The Successive Visibility of the Church, Letter 4 – Letter 7

The Successive Visibility of the Church · Letter 4 – Letter 7

p. 27Sir,

IT was my happiness to have this Argument transmitted into your learned and quiet hands; which gratefully returns as fair a measure as it received from you: that Animosities on both sides seposed, Truth may appear in its full splendour, and seat it self in the Center of both our hearts.

To your first Exception.

My Thesis was sufficiently made cleer to my friend, who was concerned in it; and needed no explication in its address to the learned.

To your second Exception.

My Propositions were long, that my Argument (as was required) might be very short, and not exceed the quantity of half a sheet: which enforced me to penetrate many Syllogisms into one; and by that means in the first not to be so precise in form, as otherwise I should have been.

p. 28To your third Exception.

Seeing I required nothing but Logicall form in Answering, I conceive that regard was more to be had amongst the learned to that, then to the errours of the vulgar: that whilest ignorance attends to most words, learning might attend to most reason.

To your fourth Exception.

My Argument contains not precisely the terms of my Thesis: because, when I was called upon to hasten my Argu…ent, I had not then at hand my Thesis. Had I put more in my Thesis, then I prove in my Argument, I had been faulty; but proving more then my Thesis contained (as I cleerly do) no body hath reason to find fault with me, save my self. The reall difference betwixt Assemblies of Christians, and Congregation of Christians, and betwixt Salvation is only to be had in those Assemblies, and Salvation is not to be had out of that Congregation, I understand not: seeing all particular assemblies of true Christians, must make one Congregation.

To your Answer to my first Syllogism.

He who distinguishes Logically the terms of any proposition, must not apply p. 29his distinction to some one part of the term only, but to the whole term, as it stands in the proposition distinguished. Now in my proposition I affirm, that the Congregation of Christians I speak of there, is such a Congregation, that it is the true Church of Christ, that is, (as all know) the whole Catholike Church: and you distinguish thus, That I either mean by Congregation the whole Catholike Church, or only some part of it as, if one should say, Whatsoever Congregation of men is the Common-wealth of England, and another in answer to it should distinguish, either by Congregation of men you mean the whole Common-wealth, or some part of it, when all men know, that by the Common-wealth of England must be meant the whole Common-wealth: for no part of it is the Common-wealth of England.

Again you distinguish, that some things are Essentials, or Necessaries, and others Accidents, which are acknowledged or practised in the Church. Now to apply this distinction to my Proposition, you must distinguish that which I say is acknowledged to have been ever in the Church by the Institution of Christ, either to be meant of an Essential, or an Accident; when all the p. 30world knows that whatsoever is acknowledged to have have been ever in the Church by Christs Institution, cannot be meant of any Accidental thing, but of a necessary, unchangeable and Essential thing, in Christs true Church. If one should advance this proposition, Whatsoever Congregation is the true Church of Christ, acknowledges the Eucharist ever to have been by Christs Institution a proper Sacrament of the new Law: and another should distinguish (as you do my proposition) This may be meant either of an Essential or Accidental thing to Christs true Church: Seeing whatsoever is acknowledged to have been alwaies in Christs Church and instituted by Christ, cannot be acknowledged but as necessary and essential to his Church. If therefore my Major, as the terms lie expressed in it, be true, it should have been granted: if false, it should have been denyed. But no Logick allows that it should be distinguished into such different members, whereof one is expresly excluded in the very terms of the proposition. These distinctions therefore, though learned and substantial in themselves, yet were they here unseasonable, and too illogical to ground an answer in forme (as you ground yours) still insisting p. 31upon them in your address almost to every proposition. Hence appears first, that I used no fa…lacy at all ex Accidente: seeing my proposition could not be verified of an Accident. Secondly that all your instances of Spain, France, &c. which include Accidents, are not apposite; because your propositions, as they lie, have no term which excludes Accidental Adjuncts, as mine hath.

To the Proof of my Major.Syll. 2.

You seem to grant the Major of my second Syllogism; not excepting any thing material against it.

To my Minor.

You fall again into the former distinctions, now disproved and excluded, of the meaning of Congregation, &c. in my proposition, and would have me to understand determinately either the whole Catholike Church, or some part of it, (and so make four terms in my Syllogism:) whereas in my Minor, Congregation of Christians is taken generically, and abstracts, as an universal, from all particulars. I say no Congregation, which is an universal negative; and when I say, none, Saye that Congregation which acknowledges Saint Peter, &c. the term Congregation supposes for the same whole Catholike Church mentioned in my p. 32former Syllogism, but expresses it under a general term of Congregation in confuso; as I express Homo, when I say he is Animal, a man, when I say he is a living creature, but only generically, or in confuso. Now should I have intended determinately either the whole Catholike Church, or any part of it, I should have made an inept Syllogism, which would have run thus. Whatsoever true Church of Christ is now the true Church of Christ, hath been always visible, &c. But no true Church of Christ hath been alwaies visible, save the true Church of Christ, which acknowledges Saint Peter, &c. Ergo whatsoever true Churh of Christ is now the true Church, acknowledges Saint Peter, &c. which would have been idem per idem; for every one knows, that the true Church of Christ, is now the true Church of Christ. But speaking, as I do in abstractive and generical terms, I avoid this absurdity, and frame a true Syllogism.

Now my meaning in this Minor could be no other then this, which my words express; That the Congregation, that is, the whole Congregation acknowledges Saint Peter, &c. and is visible, &c. and not any part, great or small of it. For when I say, the Parliament of these Nations doth, or p. 33hath enacted a Statute, who would demand of me, whether I meant the whole Parliament, or some determinate part of it? You should therefore have denyed, not thus distinguished my Minor quite against the express words of it. What you say again of Essentials and Accidents, is already refuted; and by that also your Syllogism, brought by way of instance. For your proposition doth not say, that the Church of Rome acknowledges those things were alwaies done, and that by Christs Institution, as my proposition says she acknowledges Saint Peter and his successors.

To my third Syllogism.

Granting my Major, you distinguish the term Pastors in my Minor, into particular and universal, fixed and unfixed, &c. I answer, that the term Pastours (as before Congregation) signifies determinately no one of these, but generically and in confuse all; and so abstracts from each of them in particular, as the word Animal abstracts from homo and brutum. Neither can I mean some parts of the Church only had Pastors; for I say, whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ, hath alwaies had visible Pastors and People united. Now the Church is not a p. 34part but the whole Church, that is, both the whole body of the Church, and all particular Churches the parts of it. And hence is solved your argument of the Indians, of people converted by lay-men, when particular Pastors are dead, &c. For those were subjects of the chief Bishop alone, till some inferiour Pastors were sent to them. For when they were taught the Christian Doctrine, in the explication of that Article, I believe the Holy Catholike Church, they were also taught, that they being people of Christs Church, must subject themselves to their lawful Pastors, this being a part of the Christian doctrine. Heb. 13. who though absent in body, may yet be present in spirit with them, as Saint Paul saith of himself, 1 Cor. 5.3.

Your Answer to the confirmation of my Major seems strange. For I speak of visible Pastors, and you say tis true of an Invisible Pastor, that is, Christ our Saviour, who is now in heaven, invisible to men on earth. The rest is a repetition of what is immediately before answered.

Ephes. 4. proves not only that some particular Churches, or parts of the whole Church, must alwaies have Pastors, but that the whole Church it self must have p. 35Pastors, and every particular Church in it; for it speaks of that Church which is the Body of Christ; which can be no less then the whole Church. For no particular Church alone is his mystical Body, but only a part of it.

Ephes. 4. is not directly alledged to prove an universal Monarch, (as you say) but to prove an uninterrupted continuance of visible Pastors; that being only affirmed in the proposition, which I prove by it. 2. This is already Answered.

I stand to the judgement of any true Logitian, nay or expert Lawyer, or rational person, whether a Negative proposition be to be proved otherwise then by obliging him who denies it, to give an instance to infringe it. Should you say, no man hath right to my Benefice and Function in my parish, save my self, and another should deny what you said; would not you, or any rational man in your case, answer him, that by denying your proposition he affirmed that some other had right to them, and to make good that affirmation was obliged to produce who that was: which till he did, you still remained the sole just possessour of your Benefice as before; and every one will judge, that he had no reason to deny your p. 36assertion, when he brought no proof against it. This is our case.

The Contradiction, which you would draw from this, against my Nego, Concedo, &c. exacted from the Respondent, and nothing else, follows not. For that prescription is to be understood, that the Respondent of himself, without scope given him by the opponent, was not to use any other forms in Answering; But if the opponent should require that the respondent give reasons, or instances, or proofs, of what he denies, that then the Respondent is to proceed to them. And this is most ordinary in all Logicall Disputations, where strict form is observed, and known to every yong Logitian. Instances therefore demanded by the opponent, were not excluded, but only such excursions out of form, as should proceed from the respondent, with out being exacted by the opponent.

You say, though I make a Negative of it, I may put it in other terms at my pleasure. But the question is not what I may do, but what I did: I required not an Answer to an Argument, which I may frame, but to that which I had then framed, which was expressed in a negative proposition.

You tell me if I prove the Popes universal p. 37Supremacy, you will be a Papist: And I tell you, I have proved it by this very Argument, That either He hath that supremacy, or some other Church; denying that he hath alwaies had it, hath been alwaies visible; and that Church I require should be named, if any such be, and whilest you refuse to name that Church (as here you do) you neither answer the Argument, nor become a Papist.

You say I affirm, and I must prove. I say in the proposition, about which we now speak, I affirm not, and so must not prove; and you by denying it, must affirm, and so must prove.

You prove it is not your part here to prove, because the Popes supremacy could not be denyed, before it was affirmed; and you must be obliged to prove that denyal. I oblige you not to prove a continued visible Church formally and expresly denying it, but that it was of such a Constitution as was inconsistent with any such supremacy, or could and did subsist without it; which is an Affirmative.

You affirm, that because I say you cannot be saved if you deny that Supremacy, and you say that I may be saved though I hold it, therefore you are not bound to prove what I reprove, but I to prove my negative proposition. But this would prove p. 38as well, that a Mahumetan is not bound to prove his religion to you, but you to prove yours to him, because you say he cannot be saved being a Mahumetan; and he says, that you may be saved being a Christian. See you not, that the obligation of proof in Logicall form depends not of the first position, or Thesis, but must be drawn from the immediate proposition, affirmative or negative, which is or ought to be proposed?

To what you say of an Accident and a corrupt part, I have already answered.

To what you say of a vice-king, not being necessary to the Constitution of a kingdom, but a king and subjects only, is true, if a vice-king be not instituted by the Full power of an Absolute Authority over that kingdom, to be an ingredient into the essence of the Kingdom, in the Kings absence: But if so constituted, it will be essential; now my proposition saith, and my Argument proves, that by the Absolute Authority of Christ, Saint Peter and his Successors were instituted Governors in Christs place of his whole visible Church; and whatsoever Government Christ institutes of his Church, must be essential to his Church. You see now the Disparity.

p. 39You insist to have me prove a Negative; and I insist to have you prove that Affirmative, which you fall into by denying my Negative, and leave it to judgement, whose exaction is the more conform to reason, and logical form.

But if I prove not here, say you, the whole Catholike Churches holding ever the Popes Supremacy, you shall take it as a giveing up my cause. I tell you again, that I have proved it by this very Argument, by force of Syllogistical form: and it is not reasonable to judge that I have given up my cause, if I prove not again, what I have already proved.

Your taking upon you the part of an opponent now is, you know, out of Season; when that is yours, mine shall be the Respondent.

AT length you give fair attempt to satisfie your obligation, and to return such an instance as I demanded of you. But you are too free by much in your offer. I demand one Congregation, and you promise to produce more then an hundred. But as they abound in the number, so are they deficient in the quality p. 40which I require. I demand, that the Answerer nominate any Congregation of Christians, which alwayes till this present time since Christ hath been visible, &c. and you tell me of more then an hundred Congregations, besides that which acknowledges Saint Peter, &c. whereof not any one hath been all that designed time visible: which is as if I had demanded an Answerer to nominate any Family of Gentry, which hath successively continued ever since William the Conquerour till this present time; and he who undertakes to satisfie my demand, should nominate more then a hundred Families, whereof not so much as one continued half that time. You nominate first all these present, the Greeks, Armenians, Ethiopians, besides the Protestants. These you begin with. Now to satisfie my demand, you must assert, that these, whom you first name, are both one Congregation, and have been visible ever since Christs time. This you do not in the pursute of your Allegations. For Numb. 2. you nominate none at all, but tell me, that in the last age there were as many or more. What were these as many or more? were they the same which you nominated first, or others? I required some determinate Congregation p. 41to be nominated all the while, and you tell me of as many or more, but say not of what determinate congregation they were. In your Num. 3. you tell me, in the former ages, till one thousand, there were neer as many, or rather many more. A fair account! But in the mean time you nominate none, much less prosecute you those with whom you begun. Num. 4. You say, in the year six hundred there were many more incomparably. What many? what more? were they the same which you nominated in the beginning, and made one Congregation with them? or were they quite different Congregations? what am I the wiser by your saying many more incomparably, when you tell me not what, or who they were? Then you say, But at least for four hundred years after Christ, I never yet saw valid proof of one Papist in all the world, that is, one that was for the Popes universal Monarchy, or vice-Christship. What then? are there no proofs in the world, but what you have seen? or may not many of those proofs be valid which you have seen, though you esteem them not so? and can you think it reasonable, upon your single not-seeing, or not-judging only, to conclude absolutely, as you here do, that all have been p. 42against us for many hundred years? In your Num. 5. You name Ethiopia and India, as having been without the limits of the Roman Empire, whom you deny to have acknowledged any supremacy of power and authority above all other Bishops. You might have done well to have cited at least one antient Author for this Assertion. Were those primitive Christians of another kind of Church-order and Government, then were those under the Roman Empire **But how far from truth this is, appears from St. Leo, in his Sermons de natali suo, where he saies, Sedes Roma Petri, quicquid non possidet almis, Religione tenet; and by this, that the Abyssines of Ethiopia were under the Patriarch of Alexandria antiently, which Patriarch was under the Authority of the Romane Bishop, as we shall presently see.? When the Roman Emperors were yet Heathens, had not the Bishop of Rome the Supremacy over all other Bishops through the whole Church? and did those Heathen Emperors give it him? How came St. Cyprian, in time of the Heathen Empire to request Stephen the Pope to punish and depose the Bishop of Arles, as we shall see hereafter? Had he that authority (think you) from an Heathen Emperour? See now how little your Allegations are to the purpose, where you nominate any determinate Congregations to satisfie my demand.

p. 43I had no reason to demand of you different congregations, of all sorts and Sects opposing the Supremacy, to have been shewn visible in all ages. I was not so ignorant, as not to know, that the Nicolaitans, Valentinians, Gnosticks, Manichees, Montanists, Arians, Donatists, Nestorians, Eutychians, Pelagians, Iconoclasts, Berengarians, Waldensians, Albigenses, Wicleffists, Hussits, Lutherans, Calvinists, &c. each following others had some kind of visibility, divided and distracted each to his own respective age, from our time to the Apostles, in joyning their heads and hands together against the Popes Supremacy. But because these could not be called one successive Congregation of Christians, being all together by the ears amongst themselves; I should not have thought it a demand beseeming a Scholar, to have required such a visibility as this. Seeing therefore all you determinately nominate, are as much different as these; pardon me, if I take it not for any satisfaction at all to my demand, or acquittance of your obligation. Bring me a visible succession of any one Congregation of Christians, of the same belief, profession, and communion, for the designed time, opposing that Supremacy, p. 44and you will have satisfied: but till that be done, I leave it to any equal judgement, whether my demand be satisfied or no. You answer to this, That all those, who are nominated by you, are parts of the Catholike Church, and so one Congregation. But Sir, give me leave to tell you, that in your principles, you put both the Church of Rome and your selves, to be parts of the Catholike Church: and yet sure you account them not one Congregation of Christians, seeing by separation one from another they are made two: or if you account them one, why did you separate your selves, and still remain separate from communion with the Roman Church? why possessed you your selves of the Bishopricks and Cures of your own Prelates and Pastors, they yet living in Queen Elizabeths time? and drew both your selves and their other subjects from all subjection to them, and communion with them? Is this disunion, think you, fit to make one and the same Congregation of you and them? is not charity, subordination, and obedience to the same state and government required as well to make one Congregation of Christians, as it is required to make one Congregation of Commonwealths men? Though therefore you do account p. 45them all parts of the Catholike Church, yet you cannot make them in your principles one Congregation of Christians. Secondly, your position is not true; the particulars named by you neither are, nor can be parts of the Catholike Church, unless you make Arians, and Pelagians, and Donatists, parts of the Catholike Church: which were either to deny them to be Hereticks and Schismaticks; or to affirm, that Hereticks and Schismaticks, separating themselves from the communion of the Catholike Church, notwithstanding that separation, do continue parts of the Catholike Church. For who knows not that the Ethiopians to this day are **See Rosse his view of Religions, p. 99. 489, 492, &c. Where he saies that they circumcise their children the eighth day, they use Mosaical ceremonies. They mention not the council of Calcedon, because (saies he) they are Eutychians and Jacobites, and confesses that their Patriarch is in subjection to the Patriarch of Alexandria, &c. See more of the Chofti, Jacobites, Maronites, &c. p. 493, 494. where he confesses that many of them are now subject to the Pope, and have renounced their old errors.Eutychian Hereticks. And a great part of those Greeks and Armenians, who deny the Popes Supremacy, are infected with the Heresie of Nestorius, and all of them profess generally all those points of faith with us against you, wherein you differ from us; and deny to p. 46communicate with you, or to esteem you other then Hereticks and Schismaticks, unless you both agree with them in those differences of faith, and subject your selves to the obedience of the Patriarch of Constantinople, as to the chief Head and Governour of all Christian Churches next under Christ; and consequently as much a vice-Christ, in your account, as the Pope can be conceived to be. See, if you please, Hieremias Patriarch of Constantinople, his Answer to the Lutherans, especially in the beginning and end of the book; Acta Theologorum Wittebergensium, &c. and Sir Edwyn Sands, of this subject, in his Survey, p. 232, 233, 242, &c.

Either therefore you must make the Eutychians and Nestorians no Hereticks, and so contradict the Oecumenical Councils of Ephesus, and Chalcedon, which condemned them as such; and the consent of all Orthodox Christians, who ever since esteemed them no others; or you must make condemned Hereticks parts of the Catholick Church, against all antiquity and Christianity. And for those Greeks neer Constantinople, who are not infected with Nestorianism and Eutychianism, yet in the Procession of the Holy Ghost, against p. 47both us and you, they must be thought to maintain manifest Heresie; it being a point in a fundamental matter of faith, the Trinity: and the difference betwixt those Greeks and the Western Church, now for many hundred of years, and in many General Councils esteemed and defined to be real and great; yea so great, that the Greeks left the Communion of the Roman Church upon that difference alone, and ever esteemed the Bishop of Rome and his party to have fallen from the true faith,See Nilus on this subject. and lost his ancient authority by that sole pretended error; and the Latins alwaies esteemed the Greeks to be in a damnable error, in maintaining the contrary to the doctrine of the Western or Roman Church in that particular. And yet sure they understood what they held, and how far they differed one from another, much better then some Novel writers of yours, who prest by force of Argument, have no other way left them to maintain a perpetual visibility, then by extenuating that difference of Procession betwixt the Greek and Latin Church, which so many ages before Protestancy sprung up, was esteemed a main fundamental error by▪ both parts, caused the Greeks to abandon all subjection and Communion to the Bishops p. 48of Rome; made them so divided the one from the other, that they held each other Hereticks, Schismaticks, and desertors of the true faith, as they continue still to do to this day, and yet you will have them both to be parts of the Catholike Church.

But when you have made the best you can of these Greeks, Armenians, Ethiopians, Protestants, whom you first name, you neither have deduced, nor can deduce them successively in all ages till Christ, as a different Congregation of Christians, from that which holds the Popes Supremacy; which was my proposition. For in the year 1500. those who became the first Protestants, were not a Congregation different from those who held that supremacy; nor in the year 500. were the Greeks a visible Congregation different from it; nor in the year 300. were the Nestorians; nor in the year 200. the Eutychians a different Congregation from those who held the said Supremacy: But in those respective years, those who first begun those Heresies, were involved within that Congregation, which held it, as a part of it, and assenting therein with it: who after in their several ages and beginnings fell off from it, as dead branches from p. 49the tree; that, still remaining what it ever was, and only continuing in a perpetuall visibility of succession.

Though therefore you profess never to have seen convincing proof of this in the first 400 years, & labour to infringe it in the next ages, yet I will make an essay to give you a taste of those innumerable proofs of this visible Consent in the Bishop of Rome's Supremacy, not of Order only, but of Power, Authority, & Iurisdiction over all other Bishops, in the ensuing instances, which happened within the first 400, or 500, or 600, years.

(a)(a)Liberatus in Brev. c. 16.Iohn Bishop of Antioch makes an Appeal to Pope Simplicius. And Flavianus (b(bEpist. praeambula. Concil. Chalcedon.Bishop of Constantinople, being deposed in the false Councill of Ephesus, immediately appeals to the Pope, as to his judge. (c)(c)Concil. Chalcedon. Act. 1.Acts 1Theodoret was by Pope Leo restored, and that by an (d)(d)Concil. Chalcedon. Act. 8.Acts 8appeal unto a just judgement. (e)(e)St. Cyprian. Epist. 67.Saint Cyprian desir… Pope Stephen to depose Marcian Bishop of Arles, that another might be substituted in his place. And to evince the supream Authority of the Bishops of Rome, it is determined in the (f)(f)Concil. Sard. cap. 4. cited by St. Athan. Apol. 2. pag. 753.Council of Sardis, That no Bishop deposed by other neighbouring Bishops, pretending to be heard again, was to have any successour p. 50appointed, until the case were defined by the Pope. Eustathius (g)(g)St. Basil. Epist. 74.Bishop of Sebast in Armenia was restored by Pope Liberius his Letters read and received in the Council of Tyana; and (h)(h)St. Chrysost. Epist. 2. ad. Innocent.Saint Chrysostome expresly desires Pope Innocent not to punish his Adversaries, if they do repent. Which evinces that Saint Chrysostome thought that the Pope had power to punish them. And the like is written to the Pope by the (i)(i)Concil. Ephes. p. 2. Act. 5.Acts 5Council of Ephesus in the case of Iohn Bishop of Antioch.

(k)(k)St. Athanas. ad Solit. Epist. Julius in lit. ad Arian. ap. Athan. Apolog. 1. pag. 753.The Bishops of the Greek, or Eastern Church, who sided with Arius, before they declared themselves to be Arians, sent their Legates to Iulius Bishop of Rome to have their cause heard before him against Saint Athanasius:Theodoret. lib. 2. cap. 4. Athanas▪ Apol. 2. Zozom. lib. 3. cap. 7. the same did Saint Athanasius to defend himself against them: which Arian Bishops having understood from Iulius, that their Accusations against Saint Athanasius, upon due examination of both parties, were found groundless and false, required (rather fraudulently, then seriously) to have a fuller Tryal before a General Council at Rome: which (to take away all shew of excuse from them) Pope Iulius assembled. Saint Athanasius was summoned by the Pope to appear before p. 51him and the Councill in Judgement:The Appeal of Theodoret from that Council as to his judge, is so undeniable that Chamier is forced to acknowledge it. Tom. 2. l. 13. c. g. p. 498. and the whole Council of Calcedon, acknowledged the right of that Appeal, restoring Theodoret to his Bishoprick, by force of an order given upon that Appeal by Leo Pope to restore him. Concerning Saint Athanasius being judged and righted by Iulius Pope, Chamier. cit. p. 497. acknowledges the matter of fact to be so, but against all antiquity, pretends that judgment to have been unjust. Which, had it been so, yet it shews a true power of judging in the Pope, though then unduly executed; otherwise Saint Athanasius, would never have made use of it▪ neither can it be condemned of injustice, unless Saint Athanasius be also condemed as unjust, in consenting to it. which he presently did, (and many other Eastern Bishops unjustly accused by the Arians aforesaid, had recourse to Rome with him,) and expected there a year and a half: All which time his Accusers (though also summoned) appeared not, fearing they should be condemned by the Pope and his Councill. Yet they pretended not (as Protestants have done in these last ages of the Kings of England) That Constantius, the Arian Emperour of the East, was Head, or chief Governour over their Church in all Causes Ecclesiastical…; and consequently that the Pope had nothing to do with them, but only pretended certain frivolous excuses to delay their appearance from one time to another. Where it is worth the noting, that Iulius, reprehending the said Arian Bishops (before they published p. 52their Heresie, and so taking them to be Catholikes) for condemning Saint Athanasius in an Eastern Councill, gathered by them before they had acquainted the Bishop of Rome with so important a cause, useth these words, An ignari …stis hanc consuetudin…m esse, ut primum nobis scribatur; ut …inc quod justum est, à…finiri possit, &c. Are you ignorant, saith he, that this is the custome, to write to us first, That hence that which is just may be defined, &c. where most cleerly it appears, that it belonged particularly to the Bishop of Rome to pass a definitive sentence even against the Bishops of the Eastern, or Greek Church; which yet is more confirmed by the proceedings of Pope Innocent the first, about 12. hundred years since,Niceph. lib. 13. cap. 34. in the Case of Saint Chrysostome: Where first Saint Chrysostome appears to Innocentius from the Councill assembled at Constantinople, Chamier. cit. p. 498. sayes, other Bishops restored those who were wrongfully deposed, as well as the Pope Which though it were so, yet never was there any single Bishop save the Pope, who restored any, who were out of their respective Diocess, or Patriarchates, but always collected together in a Synod, by common voice, and that in regard only of their neighbouring Bishops, whereas the Bishop of Rome his sole and single authority, restored Bishops wrongfully deposed all the Church over.wherein he was condemned. Secondly Innocentius annulls this condemnation, p. 53and declares him innocent. Thridly, he Excommunicates Atticus Bishop of Constantinople, and Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria for persecuting Saint Chrysostome. Fourthly, after Saint Chrysostome was dead in Banishment, Pope Innocentius Excommunicates Arcadius the Emperour of the East, and Eudoxia his wife. Fifthly, the Emperour and Empress humble themselves, crave pardon of him, and were obsolved by him. The same is evident in those matters, which passed about the year 450. where Theodosius the Emperour of the East having too much favoured the Eutychian Hereticks by the instigation of Chrysaphius the Eunuch, and Pulcheria his Empress, and so intermedled too far in Ecclesiasticall causes, yet he ever bore that respect to the See of Rome, (which doubtless in those circumstances he would not have done, had he not believed it an Obligation) that he would not permit the Eutychian Council at Ephesus to be assembled, without the knowledge and Authority of the Roman Bishop Leo the first; and so wrote to him to have his presence in it, who sent his Legats▪ unto them. And though both Leo's letters were dissembled, and his Legats affronted, and himself excommunicated by p. 54wicked Dioscorus, Patriarch of Alexandria, and president of that Coventicle, who also was the chief upholder of the Eutychians, yet Theodosius repented before his death, banished his wife Pulcheria and Chrysaphius the Eunuch, the chief favourers of the Eutychians, and reconciled himself to the Chruch with great evidences of Sorrow and Pennance.

(m)(m)Concil. Chalced. Action. 1.Presently after, Anno. 451. follows the Fourth General Council of Chalcedon: concerning which these particulars occur to our present purpose. First Martianus the Eastern Emperour wrote to Pope Leo, That by the Popes Authority a General Council might be gathered in what City of the Eastern Church he should please to chuse. Secondly, both Anatolius Patriarch of Constantinople, and the rest of the Eastern Bishops, sent to the legats of Pope Leo, by his order, the profession of their Faith. Thirdly, the Popes Legats sate in the first place of the Council before all the Patriarchs. (n)(n)Concil. Chalced. Action. 3.Fourthly, they prohibited (by his order given them) That Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria, and chief upholder of the Eutychians, should sit in the Councill; but be presented as a guilty person to be judged▪ becuase he had celebrated a Councill p. 55in the Eastern Church without the consent of the Bishop of Rome; which (said the Legats) never was done before, nor could be done lawfully. This order of Pope Leo was presently put in execution by consent of the whole Councill, and Dioscorus was judged and condemned; his condemnation and deposition being pronounced by the Popes Legats, and after subscribred by the Councill. Fifthly▪ the Popes Legats pronounced the Church of Rome to be **Which could not be by reason of the Sanctity and truth which was then in it; for the Church of Milan and many others in France, Africa, and Greece were also then pure and holy, and yet none have this title save the Church of Rome. In the time of Iustinian the Emperour, Agapet Pope, even in Constantinople, against the will both of the Emperour and Empress, deposed Anthymus, and ordained Mennas in his place. Libera…. in Breviario. cap. 21. Marcellinus. Comes in Chronico. Concil. Constantin. sub Menna act. 4. And the same St. Greg. C. 7. Ep. 63. declares that both th… Emperour and Bishop of Constantinople acknowledged that the Church of Constantinople was subject to the See of Rome. And l. 7. Ep. 37. Et alibi pronounces, that in case of falling into offences he knew no Bishop which was not subject to the Bishop of Rome.Caput omnium Ecclesiarum, the Head of all Churches, before the whole Council, and none contradicted them. Sixthly, all the Fathers assembled in that Holy Councill, in their Letter to Pope Leo, acknowledged themselves to be his children, and wrote to him as to their Father. Seventhly, they humbly begged of him, that he would grant, that the Patriarch of Constantinople might p. 56have the first place among the Patriarchs, after that of Rome: which notwithstanding that the Councill had consented to (as had also the Third General Councill of Ephesus done before) yet they esteemed their grants to be of no sufficient force, untill they were confirmed by the Pope. And Leo thought not fit to yield to their petition, against the express ordination of the First Councill of Nice; where Alexandria had the preheminence, as also Antioch and Hierusalem, before that of Constantinople.

Saint Cyril of Alexandria, though he wholly disallowed Nestorius his doctrine, yet he would not break off Communion with him, till Celestinus the Pope had condemned him: whose Censure he required and expected. Nestorius also wrote to Celestine, acknowledging his Authority, and expecting from him the Censure of his doctrine. Celestinus condemned Nestorius, and gave him the space of ten daies to repent, after he had received his condemnation. All which had effect in the Eastern Church, where Nestorius was Patriarch of Constantinople. (o)(o)St. Augustin. Tom 1 Epist. Rom. Pontif. post Epist. 2. ad Celestinum.After this Saint Cyrill having received Pope Leo's Letters, wherein he gave power to Saint Cyrill to execute p. 57his condemnation against Nestorius, and to send his condemnatory letters to him, gathered a Council of his next Bishops, and sent Letters and Articles to be subscribed, with the Letters of Celestine to Nestorius: which when Nestorius had received, he was so far from repentance, that he accused St. Cyril in those Articles, to be guilty of the Heresie of Apollinaris: so that St. Cyril being also accused of Heresie, was barred from pronouncing sentence against Nestorius, so long as he stood charged with that Accusation. Theodosius the Emperour, seeing the Eastern Church embroyled in these difficulties, writes to Pope Celestine about the assembling of a general Council at Ephesus, by Petronius afterwards Bishop of Bononia (as is manifest in his life written by Sigonius) Pope Celestine in his Letters to Theodosius, not only professeth his consent to the calling of that Council, but also prescribeth in what form it was to be celebrated; as Firmus Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia testified in the Council of Ephesus. Hereupon Theodosius sent his Letters to assemble the Bishops both of the East and West to that Council. And Celestine sent his Legats thither, with order not to examine again in the Council the cause of p. 58Nestorius, but rather to put Celestines condemnation of him, given the year before, into execution. St. Cyril Bishop of Alexandria, being constituted by Celestine his chief Legate ordinary in the East, by reason of that preheminency, and primacy of his See after that of Rome, presided in the Council: yet so, that Philip, who was only a Priest and no Bishop, by reason that he was sent Legatus à Latere from Celestine, and so supplied his place as he was chief Bishop of the Church, subscribed the first, even before St. Cyril, and all the other Legats and Patriarchs. In the sixth Action of this holy Council, Iuvenalis Patriarch of Hierusalem, having understood the contempt, which Iohn Patriarch of Antioch, who was cited before the Council, shewed of the Bishops and the Popes Legats there assembled, expressed himself against him in these words, Quod Apostolica ordinatione & Antiqua Traditione (which were no way opposed by the Fathers there present) Antiochena sedes perpetuo à Romana dirigeretur judicareturque, That by Apostolical ordination and ancient Tradition the See of Antioch was perpetually directed and judged by the See of Rome: which words not only evidence the precedency of place, p. 59as Dr. Hammond would have it, but of power and judicature in the Bishop of Rome over a Patriarch of the Eastern Church; and that derived from the time and ordination of the Apostles. The Council therefore sent their decrees, with their condemnation of Nestorius, to Pope Celestine, who presently ratified and confirmed them.

Not long after this, in the year 445. Valentinian the Emperour makes this manifesto of the most high Ecclesiastical authority of the See of Rome, in these words: Seeing that the merit of St. Peter, who is the Prince of the Episcopal Crown, and the Dignity of the City of Rome, and no less the authority of the holy Synod, hath established the primacy of the Apostolical See, lest presumption should attempt any unlawful thing against the authority of that See, (for then finally will the peace of the Churches be preserved every where, if the whole universality acknowledge their Governour) when these things had been hitherto inviolably observed, &c. Where he makes the succession from St. Peter to be the first foundation of the Roman Churches primacy; and his authority to be, not only in place, p. 60but in power and Government over the whole visible Church: And adds presently, that the definitive sentence of the Bishop of Rome, given against any French Bishop, was to be of force through France, even without the Emperours Letters Pattents. For what shall not be lawful for the authority of so great a Bishop to exercise upon the Churches? And then adds his Imperial precept, in these words. But this occasion hath provoked also our command, that hereafter it shall not be lawful, neither for Hilarius (whom to be still entituled a Bishop, the sole humanity of the meek Prelate (id est, the Bishop of Rome) permits) neither for any other to mingle arms with Ecclesiastical matters, or to resist the commands of the Bishop of Rome, &c. We define by this our perpetual decree, that it shall neither be lawful for the French Bishops, nor for those of other Provinces, against the ancient custom, to attempt any thing without the authority of the venerable Pope of the eternal City: But let it be for a law to them and to all, whatsoever the authority of the Apostolick See hath determined, or shall determine. So that what Bishop soever, being called to the p. 61Tribunal of the Roman Bishop, shall neglect to come, is to be compelled by the Governour of the same Province, to present himself before him. Which evidently proves, that the highest, Universal, Ecclesiastical Judge and Governour was, and ever is to be the Bishop of Rome: which the Council of Chalcedon before mentioned, plainly owned, when writing to Pope Leo they say, Thou Governest us, as the head doth the members, Epist. Concil. ad. I. con. Pap. Act. 1. & sequ.Acts 1contributing thy good will by those which hold thy place. Behold a Primacy, not only of Precedency, but of Government and Authority; which Lerinensis confirms, contr. Haeres. cap. 9. where speaking of Stephen Pope, he saies, Dignum, ut opinor, existimans, si reliquos omnes tantum fidei devotione, quantum locī authoritate, superabat: esteeming it (as I think) a thing worthy of himself, if he overcame all others as much in the devotion of faith, as he did in the Authority of his place. And to confirm what this universal Authority was; he affirms, that he sent a Law, Decree, or Command into Africa, (Sanxit,) That in matter of rebaptization or Hereticks nothing should be innovated▪ which was a manifest argument of his Spiritual Authority over those of p. 62Africa; and à paritate rationis, over all others. I will shut up all with that which was publickly pronounced, and no way contradicted, and consequently assented to in the Council of Ephesus, (one of the four first general Councils) in this matter, Tom. 2. Concil. pag. 327. Act. 1. where Philip, Priest and Legate of Pope Celestine, sayes thus, Gratias agimus sanctae venerandaeque synodo, quod literis sancti beatique Papae nostri vobis recitatis, sanctas chartas, sanctis vestris vocibus, sancto capiti vestro, sanctis vestris exclamationibus, exhibueritis. Non enim ignorat vestra beatitudo, totius fidei, vel etiam Apostolorum, caput esse beatum Apostolum Petrum. And the same Philip, Act. 3. p. 330. proceeds in this manner, Nulli dubium, imo saeculis omnibus notum est, quod sanctus beatissimusque Petrus, Apostolorum Princeps & caput, Fideique columna, Ecclesiae Catholicae Fundamentum, à Domino nostro Jesu Christo, Salvatore generis humani ac redemptore nostro claves regni accepit, solvendique ac ligandi peccata potestas ipsi data est; qui ad hoc usque tempus ac semper in suis successoribus vivit & judicium exercet: —Hujus itaque secundum ordinem p. 63successor & locum-tenens, sanctus beatissimusque Papa noster Celestinus, nos ipsius praesentiam supplentes huc misit. And Arcadius another of the Popes Legats enveighing against the Heretick Nestorius, accuses him, (though he was Patriarch of Constantinople, which this Council requires to be next in dignity after Rome) as of a great crime,For the age 600. See St. Gregory Pope, l. 10. ep. 30. where Hereticks and Shismaticks repenting were received then into the Church, upon solemn promise, and publike protestation, that they would never any more separate from, but alwaies remain in the unity of the Catholike Church, and communion in all things with the Bishop of Rome. that he contemned the command of the Apostolick See, that is, of Pope Celestine. Now had Pope Celestine had no power to command him (and by the like reason to command all other Bishops) he had committed no fault in transgressing and contemning his command. By these testimonies it will appear, that what you are pleased to say, That the most part of the Catholike Church hath been against us to this day, and all for many hundred of years, is far from truth: seeing in the time of the holy Oecumenical Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, the universal consent of the whole Catholike Church was for us in this point.

p. 64As to what you say of Congregation of Christians in the beginning, I answer, I took the word Christians in a large sense, comprehending in it all those (as it is vulgarly taken) who are Baptized and profess to believe in Christ, and are distinguished from Jews, Mahumetans and Heathens, under the denomination of Christians.

What you often say of an universal Monarch, &c. if you take Monarch for an Imperious sole Commander, as temporal Kings are, we acknowledge no such Monarch in the Church: if only for one who hath received power from Christ, in meekness, charity, and humility to govern all the rest, for their own eternal good, as brethren or children, we grant it.

What also you often repeat of a Vice-Christ, we much dislike that title, as proud and insolent, and utterly disclaim from it; neither was it ever given by any sufficient Authority to our Popes, or did they ever accept of it.

As to the Council of Constance, they never questioned the Supremacy of the Pope, as ordinary chief Governour of all Bishops and people in the whole Church: nay they expresly give it to Martinus Quintus, when he was chosen.

p. 65But in extraordinary cases, especially when it is doubtful who is true Pope, as it was in the beginning of this Council, till Martinus Quintus was chosen: Whether any extraordinary power be in a general Council, above that ordinary power of the Pope: which is a question disputed by some amongst our selves, but touches not the matter in hand; which proceeds only of the ordinary and constant Supream Pastor of all Christians, abstracting from extraordinary tribunals and powers, which are seldom found in the Church, and collected only occasionally, and upon extraordinary accidents.

Thus honoured Sir, I have as much as my occasions would permit me, hastened a reply to your answer; and if more be requisite, it shall not be denyed. Only please to give me leave to tell you, that I cannot conceive my Argument yet answered by all you have said to it.

William Iohnson. Feb. 3. 1658.

Sir,

It was the 21. of January, before your Answer came to my hands; and though my p. 64duplicate page p. 65duplicate page p. 66Reply was made ready by me the third instant, yet I have found so great difficulties to get it transcribed, that it was not possible to transmit it to you before now. But I hope hereafter I shall find Scribes more at leasure. I must desire you to excuse what errors you find in the Copy which I send; As also, that being unwilling to make a farther delay, I am enforced to send a Copy which hath in it more interlineations then would otherwise become me to send to a person of your worth. Yet I cannot doubt, but your Candor will pass by all things of this nature. I am Sir,

Your very humble servant, William Iohnson. Feb. 15. 1658.

Worthy Sir,

I have now expected neer three moneths for your rejoynder to the Reply which I made to that answer which you were pleased to send, and return to my Argument concerning the Church of Christ, but as yet nothing hath appeared. I must confess, I have wondered at it, considering the earnestness which appeared in you at the first, to proceed with speed in a business of this nature: what the impediment p. 67hath been, I am only left to guess: but certainly truth is strong, and it will not be found an easie thing to oppose her while we keep close to form. I am now necessitated to go out of London; so that if your Papers come in my absence, I shall hope you will have the patience to expect untill they can be sent from London to me, and my Answers returned by the way of London: but I do engage not to make a delay longer then the circumstances of the place and times shall enforce.

Sir, I do highly honour and esteem your parts and person; and shall be very glad to bring that business to an handsome issue which hath been so calmly and soberly prosecuted. I am an enemy to passion; and as I have hitherto found you sweet and gentle in your proceedings towards me, so shall you alwaies find me,

Worthy Sir, Your friend to serve you, William Johnson. May 2. 1659.

Sir,

Be pleased to return your Answer, Papers or Letters which you intend for me, to the same place to which you directed your former; by which means, I shall be secure to receive p. 68them at my house, which is fourscore miles from London.