justly condemned for not beleeving Gods revelation Now suppose some new Heretick as I have heard of one such lately should beleeve that Christ did rise again from the dead yet dis-believes that he rose the third day and perswades himself that his Resurrection happened some time after the third day Let such an Heretick be asked why he beleeves that Christ rose from death if he tell you because God hath revealed it in the forenamed sentence then ask him what moves him to beleeve that God has revealed it if he tells you because he finds it clearly expressed in this sentence of Scripture which he beleeves to be Gods revealed word demand further why he beleeves it to be his word he will tell you because it is sufficiently propounded to him as such so that he is satisfied that it is the Word of God Then presse him thus But certainly you beleeve not that place of Scripture to be the Word of God for if you did you would beleeve all that it contained in it which you do not for it is as clearly exprest in that sentence That Christ rose again the third day as that he rose at all but you beleeve not that he rose the third day Ergo You beleeve not that Sentence to be the Word of God Ergo You cannot beleeve that Christ rose again for the authority of Gods word in that sentence Ergo You beleeve it not because God has revealed it Ergo You have no divine Faith at all of the mystery of the Resurrection but a meer humane perswasion grounded upon your own particular phansie or reason that it is so Thus you see it is impossible to beleeve any thing which God has revealed for the Authority of Divine revelation unless he who beleeves gives the like assent to every other truth be it of what importance great or small in it self makes nothing to our present difficulty which is as plainly proposed to him to be revealed from God as that which he beleeves To make this yet more facile to the unlearned I will declare it by a Vulgar instance Suppose there were some honourable and worthy Person in a Common-wealth of so great credit that what he saves is beleeved by every one as an undoubted truth Some other of credible Authority tells his friend this Honourable person has told him two things and affirmed both of them to be true of his own knowledge his friend tells him he beleeves the one but will not by any means assent to the other He asks his friend Why beleeve you the first He answers because such a person affirmes it to be true He demands further why beleeve you he said so the friend answers upon your relation Then sayes the other you hold my relation to be a sufficient inductive to make you beleeve he said the first Yes says his friend I do not so replies the relator for if you did you would beleeve he said the second as well as the first for I assure you as much that he said the one as the other Now what can his Friend answer he must either say that he beleeves not the Honourable person said so upon the sole authority of the others relation and consequently that neither of those truths were sufficiently propounded to him by that relator and so could beleeve neither the first not the second contrary to his former acknowledgment and our present supposition or he must deny that he beleeves the second of those relations though the Honourable Personage said both the one and the other and then it is evident he beleeved not the first upon the sole credit of his saying but for som other reason of his own For if he had beleeved the first upon his sole word he must have beleeved the second also seeing he had as much reason to beleeve he said the second as the first Thus I have endeavoured to prove the first part of my Major Now I prove the second Viz. That no man can have true Christian faith who beleeves any thing as revealed from God which is as sufficiently propounded to him to be erroneous or not revealed from God as are the Articles of Faith to be Gods revelations the very same Authority which affirms the one denying the other Let us suppose some rigid Calvinist beleeving the Pope to be that great Antichrist foretold in the Revelation and that the very same authority which as he acknowledges sufficiently propounded to him the Articles of Christian Faith as revealed from God assured him that no such matter as the Popes being that great Antichrist was ever revealed and that it was a manifest error in Faith In this case either that Calvinist must dis-beleeve that propounding Authority and thereby loose his Faith in the former Articles and have no true Faith at all in the first or beleeve it in the second because it is still the very same Authority in both For that very Authority which propounds the Articles of Faith as revealed from God propounds this as not revealed and as contrary to Gods revelation Baxter Num. 89. Yet I have herewith satisfied your demand but shewed you the unreasonableness of it beyond all reasonable contradiction Non-proof 12. Iohnson Num. 89. You are very prone to assert without proof Where have you shewed the unreasonableness of my demand Tell me I pray in your next for you have not yet done it Baxter Num. 90. You next inquire Whether we account Rome and us one Congregation of Christians I answer the Roman Church hath two heads and ours but one and that 's the difference Iohnson Num. 90. Who ever accounted a King and a Viceroy a Bishop and a Vicar a Captain and a Lieutenant a Master and a Steward two Heads respectively to their Territories and Jurisdictions Can you call the head and the neck two heads because both of them with subordination the one to the other are placed above the rest of the body The head is the highest part of an Organical body and whatsoever is subordinate to that is no head absolutely though it be next the head and higher then all the other parts Christ is only the Head of his whole Church comprising the Militant and Triumphant and of this whole Church the Pope is a part but no Head The Holy Councils and Fathers indeed stile him sometimes Head of the visible Militant Church as we shall see hereafter but that is only in regard of the visible government of the Church not absolutly and soveraignly for the only soveraign head of the Militant Church works in it and governs it invisibly by his holy lights and inspirations and particularly him who is its visible Head according to its visible government There is therefore amongst us one only absolute head of the Church the other hath no absolute Independent power over it but is as truly a part of the Church depending as much on the absolute head as any other pâ—â—râ—â— doth There is but one King and Master of the Militant
Bernard Lutsemburg de Albigens Vide etiam S. Anton. 4 parte summae Tit. 11 c. 7. the one Good and the other Evil with the Manichees who denied 1. the Old Testament 2. that Baptism profited Infants to Salvation 3. that an unworthy Minister could consecrate the holy Sacrament 4. that wicked Prelates had any Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction or were to be obeyed 5. that it is lawfull to swear in any occasion whatsoever c. then with Alexander the Third whom no Christian in those times ever accused of Heresie or Errour in Faith who was elected against his will and after a Schisme made by Octavianus the Anti-Pope and Frederick the Emperour was received both by the Western and Eastern Churches excepting onely the party of Frederick who notwithstanding after acknowledged him and relinquisht Octavianus the Anti-Pope And whatsoever latter Historians relate by Hear-say Acta Alexâ—â—nd 3. ap Romuald Episcop Salern in suo Chronico ap Rogerium in Epist. Alexand in Histor. suâ of the insulting of this Pope over that Emperour yet those who recorded what past before their eyes in the time of Alexander record nothing but what became a modest and Christian Prelate of his eminency Baxter Num. 87 The Religion of all these men was one and they were all of one Vniversal Church Iohnson Num. 87. This is your grand Novelty at which I chiefly aim in this Answer It is not easie to conjecture what you mean by all these men whether the Iconoclasts Berengarians Waldensians Albigenses Wickliffists Hussites Lutherans Calvinists which you named in the end of pag. 105. and again pag. 106. in your Edit or those whom I named pag. 43. of your Book that is all at least amongst them whom you account Univocal Christians amongst which are Donatists Nestorians Eutychians Pelagians And can you or did yet ever any Christian before you account these men to have had one Religion Is the Religion of those who say there are Two Gods the same with that which teaches there is no more but one onely God if so then Heathens and Christians may be as well of one Religion If not then could not at least the Albigenses be of one Religion with the rest Vide supra whom I have proved to have held two gods Of the rest more hereafter Baxte Num. 88. Where you again call for one Congregation I tell you again that we know no unity Essential from whence the Church can be called one but either Christ or the Vice-Christ the former only is asserted by us and the latter also by you which we deny And therefore we cannot call the Universal Church one in any other formal respects but as it is Christian and so one in Christ. Iohnson Num. 88. We acknowledge the Church to be one in Christ as much as you but we acknowledge him as Head not to be the Formal but the Causal unity that is working the formal unity to wit Faith and Charity in his Church It is not enough to make one living organical body that there be one head and parts but those parts must be united to their Head and amongst themselves and to that Head Nor is it enough that there be several parts in the Church and one head of it but those parts must also be united to their Head and amongst themselves otherwise they are not one Now that which is the formall cause of this Unity is true Christian Faith and Charity which do both unite Christians amongst themselves and to Christ their Head I mean that necessary and prime charity which preserves external Communion and society amongst Christians so much celebrated by the Fathers and Schoolmen which is taken away by nothing but Schism or that which includes Schism Whence appears that to whomsoever the name of Christian is vulgarly given unless there be found true Faith and this Christian charity amongst all the other members they cannot be actual parts of the one true Catholick Church When therefore you say the Church universal cannot be called one in any other formal respect but as it is Christian if you mean by Christian all such as have true Christian faith and charity ut supra you say true and you say nothing but what all good Christians say But then here comes the difficulty how any Heretick or Schismatick can be a Christian more then nomine tenus in denomination only or in a laxe acception of the word for such as make a bare profession to beleeve in Christ and are thereby distinguished from Jewes Mahumetans and Heathens and so pass under the notion of Christians For if to be a Christian in our present strict sense be required a true Christian Faith then all that are true Christians have true faith but no Heretick hath true faith Ergo No Heretick is in this strict acception a Christian The Major is evident I prove the Minor Whosoever hath true faith beleeveth the material object of faith or the thing beleeved for the Divine Authority of God revealing it But no Heretick beleeves the material object of faith or the thing beleeved for the Divine Authority of God revealing it Ergo no Heretick hath true faith The Major is granted by all Divines yours and ours For Christian faith must rest upon Gods revelation as its formal object I prove the Minor Whosoever beleeves the material object of faith or thing beleeved for the Divine Authority of God revealing it must beleeve all things which are as suffiâ—â—iently propounded to him to be revealed by God as are the rest of the Articles which he beleeveth protesteth to and beleeve nothing as revealed which is as sufficiently declared to him to be erroneous or not revealed by Divine Authority as are the Articles of Faith propounded to be revealed by God But every Heretick either refuses to beleeve something which is so sufficiently propounded to him to be revealed from â—â—od or beleeves something as revealed which is so sufficiently declared to him to be erroneous or not revealed from God Ergo no Heretick hath true faith The Major I prove thus as to the first part Whosoever refuses to beleeve what is so sufficiently propounded to be revealed by God either beleeves all that is so propounded or beleeves some things and refuses to beleeve others as sufficiently propounded as those which he beleeves But if he refuses all he can have no true faith for he beleeves nothing and consequently is no Christian. If he beleeves some and refuses others equally propounded he beleeves them not for the Divine Authority revealing for when that is equally propounded to his understanding it ought to work equally upon it but upon his own willful choice or private judgement refuses one and assents to the other To illustrate this Let this sentence of Scripture Tertiâ die refurget he shall rise again the third day be so sufficienly propounded to be Gods revelation that whosoever refuses to beleeve the substance of our Saviours Resurrection delivered in it is
of all that ever God revealed to them and within three or four lines you say absolutely and without all exception no man knoweth all that God hath revealed first you say all men or most at least have been sinfully negligent in searching after and receiving truth and within a Line or two you leave out your Restriction and say no man knoweth all that God hath revealed or that he ought to know 13. I would know the reason why you first suppose your principle that no man can believe all unlesse he actually knows all and thence inferre against me that in my Principles who deny that of yours I cannot know who is who is not of my Church because I cannot know what Reasons any particular have had to know more or fewer divine Truths or whether they have concurred with those Reasons or no and so must make my Church invisible now I make my Church visible though by comprehending in it all those who professe an Explicite Faith in several Articles which they understand distinctly and an implicite Belief of the rest whereof they have not distinct understanding by professing that they believe all that God hath revealed to be believed by them whatsoever they be in particular now so long as they persevere in this behalf though they should happen through culpable negligence not arrive to the knowledge of many things which they ought to know necessitati praecepti yet they remain members though corrupt and wicked of the Church whereby you see how easily I avoid that difficulty which you thought I could not Mr. Baxter The second sort of implicite belief is no belief of the particulars at all an Animal may live and yet it followeth not that you are alive or an Animal William Iohnson How impossibly dispute you here your instance is from the matter for when you say omne Animal vivit every sensible creature lives it must have this sense that it lives onely so long as it is and as it continues Animal or a sensible Creature for otherwise you would have it to be when it is not and to live when it is dead now understanding the proposition thus whosoever believes omne Animal vivit believes me to be a sensible creature so long as I am in being and to live before my Death nay you seem not to reflect upon the sense of such propositions for they relate not to the proposition by chance in relation to particular individua but to the Essence of the subject whereof they predicate for when Philosophers say omne Animal vivit they mean it is of the Essence or notion of Animal to be a living thing and this is true of me and all particulars whether we be in actual existency or no nay you bring an instance of a particular to confirm an universal your Question was of omne Animal all sensible creatours as appears above and of all that God has revealed and to confirm your assertion in this you being a particular an individuum vagum saying an Animal may live c. that is some particular Animal nor stay you here but to amend the matter you bring an instance of changeable things to confirm a proof of things unchangeable I who now am may cease to be in actual existencie but whatsoever is once revealed from God can never cease to be revealed or become a thing unrevealed though therefore it follows not that because omne Animal vivit therefore I live actually yet it follows that whatsoever is once revealed of God remains alwaies actually revealed Mr. Baxter If this were your meaning then either you mean that it is enough if all be believed implicitly besides that general proposition or you mean that some things must be believed explicitly that is actually and some implicitly that is not at all Rejoinder I have told you something more must be believed explicitely how much or what is a dispute amongst Divines not necessary to be determined here yet I will speak something to that presently Reply If the former be your sense then Infidels or heathens may be of your Church for a man may believe in general that the Bible is the word of God and true and yet not know a word that is in it and so not know that Christ is the Messias or that ever there was such a Person Rejoynder Your instance is morally impossible for either such a person believes the Bible rashly and imprudently and then according to all Divines his faith cannot be supernatural and Divine or sufficient to constitute him a Christian or he believes it prudently and then he must be moved by prudential motives of credibility which must draw him to afford credit to that Authority as derived from God which commends to him the Bible as the written word of God now that can be no other then the Authority of the Catholick Church which he cannot be ignorant to profess the faith of Christ there being no other save that though therefore he knows not by experience that Christ is mentioned in the Bible yet he cannot but know that he is professed to be the Son of God and Saviour of the world by those of the Catholick Church who delivered the Bible to him as the word of God and that such a faith in him is necessary to salvation Reply But if somewhat be explicitly that is actually believed the question that you would have answered was what is it for till that be known no man can know a member of your Church by your discriptions Rejoynder There was no necessity to tell you that for when you so often distinguish betwixt points of faith Essential and accidental seeing you ought to understand the terms of your own distinction as I could not but suppose you did you had no need to be informed what points were to be believed by explicite faith all Essentials in your opinion are such Reply If you take implicite in the third sense then implicite faith is either Divine or humane Divine when the Divine veracity is the formal object humane when mans veracity is the formal object which may be conjunct where the Testimonies are so conjunct as that we are sure that it is God that speaks by man who is therefore credible because God infallibly guideth or inspireth him that is at once to believe a humane and Divine veracity If any of this be your meaning that last question remains still to be resolved by you A man may believe that God is true and that his Prophets and inspired messengers are true and yet not understand a word of the message so that still if this will serve a man may be of your Church that knoweth not that ever there was such a person as Iesus Christ or that ever he died for our sins or rose again or that we shall rise William Iohnson Your third member I have rejected before as a stranger to implicite faith but I think you speak not true Divinity when you say that to believe God to be true
and his inspired Prophets to speak truth is to believe a humane and Divine veracity for what Divine ever said before you that Christian faith which is to believe God speaking by the Prophets c. is to believe so much as partially a humain veracity for that would make Christian faith partly humaine which no Christian can affirm it being a pure Theological virtue and having no other formal object save Divine veracity revealing for though the Prophet be a humaine person yet he speakes when he is inspired by God not with humain but with Divine authority God speaking by his mouth Mr. Baxter And are all Infidels of your Church while you are arguing us out but if there be some trueths besides the veracity of God and his messengers that must be believed you must shew what it is or your Church members cannot be known tell me Ergo without tergiversation what are the revealed truths that must be actually believed or what is the Faith material in unity whereof all members of the Catholique Church do live William Iohnson Tell me what points of Faith you account Essential to make a Christian precisely which is part of your own distinction and you will save me the labour of telling you what points are to be believed explicitely if you know not that you delivered a distinction which you understood not Mr. Baxter I pray fly not but plainly tell me and if again you fly to uncertain points because of the diversity of means of informations and say it must be so much every man as he had means to know I again answer you First If a man had no means to know that there is a Christ it seemes then he is one of your Church Secondly you still damn all your own there being not a man that knoweth all that he hath meanes to know because all have culpably neglected meanes and so you have no Church Thirdly still you make your Church invisible if you had any for no man can tell as I said who knoweth in full proportion to his helps and meanes do you not see now whether your Implicite Faith hath brought you William Iohnson Truly Sir your demand is not so great a Bug-bear to make me fly from it for fear it devour me you cannot but know in your perusal of our Divines that your question has bin answered by them an hundred times over have you not heard them deliver in materia de fide that trite distinction that some points of faith are necessary to be believed explicitely necessitate medii and others necessitate praecepti and those of the first classe are absolutely necessary for all men to be so beleived to obtein salvation and to become parts at least in voto if they be not baptized of the Catholique Church and know you not that Divines are devided what are the points necessary to be believed explicitely necessitate medii some and those the more ancient hold that the expliâ—â—tte belief of God of the whole Trinity of Christ his passion resurrection c. are necessary necessitate medii others amongst the recentiors that no more then the belief of the Deity and that he is rewarder of our workes is absolutely necessary with that necessity to be explicitely believed now to answer your question what it is whereby our Church members are known I answer that First all those who are baptised and believe all the points of our faith explicitely if any such persons be to be found are undoubted members of our Church Secondly all those who believe explicitely all the Articles and whatsoever belongs to them in particular by reason of their respective offices in the Church Thirdly those who so believe all things necessary necessitate medii or necessitate praecepti extended to all adulti Fourthly all those who believe in that manner all things held necessary necessitate medii according to the first oppinion of the more ancient Doctors Fifthly It is probable though not altogether so certain as the former that such as believe explicitely the Diety and that he is a rewarder of our works and the rest implicitely as conteined in confuso in that Baptisme supposed are parts of the Catholique Church now seeing all those who are conteined in my four first numbers which comprehend almost all Christians are certainly parts of the Catholique Church we have a sufficient certainty of a determinate Church consisting at least of these by reason whereof our Church has a visible consistency these of the fift rank though not so certain as the former take not away the certainty of the former but that consistency supposed Divines found a question amongst themselves those of the first oppinion will answer that such as believe not the aforesaid Christian mysteries expresly are not parts of the Catholick Christian Church though they believe the Deity remunerating and the rest implicitely see you not by this discourse that we answer sufficiently to your questions by telling which are undoubted members of our Church and thereby give a sufficient description of it and rendering it visible by assigning those which are undoubted members of it though in some others without which it hath consistency be controverted amongst us in this discourse I suppose that such as only believe the Diety or some few of our misteries are excused by invisible ignorance from the obligation of knowing the rest for if their ignorance be vincible culpable and willfull it will indanger at least their implicite faith would not a Philosopher give a sufficient discription of a humane living body by defining it to consist undoubtfully of head shoulders armes c. which are the known parts of it though there be a doubt amongst Philosophers whether the nailes humors c. be animated and parts of it here therefore you may consider that we all agree in these parts which give a real visible constitution to our Church though some question be amongst us about the Exclusion or Admittance of some few which whether they be admitted or no our Church remains by reason of the former in a real visible Existency and by this are Answered your three ensuing Numbers Mr Baxter Quaest. Is it any Lawfull Pastours or all that must necessarily be depended on by every member and who are those Pastours William Iohnson Ans. Of all respectively to each subject that is that the Authority of none of them mediate or immediate be rejected or contemned Mr. Baxter Here still you tell me that your descriptions signified nothing you told me that the members must live in dependance on their lawfull Pastours and now you tell me that their Authority must not be Rejected or contemned and indeed is dependance and non-Rejection all one The millions of heathens that never heard of the Pope or any of your Pastours reject them not nor contemn them are they therefore fit matter for your Church 2. If you say that you mean it of such onely as have a sufficient Revelation of the Authority of these Pastours Rejoynder You
is one visible Kingdome yet to make it no more one visibly then the School of Christ-Church or Westminster is one visible School is in my Logick to speak-contraries Mr. Baxter Num. 100. Your next reason against me is because They cannot be parts of the Church unless Arians and Pelagians and Donatists be parts and so Hereticks and Schismaticks be parts Reply 1. You know sure that your own Divines are not agreed whether Hereticks and Schismaticks are parts of the Church William Iohnson Num. 100. You cannot but see I speak of parts of the Church as you understand parts and therefore I say pag. 48. in yours Secondly your position is not true Now your position is to hold that some Hereticks properly so called are parts of the Church of Christ and united to him as their Head by reason that they believe with a true Christian Faith the Essentials of Christianity whereby they are Christians though they erre in some Accidentals as appears by that distinction so often used by you In this sense then I say you hold Hereticks to be true and real parts of the Church And this I affirm to be contrary to all Christianity and a novelty never held before by any Christian. Though therefore taking the word parts in another more lax and improper sense and the Church as it is a visible body and government one only Catholick Authour * Lib. 2. de Haeret. punit c. 24. Haereticus etsi per Haeresim perdat fidem non tamen eo ipso est prorsus ab Ecclesiâ separatus sed adhuc est parâ—â— illius corporis membrum ejus c. Et infra Faâ—â—eor quidem meo quidem judicio negari non potest Haereticum esse partem Ecclesiae membrum illius non esse omnino ab illâ separatum quia etsi fidem non habeat habet tamen Characterem Baptismalem per quem primum factum est membrum Ecclesiae quâ—â— durante semper erit membrum illius Alphonsus à Castro thinks Hereticks may be called parts of the politick Body of the Church as She hath power over them to inflict punishment upon them by reason of the character of Baptisme which makes them ever remain subjects of the Church and lyable to her censures yet he holds expresly that they have no true Christian Faith at all quite against you whereby they can be made parts of Christ's Church united to Christ as their Head as you hold they are And the like is of Schismaticks For though some Catholick Author 's doubt whether they may be termed by reason of the profession of Christian Faith parts of the Church in a large sense yet none ever held as you doe that they were united to Christ as their Head and thereby compose one Christian Church with other Catholick Christians because they want that principal Christian Charity required as necessary to a compleat union to Christ. Your opinion therefore is contrary to all those of the Roman Church and shall God assisting me be * See my second Part. proved contrary to all Christians and Christianity and of most dangerous and damnable consequence But you must know that à Castro's opinion is censured by all other Doctours and thereby improbable nor yet makes the ground of his opinion Hereticks and Scismaticks more of the Catholick Church then are those Christians who are damned in hell for even they have the Character of Baptism and yet he says that so long as that Character remains they are Church-members quo durante semper erit membrum illius Mr. Baxter Num. 101. And if they were yet it is not de Fide with you as not determined by the Pope William Iohnson Num. 101. 'T is determined contrary to your sense a hundred times over by all the Anathemas and Excommunications thundred out against them in so many General Councils Mr. Baxter Num. 102. If it be then all yours are Hereticks that are for the affirmative Bellarmine nameth you some of them If they be not then how can you be sure it 's true and so impose it on me that they are no parts William Iohnson Num. 102. I have now told you None of ours ever held them parts as you doe that is united to Christ their Head as the rest of the parts are by Faith and Charity Mr. Baxter Num. 103. Arians are no Christians as denying that which is Essential to Christ and so to Christianity William Iohnson Num. 103. 'T is very true they are no real univocal Christians and your reason is good because they deny that which is Essential to Christ and so to Christianity But hence will follow that no proper Heretick whatsoever is a real univocal Christian for all of them deny something Essential to Christ and so to Christianity which I prove thus Whosoever denies Christ's most Infallible veracity Divine Authority denies Something which is Essential unto Christ. But every Heretick properly so called denies Christ's most infallible veracity and divine Authority Ergo Every Heretick properly so called denies something which is Essential to Christ and so to Christianity The Major is evident I prove the Minor Whosoever denies that to be true which is sufficiently propounded to him to be revealed from Christ denyes Christ's most infallible veracity and divine authority But every Heretick properly so called denies that to be true which is sufficiently propounded to him to be revealed from Christ. Ergo Every Heretick properly so called denyes Christs most infallible veracity and divine Authority The Minor is clear For that is properly to be an Heretick The Major is also clear For how is it possible to deny that to be true which is sufficiently propounded to me to be revealed from Christ without affirming that Christ said something which is not true which is manifestly to give Christ the lye and to doe that is to deny openly his divine veracity This Argument I hope you will please to think of seriously and either give an Answer in form to it or relinquish your Noveltie Mr. Baxter Num. 104. Pelagianisme is a thing that you are not agreed among your selves of the true naâ—â—ure of Many of the Dominicans and Jansenists think the Jesuites Pelagianize or Semi-Pelagianize at least I hope you will not shut them out Donatists were Schismaticks because they divided in the Catholick Church and not absolutely from it and because they divided from the particular Churches about them that held the most universal external Communion I think they were still members of the universal Church but I 'le not contend with any that will plead for his uncharitable denyal It 's nothing to our Case William Iohnson Num. 104. You fall again into a plain Fallacy proceeding à parte ad totum The doubt which is among some of our Divines is only about part of their Heresie and you would make your Reader believe it were about the whole Some points of their Heresie are clearly agreed upon by all Catholick Authors as is that
recorded the Histories and transactions of the said Churches so that 't is unknown to us what either passed betwixt them and the Bishop of Rome or amongst themselves Mr. Baxter Num. 207. Your next instance of Theodosius his not permitting the Council at Ephesus to be assembled and his reconciling himself to the Church is meerly impertinent We know that he and other Princes usually wrote to Rome Constantinople Alexandria c. Or spoke or sent to more then one of the Patriarcks before they called a Council William Iohnson Num. 207. You still seek diversions to avoid the difficulty The question is not now whether Theodosius and other Emperours did or might write to other Patriarcks about the celebration of Councils as well as the Roman but it is this whether they wrote in the same manner to them as they did to him that is as Pope Leo witnesses epist. 15. that he Theodosius bare this respect to the divine institution that he would use the authority of the Apostolick Sea for the effecting of his holy disposition And this was celebrating that Council the 2d of Ephesus which as then appeared to the Pope to be good and holy Finde me such a sentence of his writ by Theodosius or other Emperours to any of the Patriarcks beside the Roman that their authority was necessary according to divine institution for the celebrating of a general Council and you will have done something without which you trifle Mr Baxter Num. 208. You cannot but know that Councils have been called without the Pope William Iohnson Num. 208. Truly if you speak of lawful general â—â—ouncils I am so unknowing that I know it not supposing there were a known undoubted Pope in the Church as there was in Theodosius's time and I fear I shall be so dull that you will not be able to make me know it I am sure yet you have not gone about it and I presse you to nominate any such lawful general Councils call'd without the B. of Romes consent and authority Mr. Baxter Num. 209. And that neither this nor an Emperours forsaking his errour is a sign of the Popes universal Government William Iohnson Num. 209. Take the context of my proofs along with you which you conceal here and you confess this demanding the Popes authority as necessary to the celebration of a general Council and in that giving respect to divine restitution is a sign of his universal government seeing general Councils as I have proved are representatives not of the Empire but of the whole visible Church And Theodosius his pennance whereof one effect was that he required the confirmation of Anatolius in the Sea of Constantinople from Pope Leo and thereby attested his power over that Patriarck and a simili over all the rest he shewed himself to believe that the Roman Bishop was supream governour of the universal Church Mr. Baxter Num. 210. That Emperour gave sufficient testimony and so did the Bishops that adhered to Dioscorus that in those dayes the Pope was taken for fallible and controulable when they excommunicated him William Iohnson Num. 210. No more then the Clergy of Sweden would shew it now if they ventured so far as to excommunicate the Pope Is think you authority overthrown or rendred or argued null because it is opposed and contemned by Rebels you shew in this what your spirit is and how inconsistent with true Government when you make the contempt of Rebels an argument that all whom they reject have no lawful power over them a thing seasonable enough when you wrote this having then rebellious times and persons well suiting with it but yet demonstrative what you thought then and may still be esteemed one of your principles But I wonder much you were so venturous as to let it passe the print and see light since the happy return of our most gracious Soveraign For think you men are so blind as not to see this consequence that if Hereticks outing and contemning the authority of a Catholique Bishop as Dioscorus an Eutychian and his party did that of Leo be a good argument as you make it to prove he had no authority over the Church nor over Dioscorus who excommunicated him you must also hold that a publique Rebel's deposing a Soveraign is a good argument to justifie the fact and to prove that Soveraign had no authority over him Or if you your self dare not go so far you have laid a principle emboldning all Rebels to do it Mr. Baxter Num. 211. But when you cite out of any Author the words that you build on I shall take more particular notice of them William Iohnson Num. 211. I have cited them out of St. Leo and expect your answer Mr. Baxter Num. 212. Till then this is enough with this addition that the Emperours subjection if he had been subject not to an Ambrose or other Bishop but only to Rome would have been no proof that any without the Empire were his subjects no more then the King of Englands subjection to the Arch-bishop of Canterbury would have proved that the King of France was subject to him William Iohnson Num. 112. You flie again the difficulty I make not this argument the Emperour was subject to the Pope in spirituals Ergo all those Christians who were Extra-Imperial were also subject to him This is no argument of mine but your imposition My argument is this The Emperour and all Christians within this Empire were subject to the Pope as to St. Peters Successor and Supream Pastor of the whole flock and Vineyard of Christ by Christs institution Ergo all Extra-Imperial Churches were also subject to him Now this to have been the reason of their subjection is evident both from St. Leo's Epistle lately cited concerning Theodosius and from the Council of Chalcedon treated by me hereafter and from the command of Martian and all the other declaratives of the Bishop of Romes supereminent authority delivered and received in antiquity where not so much as any one of them hath chained it up within the circuit of the Roman Empire or given that for a measure or reason of his power and it still remained in full force in such Kingdoms as were taken by Christians from the Roman Emperors who as I have said never affirmed their freedom from the Emperours command to have franchised them from the Bishop of Romes authority Whence is clearly answered your parity in the Kings of Englands subjection to the Bishop of Canterbury for the Kings of England never subjected themselves to the Bishop of Canterbury as to the Supream visible Governour in spirituals of the whole Catholique Church no not as to one who had any jurisdiction out of England at all Mr. Baxter Num. 112. Your twelfth proof from the Council of Chalcedon is from a witness alone sufficient to overthrow your cause as I have proved to you This Synode expresly determineth that your Primacy is a novel humane invention that it was given you by the Fathers because Rome
and whether their disobedience unchurch them or not Rejoynder But if you reject the Constable and with him all superiour Magistrates who maintain his Authoritie and come at last so far that you reject the Authority of the supreme or Soveraign power rather then depend on the Constable you will become a Rebel this is my case for the Church being visible is governed in this world by visible governours if therefore one Reject the Authority first of a parish Priest and then of the Bishop of the Diocesse and after of all those who are Superiour to that Bishop even to the highest authority whether this be in one single person or in the assembly of these Pastours in general Council imports little for the present question he becomes a Rebell to the visible Church and casts himself out of it and by consequence because our Saviour hath said he who heareth you heareth me and he who contemneth you contemneth me rejects also Christ's Authority by rejecting them and thereby casts himself from being any longer whilst he remains in that contempt of the Flock and Kingdome of Christ which is his Church For this contempt must be the same kind in respect of Christ that it is in regard of all the aforesaid visible Governours and therefore must reject the Authority of Christ because it rejects their Authority but none of those who reject Christ's Authority over them can be parts of his Flock or Kingdome Ergo note the fallacie of your Assertion in making many Hereticks and Schismaticks properly so called Real parts of the Catholick Church Reply I earnestly crave your Answer to the uncertainties which I have mentioned in my Safe Religion pag. 9 3. to 104. and tell us how all our Pastours may be known and whether every particular sin un-Church men and if not why the contempt and rejection of a drunken Priest doth it while all the rest are perhaps too much honoured Rejoynder Really Sir I am too full of employments either to Answer or peruse your Books I never oblig'd my self to answer them You make a visible Body with an invisible Head that is you admit no other head or supreme Ecclesiastical Magistrate over the visible Church save Christ who is invisible to the Church as he is head of it and whose government is internal and invisible if you abstract from all visible supreme Authority and hence you assert that though all the Respective visible governours in spiritual things be rejected by a subject yet he may be a part of the visible Church because he is still subject to Christ who is invisible to to him in his Head-ship I suppose I have said enough above to what you demand here and take those Arguments in your safe Religion to be much of the same nature with these Mr. Baxter Qu. 4. Why exclude you the chief Pastours that depend on none William Iohnson Ans. I exclude them not but include them as those of whom all the rest depend as St. Ierome does in his definition Ecclesia est plebs Episcopo unita Mr. Baxter How inconstant are you among your selves in the use of Terms how frequent is it with you to appropriate the name of the Church to the Clergie but remember hereafter when you tell us of the Determinations Traditions of the Church that it is the people that you mean and not onely the Pastours in Council much lesse the Pope alone Rejoynder This Requires no Answer as opposing nothing against what I say to that Question who knowes not that Termes have different acceptions both amongst you and us both in Scripture Ecclesiastical and Civil Authors Of HERESIE Heresie is an obstinate intellectual Opposition against Divine Authority revealed when it is sufficiently propounded Mr. Baxter Qu. 1. Is the obstinacie that makes Heresie in that Intellectual Will William Iohnson Answ. In the will by an imperate act restraining the understanding to that Mr. Baxter Still your descriptions signifie just nothing you describe it to be an Intellectual obstinate opposition and yet say that this is in the will William Iohnson You still Reply lesse then nothing to what I say yes it is an intellectual obstinate opposition but I say not that the intellectualtie is in the will or do you demand that Read I pray my description and your question and you will find no such matter I say the obstinacy is in the will directly to your question but the heresie is in the understanding and therefore comes it to be an intellectual obstinate opposition because that obstinacie in the will imperates a kind of immobility in the understanding whereby it adheres firmly to it's Errour Intellectual therefore it is from the understanding and obstinate from the will Mr. Baxter And yet again you contradict your self by saying that it is an Imperate act William Iohnson Where say I that imperate act is in the will prove from my words I say so I say indeed that obstinacy is in the will by an imperate restraining the understanding to that Errour but I never said that imperate act was in the will nay I insinuate sufficiently that it is in the understanding by affirming that it restrains the understanding for the imperate act is a kind of immoveable judgement imperated in the understanding by the obstinacy of the will all therefore that I say is this that there is an obstinacy in the will shewing it self to be there by that immobility which it imperates in the understanding and adheres to that errour when therefore I say by that imperate act I mean not formally by that but causally Reply No imperate act is in the will though it be from the will it is voluntary but not in volunte an imperate act may be in the will but not an imperate all imperate acts are in and immediately by the commanded faculties The Intelligere which is the imperate act is in the intellect though the velle intelligere which is an elicite act be in the will Rejoynder You seem to discourse very strangely and inconsequently of imperate acts what Philosopher before you ever said no imperate act is in the will though it be from the will shew your Authours for this is not the quite contrary the common assertion of the schools does not the will by an imperant act of charity e. g. imperate within it self an act of obedience contrition patience c. Nay do not many Philosophers from hence argue that the will and the understanding must be one and the same soul and not two powers really distinct because the will imperates acts in the understanding not by way of production or proper efficiency but by a certain Sympathetical emanation of an act imperated from the act imperating Mr. Baxter 2. From hence it is plain that you cannot prove me or any man to be an Heretick that is unfeignedly willing to know the truth and is not obstinately willing in opposing it which are things you cannot ordinarily discern and prove by others that are ready