Filter authors and titles

The successive visibility of the church of which the Protestants are the soundest members…Richard Baxter, 1660

To my third Syllogism.

pp. 33–6540 passages

Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.

:137p. 33

To my third Syllogism.

:138p. 33–34

Granting my Major, you distinguish the term Pastors in my Minor, into particular and universal, fixed and unfixed, &c. I answer, that the term Pastors (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 always had visible Pastors and People united. Now the Church is not a ⟨p. 34⟩part 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 inferior Pastors were sent to them. For when they were taught the Christian Doctrine, in the explication of that Article, I believe the Holy Catholic 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.

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. 34⟩

The successive visibility of the church of which the Protestants are the soundest members…Richard Baxter, 1660

To my third Syllogism.

pp. 33–6540 passages

Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.

:137p. 33

To my third Syllogism.

:138p. 33–34

:154p. 39–41

AT length you give fair attempt to satisfy 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. 40⟩which I require. I demand, that the Answerer nominate any Congregation of Christians, which always 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 Conqueror till this present time; and he who undertakes to satisfy 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 satisfy 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 pursuit 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. 41⟩to 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 near 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?

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. 40⟩which 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. 41⟩to 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?

:155p. 41–42

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. 42⟩against 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 ancient Author for this Assertion. Were those primitive Christians of another kind of Church-order and Government, then were those under the Roman Empire^*? 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 Emperor? See now how little your Allegations are to the purpose, where you nominate any determinate Congregations to satisfy my demand.

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. 42⟩against 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^*? 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.

*But how far from truth this is, appears from St. Leo, in his Sermons de natali suo, where he says, Sedes Roma Petri, quicquid non possidet almis, Religione tenet; and by this, that the Abyssines of Ethiopia were under the Patriarch of Alexandria anciently, which Patriarch was under the Authority of the Roman Bishop, as we shall presently see.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.

:156p. 43–44

I had no reason to demand of you different congregations, of all sorts and Sects opposing the Supremacy, to have been shown visible in all ages. I was not so ignorant, as not to know, that the Nicolaitans, Valentinians, Gnostics, Manichees, Montanists, Arians, Donatists, Nestorians, Eutychians, Pelagians, Iconoclasts, Berengarians, Waldensians, Albigenses, Wicleffists, Hussites, 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 joining 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. 44⟩and 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 Catholic 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 Catholic 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 Bishoprics 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?

I 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. 44⟩and 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?

:157p. 44–46

Though therefore you do account ⟨p. 45⟩them all parts of the Catholic 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 Catholic Church, unless you make Arians, and Pelagians, and Donatists, parts of the Catholic Church: which were either to deny them to be Heretics and Schismatics; or to affirm, that Heretics and Schismatics, separating themselves from the communion of the Catholic Church, notwithstanding that separation, do continue parts of the Catholic Church. For who knows not that the Ethiopians to this day are ^*Eutychian Heretics. And a great part of those Greeks and Armenians, who deny the Popes Supremacy, are infected with the Heresy 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. 46⟩communicate with you, or to esteem you other then Heretics and Schismatics, 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 Governor 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, Jeremiah Patriarch of Constantinople, his Answer to the Lutherans, especially in the beginning and end of the book; Acta Theologorum Wittebergensium, &c. and Sir Edwin Sands, of this subject, in his Survey, p. 232, 233, 242, &c.

Though therefore you do account ⟨p. 45⟩them 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 ^*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. 46⟩communicate 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.

*See Rosse his view of Religions, p. 99. 489, 492, &c. Where he says that they circumcise their children the eighth day, they use Mosaical ceremonies. They mention not the council of Calcedon, because (says 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.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.

:158p. 46–48

Either therefore you must make the Eutychians and Nestorians no Heretics, and so contradict the Ecumenical 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 Heretics parts of the Catholic Church, against all antiquity and Christianity. And for those Greeks near Constantinople, who are not infected with Nestorianism and Eutychianism, yet in the Procession of the Holy Ghost, against ⟨p. 47⟩both us and you, they must be thought to maintain manifest Heresy; 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,¹ and lost his ancient authority by that sole pretended error; and the Latins always esteemed the Greeks to be in a damnable error, in maintaining the contrary to the doctrine of the Western or Roman Church in that particular. And yet sure they understood what they held, and how far they differed one from another, much better then some Novel writers of yours, who pressed 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. 48⟩of Rome; made them so divided the one from the other, that they held each other Heretics, Schismatics, and deserters 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 Catholic Church.

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. 47⟩both us and you, they must be thought to maintain manifest Heresie; it being a point in a fundamental matter of faith, the Trinity: and the difference betwixt those Greeks and the Western Church, now for many hundred of years, and in many General Councils esteemed and defined to be 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,¹ 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. 48⟩of Rome; made them so divided the one from the other, that they held each other Hereticks, Schismaticks, and desertors of the true faith, as they continue still to do to this day, and yet you will have them both to be parts of the Catholike Church.

1See Nilus on this subject.

:159p. 48–49

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. 49⟩the tree; that, still remaining what it ever was, and only continuing in a perpetual visibility of succession.

:161p. 49–50

^(a)John Bishop of Antioch makes an Appeal to Pope Simplicius. And Flavianus ^(bBishop of Constantinople, being deposed in the false Council of Ephesus, immediately appeals to the Pope, as to his judge. ^(c)Theodoret was by Pope Leo restored, and that by an ^(d)appeal unto a just judgement. ^(e)Saint Cyprian desir•• Pope Stephen to depose Marcian Bishop of Arles, that another might be substituted in his place. And to evince the supreme Authority of the Bishops of Rome, it is determined in the ^(f)Council of Sardis, That no Bishop deposed by other neighbouring Bishops, pretending to be heard again, was to have any successor ⟨p. 50⟩appointed, until the case were defined by the Pope. Eustathius ^(g)Bishop of Sebast in Armenia was restored by Pope Liberius his Letters read and received in the Council of Tyana; and ^(h)Saint Chrysostom expressly desires Pope Innocent not to punish his Adversaries, if they do repent. Which evinces that Saint Chrysostom thought that the Pope had power to punish them. And the like is written to the Pope by the ⁽ⁱ⁾Council of Ephesus in the case of John Bishop of Antioch.

^(a)Iohn Bishop of Antioch makes an Appeal to Pope Simplicius. And Flavianus ^(bBishop of Constantinople, being deposed in the false Councill of Ephesus, immediately appeals to the Pope, as to his judge. ^(c)Theodoret was by Pope Leo restored, and that by an ^(d)appeal unto a just judgement. ^(e)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)Council of Sardis, That no Bishop deposed by other neighbouring Bishops, pretending to be heard again, was to have any successour ⟨p. 50⟩appointed, until the case were defined by the Pope. Eustathius ^(g)Bishop of Sebast in Armenia was restored by Pope Liberius his Letters read and received in the Council of Tyana; and ^(h)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⁾Council of Ephesus in the case of Iohn Bishop of Antioch.

(a)Liberatus in Brev. c. 16.
(bEpist. praeambula. Concil. Chalcedon.
(c)Concil. Chalcedon. Act. 1.
(d)Concil. Chalcedon. Act. 8.
(e)St. Cyprian. Epist. 67.
(f)Concil. Sard. cap. 4. cited by St. Athan. Apol. 2. pag. 753.
(g)St. Basil. Epist. 74.
(h)St. Chrysost. Epist. 2. ad. Innocent.
(i)Concil. Ephes. p. 2. Act. 5.

:162p. 50–52

^(k)The Bishops of the Greek, or Eastern Church, who sided with Arius, before they declared themselves to be Arians, sent their Legates to Julius Bishop of Rome to have their cause heard before him against Saint Athanasius:² the same did Saint Athanasius to defend himself against them: which Arian Bishops having understood from Julius, 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 Trial before a General Council at Rome: which (to take away all show of excuse from them) Pope Julius assembled. Saint Athanasius was summoned by the Pope to appear before ⟨p. 51⟩him and the Council in Judgement:³ 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 Council. Yet they pretended not (as Protestants have done in these last ages of the Kings of England) That Constantius, the Arian Emperor of the East, was Head, or chief Governor 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 Julius, reprehending the said Arian Bishops (before they published ⟨p. 52⟩their Heresy, and so taking them to be Catholics) for condemning Saint Athanasius in an Eastern Council, 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 custom, to write to us first, That hence that which is just may be defined, &c. where most clearly 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,⁴ in the Case of Saint Chrysostom: Where first Saint Chrysostom appears to Innocentius from the Council assembled at Constantinople, ⁵wherein he was condemned.

^(k)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:² 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. 51⟩him and the Councill in Judgement:³ 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. 52⟩their 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,

(k)St. Athanas. ad Solit. Epist. Julius in lit. ad Arian. ap. Athan. Apolog. 1. pag. 753.
2Theodoret. lib. 2. cap. 4. Athanas▪ Apol. 2. Zozom. lib. 3. cap. 7.
3The 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 Bishopric, by force of an order given upon that Appeal by Leo Pope to restore him. Concerning Saint Athanasius being judged and righted by Julius 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 shows a true power of judging in the Pope, though then unduly executed; otherwise Saint Athanasius, would never have made use of it▪ neither can it be condemned of injustice, unless Saint Athanasius be also condemned as unjust, in consenting to it.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.
4Niceph. lib. 13. cap. 34.
5Chamier. cit. p. 498. says, other Bishops restored those who were wrongfully deposed, as well as the Pope Which though it were so, yet never was there any single Bishop save the Pope, who restored any, who were out of their respective Diocese, 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.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.

:163p. 52–54

Secondly Innocentius annuls this condemnation, ⟨p. 53⟩and declares him innocent. Thirdly, he Excommunicates Atticus Bishop of Constantinople, and Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria for persecuting Saint Chrysostom. Fourthly, after Saint Chrysostom was dead in Banishment, Pope Innocentius Excommunicates Arcadius the Emperor of the East, and Eudoxia his wife. Fifthly, the Emperor and Empress humble themselves, crave pardon of him, and were absolved by him. The same is evident in those matters, which passed about the year 450. where Theodosius the Emperor of the East having too much favoured the Eutychian Heretics by the instigation of Chrysaphius the Eunuch, and Pulcheria his Empress, and so intermeddled too far in Ecclesiastical 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 Legates▪ unto them. And though both Leo's letters were dissembled, and his Legates affronted, and himself excommunicated by ⟨p. 54⟩wicked Dioscorus, Patriarch of Alexandria, and president of that Conventicle, 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 Church with great evidences of Sorrow and Penance.

Secondly Innocentius annulls this condemnation, ⟨p. 53⟩and 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. 54⟩wicked 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.

:164p. 54–56

^(m)Presently after, Anno. 451. follows the Fourth General Council of Chalcedon: concerning which these particulars occur to our present purpose. First Martianus the Eastern Emperor 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 choose. Secondly, both Anatolius Patriarch of Constantinople, and the rest of the Eastern Bishops, sent to the legates of Pope Leo, by his order, the profession of their Faith. Thirdly, the Popes Legates sate in the first place of the Council before all the Patriarchs. ⁽ⁿ⁾Fourthly, they prohibited (by his order given them) That Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria, and chief upholder of the Eutychians, should sit in the Council; but be presented as a guilty person to be judged▪ because he had celebrated a Council ⟨p. 55⟩in the Eastern Church without the consent of the Bishop of Rome; which (said the Legates) never was done before, nor could be done lawfully. This order of Pope Leo was presently put in execution by consent of the whole Council, and Dioscorus was judged and condemned; his condemnation and deposition being pronounced by the Popes Legates, and after subscribed by the Council. Fifthly▪ the Popes Legates pronounced the Church of Rome to be ^*Caput omnium Ecclesiarum, the Head of all Churches, before the whole Council, and none contradicted them. Sixthly, all the Fathers assembled in that Holy Council, 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. 56⟩have the first place among the Patriarchs, after that of Rome: which notwithstanding that the Council had consented to (as had also the Third General Council of Ephesus done before) yet they esteemed their grants to be of no sufficient force, until they were confirmed by the Pope. And Leo thought not fit to yield to their petition, against the express ordination of the First Council of Nice; where Alexandria had the preeminence, as also Antioch and Jerusalem, before that of Constantinople.

^(m)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⁾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. 55⟩in 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 ^*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. 56⟩have 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.

(m)Concil. Chalced. Action. 1.
(n)Concil. Chalced. Action. 3.
*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 Justinian the Emperor, Agapet Pope, even in Constantinople, against the will both of the Emperor and Empress, deposed Anthymus, and ordained Mennas in his place. Liberal. 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• Emperor 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.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.

:165p. 56–58

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 days to repent, after he had received his condemnation. All which had effect in the Eastern Church, where Nestorius was Patriarch of Constantinople. ^(o)After this Saint Cyril having received Pope Leo's Letters, wherein he gave power to Saint Cyril to execute ⟨p. 57⟩his 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 Heresy of Apollinaris: so that St. Cyril being also accused of Heresy, was barred from pronouncing sentence against Nestorius, so long as he stood charged with that Accusation. Theodosius the Emperor, seeing the Eastern Church embroiled in these difficulties, writes to Pope Celestine about the assembling of a general Council at Ephesus, by Petronius afterwards Bishop of Bononia (as is manifest in his life written by Sigonius) Pope 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 Legates thither, with order not to examine again in the Council the cause of ⟨p. 58⟩Nestorius, 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.

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)After this Saint Cyrill having received Pope Leo's Letters, wherein he gave power to Saint Cyrill to execute ⟨p. 57⟩his 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. 58⟩Nestorius, 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.

(o)St. Augustin. Tom 1 Epist. Rom. Pontif. post Epist. 2. ad Celestinum.

:166p. 58–59

Cyril, and all the other Legates and Patriarchs. In the sixth Action of this holy Council, Juvenalis Patriarch of Jerusalem, having understood the contempt, which John Patriarch of Antioch, who was cited before the Council, showed of the Bishops and the Popes Legates there assembled, expressed himself against him in these words, Quod Apostolica ordinatione & Antiqua Tradition (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. 59⟩as Dr. Hammond would have it, but of power and judicature in the Bishop of Rome over a Patriarch of the Eastern Church; and that derived from the time and ordination of the Apostles. The Council therefore sent their decrees, with their condemnation of Nestorius, to Pope Celestine, who presently ratified and confirmed them.

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. 59⟩as Dr. Hammond would have it, but of power and judicature in the Bishop of Rome over a Patriarch of the Eastern Church; and that derived from the time and ordination of the Apostles. The Council therefore sent their decrees, with their condemnation of Nestorius, to Pope Celestine, who presently ratified and confirmed them.

:167p. 59–61

Not long after this, in the year 445. Valentinian the Emperor 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 Governor) 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. 60⟩but in power and Government over the whole visible Church: And adds presently, that the definitive sentence of the Bishop of Rome, given against any French Bishop, was to be of force through France, even without the Emperors Letters Patents. For what shall not be lawful for the authority of so great a Bishop to exercise upon the Churches? And then adds his Imperial precept, in these words. But this occasion hath provoked also our command, that hereafter it shall not be lawful, neither for Hilarius (whom to be still entitled 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 Apostolic See hath determined, or shall determine. So that what Bishop soever, being called to the ⟨p. 61⟩Tribunal of the Roman Bishop, shall neglect to come, is to be compelled by the Governor of the same Province, to present himself before him. Which evidently proves, that the highest, Universal, Ecclesiastical Judge and Governor was, and ever is to be the Bishop of Rome:

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. 60⟩but in power and Government over the whole visible Church: And adds presently, that the definitive sentence of the Bishop of Rome, given against any French Bishop, was to be of force through France, even without the 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. 61⟩Tribunal of the Roman Bishop, shall neglect to come, is to be compelled by the Governour of the same Province, to present himself before him. Which evidently proves, that the highest, Universal, Ecclesiastical Judge and Governour was, and ever is to be the Bishop of Rome:

:168p. 61–63

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, 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 Heretics nothing should be innovated▪ which was a manifest argument of his Spiritual Authority over those of ⟨p. 62⟩Africa; and à paritate rationis, over all others. I will shut up all with that which was publicly 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, says thus, Gratias agimus sanctae venerandaeque synodo, quod literis sancti beatique Papae nostri vobis recitatis, sanctas chartas, sanctis vestris vocibus, sancto capiti vestro, sanctis vestris exclamationibus, exhibueritis. Non enim ignorat vestra beatitudo, totius fidei, vel etiam Apostolorum, caput esse beatum Apostolum Petrum. And the same Philip, Act. 3. p. 330. proceeds in this manner, Nulli dubium, imo saeculis omnibus notum est, quod sanctus beatissimusque Petrus, Apostolorum Princeps & caput, Fideique columna, Ecclesiae Catholicae Fundamentum, à Domino nostro Jesu Christo, Salvatore generis humani ac redemptore nostro claves regni accepit, solvendique ac ligandi peccata potestas ipsi data est; qui ad hoc usque tempus ac semper in suis successoribus vivit & judicium exercet: —Hujus itaque secundum ordinem ⟨p. 63⟩successor & locum-tenens, sanctus beatissimusque Papa noster Celestinus, nos ipsius praesentiam supplentes huc misit.

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, 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. 62⟩Africa; and à paritate rationis, over all others. I will shut up all with that which was publickly pronounced, and no way contradicted, and consequently assented to in the Council of Ephesus, (one of the four first general Councils) in this matter, Tom. 2. Concil. 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. 63⟩successor & locum-tenens, sanctus beatissimusque Papa noster Celestinus, nos ipsius praesentiam supplentes huc misit.

1Epist. Concil. ad. I. con. Pap. Act. 1. & sequ.

:169p. 63

And Arcadius another of the Popes Legates inveighing against the Heretic 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,¹ that he contemned the command of the Apostolic 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 Catholic 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 Ecumenical Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, the universal consent of the whole Catholic Church was for us in this point.

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,¹ 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.

1For the age 600. See St. Gregory Pope, l. 10. ep. 30. where Heretics and Shismaticks repenting were received then into the Church, upon solemn promise, and public protestation, that they would never any more separate from, but always remain in the unity of the Catholic Church, and communion in all things with the Bishop of Rome.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.

To my third Syllogism.

Reformers309

Puritans1,782

Westminster Assembly24

Evangelicals36

To my third Syllogism.