due observance and subjection of inferiours to their re∣spective superiours, which is wholly subverted when an equal takes authority upon him to command his equal, whatsoever pretence of the name of Christ he assume to glosse it; for unless that conferre a real authority upon him who commands over him who is commanded, he re∣maines his equal still, that notwithstanding, and then he commands without any true authority, which destroyes order: or if it communicate a reall authority over the person commanded, it makes him superiour who com∣mands and not equal to the other, which destroyes your supposition, of one equal commanding an other. This made good, the last consequence followes inevitably; for seeing his Council has ever ••••een reverenced, and re∣ceived as a true general Council, and what such Coun∣cils consent to is the consent of the Catholick Church? for all bodies diffusive are to confirm themselves to their true representatives: it follows, and that very seriously without all jesting, that these consequences are so fast lockt up together, that all the tu••••n••••s of your key will not be able to unlock them.

CHAP. VIII.

NUm 275. Why perpetual adherence to the Roman Church, was promised by a Bishop who was reconciled from Schism to the Church. Extra-imperial▪ Bishops, obeyed the Bishops of Rome; Num. 276. Mr. Baxter forgets what his adversary undertook to prove, and thereupon ac∣cuses him of not proving, what he was not obliged to prove. Num. 277. Why the Roman supremacy in spirituals is necessary to the being of Christs visible Church. Num 278. He proceeds fallaciously a sensu conjuncto, ad sensu divisum. The diffe∣rence between temporal Kings, and Popes go∣vernment, not understood by Mr. Baxter. Num. 279. He proceeds a jure, ad factum. from what should be done, to what is done; Num. 280. He mis∣takes his adversaries meaning in governing others as Brethren Num. 281. W••••e her the Pope be ab∣solutely the Monarch of the visible Church.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 275. Yet fear you not to say, that in the time of the holy oecumenical Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon the universal consent of the whole Catho∣lick Church was for you in this point] The Lord keep our consciences from being the servants of our opinions

or interests. 1. Was the Popes legate the whole Church 2. Was there one man at either of these Councils but within the Empire, yea a piece of the Empire? So that they were but such as we now call national Councils, that is, consisting only of the subjects of one republick. 3. Did the Council speak a word for your power with∣out the Empire? 4. Do they not determine it so ex∣presly to be of humane right, that Bellarmine hath no∣thing regardable to say against it. (Can. 28. Con. Chal.) but that they spoke falsly? And yet your opi∣nion or interest hath tempted you to appeal. viz. to the Sun that there is no such thing as light.

William Iohnson.

Num. 275. Heres, nothing but a good face put up∣on a bad cause, and a repetition of what is answered, imboldned with a new confidence, your first qu. about the Popes legate is answered. To your second, I answer, yes, there were no small number of extra-imperials: but had there been none, if all were summoned, it ceased not to be a general Council. To the third, yes, every decree it made was spoken to the whole Church, and (as it ap∣peares by the letters of Leo the Emperour, writ pre∣sently after the Council of Chalcedon to all Churches, even the most distant in those parts) it was universally received in their respective answers by every one of them To your fourth about can. 28. Con. Chal. I have an∣swered already, and shall say more when it is more fully treated.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 276. After the conclusion you have a su∣pernumerary

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 its the 31 Epistle, its like, that your leader meant. And there is no more but that a Bishop not named (person or place) having fallen into Schism voluntarily, swore never more to depart from the unity of the Catholick Church, or the Sea of Rome. But. 1. So may a Bishop of the Roman Province do (or Patriarchate) without beleiving Rome to be the universal head.

William Iohnson.

Num. 276. Could they? and yet make the com∣munion with the Bishop of Rome to be the certification and evidence, they reconciled themselves to the Catho∣lick Church? If any Schismatick in France should re∣concile himself to the Catholick Church, could he pro∣mise to remain allwayes in the communion of the Bishop of Rhemes? suppose that Bishop should so be ex∣communicated or turne Schismatick, as he might, could he promise never to forsake his communion? seeing therefore an absolute promise was made to remain al∣wayes in the communion of the Bishop of Rome, it was presupposed that Bishop once lawfully chosen and installed could never be excommunicated, or become a Schismatick, so long as he remained Bishop of Rome; otherwise the promise had been illegal and impious, ob∣liging them to communicate with Schismaticks. Now there can be no other sufficient reason given, why the Bishop of Rome can never be excommunicated, or be∣come a Schismatick so long as he is Bishop of that Sea, then that he is the visible head of the whole Church, from whose communion whosoever seperates becomes a

Schismatick: as he who seperates from the loyal obedi∣ence of the visible head of a Kingdome, becomes a Rebel but because he has no power above him against whom he can rebel, but as a King can never be a Rebell, so not the highest visible governour of the Church can be excommu∣nicated or commit Schisme by contempt of the lawful authority of the Church, because he who is the highest of all has no authority in the Church over him, for then he were not the highest.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 277. So might any one in any other Pro∣vince have done: And yet it followes not that he ought to do so, because he did so. You see now what all your proofs are come too, and how shamefully naked you have left your cause.

William Iohnson.

Num. 277. I have so illustrated, and strengthened my instances, (to open them to your understanding) that every one of them, by an argument a paritate rati∣onis onis (ut supra) evinces the Popes power to have been universal over all Christendome, seeing those Patriarchs and Prelates that were within the verge of the Empire obeyed him, upon no other score, save this, that they still conceived him to be, by vertue of the privi∣ledges and powers given by our Saviour to St. Peter and his lawful successors, the cheif Governour of them∣selves and of all other Prelates whatsoever, and of the whole Church; and I challenge you to produce one sole instance of Authority from antiquity which sayes in expresse termes, that those of the Empire obeyed them because they were members of the Empire, or that his

authority reached not without the Empire. Nay even in time of the Council of Ephesus and Chalcedon, Spain though seperate from the Empire, obeyed the Roman Bishop: for it was possest by the Gothes an. 414. who have ever since kept it, and the Council of Ephesus began 430. And not long after, an. 475. France was possest by barbarous Kings, and never since returned to the Empire, yet still remained under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. When England was after con∣verted, betwixt six and seven hundred years, it was no part of the same Empire, yet yeilded it obedience to the Bishop of Rome: the like is of many other Western and Northern Countries out of the Empire converted, about, or after these times. See more of this in my reasons against your grand noveltie in restraint of general coun∣cils, what you mention here of a parity from Canter∣bury, hath no parity at all. For the English Church rendred obeisance to the Bishop of Canterbury as to the Primate of the English Church only, whereas those in the Empire obeyed the Bishop of Rome, not as cheif Bishop only of the Roman ••••mpire, but as having au∣thority over the whole Church in vertue of succession from St. Peter, who received it from Christ, which I will demonstrate hereafter.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 278. You have not named one man that was a Papist (Pope L••••o was the nearest of any man) nor one testimony that ever a Pope of Rome had the government of all the Church without the verge of the Roman Empire; but only that he was to the Roman Church as the arch-bishop of Canterbury to the English Church: and as between Canterbury and York, so be∣tween

Rome and Constantinople, there have been con∣tentions for preheminency: but if you can prove Can∣terbury to be before York, or Rome before Constanti∣nople that will prove neither of them to be Ruler of the antipodes, or of all the Christian world.

William Iohnson.

Num. 278. But if you can prove Canterbury to be not only in place and precedency, but in authority and jurisdiction above York, and withall above all the Me∣tropolitans, Primates and Patriarchs which were an∣ciently within the Roman Empire, because they acknow∣ledged his authority to be above all the Prelates of God, to have Christs vineyard committed to his care from Christ, to be the Father to all the Bishops met in gene∣ral Councils, and they his professed children; acknow∣ledged by them to be their head, and they as parts sub∣ject to him &c. And never to have been acknowledged as supream in spirituals by these in the Empire, because his authority reached (as I have prov'd the Bishops of Rome to have been acknowledged by them) no farther then the Empire. When I say you shall have prov'd the Bishop of Canterbury to have been over all the Metro∣politans Primates, and Patriarchs within the Empire, in this manner, as I have proved the Bishop of Rome to be, you will have proved Canterbury to have had all the preheminences given him by antiquity to be the Supream spiritual governour of the whole Church. But seeing neither you, nor any one in his right wits, would ever undertake so great a peice of nonsence, I should have wondered you dazle the eyes of your readers with such empty shewes as these, had it not been so ordinary with you. This very argument hath proved, that not only one

man, but (as you cannot deny) all the Churches in the Empire acknowledge it, and yet you say I have not proved one man to hold it, whether this be to be termed confidence, or impudence I leave to judgement.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 279. Much less have you proved that ever any Church was of this opinion, that the Pope was by divine Right the Governour of the world, when you can∣not prove one man of that opinion. 3. much less have you proved a succession of such a Church from the Apostles, having said as much as nothing to the first 300 yeares.

William Iohnson.

Num. 279. You forget (and have proceeded in that act of oblivion through your whole reply) that I undertook in these instances, noe more then to prove a∣gainst your bold assertion, that within the first 600. 500. and 400 yeares, there were some at least, who testified the Supremacy of the Roman Bishop over the whole Church by Christs institution: though therefore my proofs had not been taken out of those who flourished, within the first 300 years, seeing they were within the first 400, they had been of force against you. But you may remember also that I cited St. Cyprian, who was within the first 300, and Vincentius Lyri∣nensis who witnesses the same of Pope Stephen contem∣porary with St. Cyprian, and very many of my cheif instances prove, V. G. in the councils of Nice, Ephe∣sus, and Chalcedon, that it descended from our Saviour, and had been in all ages since the Apostles, and was to be in all future ages.

Mr. Baxter.

Num 380. And much less have you proved that the whole Catholique Church was of this opinion.

William Iohnson.

Num. 380. Whether I have or no, let others judge.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 381. And yet least of all have you proved, that the whole Church took this Primacy of Rome to be of necessity to the very being of the Church, & to our salvation, and not only ad melius esse, as a point of or∣der.

William Iohnson.

Num. 381. I have proved it to have been a matter ever necessary in the Church by Christs institution, and therefore necessary ad esse, to the being, and not only ad bene esse, to the perfection of the Church. For see∣ing some Governours are essential to the Church, as appears Ephes. 4. v. 11, 12, 13. in the order and Hie∣rarchy of those Governours, there must be some who are to be over all the rest in visible government, other∣wise neither could schism be avoided, and unity preser∣ved, (as Optatus cited hereafter affirms, l. 2. contra Parmen.) nor would a visible body have a visible head, which would be monstrous.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 382. So that you have left your cause in shameful nakedness, as if you had confessed that you can prove nothing.

William Iohnson.

N. 382. If you mean to such eyes as yours, which I have demonstrated either discovered not or mis-saw the face of my arguments, I grant it; but all open and right sighted eyes, I hope will have seen my cause so invested with grace and truth by what I have here replyed, that it will have no shame to appear before heaven and earth, before men and angels for its justification.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 383. In the end you return to terms. To what you say about the word (Christians) I only say that its but equivocally applied to any that profess not all the essentials of Christianity, of which Popery is none, any more then pride is.

William Iohnson.

Num. 383. I leave it to judgement, whether this answer, related to my explication as of Christianity (pag. 64. your edit.) have any sense in it. For what though Popery, as you conceit, were no more essential to Christianity then pride is, yet if a Papist hold all the essentials of Christianity, as you hold he does, he may be univocally a Christian. Will you say, that be∣cause

pride is none of the essentials of Christianity, therefore no proud man holds all the essentialls of Chri∣stianity? to what purpose then have you added this clause of Pride and Popery? when I speak in general and abstractive terms, not medling at all with particu∣lars. Now you give no satisfaction to your Reader a∣bout the clear notion of an univocal Christian; you tell him here, that an univocal Christian is he who be∣lieves all the essentials of Christianity, but through this whole answer you never give him either a distinct cata∣logue of essentials, or prescribe any direct rule, or means to know which they are, as we shall see hereafter.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 384. About the word (Monarch) in good sadness, do you deny the Pope to be (an imperious sole Commander?) Which of these is it you do deny? not that he is a (Commander) not that he is (imperious) not that he is (sole) in his Soveraignty. I would either you or we knew what you hold or deny. But perhaps the next words shew the difference (as temporal Kings.) But this saith not a word wherein they differ from (temporal Kings.)

William Iohnson.

384. You are really a strange man to deal withal. Can any one speak more clearly then I have done? I say we hold no such Monarch in the Church, as is an imperi∣ous sole Commander, as temporal Kings are, &c. And when I have said all this in sensu conjuncto, and knit my words and sense together as close as I can, you go and pull all in pieces, and ask me if I understand them

in sensu diviso? Is not this very handsome think you? Should I say that Iane Shore was no honest Christian woman, would you have askt me, which of these is it that I deny, not that she was a woman, not that she was a Christian, not that she was honest in her conversa∣tion; would it not have been ridiculous in a high de∣gree? and if upon this you should adde, after I had said, she was no honest Christian woman (conform to what you do here) I would either you or I could know what you hold about Iane Shore. Would not every one laugh at you? But in sober sadness, did you not understand what I denyed, as plainly as what I deny of Iane Shore. Hold we him to be an Imperious sole Commander, as temporal Kings are, whom we unanimously affirm to have no power to deprive Church Officers at his plea∣sure, as Kings have power to put out what Officer soe∣ver they please through their whole Kingdom; who is not alone to govern the Church either immediately or mediately as Kings govern their Kingdoms (according to Christs institution.) But every Bishop being Christs Officer, and not the Popes as truly as the Pope is within the precincts of his Diocess, are as true Governours of the different respective parts of the Church, as the Pope is of the whole. Now I hope at last you understand me, how Popes differ from temporal Kings.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 385. Sure your following words shew not the difference. First Kings may receive power from Christ. 2. Kings must rule in meekness, charity and humi∣lity.

William Iohnson.

When we say, he receives power from Christ, you cannot be ignorant, that we understand it of Christ as author of Christian Religion, and not as author of na∣ture and morality, nor can you but know, that tempo∣ral Kings, as such, abstract from Christian Religion, and are truly Kings, whether they be Christians or no; they cannot therefore be said in any formal proper sense to receive power from Christ, as he is head of his Church, but from God, as author of nature and mora∣lity.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 386. But I think the meekness, charity and humility of Popes hath been far below even wicked Kings (if cruel murthering Christians for Religion, and setting the world on fire, may be witness) as your own. Histories assure us.

William Iohnson.

You tear my discourse all in pieces. I join that of go∣verning in charity, &c. to this as Brethren and Chil∣dren, and you fallaciously divide it; it is not contrary to the humility of a King, to account all in his King∣dom to be his vassals, Substitutes, Officers, but it would be contrary to the humility of a Pope. A King will not be thought cruel and defective in meekness, if he judge a person, and condemn a malefactor to death, but a Pope would. The rest is a pure 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I spake of the Office of Popes, and you of the persons, I of what we

hold they ought to do, and you of what they do, or may hap to do. If any personal cruelty have been exercised by Popes, let them answer it, not I, who have not in the least medled with it here. But I see such fallacies as these in passing à jure, ad factum, and the like are spread thick over your whole answer, yet even in this objected cruelty, we must take your honest word, for here's no other proof, then that you affirm at a venture, our Hi∣storians assure us it is so. You'l tell us I hope, in your next, who those Historians are.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 387. The Government of Kings also is for (mens eternal good,) how ever Papists would make them but their executioners in such things.

William Iohnson.

Num. 387. Of what Kings? know you not we dis∣pute now in sensu formali, that is, of temporal Kings (for that was my term, and would you have temporal Kings, that is, temporal Governours, as such tend to a spiritual and eternal good, for if as such they tend to a spiritual end, then all temporal Princes, even Turks and Heathens must do so.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 388. Brethren as such, are no subjects, and therefore if the Pope rule men but as brethren, he rules them not by governing authority at all.

William Iohnson.

Num. 388. What mean you by brethren as such, are no subjects abstractively? to what purpose? is it also true to say, men and women as such are no subjects, that is, they are not subjects precisely, quatenus under the formal notion of men and women, for then all men and women should be subjects exclusively? that is, their being brethren, repugnes to their being subjects. Take heed, that doctrine will be dangerous at Court: what? were not his Majesties brethren his subjects? or because his Majesty ruled them but as brethren, he ruled them not by any governing authority, as you say here of the Pope: the like is if any elder brother should be School∣master, or General, or Magistrate over his younger bro∣ther, did he not rule him by governing authority? And have you not an express prophesie of two brethren, major serviet minori, the greater shall serve the lesser? Nay, calls not Christ himself his Apostles brethren, will you therefore say he rul'd them not by governing authority? But you (I suppose very innocently) fall into a grosse folly here, when I say he governs them as brethren, you would have my meaning to be, as they are brethren, by a reduplication upon the object, whereas by the term, as brethren, I mean he governs them as brethren use, or ought to be govern'd, reduplicating upon the act of go∣verning, not upon the object that is to be govern'd; that is, the chief Governour of Christs Church, is ac∣cording to the will and institution of Christ, to govern all Christians as a brother, who is a Superiour and Go∣vernour of his brethren, and ought to govern them, to wit, in meekness, charity, and humility: and therefore I make all my reduplications and reflections upon the

act, when I say, if only for one who hath received power from Christ in meekness, charity, and humility to go∣vern all the rest, for their eternal good, as brethren, or children, I grant it.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 398. Children to him we are not: you must mean it but metaphorically, and what mean you then? Is it that he must do it in love for their good? so also must Kings: so that you have yet exprest no difference at all.

William Iohnson.

Num. 389. To what purpose trifle you thus? do I say, Christians are the Popes natural children? Say I not, as children, and know you not, that nullum simile est idem? who can think they are otherwise then me∣taphorical children, and he a metaphorical Father? but will you scruple at the Pater noster, because we call God our Father, and consequently our selves his children, because we are not the proper and natural, but his me∣taphorical children? when you next talk of governing them in love for their good, and affirm that Kings must do the like, why leave you out the word eternal, which is my epithite, and wherein the force of my words con∣sists? and then tell me I have exprest no difference at all? is this fair? will not every one who hath but half an eye discover such petty slights as these.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 390. But our question is not new, nor in u∣niversal terms: what Soveraignty you claim, you know or should know. Are you ignorant that Bellarmine, Bo∣verius, and ordinarily your Writers labour to prove that the Government of the Church is Monarchical, and that the Pope is the Monarch? the supream head and Ruler, which in English is Soveraign? Are you ashamed of the very cause or Title of it, which you will have ne∣cessary to our salvation.

William Iohnson.

390. 'Tis one thing, to say the Government is Monar∣chical, and another to affirm the Pope to be the Mo∣narch (as you do, and Bell. cited by you, does not) of the whole Church, without ever explicating what kind of Monarch you mean. A government may be termed Monarchical which hath a great part of Monarchy in it, though it be not strict and perfect Monarchy, as a man may be called Angelical, though he be no Angel; thus our Authors (and particularly Bellarmine) put the Church-go∣vernment to have something of the mixt in it,* 1.28 though he esteems it to incline more to Monarchy then to Aristocracy. Whence appears that your inference drawn from a go∣vernment thus imperfectly Monarchical, to intitle the chief Governour in it, the Monarch of it, without all re∣striction as you do, is of no force. And of as little force is your other inference grounded in your former mistake

that I am ashamed of any title which I hold necessary to salvation; first prove we call the Pope Monarch, and then say I am ashamed of it.

CHAP. IX.

Num. 391. Whether the title of the Vice-Christ be accounted either due, or given by sufficient authority, amongst Roman Catholiques to the Pope, or accepted by them. Num. 392. Mr. Baxter confounds Vice-Christi, in place of Christ, and Vice-Christus the Vice-Christ. Num. 393. How far the Pope is understood to be in the place of Christ. Num. 394. He miscites his Adversa∣ries words. Num. 395. How the Vice-Christ and the Vicar of Christ differ. Num. 396. Why a De∣puty for a King may be called the Vice-King, but a Deputy of Christ cannot be called the Vice-Christ. Num. 397. Mr. Baxter makes Vice God, to be a a higher title then Vice-Christ. Num. 398. Mr. Baxter, in place of alleadging a sufficient that is a publique authority, cites Oratours, Poets, Enco∣miasticks, &c. and yet mistake most of those.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 391. Next you say, that you (very much dislike the title of Vice-Christ) as proved and insolent, and ut∣terly disclaim from it, neither was it ever given by any sufficient authority to your Popes, or did they ever ac∣cept

of it. Reply. Now blessed be God that makes sin a shame to it self, that the Patrons of it dare scarce own it without some paint or vizard.

William Iohnson.

Num. 391. Had you first confuted this answer, and then broke out into this exclamation, it had been much more seasonable, but as it stands, it relishes more of pas∣sion then of reason; and will appear so, to any who shall consider the weakness of your proofs against it, whereof most consist in a pure digression, by a fallacy usual to you, proceeding à notione secunda, ad primam, from the second notion to the first, or from the title to the thing it self, as we shall now see.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 392. Is not the very life of the cause between you and us, whether the Pope be the universal head of the Church, Vice-Christi, & Vicarius Christi? Are not these the most common titles that Papists give them, and that they take unto themselves?

William Iohnson.

Num. 392. Here you begin your fallacie, Vicarius Christi, is indeed a title, but Vice-Christi is none, the one signifies the Vicar of Christ, but the other signifies, in the place or stead of Christ; which having no sub∣stantive or demonstrative annext to it, cannot possibly be a title, for of it self it signifies no determinate sub∣stance. Now if you will joyn to it a substantive, and say, Papa est Vice-Christi, the Pope is in place of Christ,

you may make some kind of title to it, but you can never make it that about which we controvert, for that is Vice-Christus, the Vice-Christ; so that all those who are Vice-Christi in the genitive case, that is, the place of Christ, are not Vice-Christi in the nominative, that is, Vice-Christi, which title onlie is in question betwixt us; (you were (as some of your Parishioners esteemed you) to govern those of Kidderminster, Vice-Christi, in the place of Christ, were you therefore the Vice-Christ of Kiddermunster? Nor is the title of universal head of the Church set down in your illimited terms here, either a title acknowledged by us as due to the Pope, or given to him by us. For that Christ being the sole universal head of the Church, which comprehends the Church militant and triumphant, the term universal head signi∣fies that which is due to Christ onlie; we therefore ac∣knowledge there is none but Christ himself according to your expression universal head of the Church, nor is there any universal Vice-head, nor Vice-Christ corre∣sponding to that universal head, to be found in the whole Church. Nay, even speaking of the sole militant Church, we never say, without some restriction, the Pope is universal head of the Church, for universal head, comprises as well the internal and invisible, as the visible Governour of the militant Church; now we all deny that the Pope is head in the invisible government of the visible Church, for that manner of government Christ only is the universal head; nor say we, that there is any Vice-christ or Vice-head constituted in the place of Christ, in this invisible direction of the Church. We therefore restrain the term universal head, by this re∣strictive visible, nor intend we to say any more then this, that the Bishop of Rome is the visible head of the universal visible Church, so far as it is capable of a vi∣sible

government, together with other Bishops, who are as truely Christs officers and vice-gerents in their res∣pective governments though subject to the Pope, as he is in his government. And in this sense only can he be termed a vice-Christ, or vice-God, that is holding the place of Christ in the visible government of his Mili∣tant Church. But he cannot be stiled the vice-Christ which is the sole title about which we now contend, for that imports an absolute Vice-gerency under Christ in all things. Now in the othet sense above explicated eve∣ry lawful Bishop also or Pastor, may be termed a Vice-Christ and every King a Vice-God in reference to those whom they govern as truly as the Pope can be: yet nei∣ther we nor you attribute usually any such title to any of them because they seem neither to suite with Christian humility, nor with the incomparable supereminency of Christ. Now to shew that even when they are attribu∣ted by some Encomiasticks to our Popes, it is done with restrictions as v. g. in terris, upon earth, visibilis, visi∣ble &c. And every one who knowes any thing knows this is all we mean.

Mr. Baxter.

Num 393. Nay look back into your own papers here pag. 6. Whether you say not that they are institu∣ted governours in Christs place of his whole visible Church.

William Iohnson.

Num. 393. You are a man of a strange confidence, I have lookt back upon pag. 6. in your edition and finde evidently I say not so much as one word of what

you cite here, and had you lookt back with an even eye, you would have seen no such words nor any thing like them in that place, let all the world see and judge; and in those pag where I advance a proposition about the Popes supremacy p. 23. I have not those words, in Christs place, in which only you ground your argu∣ment: let the world again see and judge, my propositi∣on there is this, that the Pope is cheif governour on earth in matters belonging to the soule next under Christ where I limit the extent of his government, by saying on earth, and the power in governing, by not saying in all matters belonging to the soul, but in matters belonging to the soul, that is no other save those, though not in all those, to wit not in the inter∣nal illuminations, graces, and influences, inspired by the holy ghost into the harts of Christians, whereby it is evident, I speak such things, as are visible, and ex∣ternal, for that restriction was added, to distinguish his power in government, from that of temporal Princes, who can govern only the external. If you deal so un∣fairely in your citations, even where every one with the turne of a leaf can discover you: what credit can your readers afford to those which they cannot examine? Corruption.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 394. 2. Doth not Bellarmine (as I have cited else where) labour to prove, that it is not as an Apostle that the Pope succeeds Peter but as a head of the Church in Christs stead? doth not Boverius cited in my key labour to prove him the Vicar of Christ, and to be Vice-Christi?

William Iohnson.

Num. 394. Both Bellarmine and Boverius, make him head no farther in Christs place, then in order to the visible government over the Militant Church; nor make they him the vice-Christus, the vice-Christ, but to be vice-Christi in place of Christ, or Vicarius Chri∣sti; which I have shewed to be mainly different from the title of vice-Christus, the vice-Christ, for that put absolutely, seems to impart that he is in the place of Christ in the intire government, of the militant Church, both visible and invisible, and that the Pope as the vice-Christ, can infuse illuminations, and spiritual graces in∣to soules, and knew them and regulated them perfectly as Christ did whilst he was upon earth; and in the visible government of the Church, that he hath a power to displace any Bishop, or Prelate at his pleasure through the whole Church, as if they were his own officers, and not the officers of Christ. And here appeares the dis∣parity, in that which you being for a parity, of those who rule in the place of a King, to be stiled vice-regis vice-kings, for by reason that Kings have no other go∣verning power save what is visible, all the acts of that power may be communicated, by way of vicegerency to him who is vicegerent of the King, who therefore may be absolutely stiled the vice-King, because all those acts are committed to him by the King; but in our case the cheif and primacy only of government, being the internal influxes into the soul, are not committed to the Pope; so that he cannot be absolutely termed vice-Christus, the vice-Christ, but still with a restraint and limitation, or secundum quid; And by th••••s appeares also your fallacy, that first you proceed a parte, ad totum,

from one part of government, to the whole; and then a secundum quid, ad simpliciter, to one who in some consideration only is in the place of Christ, to wit the Pope, or vicar of Christ, to an other who is in all re∣spects, and absolutely in place of a King, that is a vice-roy or vice-King. I never therefore contended with you that the Pope may not be stiled Vice-Christ, with re∣striction or limitation, but that the title of the vice-Christ absolutely put is not as you put it, due to him.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 395. And what fitter English have we for the Kings deputy in a distant Kingdome, who is vice-Regis, then the vice-King? or a Chancellors deputy, then (the vice Chancelor?) vice-Christi is your own common word, and vicarius Christi, none more common scarce then the latter: and what English is there fitter for this, then the vice-Christ, or vicar of Christ.

William Iohnson.

Num. 395. Your joining together the vice-Christ and vicar of Christ as Sinonomas is frivilous, for they have a quite different signification, when vice-Christ, is put absolutely. and your making vice-Christi in place of Christ, to be the same with vice-Christus, vice-Christ, is absonus: the rest is answered. The English therefore, to signifie, how the Pope is in place of Christ is the vicar of Christ, not the vice-Christ.

Mr. Baxter.

Nume 396. It is evident indeed the very terme that expresseth properly as men can speak, the true point

and life of the controversie between us. And how could you suffer your pen to set down that the Popes did never accept of this, when it is their own common phrase: (vice-Christi, & vicarius Christi?)

William Iohnson.

Num, 396. I never suffered my pen to deny the title of Vicarius Christi, the vicar of Christ, nor that he is vice-Christi, in place of Christ in his visible go∣vernment; but that which I deny is, that we either use to stile them or they assume the title, of vice-Christ, and you have not the consideration to distinguish betwixt vice-Christi, and vice-Christus: which every school boy is able to distinguish.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 397. But here againe remember (and let it be a witnesse against you) that you dislike and utterly disclaim the very name that signifieth the Papal power, as proud and insolent. And if you abhor Popery while you tice men to it, let my soul abhor it, and let all that regard their soules abhor it. blessed be that light that hath brought it to be numbred with the works of dark∣ness.

William Iohnson.

Num. 397. All will pitty you, who see you write thus confidently upon meer phantasmes, and upon your own misconceit of your adversaries words; and sure your light must be very dim, which cannot distinguish betwixt vice-Christi and vice-Christus? but you have

involved in the ensuing paragraph another incongruity, you say the the title of vice-Christ, is not the highest, which the Popes claim, and to prove it you nominate a higher and that is the title of vice-God whereby one would take you to be an Arian, and consequently (in your principles) to be no Christian, then be like you be∣leive God to be higher then Christ, and so beleive him not to be God: and you take these two with a third, I say the title of vice-Christ was never given by suffici∣ent authority to our Popes, neither did they ever accept of it, where it is evident I speak of a solemn authorita∣tive attribution, and acceptation of such titles usually and publickly exercised by our Popes, not of a rethori∣cal expression by some particular persons or a negative silence by some particular Pope in not contradicting, or tacitely accepting such expressions, and therefore, I say not of any Pope, as speaking in particuler, but of our Popes, taking them collectively as assenting to and use∣ing such titles. Now you answer by a fallacy proceeding a parte ad totum as if you would argue this man is endu∣ed with reason, therefore all sensible creatures are indued with reason, you discourse thus, some particular person may have given, and some particular Pope negatively accepted of such rethorical, or not legal expressions. This will appear by your subsequent proofs.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 398. Were it not more tedious then necessa∣ry, I would cite you the words▪ (vice-Christi & vicari∣us Christi) out of Popes and multitudes of writers. But alas tha'ts 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 deceitful (that's not my fault.)

William Iohnson.

Num. 398. The first part of this is only a transiti∣on, and so requires no answer. The second is answered in the fore going paragraph.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 399. Pope Julius the second in his general Council at Laterane, saith [Cont. Pragmat. sanct. mo∣nitor. Binius, vol. 4. pag. 560.] Though the institu∣tions of sacred Canons, holy Fathers, and Popes of Rome and their decres be judged immutable, as made by divine inspiration; yet the Pope of Rome, who, though of un∣equal merits, holdeth the place of the eternal King, and the maker of all things, and all laws on earth, may ab∣rogate these decres when they are abused. Here from the Iudge of Faith it self, you hear that the Pope holds the place of the eternal King, the maker of all things, and laws.

William Iohnson.

Num. 399. In this proof is neither vice-Christ nor vice-God, if it be, shew it in your next. Every Prince spiritual or temporal holds the place of the eternal King, the maker of all things, and lawes, and yet they assume not to themselves the title of vice-God.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 400. 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 fi∣deles requirere eisque mandare vice Dei, cujus locum, quamvis immeriti tenemus in terris, that is, we are con∣strained (to require all Christian Princes, and all be∣lievers in 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 warr against the Turks in Gods stead. note, vide in margine. Here is neither &c.

William Iohnson.

Num. 400. Heres is neither vice-Christ, nor vice-God, but only the Pope commanding in the place or stead of God, and you now confound vice-dei, and vice-De∣us, as you did before, vice-Christi, and vice-Christus.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 400. I know to a particular people Gods Embassadors are said to speak in his name and stead as if God did beseech men by us, 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 uni∣versal Church.

William Iohnson.

Num. 401. This answer of yours overthrows your argument, and shews evidently, that every lawful go∣vernour temporal, or spititual, is Vice-Dei, or Vice-Christi, in the name of God or Christ, to govern o∣thers. I give also a limited embassage, or Vice-govern∣ment to our Popes, that is, no farther then in visible and external government. And will you adventure to con∣demn the ruling of the whole visible Church on earth, to be proud and insolent? was not every one of the A∣postles, sent by our Saviour into the whole world? and had not every one a part, received power to govern the whole Church in the name and place of our Saviour? proves not this text of the 2 Cor. 5.19. so much? where he names no particular people or nation, but affirms that they being Embassadors from Christ, God by them exhorted the world, which Christ had reconci∣led; and that I conceive extends it self to all Nations in the world. Did not the Council of the Apostles, Act. 15. govern the whole Church in place of Christ, and in Gods stead? did not every Apostle in their cano∣nical Epistles give rules, and Commands in Gods stead to all Christians? were they therefore Vice-Gods?

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 402. 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 tan∣quam famulae in ipsius adsistebant obsequio, that is only

the Roman Church remaineth, the seat of him that li∣veth for ever (my flesh trembleth to write these things:) this did before beget the foresaid Patriarchal Churches (notorious falshood) which rested as daughters in her bosome, and as servants stood about in her obedience.

William Iohnson.

Num. 402. Why should your flesh tremble at these words, I am sorry to see you so subject to quaking upon so small occasion. Read you not a thousand times over in holy writ that Hierusalem is called the city of God, and the city of the living God? is not the arke of the tabernacle, called the seat of God? why then may not the sea of Rome be stiled the seat of God, and of his immaculate lamb? therefore was Hierusalem called the city of God, (amongst other reasons) because the cheif Priest of Gods Church resided there.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 403. Here you see from the Pope himself, that the other Patriarchs are his servants, and so to obey him, and that Rome begate them all (that were before it except Constantinople) and neither made Christians nor Patriarch by it, and that Rome now is become the seate of the immaculate Lambe, and of him that liveth for ever.

William Iohnson.

Num. 403. But see you not, the text speakes of Pa∣t••••iarchal Seas, and how can you say there were any Pa∣triarchal Seas before Rome was one, seeing you conceit

they were all constituted together in the Council of Nice. I have shewed that all obedience, argues not ser∣vitude, or being the servants of those wee obey, Child∣ren obey their Parents, and Scholars their Masters, and people their pastors, yet are they not his servants. And see you not, that he sayes they are only tanquam famulae in some short attenders, and joynes to it, quasi filiae, that they are as children, nor speaks he of the Patriarchs wherein many Millions, who were quasi filiae, and tan∣quam famulae, as daughters, and attendants of the Ro∣man sea, and the whole custom and constitution of those Patriarchates, was to serve as mediums, and instru∣ments that the whole Church might more facily be go∣verned by the sea Apostolick, as we shall see hereafter.

Mr. Baxter

Num. 404. Truely the reading of your own histo∣rians, and the Popes Bulls. &c. have more perswaded me, that the Pope is Anti-Christ, then the Apocalips hath done, because I distrusted my understanding of it.

William Iohnson.

Num. 404. Truely Sir, if I may be plain with you without offence, by what you collect from these Histo∣rians, Popes &c, you had reason to mistrust your under∣standing these, as well as the Apocalips &c. which I leave to judgement.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 405. Benedictus de Benedictis wrote a book

against Dr. Whitaker, to prove its as false that the Pope is Anti-Christ, as that Chirst is Anti-Christ, and dedicated it to Pope Paul 5. with this inscription. Paul 5. the Vice-God printed at Bononia. 1608.

William Iohnson.

Num. 405. Suppose that were so, is Benedictus de Benedictis a sufficient authority, being but a single Au∣thor, or Paul 5. the generality of Popes? you know I speak in such cases and not of particulars.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 406. Caraffas Theses printed at Naples 1609. had the same inscription (Paulo 5. Vice Deo) to Paul 5. Vice-God

William Iohnson.

Num. 406. The like is of Caraffa.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 407. Alcazar in Apocal. in carmine ad Jo∣hannem Apostolum, saith of the same Pope, Paul 5. Quem numinis instar, vera colit pietas: whom as a God true Piety adores.

William Iohnson.

Num. 407. Nor is Alcazar more then one private, person who when he plaies the Poet, uses Licentia Poe∣tica, qui dlibet audendi.

CHAP. X.

NUm. 408. What Marcellus said to Iulius 2. Num. 410. Mr. Baxter makes the gloss upon the Canon Law, to be the Canon Law; he mis∣scites the words of the gloss, whether the Glosser cal the Pope God, or the Printer err'd in inserting the word Deum into some late impression. Num. 412. Antonius Puccius gives no more to the Pope, then Pulcheria and the Council of Chalcedon gave to the Emperour Martian. Num. 413. Begnius mistaken and mistranslated. Stephanus Petracen∣sis miscited. St. Bernard condemned. St. Anto∣nine miscalled by Mr. Baxter. Num. 414. the Oecumenical power of the four first Councils vin∣dicated by authority and reason.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 408. Christopher Marcellus in his Oration be∣fore Pope Julius 2. in the approved Council at Latarane, Sess. 4. (and you take not contradicting to be consen∣ting) 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 imperiū, &c.) & an∣te (sub tuo imperio) & (unus Princeps qui summam in terris habeat potestatem.) But these are small things. Teque omnis aevi, omnium seculorum, omnium gentium

principem & caput appellant.) But yet (the Prince and head of all ages and Nations, is too low (cura, Pater bea∣tissime, ut sponsae tuae forma decorque redeat.) But yet to make the Church (his Spouse) is nothing (cura deni∣que, ut salutem quam dedisti nobis, ut vitam & spiritum non amittamus: Tu enim Pastor, tu medicus, tu guber∣nator, tu cultor, tu denique alter Deus in terris) That is (see that we lost not the health that thou hast given us, and the life and spirit. For thou art the Pastor, the Physition &c. To conclude, thou art another God on earth.)

William Iohnson.

Num. 408. Marcellus is indeed of more concern, because he speaks in a Council, but the world may see he play'd the Orator, his first expressions are no way ex∣travagant, but true, and proper; that of divinum imperi∣um is so a••••tered by you &c, that it seems a riddle, you in∣terlace it thus, ad divinum imperium, &c. & ante (sub tuo imperio) & (unus princeps qui summam in terris habeat potestatem, to the divine command injoyn'd, &c.) and before (under thy command, &c. and (one prince which hath the highest power in earth) riddle me, riddle me, what's this? Now that particle ad divi∣num injunctum imperium is not spoken of the Popes power, but of Gods divine command, obliging Iulius to take care of those who were committed to him, for he ••••ayes thus, cum igitur tantae-reipublicae unicus atque supremus princeps fueris institutus cui summa data po∣testas, ad divinum injunctum imperium, tuum est, quem∣admodum oppressum armis erexisti, amplificasti, ita mo∣ribus depravatam rulesiam reformare, corrigere, illu∣strare. That of stiling the Church his Spouse, had he

meant it of the whole Church militant and triumphant•••• had been very extravagant, and directly false and scan∣dalous, but applying it only to the visible Church on earth, which is the more ignoble part of Christs Church; I see not why that may not be termed, according to the sole external government of it, his Spouse: as much as particular Bishopricks or parts of the visible Church, are usually stiled the Spouses of their respective Bi∣shops, and they said to be espoused to those respective Churches. His exhorting Iulius to preserve the health, life, and spirit which he had given them, is easily ex∣plicated, that he both gave them, and preserved them, by a careful direction teaching an external governing the visible Church. His last stiling him alter Deus in terris, another God upon earth, is that which offends you most, but had you considered, that Moses in holy Scripture is made by God himself, the God of Pharaoh; that God titles those who are in lawful authority Gods, ego dixi dij estis, I have said you are Gods; and that St. Paul affirms that all Gods true servants, and children are participes divinae naturae, participant of the divine nature, which are as high and much higher ex∣pressions, then Marcellus gives here to Iulius, you would not I suppose so confidently have impeached him of blasphemy; nor indeed could, unless you make both St. Paul and the holy Scriptures, nay and God himself, to pronounce blasphemies in applying the like titles to living men: especially seeing that as the holy Scriptures give ground enough to interpreters, to expound them in such accomodated senses, that the••••e are not the least appearances of errors, much less of blasphemy in them, so Marcellus here gives all the world to under∣stand by many other passages of this Oration, he speaks in such a manner usual to Orators here, that there is not

the least shew of blasphemy at all in them. Now the Council having heard the whole Oration, and not only those parcels, which you have spitefully cul'd out of it, discover'd clearly what his meaning was, and thereupon the Fathers let these expressions pass, as flashes of Rhe∣torick.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 409. If you say that the Pope accepteth not this; I answer, it was in an Oration spoken in a gene∣ral Council, in his presence, without contradiction, yea by his own command, as the Orator professeth (jussisti¦tu, Pater sancte, & parui) (you commanded me, holy Father, and I obeyed, Binnius, pag. 562, 563, 564. you may find all this.

William Iohnson.

Num. 409. I reply, the Pope accepted it in that same sense as the Council did, and as the other clauses, conceal'd by you, declar'd it to be Marcellus his mean∣ing, and no man who reads the whole Oration, can suspect the least thought of blasphemy against Christ, or God in it.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 410. In gloss. extravag. Johan. 22. de verb. signi∣fic. c. cum inter, in glos. Credere Dominum nostrum Deum Papam conditorem dictae decretalis & istius, non po∣tuisse statuere prout statuit, haereticum censeatur. So that by your Law, we must believe the power of your Lord God the Pope, or be hereticks. If you meet with any

Impressions that leave out (Deum) take Rivets note. Ha∣beri in editione formata jussu Greg. 12. à correctori∣bus Pontificiis, nec in censuris Glossae jussu. Pii. 5. editis, quae in expurgatorio indice habentur Dei Erasmum fuisse.

William Iohnson.

Num. 410. You erre more then once here. First you commit a tautologie, in repeating the words in glossa twice without any necessity: for you say thus, in glossa extravag. Ioan. 22. de verb. significat. cap. Cum inter, in glossae montibus inquit erant, & erant in mon∣tibus illis. 2. You misplace the words themselves, for whereas the Gloss set forth by order of Greg. 13. Co∣lum. 153. verbo declaramus, hath the words thus. Cre∣dere autem Dominum Deum nostrum Papam conditorem dicti decret. & istius, sic non potuisse statuere, &c. you transplace the words thus, Credere Dominum nostrū Deū Papam conditorem dicti decret. &c. where you joyn the words, Deum & Papam immediately together, which are disjoyn'd in the Gloss. Thirdly, you corrupt the Text, for the words are haereticum censeretur, it would be thought heretical, and you put it, haereticum sensea∣tur, let it be judg'd heretical, or be it judg'd heretical, and this to make your Reader believe it is a Law or Precept, put in the Imperative mood, when it is no more then the judgement of a private Doctor, glossing upon the Law, or giving an interpretation of it, and by this false play, you give a seeming force to your immediate inference, drawn from these words, viz. So that by your Law (say you) we must believe the power of your Lord God the Pope, or be hereticks. Whereby you ma∣nifestly impose upon your Reader, that these words are

our law, whereas you your self confesse, they only are a part of the glosse, which was made by a particular per∣son, or interpretation of our Law. Fiftly hence followes that you contradict your self within four lines, for in the first and second line of this paragraph you confesse twice over, 'tis but a glosse of the law, and in the fift line you say it is the law it self. Your seventh and ninth errour is, that you give here a non proof for a proof, for seeing you acknowledge some impressions have not the word Deum, God, as appeares evidently in the edition of Paris An. 1522. where the word Deum, God, is not 63 yeares older then that of Gregory the 13. How will you ever prove this Glosser used this word but that it was ig∣norantly added by some copiest, or false print to the text. Yet suppose it were certain (as I have prov'd it is not) that this Glosser had adjoyned the Word Deum, God, it would be no proof at all; for in this paragraph he refers what he delivered there, to the correction of the Church, Si in premissis vel in aliquo premissarum contingeret me errare, if (saith he) I should happen to erre in any of the premises.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 410. Pope Nicholas 3. de elect. cap. fun∣damenta in 6. saith, that Peter was assumed into the So∣ciety of the individual Trinity.

William Iohnson.

Num. 410. What then? ergo he call's the Pope the Vice-Christ or the Vice-God? thats right. Sayes not St. Paul, that God hath called us into the Society of his Son? are we therefore made equal to him, or Vice-Christ?

sayes he not, that if we accompany him in his passion, we shall accompany him in his resurrection? & is not that as much as to be assumed into the Society of the individual Trinity? are not Children taken by their Parents into their Societie, are they therefore not inferiour to them? what consequences are these? nay are not all the holy Angels & Saints in heaven in the Society of the indivi∣dual Trinity? do they not see him face to face and as he is? is not that to be in Society with him?

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 411. Angelus Polit. in orat. ad Alexan. 6. Pontificem ab Divinitatem ipsam sublatum asserit: He saith, the Pope was taken up to the God-head it self.

William Iohnson.

Num. 411. He might have said as much of any Saint in Heaven, without making them Gods, or Vice-Gods; are they not all taken up to the divinity, when they enjoy God, and see him face to face? collect if you can from these words, a confutation of what I affirm, that the title of Vice-Christ, was given by sufficient au∣thority to the Popes, and accepted by them? are all the Saints and Angels in heaven Vice-Christs?

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 412. 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 (Di∣vinae tuae Majestatis conspectus, rutilante cujus fulgore imbe••••il••••es oculi mei caligant. His eyes were darkned

with beholding the Popes Divine Majesty. None con∣tradicted this.

William Iohnson.

Num. 412. But what if you collect the title of Vice-Christ, from any of these sentences here cited by you, is either Antonius Puccius, or Simon Beginus, or Stephanus Patracensis, or Paulus Emilius, or August. Triumphus, or Zabarella, or Bertrandus, of sufficient authority to conferre a solemn title upon Popes, because in particular rhetorical Euloginus, and some of them haply by way of assentation, they extend their expressi∣ons farther, then either the Church Canons, or the consent of classick Authours warrant them? If you had proceeded like a Scholar, to confute my assertion, you should have alleadged either some Popes, who inserted Vice-Christus, Vice-Christ, into their titles, or, who taught it in their publick Bulls, or writings to be due to them; or at least some Council or consent of Catholick Doctours, who give him that title, or prove it to belong to him. But to draw a solemn title, from Orators, Poets, Rhe∣toritians & Encomiasticks what is it but a trifle & to give rather an intertainment then an argument to you•••• Rea∣ders. And for Antonius Puccius he sayes no more here to the Pope, then was g••••ven in time of the Council of Cha∣cedon to the Emperour Martian by Pulcheria the Em∣presse, who sayes, Literae Divinitatis ejus; the letters of his Divinity: and even by the Fathers of that Council Martian is called divinissimus most divine ••••on. Chal. Act. apud Binium Tom. 2. p. 106.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 413. In the same Council, Simon Beginus Modrusiensis Episcopus, in an oration Sess. 6. calls Leo the Lyon of the tribe of Juda, the root of Jesse, him whom they had looked for as the Saviour.

William Iohnson.

Num. 413. It seems you either took these authorities on trust, or reade them very cursorily over. Beginus says not Radix Iesses; the root of Iesse, (as you have it) but Radix David the root of David. And his meaning is perverted by you, culling out those words from the rest, conjoyned to them in the Oration: for it is evi∣dent that he gives Pope Leo these titles, in allusion to his name, and applies them only restrictively, to the saving, or preserving the Roman Church from the inva∣sions of Turkes and Hereticks, then appearing, and threatning Christendome: this is so evident, that no man can read the oration, and not see it. Now what crime is there in calling him a Saviour, in this particu∣lar external preservation. Why did you not fall as heavie upon the holy Scripture Iudicum 3, 15. for in∣titling Ehud a Saviour, and 4 Reg. 13.5. that the same title is given to Ioas. But here you shew your spleen and cunning in translating the word Salvatorem, the Savi∣our, as if Beginus made the Pope to be Christ, he on∣ly having due to him the title, of being called the Sa∣viour.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 414. In the same Council Sess. 10. Steph. Patra∣censis Archiep. saith, (Reges in compedibus magnitudi∣nis magni regis liga, & nobiles in manicis ferreis cen∣surarum constringe, quoniam tibi data est omnis potestas in coelo & in terra) and before (qui totum dicit, nihil excludit.) So that all power in Heaven and Earth is given to the Pope.

Paulus Emilius de gestis Francor. lib. 7. saith that the Sicilian Embassadours lay prostrate at the Popes feet, & thrice repeated, thou that takest away the sins of the world, have mercy upon us.

And prove to me, that ever any such man was repre∣hended for these things by the Popes of late▪ Augustinus Triumphus in praefat. sum. ad Johan. 22. saith that the Popes power is infinite: for great is the Lord, great is his power, & of his greatenesse there is no end.

And qu. 36. ad 6. He saith, that (the Pope influen∣ceth, 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 mo∣tions)

Would you have more witnesse of the falshood of your words. Saith Zabarella I. C. lib de Schism. Innocent 7. and Bened. pag. 20. For this long time past, and even to this day, those that would please the Popes, perswa∣ded them that they could do all things: and so they might do what they pleased, even things unlawful, and so more then God.)

Antonius parte 3. tit. 21. cap. 5.4. Saith, the Pope receiveth faithful adorations, prostrations, and kisses of his feet, which Peter permitted not from Cornelius, nor the Angel from John the Evangelist.

Cardinalis Bertrandus Tract. de Origin. jurisd. q. 4. num. 4. (& in Glos. extrag. com. l. 1. fol. 12.) saith, Because Iesus Christ the Son of God while he was in this world, and even from Eternity, was a natural Lord, and by natural right could pronounce the sentence of de∣position on Emperours, or any others, and the sentence of damnation, and any other, as upon the Persons which he had created, and endowed with natural and free gifts, and also did conserve; it is his will that on his account his vicar may do the same things. For the Lord should not seem discreet (that I may speak with his reverence) unless he had left behinde him one vicar that can do all these things.

Tell me now whether you said true in the Paragraph about the title Vice-Christ? yea, whether it be not much more that hath been given and accepted.

But what name else is that you agree on as proper to express the power which is controverted? I know no name so fitted to the real controversie; and therefore in disclaiming the Name, for ought I know, you disclaime your cause, and confess the shame of Popery. If he that seeks to the King of England, should say, he disclaim∣eth the title of the King as insolent and proud, doth he not allow me to conclude the same of the thing, which he concludeth of the proper name? the Name (Papa) (Pope) you know (its like) was usually by the ancients given to other Bishops as well as to him of Rome; and therfore that cannot distinguish him from other men: the same I may say of the titles (Dominus Pater sanctissi∣mus, Dei amantissimus, and many such like) And for

(summus Pontifex) Baronius tells you (Martirol. Rom. April. 9.) that (it was the ancient Custome of the Church to call all Bishops, not only Pontifices, Popes, but the highest or chief Popes) citing Hierom. Ep. 99. And for the word head of the Church, or of all Bishops, it hath been given to Constantinople, that yet claimeth not (as Nilus tells you) neither a precedency to Rome, nor an universal Government, much less as the Vice-Christ. And that the Bishop of Constantinople was called (the Apostolick Vniversal Bishop) Baroni∣us testifieth from an old Vatican monument, which, on the other side calls Agapetus (Episcoporum Princeps.) the Title (Apostolick) was usually given to others. Hierusalem was called the (Mother of the Churches.) A Council gave Constantinople the Title of (universal Church) which though Gregory pronounced so impious and intolerable for any to use, yet the following Popes made an agreement with Constantinople, that their Patriarch should keep his Title of universal Patriarch, and the Bishop of Rome be called (the universal Pope) which can signifie nothing proper to him, (the name Pope being common) more then (universal Patriarch) doth the foundations and Pillars of the Church, and the Apostles successors: yea Peters successours were Titles given to others as well as him, and more then these. It being therefore the point in controversie between us, whether the Bishop of Rome be in the place of Christ or as his Vicar, the Head, Monarch or Governour of the Church universal; and the termes (Vice-Christi, & Vicarius Christi) being those that Popes and Papists choose to signifie their claim, what other sho••••l•••• I use?

William Iohnson.

Num. 414. This discourse of yours is defective many wayes. First it is fallacious, ex insufficiente enu∣meratione partium, For amongst all the titles you have reckoned you have not that of Pontifex maximus (and the like may be said of many others) which is peculiar to the Bishop of Rome, and was never attributed to any other, nor was any other ever intituled, Vicarius-Christi, the Vicar of Christ, nor Episcopus universalis Eccle∣siae, Bishop of the universal Church, nor Caput omni∣um sacerdotum Dei, the head of all Priests of God, save the Pope; see how much you are out in the ac∣counts. Secondly, it is corrupt, for you fall againe (as you did in your key ut supra) to translate Pontifex Pope, and summus Pontifex, Chief Pope. Thirdly you assert the same things without proof, as that Head of the Church was given to Constantinople that the Popes made an agreement with Constantinople; that their Patriarch should keep the title of universal Patriarch, and the Bishop of Rome be called the universal Pope. Fourthly you speak equivocally, for though summus Pon∣tifex (as Baronius notes) was given anciently to all Bishops; yet that was in relation to inferiour Clarks, not to all, even Bishops, Metropolitanes, and Patriarchs, as it is given to the Bishop of Rome. So that Summus Pontifex in Baronius his sense signifies no more then a chief or highest Priest, but ascribed to the Pope it signifies the chief and the highest Bishop, and is con∣significant with Pontifex Maximus, which Baronius affirms to be peculiar to the Pope, as I have already noted: you equivocate also in the title of Saint Peters successours, as I have declared above, for though other

Bishops may be said to be his successours secundum quid in some part of his Ecclesiastical power, viz, as he was a Bishop, yet none can be said to be his successour sim∣pliciter, absolutely and intirely, that is in the fulnesse of his power, as he was Prince of the Apostles, and chief Bishop of Gods visible Church, as it is visible, save the Bishop of Rome; for the reason above alleadged by me, and thus much your self must grant, according to your own principles; for though you assert other Bishops to be his successours in his Episcopal dignity, yet, seeing you grant him a precedency of place before all other Bishops and Patriarchs, as Saint Peter had precedency before all the rest of the Apostles, for otherwise he could not have been as the Ancient Fathers familiarly call him, Princeps Apostolorum, the Prince and chief amongst the Apostles, for that must at least signifie a principallity in place and rank, seeing I say you yield him this precedency, none can have been successour to Saint Peter in the full extent of his dignity, save the Bishop of Rome.

As to the particular Authours you cite here, you have very ill luck in your citations, you first produce these words qui totum dicit, nihil excludit, as spoken by Ste∣phanus Patracensis, when they are St. Bernards words, and cited by this Stephanus, out of his book de conside∣ratione to Eugenius the Pope, and to which words of St. Bernard Stephanus Alcides in this place▪ So that you cannot condemn him, unlesse you condemn Saint Bernard for using that allusion out of Scripture to the Pope. The meaning of this Author is no more then this, that he having before termed the Church Coelum Heaven, he prosecutes that metaphor, and by Heaven meanes nothing but Ecclesiastical persons, and by earth those of the laity; for he speakes first of Bishops and

Prelates, and then of Christian Kings and Princes, say∣ing to the Pope, Et vera reformatio fiat tam in spiritu∣alibus, quam in temporalibus, ubicunque terrarum tuo decreto diffusa fuerit, after which he adds immediately, Accipe ergo gladium divinae potestatis &c. Quia tibi data est omnis potestas in caelo & in terra. Antoninus, whom you very leardnedly call Antonius, in that place of his History, (if you mean that) has not one word, of what you cite here. Paulius Emilius, Augustin, Triumphus. Zabarella, and Bertrandus I have not yet seen, but these are only particular Authors, not of suffici∣ent authority (which I required) to conferre the title of the Vice-Christ upon Popes, nor yet do they so much as mention any such title. Now these authorities were either alleadged by you to confute my position, denying the title of Vice-Christ was given him by sufficient au∣thority; or they so many pure 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and proofs in the air: you pretend by these allegations, to prove, against my assertion, that the title of the Vice-Christ is given by authority to our Popes, and accepted by them, and to prove this, you cite five particular Authors, whereof not so much as one, names the title of the Vice-Christ. Is not this as much as to say, they give him not the title of Vice-Christ, ergo, they give him the title of Vice-Christ? Sure you dream'd of logick, when you writ this, yet farther, if these five authorities prove any thing against us, tis, that they make the Pope not the Vice-Christ, but Christ himself, or of equal power with him; and one of them that the Pope is of greater power then God himself, which is directly contrary to your pretence, for no Vice-King is the King, nor of equal power with the King. If you reply, in proving they make him equal to God, and Christ &c. They prove more then was undertaken to be proved, and that they

make him higher then the Vice-Christ. And secondly you may please to remember, you had two things to prove, the first, that the Popes were held by sufficient authority amongst us to be the Vice-Christ, and second∣ly that the Popes accepted of that title. Now though you had prov'd that some have given them eulogiums, sounding something more then the Vice-Christ, yet that will neither prove it was done by sufficient autho∣rity, nor, unlesse you prove the Popes have accepted them, (which you never so much as essay to doe) your in∣tent in these prooss; for the authorities you alledge are not sufficient to ground a publick & solemn title, so that your Thesis is left bare and naked yet without proof. You say here, the ancient Councils, though c••••ld General, yet were but of one principallity, that is as (you have often affirmed) their authority extended no farther then the Empire, so that in effect they were not truly general, but national, or provincial. Now I have already pro∣duced many reasons to represse this your grand novelty, and prov'd manifestly that in some of these Councils, were many Bishops out of Spain, France, and Germa∣ny, or at least that these Councils had power and juris∣diction over the Churches in those Nations, after they were separated from the Roman Empire under other Kings and Governours. I will now indeavour to shew, that there were extra-imperial Bishops in the four first Councils, and that such as were out of the Empire sub∣jected themselves to their determinations, as to such, as were obligatory through the whole Church, concerning the first.

In the first Council of Nice, Theophilus Gothiae Metropolis, Bishop of Gothia, in the farthest parts of the North beyond Germany Dominus Bospori, Bishop of Bosporus a citty of Thracia, Cimmeria or

India, as Cosmographers declare the Bishop of Botra, a City of this name is found in Arabia, and Sala, a Town also of great Phrygia, the higher Pannonia, and Armenia is so called as Ptolomeus notes, l. 4. c. 1. Io∣han••••es Persidis of Persia, which was not under the Ro∣man Empire, as you acknowledge above.

In the first Council of Constantinople, the second Ge∣neral, were three Bishops of Scythia. And Etherius An∣chialensis, now Anchialos, is a City in Thracia, not far from great Apollonia.

In the first Council of Ephesus, the third General, was Phebamon Coptorum Episcopus, the Bishop of Kopti, Theodulus Elusae Episcopus, anciently a City of Arabia, Theodorus Gadarorum Episcopus, of that name is a City in Cavà-Syria. In the Council of Chal∣cedon, the fourth General, was present Antipater Bostro∣rum Episcopus, a City in Arabia, ut supra. Olym∣pius Scythopoleos, which is a City of the Scythians in Coele. syria. Eustathius Gentis Saxacenorum, of Sa∣raca, there is a City so called in Arabia-Foelix. Con∣stantinus Episcopus Bostrorum in Arabia. Subscripsit quidam pro Glaco Gerassae Episcopo, Gerasa is a City in Coele-syria. Now 'tis evident that the Fathers of those general Councils in all their decrees, constitutions and Canons, intended to oblige all Christians through the whole world, and thereby demonstrated themselves to have jurisdiction over the whole Church, and ne∣ver so much as insinuated that their authority was li∣mited within the precincts of the Empire. Thus the Council of Ephesus sayes their decrees was for the good of the whole world. Thus the Council of Chalcedon, act. 7 apud Bin. tome 2. pag. 105. declares the Church of Antioch to have under its government Arabia, and act. 16. cap. 28. apud Bin. (which you hold for a

Genuine Canon,) that the Bishop of Constance should have under him certain Churches in barbarous Nations, which you must prove to have been then un∣der the Empire. The first Council of Constance (in that Canon which you admit about the authority of the Bishop of Constantinople) makes a decree concerning those Churches which were amongst the Barbarians, that they should be governed according to the ancient custome, no wayes restraining the Canon to those only which were under the Empire. Thus Nicephorus lib. 15. hist. Ecclesiast. c. 16. relates that Leo the Emperour writ to the Bishops of all Provinces together (circula∣ribus per orbem literis ad Ecclesias missis, Leo haec sic ad omnes ubique Episcopos misit; which he accounts, were above a thousand) to have them subscribe to the Council of Chalcedon. And in correspondence to those letters of the Emperour, the Bishops of the second Ar∣menia, which seem to have been out of the Empire, writ an answer, wherein they affirm the Council of Nice conferr'd peace upon all the Catholick Churches founded thorough the whole world; to wit, by teaching them to defend 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 against Arius, and call the Coun∣cil of Chalcedon twice occumenical and general; and Adelphus a Bishop of Arabia subscribes amongst the rest to this Epistle.

The Bishops of the second Mesnia, which you must prove to have then been under the Empire, writ that the Council of Nice deliver'd the Faith toto orbi terrarum, to the whole world; they stile also the Roman Bishop the head of Bishops, and that the Council of Chalcedon was gathered by Pope Leo's command, who since they call him head of Bishops, they extend his power, and consequently the power of that general Council gather'd by him, to all Bishops and Churches in the world. To

this Epistle subscribes Dita Bishop of Odyssa in Scy∣thia. It is manifest also that the Bishops of Spain, France, and Germany, who were not under the Empe∣rour in time of the third and fourth general Councils, submitted themselves to their decrees, and esteem'd themselves obliged to it, as you cannot deny.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 415. As to what you say of the Council of Constance (which you must say also of Basil, and of the French Church, Venetians, &c. you pretend the doubt to be only between ordinary and extraordinary Gover∣nours. But 1. of old the Councils called General (indeed but of one principality) were more ordinary then now the Pope hath brought them to be, and I blame him not, if he will hold his greatness, to take heed of them.)

William Iohnson.

Num. 415. I wonder you have the boldness to say general Councils were more ordinary (that is) more frequent of old then now they are, seeing that from St. Peters dayes till 300. years after Christ there was not so much as one general Council in the Church; was the Church (think you) all that time governed by general Councils as by its ordinary Governour? but what mean you by more ordinary, you equivocate in the word or∣dinary, for you by that word can mean no more then frequent, whereas I take ordinary, (as it is taken in the Canon Law) for that which is of it self, not frequent∣ly, but alwayes required for the Churches government, and without which the Church cannot be rightly go∣verned. Thus a King is the ordinary head and supream

Governour in his Kingdom, and though Parliaments be ordinarily, that is, frequently called, yet they can∣not be said, to be the ordinary governours of the King∣dom. You play and dally with words, not understan∣ding the sense, but the sound of them.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 416. The way not to have been extraordina∣ry, if the Council of Constance had been infallible, or of sufficient power, who decreed that there should be one every ten years.

William Iohnson.

Num. 416. Here you use the same equivocation in the word extraordinary, that you did just now in the word ordinary, you call that extraordinary which is not frequent or happens but seldom, when the true sense in which I speak, and which you should oppose is this, that which is not alwayes of its own nature ne∣cessary for the Churches government, nor perpetually in use and power, whether it be frequent, or not fre∣quent, that is ordinary, or extraordinary in your mi∣staken sense. But I would intreat you hereafter, to re∣flect a little more of what you write, you hasten so much, that you leave sense behind you. The way (say you) not to have been extraordinary, if the Council of Constance had been infallible, or of sufficient power, who decreed that there should be one every ten years. Here's a nominative case, the way, &c. without a verb.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 417. The Councils that continue so many years as that at Trent did, are then become an ordinary Government.

William Iohnson.

Num. 417. Here you fall into a scond Equivocati∣on about the word ordinary, that which lasts about twenty years in the Church with a soveraign power, must be for the time they so continue the ordinary go∣vernour of the Church, where you take ordinary for that which continues a considerable space of time. See you not, how handsomly you insinuate here, that the late long Parliament (which continued about as long as did the Council of Trent) was for that time become with you and your abettors the ordinary Soveraign go∣vernour of the Kingdome, and thereby his Majesty was excluded from being ordinary Sovereign over it, I hope this will be noted too.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 418. Fourthly what is given to the Church representative, is by many of you given to the Church real or essential (as you call it) which is ordinarily ex∣istent, only not capable of exerting the power it hath: the singulis major, ut universis minor, is no rare doctrine with you.

William Iohnson.

Num. 418. Here you fumble in the dark, I pray un∣riddle this in your next, for I cannot, what is that wee give to the Church real, and representative? wherein is the Church real not able to exert its power? what mean you by singulis major, and universis minor, to whom apply you this, or to what purpose?

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 419. Fiftly, but let it be as extraordinary as you please, if while these Councils sit, the Pope lose his headship, your Church is then two Churches specifically distinct, and the form of it changeth when a Council sit∣eth: not like the Spouse of Iesus Christ.

William Iohnson.

Num. 419. You should have done well to have prest this argument, against those who hold Councils to be a∣bove the Pope, it touches not me at all, who am of the contrary opinion; yet even those of that opinion will answer you with a wet finger, that the Church hath neither then two heads, nor loses the Pope his head∣ship: for he remaines chief ordinary governour of the Church in all ordinary causes and cases; as well when there is, as when there is not a Council, and he being as ordinary head of the Church, the chief president in the Council, the Council is not its chief governour with exclusion of the Pope, because it cannot be a true general Council but by including him in it. So that he with the rest of the Bishops assembled make up the Council,

you cannot therefore divide the Council from him, un∣lesse you divide him from himself, so that he and a general Council are not two things, adequately distant, but involve him in it, as a humane body involves the head, or a Parliament the King.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 420. Sixtly, As your Popes are said to live in their constitutions and laws, when the person dieth; and your Church is not thought by you to die with them, so why may not Councils do? The lawes of Councils live when they sit not, and the French think that these lawes are above the Pope, though I shewed you even now that Julius 2. in Con. Lateran. concluded otherwise of Decrees, and the Council of the Popes power.

William Iohnson.

Num. 420. Let them remain in their decrees as much as you please, but that will never make them the ordinary chief governours of the Church, they remain no more in their degrees, then did our ancient Parlia∣ments in their Statutes, yet no man dare say, who is a good subject, that those Parliaments were therefore the ordinary soveraign governours of the Kingdome, taken exclusively without the King.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 421. Seventhly, If a Nation be governed by Triennial (and so Decennial) Parliaments as the highest power and Councils of State; in the intervals who shall be accountable to Parliaments: will you say

these Parliaments are extraordinary and not the ordi∣nary Soveraign? no doubt they are. And the Council of State is the Soveraign, but the chief Officer or Ma∣gistrate for execution of the intervals.

William Iohnson.

Num. 421. Hitherto you have discoursed warily, and covertly, but now you discover openly your opini∣on of State government. 'Tis well you put an if to it, and make it a conditional, that will save you at a dead lift, but yet every one sees by it, how great an approver you were of the soveraignty of irregular Parliaments, and authority of Councils of State, for you speak not of what might be, but what then was, when you writ this; but I wonder you were so bold as to let this see light (as you did before something like it) even since the most happy returne of his Sacred Majestie. Let o∣thers judge of such passages as these.

Thus farre Mr. Baxter produces his answer to my argument and instances, the last four pages are spent in confident repetition of what is now answered, a pre∣scription of what he would impose upon me to be Sylo∣gistocally proved, a prophesie of Christs speedy coming to judgement, a wholesome admonition to take help from others to be able to encounter him, scilicet, a whole Army of such Pigmees as I, is not able to incounter him, he is so great a Giant; but let the Reader judge whether something like that hath not hapned unto him, which hapned to such an other whilst he exprobated and outfaced the hosts of the living God. 1. Reg. 17.49.50. And it may be thought of also, whether the 16 Chap. v. 6. of Esay may not be appliable to him, au∣divimus Superbiam Moab, Superbus est valde, superbia

ejus & arrogantia ejus, & indignatio ejus, plus quam fortitudo ejus. Finally which is only worth obser∣vance, he adds an earnest request to make a favorable exposition of what he feares may be thought too confi∣dent and earnest in his expressions, which I freely par∣don, and beg a free pardon of God for him. This as it is no part of his answer, so can it not challenge any part of my reply, I leave the whole processe to the im∣partial Reader, and expect Mr. Baxters rejoynder.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Con. Chalced: ac. 1.
• * 1.2

  Zozom. l, 3. cap. 10. Epist. Synodalis Arianorum Extat inter Hilar. frag. l. 2.
• * 1.3

  Athan. ad salit.
• * 1.4

  Epist. con. Sard. apud Athan. Athan: Apol. & ad sol. vit.
• * 1.5

  S. Leo. Ep. 8. ad Episc▪ African••••s.
• * 1.6

  Fulg. Ferrand. in Breviar: Can: art 59. & 60.
• * 1.7

  Socrat. eccl. histor. l. 2. c. 11. Zozom. l. 3. c. 11. & 12.
• * 1.8

  See the true meaning of this sentenc in Hierom. Alex▪ disput. 2. de Regione sub urbe c. 4.
• * 1.9

  Celest. Ep. 3. Theod. B••••alsoin Photius Tit. c. 1. Niceph. L. 14. c. 34.
• * 1.10

  non proof 15. non proof 16.
• * 1.11

  See more of this supra.
• * 1.12

  St. Chrys. ep. ad Ino∣cent. Papam, apud Pal∣ladium in Dialogo.
• * 1.13

  See the Latin Text of St. Chrysostom cited above, num.
• * 1.14

  Niceph: l. 13. c. 34. Glicas. Ann: par. 4. & extant Tom: 1. Epist: Rom: Pontif. Ep. Innoc: 17. Georgius Pa∣tri. Alex: citatus a S. Io. Damasc: orat de Imagin. & a Photio in Bib∣lioth: in Greg: Alexandr. extatque Graece editus in Angl. unà cum Oper. S. Chrysost.
• * 1.15

  Socrates & Zozomen pro∣duce their hist∣ories to the year 439.
• * 1.16

  And St. Cyp. in his Epistles to Pope Stephen.
• * 1.17

  And Vincentius Lirinensis. infra citandus.
• * 1.18

  p. 150. See the place cited in my p. 54. Con Chal. act. 3.
• * 1.19

  See Blondel, p. 997. acknow∣ledging these words.
• * 1.20

  See Blondel. p. 997. acknowledging these words.
• * 1.21

  In Epistolis ad diversas Ec∣clesias. in fine Conc. Chalced.
• * 1.22

  Blond. p. 438. and 439. Iu∣stifies this pro∣ceeding of A∣gapet.
• * 1.23

  l. 7. ep. 64. se∣cundum Blon∣del. ep. 65. I••••∣dictione. 2.
• * 1.24

  Con. Ephes. impres. Heidel∣berg. c. 16. ibid. c. 17. ibid. c. 18. ibid. c. 65. Concil. Ephes. c. 15. Marcel. comes in chron. Liberat. in brev. c. 5. Balsam. in nomo. can. Prosp. in chron. Id. contra collatorem
• * 1.25

  Liberat. in brev. c. 4. act. Ephes. Tom. 1. c. 21. act. Ephes. Tom. 3. c. 1. Evag. c. 5. & alii.
• * 1.26

  vide supra.
• * 1.27

  Nicene Sardican
• * 1.28

  Bell. l. 1. de Rom. pont. c. 5. sect. ultimo.