in usual Logical processes belonging to Syllogistical Form p. 37. Baxt. Edit Do what I can you will mistake me I speak of a Church denying that the Pope hath alwayes had it that is of a Church which now or of late times denies it and you make me speak of a Church which hath alwayes denied it contrary to my express words immediately following as you presently acknowledge All I pretend is this Prove that any Church which now denies it hath been alwayes visible and I am satisfied whether that Church alwayes denied it or no. Baxter Num. 27. I told you I would be a Papist if you prove That the whole visible Church in all Ages held the Popes universal Head-ship You say that you have proved it by this Argument that either he hath that Supremacy or some other Church denying that he hath alwayes had it hath been alwayes visible and that Church you require should be named I reply 1. Had not you despaired of making good your Cause you should have gone on by Argumentation till you had forced me to contradict some common Principle 2. If you should shew these Papers to the world and tell them that you have no better proof of the Succession of your Papacy then that we prove not that it hath alwayes been denied by the visible Church you would sure turn thousands from Popery if there be so many rational considering impartial men that would peruse them and believe you For any man may know that it could not be expected that the Churches should deny a Vice-Christ before he was sprung up Why did not all the precedent Roman Bishops disclaim the title of universal Bishop or Patriarch till Pelagius and Gregory but because there was none in the world that gave occasion for it How should any Heresie be opposed or condemned before it doth arise Iohnson Num. 27. I have manifestly forced you to contradict a common Principle and not one but Two of them First you are forced to contradict that Principle in Logick That he who denies an universal Negative Proposition framed in a positive Historical matter as mine is is not obliged to give an instance when it is demanded to infringe the universality of it and this I have and do refer The second is a Theological or rather Christian Principle That no professed Heretick nor Schismatick properly so called is a true part of the universal visible Church of Christ. That this is such a Principle shall appear hereafter where I shall make it evident that a professed Heretick properly so called had or could have true Christian Faith or the profession of it without which no man can be a true member of the Catholick Church that is united to Christ as his Head as you explicate your meaning Your other difficulties about the Title of Universal Bishop c. shall be answered in their place Baxter Num. 28. But you fairly yield me somewhat here and say that you oblige me not to prove a continued visible Church formally and expresly denying it but that it was of such a Constitution as was inconsistent with any such Supremacy or could and did subsist without it Reply I confess your first part is very ingenious and fair Remember it hereafter that you have discharged me from proving a Church that denied the Papacy formally and expresly Iohnson Num. 28. But have you dealt as fairly with me when after I had so clearly explicated my self in my former Answer not to exact a perpetual visible Church formally and expresly denying that Supremacy you make me frame an Argument in the precedent Paragraph exacting the formal and express denial of it in all Ages is this fair You corrupt again my Proposition I say not that I freed you from proving a Church that denied the Papacy formally and expresly but as you acknowledge in this Paragraph that I obliged you not to prove a continued visible Church formally and expresly denying it that is such a Church as denied it so all the time that it was visible yet I quitted you not of the obligation of instancing in a Church which at some time or other denied it formally and expresly as your inference seems to affirm I do For seeing it has for many hundred years been publickly acknowledged as due to the Bishop of Rome it was deniable by those who lived in the said Ages Baxter Num. 29. But as to what you yet demand 1. I have here given it you because you shall not say Iâ—â—le fail you I have answered your desire But 2. It is not as a thing necessary but ex abundanti as an overplus For you may now see plainly that to prove that the Church was without an universal Pastor which you require is to prove the Negative viz. that then there was none such whereas it's you that must prove that there was such I prove our Religion do you prove yours though I say to pleasure you I le disprove it and have done it in two Books already Iohnson Num. 29. I had no farther Obligation in the Process of this Argument then to inforce you to produce an instance of some Church perpetually visible which either denied or was inconsistent with and Independent of that Supremacy And this I say you were obliged to do according to Logical Form say as much as you please that it was ex abundanti no good Logician will beleeve you I mention not the Churches being without a Supream visible Pastor which you term universal nor oblige I you precisely to prove that but to prove a perpetual visible Church whose government was inconsistent with one supream visible Pastor over all which is an Affirmative Proposition Why mistake you perpetually prove this and I am satisfied Nor yet have you in what you have done performed what you undertake as shall appear in my following Rejoynder to your Arguments Baxter Num. 29. My reason from the stress of necessity which you lay on your Affirmative and Additions was but subservient to the foregoing Reasons not first to prove you bound but to prove you the more bound to the proof of your Affirmative And therefore your instance of Mahumetans is impertinent He that saith you shall be damned if you beleeve not this or that is more obliged to prove it then he that affirmeth a point as of no such moment Iohnson Num. 30. Sure if you prove me more bound you prove me bound à fortiori For every comparative supposes its positive The instance I bring is pertinent and all who read it attentively will see it is so Your last sentence is a repetition of what I denied without answering my answering my Argument against it Then say I a Christian is bound to prove his Religion to a Mahumetan but a Mahumetan is not bound to prove his to a Christian or if you will have it so is more bound of the two this you answer not because the same reason holding in both you saw you could not answer it Baxter Num.
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
best serves your turne and covers your falsitie Canus sayes there ab aliis plerisque totius orbis Episcopis which you translate thus but almost all the rest of the Bishops of the whole world so that alii plerique very many others is with you almost all the rest had you only said a great sort or the most part even that had bin to stretch the word plerique to its full length but to translate it almost all is too too bad and cryes shame of the translator for by this meanes you would perswade your Reader that scarce any Bishop at all adher'd to the Bishop of Rome according to this Author whereas he in the beginning of this seventh Chapter saith that not only the Bishops but Ecclesia the Church from the time of the Apostles alwayes acknowledg'd that the Roman Bishops succeeded place Faith and authority of St Peter and that all Catholicks respected his judgement in the controversies of Religion and this is most cleer and evident but yet this is not all your foul play You had undertook to prove Papists affirm that univocal Christians composing visible Churches have bin opposers of the Pope And here you seem'd to have cull'd out a text for your pupose for Canus acknowledges in this place that a very great number of Bishops and the greater number of Churches were against the Pope and who could he suppose these to be but true Catholick Bishops and Churches here you think you have your Reader sure but why cited you not these words the next following O that would have marr'd your market Canus is so farr from holding these mutineering Bishops and Churches to be true univocal Christians that he affirms expresly they were either Schismaticks or Hereticks Quinimo qui à Romanâ quidem sede defecerunt hi Schismatici semper ab ecclesia sunt habiti qui vero hujus sedis de fide judicia detrectarunt heretici But those sayes Canus who made a defection from the Roman Sea were alwaies accounted Schismaticks by the Church and those who refused to stand to the judgement of this Sea in matters of faith were esteemed Hereticks these are fair characters of your great sincerity If you should reply though Canus account them not univocal Christians nor true Churches who made those oppositions yet them not to be no true Churches nor no univocal Christians I reply it makes thus much at least that Canus his testimony proves not that any true Catholick Christians or Churches withstood the Pope for the proof whereof you cited this his testimony 66. Ibid You have a third bout with Raynerius I answer whatsoever he may hold of the antiquity of the Waldenses is nothing to me now holds he them to be univocal Christians prove that thus in all the testimonies you have alleadged for the proof of your antecedent against my distinction you have not so much as one that assayes to prove it Your eight Argument page 269. Is a pure non-proof that which you undertake to prove as appears by your question premised in the beginning of this second part page 197. Is to prove the Church whereof Protestants are members hath been visible ever since the dayes of Christ on earth and your title upon every page pretends to shew the successive visibility of the Church of which the Protestants are members Now as if you had quite forgot what you were about you pretend in this your Argument to shew that anciently the Papal soveraignty was not part of the Churches faith nor own'd by the Ancients when therefore you shall have logically deduced this consequence the Papal soveraingty hath not been alwayes visible Ergo the Church whereof Protestants are members hath bin alwayes visible I will esteem my self obliged to answer the proofs from your testimonies till then I purely omit your antecedent and deny the consequence which you ought to draw from it thence follows not that the Church whereof you Protestants are members hath bin alwaies visible though your antecedent were true the truth whereof I neither grant nor deny for the present but omit it as not being now to our purpose 67. Page 271. Your ninth argument halts of the same leg it follows not that though our Church as papal had no successive visibilitie that the Church whereof the Protestants are members had ever since Christs time on earth a successive visibility when you have proved this consequence which you do not so much as mention in your argument I oblige my self to answer every one of your instances till that be done all I am obliged to do by force of logical forme is to omit your antecedent as nothing to our purpose for you undertake not in this second part to disprove ours but to prove your own perpetual visibility and I deny again your consequence which you ought to draw logically from your antecedent to wit that it follows not from this argument that the Church whereof the Protestant are members hath bin visible ever since the dayes of Christ on earth 68. Your 10. argument is sick of the same disease is propounded p. 275. this reaches no further then to prove that there hath bin a succession of visible professors of Christianity that were no Papists Transeat pro praesente I let that pass for the present neither granting it nor denying it nor medling at all with it because I judge it of no present concern to our purpose but whatsoever is of that I deny it follows thence what you are to prove that the Church whereof the Protestants are members hath bin visible ever since the daies of Christ upon earth Moreover by this manner of illogical proceeding you change the part of the respondent which only was yours into the part of an opponent you were to shew some other Church beside the Roman to have bin perpetually visible and this you undertake in this second part by proving the Protestants to be so Now you turne the scales and labour by 10. arguments to prove the Roman Church as Roman is not so You promis'd in the beginning a fair logical answer keep your word and turne not opponent whil'st you are to be respondent stick to something otherwise you confound all and render it impossible to draw any controversie to a period or open a passage to truth acquit your self of your present obligation prove your said consequence that accomplished when your instances come into logical course I here oblige my self again to answer every one of them but first let us dispatch this shew your consequence undertaken here of the perpetual visibility of the Protestant Church to follow from the want of perpetual visibilitie in the Roman no more then your perpetual visibility follows from the want of it in the Greek or Abissme Church what if neither of them have bin perpetually visible For there is no Heretick in the world no neither Arrian or Sabellian c. whom you hold no Christians which may not argue in the same manner against
fly from and not the universal that proves them not out of the universal Church Who sayes it does why interlace you such parergons as those treats Bell. here of any particular fold speaks he not expresly of the whole universal Church which he defined cap. 2 but by the rules of contraries you should affirm here against your self that if all hereticks fly from the universal Church they cannot be in the universal Church Now it is most evident that all heretiques fly from the universal Church ergo none of them can be in the universal Church for therefore are they hereticks because they either reject obstinately some doctrine sufficiently propounded to them as taught by the universal Church to be a point of Christian faith or imbrace some doctrine sufficiently propounded to them to be rejected by the universal Church as an error in Christian faith de Eccles. l. 3. c. 2. Next you bring in Bellar. thus And Bellar. saith of the Catechumenis excommunicatis that they are de anima etsi non de corpore Ecclesiae Now who can understand by those words of yours but that Bellar. teaches absolutely that both all as well excommunicati as Catechumeni are de anima Ecclesiae of the soul of the Church whereas he speaks only sub conditione conditionally not absolutely and so of some excommunicate persons but not of all that is such as he declares himself c. 6. sect Respondeo lucem esse c. have faith and charity as being either unjustly excommunicated or repenting before they be absolutely absolv'd by the Church from excommunication Bellar. words cap. 2. clipt off in the midst by you are those Rursum aliqui sunt de anima non de corpore ut Catechumeni vel excommunicati si fidem charitatem habeant quod fieri potest Again sayes Bell. some are of the soul of the Church and not of the body as are the unbaptized or excommunicate if they have faith and charity which may happen You see how candidly you have proceeded with Bellarmine and in this sense and no other is Canus to be understood whom you cite next out of Bellarmine and if you could prove any profest heretick properly so call'd had faith and charity I would acknowledge with Bellar. that they were de anima Ecclesiae of the soul of the Church or de Ecclesia quae comprehendit omnes fideles c. of the Church which comprehends all the faithful from Abel to the end of the world you see by this how unfairely you have dealt with Canus also What follows in answer of yours to my question whether profess'd hereticks properly so called are true parts of the visible Church is upon matter of fact who are or who are not in particular rightly condemn'd for hereticks which is an alien to my question and so neither worth the answering nor reading I come now to the question it self 74. That therefore no profess'd heretick properly so called is or can be a true part of Christs universal visible Church I prove by those arguments 1. St. Paul in his 3 to Titus v. 10 11. writes thus A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject knowing that he that is such is subverted and sinneth being condemned of himself Thus yours translate the words but the vulgar and Pagninus have it devita avoid or decline from it signifies also in Scapula to refuâ—â—e remove or expel one from them where the Apostle speaking indefinitly is to be understood of all profess'd hereticks properly so called so that all such hereticks are to be avoided rejected removed or expelled from the community and society of all Christians for the same reason which obliged Titus to avoid them obliged all the faithful which is nothing but to be depriv'd of the communion of the universal Church and so even in your principles just now deliver'd to be cast out of the Church and St. Hierom expounds those words that Hereticks are cast out of the Church by themselves leaving the Church and separating themselves from it by their obstinacy in error 2. St. Iohn in his first Epistle and second chapter verse 19. ex nobis exerunt They went out from us where the Apostle speaks in general of all heretiques and of the whole visible Church of Christ for how could it be manifest they were not of the Church as St. Iohn sayes it was if they did not visibly go out of it Thus also St. Cyprian (a) St. Cypri lib. ep 8. unit Eccl. sive de simplicitate St. Hierom and St. Aug. writing upon those words expound them 3. Ioh. ep 2. v. 9 10 11. whosoever trangresseth and abides not in the doctrine of Christ hath not God he that abideth in the doctrine of Christ hath both the Father and the Son if there come any unto you and bring not this doctrine receive him not into your house neither bid him God speed for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil works Where the Apostle without any distinction or exception intends the denial of communion through the whole Church for he gives a general precept to all Christians to all those who teach contrarie to the doctrine of Christ. And this not as to others scandalous sinners lest they should draw others to sin by their bad example but as to Hereticks for no other crime then their maintaining a doctrine contrary to the doctrine of Christ and that in what point soever it be for he speaks in general of all doctrine contrary to that of Christ. Now since all profess'd Hereticks properly so call'd teach contrary to Christs doctrine in some point or other they are all to be avoided and deny communion thorough the whole Church consequently are out of the whole Churches communion and so out of the Catholique Church This is proved from the authorities both of the ancient fathers later Doctors and Protestant Authors which are cited and confirm'd at large in schism unmask'd in a late conference with Doctor Gunning and Doctor Pierson from p. 131. to p. 188. where the very definition of schism and heresie of schismaticks and heretiques make it most manifest that no profess'd heretick or schismatick properly so call'd can so long as they remain in that state be true parts of the Catholique Church These following I cite for a brief confirmation of this truth St. Aug. de fide symbolo c. 10. quapropter nec hereticus pertinet ad Ecclesiam Catholicam quoniam diligit Deum nec schismaticus quoniam diligit proximum wherefore neither doth an heretick belong to the Catholick Church because she the Church loves God nor a schismatick because she loves her neighbour And Optatus lib. 1. cont Parmenianum addressing himself to the Donatists whom you say were not separated from the Church sayes thus Desertâ matre Catholica impii filii dum for as excurrunt se separant ut vos fecistis à radice matris Ecclesiae invidiae
we have seen nor will the communion of one heretick or schismatick with another serve the turn as St. Aug. cited by your self delivers l. de unitate Eccles. c. 4. That such as communicate with a part and not with the whole wheresoever it is diffused it is manifest they are not in the Catholick Church Now suppose one singular person turn a professed heretick or schismatick and leaves the external communion of the whole Church he can have no external communion at all if then he seduce to his party another that other can have no communion but with the first who had no communion with the Church so that their communion is without the Church and so will ever be though they increase to thousands and millions This truth therefore thus established my first argument returns upon you shew me said I any Congregation of Christians perpetually visible besides that which acknowledges the Popes supremacy c. This you have not been able to do but by producing known and notorious heretical congregations those I have proved not to be either one and the same congregation amongst themselves which I demanded nor one with the Catholick visible Church because no profess'd hereticks properly so call'd can be true members of the true Church And particularly you fail in this second part for till you prove Protestants to be no hereticks you can never evince them to be true parts of Christs visible Church Now therefore it remains that you begin again and find out some new solution for my argument for as yet you have brought nothing satisfactory to salve it but I hope God will give you the grace to desist from such imposible enterprises strike you with a sweet stroak of mercy as he did St. Paul and change you into a child of his holy Church which are the truest hearty desires of Your assured best wishing friend William Iohnson An Explication of The Catholick Church The chief terms used in this Controversie disputed betwixt Mr. Baxter and William Iohnson William Iohnson THe Catholick Church of Christ is all those visible Assemblies Congregations or Communities of Christians who live in unity of true faith and external Communion with one another and in dependance of their lawfull Pastours Mr. Baxter Of your definition of the Catholick Church Qu. 2. Whether you exclude not all those converted among Infidels that never had external Cemmunion nor were members of any particular visible Church of which you make the Catholick to be constituted William Iohnson It is sufficient that such be subject to the supream Pastours in voto or quantum in se est resolved to be of that particular Church actually which shall or may be designed for them by that Pastour to be included in my Definition Mr. Baxter You see then that your Definitions signifie nothing no man knows your meaning by them William Iohnson You shall presently see that your Exceptions signifie lesse then nothing Mr. Baxter First you make the Catholick Church to consist onely of visible Assemblies and after you allow such to be members of the Church that are no visible Assemblies William Iohnson I make those converted Infidells visible Assemblies as my Definition speaks though not actuall members of any particular visible Church as your Exception speaks for though every particular visible Church be an Assembly of Christians yet every Assembly of Christians is not a particular visible Church I do not therefore allow such to be of the Church who are no visible Assemblies as you misconceive me Mr. Baxter 3. You now mention subjection to the supream Pastour as sufficient which in your discription or Definition you did not William Iohnson Am I obliged to mention all things in my Definitions which I express after in answering your Exceptions prove that Mr. Baxter 3. If to be onely in voto resolved to be of a particular Church will serve then inexistence is not necessary to be onely in voto of the Catholick Church proves no man a member of the Catholick Church but proves the contrary because it is Terminus Diminuens seeing then by your own confession inexistence in a particular Church is not of necessity to inexistence in the Catholick Church why do you not onely mention it in your Definition but confine that Church to such William Iohnson I make them Actually inexsistent in some visible Assembly according to my Definition and in voto onely in a particular Church which is your Exception now every particular family or neighbourhood nay of two or three gathered together in prayer is an actual Assembly of Christians though it be no actual particular Church for according to S. Hierom Ecclesia est plebs unita Episcopo now this part of my Definition so much here opposed by you is in effect the same with the first part of the Definition of the visible Church delivered in your 39. Articles Article 19. for that sayes the visible Church of Christians is a Congregation of faithfull men c. And my Definition sayes the Catholick Church is all those Assemblies Congregations or Communities of Christians who live in unity of faith c. which unity makes them one intire and universal congregation of the faithfull In this therefore consists your fallacy that you esteem none to be actually members of the universal Church unlesse they be actual members of some particular Church which I denie and affirm that one may be actually a member of the universal Church though he be not actually but in voto a member of any particular Church for to be actually of the universal requires no more necessarily then to be an actual part of some Assembly though it be no particular Church Reply Will you say you meant in voto who then can understand you when you say they must be of visible Assemblies and mean they need not be of any but onely to wish desire or purpose it Rejoynder This is answered already above it is not necessary all should be actual members of any particular Church it is sufficient if they be actually of some Assembly or Congregation of Christians though it be no particular Church Mr. Baxter But yet you say nothing to my ease in its latitude many a one may be converted to Christ by a solitary Preacher or by two or three that never tell him that there is any supream pastour in the world how then can he be subject to that supposed Pastour that never heard of him The English and Dutch convert many Indians to the faith of Christ that never heard of a supream Pastour William Iohnson Whether he be named or no yet the Church must be supposed to be sufficiently explicated to those Convertists and that must be represented as having some prudent manner of Government so that they must be instructed to render obedience to such Governours as Christ instituted in his Church which seeing all of my profession hold to be by a chief Pastour and I have here undertaken to prove it is so by subjecting
because all men living are culpably ignorant of some truths which they had a revelation of that was thus farre sufficient if the second be your sense then the same unhappy consequence will follow that all are Hereticks and moreover by that sense of obscure education are unavoidable Hereticks because they had no opportunity to know those things which as to that Majority are of publick Testimony and universal Tradition William Iohnson I tell you I judge of no mens conscience it is sufficient 1. That such as acknowledge themselves they know such points of faith to be propounded by the Roman Church which I infallibly believe to be the true Church and that notwithstanding reject them as errours give me ground to presume them to be Hereticks 2. Such as oppose what all visible Churches have most notoriously practised and believed as Divine truths whilst they were so universarily taught and practised I may safely presume to be Hereticks because things so notorious cannot morally be presumed to be unknown to any one for other particulars I may and do suspend my judgement for what obligation have I to know all the Hereticks in the world these Rules being a sufficient judge of the greatest part of them See you not your fallacy how you passe ab abstracto in concretum Our question was onely what Heresie is and you divert it to inquire which particular persons are Hereticks cannot definitions stand though we know not all the individualls which are reducible to them Mr. Baxter Is not the Bible a publick Testimony and record and being universally received is an universal Tradition and yet abundance of truths in the holy Bible are unknown and therefore not actually believed by millions that are in your Church and are not taken by your self for Hereticks your befriending ignorance would else make very many Hereticks Rejoynder What if the Bible be a publick Tradition it is onely a Tradition that whatsoever is there delivered is the word of God but it is no Tradition that such a determinate sense and no other is the word of God in every sentence contained in it when according to the Analogie of faith the words are capable of many senses all therefore that is an universal Tradition concerning the Bible is sufficiently propounded but what is not Tradition left to the several Discourses and Expositions of Doctours will it hence follow think you that because what is not an universal Tradition is not sufficiently propounded to be known Ergo what is universal Tradition also is not Pope By Pope I mean S. Peter or any of his lawfull Successours in the Sea of Rome having authority by the institution of Christ to govern all particular Churches next under Christ. Of the Pope Mr. Baxter I am never the nearer knowing the Pope by this till I know how Peters Successours may be known to me Qu. 1. What personal qualification is necessary ad esse William Iohnson Answ. Such as are necessary ad esse of other Bishops which I suppose you know Mr. Baxter If so then all these were no Popes that were Heretques or denyed Essential points of Faith William Iohnson 'T is true they were no Popes whilst formal Heretiques if any such were Baxter As Iohn 24. Iohnson prove that Baxter And so were no Christians Iohnson Prove that Baxter All those that wanted the necessary abilities to the Essentials of their work Iohnson Prove there were such Popes Mr. Baxter And so your Church hath often bin headless and your succession interrupted Councils having censured many Popes to be thus qualified William Iohnson When you have proved the precedents prove that Mr. Baxter And the dispositio materiae being of it self necessary to the reception of that form it must needs follow that such were no Popes even before the Councils charged them with incapacity or Heresie because they had it before they were accused of it and Simony then made many uncapable William Iohnson Prove they were lawfull Councils which so censured any Popes which we admit as true and lawfull Mr. Baxter Qu. 2. Where and how must the Institution of Christ be found William Iohnson Answ. In the revealed Word of God written or unwritten Mr. Baxter You never gave the World assurance how they may truly know the measure of your unwritten Word nor where to finde it so as to know what it is William Iohnson We say we have Mr. Baxter 2. 'Till you prove Christ's Institution which you have never done William Iohnson That is to be done in our Controversie Mr. Baxter You free us from believing in the Pope William Iohnson All are free from believing in the Pope we believe in God but not in the Pope who of us ever obliged you you to do so Mr. Baxter Qu. 3. Will any ones Election prove him to be Pope or who must Elect him ad esse William Iohnson Answ. Such as by approved custome are esteemed by those by to whom it belongs fit for that Charge and with whose Election the Church is satisfied Reply Here you are fain to hide your self instead of Answering and shew indeed that a Pope that 's made an Essential part of the Church subjection to whom is made of necessity to salvation is indeed but a meer name or a thing unknown and so can certainly be believed or acknowledged by none For either Election in him by somebody is necessary or not If not then you or another man unchosen may be Pope for ought I know or any man else if yea then it is either any bodies Election of him that will serve turn or not if it will then you may be Popes if your Schollars chuse you and then you have had three Popes at once for many were Elected but if it be not then it must be known who hath the Power of Election before it can be known who is indeed the Pope but you are forced here by your Answer to intimate to us that the Power of Election cannot be known therefore the Pope cannot be known for 1. Here are no Determinate Electours mentioned and therefore it seems none known to you and no wonder for if you confine it to the People or to the Cardinals or to the Emperours or to the Councils you cut off all your Popes that were Chosen by the other wayes 2. Nor do you Determine of any particular discernable note by which the Electours and power of Election may be known to that Church but all these patches make up your description 1. it must be those that are esteemed fit for the Charge 2. that by those to whom it belongs 3. and that by Custome 4. and that approved 5. and the Church must be satisfied with the Election a miserable body then that hath been so often headlesse as Rome hath been 1. well esteeming them fit to serve turn though they be unfit then it is not the fitnesse that is necessary but the Estimation true or false 2. but why did you not tell us to whom it is
NOVELTY REPREST In a Reply to M r. BAXTER'S Answer to WILLIAM JOHNSON WHEREIN The oecumenical Power of the four first General Councils is Vindicated the Authority of Bishops asserted the compleat Hierarcy of Church Government established his novel succession evacuated and professed Hereticks demonstrated to be no true parts of the visible Church of Christ. By WILLIAM JOHNSON Prophanas vocum i. e. dogmatum novitates devita quas recipere atque sectari numquam Catholicorum semper vero Haereticorum fuit Lirinensis contra Haereses c. 23 24. c. Retenta est Antiquitas explosa Novitas Idem c. 10. PARIS Printed for E. C. Anno 1661. The Preface MEdusa sister to Euryale and Sthemione and daughter of a sea-monster ensnared by her beautie and golden tresses Neptune god of the Ocean and with him polluted the Temple of Minerva and had for issue Pegasus the winged Courser Minerva that learned and Virgin Goddess in revenge of so foul an injury metamorphos'd each hair of Medusaes head into a serpent and laid so heavy a Curse upon her that every one whose eyes were so curious as fixedly to behold her chang'd into stones whereupon the Beldam Medusa took her flight into the Dorcades islands in the Aethiopick sea and there raging like a hellish furie made her self Queen and Generaless of a femal armie her two sisters being the chief Commanders under her wasting and depopulating all where they march'd with unheard of cruelty The noble and valiant Captain Perseus covering his breast with a brazen shield of Minerva marched undauntedly towards this hideous Monster and discovering by the reflexion she made in the brightness of his shield while shee and her brood of serpents were all asleep at one blow cut off her head and those of the serpents with it and took it upon the point of his fauchion with him into Africa but such was the venome and pestilence of that inchaunted head that every drop of bloud which fell from it turn'd into a serpent whereby the whole coast of Africa was fill'd with snakes and vipers This though a fiction seems to be a fit Embleme of Heresie S. Greg. in Iob. lib. 35. cap. 34. The sea whale or Monster mother of Medusa by reason of her immense bulk and strength of body toweing her self over all other creatures in the Ocean is Pride and Ambition styled by Saint Austin the mother of hereticks Lib. 2. c. 3. contra lit Parmen Medusa seducing the heart of inconstant Neptune with her youth and beauty is a luxuriant wit priding it self in the invention of novelties in Religion The violation of Minervaes Temple the staining of the holy Church with sordid tenets and practices Pegasus the high flying thoughts of heretical spirits Those snakes and serpents crawling from Medusaes head and twisting themselves about her neck gnawing and consuming not onely one another but the head which bore them are wicked Heresies hatch'd in the brain and nourish'd in the head of Arch-Hereticks condemning and thwarting one another by perpetual contrarieties and still gnawing upon the Conscience which brought them forth The Petrifying Metamorphosis wrought upon the curious spectators of Medusa is the obduratenesse of those hearts who open too broad an eye to the speculations of Hereticks The wasting and destroying what ever oppos'd that femal army the horrible rebellions civil warres destractions desolations caus'd by Hereticks both in ancient and in our present ages The undaunted Perseus the supreme Bishop of the Catholick Church guarded with the shield of Faith and arm'd with the sword of Saint Peter cuts off the serpentine head of Medusa errours and heresies with his definitions decrees censures and anathemaes the drops of bloud distilling from Medusaes head even after it was struck dead and divided from her shoulders turning into so many snakes and adders the pullulation of new divisions and subdivisions of Heresies spreading themselves all o-over and infesting the countries where they fall with implacable dissentions and tumults each against other This is the sad story of Medusa Emblemis'd And yet happy had been our Nation and many others with it had it rested in the nature of an Embleme and been no more then a bare speculation But as it hath faln heavy upon several Countries in all precedent ages so in this and the former has it almost crush'd ours and many adjacent to us the histories are too too fresh in our memories and the late pressures too broad before our eyes to need recital and yet we might hope to obliterate their foul Characters in time were there not new drops distilling from Medusaes ghastly head and perpetuating that generation of vipers which took their first birth from it Force of Reason and Authority had devested our adversaries of both and so enervated their Principles that they had no consistency when behold a new brood of unheard of Novelties dropping from Medusa's brain rise-up to reestablish their dying cause Sects and Schismes are united as parts to the Catholick Church Oecumenicall Councils are despoiled of their ancient Authority Ecclesiasticall Decrees pin'd up within the Circuit of the Romane Empire true Christian and Divine Faith made consistent in the same soul with Heresie ancient Theologicall Definitions question'd and revers'd c. And those Principles once advanced which both Parties condemned and execrated as Diabolicall our Arguments are frustrated and we put upon a necessity to prove what we and all Christians suppos'd hitherto as undeniable Truths This is the task which Mr. Richard Baxter inventer of the said Novelties hath put upon me a man who had his fecunditie of invention been equalliz'd with a soliditie in Learning might have proved as offensive as he is now invective against the Roman Church My present work therefore is not so much a defence of mine own as of the common cause of Christians against those young Meducean Serpents new bred Novelties hissing against it so that it may be equally intitled CHISTIANITY MAINTAIN'D and NOVELTY REPRES'T Yet I have made choice of the latter as not daring to assume a Title to any writing of mine which a Person so far excelling me in all respects has prefixed to his own in answer to another bold oppugner of Christian Principles Whosoever therefore shall please to peruse this present Tract shall I hope find the whole controversie laid open so plain before his eyes that he needs no more then to parallell each answer to its respective objection in their severall Paragraphs for to this end I have inserted the whole first part of Mr. Baxters last Answer by Sections verbatim and to each applyed my rejoinder that neither the Reader may be put to the cost or trouble of perusing Mr. Baxters Book nor he himself have any occasion to complain that I accuse him to say any thing which he expresses not in his own Treatise For the same end also I have reprinted here the whole precesse of the argument with all our precedent respective Answers and Replies that the
to be so without evident Reason giveth scope to every one at his pleasure to make every other promise of Christ to be conditional And so we shall be certain of nothing that Christ hath promised neither that there shall always be a visible or invisible Church nor any Church at all no nor of Judgement nor of Eternal life or of the Resurrection of the dead c. for one may say with as much ground as this is said that some conditions were included in all those promises which being not fulfilled hinders the execution of them There remains only to prove the Minor of the second Syllogism viz. That no Congregation of Christians hath been always visible c. save that which acknowledges S. Peter and his lawfull successors c. to be their chief Head and Governour c. next under Christ. This Minor I prove by obliging the answerers to nominate any Congregation of Christians which always till this present time since Christ hath been visible either under persecution or in peace and flourishing save that only which acknowledges S. Peter c. ut supra Sir To comply with your desires of brevity and of confining my self to half a sheet of paper I send you at present only one Argument which being fully discussed shall be followed by others God willing To this as to all the rest of my Arguments which may hereafter be urged I require a Categorical and strict Syllogistical Answer in Form by Concedo Nego Distinguo Omitto Transeat And the particular Propositions specified to which the Respondents apply any of them and no more then precisely thus neither adding Amplifications Reasons Proofs c. of their own out of form and that this may be done with all convenient speed To the place of Scripture Ephes. 4. c. is also required a Categorical answer to what is precisely pressed in it without directing the Discourse to other things And what is answered otherwise I shall not esteem an Answer but an Effugium or declining of the difficulty By this method exactly observed Truth will easily and speedily be made manifest and your desires of Brevity will be punctually complied with I also desire that the Respondent or Respondents will as I do to this subscribe his or their name or names to their answers so often as any are by him or them returned with the day of the month when returned Decemb. 9. 1658. William Iohnson The Answer to the first PAPER I received yours and writ this Answer Ian. 4. 1658. Sir WHoever you are a serious debate with so sober a Disputant is to me an exceeding acceptable employment I shall not I hope give you any cause to say that I decline any difficulties or balk your strength or transgress the part of a Respondent But because 1. You have not as you ought to have done explained the terms of your Thesis 2. And have made your Propositions so long 3. And have so cunningly lapped up your fallacies your Respondent is necessitated to be the larger in distinction and explication And seeing you are so instant with me for strictness you thereby oblige your self if you will be ingenuous to make onely the learned and not any ignorant men the Iudges of our dispute because you know that to the unlearned a bare Nego signifieth nothing but when such have read your Arguments at length they will expect as plain and large a confutation or judge you to be in the right for speaking most TO your Argument 1. Your conclusion containeth not your Thesis or Question And so you give up your cause the first step and make a new one It should have contained your Question in terms and it doth not so much as contain it in the plain sense so much difference is there between Assemblies of Christians united c. and Congregation of Christians and between Salvation or the Church never was in any other then those Assemblies and no Salvation out of that Congregation as I shall shew you besides other differences which you may see Ad Majorem Resp. 1. By Congregation you mean either the whole Catholick Church united in Christ or some particular Congregation which is but part of that whole In the latter sense your Subject hath a false supposition viz. that a part is the whole and your Minor will be false And your whatsoever Congregation of Christians seems to distinguish that from some other excluded Congregation of Christians that is no part of the Catholick Church which is a supposing the chief part of the Question granted you which we deny We know no universal Congregation of Christians but one which containeth all particular Congregations and Christians that univocally deserve that name 2. Either you mean that this whole Congregation or true Church acknowledgeth the Popes Soveraignty or else that some part of it doth acknowledge it The former I deny and challenge any man living to prove If it be part onely that you mean then either the greater part or the lesser that it is the greater I as confidently almost deny for it is against the common knowledge of men acquainted with the world c. If you mean the lesser part you shall see anon that it destroyes your cause 3. Either you speak de Ecclesia quae talis or de Ecclesia qua talis and mean that this acknowledgment is essential to it or at least an inseparable property or else that it is a separable accident The latter will do you no good the former I deny In sum I grant that a small corrupt part of the Catholike Church doth now acknowledge the Pope to be Christs Vicar or the Vice-christ but I deny 1. That the whole doth so which is your great cause 2. Or the Major part 3. Or any Congregation through all ages though if they had it would do you no good 4. Or that it is done by any upon just ground but is their corruption Ad Minorem Resp. 1. If you mean any part of the Vniversal Church by that Congregation which is now the true Church I deny your Minor If the who le I grant it 2. You say all Christians agree in it c. Resp. I think all Protestants or near all do but Franciscus à sancta Clara hath copiously told us in Artic. Anglic. that most of your own Doctors are for the salvation of Infidels and then either you take Infidels for your Church membrs or your Doctors for no Christians or you play not fair play to tell us so grosse an untruth that all Christians are agreed in it To your Conclusion Resp. 1. Either you mean that there is no Salvation to be had out of that Vniversal Church whose part a minor corrupt part acknowledgeth the Popes Soveraignty or else that there is no Salvation to be had out of that Universal Church which wholly acknowledgeth it or else that there is no Salvation to be had out of that part of the Universal Church which acknowledgeth it In the
first sense I grant your conclusion if really you are part of the Church There is no Salvation to be had out of Christs Universal Church of which you are a small corrupted part In the second sense I told you we deny the supposition in the subject In the third sense I deny the sequel non sequitur because your Major Proposition being false de Ecclesia universali the conclusion must be false de parte ista as excluding the rest But to the unskilful or unwary Reader your conclusion seemeth to import that the being in such a Church which acknowledgeth the Popes Soveraignty as it is such a Church is necessary to Salvation and so that the persons acknowledgement is neccesary But it is a fallacia accidentis cunningly lapt up that is the life of your imported cause That part of the Universal Church doth hold to the Popes Soveraignty is per accidens and could you prove that the whole Church doth so which you are unlike to do I would say the like And that your fallacy may the beter appear I give you some examples of such like Sophismes Whatsoever Nation is the true Kingdom of Spain is proud and cruel against Protestants But there is no protection there due to any that are not of that Kingdome therefore there is no protection due to any that are not proud and cruel Or whatsoever Nation is the true Kingdome of France acknowledgeth the Pope but no protection is due from the Governours to any that are not of that Kingdom therefore no protection is due to any that acknowledge not the Pope Or what ever Nation is the Kingdome of Ireland in the days of Queen Elizabeth was for the Earl of Tyrone but there was no right of Inheritance for any that were not of that Nation therefore there was no right of Inheritance for any that was not for the Earl of Tyrone Or suppose that you could have proved it of all the Church If you had lived four hundred years after Christ you might as well have argued thus Whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ is against kneeling in adoration on the Lords days But there is no salvation to be had out of that Congregation of Christians which is now the true Church of Christ therefore there is no salvation to be had out of that Congregation which is against kneeling on the Lords day c. But yet 1. There was Salvation to be had in that Congregation without being of that opinion 2. And there is now Salvation to be had in a Congregation that is not of that opinion as you will confess Or whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ doth hold the Canticles and the Epistle to Philemon to be Canonical Scripture and so have done c. But there is no Salvation to be had out of the true Church therefore there is no Salvation to be had out of that Congregation which holdeth the Canticles and Epistle to Philemon to be Canonical Scripture But yet 1. Salvation is to be had in that Church without holding it 2. And its possible hereafter a Church may deny those two books and yet you will think Salvation not thereby overthrown This is but to shew your fallacy from a corrupt accident and indeed but of a part of the Church and a small part Now to your proof of the Major Resp. ad Major The present matter of the Church was not visible in the last Generation for we were not then born but the same form of the Church was then existent in a visible Matter and their Profession was visible or audible though their faith it self was invisible I will do more then you shall do in maintaining the constant visibility of the Church Ad minorem 1. If you mean that no Congregation hath been alwayes visible but that Vniversal Church whose lesser corrupt part acknowledges the Popes Soveraignty I grant it For besides the whole containing all Christians as the parts there can be no other If you mean save that part which acknowledgeth you contradict your self because a part implyeth other parts If you mean save that Universal Church all whose members or the most acknowledg it there is no such subject existent 2. I distinguish of Visibility It s one thing to be a visible Church that is visible in its essentials and another thing to be visible quoad hoc as to some separable accident The Universal Church was ever visible because their Profession of Christianity was so and the persons professing But the acknowledgment of the Vice-christ was not alwayes visible no not in any parts much less in the whole And if it had it was but a separable accident if your disease be not incurable that was visible and therefore 1. It was not necessary to Salvation nor a proper mark of the Church 2. Nor can it be so for the time to come I need to say no more to your conclusion Your Argument is no better then this whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ hath been alwayes visible since the time of Christ But no congregation of Christians hath been so visible save onely that which condemneth the Greeks which hath a Colledge of Cardinals to chose the Popes which denieth the cup to the laity which forbiddeth the reading of Scripture in a known tongue without license c. Therefore whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ hath all these 1. In a corrupt part it hath 2. But it had not alwayes 3. And may be cured hereafter To your proof of the Major 1. I grant your Major 2. Ad minorem 1. Either you mean Vniversal Pastors each one or some one having charge and Government of the whole Church or you mean unfixed Pastors having an indefinite charge of Preaching and Guiding when they come and have particular calls and opportunities or you mean the fixed Pastors of particular Churches In the first sense your Minor is false the Catholike Church was never so united to any Universal Head but Christ no one of the Apostles governed the rest and the whole Church much less any since their time In the second sense I grant that the Church hath ever had Pastors since the Ascension In the third sense I grant that some parts or other of the Catholick Church have ever had fixed Pastors of Congregations since the first setling of such Pastors But any one particular Congregation may cease to have such Pastors and may cease it self And Rome hath been long without any true Pastors and therefore was then no such visible Church 2. If by Congregation you mean not the Universal Church but a part or if you mean it of all the parts of the Universal Church I deny your Minor Communities of Christians and particular persons have been and may be without any Pastors to whom they are united or subject The Indians that died in the faith while Frumentius and Edesius were
thus That I either mean by Congregation the whole Catholick Church or only some part of it as if one should say Whatsoever Congregation of men is the Common-wealth of England and another in answer to it should distinguish either by Congregation of men you mean the whole Common wealth or some part of it when all men know that by the Common-wealth of England must be meant the whole Common-wealth for no part of it is the Common-wealth of England Again you distinguish that some things are Essentials or Necessaries and others accidents which are acknowledged or practised in the Church Now to apply this distinction to my Proposition you must distinguish that which I say is acknowledged to have been ever in the Church by the Institution of Christ either to be meant of an Essential or an Accident when all the world knows that whatsoever is acknowledged to have been ever in the Church by Christs Institution cannot be meant of any Accidental thing but of a necessary unchangeable and essential thing in Christs true Church If one should advance this proposition Whatsoever Congregation is the true Church of Christ acknowledges the Eucharist ever to have been by Christs Institution a proper Sacrament of the new Law and another should distinguish as you do my proposition This may be meant either of an Essential or Accidental thing to Christs true Church Seeing whatsoever is acknowledged to have been always in Christs Church and instituted by Christ cannot be acknowledged but as necessary and essential to his Church If therefore my Major as the terms lie expressed in it be true it should have been granted if false it should have been denyed But no Logick allows that it should be distinguished into such different members whereof one is expresly excluded in the very terms of the Proposition These distinctions therefore though learned and substantial in themselves yet were they here unseasonable and too illogical to ground an answer in form as you ground yours still insisting upon them in your address almost to every proposition Hence appears first that I used no fallacy at all ex Accidente seeing my proposition could not be verified of an accident Secondly that all your instances of Spain France c. which include Accidents are not apposite because your propositions as they lie have no term which excludes Accidental Adjuncts as mine hath To the proof of my Major Syl. 2. You seem to grant the Major of my second Syllogism not excepting any thing material against it To my Minor You fall again into the former distinctions now disproved and excluded of the meaning of Congregation c. in my Proposition and would have me to understand determinately either the whole Catholick Church or some part of it and so make four terms in my Syllogism whereas in my Minor Congregation of Christians is taken generically and abstracts as an universal from all particulars I say no Congregation which is an universal negative and when I say none Save that Congregation which acknowledges Saint Peter c. the term Congregation supposes for the same whole Catholick Church mentioned in my former Syllogism but expresses it under a general term of Congregation in confuso as I express Homo when I say he is Animal a man when I say he is a living creature but only generically or in confuso Now should I have intended determinately either the whole Catholike Church or any part of it I should have made an inept Syllogism which would have run thus Whatsoever true Church of Christ is now the true Church of Christ hath been alwaies visible c But no true Church of Christ hath been always visible save the true Church of Christ which acknowledges Saint Peter c. Ergo whatsoever true Church of Christ is now the true Church acknowledges Saint Peter c. which would have been idem per idem for every one knows that the true Church of Christ is now the true Church of Christ. But speaking as I do in abstractive and generical terms I avoid this absurdity and frame a true Syllogism Now my meaning in this Minor could be no other then this which my words express That the Congregation that is the whole Congregation acknowledges Saint Peter c. and is visible c. and not any part great or small of it For when I say the Parliament of these Nations doth or hath enacted a Statute who would demand of me whether I meant the whole Parliament or some determinate part of it You should therefore have denyed not thus distinguished my Minor quite against the express words of it What you say again of Essentials and Accidents is already refuted and by that also your Syllogism brought by way of instance For your Proposition doth not say that the Church of Rome acknowledges those things were always done and that by Christs Institution as my Proposition says she acknowledges Saint Peter and his Successors To my third Syllogism Granting my Major you distinguish the term Pastors in my Minor into particular and universal fixed and unfixed c. I answer that the term Pastors as before Congregation signifies determinately no one of these but generically and in confuso 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 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 inferiour Pastors were sent to them For when they were taught the Christian Doctrine in the explication of that Article I beleeve the holy Catholick Church they were also taught that they being people of Christs Church must subject themselves to their lawful Pastors this being a part of the Christian doctrine Heb. 13. who though absent in body may yet be present in spirit with them as Saint Paul saith of himself 1 Cor. 5.3 Your Answer to the confirmation of my Major seems strange For I speak of visible Pastors and you say 't is true of an invisible Pastor that is Christ our Saviour who is now in heaven invisible to men on earth The rest is a repetition of what is immediatly before answered Ephes. 4. proves not only that some particular Churches or part of the whole Church must always have Pastors but that the whole Church it self must have Pastors and every particular Church in it for it speaks of that Church which is the Body of Christ which can be no lesse then the whole Church For no particular Church alone is his mystical Body but only a part of it Ephes. 4.
such and the consent of all Orthodox Christians who ever since esteemed them no other or you must make condemned Hereticks parts of the Catholick 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 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 reall 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 * See Nilus on this Subject Rome and his party to have fallen from the true faith 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 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 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 parts of the Catholick Church But when you have made the best you can of these Greeks Armenians Ethiopians Protestants whom you first name you neither have deduced nor can deduce them successively in all ages till Christ as a different Congregation of Christians from that which holds the Popes Supremacy which was my Proposition For in the year 1500. those who became the first Protestants were not a Congregation different from those who held that supremacy nor in the year 500 were the Greeks a visible Congregation different from it nor in the year 300. were the Nestorians nor in the year 200. the Eutychians a different Congregation from those who held the said Supremacy But in those respective years those who first begun those Heresies were involved within that Congregation which held it as a part of it and assenting therein with it who after in their several ages and beginnings fell off from it as dead branches from the tree that still remaining what it ever was and only continuing in a perpetuall visibility of succession Though therefore you profess never to have seen convincing proof of this in the first 400 years and labour to infringe it in the next ages yet I will make an Essay to give you a taste of those innumerable proofs of this visible consent in the Bishop of Romes Supremacy not of Order only but of Power Authority and jurisdiction over all other Bishops in the ensuing instances which happened within the first 400 or 500 or 600 years (a) Liberatus in Brev. c. 16. Iohn Bishop of Antioch makes an Appeal to Pope Simplicius And Flavianus (b) Epist. praeambula Concil Chalcedon Bishop of Constantinople being deposed in the false Council of Ephesus immediatly appeals to the Pope as to his judge (c) Concil Chalcedon Act. 1. Theodoret was by Pope Leo restored and that by an (d) Concil Chalcedon Act. 8. appeal unto a just judgement (e) S. Cyprian Epist. 67. Saint Cyprian desires 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) Concil Sard. cap. 4 cited by S. Athan. Apol. 2. page 753. Council of Sardis That no Bishop deposed by other neighbouring Bishops pretending to be heard again was to have any successor appointed untill the case were defined by the Pope Eustathius (g) St. Basil Epist. 74. Bishop of Sebast in Armenia was restored by Pope Liberius his Letters read and received in the Council of Tyana and (h) St. Chrysost. Epist. 2. ad Innocent Saint Chrysostome expresly desires Pope Innocent not to punish his Adversaries if they do repent Which evinces that Saint Chrysostome thought that the Pope had power to punish them And the like is written to the Pope by the (i) Concil Ephes. p. 2. Act. 5. Council of Ephesus in the case of Iohn Bishop of Antioch (k) St. Athanas. ad Solit. Epist. Iulius in lit ad Arian ap Athan. Apol. 1. pag. 753. Theodoret lib. 2. cap. 4. Athanas. Apol. 2. Zozom lib. 3. cap. 7. 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 S. Athanasius the same did S. Athanasius to defend himself against them which Arian Bishops having understood from Iulius that their Accusations against S. 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 him and the * 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. â—â— 9. 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 condemned as unjust in consenting to it Nicâ—â—ph lib. 13. cap. 34. Chamier 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 sâ—â—ve 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 by his sole and single authority restored Bishops wrongfully deposed all the Church ever Council in Judgement
semper in suis successoribus vivit judicium exercet Hujus itaque secundum ordinem successor locum-tenens sanctus beatissimusque Papa noster Celestinus nos ipsius praesentiam supplentes huc misit And Arcadius another of the Popes Legats inveighing 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 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 Catholick 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 Catholick Church was for us in this point For the age 600 see S. Gregory Pope l. 10. ep 30 where Hereticks and Schismaticks repenting were received then into the Church upon solemn promise and publick protestation that they would never any more separate from but always remain in the unity of the Catholick Church and communion in all things with the Bishop of Rome As to what you say of Congregation of Christians in the beginning I answer I took the word of Christians in a large sense comprehending in it all those as it is vulgarly taken who are baptized and profess to beleive in Christ and are distinguished from Jews Mahumetans and Heathens under the denomination of Christians What you often say of an universal Monarch c. if you take Monarch for an Imperious sole Commander as temporal Kings are we acknowledge no such Monarch in the Church if onely for one who hath received power from Christ in meekness charity and humility to govern all the rest for their own eternal good as brethren or children we grant it What also you often repeat of a Vice-christ we much dislike that title as proud and insolent and utterly disclaim from it neither was it ever given by any sufficient Authority to our Popes or did they ever accept of it As to the Council of Constance they never questioned the Supremacy of the Pope as ordinary chief Governour of all Bishops and people in the whole Church nay they expresly give it to Martinus Quintus when he was chosen But in extraordinary cases especially when it is doubtful who is true Pope as it was in the beginning of this Council till Martinus Quintus was chosen whether any extraordinary power be in a general Council above that ordinary power of the Pope which is a question disputed by some amongst our selves but touches not the matter in hand which proceeds only of the ordinary and constant Supream Pastor of all Christians abstracting from extraordinary tribunals and powers which are seldome found in the Church and collected only occasionally and upon extraordinary accidents Thus honoured Sir I have as much as my occasions would permit me hastened a Reply to your Answer and if more be requisite it shall not be denied Only please to give me leave to tell you that I cannot conceive my Argument yet answer'd by all you have said to it Feb. 3. 1658. William Iohnson Novelty Represt In a Rejoynder to Mr. Baxters Reply to William Iohnson The First Part. CHAP. I. ARGUMENT Num. 1. Exordium n. 3. Assembly and Congregation not different n. 5. Acknowledgment or Denial of what is Essential to the Church is it self Essential to the constitution or destruction of the Church my words mis-cited by omitting the word ever n. 7. Three Fallacies discovered Franciscus à S ta Clarâ mis-alledged n. 12. Congregations of Christians and Church not Synonyma's n. 16 17. Nothing instituted by Christ to be ever in his Church can be accidentall to his Church n. 19. Though universals exist not yet particulars which exist may be exprest in universal or abstractive terms n. 20. Many things necessary to the whole Church which are not necessary for every particular Christian. num 21 22. Christ now no visible Pastor of the Church militant though his person in heaven be visible n. 22. A visible Body without a visible Head is a Monster Such is Mr. Baxters Church Mr. Baxter SIR Num. 1. THe multitude and urgency of my employments gave me not leave till this day May 2. so much as to read over all your Papers but I shall be as loath to break off our disputation as you can be though perhaps necessity may sometime cause some weeks delay And again I profess my indignation against the hypocritical jugling of this age doth provoke me to welcome so Ingenuous and Candid a Disputant as your self with great content But I must confess also that I was the lesse hastie in sending you this Reply because I desired you might have leasure to peruse a Book which I published since your last a Key for Catholicks seeing that I have there answered you already and that more largely then I am like to doe in this Reply For the sharpness of that I must crave your patience the persons and cause I thought required it William Iohnson Num. 1. Sir Your Plea is my Defence I had my imployments and those of great concern as much as you which have hitherto detained me from accomplishing this Reply I have my Adversaries as well as you and no lesse then three at once in Print against me yet the esteem I have of your worth hath exacted from me to desist a while from what I had begun in Answer to the chief of them that I might bestow the whole time on you which notwithstanding was lately interrupted even when I was drawing towards an end by an unexpected and unrefusable occasion which hath already taken from me many weeks and is like to deprive me of many more Some small time an interstitium through the absence of my Adversary hath afforded me and that hath drawn the work almost to a period I have not hitherto had any leisure to peruse your Key and indeed what you here acknowledge of it Sharpness deterrs me from medling any further with it then what may be occasioned in this your Answer I finde even this in several passages of a relish tart enough but I can bear with that and I hope observe a moderacy where passion speaks against my cause or me For I tell you truly I had rather shew my self a patient Christian then a passionate Controvertist What reason utters will have power with rational men Passion never begins to speak but when reason is struck dumb and so cannot speak according to reason Mr. Baxter Num. 2. If you will not be precise in arguing you had little reason to expect much lesse so strictly to exact a precise Answer which cannot be made as you prescribed
to an Argument not precise I therefore expect accordingly that the unlearned be not made the Iudges of a Dispute which they are not fit to judge of seeing you desire us to avoid their road William Iohnson Num. 2. When I press you to as much brevity as my first Adversary prest me I shall require no more and shall easily bear with penetrations of Syllogisms and mediate consequences when they are proveable in lawfull form My chief care was to obstruct all excursions amplifications and irregularities quite out of form and all Sophisms and Fallacies which I have avoided When the learned are sufficiently informed I hope they will have so watchful a care of conscience and Christian charity that they will impart what they finde to be truth to the ignorant And this I expected signally from you in whom I discovered a fervent desire to publish what you thought truth to every one Baxter Num. 3. And by a Congregation of Christians you may mean Christians politically related to one Head whether Christ or the Pope But the word Assemblies expresseth their actual Assembling together and so excludeth all Christians that are or were members of no particular Assemblies from having relation to Christ our Head or the Pope your Head and so from being of the Congregation as you call the Church universal Iohnson Num. 3. Assembly implies no more an actual assembling then Congregation an actual congregating prove it does They are both taken in the same sense in Scripture and approved Authors and comprised in the word caetus and the one as capable to include a head and members subject to it as the other Baxter Num. 4. I had great reason to avoid the snare of an Equivocation or ambiguity of which you gave me cause of jealousie by your whatsoever as I told you as seeming to intimate a false supposition To your like I answer it is unlike and still more intimates the false supposition Whatsoever Congregation of men is the Common-wealth of England is a phrase that importeth that there is a Congregation of men which is not the â—â—ommon-wealth of England which is true there being more men in the world so Whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church doth seem to import that you suppose there is a Congregation of Christians univocally so called that are not the true Church which you would distinguish from the other which I only let you know at the entrance that I deny that you may not think it granted Iohnson Num. 4. My Simile is alike in what I prest it Viz. That no man can rightly understand me as you do to mean by Congregation a part of the Church when I say it is the whole Church The disparity mentioned by you shall hereafter be examined when I come to confute your Novelty in that point In the interim you may please to take notice that there are as well Congregations of Christians univocally so called which are not the Church as there are of men which are not the Common-wealth of England Such are the Senate of Venice the Common-Council of London the Parliament of Paris c. Baxter Num. 5. Yet I must tell you that nothing is more ordinary then for the body to be said to do that which a part of it only doth as that the Church administreth Sacraments Discipline Teacheth c. The Church is assembled in such a Council c. when yet it is but a small part of the Church that doth these things And when Bellarmine Gretser c. say the Church is the infallible Judge of controversies they mean not the whole Church which containeth every Christian when they tell you that it is the Pope they mean And therefore I had reason to inquire into your sense unless I would willfully be over-reacht Iohnson Num. 5. This is a meer Parergon for I declare in my Thesis that I speak only of that Church out of which no man can be saved as appears in your Edition p. 2. which is not cannot be the Church representative in a Council for then none could be saved who are out of that Council Baxter Num. 6. You now satisfie me that you mean it universally viz. All that Congregation or Church of Christians which is now the true Church of Christ doth acknowledge c. which I told you I deny Iohnson Num. 6. By this appears how inappositely you propounded the question Whether I meant by Congregation in my Proposition the whole Church or only some part of it seeing it was manifest I could not mean any part of it by that word Baxter To my following distinction you say That all the world knows that whatsoever is acknowledged to have been ever in the Church by Christs Institution cannot be meant of any accidentall thing but of a necessary unchangeable and essential thing in Christs true Church To which I reply either you see the grosse fallacy of this defence or you do not If you do not then never more call for an exact Disputant nor look to be delivered from your Errors by Argumentation though never so convincing If you do then you are not faithful to the Truth In your Major Proposition the words being many as you say you penetrated divers Arguments together ambiguities were the easier hidden in the heap That which I told you is accidental to the Church and that but to a corrupted part was the acknowledging of the Papacy Fallacy 1. as of Christs Institution and therefore if it were granted that a thing of Christs Institution could not be accidental yet the acknowledgment that is the opinion or asserting of it may If the Church by mistake should think that to be essential to it which is not though it will not thence follow that its essence is but an accident yet it will follow that both the false opinion and the thing it self so false conceited to be essential are but accidents or not essential You say it cannot be meant of any accidental thing But 1. That meaning it self of theirs may be an accident 2. And the question is not what they mean that is imagine or affirm it to be but what it is in deed and truth That may be an accident which they think to be none Iohnson Num. 7. Sir The fallacy is not in my Proposition but in your understanding You assert that the Soveraignty of the Pope is as accidental to the Church as will hereafter appear as pride and cruelty is to the Spanish Nation and therefore the Acknowledgement of it is Accidental for if the acknowledgement be in a matter Essential it self must also be Essential either to the constitution or destruction of the Catholick Faith For the Essence of Faith requires that all Essentials be believed And it must be destructive of Faith to believe any thing to be Essential and absolutely necessary to Christian Faith which is a meer Accident and non-Essential For such an Errour constitutes a false Christian and teaches that to be Essentially
Christian Religion which is a Falsity in Christian Religion If therefore the whole Church as I affirm hold the Popes Supremacy to be by Christs Institution that is to be essential to the Church as you admit for the present and it be not by his Institution the Church errs in an Essential matter which errour is not Accidental to the Church that is such an errour that the Church can subsist as truly with it as without it but essentially destructive of the Church If the Popes Supremacy be by Christs Institution and thereby Essential as you now suppose the Churches acknowledgement that it is so is not accidental but necessary and essential to the subsistence of the Church So that to admit as you do here the thing it self that whatsoever is of Christs Institution is Essential and yet to make the acknowledgement of its Essentiality by the whole Church to be Accidental to the Church is strange Divinity and one of your grand Novelties I intreat you therefore to tell me in your next what makes the Arrian Heresie as you hold destructive of Christianity and an essential Errour save this onely that it is against a point essential to Christian Faith And I think I have as much reason to hold the Errour either contradicting that which is Essential to Christianity or asserting that as Essential which is onely Accidental to be an Essential Errour against Christian Faith as was that of the Arrians For it had been doubtless an essential Errour in Faith and destructive of Christianity not onely to deny the Consubstantiality of the Father and the Son but also to deny that consubstantially and the belief of it to be essential to the Christian Faith and necessary to the constitution of Christianity Your Fallacy therefore consists in this that you suppose all that Christ hath instituted to be Essential to the Church and yet in that very supposition make the acknowledgement of the whole Church that such a thing is instituted by Christ to be accidental to the Church Of which more hereafter Baxter Num. 8. But that which you say all the world knows is a thing that all the world of Christians except your selves that ever I heard of do know or acknowledge to be false What! doth all the world know that Christ hath instituted in his Church nothing but what is Essential to it Fallacy 2. Corruption 1. I should hope that few in the Christian world be so ignorant as ever to have such a thought if they had the means of knowledg that Protestants would have them have There is no natural Body but hath natural Accidents as well as Essence Nor is there any other Society under Heaven Community or Policy that hath not its Accidents as well as Essence And yet hath Christ instituted a Church that hath nothing but Essence without Accidents Do you build upon such Foundations what upon the denial of Common Principles and Sense But if you did you should not have feigned all the world to do so too Were your Assertion true then every soul were cut off from the Church and so from Salvation that wanted any thing of Christs Institution yea for a moment And then what would become of you You give me an Instance in the Eucharist But 1. will it follow that if the Eucharist be not Accidental or Integral but Essential that therefore Every thing instituted by Christ is Essential Iohnson Num. 8. Sir Your Answer proceeds fallaciously à particulari ad universale I say that is Essential which hath been ever in the Church by Christs Institution and you accuse me to say whatsoever is of Christs Institution is Essential leaving out which hath been ever in the Church by his Institution Shew me therefore something which hath been ever that i in all ages in the Church by Christs Institution which is Accidental to the Church Till that be done you have answered your own Fallacy not my Proposition Whence appears the vanity of your instancing in a Pâ—â—litick Body without Accidents For those things which Christ instituted to be as Things Temporary or for a time not for ever were Accidents as some Ceremonies in his last Supper the washing of Feet and other matters belonging to the order and decency as different circumstances require in the Church which by Christs Institution were left to the direction of the Church are Accidents to the Church So that I say not nor ever said that Christ hath instituted a Politick Body without Accidents as you misconceivingly accuse me but that whatsoever he instituted to be ever in his Church is none of those Accidents You should do well to reflect more punctually upon your Adversaries words and not to leave out such terms as give the whole force and Energie to his Proposition For if this be not done an Answer may be prolong'd till Dooms-day by multiplying mistakes one upon another to no end Baxter Numb 9. The question being not whether the Being of the Eucharist in the Church be Essential to the universal Church but whether the Belief or Acknowledgement of it by all and every one of the members be Essential to the members I would crave your Answer but to this Question though it be nothing to my cause Was not a Baptized person Fallacy 3. in the Primitive and Ancient Churches a true Church-member presently upon Baptism And then tell me also Did not the Ancient Fathers and Churches unanimously hide from their Catechumens even purposely hide the Mystery of the Eucharist as proper to the Church to understand and never opened it to the Auditors till they were Baptized This is most undeniable in the concurrent vote of the Ancients I think therefore that it follows that in the judgement of the Ancient Churches the Eucharist was but of the Integrity and not the Essence of a Member of the Church and the acknowledgement of it by all the members a thing that never was existent Iohnson Num. 9. Here you commit another Fallacy proceeding à sensu conjuncto ad sensum divisum I affirm no more then that the Assembly or Congregation which is the Church See p. 30. Bax. Edâ—â—tion hath this acknowledgement and you argue against me as if I said Every particular member of the Church is obliged to have that actual express acknowledgment Know you not that many things are necessary to the whole Politick Body conjunctively which are not necessary to every part of it separate Whence your instance of the Eucharist is answered For though that be not necessary to be expresly beleeved by every Christian necessitate nudii yet it is essentially necessary to the whole Church You misconceive therefore very much in saying the question is not whether the belief if you mean explicite belief of the Eucharist is essentially necessary to all and every one of the members of the Church for I neither propounded that the express belief either of the Eucharist or the Popes Supremacy is essentially necessary to every Christian but to
such only to whom they are sufficiently propounded Baxter Num. 10. Where you say Your Major should have been granted or denied without these distinctions I reply 1. If you mean fairly and not to abuse the truth by confusion such distinctions as your self call learned and substantial can do you no wrong they do but secure our true understanding of one another And a few lines in the beginning by way of distinction are not vain that may prevent much vain altercation afterward When I once understand you I have done and I beseech you take it not for an injury to be understood Iohnson Num. 10. If they have done no wrong to you 't is well for my part I finde my self nothing injur'd by them But unnecessary and frivolous distinctions as yours were in this occasion can be no great advantage to him who gives them Baxter Num. 11. As to your Conclusion that you used no fallacy ex accidente and that my instances are not apposite I reply that 's the very life of the controversie between us and our main question is not so to be begged Fallacy 4. (a) Make sense of this On the grounds I have shewed you I still aver That the holding the Papacy as accidental to the universal Church as a canker in the breast is to a woman And though you say it is essential and of â—â—hrists Institution that maketh it neither essential nor of Christs Institution nor doth it make all his institutions to be essentials Iohnson Num. 11. You fall here again upon your former mistake I say not that the Papacy is therefore precisely not Accidental because it is of Christs Institution but because Christ hath instituted it should be ever in the Church which ever you still omit My saying I confess makes it not to be of Christs Institution but I hope to evince that my Argument hath proved it by a cleer confutation of your Answer Nor would I have any one give credit to my sayings further then I prove them to be true by solid reason Baxter Num. 12. Now of your second Syllogism 1. I shall never question the successive visibility of the Church whereas I told you out of Francisc. à Sanctâ Clarâ that many or most of your own Schoolmen agree not to that which you say Corruption 2. All Christians agree to you make no reply to it Iohnson Num. 12. I had not then seen that Author for want of time and so omitted the Answer And when I came to the sight of him your citation is so vastly large for you say only in articulis Anglicanis that I was forced to turn over the whole Book and all I have found where he treats this subject is A Sancta Clara in Artic. Anglic problem 15. p. 109 110 c. that one may be saved through invincible ignorance though he have no express but onely an implicite Faith in Christ. But I find no mention of Infidels in that place much less that he affirms most of our Doctors teach they may be saved nor that he affirms any can be saved who are out of the Church Your friends will be sorry to see you so defective in your citations You might have cited either his words or the place where they are found in particular and thereby have saved my labour and your own credit This I hope will be done in your next Baxter Num. 13. As to your Minor I have given you the Reasons of the necessity and harmlesness of my distinctions we need say no more to that A Congregation of Christians and a Church are synonyma Iohnson Num. 13. I wonder to hear you say a Congregation of Christians and a Church are synonyma Suppose a Montanist a Luciferian an Origenist an Arrian an Eutychian a Pelagian an Iconoclast a Wickliffian a Waldensian a Donatist an Aerian a Hussite and with these one of each Heresie and Schisme since Christ which in your opinion are or have been univocally Christians and that without any to reconcile and agree them were congregated together to oppose the Roman Church though you hold they are a Congregation of Christians would you venture to affirm they are a Church Or should a company of Murtherers Thieves Adulterers Robbers Bandits meet in rebellion together without Priest or Pastor though all Christians they would be a Congregation of Christians but would you therefore call them a Church Or when in Christian Armies the Souldiers and Commanders stand in Battalia to fight their Enemies or Countrey-people congregate in a Fair or to choose the Knight of the Shire or at my Lord Mayors Feast in London or at Bartholomew-Fair to see a Puppet-play will you term each of the Congregations of Christians Churches Will you term the Common-Council of London or the Sessions of Mayor Aldermen and Justices sitting in the Old-Baily or the Kings most Honorable Privy Councel or the High Court of Parliament a Church yet all the world knows they are each of them Congregations of Christians S. Paul tells you 1 Cor. 12. that the Church is composed of different Heterogenial members as our bodies are one subject orderly to another by way of Pastor and People which is not found in every Congregation of Christians as I have made it manifest Baxter Num. 14. But the word True was not added to your first term by you or me and therefore your instance here is delusory Iohnson Num. 14. I wonder to hear you discourse in this manner I contend the word True could not be added to the first term without manifest absurdity and therefore I neither added it nor was to be understood to include it Baxt. p. 13. Your Syllogisme runs thus Whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ c. and is not my Major cited thus by you Baxt. p. 13. Whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ. Now you say the word True was not added to your first term nor to mine that 's true but you say withal that I must intend to signifie in that first term by whatsoever Congregation the universal that is the true Church of Christ that 's not true for I speak abstractly in that term nor could I do otherwise unless I would have made an absurd or identical Proposition Baxter Num. 15. But to say Whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the True Church of Christ is all one as to say Whatsoever Church of Christians is now the true Church when I know your meaning I have my end Iohnson Num. 15. I have proved this to be manifestly untrue for the East-India Company in Holland is a Congregation of Christians and yet is not a Church Baxter Num. 16. Though my Syllogisme say not that the Church of Rome acknowledgeth those things alwayes done and that by Christs Institution it nevertheless explicates the weakness of yours as to the fallacy Accidentis Iohnson Num. 16. The question is not here whether this acknowledgement of the Roman
Church be true or false that 's stated in the Argument but whether it be in a matter Accidental or Essential Now I affirm that nothing which Christ hath Instituted to be ever in the Church is Accidental to the Church for every Accident is separable from the Subject without destroying the Subject whose Accident it is But what Christ ha's Instituted to be ever in his Church is inseparable from it Mat. 19.6 for Quae Deus conjunxit homo non separet Those things which God hath conjoyned man must not separate In the mean time you fairly acknowledge your instances were not home to the present purpose because not in matters Instituted to be perpetual by one of that Authority whose Institution no man can change and consequently not necessary to be ever in those Nations or Commonwealths to whom you ascribe them Baxter Num. 17. For 1. The holding it alwayes done and that of Christs Institution may be either an Accident or but of the Integrity and ad bene esse yea possibly an errour Iohnson Num. 17. If of the Integrity then not Accidental for no Integral part is an Accident to the whole So you yield up your cause and acknowledge your errourâ—â— and 't is laudable in you The question is not what you might have done but what you did your instances given fell short and were plainly fallacious I have already shew'd that nothing can be an Accident to the Church which Christ hath instituted to be ever that is perpetually in the Church and consequently the Churches holding any thing to be so if true is Essential to the Subsistance of the Church if false is essentially destructive of the Church so that whether true or false it will never be accidental to the Church Baxter Num. 18. And I might as easily have given you instances of that kind Iohnson Num. 18. Had you more fully reflected upon your Adversaries words you might have done many things more pertinently then you have done them but here again you acknowledge your error in alledging instances which were not to the purpose But your Readers and I should have been much more satisfied had you amended what you acknowledge to be a fault and brought at least in this your last Reply those instances which you say here you might have given then Be sure therefore in your next to produce instances of Accidentals in such things as Christ hath instituted to be ever in his Church whereby it may appear that this Roman acknowledgment whether true or false is accidental to the true Church So that the acknowledgment of it by all those to whom it is sufficiently propounded is necessary to make them parts of the true Church and the denial of it when so propounded hinders them from being parts of it Baxter Num. 19. To your third Syllogism I reply 1. When you say your Church had Pastors Fallacy 5. as you must speak of what existed and universals exist not of themselves so it is necessary that I tell you how far I grant your Minor and how far I deny it Iohnson Num. 19. What though universalls exist not of themselves may not therefore a Logician expresse things which have existed in an abstract or universal term Is not this a true Logical Proposition Ever since Adam there have been parents and children in the world though the terms abstract from lawful and unlawful from male or female children would you carp at this Proposition as you do here at mine because universalls exist not of themselves or go about to distinguish different sorts of children or parents as you do Pastors here to find out the true meaning of that Proposition No man sayes or need to say in such Enunciations that universalls exist but expresses particulars which have existed by abstract and universall terms Baxter Num. 20. My Argument from the Indians and others is not solved by you For 1. You can never prove that the Pope was preached to the Iberians by the captive maid Fallacy 6. nor to the Indians by Frumentius 2. Thousands were made Christians and Baptized by the Apostles Three non-proofs without any preaching or profession of a Papacie Acts 2. pasâ—â—im 3. The Indians now converted in America by the English and Dutch hear nothing of the Pope nor thousands in Ethiopia 3. Your own doe or may baptize many without their owning the Pope who yet would be Christians And a Pastor not known or beleeved or owned is actually no Pastor to them Iohnson Num. 20. To all these Instances I answer They conclude nothing against my Assertion for I never said that all particular persons or communities are obliged to have an express belief or acknowledgment of the Roman-Bishops Supremacy that being necessary to all neither necessitate medii nor praecepti It is sufficient that they beleeve it implicitely in subjecting themselves to all those whom Christ hath instituted to be their lawfull Pastors and when the Bishop of Rome is sufficiently proposed to them to be the supream visible Pastor of of those Pastors upon earth that then they obstinately reject not his authority To your first instance of the Captive maid and Saint Frumentius I answer we can prove as much at least that to have been preacht to them as you can prove either Justification by Faith only or any other particular point of your doctrine to have been preacht to them And both of us must say that all important Christian Truths both for particular persons and Churches were delivered to those people and till you have evinced this of Supremacy to have been none of those it is to be supposed it was sufficiently declared to those Nations At least in explicating the Article of the Catholike Church to them they must be supposed to have told them it consisted of Pastors and people united and that the people were to obey all their lawful Pastors in which doctrine the Pope is implicitely included To your second from Acts 2. The Scripture relates not there all that S. Peter said but affirmeth vers 40. that he gave testimony to them in many other words And who can tell whether amongst the rest that of his Supremacy might not have been sufficiently intimated to them However it appears by the Text vers 37. that the people addrest themselves first and in particular to S. Peter before all the rest of the Apostles as the prime amongst them and he who first preacht the Gospel to them Prove the English and Dutch Convertites converted by Protestants if you mean those as you must do if your argument have any force to be instructed in the true Faith and then your Instance will have some force prove those of Ethiopia to be Orthodox and Catholick Christians To what purpose produce you instances which are assoon denied as they are proposed Your last touches only particular persons which I have shewed are not obliged to know this expresly to be of the Church the Pope is their true pastor and so
31. To what I say of an Accident and a corrupt part you say you have answered and do but say so having said nothing to it that is considerable Iohnson Num. 31. Let the Reader judge that by what hath been said on both parts Baxter Num. 32 Me thinks you that make Christ to be corporally present in every Church in the Eucharist should not say Fallacy 8. That the King of the Church is absent Iohnson Num. 32. Why dally you thus to amuse your Reader you know we we dispute now of a proper visible presence Such as is not that in the Eucharist Baxter Num. 33. But when you have proved 1. That Christ is so absent from his Church that there 's need of a Deputy to Essentiate his Kingdom and 2. That the Pope is so deputed you will have done more then is yet done for your cause Iohnson Num. 33. I have proved that Christ instituted S. Peter and his Successors to govern visibly his whole Universal Church on earth in all ages and that nothing so instituted is accidental to his Church and you have not yet given any instance to infringe it so that my proof stands in full force against you till it be answered I presse you therefore once more to give an instance of something which has been ever in the visible Church by Christs Institution and yet is accidental to his Church Baxter Num. 34. And yet let me tell you that in the absence of a King it is only the King and Subjects that are Essential to the Kingdome the Deputy is but an Officer and not essential Iohnson Num. 34. 'T is so indeed de facto but suppose as I do that a Vice-King be by full Authority made an Ingredient into the Essence of the Kingdome See my words Baxter p. 38. then sure he must be essential this is evident in our present subject For though all the Pastors in Christs Church be only his Officers and Deputies yet you cannot deny such Officers are now Essential to his visible Church I wonder you look no deeper then to the Superficies nor consider what inconveniences follow against your self by your replies for what true Christian ever yet denied that either Bishops or Presbyters or both though they are all Christs Officers and Deputies are essential to Christs visible Church Baxter Fallacy 6. The word ever left out the thiâ—â—d time Num. 35. Your naked Assertion That whatsoever Government Christ instituteth of his Church must be essential to his Church is no proof nor like the task of an Opponent Iohnson Num. 35. My Assertion is of force till you produce some instance of perpetual Church Government instituted by our Saviour which is not Essential to his Church which you neither have done nor can you do it And certainly when any Common-wealth is instituted in such a determinate kind of perpetual Government by one of so eminent Authority that no other hath power to change that Institution as it passes in our case the government which he instituted is not accidental to that Common-wealth so far that it will be no longer the Common-wealth instituted by him when the Government is changed Baxter Num. 36. The Government of Inferiour Officers is not Essential to the Vniversal Church no more then Iudges and Iustices to a Kingdom Iohnson Num. 36. Your Assertion is not true for Iudges and Iustices may be changed into other Officers by the Supream authority whereas none have power to change the Officers which Christ hath instituted to be perpetual in his Church Again even in Common-wealths and Kingdoms though these determinate Officers are not essential to them yet it is essential to have some inferiour Officers seeing it is impossible that the Supream Magistâ—â—ate should govern the whole Common-wealth immediatly by himself Baxter Num. 37. And yet we must wait long before you will prove that Peter and the Pope of Rome are in Christs place as Governours of the Universal Church Iohnson Num. 37. I have proved it and my proof is good till it be convinced that you have answered my Argument Governours they are but under Christ and no farther then to a visible government of the universal Militant Church Baxter Num. 38. Sir I desire open dealing as between men that beleeve these matters are of eternal consequence I watch not for any advantage against you Though it be your part to prove the Affirmative yet I have begun the proof of our Negative but it was on supposition that you will equally now prove your Affirmative better then you have here done I proved a visible Church successively that held not the Popes Vniversal Government Do you now prove That the Universal Church in all ages did hold the Popes Universal Government which is your part or I must say again I shall think you do but run away and give up your cause as unable to defend it I have not failed you do not you fail me Iohnson Num. 38. Sir All that I contend is that my Argument sent to you and the Answer to it promised and assayed by you be respectively accomplished by us both when that is done I shall refuse no reasonable Propositions and shall endeavour to give you all possible satisfaction But give me leave to tell you till that be done I shall take it for an Effugium from you and and so I think will all rational men to set upon a new work before the old be finisht For by this means we shall bring nothing to an Issue but still flit superficially from one difficulty to another without bringing any thing to a period and thereby both lose our time and credit Let us first follow this close and when we are come to an end we shall be ready to begin another It is not for the present the proof of the perpetual visibility of your Protestant Church in particular which is aimed at for answer to my Argument Be it that or any other Independent of the Bishop of Romes authority 't is all one for solution of the Argument The force of my discourse consists in this No Congregation of Christians has been perpetually visible save that which acknowledges the Popes Supremacy Ergo No Congregation of Christians is Christs true Church save that Now this Argument presses all Congregations of Christians whether Ancient or Modern not acknowledging that Supremacy as much as Protestants and if any of them can be proved to be perpetually visible the Argument is solv'd So that the Argument is not directed particularly against Protestants but as well against Grecian Schismaticks Eutychians Nestorians Montanists c. as against them and had it fallen into their hands as it did into yours the proving their visibility though yours had not been proved would have given satisfaction nay if you had shewed the perpetual visibility of any others as you have assayed to do of yours you had given an equal satisfaction to the Argument But seeing you have pitcht upon the visibility of your Protestant
the Scholiastes and where they are to be found For the matter it self it seems I must needs tell you very improbable both because the Scripture it self hath hoc and not hic panis and were it not a great boldness in a whole Church to consent to the changing of Christs words of Institution in this divine Sacrament and foisting in others in place of them nor see I any reason why the Ethiopique Church in particular should do it when in the very same Liturgie it delivers cleerly the change of bread into Christ Body effected in the consecration of the divine Mysteries Canon universalis Aethiop Hoc est corpus sanctum honoratum Vitale domini salvatoris nostri Iesu Christi quod datum est in remissionem peccatorum vere sumentibus ipsum Hic est sanguis Domini salvatoris nostri Iesu Christi sanctus honoratus ac vivificus qui datus est in remissionem peccatorum advitum consequendam voce sumentibus eum Dicit intra divinum sacramentum esse corpus quod assumpsit ex Maria Virgine Eâ—â— supra dicit Sacerdos hoc est corpus meum Respondet populus Amen Amen Amen hoc est vere corpus tuum Dein dicit sacerdos Hic est calix sanguinis mei qui pro nobis effundetur pro redemptione multorum c. Baxter Num 57. Constantines letters of request to the King of Persia for the Churches there which Eusebius in vitâ Constantini mentioneth do intimate that then the Roman Bishop ruled not there Iohnson Num. 57. Why so Might not the Roman Bishop rule there though the Emperour did not The King of Persia as not Subject to the Emperour was not to be commanded but entreated by him but might not that stand with the Authority of the Roman Bishop over that Church May not the King of France intreat the King of Spain to send his Bishops to a general Council though both of them acknowledge the Popes Authority over them and the Churches in their respective Kingdomes Call you this an Argument Baxter Num. 58. Even at home the Scots and Brittains obeyed not the Pope nor conformed about Easter-Observation even in the dayes of Gregory but resisted his changes and refused Communion with his Ministers Iohnson Num. 58. No more do you conform to him now follows it thence that he never exercised authority over the Church in this Nation Will you draw a consequence from the disobedience of a Subject to the want of power in a Superiour Was not this very error ascrib'd to them by Venerable Bede Beda Histor. Ang. lib. 2. cap. 2. and here acknowledged by you condemned as an Heresie in the Council of Nice and may you not as well argue thus even against your own principles Those Brittains and Scots conformed not about the Easter-Observation prescribed in the Council of Nice therefore they acknowledged no subjection to the authority of that Council Ergo That Council never had authority over them And as to Communion with his Ministers See V. Bede Hist. Angl. l. 2. cap. 2. Bede tells you they refused also to communicate with the English who were then converted or to help towards their conversion were they also justifiable in this Or had they any right in Christian charity to refuse it Baxter Num. 59. I have already elsewhere given you the testimony of some of your own Writers as Reynerius contra Waldenses Catal. in Bibliothecâ patr Tom. 4. pag. 773. saying The Churches of the Armenians and Ethiopians and Indians and the rest which the Apostles converted are not under the Church of Rome Iohnson Num. 59. No more are you what then our question is not of what is done de facto for the present but what de jure ought to be done or has been done at one time or other This Author says not these Nations were never under the Church of Rome even as you cite him but are not now for the present under him Know you not that many things have been heretofore which are not now Thus I have shewed you and doubt not but you see it the weakness of the first eight points of your Reasons I come now to the ninth which requires a deeper and larger discussion as being a main point in your Novel Divinity Baxter Num. 60. I have proved from the Council of Chalcedon that it was the Fathers that is the Councils that gave Rome its preheminence Iohnson Num. 60. Sir I take the boldness to tell you that you have proved nothing nothing at all of that matter what you say in your second part of the 28 Canon of the Council of Chalcedon proves not what you say here though that Canon were admitted of which more hereafter For the Greek word is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gave to or conferred upon Rome those priviledges but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exhibited or deferred to them to Rome as ever before due unto it by right of the Apostolick Sea of S. Peter established there And though the Canon alledge for the reason of this the Imperial power of that Citie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it was the Imperial City yet it neither says as you would infer from it that this was the sole and compleat reason no nor the chief neither of Romes preheminence but one amongst some others Nor can it be understood to be the sole reason without imputing a contradiction to the Council For those Holy Fathers in their Epistle to St. Leo Pope affirm Conc. Calced in relat ad Leonem That Dioscorus had extended his Felony against him to whom our Saviour had committed the charge and care of his vineyard that is the whole Catholique Church when that wicked Heretick presumed to excommunicate St. Leo. Now the true reason why this Canon mentions rather the Imperial Authority of that City then the right from St. Peter was because it suited better with the pretensions of Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople and his complices for the elevation of that Sea then any other because Constantinople had no other prevalent plea for its preheminence save the Imperiality of Constantinople Now that this reason of the Imperial seat at Rome is no way exclusive of the right from S. Peter is evident from the conjoyning them together by the Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian in their Laws made six years before the Council of Chalcedon whereof the Fathers of that Council cannot be supposed ignorant where they say thus Vâ—â—de infra Three things have established the Primacy of the Sea Apostolick the Merit of S. Peter who is the Prince of the Episcopal Society the Dignity of the City and Synodical Authority Where the original and prime ground is the Merit of S. Peter the other two are subsequent and subservient For therefore the Imperial Throne is given as a reason because St. Peter thought it convenient that the Highest Spiritual Authority should be placed in that City which had highest Temporal Power as also Alexandria was anciently
all Christians to assent to them you say true but nothing against us Baxter Num. 66. But what say you now to the contrary Why 1. You ask Were those Primitive Christians of another kinde of Church Order and Government then were those under the Roman Empire Answ. When the whole body of Church-History satisfieth us that they were not subject to the Pope Non-proof 6. which is the thing in question is it any weakning of such evidence in a matter of such publick fact to put such a question as this Whether they were under another kinde of Government Iohnson Num. 66. I have now shewed that Church-History is so far from proving what you say that it proves the quite contrary and had it been otherwise why cited you not here some one Ecclesiastical Historian seeing I prest you to it in my second Paper in confirmation of your Assertion My question therefore is of force and stands unsatisfied till you prove what you say here Baxter Num. 67. We know they were under Bishops or Pastors of their own and so far their government was of the same kind Iohnson Num. 67. It could not be of the same kinde for those under the Empire acknowledged themselves subject to the Roman Sea as they were parts of the Catholick Church which whole Catholick Church they profest to be subject to that Sea and consequently all the true parts of it as shall appear when I come to the justification of my proofs whereby all this whole Paragraph of yours will be enervated Baxter Num. 68. You say that how far from truth this is appeareth from S. Leo in his Sermons De Natali Suo where he sayes Sedes Roma Petri quicquid non possidet armis religione tenet Reply If you take your religion on trust as you do your Authorities that are made your ground for it and bring others to it when you are deceived your selves how will you look Christ in the face when you must answer for such temerity Leo hath no Sermons de natali suo but only one Sermon affixed to his Sermons lately found in an old Book of Nicol Fabers And in that Sermon there is no such words as you alledge Neither doth he Poetize in his Sermons nor there hath any such words as might occasion your mistake and therefore doubtless you beleeved some body for this that told you an untruth and yet ventured to make it the ground of charging my words with untruth Iohnson Num. 68. How this citation came under the name of S. Leo I really know not My Authentical Copie written in my own hand which I have shewed to some of credit and am ready to shew it you or any one who shall desire to be satisfied hath no such citation nor can I learn how it crept into the Paper which was sent you if it were not by the addition of a confident friend who writ out part of my Reply in whose hand-writing I find it and I my self being out of Town when my Reply was sent out of a desire to comply with your request for a speedy Answer it was sent away in my absence so that it could not be perused by me which is insinuated sufficiently in the end of my paper where I desire you to excuse what errors you finde in the Copie which I sent Baxter p. 100. But however there is only a nominal error in citing St. Leo for St. Prosper who is something ancienter then St. Leo and lesse to be excepted against by you then he as being wholly disinteressed in that matter of the Popes Supremacy Now this Text of St. Prosper is so notoriously known amongst Scholars and so usually cited Authors that I wonder you perceived not that it was a mistake in the name only and that the Text it self was true and reall nay much more forcible against your new invention then as it stands cited in my Paper For whereas it is imperfectly quoted there and much more weakly as you printed it I suppose by an error of the Printer though I find it not amongst the Errata where it hath neither force nor sense for you print almis for armis whereas I say it is there cited thus Sedes Roma Petri quicquid non possidet armis religione tenet Rome the Sea of Peter whatsoever it possesses not by force of Arms it possesses by means of religion the Text of St. Prosper hath it thus Sedes Roma Petri quae Pastoralis honoris facta caput mundo D. Proâ—â—er Carm. de Iâ—â— gâ—â—atis quâ—â—cquid non possidet armis religione tenet Rome the Seat of Peter being made Head of Pastoral honour to the world possesses by means of Religion whatsoever it possesses not by force of arms Thus St. Prosper And to the same effect in another place he affirms Dâ—â— vocat Gent. lib. 2. c. 6. That the principality of the Apostolick Priesthood hath made Rome greater through the Tribunal of Religion then through that of the Empire * New Sect. But that you may see the whole force of this Text of S. Prosper is emphatically also delivered by S. Leo though not in Verse yet as it seems alluding to these Verses of St. Prosper for he uses the same expressions which I wonder you marked not in perusing his Sermons in these words making â—â—n Apostrophe to the City of Rome and relating to St. Peter and St. Paul Isti sunt qui te ad hanc gloriam provexerunt ut gens sancta populus electus S. Leâ—â— Serm. 1. de Natal Apostol Petr. Paul civitas sacerdotalis regia per sacram beati Petri sedem caput orbis effecta latius praesideres religione divina quam dominatione terrenâ Quamvis enim multis aucta victoriis jus imperii tui terrâ marique protuleris minus tamen est quod tibi bellicus labor subdidit quam quod pax Christiana subjecit These viz. S. Peter and S. Paul are they who have elevated thee to this heighth of glory that thou shouldst be a holy Nation an elect People a Priestly and Kingly City that being made Head of the World by the Seat of Blessed Peter thou shouldst have a larger command by means of Divine Religion then terrene Domination For though being aâ—â—gmented by many victories thou hâ—â—st extended thy Empire through Sea and Land yet it is less which warlike labour brought under thy command then what Christian peace hath subjected to thee And to the same effect the same S. Leo writes to Anastasius Bishop of Thessalonica telling him That the great order of the Church instituted some one in every Province S Leo. epist 82. ad Aâ—â—stâ—â—sium Episâ—â— â—â—hessâ—â— to have power over the rest and that such as were seated in the more ample and noble Cities should have power over such as were in particular Provinces by means whereof the care of the Vniversal Church n. b. might flow to the Sea of Peter Mark well he says not the care of
the first Earl of England should pronounce a penal sentence against those who respectively are inferiour only in place and precedency to themselves would it not be judged profoundly ridiculous Baxter Num. 75. But if both these were proved that Ethiopia was under Alexandria and Alexandria under Rome I deny the consequence that Ethiopia was under Rome for Alexandria was under Rome but secundum quid and so far as it was within the Empire and therefore those without the Empire Non-proof 8. that were under Alexandria were not therefore under Rome Iohnson Num. 75. Your ground is untrue for I have proved Alexandria to have been absolutely and totally under Rome in the example of Dionysius Anno 263. which was before the conversion of Constantine and before any Council through the whole Empire could be assembled and that in the Nicene Council there was no restriction of that Patriarchal Sea to the Precincts of the Empire Con. Nicen. cap. 6. nor of the Roman Sea to Alexandria as comprehending only the Imperial Provinces prove any such limitation was made there Now if before the Council of Nice and before the Church was under Christian Emperors Rome had such power over Alexandria c. and that proceeded not from the Institution of Christ shew as you are obliged when how and by whom that power was given to it in those times Baxter Num. 76. And if it could as it never can be proved of Abassia what is that to all the other Churches in India Persia and the re rest of the World Iohnson Num. 76. Yes 't is very much for it sounds an Argument à paritate rationis that seeing no considerable reason can be given why one Extra-Imperial Province should be subject to Rome more then all the rest if one be proved subject all others must be supposed to be so unless some particular reason can be alledged why this was subject more then the rest For till that be done there can no reason be given why any of the Extra-Imperial Churches were subject to the Roman Bishops save this that he was Governour over all the Churches and Bishops in the world and consequently as much over all Extra-Imperial as over all Imperial Churches Baxter Num. 77. Sir If you have impartially read the Ancient Church-History and yet can beleeve that all these Churches were then under the Pope despair not of bringing your self to beleeve any thing imaginable that you would have to be true Iohnson Num. 77. 'T is your pleasure to say so I shall be moved to beleeve you when you convince ' me by reason but your bare word without reason Non-proof 9. has no poise at all with me nor I think with any one who is led by reason Baxter Num. 78. Your next Question is When the Roman Emperors were yet Heathens had not the Bishops of Rome Supremacy over all other Bishops through the whole Church Answ. No they had not nor in the Empire neither Prove it I beseech you better then by questioning If you askt Whether men rule not Angels Your Question proves not the Affirmative Iohnson Num. 78. I do not nakedly ask the Question but prove what I say by an Instance as you presently acknowledge Baxter Num. 79. But you ask again Did those Heathen Emperours give it him Answ. 1. Power over all the Churches none ever gave him till titularly his own Parasites of late 2. Primacy of meer degree in the Empire for the dignity and many advantages of the Imperial seat the Bishops of the Empire gave him by consent Blondel de Primatu gives you the proof and reason at large yet so as that small regard was had to the Church of Rome before the Nicen Council as saith your Aeneas Silvius Pope Pius the second Iohnson Num 79. But I have now proved the power and Authority of the Roman Bishop to be over all Nations that were Christian in the instances given above If therefore the power he had were given him by the Emperors they must have given him power over all Churches which no Emperor could do as having no Authority over Extra-Imperial Churches Whence follows evidently the power he had could not have been given him by the Emperours And as little could that of precedency even over the Empire have been given him before the Nicene Council by the Bishops within the Empire for there is no step in antiquity of any such gift and if there be shew when and by whom it was first given him Nor were that admitted would it satisfie the difficulty for the Bishop of Rome had precedency not only over all the Bishops within the Empire but through the whole Christian world for so is Blondel forced to acknowledge page 14. and page 528. I would gladly have some evident proof from Antiquity that the word Primacy put absolutely or alone 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Primate in the Ecclesiastical signification signified a precedencie only of meer degree or place and not a true Authority and Jurisdiction over those in relation to whom one is said to have primacy or â—â—o be Primate Run over all those who had the dignity of Primate in ancient times and name any one who in vertue of that Primacy had not true Ecclesiastical Authority over others in relation to whom he had that Primacy Do not both yours and ours think they defend and oppose sufficiently the Roman Bishops Authority asserted by Catholicks when they call it in Latine Primatus Romani Pontificis the Primacy of the Roman Bishop Has not Bellarmine and Stapleton of ours Whitaker Chamler and Blondel of yours with many others disputed that question largely under the name of Primatus or Primacy Blondel p. 527. acknowledges this to be the common and ordinary signification and produces one only instance where primacie is taken for precedency of place onely and there it is not put absolutely but with this Adjunct Primacy of honour by age Primance d'honeur par l'age Should you affirm that the Bishop of Canterbury in quality of Primate had only a meer primacy of degree or locall precedency and no authority conferred upon him by force of his primacy had he not reason to be highly offended with you Seeing therefore in the Council of Chalcedon reciting the forenamed Canon of Nice it is affirmed that the Sea of Rome had ever the Primacy Ecclesia Romana sâ—â—mper habuit primatum and seeing no adjunct or limitation is given there that the word Primacy is not taken in the usual Ecclesiastical signification to wit for a primacy in authority and jurisdiction it must be understood in the usual signification There was indeed anciently a precedency of place amongst the other Patriarchs Primates and Metropolitans but were any of them for that reason termed their Primates or said to have Primacy in relation to those before whom they sate in the Councils or before whom they took place in all publick Assemblies You will not fail I hope to bring such clear
Instances in your next Reply as are here demanded of you You cite me here Blondel and Aeneas Silvius so confusedly without Book Chapter Page or Column that I think it not worth my pains to spend time in seeking them if they have any thing worth your citing or satisfactory to what here I say either set it clearly down in your next or give me some clear means to know what you stand upon in those two Authors Baxter Num 80. Whether the Bishop of Rome had power over the Bishop of Arles Fallacy 11. by the Heathen Emperors is a frivolous question Arles was in the Roman Patriarchate and not out of the Empire The Churches in the Empire might by consent dispose themselves into the Patriarchal Orders Non-proof 10 without the Emperors and yet not meddle out of the Empire Iohnson Num. 80. You proceed Sophistically à possibili ad actum The Question is not What the Bishops might have done but what they did Now you affirm they did form themselves into Patriarchates by free consent make it appear to have been so by Authentical Testimonies from Antiquity I bring you proofs that their subjection to him was out of that most publick Tradition that he was successor to S. Peter Vide infra Bring me as many that he was made Patriarch of the West before Constantines time by force of free consent of the Western Bishops under the Empire Is it not a plain Paradox to affirm that a thing should be done by publick consent of a thousand Bishops through the whole Western Church and yet there should be no one step of proof no word of any Historian for it in all Antiquity Baxter Num. 81. Yet indeed Cyprians words intimate no power Rome had over Arles more then Arles had over Rome that is to reject Communion with each other upon dissent Iohnson Num. 81. S. Cyprians words shall be examined hereafter in their proper place CHAP. VI. ARGUMENT Num. 82. The four first General Councils proved by many Reasons and Authorities to be truly and properly Oecumenical having Authority over all Christian Churches as well without as within the Roman Empire num 84 85. Whom Mr. Baxtâ—â—r accounts univocal Christians and proper parts of the Catholick Church num 86. Whether he have made a good choice for himself num 88. No Heretick properly so called can have true Christian Faith in any Article whatsoever and consequently can be no part of the Catholick Church num 90 91. Christ the sole Head of the whole Church Triumphant and Militant The Bishop of Rome no more then Head of the visible Church on earth and not absolutely but secundum quid that is according to the external and visible Government onely and even that not as having all other Bishops under him as his Officers but as Christs Officers together with him they of their respective Districts and he of them to direct and correct them when need requires it Baxter Num. 82. Nay it more confuteth you that even under Heathen Emperours when Church-associations were by voluntary consent of Pastors only and so if they had thought it necessary Non-proof 11. they might have extended them to other Principalities yet de facto they did not do it as all History of the Church declareth mentioning their Councils and Associations without these taken in Iohnson Num. 82. Where are your proofs I deny any such consent to be extant in Antiquity nor could those Provincial or Nationall Councils call the Extra-Imperials to sit with them because they were only of the Provinces which were within the Empire and had no Authority without the precincts of their respective Churches Now you will give me leave to discover the weakness and inconsistency of your Novelty about the first four General Councils having had no power without the Empire First the very a Vide titulum Conc. Nicen. Titles of the Councils themselves confute you where they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is universal or General Nor can you say that is meant onely through the Empire for you hotly contend that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 universal is extended to all Christians through the whole world Part. 2. Secondly b Conc. Chalcedon Act. 16. ap Binium p. 464. they call themselves General Thirdly the Canons Decrees Definitions are General without any limitation more to the Empire then to any other part of the world as is clear out of all the Canons and Decrees themselves Fourthly Historians of all Ages call them Oecumenical or General and never intimate any Imperial limitation if they do produce the Historian that calls them National or Imperial Councils Fifthly the whole Christian world ever since their times have esteemed them General and to have had an obligatory power and authority over all Christians Sixthly the holy Fathers c D. Aug. tom 7. contra Denatist lib. 2. cap. 13. ut diu Concil in suis quibusque regionibus diversa Statuta nutaâ—â—rint donec plenario totius orbis Concilio quod saluberrimè sentieâ—â—atur etiam remoâ—â—is dubitationibus â—â—irmaretur Hoc enim jam in ipsa totius orbis unitate discussum consideratum perfectum etque firmatum est loquitur de Concil Niceno Now it is evident that S. Aug. by his totius orbis means totius orbis Christians the whole Christian world that is the whole Church of Christ as appears by a hundred places of his against the Donatiffs when he sayes they have separated themselves from the whole world that is from the whole visible Church and this you confess to be true pag. 229 230 c. of your Book who speak of them stile them General Oecumenical plenary yea plenissima c. d Produce any one of them who limits these Councils to the Empires or denies them to have had power to oblige all Christians Seventhly Protestant Authors so far as I can see before you esteemed them General without any limitation and if you can cite any who say the contrary I pray do it e Anno 1 Elizabeth cap. 1. Versus finem capitis Eighthly the very Statute-Books of England since Protestant times call them General f Artic. 21. where by saying Some General Councils have erred they suppose there have been General Councils in the Church which had Authority out of the Empire For those as you confess were onely National or Imperial Councils Ninthly your 39 Articles call them General and the Fathers g D. Aug. tom 7. de Baptism cont Donatist lib. 2. cap. 3. when they call them General they distinguish them also from Provincial or National Councils Tenthly h D. Aug. ibid. cap. 1. cap. 4. cap. 9. Sic ait si autem Concilium ejus Cypriani attenditur huic universae Ecclesiae posterius Concilium Nicenum intelligit praeponendum cujus se membrum ostendebat ut se in totius corporis compage retinendâ caeteri imitarentur saepiùs admonâ—â—bat Nam ut Concilia
Church all the rest even the highest are no more then his Officers with a limited and restrained power that is in order to the sole sole external and visible government of it not having other Bishops under him as his Officers but as Officers of Christ and subject to him as hereafter shall be further declared Nor yet have you given here any direct answer to my Question I demand whether you account Rome and Protestants one Congregation To which you answer the Roman Church hath two heads and the Protestant but one and that 's the difference Now this gives no satisfaction to my demand for the Question inquires not Whether there be any difference betwixt us and you that was out of Question but whether that difference assigned by you be so great that it hinders them from being one Congregation and that you resolve not and thereby leave the difficulty unanswered Baxter Num. 91. They are Christians and so one Church as united in Chrst with us and all other true Christians If any so hold their Papacy and other Errors as effectively and practically to destroy their Christianity those are not Christians and so not of the same Church as we But those that do not so but are so Papists as yet to be truly and practically Christians are and shall be of the same Church with us whether they will or not Iohnson Num. 91. You tell us what would follow if such things as you fancy were done but you tell us not whether it is possible to do them or no. Can a Papist think you remaining still a Papist so hold his Papacy and other pretended errors as to destroy Christianity If he cannot why trifle you away time in printing such Chymerical conditionals if he can tell us how and by what means which you have not done nor indeed can you do it For how is it possible for two persons to be both Papists that is of the same Faith in all things for otherwise they will not be both Papists and the one of them only to be a Christian and the other none but practically and effectually destroying Christianity Baxter Num. 92. And your modest stile makes me hope that you and I are of one Church though you never so much renounce it Iohnson Num. 92. I never saw a man labor so confidently to perswade one out of his Religion upon so weak grounds as you do And truly something might be done in time to make you and me of one Church if I knew what Church you are of For you contradict so loudly the Tenets of all those who pretend either to be the Church or parts of the Church before you that I cannot finde but you are of a Church by your self which no man knows but your self and then I 'me sure you neither are nor can be of one Church with me so long as you remain in the state you are in yet it is the height of my desires that we may both be joyned in one Catholick Church which I shall most earnestly and unfainedly beg of God still hoping that your zeal and ardency in what you profess may as it did S. Paul bring you to see and imbrace his true Church Baxter Num. 93. As Papal we are not of your Church that 's a new Church-form Iohnson Num. 93. Prove it is new you know well enough we hold it to be ancient Baxter Num. 94. But as Christian we are and will be of it even when you are condemning torturing and burning us if such persecution can stand with your Christianity Iohnson Num. 94. I have shewed you are not as Christian speaking univocally of one Church with us For true Christianity requires true faith which I cannot beleeve you have nor have you proved it as shall appear hereafter I am unwilling to revive the memory of those severities you mention and you also might have pleased to have buried them in Oblivion for in objecting them to us you refresh the remembrance of yours towards us nor yet see I why such severities can better stand with your Christianity then with ours CHAP. VII ARGUMENT Num. 95. Roman Catholicks and Protestants cannot be of one and the same Church num 96 Length of time or continuance excuses not the succeeding Hereticks or Schismaticks from the crimes of their first beginners num 97. When Protestants deserted external Communion with Rome they deserted together with it the external Communion of all other particular visible Churches and that upon the same grounds n. 98. Mr. Baxters exclamation against Rome is injurious to all other ancient particular Churches existent immediatly before the first beginners of Protestancy n. 99. All the Kingdoms in the world not one visible but only invisible Kingdome under Gods invisible providence and power which governs them and in that regard an unfit instance to prove different particular Churches without one visible governour of them all to be one visible Church num 100. His opinion of actual Hereticks and Schismaticks properly so called contrary to all Authors ours or his own and to Christianity it self num 101. How Alphonsus à Castro held them to be members of the Church num 102. Every Heretick properly so called denies some essentials of Christianity num 103. Pelagians undoubted and manifest Hereticks and Schismaticks The Catholick Church so perfectly one that it s not capable to be divided Baxter Num. 95. But you ask Why did you then separate your selves and remain still separate from the Communion of the Roman Church Answ. 1. We never separated from you as you are Christians we still remain of that Church as Christian and we know or will know no other form because that Scripture and Primitive Churches knew no other Either you have by Popery separated from the Church as Christian or not If you have it s you that are the damnable Separatists If you have not then we are not separated from you in respect of the form of the Christian Church Iohnson Num. 95. You separated as much from us as did either Novatians or Pelagians or Donatists or Acacians or Luciferians or Nestorians Eutychians c. did from the Catholick Church of their respective times which is enough for us to deny you to be of one Church with us or to be any true parts of the Catholick Church If it be not so shew what you can say for your selves which any of those Hereticks might not as well have alledged in their own defence for neither did any of them separate from the Church as it was Christian nor did either the Pelagians Donatists Acacians Luciferians Novatians dis-beleeve any essential point of Christian faith if Protestants dis-beleeve no essential what you say of not separating from us as we are Christians is a precision never used by Catholick or Heretick in ancient times nor indeed did ever any Heretick who esteemed himself a Christian affirm he separated from the Church as it was Christian for that had been to deny himself to be a Christian which
no Hetick ever did so that if this excuse save you from Schismatical separation every Heretick in the world may be excused as well as you Actual separation and refusal of external Communion with all the Churches in the world of their time as your first beginners did was ever esteemed and will ever be esteemed by Orthodox Christians a destruction of true union with the visible Church of Christ under what notion or precission soever it be done because as Dr. Hammâ—â—nd affirms lib. de schismate there can be no sufficient cause given for any such separation Baxter Num. 96. And for your other form the Papacy 1. Neither I nor my Grand-father or great Grand-father did separate from it because they never entertained it Iohnson Num. 96. This is strange doctrine and would help out an Arrian or a Donatist at a dead lift after a hundred or two hundred years continuance of those Heresies no lesse then your self Is not the maintaining of a Separation or Schisme ever termed amongst Christians a Schism or separation even many generations after it begun Were not the succeeding Donatists after some ages as truly esteemed Schismaticks as the first beginners of their Schisme S. Austin called them Schismaticks and said they had left the Church above a hundred years after their first parting from it Baxter Num. 97. Those that did so did but repent of their sin and that 's no sin We still remain separated from you as Papists even as we are separated from such as we are commanded to avoid for impenitency in some corrupting Doctrine or scandalous sin Whether such mens sins or their professed Christianity be most predominant at the heart we know not but till they shew repentance we must avoid them yet admonishing them as brethren and not taking them as men of another Church but as finding them unfit for our Communion Iohnson Num. 97. This is one of the handsomest passages of your whole Reply and shews a fecundity of invention to maintain a Novelty But give me leave to tell you it will not it cannot acquit you of separating from the true â—â—hurch of Christ. Had you indeed deserted the sole Communion of the Papacy as you term it it might have born some shew of defence though no more then a shew but seeing when you separated from that you remained also separate as much from all particular visible Churches in the world as from that there can be neither shew nor shadow of excuse in it For you must either say that all the particular Churches in the world existent immediatly before you Anno 1500. were guilty of impenitency in some corrupting Doctrine or scandalous sin for which you were commanded to avoid them which were both to contradict Tertullian cited by your self page 235. Eâ—â—quid verisimile est c. to prove the contrary and thereby to condemn your selves of manifest Schisme which is nothing but a separation of ones self from the whole Visible Church or you must say there were some particular Churches then existent not guilty of that impenitency in some corrupting Doctrine or scandalous sin to which Churches you adhered when you first separated from the Roman and with which you lived in external Communion and then you are obliged to shew design and nominate which that Church oâ—â— those Churches were which neither you nor any of your professors ever yet did or could doe Nor will it excuse you to alledge you communicate with all Churches as Christian for whilest you profess your selves Christians you cannot affirm that you left all Churches as they are Christian and by this means never yet any Heretick no neither Arrian nor Sabellian could be convinced to have separated from all Churches for never would any of them acknowledge that they left them as Christian seeing they all not only protested but really beleeved themselves to be Christians Now if you will acquit your selves of separation from Christs Church shew in your Rejoynder some visible Churches pre-existent immediatly before you and co-existent with you in your first beginning which did not pray for the dead desire the assistance and Prayers of Saints for themselves use and reverence Images in their Churches which had not Altars Priests Masses reall and proper Sacrifice which held not Bread and Wine to be really changed by vertue of consecration into Christs true Body and Blood before they received them which held not S. Peter and him whom they esteemed his lawfull Successor to be the Supream visible Governour next under Christ of the whole Militant Church as is declared above Or which held not some other points as points of Faith which you deny or held not or denied some points which you hold to be points of Christian faith by reason wherof you had sufficient reason to leave their external Communion if you had reason to forsake that of Rome For till this be shewed all the world will see that as you separated from all other particular Churches as much as from those who adhere to the Church of Rome so had you the very same or equivalent Reasons to separate from them So that in accusing the Church of Rome of impenitency in some corrupting Doctrine and scandalous sin you accuse in like manner all other Christian Churches then existent in the World together with her Baxter Num. 98. But O Sir what manner of dealing have we from you must we be imprisoned rackt harg'd and burned if we will not beleeve that Bread and Wine are not Bread and Wine contrary to our own and all mens senses and if we will not worship them with divine Worship and will not obey the Pope of Rome in all such matters contrary to our Consciences and then must we be chidden for separating from you if we can but a while escape the Strappado and the flames What! will you blame us for not beleeving that all mens senses are deceived and the greater part of Christians and their Traditions against you are false when we read studie and suspect our selves and pray for light and are willing to hear any of your reasons but cannot force our own understandings ti beleeve all such things that you beleeve and meerly because the Pope commands it and when we cannot thus force our own understandings must we be burned or else called Separatists Would you have the Communion of our Ashes or else say We forsake your Communion In your Churches we cannot have leave to come without lying against God and our Consciences and saying We beleeve what our senses contradict and without committing that which our Consciences tell us are most hainous sins We solemnly protest that we would do as you do and say as we say were it not for the love of truth and holiness and for fear of the wrath of God and the flames of Hell but we cannot we dare not rush upon those Errors and sell our souls to please the Pope And must we then either be murthered or taken for uncharitable Will 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
no other copy of the Sardican Council save that false one of the Arians fraudently given out for the true one of Sardica Now if St Augustine the light not only of Africa but of the whole Church was ignorant of the true canons of the Sardican Council the copies of it having been supprest by the Donatists what need you wonder that the rest of the African Bishops were ignorant of them and this is the reason why the African Fathers writ they found not the canons in any Council of the Fathers because they had not the true copy of the Sardican wherein they were yet it is true that these very canons were acknowledged by the African Churches within very few years after this African Council both by the practise of that Church S. Leo. Ep. 8. ad Episc Africanâ—â—s where as St. Leo witnesses an African Bishop appealed to him who succeeded within eight years of Celestine and his appeal was received and by inserting these very canons of the Sardican Council into the canon law of Africa for Fulgentius Ferrandus Deacon of Carthag not long after St. August and Contemporanean with St. Fulgentius Fulg. Ferrand in Breviar Can art 59. 60. hath registred them into his collection of the canons amongst the rest Mr. Baxter Num. 152. It was made in a case of Athanasius and other Orthodox Oriental Bishops meerly in that strait to save them and the Churches from the Arians William Iohnson Num. 152. But if it were only for this strait why was it many years after put into the canon law of Africa as I have now proved and practised to this very day ever since in the Church Who ever before you said it was only for that strait name any one clasick author of antiquity if you can who said so Canons of general Councils though occasioned by several accidents are to be supposed as perpetual to the whole Church till they be either repealed by some authority equal to a general Council or some manifest action given in the institution of them that they are only provisionary for a time prove if you can by the words of this Council that it intends them only to be obligatory only for that strait and not to be perpetual This indeed were an excellent way to infringe the obligation of all or the most part of the Ecclesiastical canons by saying they were in aid upon such a strait as all were made by some or other and therefore binde not after that occasion is past But what if in effect either the same or the like occasion and strait more or lesse be still found in the Churches For after the Arians the Nestorians Eutychians Monothelites image breakers others persecuted Catholick Bishops as wrongfully as did the Arians why then was this canon not to remaine necessary after that strait of the Arian opposition I see the strait was yours being much pinched for an answer when you fell upon such a strait as this Mr. Baxter Num. 153. The Arians withdrew from the Council being the Minor part and excommunicated Julius and Athanasius and other occidentals and the occidental Bishops excommunicated the oriental Athanasius himself was a cheif man in the Council and had before been rescued by the help of Julius and therefore no wonder if they desired this safety to their Churches William Iohnson Num. 153. But yet because it was morally certain even after this strait was past that as before this Council was assembled or the Council of Nice either many Bishops were opprest by their neighbour Bishops and stood in need of appeals so in all future times more or lesse such occasions would happen as continual experience ever since hath taught as they have hapned for these reasons I say it was necessary that these and the like canons should be of perpetual force or remedy against perpetual dangers equal or like to those of the Arians This ground of yours would have stood our late Republicans in good stead who might have cancelled most of the ancient lawes of our Kingdomes upon the same pretence with yours that they were enacted first upon some strait or other which being past over many years agoe they are now no more necessary nor any way obligatory See you not what foundations you lay for the overthrow of the lawes both of Church and Kingdome Mr. Baxter Num. 154. Note that this is a thing newly granted now by this canon and not any ancient thing William Iohnson Num. 154. Prove it is a new thing this decree was not before it was made but the matter of the decree that is the power of the Bishops of Rome to judge all other prelats was before this Council for otherwise St. Athanasius and the other Bishops could never have appealed to the Bishops of Rome as to their judges or would their appeales have been accepted by those holy Bishops or approved in general Councils or had the effects of restauration c. In the Church which notwithstanding you your self confesse here was done before this Council Mr. Baxter Num. 155. Note that therefore it was of humane Right and not of Divine William Iohnson Num. 155. Therefore whence deduce you that to prove first your premises before you infer your conclusion may not the Church order that divine Lawes and institutons be observed and are they therefore not of divine right because the Church hath commanded the observance of them did not the fourth Council of Lateran command all Christians to receive at Easter Is therefore the reception of the Sacrament not of divine right true it is the circumstances of Executing divine commands may be determined by the Church as they were in this Council but the substance is still divine shew by any word in those canons that they give the power of judging the causes of all Bishops to the Pope as if he had it not before Mr. Baxter Num. 156. Note that yet this canon was not received or practised in the Church but after this the contrary maintained by Councils and practised as I shall anon prove William Iohnson Num. 156. When you prove it I hope I shall answer it Mr. Baxter Num. 157. That it is not any antecedent Governing power that the Canon acknowledgeth in the Pope but in honor of the memory of St. Peter as they say yet more for their present security they give thus much to Rome it being the vulgar opinion that Peter had been their Bishop William Iohnson Num. 157. I am heartily sorry to discover so bad a spirit in you as these expressions demonstrate why give you not the title of St. to him to whom this holy oecumenicall Council as you here acknowledg gave it they call him say you St. Peter and you unsaint him cal him as it were in derision of the Council plain Peter why call you that a vulgar opinion which was imbraced as an unquestioned certainty by this reverend Learned and general assembly of the catholick Church why impose you upon
have no lesse then a bakers dozen of non proofs I have noted them by figures in your text let them be prov'd and then they shall be answered till then they deserve no answer To what has any seeming ground or proof I answer First it imports little whether Theodosius had any hand in this Epistle or no I say nothing of him in my text p. 59.60.61 Secondly Your proof from Iustinian is already answered in my observation made upon p. 174. of your key only I see you have mended your citation and put lib. in place of lege 3. Must it needs follow that it is my fiction because it is not the words of Valentinian that the succession from St. Peter is the foundation of Romes primacy May not a medium be given betwixt those two extremes what if it were the true sense of Valentinians words it was then neither his words nor my fiction but a true interpretation of his words and that it is so is manifest for there must be some reason sure why the merit of St. Peter conferr'd a primacy rather upon the Bishop of Rome then upon any other Bishop but none can be imagined save this that the Bishops of Rome succeeded St. Peter in the sea of Rome ergo it must be that succession or nothing You seem to say that because St. Peter last preached and was martired and buried and his relicks lay there he should be most honoured and by honoured you must mean as Hosius cited by you here and Valentinian doe in the power acknowledged in the Bishops of Rome But this cannot subsist for St. Paul preached last at Rome also was martyred and buried and his relicks lay there yet no authors say the primacy of the Roman Bishops was founded in St. Pauls merits now no reason can be given of this save that which I gave viz that the Roman Bishops succeed not to St. Paul as they doe to St. Peter because St. Paul was never Bishop of Rome as St. Peter was What you say of the succession from St. Peter in Antioch availes nothing for he having deserted the Bishopprick of Antioch in his life time and transferr'd his seate to Rome were he dyed Bishop of the Roman see was to have his proper successour there for by tranferring his see to Rome he transferr'd the dignity of Primacy of the Episcopal crown as Valentinian sayes there appropriated to him and took it from Antioch and by dying Bishop of Rome left it there to his successours whence appears that the Bishop of Antioch was a successor to St. Peter as were other Bishops but no successor to his supereminent dignity and primacy over the Church because so long as St. Peter lived it could not descend upon any other Fourthly I deny not that he ascribes the establishment of Romes primacy to those three St. Peter the city and the Synod yet he makes the first foundation of it the dignity of St. Peter and therefore prefixes it before the other two and that it may appear he makes this the first and fundamental reason and not the Synod he addes these words haec cum fuerint hactenus inviolabiter custodita since these things i. e. that nothing of great concern should be done without the authority of the Roman see have been hitherto inviolably observ'd for if the Synod had conferr'd that dignity to the Bishop of Rome he could not have said with truth that those things had been alwayes observ'd for before the Synod which gave it which was three hundred years and more after the re-Surrection of our Saviour they were observed seeing therefore they were alwayes observed that power authority must have been in the Bishop of Rome long in being before those Synods were celebrated Now how the dignity of the Roman city concurr'd to this primacy I have above declared whence appears the loud untruth which you pronounce n. 4. Here is not the least intimation that this primacy was but by the appointment of the Synod nor that it had continued so from St. Peters dayes Since you use not to read over the texts which are brought against you I pray you what signifie these words haec cum fuerint hactenus inviolabiliter observata these things have been hitherto inviolably observed what signifies hitherto but from St. Peters time to his Your guess at the Synod of Sardica as aimed at by Valentinian though say you it was of little credit in those dayes which I have numbred amongst your non-proofs is a pure mistake for the Synod he alludes to is that of Nice which in the 6 canon as it is recited in the Council of Chalcedon sayes thus Ecclesia Romana semper habuit primatum the Church of Rome hath allwaies had the primacy where that holy council gives it not as you surmise but declares it to have been alwaies due to that see since the Apostles time whence also appears the falshood of what you say next that Leo durst not pretend divine right and institution nor to a succession of Primacy from the Apostle for this very Synod to which Leo alludes warrants both For if it were alwayes due to it or that it had alwayes possession of it semper habuit it must have come not only from the time of the Apostles but from Christ himself otherwise it had been semper for in the time of the Apostles it had not been due to it When you say next I translate the word universitas the whole visible Church you wrong me for I translate it universality see pag. 59. and when I name the whole visible Church p. 60. I make no translation of his words but deliver that which I think to be the sense of them To what you say there was a Roman universality If you mean that those who were under the sole Roman Empire with exclusion of all extra-imperial Churches communicating with them were called anciently the universal Church or the universality of Christians you are much deceived where prove you that if as united with them and giving the denomination to the whole 't is true and confirms what I say Now to shew that Valentinian meanes by universalities not those of the Roman Empire exclusively to all others he joynes to universalitie ubique for then sayes he the peace of the Church will be kept every where when the whole universality acknowledges their governour but certainly Valentinian was not so ignorant as not to know there were then many Churches out of the Roman Empire For about the year 414. that is above 20 years before Valentinian enacted this law Spain was possest by the Goths and divided from the Roman Empire and was Valentinian think you ignorant of that so that I am not ashamed to confesse my ignorance that I really know not any Roman universality Ecclesiastical in your precisive and exclusive sense nor know I any Council anciently stiled oecumenical or universal where no Bishops out of that one the Roman common-wealth were present and you have not yet
it if expresly containing all things necessary to salvation I deny it Again I distinguish all things necessary to salvation either you mean all things necessary to be distinctly known and expresly believed by all to obtain salvation and so I grant it or all things also to be believed implicitly and to be distinctly known to all and so I deny it These distinctions suppos'd I deny your consequence viz. That the Church whereof Protestants are members hath been visible ever since the dayes of Christ on earth 15. Pag. 210. your authorities prove nothing the aforesaid distinctions applied Bellar. and Costerus speaks of things necessary to be expresly believed by all Ragusa of the Scripture well understood which include the interpretation of the Church Gerson not of articles of Faith but of Theological conclusions drawn by private and fallible authority Durandus treats of private conclusions drawn from Scripture by himself as you cite him pag. 212. of delivering nothing contrary to Scripture and of using the interpretation of the Roman Church St. Thomas speaks not a word of Scripture nor so much as names it in those words cited by you and in his summe de veritate addes the interpretation of the Church to Scripture as you cite his words pag. 213. Scotus cited p. 213. is quite against you he sayes add you that many needful things are not expressed in Scripture but virtually contained which is not protestant but sound catholick doctrine Gregor Ariminensis p. 14. speaks not of points of faith but of Theological conclusions drawn by private discourse which is not as you add next more then to intend the sufficiency of express Scripture to matters of faith for the seusteine of faith is infallible and divine Theological discourse only fallible and humane now he sayes diametrically against your tenet that all truths are not in themselves formally contain'd in holy Scripture but of necessity following these that are contained in them c. but here 's the difficulty we say that every point we teach is contain'd as in general principles at least in Scripture and necessarily deduced from it but you adde they must be contained formally for what seems a necessary consequence of Scripture to us seems not so to you and the like is of what seems necessary to you seems neither necessary nor propable to us so that neither of us can be convinced that our respective deductions are points of faith and both you must confess yours are not because you have not infallibly authority deducing them and we do acknowledge that conclusions drawn from Scripture abstracting from the Churches authority oblige us not to receive them as matters of faith 16. Pag. 216. Gulielmus Parisiensis sayes no more then say the former Authors and Bellar. nothing at all to your purpose draw if you can the sufficiency of sole Scripture held by you from words which so cleerly declare its insufficiency Pag. 217. Your whole discourse is a pure parorgon our question is not what is essential or necessary necessitate medii or praecepti to be known and expresly believed by all per se and absolutely but whether one believing all that is essential and necessary in that manner and withal disbelieving any other point of faith whatsoever after it is hic nunc sufficiently propounded as such to any particular person can either be saved or be a true real part of the visible Church of Christ. Now we answer negatively to this question because such a disbelief excludes an implicite belief of that point so disbelieved and consequently a belief of all that God hath revealed and therby all supernatural saving faith To illustrate the truth of this assertion let us instance in a Pelagian who believed all that which you account essential that is the common Articles necessary for all to salvation the Creeds the Scriptures c. And had sufficiently propounded to him the belief of Original sin as a point of Christian faith which he refuses to believe and accounts an errour the question will not be in this case whether that Pelagian believe all these essentials in the account but whether that supposed he be not excluded out of the Church and dismembred from it by that wilful disbelief of Original sin This is our present case controverted betwixt us so that though it were admitted that you believe all that material object of faith which you esteem essential and necessary for all to be expresly believed yet because we accuse and judge you to disbelieve many points of as much concern as is that of Original sin and as sufficiently propounded to you as such as that was to the Pelagians we have as much reason to judge you to be excluded out of the Catholique Church and dismembred from it as we have to judge them either therefore you acknowledge the point disbelieved by you and propounded as matter of faith by us to you to be as sufficiently propounded as was that of Original sin to the Pelagians or you deny it if you acknowledge it you must acknowledge you are as much dismembred from the Church by your disbelief as they were if you deny it then we will put our selves upon the proof of it so that till our proofs be heard and fully answer'd you cannot secure your selves of being parts of the Catholique Church no more then could the Pelagians 17. If you affirm as your principles lead you that even the disbelief of Original sin hinder'd not the Pelagians from remaining parts of the Catholique Church you contradict St. Augustine and St. Epiphanius In Catalogis Haereticorum the Council of Nice all antiquity nay all modern authors even your own and I provoke you to produce so much as one Author who affirms Pelagians to be parts of the Catholique Church CHAP. II. Mr. Baxters authorities NUm 18. Whether Mr. Baxters doctrine about sole scripture agree with Tertullians in his prescriptions Num. 21. Mr. Baxter would send all his adversaries packing if he knew how he supposes his Readers to be very simple Num. 19. Whether St. Augustin taught that common people were to reade-Scipture in the place cited by Mr. Baxter whereas St. Augustine taught there that all things belonging to Christian Faith and manners are expressed in Scripture his two other Collections from St. Augustine examined Num. 22. He knowes not where his Church was An. 1500. Num. 25. He cites two texts of S. Augustine distructive to his own doctrine Num. 25.26 How much Optatus makes for Mr. Baxter Num. 26.27 What Optatus meanes by being within or in communion with the seven Churches of Asia Mr. Baxter cites two texts in Optatus which quite overthrow him Num. 28. Divers of his Effugiums examined and confuted concerning Tertullians prescriptions Num. 29.30 Many texts of Tertullian not Englished by Mr. Baxter make directly against him 18. Hence falls to nothing all you alledge from Bell. Costerus Gulielmus Parisiensis Aquinas Bannes Espenseus c. p. 216.217.218 For they speak of
whatsoever of any Apostolical Church nor was he there to have regard to the order but to the substance of his instances Pag. 236. you make Tertullian speak false Latin and non-sence again by printing institutum for instituuntur so careful are you in your citations fill they but up paper and help to patch up a new volum 't is enough for you Who can doubt but the Apostolical doctrine will prove an Apostolical Church when ever planted as you collect from this Text of Tertullian but how come those succeeding Churches to agree with the precedent but by means of a visible head who hath preserved all in the unity of faith which subject themselves to him where did you ever find any Churches continue long in the same faith with the Apostolical Churches after they had put themselves in opposition to the See of Rome let such Churches be nam'd in your next CHAP. III. More of Mr. Baxters Arguments Num. 32. Mr. Baxters third Argument out of form Num. 33. If the Roman Church were infected with the plague c. anno 1500. the whole visible Catholick Church was infected with it which is a foul Blasphemy Num. 34. Possession stands in force against Protestants Num. 36. the Popes Supremacy in spirituals essential to the Church Num. 37. The true meaning of the 28. Canon of Chalcedon and of the 2. Canon of the first Council of Constantinople Num. 39. Whether the ancient Fathers were accustomed to press the Authority of the Roman See against Heretiques Num. 40. A loud untruth of Mr. Baxter Num. 41. Extra-Imperial Churches subject to the Bishop of Rome Num. 44. 5. Reasons of Mr. Baxters against the Popes supremacy in spirituals answered 32. Pag. 238. Your third argument is out of form having the term as Christian in the first part of the antecedent and not in the sequel or second part therefore I deny the antecedent viz. Though the Roman as Christian hath been alwayes visible yet the Protestant hath not been alwayes visible It is fallacia à secundum quid and simpliciter For all that can be pretended to follow is no more then this that the Protestants have been visible as Christians that is so far as they profess the belief of the chief articles in Christian faith nor yet follows so much for I deny they believe any one of them as Christians ought to do that is with an infallible supernatural divine faith so that they have not been alwayes a visible Church as Christian though the Roman have been so Hence falls the proof of your consequence 33. Pag. 239. I denie your supposition that when Protestants first pretended to reform what displeas'd them in the doctrine of the Roman Church that thereby they were cured of the plague c. for if the Roman Church were then infected with the plague all the visible Churches in the world and consequently the whole Catholique Church was infected with it which is diametrically contrary to the Texts here cited by you out of Tertullian and a horrible blasphemie to affirm that the mystical body of Christ is infected with the plague or any such like mischief Here you trifle again prove the Popes supremacie first to be an usurpation and then take it for a ground of your argument what millions abroad and within the Roman Territories are those you talk of is everie number which you fancie a million Ibid. you frame an objection of your own and then answer it what 's the one or the other to me That which I have objected to be proved by you is no negative but a plain affirmative for 't is this that you prove any Church now denying or opposing the Popes Supremacy to have been alwayes visible Pag. 240. you essay to answer the argument about possession Your first answer is petitio principii or falsum suppositum that any parts of the Catholique Church much less the most fit can be nominated wherin the Popes Supremacy had not possession Non-proof 34. Your second of making good against our title of supremacy c. is only affirm'd by you who are a party but never yielded by us nor legitimately judged or defin'd against us so that sub judice lis est the matter is still in process and you know lite pendente till the cause be decreed or yielded up by one of the parties the possessor is to enjoy his title according to all law and reason you therfore by actual dispossessing the Roman Bishops of that right and title whereof he was quietly possest in the year 1500 in this our Nation and in all other places where you entred upon this pretence only that you think you have sufficiently disproved it from the divine law is to do him as much wrong as if a plantif in a suite at law should thrust the defendant out of quiet possession without decree or order from any competent Judge upon this sole pretence that he frames a judgement to himself he has convinced by law the others title to be null for in these cases both he and you make your selves judges in your own cause and proceed to an execution without a warrant 35. Page 240. To your question what you must prove I answer 't is this that any Church which has at any time or does now deny the Popes supremacy or remain independent of it has bin allwaies visible Ibid. of such as know nothing of the Popes supremacy I say nothing it being not our case then only they are bound to alledge proof for the denyal of it when it is or shall be sufficiently propunded to them 36. Page 241. The Smpremacie it self I have proved to be essential to the Church for there can be no visible body without a head But then it is essential to the subsistance of Christian faith in particular persons when it is sufficiently propounded to them as a point of faith page 241. You propose your fourth argument in proof of the Catholick Church not acknowledging the Popes supremacy for some time Your first Sylogism is out of form 1 for want of the word ever it should be ever since in your antecedent 2 and in the sequel for you say only that the Church whereof the Protestants are members hath been visible where as you should say hath been ever or alwayes visible for that only is the present question 3 You suppose the sole denyal of the Popes supremacy constitutes the Church whereof the Protestants are members which I deny for all hereticks as well as Protestants denyed his supremacy 37. Page 232 233. I have already answered to your 28 canon of Chalcedon first it uses the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is deferr'd or attributed not gave or conferr'd a new 2 they pretend to give no more to Constantinople then the second general Council had done as appeares by the words now that was to be next after Rome so that the principallity which Rome had before the Council of Constantinople was no way infringed by that canon 3
us as you do p. 242. were they to prove the succession of their Church as you do of yours what would you have us answer but deny the consequence for it will never follow because we have not bin that Arrians have bin perpetually visible Nay should he argue thus against you Protestants have not bin perpetually visible Ergo Arrians have bin might you not omitting his antecedent deny his consequence judge therefore by your own cause and prove your consequence nay should we argue thus against you Protestants qua tales have not bin perpetualy visible Ergo the Church whereof Papists are members hath bin perpetually visible might you deny our consequence the reason why this consequence is denyed by all true Christians is this because ours not being perpetually visible confers nothing to your being perpetually visible no more then Cayphas his not being a good Priest made Annas to be a good one And as little followes it that though multitudes of Christians as you have it in your 10 argument page 275. the like you have page 249. argument the fourth and page 251. argu 5. c. Had bin ignorant of Poperie not of Christianity and a succession of visible professors of Christianity that were no Papists that therefore the Church whereof Protestants are members hath bin alwayes visible unless you first prove that all who are profess'd Christians but no Papists are of that Church whereof Protestants are members which I have shewed to be false Suppose therefore ex suppositione impossibili that the Roman Church had not bin alwaies visible thence will not follow that the Church whereof Protestants are members has bin alwaies visible this only will follow that neither it nor Protestants is the true Church I press you therefore once more to prove your consequence and till that be prov'd I am free from all obligation of answering to the proof of your antecedent for no man according to logical form is oblig'd to answer the proofs of any proposition which is neither denied nor distinguished by the respondent but purely omitted 69. I will only ex abundanti clear one difficultie which touches somthing of the main point about the Ogin of the Popes supremacy and is in every pedants mouth who can chatter against us this you have rais'd as a fierce batterie against the walls of Rome and have placed eight pieces of canon upon it Regino contractus Marianus Sigibertus Rumbaldis Pomponius c. And these make a fearful thundering about our ears but sure you did it rather to fright us then to hurt us otherwise you would have taken care to charge them with something else then powder see you not how they vanish away all into smoak have you indeed produced a Caput sieret should be made head of all Churches you had made some breach but to bring no more then ut Caput esset caput esse Phocas constituted the Roman Church should be head or to be head of all Churches is an emptie puffe and no more Did not a late Parliament immediately before his Sacred Majesties return vote and constitute Charles the second to be King of England c. or that he ought to be King of England c. dare you therefore say that he had no other right precedent to be our Soveraign before the Vote and constitution of that Parliament know you not when titles and rights are controverted as it was in Phocas his time the soveraign tribunal decrees to whom the right or title belongs not by conferring it upon them as a free gift but by declaring it to be their right and giving them what they judge to be their due now that this was so in the case of Boniface 3. is manifest first out of Platina who was no extraordinary favourer of Popes in Boniface 3. Bonifacius tertius patria Romanus à Phoca Imperatore obtinuit magna tamen contentione ut sedes Beati Petri Apostoli quae est caput omnium Ecclesiarum ita diceretur haberetur ab omnibus Bonifacius the third sayes Platina by Nation a Roman obtein'd of Phocas the Emperour that the seat of Blessed Peter the Apostle which is head of all Churches should be so call'd and esteem'd of all 2. from Carion p. 229. Sabiniano defuncto creatus est Pontifex 65. Bonifacius tertius hic autem Pontifex ab Imperatore Phochà Augusto obtinuit ut Ecclesia Romana Beati Petri Apostolorum principis sedes quae jure Caput est omnium Ecclesiarum ita diceretur haberetur ab omnibus c. Sabinianus being dead Boniface the third was made Bishop this Bishop obtein'd of the Emperour Phocas that the Roman Church the Sea of St. Peter Prince of the Apostles which by right is head of all Churches should be so call'd and esteem'd by all and he cites for this Onuphrius Panninius and Pompeius Letus 3. Illesius in his spanish history of Popes delivers the substance of Phocas his decree wherein it appeares he constituted no more then this that the Roman Bishop and no other was supream visible governour of the Militant Church and that neither Constantinople nor Ravenna nor any other City save old Rome was deputed by our Saaviour and by St. Peter and Paul for the seat of Christs vicar and Prelates of the whole Church now it is most evident that this constitution of Phocas was not as you ungroundedly imagine the beginning of the Popes universal headship for besides the many texts whâ—â—ch I have already alleadged and you acknowledged from Councils and Fathers long before the time of Phocas wherein the Bishop and Church of Rome is acknowledged to be head of all Churches Iustinian much ancienter then Phocas in codice parte prima lib. 1. Tit. 5. de sacro Sanctis Ecclesiis c. (a) Nec patimur ut non vestrae innotescat sanctitati quod caput est omnium sanctarum Ecclesiaerum omnes vero sacerdotes sanctae Catholicae Apostolicae Ecclesiae Reverendissimae Archemandritae sanctorum Monasteriorum sequentes sanctitatem vestram custodientes statum unitatem sanctarum Dei Ecclesiarum quam habent ab apostolica vestrae sanctitatis sede nihil penitus in mutantes de Ecclesiastiâ—â—o statu quam hactenus ob inuit utque obtinet uno consensu confitetur c. lege 4. nos Reddentes in Epist. Iustinian ad Iohannem Papam 15. Imp. August annoo 1576. affirms the Bishop of Rome to be the head of all the holy Churches and that the unitie of the whole Church derives it self from him that all Priests of the Catholick and Apostolick Church follow the Bishop of Rome changing nothing of the state Ecclesiastical which he to that time had continued and then did continue and many years before Iustinian Gratian Valentinianus and Theodosius Emperours lib 1. cod Tit. 3 desumma Trinitate c. 1. Cunctos populos c command that all who were within their Empire were to follow the doctrine of St. Peter delivered to the Romans
the Church but whether you held any at all to be of it of what sort soever they were was all one to me should any one demand this question of you whether any who exercised the work of the ministrie since the year 1640 were favourers of the late Rebels against his Majestie and you in answer should distinguish as you do here that some of them were Episcopal other Presbyterial some who were first Presbiters turned Independents and others Anabaptists some Seâ—â—kers and others Ranters some Millinaries and others Quakers some studied in the Universities and others went no further then the Country schools some were tradesmen and others souldiers some Trumpeters and others Drummers some fancied the Rebeâ—â—s by preaching Rebellion in Pulpits others by framing the Covenants these by puting on buff coats and turning Collonels or Captaines and fighting valiantly in the field those by instituting associations of Counties others by writing seditious books and pamphlets comparing old Noll to David and young Dick to Solomon c. and those distinctions premised you should draw twelve conclusions which of those were or were not partakers with the Rebeâ—â—s could not you have saved all this labour and said in a word yes some who exercised the work of the Ministrie favoured the Rebels seeing no more then this was demanded of you but yet farther in your distinctions of Heretiques you interlace such as are expresly excluded in my question I demand whether Heretiques properly so called are true members of the Church page 293. you answer p. 296 Prop. 1. That Schismatiques that is Heretiques improperly so called are no parts of it what 's that to my question I demand whether any professed Heretiques are parts of the Catholique Church page 297. That some Heretiques if latent that is not professed Heretiques may be parts of it nay you are not content to answer thus farr from the question but contradict one answer by another you say page 293 that your answer was plain in your paper sent me videlicet that some Heretiques properly so called are parts of the Catholique Church page 229. prop. 7. you say that some softer Heresie excludes no man from the Church of it selfe unless they are legally convict of wicked impenitency and obstinacy in defending it and then it seemes to exclude them that is all Heresie excludes them for no man is guilty of Heresie unless he defend it obstinately and impenitently nor is to be held for an Heretique till he be convicted of that obstinacy and thus much you acknowledge your self page 298. n. 7. where you constitute formal Heresie inobstinacy saying 7. They are either judged to be materially as to the qualitie of their Error Heretiques or also formally as obstinate impenitent and habitually stated Heretiques So then by your own confession all obstinate that is all formal that is Heretiques properly so called are excluded from being true members of the Church Thus you answer page 193. Some Heretiques properly so called are excluded from being of the Church this I call a contradiction what call you't Nay farther in this answer you th'wart what you answered in your book against me there without any exception you affirm page 11. Schismatiques to be true parts of the Church and here you exclude some Schismatiques from being true parts of the Church there you say whosoever held all the Essentials as do all Schismatiques as contradistinct from Heretiques properly so call'd are true parts of Christs visible Church because they are constituted Christians by believing all the Essentials of Christianity And here you say that some schismaticks who are contra-distinct from hereticks and consequently believe all the essentials are not parts of the Church nor yet is this all you contradict your self in one and the same sentence p. 297. you say thus but should any schismaticks for you speak of those only here renounce the body of Christ as such and separate not from this or that Church but from the whole or from the universal Church as such this man would not be a member of the Church Now to separate from the body of Christ or from the universal Church as such is to separate from it as it is the universal Church of Christ and as it is the body of Christ quatenus talis but that is to renounce Christ and Christianity and consequently to lose the Christian faith and thereby to become an Apostata that is neither heretick nor schismatick so that according to you a schismatick which is no schismatick is no part of the Church of Christ for never was there yet any schismatick which separated from the body of Christ as such that is as it was the body of Christ but by some false pretence or other perswaded himself that not the visible company of Christians which he left but his separate party was Christs Church as may be seen in the Donatists Luciferians and others Now all those who believe all essentials of Christian faith as you understand essentials are you say true parts of Christs visible Church because they are univocal Christians consequently all those who believe no essential of Christian faith can be no Christians so no parts of the Christian Church if therefore you mean such only as separate from the whole Church as such that is as it is Christs universal Church you make them not erroneous in faith but rejecters and contemners of Christ and Christianity and thereby Apostataes from the faith 73. Pag. 300. you cite again Alphonsus of Castro whose opinion I have already evidenced not to prove your intent nor second your opinion then you cite Bell. de Ecclesia libro 3. c. 4. saying thus Haeretici pertinent ad Ecclesiam ut oves ad ovile unde confugerunt And then you add this inference so they are oves still would you have similitudes to go upon all four is it not sufficient to Bellar. purpose that it agrees in this that both are out of the fold 't is true a natural sheep is a sheep whether it be in the fold or no but so is not a sheep of Christ which is his sheep actually no longer then it is in his fold the Church though both he and his Church have power over it to reduce it into the fold or medicinally to shut the gate against it and keep it out till it give satisfaction Might you not as well have carp'd at our Saviours words as you do at Bellarmines when he said alias oves habeo quae non sunt ex hoc ovile and I have other sheep which are not of this fold Ioan. 10. so that they are oves sheep still though our Saviour say they be not of his fold know you not that those were by him call'd sheep which though they were not actually his yet were in time to be of his fold and when he had reduced them to his fold would be his sheep actually This done you add and if it be but ovile particulare veluti Romanum that they
God and in the entrance of the same Epist. he compares Schismatiques to Corah Dathan Abiram who separate themselves from the communion of the Jewes and their high Priest Aaron St. Aug. lib. 20 contr Faustum c. 30. Schisma est eadem opinantem eodem ritu colentem quo caeteri solo congregationis delectari dissidio Schism is a voluntary Dissidium or separation of one who agrees in doctrine from the Congregation viz. of the Church St. Aug. lib. 4. contr Donatistas Cap. 14. Nam caetera omnia vera vel censeatis vel habeatis in eadem separatione tamen duretis contra vinculum fraternae pacis adversus unitatem omnium fratrum Thus he states the Schism of the Donatists if ye continue in separation against the bond of Brotherly peace and unitie of all the Brethren that is of the whole Church Lib 2 contr Donatistas cap. 6. Respondete quare vos separastis quare contra orbem terrarum Altare erexistis quare non communicastis Ecclesiis respondete quare separastis propterea certe ne malorum communione periretis Quomodo Ergo non perierunt Cyprianus Collegae ejus quare ab innocentibus separastis Sacrilegium Schismatis vestrum defendere noâ—â— potestis The holy Father disputing against Schismatiques askes them as we à pari aske Protestants why have you separated your selves why have you erected an Altar against the whole world answer me why did you separate certainly you separated least you should perish in the communion of the wicked how then did not Cyprian and his colleagues perish Lib. contra Petilianum nulla igitur Ratio fuit sed Maximus furor quod isti velut commmnionem caventes se ab unitate Eeclesiae quae toto orbe terrarum diffunditur separarunt There was no cause but a great madness that they fearing communion should separate themselves from the unity of the Church through the whole earth what can be more evident then this that St. Aug. held the Donatists to be out of the Church which you flatly deny St. Hierome Haeretici de Deo falso sentiendo ipsam fidem violant Schismatici discessionibus iniquis a fraterna charitate dissiliunt Contra Luciferianos quamvis ea credunt quae credimus Heretiques by teaching false things of God violate the Faith Schismatiques by unjust seperations depart from fraternal charity though they believe the same thing with us Nothing can destroy more fully your novelty then do these words for he speaks indefinitely of all Heretiques and affirms that they violate the faith and consequently have no faith without which they cannot be true members of Christs Church and that all Schismatiques leave fraternal charity which is necessary to be in the unity of the Church St. Hieron comment in Ep. ad Titum c. 3. Propterea vero a semet ipso dicitur esse damnatus Haereticus quia Fornicator Adulter Homicida caetera vitia per sacerdotes de Ecclesia propelluntur Haeretici autem in semetipsos sententiam dicant suo arbitrio ab Ecclesia recedendo Therefore he an Heretique is said to be condemned of himself because a Fornicator an Adulterer a Murtherer and the like vices are expelled out of the Church by the Priests but Heretiques pronounce a sentence against themselves by receding or departing from the Church of their own accord Does not this profound Doctor condemn your novelty in these words both by teaching that all Heretiques for he speaks indifinitely depart from the Church and by shewing a difference betwixt other criminal sinners and Heretiques when they are to be avoided which you labour to put in the same state with some Heretiques viz. That other sinners are cast out of the Church but Heretiques out themselves and yet farther that even other criminal sinners when they are excommunicated are no actual parts of the Church as you hold they are because they are cast out of it which doctrine is also Emphatically delivered by St. Aug. l. 11. quest cap. 3. Omnis Christianus qui excommunicatur Satanae traditur quomodo Scilicet quiaextra Ecclesiam est diabolus Sicut in Ecclesiae Christus ac per hoc quasi diabolo traditur qui ab Ecclesia communione removetur Vnde illos quos Apastolus Satanae traditos esse praedicat esse excommunicatos demonstrat Every Christian who is excommunicated is delivered up to Sathan how that to wit because the devil is without the Church as Christ is in the Church and by this he is as it were delivered to the devil whosoever is removed from the communion of the Church whence the Apostle demonstrates those to be excommunicated whom he pronounces to be delivered to Sathan whence followes also that seeing all profest Heretiques are excommunicated persons that according to St. Aug. they are all out of the Church I forbear the citation of more Authors esteeming these â—â—ufficient 75. I have at large deduc'd the reason of this truth against you in my answer to your first part The sum whereof is this that whosoever disbelieves any divine truth sufficiently propounded to him as such disbelieves the infallible truth of Gods word and consequently evacuates the formal object of Christian faith thereby destroyes faith which cannot subsist without its formal object and by that destroyes Christianity in so much as in him lyes and consequently Gods Church nay and God himself whence also follows that such a disbeliever hath no supernatural faith at all of any other articles which he believes but a meer humane natural and fallible assent to them for he cannot assent to any of them because they are reveal'd by Gods infallible authority for he hath made that fallible in disbelieving something which is sufficiently notified to him to be revealed from God Now if he have no true faith he can neither have salvation nor be a member of Christs true Church which is directly destructive of your novelty That which has deceiv'd you and such as follow you in this is that you make your whole reflection upon the material object of faith which considered alone is as a dead carcass in respect of true Christian faith seeing it wants the soul and life of it the infallible authority of God revealing it and though hereticks perversely perswade and delude themselves they assent for the infallible authority of God to such articles as they believe yet seeing we now suppose there is no defect in the proposition of such articles as they believe not that they are reveal'd from God they being propos'd to them equally with other articles which they believe in reallity there is no other cause of their disbelief then that they attribute not an infallible authority to God revealing the said articles which they disbelieve Now if he be fallible in one he is infallible in nothing for his erring in one supposes him subject to error which is to be fallible And as faith is wanting so is external communion also to every profest heretick and schismatick as
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
Reader may have all ready at hand for a more facil understanding of the whole matter Yet in my Answer to his second part in proof of the perpetual visibility of the Protestant Church I have not inserted his Text both by reason it would haveâ—â— rendred the tome improportionable and that he often spends many Leafs in proving Propositions which I deny not so that it had bin to no purpose at all to insert them what I found material in that part I have recited and answered and remit the judgement and censure of the whole work to any impartial Reader If Mr. Baxter will venture upon an Answer I expect as fair a proceeding from him as he has here from me to insert by Sections as I have done my Text and apply a particular Answer to each Section for otherwise all impartiall eyes will see that he flies the light and seeks corners to hide himself and takes a new occasion both to pervert my words distort my sense and make me say what he pleases when he cannot answer what I say as he has done more then once in this his Answer The whole issue of the work is not onely a discovery of the weaknesse and dâ—â—ssatisfaction of this his Answer but withall an enervating of the main Principles Arguments and Instances against the Roman Church in his other Works and particularly in his KEY this against Johnson being a Receul or Epitome of what he has more largely treated in his former Invectives so that the Authour hopes the serious perusal of this will so far rectifie the judgement of his Readers that they will be enabled to see the vanity and fallacy of all he has with so much labour and bitternesse given out against us All we have to say or doe in relation to his Person is earnestly to beg of the God of mercy pardon and forgivenesse for him for what is past and a new beam of light from heaven to guide and direct him for the future and bring him into that saving way wherein he may attain unto a never ending felicity A Brief Advertisement to the READER THat the Reader may be sufficiently informed how this controversie took its rise and progresse he may please to take notice That Mr. Johnsons Argument was first sent to Mr. Baxter concerning the necessity of being a member of the Roman Church to obtain salvation next Mr. Baxter sent back an Answer to the said Argument and thereupon Mr. Johnson sent a Reply to Mr. Baxters Answer Thus far the whole Process is comprised in Mr. Baxters Edition from page 1. to page 66. which I have here reprinted Word for Word that the Reader may have a full view of the whole Controversie and have at hand the matter to which Mr. Baxter fram'd his last Answer to the end that this Rejoynder to it may be the better understood and the force of it more fully examined and weighed by the Iudicious Peruser of this Tract Mr. Baxter therefore sets down Mr. Johnsons Argument Mr. Baxters Answer and Johnsons Reply in this manner following Mr. Iohnsons first PAPER THe Church of Christ wherein only Salvation is to be had never was nor is any other then those Assemblies of Christians who were united in Communion and obedience to S. Peter in the beginning since the Ascension of Christ. And ever since to his lawfull Successors the Bishops of Rome as to their chief Pastor Proof Whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ acknowledges S. Peter and his lawful Successors the Bishops of Rome ever since the Ascension of Christ to have been and now to be by the Institution of Christ their chief Head and Governour on earth in matters belonging to the soul next under Christ. But there is no salvation to be had out of that Congregation of Christians which is now the true Church of Christ. Ergo There is no salvation to be had out of that Congregation of Christians which acknowledges S. Peter and his lawful Successors the Bishops of Rome ever to have been since the Ascension of Christ and now to be by the Institution of Christ their chief Head and Governour on earth in matters belonging to the soul next under Christ. The Minor is clear For all Christians agree in this that to be saved it is necessary to be in the true Church of Christ that only being his mystical Body Spouse and Mother of the faithful to which must belong all those who ever have been are or shall be saved The Major I prove thus Whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ hath been always visible since the time of Christ either under persecution or in peace and flourishing But no Congregation of Christians hath been always visible since the time of Christ either under persecution or in peace and flourishing save that only which acknowledges S. Peter and his lawfull successors the Bishops of Rome ever to have been since the Ascension of Christ and now to be by Christs Institution their chief Head and Governour on earth in matters belonging to the soul next under Christ. Ergo Whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ acknowledges S. Peter and his lawful successors the Bishops of Rome ever to have been since the Ascension of Christ and now to be by Christs Institution their chief Head and Governour on earth in matters belonging to the soul next under Christ. The Major is proved thus Whatsoever Congregation of Christians hath always had visible Pastors and people united hath always been visible either under persecution or in peace and flourishing But whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the the true Church of Christ hath always had visible Pastors and People united Ergo Whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ hath always been visible either under persecution or in peace and flourishing The Major of this last Syllogism is evident for seeing a visible Church is nothing but a visible Pastor and people united where there have always been visible Pastors and people united there hath always been a visible Church The Minor I prove from Ephesians cap. 4. ver 10 11 12 13 14 c. Where S. Paul says that Christ had instituted that there should be Pastors and Teachers in the Church for the work of the Ministry and preserving the people under their respective charges from being carried away with every wind of doctrine c. which evidently shews those Pastors must be visible seeing the work of the Ministry which is Preaching and Administration of Sacraments and governing their flocks are all external and visible actions And this shews likewise that those Pastors and People must be always visible because they are to continue from Christs Ascension untill we all meet together in the unity of faith c. which cannot be before the day of judgement Neither can it be said as some say that this promise of Christ is only conditional since to put it
there preaching before they had any Pastor were yet Christians and saved If a Lay man convert one or a thousand and you will say that he may baptize them and they die before they can have a Pastor or ever hear of any to whom they owe subjection they are nevertheless saved as members of the Church And if all the Pastors in a Nation were murdered or banished the people would not cease to be Christians and members of the Church Much lesse if the Pope were dead or deposed or a vacancy befell his seat would all the Catholick Church be annihilated or cease To your Confirmation of the Major that a visible Church is nothing but a Visible Pastor and people united I answer 1. It s true of the Universal Church as united in Christ the great Pastor but not as united in a Vice-Christ or humane head 2. It is true of a particular Political or organized Church as united to their proper Pastors 3. But it is not true of every Community of Christians who are a part of the Universal Church A companie converted to Christ are members of the Vniversal Church though they never heard of a Pope at Rome before they are united to Pastors of their own The Proof of the Minor from Ephes. 4. I grant as aforesaid The Text proveth that Pastors the Church shall have I disclaim the vain Objection of Conditionality in the Promise which you mention But it proves not 1. That the Church shall have an Universal Monarch or Vice-Christ under Christ. 2. Nor that every Member of the Universall Church shall certainly be a member of a particular Church or ever see the face of Pastor or be subject to him You say next There remains only to prove the Minor of the second Syllogism Viz. That no Congregation of Christians hath been always visible but that which acknowledges c. This is the great point which all lyeth on The rest hath been all nothing but a cunning shooing horn to this Prove this and prove all Prove not this and you have lost your time You say The Minor I prove by obliging the answerers to nominate any Congregation of Christians which always till this present time since Christ hath been visible save that only which acknowledges c. And have I waited all this while for this You prove it by obliging me to prove the contrary Ridiculous sed quo jure 1. Your undertaken form of arguing obligeth you to prove your Minor You cannot cast your Respondent upon proving and so arguing and doing the Opponents part 2. And in your Postscript you presently forbid it me You require me to hold to a Concedo Nego Distinguo Omitto Transeat threatning that else you will take it for an Effugium And I pray you tell me in your next to which of these doth the nomination or proof of such a Church as you describe belong Plainly you first slip away when you should prove your Minor and then oblige me to prove ehe contrary and then tell me if I attempt it you 'l take it for an Effugium A good cause needs not such dealing as this which me thinks you should be loth a learned man should hear of 3. Your interest also in the Matter as well as your office as Opponent doth oblige you to the proof For though you make a Negative of it you may put it in other terms at your pleasure It is your main work to prove that all the members of the Vniversal Church have in all ages held the Popes Soveraignty or Universal Headship Or the whole Visible Church hath held it Prove this and I will be a Papist you have my promise You affirm and you must prove Prove a Catholike Church at least that in the Major part was of that mind though that would be nothing to prove the condemnation of the rest If you are an impartial enquirer after truth fly not when you come to the setting too I give you this further evident reason why you cannot oblige me to what you here impose 1. Because you require me to prove the Visibility of a Church which held not your point of Papacy and so put an unreasonable task upon me about a Negative Or else I must prove that they held the contrary before your opinion was started And it is the Catholike Church that we are disputing about so that I must prove this Negative of the Catholike Church 2. It is you that lay the great stress of Necessity on your Affirmative more then we do on the Negative you say that no man can be saved without your Affirmative that the Pope is the universal Head and Governour But we say not that no man can be saved that holdeth not our Negative that he is not the Vice-Christ For one that hath the plague or leprosie may live Therefore it is you that must prove that all the Catholike Church was still of your mind 3. And it is an Accident and but an Accident of a smaller corrupted part of the Catholike Church that you would oblige me to prove the Negation of and therefore it is utterly needlesse to my proof of a visible Catholike Church I will without it prove to you a successive Visibility of the Catholike Church from the Visibility of its Essential or Constitutive parts of which your Pope is none I will prove a successive visible Church that hath still professed faith in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost and been united to the Universal Head and had particular Pastors some fixed some unfixed and held all essential to a Christian. And proving this I have proved the Church of which I am a member To prove that England hath been so long a Kingdom requireth no more but to prove the two Essential parts King and Subjects to have so long continued united It requireth not that I prove that it either had or opposed a Vice-King This is our plain case if a man have a botch on one of his hands it is not needful in order to my proving him a man heretofore that I prove he was born and bred without it so be it I prove that he was born a man it sufficeth Nor is it needful that I prove the other hand always to have been free in order to prove it a member of the body It sufficeth that I prove it to have been still a hand I do therefore desire you to perform your work and prove that no Congregation hath been still visible but such as yours or that the whole Catholike Church hath ever since the ascention held a Humane Universal Governour under Christ or else I shall take it as a giving up your cause as indefensible And observe if you shall prove onely that a part of the Catholick Church still held this which you can never do then 1. You will make the contrary opinion as Consistent with salvation as yours For the rest of the Catholick Church is savable 2. And then you well allow me to turn
your Argument against your self as much as it is against us and so cast it away e. g what ever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ hath been alwayes Visible But no Congregation of Christians hath been alwayes Visible but that which quoad partem denieth the Popes universal Headship therefore whatever Congregation of Christians is the true Church denieth the Popes universal Headship Well! but for all this supposing you will do your part I will fail you in nothing that 's reasonable which I can perform A Catholick Church in all ages that was against the Pope in every member of it I hope I cannot shew you because I hope that you are members though corrupt But you shall have more then a particular Congregation or a hundred 1. At this present two or three parts of the Catholick Church is known to be against your Vniversal Monarchy The Greeks Armenians Etheopians c. besides the Protestants 2. In the last age there were as many or more 3. I the former ages till An. D. 1000. there were neer as many or rather many more For more be faln off in Tenduè Nubia and other parts then the Protestants that came in 4. About the year 600. there were many more incomparably and I think then but at least of 400. years after Christ I never yet saw valid proof of one Papist in all the world that is one that was for the Popes Vniversal Monarchy or Vice-Christ-ship So that most of the Catholick Church about three parts to one hath been against you to this day and all against you for many hundred years Could I name but a Nation against you I should think I had done nothing much lesse if I cited a few men in an age 5. And of all those of Ethiopia India c. that are without the verge and awe of the Ancient Roman Empire never so much as gave the Pope that Primacy of dignity which those within the Empire gave him when he was chief as the Earl of Arundel is of the Earls of England that governeth none of them and as the Lord Chancellour may be the chief Iudge that hath no power in alieno foro or as the eldest Iustice is chief in the County and on the Bench that ruleth not the rest Mistake not this Primacy for Monarchy nor the Roman Empire for the world and you can say nothing At present ad hominem I give you sufficient proof of this succession As you use to say that the present Church best knew the judgement of the former age and so on to the head and so Tradition beareth you out I turn this unresistibly against you The far greatest part of Christians in the world that now are in possession of the doctrine contrary to your Monarchy tell us that they had it from their Fathers and so on And as in Councils so with the Church Real the Major part three to one is more to be credited then the Minor part especially when it is a visible self-advancement that the Minor part insisteth on And were not this enough I might add That your Western Church it self in its Representative Body at Constance and Basil hath determined that not the Pope but a General Council is the chief Governour under Christ and that this hath been still the judgement of the Church and that its Heresie in whoever that hold the contrary 7. And no man can prove that one half or tenth part of your people called Papists are of your opinion For they are not called to professe it by words and their obedience is partly forced and partly upon their principles some obeying the Pope as their Western Patriarch of chief dignity and some and most doing all for their safety and peace Their outward acts will prove no more And now Sir I have told you what Church of which we are members hath been visible yea and what part of it hath opposed the Vice-christ of Rome This I delayed not an hour after I received yours because you desired speed Accordingly I crave your speedy return and intreat you to advise with the most learned men whether Iesuites or others of your party in London that think it worth their thoughts and time not that I have any thoughts of being their equall in learning but partly because the case seemeth to me so exceeding palpable that I think it will suffice me to supply all my defects against the ablest men on earth or all of them together of your way and principally because I would see your strength and know the most that can be said that I may be rectified if I err which I suspect not or confirmed the more if you cannot evince it and so may be true to Gods Truth and my own soul. Rich. Baxter Mr. Iohnsons second PAPER SIR IT was my happiness to have this Argument transmitted into your learned and quiet hands which gratefully returns as fair a measure as it received from you that Animâ—â—sities on both sides reposed Truth may appear in its full splendor and seat it self in the Center of both our hearts To your first Exception My Thesis was sufficiently made clear to my friend who was concerned in it and needed no explication in its address to the learned To your second Exception My Propositions were long that my Argument as was required might be very short and not exceed the quantity of half a sheet which enforced me to penetrate many Syllogisms into one and by that means in the first not to be so precise in form as otherwise I should have been To your third Exception Seeing I required nothing but Logical form in answering I conceive that regard was more to be had amongst the learned to that then to the errors of the vulgar that whilest ignorance attends to most words learning might attend to most reason To your fourth Exception My Argument contains not precisely the terms of my Thesis because when I was called upon to hasten my Argument I had not then at hand my Thesis Had I put more in my Thesis then I prove in my Argument I had been faulty but proving more then my Thesis contained as I clearly do no body hath reason to find fault with me save my self The reall difference betwixt Assemblies of Christians and Congregations of Christians and betwixt Salvation is only to be had in those Assemblies and Salvation is not to be had out of that Congregation I understand not seeing all particular Assemblies of true Christians must make one Congregation To your Answer to my first Syllogism He who distinguishes Logically the terms of any proposition must not apply his distinction to some one part of the term only but to the whole term as it stands in the proposition distinguished Now in my proposition I affirm that the Congregation of Christians I speak of there is such a Congregation that it is the true Church of Christ that is as all know the whole Catholick Church and you distinguish
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 â—â—or 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-Christ-ship What then are there no proofs in the world but what you have seen or may not many of those proofs be valid which you have seen though you esteem them not so and can you think it reasonable upon your single not-seeing or not-judging only to conclude absolutely as you here do that all have been 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 * 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 armis Relâ—â—gione tenet and by this That the Abyssines of Ethiopia were under the Patriarch of Alexandria antiently which Patriarch was under the Authority of the Roman Bishop as we shall presently see When the Roman Emperors were yet Heathens had not the Bishop of Rome the Supremacy over all other Bishops through the whole Church and did those Heathen Emperors give it him How came St Cyprian in time of the Heathen Empire to request Stephen the Pope to punish and depose the Bishop of Arles as we shall see hereafter Had he that authority think you from an Heathen Emperor See now how little your Allegations are to the purpose where you nominate any determinate Congregations to satisfie my demand 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 and you will have satisfied but till that be done I leave it to any equall judgement whether my demand be satisfied or no. You answer to this That all those who are nominated by you are parts of the Catholick 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 Catholick 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 dis-union 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 Common-wealths men Though therefore you do account them all parts of the Catholick 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 Catholick Church unless you make Arrians and Pelagians and Donatists parts of the Catholick 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 Catholick Church notwithstanding that separation do continue parts of the Catholick Church For who knows not that the Ethiopians to this day are * See Rosse his view of Religions p 99 489 492 c. Where he says 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 Jacobites and confesses that their Patriarch is in subjection to the Patriarch of Alexandria c. See more of the Chofti Jacobites Maronites c. p. 493 494. where he confesses that many of them are now subject to the Pope and have renounced their old errors Eutychian Hereticks And a great part of those Greeks and Armenians who deny the Popes Supremacy are infected with the Heresie of Nestorius and all of them profess generally all those points of faith with us against you wherein you differ from us and deny to 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. 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
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 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 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 apearance from one time to another Where it is worth the noting that Iulius reprehending the said Arian Bishops before they published their Heresie and so taking them to be Catholicks for condemning S. 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 estis hanc consuetudinem esse ut primum nobis scribatur ut hinc quod justum est definiri 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 clearly it appears that it belonged particularly to the Bishop of Rome to passe 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 in the case of S. Chrysostome Where first Saint Chrysostome appeals to Innocentius from the Council assembled at Constantinople wherein he was condemned Secondly Innocentius annuls his condemnation and declares him innocent Thirdly he Excommunicates Atticus Bishop of Constantinople and Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria for persecuting S. Chrysostome Fourthly after S. Chrysostome was dead in Banishment Pope Innocentius Excommunicates Arcadius the Emperour 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 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 beleeved 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 Legate affronted and himself excommunicated by 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 pennance (m) Concil Chalced. Act. 1. Presently after An. 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) Concil Chalced. Act 3. 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 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 Council and Dioscorus was judged and condemned his condemnation and deposition being pronounced by the Popes Legats and after subscribed by the Council Fifthly the Popes Legats pronounced the Church of Rome to be * Which could not be by reason of the Sanctity and truth which was then in it for the Church of Milan and many others in France Africa and Greece were also then pure and holy and yet none have this title save the Church of Rome In the time of Iustinian the Emperour Agapet Pope even in Constantinople against the will both of the Emperour and Empress deposed Anthymus and ordained Mennas in his place Liberat. in Breviario cap. 21. Marcellinus Comes in Chronico Concil Constantin sub Menna act 4. And the same S Greg. c. 7. ep 63. declares that both the 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 pronounceth that in case of falling into offences he knew no Bishop which was not subject to the Bishop of Rome Caput omnium Ecclesiarum the Head of all Churches before the whole Council and none contradicted them Sixtly 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 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 untill they were confirmed by the Pope And Leo thought not fit to yeeld to their petition against the express ordination of the first Council of Nice where Alexandria had the preheminence as also Antioch and Hierusalem before that of Constantinople Saint Cyril of Alexandria though he wholly disallowed Nestorius his doctrine yet he would not break off Communion with him till Celestinus the Pope had condemned him whose censure he required and expected Nestorius also wrote to Celestine acknowledging his Authority and expecting from him the censure of his doctrine Celestinus condemned Nestorius and gave him the space of ten daies to repent after he had received his condemnation All which had effect in the Eastern Church where Nestorius was Patriarch of Constantinople (o) S. August Tom. 1. Epist. Rom. Pontif. post Epist. 2. ad Celestinum After this Saint Cyrill having received Pope Leo's Letters wherein he gave power to Saint Cyril to execute 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 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 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 Cesarea 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 Nestorius but rather to put Celestines condemnation of him given the year before into execution S. 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 S. 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 diregeretur 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 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 Clestize who presently ratified and confirmed them Not long after this in the year 445. Valentinian the Emperour makes this manifesto of the most high Ecclesiastical authority of the See of Rome in these words Seeing that the merit of S. 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 this at length in Baronius in the year 445. 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 S. Peter to be the first foundation of the Roman Churches primacy and his authority to be not only in place 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 intituled a Bishop the sole humanity of the meek Prelate i. e. 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 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 which the Council of Chalcedon before mentioned plainly owned when writing to Pope Leo they say * Epist. Concil ad Leon. Pap. Act. 1. sequ Thou governest us as the head doth the members contributing 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 â—â—t opinor existimans si reliquos omnes tantum fidei devotione quantum loci 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 of Hereticks nothing should be innovated which was a manifest argument of his Spiritual Authority over those of 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 p. 327. Act. 1. where Philip Priest and Legat 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
beleeved to be implicitely by them when they subject themselves to all their lawful pastors he being one and the chief of them Baxter Num. 21. To your Confirmation I reply You mis-read my words I talk not of invisible I say it is true that the universal Church is united to Christ as their universal Head Iohnson Num. 21. Nor say I you have writ there the word invisible but that the pastor or Head which you there name Viz. Christ is an invisible pastor nor say I as you mis-conceive that Christ is an invisible person that toucht not the controversie but that he was an invisible Pastor and that most certainly he is both in heaven and earth for though his person may be seen there yet the exercise of his pastorship consisting only in spiritual influxions and internal graces cannot be seen by any corporal eye whatsoever therefore as pastor of the Militant Church he is wholly invisible whence it is evident that you put a visible body the universal Militant Church for we treat no other here save that without a visible Head for Christ as head that is as supream pastor of this Church is invisible all that is visible in the pastoral Function being performed by visible pastors and all that is invisible by our Saviour Thus whilest you by a strange piece of Novelty constitute a visible Body without a visible Head you destroy the visible Church and frame a Monster Baxter Num. 22. And is visible 1. In the members 2. In the profession 3. Christ himself is visible in the heavens and as much seen of most of the Church as the Pope is that is not at all As the Pope is not invisible though one of a million see him not no more is Christ who is seen by most of the Church and by the best part even by the glorified You know my meaning whether you will call Christ visible or not I leave to you I think he is visible But that which I affirm is that the universal Church hath no other visible universal Head or Pastor But particular Churches have their particular Pastors all under Christ. Iohnson Num. 22. If Christ be no otherwise visible as Head of the Church then in his members and their profession of his Faith you may as well affirm that God the Father is visible in his creatures and make him also visible which were absonous and contrary to Christian Faith It seems you regard not much what follows from your doctrine so you may at present oppose your Adversary The question in treatie is seeing we both confess the members and profession of the Universal Militant Church to be visible whether Christ in the exercise of his Headship or chief-Pastorship over the Church renders himself visible to our corporal eyes or performs immediatly any visible action in relation to his Church To constitute therefore Christ to be a visible Head of the Church when he performs nothing visible as Head of the Church or to make a visible Body without a visible Head is another of your grand Novelties fit to be represt and stifled in the cradle And all men will expect that in your Rejoynder to this you shew that Christ not in his person but in the exercise of his pastoral Headship works visibly by himself One thing is worth observation in this Paragraph that you affirm Christ is seen by most of the Church and by the best part even by the glorified whereby you must either affirm that the glorified are now conjoyned to their bodies and thereby evacuate the general resurrection of Saints bodies at the day of judgement or that the souls of Saints in heaven have corporal eyes for we speak only of corporal sight Baxter Of Ephes. 4. I easily grant that the whole Church may be said to have Pastors in that all the particular Churches have Pastors But I deny that the whole have any one Universal Pastor but Christ. Of that which is the point in controversie you bring no proof If you mean no more then I grant Fallacy 7. That the whole Church hath Pastors both in that each particular Church hath Pastors and in that unfixed Pastors are to preach to all as they have opportunity then your Minor hath no denial from me Iohnson Num. 23. All I intend from Ephes. 4. is to prove my Minor the perpetual Succession of visible Pastors whatsoever those be you grant here it proves thus much Why then presse you me to know whether I would prove from it one supream visible Pastor on earth when I alledge it not to prove that It is strange Logick to ask an Opponent whether he intend to prove more by his Syllogism then what he was obliged to prove in Form when the Respondent grants he has proved that and by proving the Proposition which was to be proved has evinced the Thesis to be true which he first undertook to prove by his Argument Viz. the Popes Supremacy CHAP. II. The ARGUMENT No Negative fram'd in Positive Historical matters to be proved num 24. but the Instances alledged against it to be disproved by the Opponent num 25. The Pope obeyed in England not only as Patriarch of the West but as Supream visible Pastor of the whole Militant Church See Stow and Spâ—â—ed with the Statutes of Parliaments and decrees of our English Councils in and before the beginning of King Hâ—â—nry the eighths Râ—â—ign of this matter was in quiet possession of the spiritual government of the English Church when Protestancy first appeared in it Mr. Baxter forced n. 27. to deny two common principles n. 28. His unfair dealing with his adversary n. 33 34. Visible Pastors though Christs Officers Essential to his visible Church and if they why not the Supream amongst them n. 35 36. Some under Officers are Essential to Monarchies p. 38. No new work to be attempted till the old be finish'd n. 39 40 41 42 c. Mr. Baxter puts many questions and doubts where there is no need and n. 46. mistakes grosly his Adversaries words and meaning Baxter Num. 24. In stead of prosecuting your Argument when you had cast the work of an Opponent upon me you here appeal to any true Logician or expert Lawyer Content I admit your Appeal But why then did you at all put on the face of an Opponent Could you not without this lost labour at first have called me to prove the successive visibility of our Church But to your Appeal Ho all you true Logicians this Learned man and I refer it to your Tribunal whether it be the part of an Opponent to contrive his Argument so as that the Negative shall be his and then change places and become Respondent and make his Adversary Opponent at his pleasure We leave this Cause at your Bar and expect your Sentence But before we come to the Lawyers Bar I mâ—â—st have leave more plainly to state our Case Iohnson Num. 24. I am still content to refer my case as I state
Church you have imposed an obligation upon me of answering the reasons and allegations whereby you labour to prove it to have been perpetually visible Baxter Num. 39. You complain of a deficiency in quality though you confess that I abound in number But where is the deseâ—â—t You say I must assert both that these were one Congregation and ever visible since Christs time Reply If by one Congregation you meant one Assembly met for personal Communion which is the first sense of the word Congregation it were ridiculous to feign the universal Church to be such Iohnson Num. 39. You know I mean not that why lose you time in putting an if upon it Baxter Num. 40. If you mean one as united in one visible humane Head that 's it that we deny and therefore may not be required to prove Iohnson Num. 40. I abstract from that also be it but truly and properly one whencesoever that unity is drawn 't is all alike to the Solution of my Argument Baxter Num. 41. But that these Churches are one as united in Christ the Head we easily prove in that from him the whole Family is named the Body is Christs Body 1 Cor. 12.12 13. and one in him Ephes. 4.4 5 6. c. Iohnson Num. 41. These Churches which these mean you all that you seem to point at in your Catalogue All sure or you prove nothing but which are those all You name only those of the present age Greeks Armenians Ethiopians Protestants After these for eleven hundred years you name none at all How shall we then know determinately what you mean here by these Churches when you give no light to know your meaning Let us therefore first know which are these Churches you here relate to by some particular designation and denomination of them or how can you either prove or we know whether they were united in Christ or no and then and not till then can it be discerned whether these Churches be or be not parts of Christs family or body according to the places you here cite Baxter Num. 42. All that are true Christians are one Kingdome or Church of Christ but these of whom I speak are true Christians therefore they are one Kingdom or Church of Christ. Iohnson Num. 42. I grant your Major and deny your Minor if they were independent of the Roman Bishop Baxter Num. 43. And that they have been visible since Christs time till now all History even your own affirm as in Judea and from the Apostles times in Ethiopia Egypt and other parts Rome was no Church in the time of Christs being on earth Iohnson Num. 43. Let them have been as visible as you please that 's nothing to me so were the Arrians Sabellians Montanists c. as much as many of these prove they were no more then one visible Congregation of Christians amongst themselves and with Orthodox Christians that 's the present controversie Baxter Num. 44. And to what purpose talk you of determinate Congregations Do you mean individual Assemblies those cease when the persons die Or do you mean Assemblies meeting in the same place So they have not done still at Rome Iohnson Num. 44. Why do you still ask me if I mean what you know I mean not Baxter Num. 45. I told you and tell you still that we hold not that God hath secured the perpetual visibility of his Church in any one City or Country but if it cease in one place it is still in others It may cease at Ephesus at Phillippi Colosse c. in Tenduc Nubia c. and yet remain in other parts I never said that the Church must needs be visible still in one Town or Country Iohnson Num 45. I assent to you in this why lose you labour in asserting that which no man questions Baxter Num. 46. And yet it hath been so de facto as in Asia Ethiopia c. But you say I nominate none Are you serious must I nominate Christians of these Nations to prove that there were such You reqâ—â—ire not this of the Church-Historians It sufficâ—â—th that they tell you that Ethiopia Egypt Armenia Syria c. had Christians without naming them When all History tells you that these Countreys were Christians or had Churches I must tell you what and who they were Must you have their Names Sirnames and Genealogies I cannot name you one of a thousand in this small Nation in the Age I live in how then should I name you the people of Armenia Abassia c. so long ago You can name but few of the Roman Church in each Age and had they wanted Learning and Records as much as Abassins and Indians and others you might have been as much to seek for names as they Iohnson Num. 46. You trifle away time exceedingly I require as you have seen above the nomination of the determinate Opinions or Societies as Hussites Waldenses Nestorians Eutychians c. not of their persons And therefore I say you nominate none See Baxt. p. 41. much less prosecute you those with whom you begun Now these were Greeks Armenians Ethiopians Protestants so that I speak undeniably of the nomination of Sects and Societies not of Names Sirnames and Genealogies of persons There were different Sects and Professions in different Countreys as Armenia Abassia c. I require the nomination of which of those Sects or parties you mean in those times and Nations not what were their names and sirnames Nor is it sufficient that you say there were Christians that is Christians univocally so called or true Christians in all Ages in Armenia Ethiopia Egypt c. who denied the Popes Supremacy for unless you nominate of what party sect opinion or profession they were how shall any man judge whether they held not some Opinion contrary to the Essentials of Christianity and by that became no Christians even in your opinion You must therefore either have nominated and designed what sort of professions you mean or acknowledge you have spoken in the air and produc'd a pure non-proof in the nomination of those Countreys since no man can know by that what sort of profession you mean amongst all those different professions which have inhabited the said Nations for Arrians Sabellians Manichees Menandrians c. whom you hold to be no Christians and to erre in Essentials denied the Popes Supremacy in those Nations CHAP. III. ARGUMENT Num. 47. No Congregations of Christians can be united in Christ which are not united in the profession of one and the same Faith and in the Unity of external Communion n. 50 51 c. Assertors of the Popes Supremacy within the first 400. years after Christ. Extra Imperial Nations subject to the Roman Bishop n. 51. India and outer Armenians not alwayes Extra-Imperial n. 51. An Universal prov'd from a Particular by Mr. Baxter His word a proof n. 55. A bold Assertion of his contrary both to Ancient and Modern Writers n. 54. The Ethiopians subject to the Three
First General Councils An obscure Authority obscurely cited from Bishop Usher n. 5â—â— 58. He draws an Argument for no-subjection due to the Pope from the disobedient Acts of Schismaticks and Hereticks against him n. 60. The 28. Canon of Chalcedon though admitted proves not Mr. Baxter's Assertion ibidem What is meant by the Merits of S. Peter when they are alledged by Ancient Fathers as the prime Ground of the Popes Supremacy Baxter Num. 47. You ask were they different Congregations Answ. As united in Christ they were one Church but as assembling at one time or in one place or under the same guide so they were not one but divers Congregations Iohnson Num. 47. You answer not the question for they might be in different places and times and under several guides and yet be one and the same Congregation as appears in the succession and extension of the Catholick Church The question I demanded is this were they all united in the profession of one and the same Faith and unity of External Communion without these two it is impossible to be united in Christ as I shall prove hereafter Baxter Num. 48. That there were any Papists of 400. years after Christ do yo prove if you are able My Conclusion that all have been against you for many hundred years must stand good till on prove that some were for you Yet I have herewith proved that there were none at least that could deserve the name of the Church Iohnson Num. 48. I have proved there were some in citing the Orat on of the Legates from Pope Celestine in the first Ephesine Council who you grant were for us and if they were for us then all were not against us for so many hundred years See Baxt. p. 23. for you speak there of the first 400. years Now though that Council was celebrated in the year 430. yet both that in a moral consideration passes for 400. and those Legates witnessing what they said to have alwayes been known to every one notum omnibus c. give an Authentical Testimony that it was alwayes acknowledged as a Christian Truth in and through the Church and consequently within the first 400. years No nor was the Council of Ephesus nor any part of it then against us For if they had they would have at least some of them contradicted that which they had in your supposition esteemed so manifest an untruth and contrary to the liberty and jurisdiction of all other Bishops and Churches as imposing upon them a Superiour and Judge who had no lawfull Authority over them Baxter Num. 49. Do you think to satisfie any reasonable man by calling for positive proof from Authors of such Negatives Iohnson Num. 49. I demand no proof of a Negative prove I demand it My demand is to shew any one Congregation of Christians always visible since Christ till now See Baxt. p. 5. beâ—â—de that which acknowledged the Popes Supremacy which is an Affirmative Baxter Num. 50. Yet proof you shall not want such as the nature of the point requireth viz. That the said Churches of Ethiopia India the outer Armenia and other Extra-Imperial Nations were not under the Iurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome Iohnson Num. 50. I suppose you mean by were not under c. were never under the Bishop of Rome otherwise your instance proves nothing for if they were under him in any age and for any time since Christ you can never make them to be an instance of those who were perpetually in all Ages a visible Congregation of Christians not acknowledging the Popes Supremacy for in that Age wherein they were subject to him they did acknowledge it Baxter Num. 51. You find all these Churches or most of them at this day that remain from under your Iurisdiction and you cannot tell when or how they turned from you If you could it had been done Iohnson Num. 51. I neither find it nor can find it till you tell me which were these Extra-Imperial Churches you mean when you say other Extra-Imperial Nations Mean you all other or some other If all I find the quite contrary For the Goths successively inhabitants of Spain never acknowledged themselves Subjects to the Empire who notwithstanding are now subject to the Roman Bishop and consequently were and are for some time under him And the Suedes and Danes which pretend to proceed from the Goths Vandals c. though now they reject all obedience to him yet in the year 1500. they all acknowledged themselves to be his Subjects in Spirituals and that for many hundred of years together Well then I find not all Extra-Imperial Churches from under the Popes Jurisdiction and some who are I can and do find when and how they turned from him It was about the year 1520. by occasion of the Lutheran Heresie as all the world knows If you mean onely some of those other Extra-Imperial Churches when you have told me which are those some you shall have an Answer In the interim give me leave to tell you that to maintain your Novelty you must shew all Extra-Imperial to have been exempt for if any one were not all might have been subject nay were to have been so à paritate rationis As to the Indians they were not alwayes Extra-Imperial For in the year 163. they subjected themselves to the Roman Emperour Antoninus Pius Euseb. in Chronic Anno 22. Anton. Eutrop. lib. 8. Evagr. Id. c. 7. The Armenians that were Christians were not alwayes Extra-Imperial For in the year 572. being grievously persecuted for the Christian Faith by the Persians they rendred themselves Subjects to the Roman Emperour Nor were they always a separate Congregation from those who acknowledged the Spiritual Soveraignty of the Roman Bishop â—â—n Flor. in literis unionis de Armenorum concordia Vide Plat. Naucler Volaterranum Chalcond Emilium Onuphrium Genebrard de Concilio Flor. See Iovius Gen. Maseus Iâ—â—rriâ—â— in anno 1524. For in the year 1145. they and the Indian Christians subjected themselves to him and again Anno 1439. and so remain for the present Nor were the Ethiopians in all ages a different Congregation from the Romane For Anno 1524. the Emperour and High Priest David promised obedience to the Sea Apostolick And Claudius his Successor did the like Anno 1557. Now let us review the force of your instances You undertook to shew in Answer to my Minor some visible Congregation beside that which acknowledges the Popes Supreme power in all Ages since Christ. To prove this you nominate onely the Indians Ethiopians Armenians Now no one of these Three have been in all Ages a visible Congregation beside that of Rome for each of them at one time or other became the same Congregation to that by subjecting and conforming themselves to and with the Bishop of Rome as I have proved You assert that these Three are and ever were Extra-Imperial Nations and upon that score in your principles independent of the Roman Bishop
and yet Two of these made themselves subjects to the Roman Emperour as I have now proved You undertook to prove that those three forenamed Nations and other Extra-Imperial Churches were never under the Bishop of Rome and in proof thereof you say in your first reason that all or most of them that is not all at this day are from under his Jurisdiction so that your Argument runs thus None of them were ever under him because all or most of them were never under him Take you this to be Logick You tell me we cannot tell when or how they turned from us and I tell you and have prov'd it that the Goths in Spain are not from under us at this day and that the Suedes and Danes being their off-spring departed not from us till about the year 1520. by occasion of Luther's Heresie This is your first proof and no marvel you put it as your Achilles in the front it is so mighty strong Now let us hear your second Baxter Num. 52.2 These Nations profess it to be their Tradition that the Pope was never their Governour Iohnson Num. 52. You are pleas'd to say so and I am ready to believe you when you prove what you say This is your second proof Baxter Num. 53.3 No History or Authority of the least regard is brought by your own Writers to prove these Churches under your Iurisdiction no not by Baronius himself that is so copious and so skilfull in making much of nothing Iohnson Num. 53. Those Histories and Authors which say All Churches and the whole Church of Christ was and ought to be subject to him prove sufficiently that these Churches were subject to him for these were contained in the number of All. But many Ancient Authors S. Prosper S. Leo c. infra citandi and Fathers say That All Churches and the whole Church was and ought to be subject to him Ergo they say that these Churches were subject to him The Major is evident The Minor shall be amply proved and is sufficiently already in my subsequent Allegations as I shall make good when I come to the defence of them against your Answers and Exceptions Baxter Num. 54. No credible witnesses mention your Acts of Iurisdiction over them or their Acts of subjection which Church History must needs have contained if it had been true that they were your Subjects Iohnson Num. 54. What none that were very strange Is not Genebrard a witness that Pope Eugenius wrote to the Emperour of Ethiopia anno 1437. to send Legates to the Council of Ferrara as the Greek Emperour had decreed to do to whose Letters and Legates David their Emperour returned a respectfull Answer and accordingly sent some of his Church to that Council as appears by the Acts of the Council it self where the Ethiopians are recorded to have been present and that in the year 1524. the said David and Helena his Empress promised Obedience to the Bishop of Rome Pope Clement the 7 th And witnesses not both Platina Nauclerus Volaterranus Chalcondylas Emylius Onuphrius Genebrard and also the Acts of the Florentine Council that the Armenians and Indians acknowledged the Spiritual Soveraignty of the Roman Bishop through the whole world Are these no credible witnesses And as to more Ancient times gives not the Arabick Translation of the first Nicene Council a clear witness as we shall see presently that the Ethiopians were to be under the Jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Alexandria and he under that of Rome as is witnessed and decreed in the Ephesin Council and others Are these no credible witnesses neither Witness not the whole Kingdome of Spain at this day and all the Historians of Sueden Denmark and other Northern Countreys issuing from the Extra-Imperial Goths and never subject to the Roman Empire that from their first Conversions till after the year 1500. they were all subject to the Roman Bishop and are none of these credible witnesses That 's hard But more of this hereafter Baxter Num. 55. Their absence from General Councils and no invitation of them thereunto that was ever proved or is shewed by you is sufficient evidence Non-proof Iohnson Num. 55 I intend to make a particular Tract to prove this and to evidence the falsity of your Allegation from the undeniable testimonies of Classie Authors and from the ancient subscriptions of the Councils themselves Baxter Num. 56. Their Liturgies even the most Ancient bear no footsteps of any subjection to you though your forgeries have corrupted them as I shall here digressively give one instance of The Ethiopick Liturgie because of a Hoc est corpus meum which we also use is urged to prove that they are for the Corporal Presence or Transubstantiation But saith Vsher de Success Eccles In Ethiopicarum Ecclesiarum universali Canone descriptum habebatur Hic panis est corpus meum In Latinâ Translatione contra fidem Ethiopic Exemplarium ut in primâ operis editione confirmat Pontificius ipse Scholiastes expunctum est nomen panis Iohnson Num. 56. No more does the Roman Missal it self nor those of France or Spain witness their subjection to the Roman Bishop Must every Book witness every thing Must those Books which contain nothing but the service of the Church determine points of Controversie no way pertaining to that subject What rule have you for that Yet I finde in their very Liturgie both a plain acknowledgment of St. Peters primacy and of the reverence they bear to the three first general Councils in making a particular Commemoration of the Fathers which were in them in the Cannon of their Mass whereby they profess to receive the Decrees of those three Councils and thereby their subjection to them and name not the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon the fourth general because they follow the Heresie of Eutiches who was condemned in it Your digression I confesse is something large from the Popes Supremacy to Transubstantiation Yet had you grounded it upon a more firm Authority then that of a professed Adversary it would I suppose have had more weight with your Readers What if Usher say so that moves not me a jot though I marvel not a little also why you who stand upon such Niceties in citations should fall into the same defect which you blame in me of putting me to the labour of reading over that whole Book by not citing the place where those words are found But I should have taken no notice of such small omissions had not you given me a President for it At last I found them cap. 2. p. 54. Edit 2. but then I was at a loss again For having examined three different Editions of the Bibliotheca which is all are extant and the Scholia's in the Margin I could finde no such matter nor could I know what other Scholiastes or Edition he meant and should be more satisfied if in your next you please to cite the Edition more exactly and the precise words of
the heart to spend paper in such groundless Parergons In your fifth you first call those marks of flattery for giving the title of Vniversal Bishop to Pope Leo which the whole Council of Chalcedon approved and read publikely and therefore must all have concurred with flatterers and yet in the next line you affirm that by the title of universal they meant no more then the Bishop which in order of dignity is above the rest and that you confess belongs as due to the Roman Bishop how then account you them flatterers when they give the Pope no more then his due Either therefore they were no flatterers and then you injure them in branding those holy venerable persons with so black a note or they meant more then you would have them mean by universal Bishop and then you speak untruly in putting a false gloss upon their words chuse which you please you contradict your self And you are as consonant to your self in instancing that many particular Churches are oft called Catholick What then Ergo the Title of Archbishop of the Catholick Church or the Vniversal Bishop proves not the Popes Supremacy Draw these two together if you can Yes there is a difference say you next between a Catholick Church and the Catholick Church There is so but what of that Then will you say if you say any thing there must be a difference betwixt an Archbishop of a Catholick Church and the Archbishop of the Catholick Church That 's true too But see you not that this discourse quite overthrows yours for you say not that the title whose sequel you infringe is that the Pope is called an Archbishop of a Catholick Church for so is every Orthodox Archbishop as well as the Pope but that he is called the Archbishop of the Catholick Church These are your precise words Noâ—â— say you that we stile him an universal or Catholick Bishop for so are all lawfull Bishops but that we stile him the universal Bishop It seems you have two hands and those so contrary one to the other that what the one builds the other pulls down Then you say the Bishop of Constantinople had that title given him in a Council at Constantinople Anno 518. But was that Council received as publickly without contradiction in the Church as this Epistle was received without contradiction in the Council of Chalcedon Was not that Constantinopolitan Council condemned both by S. Gregory and his Predecessor as S. Gregory witnesses in his Epistle against Iohn of Constantinople and can you name any who in the Council of Chalcedon condemned the title given to Leo in that Epistle read in the Council of Chalcedon The truth is you care not much what you write so you make a noise This done you alledge Iustin. Codex de Episcopis l. 1. lege 24. that is the First Law the four and twentieth Law a learned citation if yours and not the Printers oversight in printing L. for T. for it should be Tit. 2. not 1. lege 24. You cite him thus Constantinopolitana Ecclesia omnium aliarum caput the Church of Constantinople is the Head of all other Churches whence you prove that Iustinian prefers the Church of Constantinople before the Church of Rome Surely you never read this Law of Iustinian for had you read it you would have found by his mentioning there certain Ecclesiastical Officers called Chartularii belonging to the Cathedral Church that he speaks there only of the great Patriarchal Church of St. Sophia in Constantinople and makes it the Head of all other Cathedral Churches in that Patriarchate and not of the politick body of the Constantinopolitan Church in regard of all other Christian Churches in the world And your very Concession here concludes that he prefers not the Constantinopolitan in your sense before that of Rome for you acknowledge he prefers Rome before it For all know that Iustinians Laws were so prudently couched and ordered that such palpable contradictions as these were never noted by any Classick Authors to be inserted into them But whilst you thus take Authors upon trust hand over head no marvel if you make more haste then good speed in posting out one Book after another Presently upon this you fall upon a Story concerning Vigilius and Iustinian and by that you prove nothing For Iustinian might both hold the Bishop of Rome was Head of all the holy Prelates of God as he intitles him C. l. 1. tit 2. l. 7. and yet persecute him and abuse him to draw him to subscribe to what he desired as many Emperors since Iustinian have done who notwithstanding beleeved and professed constantly the universal Supremacy of the Roman Bishop For when they are injurious to particular Popes their spleen is not against the Sea or dignity of the Roman Bishop but against this or that person who is actually in possession of it Thus Iustinianus junior endeavoured all he could even by force and violence to draw Pope Sergius to subscribe to the Trullane Cannons though he could not effect it Nay had you drawn a natural sequel from such proceedings it should rather have been That Iustinianus senior therefore proceeded so violently against Vigilius to induce him to subscribe to the condemnation of the Tria capitula decreed in the fifth Council because he esteemed him to be of so eminent power that it would never have been universally received as a lawful General Council without his Subscription to it and confirmation of it which was the reason that moved Iustinianus junior to press Sergius so forcibly to subscribe to that in Trullo Thus I have given a brief Survey of what you cite p. 174 175. in your Key whence may be collected what your manner of writing is in that loose Treatise since in little more then in one sole page occasionally light upon I have discovered no lesse then two Equivocations three Fallacies four false Translations three Inconsequences one Mistake and two Contradictions Yet were such defects now and then only to be met with in your Book it were something tolerable but such as read it attentively finde it swarmes all over with them and is indeed nothing but a Farrago of Fallacies and Falsities heap'd one upon another throughout the whole Tract Pardon me if I have been more bold with you in answering this passage of your Key then in what you have writ against me for I neither find you so mainly defective in that as in this other and where you are so I labour to smother what I can that I may not seem to be too severe with you in my own concern What you say in this Paragraph by way of Parenthesis That the Emperors gave power to the Councils Acts if you mean they gave any spiritual Authority by force of Vote or Suffrage to them you neither have prov'd it nor can prove it if you mean they gave only a coercive power for the external Observation of those decrees which by vertue of the Councils Authority obliged
of the denyal of original Sin That Infants which dye without Baptisme are not in the state of Salvation c. Now these are enough to make them Hereticks and out of the Church whatsoever is of the rest of their Heresie which howsoever some dispute now wherein it consisteth yet when they were first condemned there was no dispute about it But here 's another grand Noveltie of yours to be considered Who ever yet before you said that Catholick Church could be divided in it self when it is a most perfect unity See what the Fathers say of this point why is it called una Ecclesia Catholica one Catholick Church in the Nicene Creed if it can be divided and then you adde another Novelty as the former For who but you ever said the Donatists were not divided absolutely from the Church does not S. Aug. lib. de Baptismo contra Donatistas say they separated and divided from the Church a hundred times over But more of this hereafter Mr. Baxter Num. 105. I know that Heresie is a personal Crime and cannot be charged on Nations unlesse you have Evidence that the Nations consent to it which here you have none William Iohnson Num. 105. I have your own Author for it an approved Historian amongst you there is no Authority alledged by you which contradicts his Testimony or clears them from Eutychianisme why therefore seek you evidence against what you are not able to disprove But for your farther satisfaction first it is certain in the year One thousand one hundred seventy and seven the Abyssines or Ethiopians under Prester Iohn desired Doctours to be sent to them from Pope Alexander the third to Instruct them in the Roman Faith from which they differed at that time The Pope write to their King and high Bishop that he desired nothing more then to gratifie them in their Request intreating them to send their doubts and requests in particular to Rome Now that these differences from the Roman Church in part at least were the Heresie of Eutyches is Evident from the Canon of their Mass wherein they commemorate three or four times the Fathers of the three first general Councils but never make mention of those in the fourth that is the Council of Chalcedon whereof no other probable reason can be given save their adhering to the Heresie of Eutyches which was condemned in that Council so that there needs no farther Testimony against them seeing they condemn themselves of Eutychianisme Mr. Baxter Num. 106. Some are Hereticks for denying Points essential to Christianity these are not Christians and so not in the Church but many also are called Hereticks by you and by the Fathers for lesser Errours consistent with Christianity and these may be in the Church Abyssines and all the rest have not been yet tryed and convicted before any competent Iudge and Slanderers we regard not William Iohnson Num. 106. This is already answered all Hereticks deny the veracity of Christ which is Essential to Christ and Christianity whatsoever their Heresies be the Abyssines confess themselves to follow as I have proved Eutyches and Dioscorus and therefore need neither tryal nor conviction Mr. Baxter Num. 107. Many of your own Writers acquit them of Heresie and say †Non-proof 13. the difference is now found to be but in words or little more William Iohnson Num. 107. Name those Writers and you shall be answered think you that any rational man will be convinced by your bare affirmation Mr. Baxter Num. 108. What you say of their disclaiming us unless we take the Patriarch of Constantinople for the vice Christ you many wayes mistake 1. if this were true that they rejected us it were not proof that we are not of one universal Church William Iohnson Num. 108. But sure I mistake not in saying they disclaim you if it be supposed true as you suppose now they doe disclaim you and I think impartial men will take it to be a proof for if both the whole Westerne Church with the Bishop of Rome and the Easterne with the Bishop of Constantinople each claiming the Soveraignty of visible Government over the whole Church of Christ reject you as Hereticks and no other Church existent in the world anno Dom. 1500. Immediately before your first visible opposition against the Roman Church own you as you have not proved nor can you ever prove they doe but upon the same or for some other reasons Reject you for which the Easterne and Westerne Churches have disclaimed you you cannot but confess you are rejected by the whole Catholick Church of Christ seeing you were Rejected by all the visible Churches of that time Now whosoever is rejected as an Heretick by the whole Catholick visible Church either must be no part of it or the Catholick Church must not be able to know which are which are not her true parts and be fallen into so desperate an Errour as to reject as out-casts and enemies those who are her true Children Or what phrenzie would it be in a Novellist vainly and presumptuously to give himself out for a Member of the Church when the whole Catholick Church disclaims and Anathematises him as an Alien Now reduce your selves as Tertullian sayes to your first origine in the year 1500 even in your Principles the visible Catholick Church was all the Congregations of Christians through the whole world but all these Congregations disowned you as Aliens and Separatists from them when you first begun an 1517. ergo the whole Catholick Church disowned you as Aliens and Separatists Ergo you were then either such as the Church esteemed you to be or the whole Catholick Church was deceived but all good Christians will rather believe that you who were then but a handfull of new-hatched Novellists were deceived in fancying your selves to be parts of the Church against the censure and judgement of the whole Christian world then that the whole Christian world should be deceived and you only in the Right Nay that you may have no shadow to shroud your self under not only the whole Christian world when you begun rejected you as not belonging to their Body but you your selves never so much as pretended then to be parts of any of these Churches but hated and abominated them as much as they did you and condemned them all of Errour and Superstition of Babylonish captivity and utter darknesse of Antichrianisme and Idolatry c. Read your first Writers and you will find it so for seeing all the visible Christian Congregations held many of those Points which your first beginners held to be Idolatrous and Superstitious in the Roman Church in condemning the Roman and separating from it upon those pretended Superstitions and Errours you separated from and condemned the whole Catholick Church nor can you free your self from this unless you nominate some Church in those times spread all the Christian world over which resisted those said Errours as you did and joined with you against the Roman
Church in this opposition Mr. Baxter Num. 109. They do not claim to be vice Christi the universal Governours of the Church Contradiction the Title of universal Patriarch they extended but to the then Roman Empire and that not to an universal government but Primacy William Iohnson Num. 109. I wonder to hear you say here the Greeks intended the Title of universal Patriarch only to the Empire and that not of Government but of Primacie that is as you mistake that word precedencie in place when you labour mightily to prove Pag. 154. 155.156 c. from St. Gregorie's Epistles that the Title the Greeks then pretended to and S. Gregory exclaimed against was to be Bishop and to have spiritual Jurisdiction over all Churches and Christians in the world either therefore you must grant that your Argument drawn there from St. Gregorie's words is fallacious and of no force or if it be of force and well grounded That then Iohn of Constantinople and with and after him the Patriarchs of that City pretended to be universal Governours of the whole Church both extra and intra-Imperial And as to the later Patriarchs of Constantinople seeing there is now no Christian Empire amongst them and they still retain that former Title of Vniversal Patriarchs you cannot pretend they inclose their Authorities within the Verge of the Christian Empire And that you may see what Authoritie the Constantinopolitan Patriarch assumes to himself and how plaguely he stiles himself a vice-Christ quite contrary to your groundlesse Assertion here Hieremias in his Epistle to the Lutherans of Germany prefixed before his censure of their Doctrine saies thus Si enim volueritis inquit Scriptura audieritis me bona terrae comedetis quibus sane verbis mediocritas item nostra quae ipsa Christi Domini miseratione successione quadam hic in terris ejus locum tenet ad amabilem concordiam consensum cum ea quae apud nos est Jesu Christi Ecclesia charitatem vestram cohortatur If you be willing and shall hear me saith the Scripture you shall eat the good things of the Land in which words our mediocrity likewise which by the mercy of Christ our Lord by a certain succession here upon earth holds his Christ's place Exhorts you to an amiable concord and charity with that which is with us the Church of Iesus Christ where this Patriarch of Constantinople Hieremias affirmes expresly of himself that he holds Christ's place upon earth which is to be a vice-Christ as you term it as much as the Pope esteems himself one yet sure Hieremias knew what Authoritie he had in Christ's Church now that you may know undoubtedly he speaks not of a Church of Christ which may be affirmed of every particular true Church but of the Church of Christ that is the whole Catholick visible Church he exhorts those German Lutherans to an amiable concord with that Church of Christ which is with him that is in the Government whereof he holds the place of Christ and that this is no other then the whole visible Catholick Church he declared in the last Paragraph of the eight chapter saying Et ut conâ—â—idimus ubi ei quâ—â— apud nos est sanctae Catholicae Iesu Christi Ecclesiae vos subjiâ—â—ietis c. And as we confide when you shall subject your selves to that holy and Catholick Church of Christ which is with us or belongs to us which can be meant of no other save the whole visible Church for he accounts none to be in communion with that Church which is with him save those who believe and observe all the Apostolical and Synodical traditions and all who believe and observe them to be of his communion that is all orthodox Christians which is the whole Catholick Church nor can these words quae apud nos est be so understood as if they denominated only some part of the Catholick Church to be with him and some other not with him or against him for the Greek hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if he had said the holy Catholick Church existing amongst us or with us Mr. Baxter Num. 110. And for Hieremias his Predecessor whom you mention though they disputed with him by letters Stephanus Gerlochius and Martinus Crusius did not agree in all things with him yet he still professed his desire of unity and concord with us and in the beginning of his second Answer rejoiceth that we agreed with them in so many things William Iohnson Num. 110. So do we to and labour to procure that unity with all our forces but why cast you a mist upon the point in question by saying he agreed not with them in all things what mean you by all things I had said the Greeks and others profess generally all those points of Faith with us against you wherein you differ from us and prove this out of Hieremias his Epistle you answer that the Lutherans did not agree in all things with Hieremias what all things mean you those wherein you and we differ why then have you not designed some at least of those points in difference betwixt us wherein they agree with you against us if you mean they agreed not in all things that is in some wherein we and you agree they agreed also with you us that 's true but is no Answer at all to my Assertion for I meddle not with those but disagreed they with you in the points controverted betwixt us that 's true too but it is a confirmation of my Assertion But you artificially to dissemble what you could not answer serve your self only of a general terme whereby the Reader may remain still unsatisfied whether they agree with you or us in the Points under controversie betwixt us Tell us therefore and I beseech you fail not to do it whether my Assertion be true or no in this point when you Reply to it and whether my Allegations prove it not that is whether the modern Greeks agree with the Roman Church in all points now controverted betwixt us and you except that of the Popes supremacie and whether Hieremias the Patriarch assume not to himself as true a supreme authority over the whole Church as does the Pope Mr. Baxter Num. III. Iohannes Zygomalas in his letters to Crusius 1576. May 15. saith Perspienum tibi omnibus futurum est quod in continuis causam fidei praecipue continentibus articulis consentiamus quae autem videntur consensum inter vos nos Impedire talia sunt si velit quis ut facile ea corrigere possit Gaudium in coelo super terram erit si coibit in unitatem utraque Ecclesia Idem sentiemus simul vivemus in omni concordia pace secundum Deum in sincerae Charitatis vinculo William Iohnson Num. III. To what purpose are these words cited cannot any of the Roman Church write the very same now to Lutherans But does
not Zygomalas suppose that the Protestants and they are two Churches that they were not then united into one saies he not that he hopes for such a Future Unity Gaudium in coelo supra terram erit si coibit in unitatem utraque Ecclesia c. Ergo that unity was not then actually made and that unity depended on the correction of those differences in Faith which were betwixt them which whilst they remained obstructed it now this is wholly destructive of your Novelty nay this Agreement and becoming one and the same Church as Synonimaes coibit in unitatem utraque Ecclesia et Idem sentiemus both Churches the Greeks and Lutherans shall join in unitie and we shall hold that is believe the same thing evinces that their disagreement was inconsistent with their being one Church nay besides Faith he requires a future charity and concord which argues it was then wanting Et simul vivemus in omni concordia pace secundum Deum in sincerae charitatis vinculo and sayes he we shall live together in all concord peace in God and in the bond of sincere Charity so that this very Text which you quote to prove the unity betwixt Greeks and Lutherans proves the quite contrary so choice are you in your Citations Mr. Baxter Num. 112. But as it is not the Patriarch that is the whole Greek Church so it is not their Errours in some lesser or tolerable points that prove us of two Churches or Religions William Iohnson Num. 112. Who saies he is the whole Church yet sure when the Patriarch writes concernings his own Jurisdiction he is supposed to understand the extent of it and when those of his Church shew no kind of contradiction against it neither when he writ this nor ever since and thereby give a tacite consent to it what he writes is to be esteemed as the tenet of his Church I am much joyed to hear you terme the differences in Faith betwixt you and the Grecians some lesser or tolerable points for they being in substance the very same with those betwixt you and us as the Authors confesse cited by me pag. 46. of your Edition you must consequently acknowledge the differences betwixt you and us to be some lesser or tolerable points but give me leave then to tell you that as you judge those points tolerable so must you also judge your separation from the external communion of the Greek and Roman Church intolerable for if those parts in difference be tolerable they were to have been tolerated by you without proceeding to an open and scandalous Schisme by reason of them nor will it excuse you to alledge you were forc't to separate in detestation of those things which you judged Errours otherwise you would have compell'd us by punishments to have assented to them for you were rather to have suffered patiently that force though it had been to death it self then to have made so notorious a Schisme for tolerable Errours or fear of persecution I have already shewed that every Errour in Faith against a divine truth sufficiently proposed separates the erring partie from the true visible Church of Christ. Mr. Baxter Num. 113. Whereas you say it is against all antiquity and Christianity to admit condemned Hereticks into the Church I Reply 1. I hate their condemnation rather then reverence it that even being non Judices dare condemn whole Nations without hearing one man of them speak for himself or hearing one witnesse that ever heard them defend Heresie and this merely because some few Bishops have in the dayes of all maintained Heresie and perhaps some may doe so still or rather differ from you in words while you misunderstand each other I see you have a sharp tooth against Bishops why name you them onely as maintainers of Heresies how many Bishops found you broaching or spreading heresie in the 2. first hundred yeares was either Simon Magus or Nicolaus or Cerinthus or Menander or Valentinian or Manes or Montanus Bishops and in the third Age was there not Arius and Eutyches neither of them Bishops broachers of two most pernicious Heresies as well as Nestorius and Dioscorus who were Bishops William Iohnson Num. 113. You mistake the manner of the Churches condemnation of Hereticks it is neither personal nor National save in some notorious Arch-Hereticks who either by their words or writings evidently professe or teach Heresie but general or abstractive viz. whosoever holds such or such Errours let him be accursed or we excommunicate all such as hold them c. where there can be no wrong done to any for those who de facto held them not are not cast out of the Church now when this sentence comes to Execution those who either acknowledge themselves to hold those Heresies or communicate with them who professe it are esteemed as Hereticks because they join with an heretical party against the Church and in case they profess to disbelieve their heresie and yet live in communion with them and subjection to them they become open Schismaticks separating themselves from the whole visible Church by communicating with Hereticks Mr. Baxter Num. 114. Did I find such Errours with them as with you yet first I durst charge them on no one man that I had not reason to hold guilty of them I dare not accuse whole Nations of your Errours but of all these things and of sundry words which you cite I have spoken already in two books and in the latter fully proved that you differ in many points of Faith and greater things then you call Heresies in others among your selves even your Pope's Saints and Councils and yet neither part is judged by you to be out of the Church see my Key pag. 124 125 127 128 129. and pag. 52. ad 62. William Iohnson Num. 114. You or any Christian may safely judge those Hereticks who publickly communicate and side with those who professe and teach open heresie for the very siding with them Argues a consent to their Doctrine and is a sufficient profession of it unlesse they professe publickly a difference from their heresie your recrimination is unseasonable the question is not for the present wherein or how We differ but whether You be guiltie of heresie or no our innocencie or guiltiness clears not you clear your Selves first and then you will have gained credit to accuse us 'till that be done you do nothing but divert the Question â—â—y removing it from your selves to us In your Key pag. 128. you trifle in using the words Material point Equivocally and proceeding à specie ad genus fallociously Mr. Turberville speaks of material Points against your 39. Articles saying for if they differ from them in any material point c. and you make him speak of all kinds of material points in Religion whether contrary to any Article or Ecclesiastical decree of Faith or no. Mr. Baxter Num. 115. When you say so much to prove the Greeks guiltie of manifest heresy
and pretend that it is but some novel Writers of ours that deny it as forced by your Arguments I must say that you prove but your own uncharitablenesse instead of their heresie and you shew your self a stranger to your own Writers who frequently excuse the Greeks from heresie and say the difference at the Council of Florence was found to be more about Words then Faith Thomas à Jesu de Conversâ—â—omn Gentium lib. 6. cap. 8. pag. 281. saith His tamen non obstantibus alii opinantur Graecos tantum esse Schismaticos Ita exjunioribus docet Pater Azorius 1. primae Institut moral lib. 8. cap. 20. quaest 10. Quare merito ab Ecclesia Catholica non haeretici sed Schismatici censentur appellantur it a aperte insinuat D. Bernardus no novel Protestant in Epist. ad Eugenium lib. 3. ego addo inquit de pertinacia Graecorum qui nobiscum sunt non sunt Iuncti fide pace divisi quanquam in fide ipsa claudicaverint à rectis semitis Idem aperte tenet D. Thom. Opusc. 2. ubi docet Patres Graecos in Catholico sensu esse exponendos Ratio hujus opinionis est quoniam ut praedictus Author docet in praedictis Fidei Articulis de quibus Graeci accusantur ab aliquibus ut haeretici potius nomine quamre ab Ecclesia Romana dissident Imprimis inficiantur illi Spiritum Sanctum à Patre Filioque procedere ut in Bulla unionis Eugenii 4. dicitur Existimantes Latinos sentirâ—â— Ã Patre Filioque procedere tanquam à duobus principiis cum tamen Latina doceat Eclesia procedere à duabus personis tanquaÌ„ ab uno principio spiratore quare Graeci ut unum principiuÌ„ significent dicunt SpirituÌ„ sanctuÌ„ à Patre per FiliuÌ„ procecedere ab omni aeternitate Your Paulus Veridicus Paul Harris Dean of your Academy lately in Dublin in his confutation of Bishop Usher 's Sermon saith that the Greeks Doctrine about the procession of the holy Ghost à Patre per Filium and not à Patre Filioque was such that when they had explicated it they were found to believe very Orthodoxly and Catholickly in the same matter and for such were admitted and that he findeth not any substantial Point that they differ from you in but the Primacy so the Armenians were received in the same Council of Florence many more I have read of your own Writers that all vindicate the Greeks and others that disown you from heresie I think more then I have read of Protestants that do it And do you think now that it is not a disgrace to your cause that a man of your Learning and one that I hear that hath the confidence to draw others to your opinions should yet be so unacquainted with the opinions of your own Divines and upon this mistake so confidently feign that it is our novel Writers forced to it by your Arguments that have been so charitable to these Churches against Antiquity that knew better William Iohnson Num. 115. I should have reason to take it something ill from you to accuse me at once both of uncharitablenesse and ignorance and that upon a more mistake of your own but I am resolved not to take any thing you say against Me in ill part but rather to pity and commiserate you as I really do you could not but see I speak of that Errour in the holy Ghost's procession which of late yeares has been pertinaciously defended by the Schismatical Greeks not of the expressions of the more ancient Fathers and Doctours amongst them you need not have told me for I was not so ignorant that those which S. Bernard and S. Thomas speaks of differ'd rather in Expressions then in the thing it self the Question is whether the modern Greeks and those who have held with them and particularly since the Council of Florence concerning the point of the holy Ghost's proceeding from the Father and not from the Son differ not in the thing it self I speak of these onely for my words clearly design what is now done pag. 47. in your Edit I say they must be thought to maintain manifest heresie and p. 4. Desertours of the Faith as they continue still to this day now I marvel to see this distinction of times unknown to you when our Authors and particularly S. Bonaventure took notice of it in his time and as there it is that S. Bernard distinguishes betwixt them in his time for he sayes expresly in Fide claudicaverint which signifies that at least some of them were even then deficient in Faith S. Thomas writes expresly of the ancient Greek Fathers Patres Graecos in Catholico sensu esse exponendos Harris also as you call him speaks of the same ancienter Grecians if therefore you will convince me either of uncharitablenesse or ignorance shew that our Authours affirme the modern Greeks and all those who held as they now do erre not in Faith or in the thing believed about the procession of the holy Ghost but differ onely in words or terms as you held they do not I said and still maintain they do and not the ancient Fathers amongst the Greeks of whome I speak not one word because I knew very well our Authours have ever taught and still do affirm that those Fathers say the same thing in re with us But you shall see more of this in some other work which expects the Press and wherein this point was throughly examined long before I writ that reply to you Mr. Baxter Num. 116. If the Greeks and Latines tear the Church of Christ by their condemnations of each other they may be both Schismatical as guilty of making divisions in the Church though not as dividing from the Church and if they pretend the denyal of the Christian Faith against each other as the cause you shall not draw us into the guilt of the uncharitablenesse by telling us that they know better then we If wise men fall out and fight I will not justifie either side because they are wise and therefore likelier then I to know the cause William Iohnson Num. 116. I told you before the Church of Christ cannot be divided it is so perfectly one It were well if you medled not at all with the difference betwixt them but you do meddle and contrary to both their judgements you and yours affirm they differ not now in matter of Faith concerning this Mysterie and thereby prefer you Novel Judgements before that of so large ancient and Learned Churches whom you confess here have more reason to know the true difference betwixt them then your self Do you not intermeddle deeply in it when in the next ensuing words you labour mainly to prove they differ onely in worlds Mr. Baxter Num. 117. But what need we more to open your strange mistake and unjust dealing then the Authority of your so much approved Council of Florence that received both Greeks and Armeniâ—â—ns and the
the breach Mr. Baxter Num. 119. But you say that when I have made the best of those Greeks Armenians Ethiopians Protestants I cannot deduce them successively in all Ages till Christ as a different Congregation of Christians from that which holds the Pope's Supremacie which was your Proposition Reply I have oft told you we owne no universal Informing Head but Christ in Respect to him I have proved to you that it is not my Interest or designe to prove us or them a different Congregation from you as you are Christians nor shall you tempt me to be so uncharitable as to damn or unchristen all Papists as far as you do others incomparably safer and better then your selves William Iohnson Num. 119. This is answered above no Heretick ever professed to separate from the Church as it is Christian for in so doing he must professe himself to be no Christian which no Heretick ever did yet for by professing himself no Christian he falls into the sin of Apostacie and becomes not an Heretick but an Apostate Mr. Baxter But as you are Papal and set up a new informing Head I have proved that you differ from all the ancient Churches but yet that my Cause requireth me not to make this proof but to call you to prove your own universal succession William Iohnson I have shewed above there must be alwayes some who Exercise visible Government as ordinary Governours of the whole Church and seeing a general Council is not the ordinary way of Governing the Church there must be some one who is supreme in visible Government over the whole Church this I affirm to be the Bishop of Rome and seeing there must be some one and you confesse the Roman Bishop to be the highest in place and honour me thinks even in your principles he has a stronger claim to be supream in authority also then any one singular person through the Church now if we set up the Pope as a new informing head over the whole Church as you say we do I should be much obliged if you would please to nominate the first Pope whom we set up as such a head who they were that set him up and who withstood it as a noveltie you cannot in your principles alleadge Boniface the third for the having his title as you pretend from Phocas and Phocas having no power out of the Empire could not give him any authority over the extra-imperial Pormies no not so much as precedency in place over all the extra-imperial Bishops for what reasons had they to conform themselves to the Emperours orders who had no authority over them and consequently not over the whole Church nor was the Emperour so foolish to give more then he had power to give now that Popes before Boniface's time had jurisdiction over the whole Empire you are forc't to acknowledge divers times in your reply not being able otherwise to resolve my arguments Phocas therefore neither made nor could make Boniface head over the whole Church nor was he the first who set him up over all the Churches within the Empire oblidge me therefore in nominating to me the first head so set up in your rejoynder to this I have no obligation to prove my succession my argument presses you to the proof who though you made a bold essay to produce one Congregation of Christians perpetually visible either denying and opposing the Popes universal supremacy or at least of such a nature in Church government as rendered it inconsistent with it and in this your present reply p. 92. you undertake the proof of such a visible Congregation distinct in all ages from that which hold the said supremacy yet being told by your adversary that none of the particular Congregations instanced and nominated by you in your former answer were perpetually visible as distinct from that which held the Popes supremacy in those two paragraphes you recoile and manifestly give up your cause as not being able to perform what you first undertooke Mr. Baxter Num. 120. You adde your reason because these before named were at first involved in your Congregations and then fell off as dead branches Reply this is but an untruth in a most publique matter of fact William Iohnson Num. 120. This is your bare affirmation without proof you nominate p. 23 your edit the Armenians Greeks Ethiopians Indians Protestants and no more Now it is evident by what I have said above that the first Protestants before their change were of that Congregation which held the Popes supremacy the Armenians and Greeks consented to it in the council of Florence the Ethiopians and Indians I have proved to have reconciled themselves to the Bishop of Rome since he publickely exercised and claimed the said supremacy ergo no one of those nominated by you no nor all together have been a perpetually visible Congregation distinct from that which held the Popes supremacy Mr. Baxter Num. 121. All the truth is this 1. those Indians Ethiopians Persians c. without the Empire never fell from you as to subjection as never being your subjects prove that they were and you have done a greater wonder then Baronius in all his annals William Iohnson Num. 121. I have proved it out of the Arabick edition of the nicene canons and from that very text of the council of Calcedon cap. 28 c. which you use against us Mr. Baxter Num. 122. The Greeks and all the rest within the Empire without the Roman Patriarchate are fallen from your communion if renouncing it be a fall but not from your subjection having given you but a primacy as Nilus shews and not a governing power over them William Iohnson Num. 122. You your self in the insueing replyes acknowledg a governing power over the Churches through the whole Empire and consequently over Constantinople nay you cannot deny the fact of Agapeâ—â— over Anthymus Bishop of Constantinople nor of Celestin over Nestorius c. you are therefore as much obliged to answer Nilus his argument as I am and Bell hath saved us both a labour of answering him 't is true according to what you say of being subject the Greeks hold now a subjection to the Pope and sure if they professe subjection to him they must professe themselves to be his subjects now according to you subjection may signifie no more then to be inferiour to another in place and every subject has a superiour to whom he is subject ergo they professe the Pope to be their superiour which gives him even in your principles at least a precedency before them but Nilus never granted they were in any proper sense subject to the Pope but only inferiour in place to him seeing therefore S. Gregory as we shall see hereafter declares the Bishops of Constantinople and all other Bishops in the Church to be subject to him and his sea and the Greeks now acknowledge no subjection to him it is manifest they are not only fallen from communion with him but also from their
subjection to him for no man in proper speech can say that the Mayor of York professes subjection to the Mayor of London because he acknowledges he is to take place of him in a publique meeting nay by this meanes your Church of England and Bishop of Canterbury givâ—â—ing primacy to the Pope as much as the Greeks do that is in precedency of place only may must be said according to you not to have fallen from the subjection to the Roman Church which I believe will sound harsh in their ears Mr. Baxter Num. 123. The withering therefore was in the Roman branches if the corruptions of either part may be called a withering you that are a lesser part of the Church may easily call your selves the tree and the greater part two to one the branches but these beggings do but proclaime your necessities William Iohnson Num. 123. If the Roman Church have withered in this point shew me when it begun to wither in setting up the Pope as supream and as I now told you you will really oblige me Is it not strange to hear you term my argument a begging the question when you in the very same sentence beg the question your self for without any proof at all you suppose there what is universally deny'd by us that your selves and almost all the rest of Hereticks and Schismaticks now in the world are parts of the Catholicke Church for without inclusion of them you could not affirm with any appearance of probability those who oppose the Roman Church to be twice as great as part of the Catholick Church as are those that adhere to the Roman The Second part CHAP. I. ARGUMENT Iohannes Thalaida and Flavianus NUm 124. The interest of producing the insuing instances misreported by Mr. Baxter whereupon he imposes a false obligation upon his adversarie almost in every page the appeale of Iohn Thalaida patriarch of Alexandria to Pope Felix defended Thalaidas age according to Mr. Baxters account what kind of persons Zeno Acacius Petrus Mogas Petrus Fullonis Thalaida and Calendion were Num. 125. No Authors of those ages reprehend Simplicius or Felix in condemning Acacius and justifying Thalaida Num. 127. Thalaidas appeale whether it were a strict rigorous appeale or no proves the Popes supremacy Num. 128. The Popes power exercised over the three cheif Patriarchs of the East Num. 129. The whole Church allowed Pope Felix his deprivation of Acacius c. Num. 131. c. It had been ridiculous if Flavianus patriarch of Constantinople had apealed from the second Council of Ephesus which was then esteemed a general Council the Pope and his provincial Council had not the Pope as Pope had power to reverse the sentence of that Ephesine Council Num. 137. How farre the second Council of Ephesus was a general Council Mr. Baxter Num. 124. In good time you come to give me here at last some proof of an ancient Popery as you think But first you quite forget or worse that it is not a man or two in the whole world in an Age but the universal Church whose judgement and form we are now inquiring after you are to prove that all the Churches in every age were for the Papal universal Government and so that none can be saved that is not William Iohnson Num. 124. Sir please I may tell you that you would impose upon me an obligation of proving that which cannot be inferd from the argument I sent you as I have shewed above so would you now perswade your Reader by the insueing instances that I undertook to prove what was never undertaken by me I give indeed some proof of an ancient Popery and I have proved by force of my argument which you undertake to answer that all the Church in every age was for the Papal universal Government But I never undertooke in my treating with you to prove this by instances from age to age for this I still denyed as I yet do to be any obligation of mine contracted by virtue of my arguments which requirs your proof only and meddles not with mine such a proof as that from age to age may in its due time be effected when you have given a satisfactory answer to my Argument all therefore that I undertake here is occasionally fallen upon me by reason of your bold Assertion that within four hundred years you never saw valid proof of one Papist in all the world that is one that was for the Popes universal monarchy or vice-Christ-ship thus you p. 23. whereupon I took occasion to give you som essayes in ancienter times as appears by my words p. 49. in your edit where I say thus Though therefore you profess never to have some convincing proof of this in the first four hundred years and labour to infringe it in the next ages I will make an essay to give you a taste of those innumerable proofs of the Bishops of Romes supremacy not in order only but of Power Authority and Iurisdiction over all other Bishops in the ensuing instances within the first 400 500 or 600 years whence it is evident I intended no demonstration of our perpetual visibility but only a confutation of what you pretended within or about the first five hundred years by shewing some few instances to the contrary And indeed had I undertaken to prove it in all ages since Christ I had most grosly faild in my proof since I produce none after the first six hundred years whence appears how palpably you impose upon your Reader by proceeding upon this false supposition which you repeat almost in every page in your Answer to my instances that I have not brought the consent of the whole Church in them whereas it was sufficient for my intent in confutation of your Assertion to produce any one solid instance for it in those ages Mr. Baxter Num. 125. Your first testimony is from Liberatus c. 16. John Bishop of Antioch makes an appeal to Pope Simplicius Reply 1 I see you are deceived by going upon trust But its pitty to deceive others there was no such man as John Bishop of Antioch in Simplicius raigne John of Antioch was he that made the stirs and divisions for Nestorius against Cyril and called the schismatical council at Ephesus and dyed anno 436. having raigned thirteene years as Baronius saith and eighteene as Nicephorus he dyed in Sixtus the fift's time but it s said indeed that John Bishop of Alexandria made some addresse to Simplicius of which Baronius citeth Liberatus words not c. 16 but c 18 ad Anno Dom. 483. that John being expelled by the Emperour Zenos command went first to Calendion Bishop of Antioch and so to Rome to Simplicius if Baronius were to be believed as his iudge Liberatus saith that he took from Calendion Bishop of Antioch letters to Simplicius to whom he appealed as Athanasius had done and perswaded him to write for him to Acacius Bishop of Constantinople which Simplicius did but Acacius upon the receipt of Simplicius
a Citizen of Newscastle injured in the Mayors court publikly appeal to the Mayor of Bristol and his court as knowing him to be a more impartial Judge and of equal authority with the other would not all knowing men nay the common people laugh at him Mr. Baxter Num. 134. He might appeal to the Bishop of Rome as one of his Iudges in the Council where he was to be tryed and not as alone William Iohnson Num. 134. This is worse then the former think you that Flavianus was so great a fool as to frame a Solemn appeal in writing in the presence of a general Councill from the authority of it which is to be estemed and then esteemed it self the highest Congregationall tribunall in the Christian world to a particular Councill of some few Bishops in Italy as to a higher Judge then was a general Councill this is just as if one should appeal from the Parliament to the common Council of London Mr Baxter Num. 135. And it is evident in the history that it was not the Pope but the Council that was his Iudge William Iohnson Num. 135. But made that appeal the Bishop of Rome or the Council either an higher Judge then a general Council that 's the question here if it did then you must confess the Pope in a provincial Council at least iure Ecclesiastico above a general Council in Power and Authority How will your Brethren like that Mr. Baxter Num. 136. The greatness of Rome and Primacy of order not of jurisdiction made that Bishop of special interest in the Empire William Iohnson Num. 136. But withal you must suppose them in their right witts and of ordinary Learning and Prudence as Flavianus surely was and then they will find it absurd and foolish to appeal from a general Council to a particular or to make one who has no more then Patriarchal authority as you hold the Pope has no more above a general Council Mr. Baxter Num. 137. And distressed persecuted men will appeal to those that may any whit releive them But this proves no governing power nor so much as any interest without the Empire to make the voices of Patriarks necessary in their general Councils no wonder if appellations be made from those Councils that wanted the Patriarchs consent to other Councils where they consented William Iohnson Num. 137. But here in the beginning of the Council the patriarchs were present even he of Rome by his legates so that it was not conven'd wholly against the Popes wil and had things been carried justly and canonically there might have been a perfect consent of all the Patriarchs at least there was the consent of three of them and why a particular Council gathered by consent of one only patriarck as was that in Italy should be an higher tribunal then a general Council where three were present I cannot see nor I suppose you neither Mr. Baxter Num. 138. In which as they gave Constantinople the second place without any pretence of Divine Right and frequent appeals were made to that Sea so also they gave Rome the first Sea William Iohnson Num. 138. But was there ever a solemn Canonical appeal made in and from a general Council to any Bishop of Constantinople with his provincial Council as was made here from this of Ephesus to the Pope with his that 's the point and I hope you will give some instance of it from antiquity in your next Mr. Baxter Num. 139. Adding this only that as Flavian in his necessity seeking help from the Bishop of the prime Seat in the Empire did acknowledg no more but his primacy of order by the lawes of the Empire and the Councils thereof so the Empire was not all the world nor Flavian all the Church nor any more then one man therefore if he had held as you wil never prove he did the universal Government of the Pope if you will thence argue that it was held by all the Church your consequence must needs be marvelled at by them that believe that one man is not the Catholick Church no more then seeking of help was an acknowledging an universal headship or governing power William Iohnson Num. 139. All this is answered in the former instance though Flavian were not all the Church nor half neither for where did I ever say he was or needed to say so yet he was one man at least and a good Orthodox Christian and that 's enough to confute your former assertion that within the first four hundered years you never saw any one who was for the Popes universal monarchy or vice-Christs-ship now this was all I undertook to make good in my instances as I have demonstrated above what you add that this appeal having been addressed to Simplicius by Flavianus argu'd no more then a primacy of order in Simplicius before all other Bishops will seem as strange to considering persons as if a malefactour condemned by a younger Judge at the assizes should appeal to some other more ancient amongst the Judges because he would take place of the other in Parliament CHAP. II. ARGUMENT Theodoret the council of Sardica St. Leo NUm 140. Mr. Baxter crownes his arguments before he gives them a being Theodoret seeks in his appeal to be restored to his Bishopprick of Cyre as he was by the Popes authority Num. 143. The Councill gave no new judgement of Leo. Num. 145. In virtue of the Popes having authority over general Councils it follows he had power also over extra-imperiall Churches The Sardican council rightly cited but not fully Englished me Num. 150. Of what authority the Sardican council was Num. 151. The Sardican council falsified and sent into Africa by the Donatists Num. 153. Canons of the council of perpetual force in the Church Num. 164. St. Peter unsainted by Mr. Baxter ibid. His disrepect to General Councils Num. 165. ibid. The Sardican canons give not but presuppose a Suprâ—â—am power in the Pope Mr. Baxter Num. 140. And it is undeniably evident that the Church of Constantinople and all the Greek Churches did believe the universal Primacy which in the Empire was set up to be of humane right and now changeable as I prove not only by the express testimonies of the council of Chalcedon but by the slacking of the Primacy at last in Gregories dayes on Constantinople it self whose pretence neither was nor could be any other then a humane late institution William Iohnson Num. 140. These authorities shall be answered in your second part where you urge them at large to the Council of Chalcedon something is said already Mr. Baxter Num. 141. And if the Greek Churches judged so of it in Gregories dayes and the Council of Chalcedon in Leo's dayes wee have no reason to think that they ever judged otherwise at least not in Flavianus dayes that were the same as Leo's and business done about 149. This argument I here set against all your instances at once and it is unanswerable William Iohnson Num.
141. It is really unanswerable for I see nothing to be answered in it you only say you prove it by the testimony of the Council of Chalcedon and stating the primacy at least in St. Gregories dayes in Constantinople but neither produce here any authority of that Council nor of the Pope then you come with an if it be so c. when you have not proved it is so and then say your Argument is unanswerable 't is so indeed for no man can answer an argument before it be made considering men will think it had been soon enough to honour your own arguments with the illustrious title of unanswerable when you have set them out in their full glory but very unseasonable before you have given them a being now how unanswerable your argument will prove when it has a being time will inform us Mr. Baxter Num. 142. Your next instance is of Pope Leo's restoring Theodoret upon an appeal to just judgement Reply every Bishop hath a power to discerne who is fie for his own Communion and so Leo and the Bishops of the West perceiving Theodoret to be Orthodox received him as a Catholick into their communion and so might the Bishop of Constantinople have done William Iohnson Num. 142. Was there no more in it think you men a bare receiving an Orthodox Bishop into communion what need was there of that for I read not that Theodoret was excommunicated by the false Councill of Ephesus but deposed from his Bishopprick but having been accused of Nestorianisme and as such condemned in this Councill the Pope according to the usual custome declared him Orthodox and received him into his communion it was a restoration to his Episcopal Sea which he appealed for and a reversing the unjust sentence in his absence and having no warning given him to plead his cause and defence which he sought for to Pope Leo and he was accordingly restored in the first Session of the Councill of Chalcedon and consequently by the Authority of Pope Leo and took his seat in the Councill with the other Fathers because the Bishop of Rome had judged him innocent and restored him nor is there any mencion made of the Bishops of the West but only of a restauration ordered by Leo's authority nor could the Bishop of Constantinople have don any such soveraign act as this was which you say but prove not shew me if you can ever nay appeal like this of Theodorets made from the sentence of a generall Council to any patriarch in the world save the Bishop of Rome or any Bishop thus appealing restored to his sea after deposition by a general Council save only by the Popes authority Mr. Baxter Num. 143. But when this was done the Council did not thereupon receive him and restore him to his Bishopprick no nor would heare him read the passage between Pope Leo and him no nor make a confession of his Faith but cryed out against him as a Nestorian till he had expresly Anathematiz'd Nestorius and Eutiches before the Councill and then received and Restored him so that the finall judgement was not by Leo but by the Council William Iohnson Num. 143. Here are many untruths put up together 1. First it is most certain the Councill did receive him and he sat amongst them as Bishop of Cyrus upon his Restitution by Leo though the Bishops of Palestine Egypt and Illyria excepted and exclaimed against him 2. It was not the Councill but those Bishops which opposed him Con. Chalced ac 1. for whose satisfaction he Anathemis'd Nestorius 3. The Councill did not restore him otherwise then by ratifying and approving Pope Leo's act of Restaurations which is not to have the final judgement of the cause but to consent and approve by a publick act what was justly and Canonically adjudged before which may be and is very frequently don by equall or inferiour judges if indeed the judgement of Leo had been reverst in the Councill without the recourse had to him about it you might have had some Colour to affirm the finall judgement was by the Councill Mr. Baxter Num. 244. But if in his distress he appealed as you say to a just judgement from an unjust or sought to make Leo his friend no wonder but this is no grant of an universal Soverâ—â—ignty in Leo William Iohnson Num. 144. It was an act of jurisdiction out of the Western Patriarchs therefore it could not proceed from Leo as he was Patriarch of the West so that he must have done it as having authority and judicatory power over other Patriarchals and seeing there is no reason alleadgeable why he should have power in the Patriarchals where Theodoret was Bishop more then in any other à paritate rationis it proves that he had juridical power over all the Patriarchals ergo an universal power over the whole Church at least within the Empire if you will solve this argument you must shew a disparity why Theodoret was more subject to the Sea of Rome then any other Bishop within the Empire or the rest of the Patriarchs Mr. Baxter Num. 145. And if it had granted it in the Empire that is nothing to the Churches in other Empires William Iohnson Num. 145. It is manifest by this instance that Leo had power to annull the sentence of a general Council at least which esteemed it self so nor can I see why Protestants in their principles should not account it as true a general Council as others of those times there having been present both the Emperour and the Patriarchs either by themselves or their Legates and as many or more Bishops then were in â—â—her general Councils now seeing general Councils had power over the extra-imperial Provinces as is manifest above from the Couâ—â—cils of Nice and Chalcedon which subjected the barbarous Provinces that is Russia and Muscovia c. to the Bishop of Constantinople and the two Arabia's to the Patriarch of Antioch of which some were the extra-imperial seeing I say that this instance evidences that the Bishop of Rome had power to judge of the sentence of a general Council and reverse it too he must have had power also over that which is subject to general Councils that is over the extra-imperial Provinces Mr. Baxter Num. 146. Or if he had granted it as to all the world he was but one man of the world and not the Catholick Church William Iohnson Num. 146. 'T is true Theodoret was but one man but it was not Theodoret alone who thought this appeal lawful but it was approved as such by the whole general Council of Chalcedon which was the Church representative having exercised power as well without as within the Empire and after this the whole Catholick Church was satisfied with it never having accepted against it by any Orthodox writer in or about these times nor any memory lost that the Church or any true parts of it excepted against it in your next it will be expected you either produce
Priestly power from him by his disposition c. your strange confidence in out-facing two so manifest authorities will neither credit your cause nor your self Mr. Baxter Num. 164. Indeed your annotator in sess 6. mentions some words of Juvenals that he should at least have regarded the Roman legates it being the custome that his Church de directed by that but I see no proof he brings of those words corruption William Iohnson Num. 164. My citation mentions neither Iohns appeales nor Iuvenals denuntiation but the Ephesine Councils letters to Pope Celestine wherein they reserve the last judgement concerning Iohn of Antioch to Celestine yet sure Iohns appealing to the Emperours prove no more then that it is the Custome of Hereticks to appeal from general Councils to secular Princes and Iuvenals denunciation against Iohn was not only that the Church of Antioch was to be directed but judged also which you are pleased to omit by the Church of Rome and that was not only a Custome as you barely terme it but an Apostolical ordination ut Apostolica ordinatione See the true meaning of this sentenc in Hierom. Alex disput 2. de Regione sub urbe c. 4. antiqua traditione sayes Juvenal Antiochena sedes perpetuo a Romana dirigeretur judicareturque Whence appears that these words are not the words of any Historian but are yet extant in the Council and thereby proved to be true and by them is clearly witnessed the perpetual power and authority of judging all other Seas by an argument a paritate rationis Mr. Baxter Num. 165. And it is known that Cyril of Alexandria did preside and subscribed before the Roman Legates even to the several letters of the Synode As you may see in Tom. 2. cap 23. passim William Iohnson Num. 165. It is known also he was Pope Celestine Celest. Ep. 3. Theod. Bâ—â—alsoin Photius Tit. c. 1. Niceph. L. 14. c. 34. legate in ordinary therefore sate as president in the Council and subscribed first as being constituted by Celestine to supply his place in the examination and sentencing of Nestorius in token of which he wore the Pall in celebration of Mass sent him from Celestine in time of the Councils of Ephesus which was the habit of the Roman Bishop Mr. Baxter Num. 166. But if your words were there to be found what are they to the purpose the Pope can punish the Bishops of Antioch but how why by excommunicating him true If he deserve it that is by pronouncing him unfit for Christian communion and requiring his flock and exhorting all others to avoide him William Iohnson Num. 166. I have before answered this in the example of Acatius punisht by Felix and this instance it self vt supra convinces that it was not only a negative declaration of himself and others avoiding him but of deposing him also from his Priestly office Mr. Baxter Num. 167. And thus may another Bishop do and thus did John by Cyril of Alexandria though he was himself of the inferiour seat and thus hath the Bishop of Constantinople done by the Bishops of Rome so may others William Iohnson Num. 167. What Bishops were those Iohn of Antioch a ringleader of the Nestorians and some Bishops of Constantinople why name you them not none but ejusdem farinae with Iohn of Antioch Hereticks or Schismaticks name any Bishop of Constantinople who excommunicated the Bishop of Rome and I undertake here to prove him to be either an Heretick or a Schismatick and accounted such by the Catholicks of his time That was that great and Capital crime so much exclaimed against in the Empeachment of Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria before the Fathers assembled at Chalcedon was it not that he had extended his felonious hand against Pope Leo in pronouncing an excommunication against him but shew me also that ever any inferiour or equal prelate gave out a sentence of excommunication against another of higher or equal dignity who in so doing was not condemned by the Catholicks of those times and then shew who in those dayes condemned Pope Celestine for punishing and sentencing Nestorius or Iohn of Antioch You mince all you can to depresse the Popes authority the sentence of excommunication who told you that the Pope only exhorted all others out of his proper Diocess to avoide a person excommunicated by him was not Constantinople out of the Popes flock in your opinion and did not the Pope command with threats of Gods wrath that none should give the communion to those whom he had deprived of it so my instance above in the excommunication of Acatius Or whence learnt you that excommunication was no more then to pronounce one unfit for Christian communion and no command to abstain from them produce your authorities or reject your Novelties Mr. Baxter Num. 198. non proof 15. non proof 16. Your ninth proof is from the applications that the Arians and Athanasius made to Julius ex Athan ad solit Epist. Julius in Litt. ad Arian apud Athan Apol. 1. p. 753. Theodoret lib. 2. c. 4. Athan. Apol. Zozom lib. 3. c. 7. Reply I marvell you urge such rancid instances to which you have been so fully and so often answered William Iohnson Num. 168. But I marvell not to hear you speak so confidently as you do without giving reason for your confidence it is so ordinary a thing with you If you call an instance rancid all the world must without scruple beleive it because you call it so if you say that has been often and fully answered it must be accounted as certain as if it proceed from an Oracle Think you wise men will be moved to any thing but laughter by such non proofs will any rational person yeild to you both the place of Judge and partie Mr. Baxter Num. 169. I refer you to Blondel de primatu cap. 25. sect 14.15 Whitaker de Roman Pontif p. 150 passim Dr. Feild of the Ch. l. 5. c. 35. c. William Iohnson Num. 169. 'T is a shrewd signe you aad no answer of your own worth the mentioning when you send me to Blondel Whitaker and Feild for an answer Truly Sr I have my hands too full to spend time in such needlesse messages yet had I undertaken them I perceive I had lost my labour for Whitaker in the place you cite de Roman Pontifice p. 150. hath never a word of these instances nor of the Bishops of Rome And your other citation of passim is as much as if you had said you know not where and thereby send me you know not whither Are such citations fit amongst Scholars in controversies of Religion Blondel first trifles in time figures words translations to amuse his Reader and then hath no other shift but to feign Iulius to have been freely chosen as an Arbitrator for that sole time and occasion by the Arian Legates as they might have chosen any other Bishop not considering that Arbitrators must be equally chosen
his eminent authority in that Kingdom he might do you some favour and he upon the receipt of those accusations should summon those Brethren of yours to appear before him and for not appearance condemn them and acquit and restore you would not all the World see that he exceeded his Commission No Patriarch by vertue of his Patriarchal dignity though preceeding the other in place had power to condemn any belonging to another Patriarchate if the fact were not committed within his jurisdiction without the consent of that Patriarch under whose Authority he was according to the Council of Nice Mr. Baxter Num. 176. Our own Communion with men is to be directed by the judgement of our own well informed consciences William Iohnson Num. 176. But our consciences if well regulated must avoid all those whose Communion is prohibited by the lawful Governours of Gods Church nor are private persons to avoid any whom the lawful Prelates of the Church retain in their Communion Mr. Baxter Num. 177. Julius desired not any man then to be one with a Council that should decide the Case William Iohnson Num. 177. There 's another non-proof make that appear Non-proof 18. Mr. Baxter Num. 178. Councils then had the Rule and the Patriarchs were the most honourable members of those Councils but no Rulers of them Non-proof 19. William Iohnson Num. 178. And that 's another let us see that prov'd Mr. Baxter Num. 179. Yet Zozomen and others tell you that Julius when he had done his best to befriend Athanasius and Paulus could do no good nor prevail with the Bishops of the East till the Emperours commands prevailed Non-proof 20. William Iohnson Num. 179. And that 's another cite the place in Zozomen who be those others Mr. Baxter Num. 180. Yea the Eastern Bishops tell him that he should not meddle with their proceedings no more then they did with his when he dealt with the Novatians seeing the greatness of Cities maketh not the power of one Bishop greater then another And so they took it ill that he interposed though but to call the matter to a Synode when a Patriarch was deposed William Iohnson Num. 180. What then Ergo the Pope had no Authority over them So did the Pharisees resist our Saviour the Jews Moses and Aaron and the late Rebels our most gratious Soveraign Ergo will you deduce thence they had no Authority over them But see you not how inconsequent you are to your self you said just now p. 148. that it seemed irregular that any Patriarch should be deposed without the knowledge of the Patriarch of the preceeding Sea Ergo say you the Eastern Bishops seem I suppose you mean truly and with reason or you urge that reason p. 148. without reason to have proceeded irregularly in opposing Iulius If so either this your first reason is against reason or you against your self Tradition Mr. Baxter Num. 181. Any Bishops might have attempted to relieve the oppressed as far as Julius did especially if he had such advantages as aforesaid to encourage him William Iohnson Num. 181. Another non proof why give you neither instance nor reason for what you say Mr Baxter Num. 182. All your consequences here therefore are denyed It is denyed that because Julius made this attempt that therefore he was universal Ruler in the Empire 2. It is denyed that it will thence follow if he were so that it had been by divine right any more then Constantinople had equal previledges by divine right 3 It is denyed that it hence followeth that either by divine or humane right he had any power to govern the rest of the world without the Empire Had you all you would rack these testimonies to speak it is but that he was mad by Councils and Emperours the cheif Bishop or Patriarck in a National Church I mean a Church in one Princes Dominion as the arch-Bishop of Canterbury was in England But a national or imperial Church is not the universal and withal oppressed men will seek releif from any that may help them William Iohnson Num. 182. All those consequences are proved at large in other parts of this treatise The first because this proceeding of Iulius having been approved in all ages by the whole Church there can be no other reason given of his power over the Bishops of Alexandria and others of the East save this that he was head in Government over all the Churches through the whole Empire The second that it was by divine right for it was exercised by virtue of an ancient rule or canon received in the Church as Iulius affirms which could not be that of Nice for that was instituted a very few years before Hence followes the third for Christs institution was for the whole Church not for the sole Empire CHAP. IV. ARGUMENT St. Athanasius Theodoret St. Chrysostome Innocentius NUm 182. Mr. Baxter miscites his adversaries words and then accuses him of want of Conscience for writing what he never wrote ibid. What sense Chamiers words can have whether they be referred to a Iudge or to a friend ibid. c. St. Athanasius his recourse to Iulius and effectual proceding in it and that Iulius had authority to restore him ibid. Theodorets appeal as to a Iudge acknowledged by Chamier nor is it directly contradicted by Mr. Baxter If the Pope were Theodorets lawful Iudge by way of appeal then was he also Iudge of all the Bishops in the Church Num. 184. St. Chrysostomes appeal convinces the Popes soveraign power Num. 185. 186. His appealing first to a Council hindred not his appeal afterward made to the Bishop of Rome Num. 187. None but superiours to a Council can reverse the sentence given by that Council Num. 187.188.189 How Mr. Baxter declines and Sophisticates the words of St. Chrysostome Num. 193. Whether Arcadius and Eudoxia were excommunicated by Pope Innocentius In what year Eudoxia dyed Num. 194. Mr. Baxter involves and lames the words of his adversarie Num. 201. What authority St. Ambrose had to excommunicate Theodosius which act is falliciously instanced by Mr. Baxter Mr. Baxter Num. 183. In your margin you add that concerning St. Athanasius being judged and rightly by Pope Juliu s Chamier acknowledgeth the matter of fact to be so but against all antiquity pretends that judgement to have been unjust Corruption Reply Take it not ill Sr I beseech you If I awake your conscience to tell me how you dare to write so many untruths which you knew or might know I could quickly manifest Both parts of your saying of Chamier p. 497. are untrue 1 the matter of fact is it that he denyeth He proveth to you from Zozomen's words that Athanasius did make no appeal to a judge but only fled for help to a friend he shewes you that Julius did not play the Iudge but the helper of the spoiled and that it was not an act of judgement 2 He therefore accuseth him not of wrong judging but only mentioneth his not hearing the
were the universal governours because at Nice and other Councils they sate before the legates of the Pope and in many his legates had no place Is this argument good think you O unfaithfull partiality in the matters of salvation non proof William Iohnson Num. 220. O you can do wonders but I would gladly see you doe what you say you can do You have not yet done it and I cannot believe you can do 't till I see you have don 't there is a great difference betwixt saying and doing Your groundless exclamation I regard not it is not partiality what you call so nor what you say you can prove to be so prove it in your next to be partiality Mr. Baxter Num. 221. You say they prohibited Dioscorus to sit by his order Reply 1. What then therefore he was universal governour of the Church All alike Any accuser in a Parliament or Synod may require that the accused may not sit as Iudge till he be tried fallacy 12. William Iohnson Num. 221. Your reply is fallacious procâ—â—ding ex falso supposito p. 150. See the place cited in my p. 54. Con Chal. act 3. Leo's order that Dioscorus should not sit in Council was not because he was accused but because he was condemned nor was it a bare requiring but a strickt command and injunction that he should not sit there as a Bishop of that Council Mr. Baxter Num 222.2 But did you not know that Leo's legates were not obeyed but that the Gloriosissimi judices amplissimus senatus required that the cause should be first made known and that it was not done tiâ—â— Eusebius Episcop Dorylaei had read his bill of complaint Binius Act. 1. pag. 5. Fallacy 13. William Iohnson Num. 222. No really I know it not nor I thinke you neither You commit an other fallacy by an ignoratio elenchi the Iudices Gloriosissimi c and the complaint read against him by Eusebius Epis. Dorylaei was not put as a remora to Dioscorus not sitting in the Council with the rest of the Fathers but in order to his and others publick condemnation which with great applause of the whole Council was performed in the end of the first action So skilful are you in Church history if you make not your self seem more unskilful then you are to say something which may make a noise in the ears of the unlearned It being therefore clear that Dioscorus was prohibited upon St. Leo's order to sit in Council It followes that he was universal Governour of the Church a paritate rationis ut supra for if he had power to remove the cheif Patriarch of the Church next after himself from having an Episcopal vote in a general Council which was an act of absolute jurisdiction over him much more had he power upon like grounds to remove any other inferiour Patriarck or Prelate through the whole Church there having been no proof alleadged by you that this his power was limited to the sole Empire and I having now produced many reasons that there could be no such limitation Mr. Baxter Num. 223. You say the Popes legates pronounced the Church of Rome to be Caput omnium Ecclesiarum Reply 1. What then therefore he was Governour of all the Christian world I deny the consequence You do nothing but beg not a word of proof Caput was but membrum principale the Patriarch primae sedis and that but in the Empire William Iohnson Num. 223. This consequence is made strong by the weakenes of your reply Is Caput omnium Ecclesiarum the head of all Churches no more with you then the principal member of all Churhes in the Empire that is in your new theologie one who was to take of all other Churches without any true and proper authority over them see you not in what straits you are put should some new Sabellian or Câ—â—rinthian rise up and deny that our Saviour were any more then the cheif person in the Church that is to take place before all others but without any jurisdiction or authority over the whole Church and a Catholick should labour to prove he hath authority from that place of St. Paul Coloss. 1.18 Ipse est Caput Corporis Ecclesiae he is the head of his body the Church And the Sabellian having read this book of yours Should reply as you do here to me what then therefore Christ is governour of the Christian world I deny this consequence Caput is but membrum principale head is no more then the principal part c. Would you not make pretty work with Scripture and open a gap to every novellist to elude no less yours then our proofs for Christs supream government over his Church but I see you care not whom you hurt so you can but avoide the present stroak Nay you have delivered here a precious doctrine no lesse for your she citizens at London then your good wives of Kidderminster for when their husbond teach them obedience and subjection to them from St. Paul 1 Cor. 11.3 Where he sayes that the husband is head of the wife they will have an answer ready at their fingers ends from your doctrine here that that head is no more then the principal part of the family in place but not in authority over their wives nay you have spun a fair thred also for the independency of the Protestant English Church of its head in giving ground to take away all Authority from his sacred Majestie and his royal predecessors over it in quality of heads of the English Church and making them to have no more then a bare precedency in the Church as no more then the principal members in the Church in order and dignity but not in authority But had you a little attended to those words of the Popes Legates you might have discovered they were spoke by them to prove not the bare precedency in place but soveraignty in authority for they alleadge them to corroborate the power of the Roman Church as sufficient to prohibite the sitting of Dioscorus in the Council by vertue of Pope Leo's order And you were prest as hard to finde an answer for omnium Ecclesiarum all Churches that is to say non omnium not all but only those within the Empire thus you can make all some and the whole a sole part when you have nothing else to say see you not how you give advantage to the Manichees and Menandrians c. who when one should have prest them Iohn 1.2 That our Saviour is creatour of all things they should have replyed as you do thar is not of all but only of some things not of bodies but of spirit only Are you a person fit to dispute in matters concerning conscience and salvation when rather then not reply to what cannot in reason be answered you will quite destroy the words opposed to you by your glosse upon them are not these desperate Intregues But t is very strange that the ancient Councils and Fathers
when they call the Roman Church Caput omnium Ecclesiarum head of all Churches as they doe very familiarly should allwayes according to you mean no more then the Churches within the Empire and yet should never signifie they mean no more then those if they ever doe signifie it name the place and words in any one of them and you shall be answered As to the word Caput head applied here to an original body As St. Paul declares the Church to be 1 Cor. 12.12 c. it must not only have the propriety of being the highest part in the body but also of having a power and capacity of governing and directing all the other parts as the head hath in natural bodies whereby it is evident that the legates in stiling the Roman Church the head of all Churches must be properly understood to mean that the Roman Church hath not only the cheif place but the cheif visible government and direction also over all other particular Churches Now St. Paul 1 Cor. 12.21 Composing the Church of different organical parts affirms that one amongst them is the head and by head he cannot mean our Saviour for he speaks of such a head as cannot say to the feet they are not necessary for it which cannot be true of Christ he must therefore mean a visible created head which hath need of the inferiour members as they have of it Mr. Baxter Num. 224. The Popes legates were not the Council nor judges in their own cause and not opposing signifies not alwaies a consent William Iohnson Num. 224. What if they were not the whole Council at least they spoke those words to the whole Council and I pretend no more Why should they be Iudges in their own cause seeing it was in a matter which no man then in the whole Council call'd in question or required that any new judgement should be given about it what if not opposing signifie not alwaies consent do I or need I pretend that it alwaies doth so it is sufficient for me that it argues consent here for certainly considering the matter they propose touches deeply upon the priviledges of the Fathers there assembled had they not spoken a known and unquestionable truth all the Fathers had been obliged to defend their liberties given them by our Saviour and represse this injury done them by the legates in that expression which seeing none of them did and yet every one had his full freedome to speak his minde for the Emperour had then no particular affection to the Sea of Rome it is an evident signe then all held it for a received truth so that it was the unanimous opinion and doctrine of the whole Council All therefore which I affirm is this that when any thing is publickly pronounced tending as this did in your opinion to the manifest and great disadvantage of all those who hear it some of them would contradict it if therefore noe one amongst many hundreds present offer to contradict it it is a manifest signe they conceived it no way injurious or disadvantageous to them and therefore assented to it as a most known and undeniable truth in those dayes Mr. Baxter Num. 225. This Council doe as I said expresly define the point both what your Primacy is and of how long standing and of what institution and that Constantinople on the same grounds had equal priviledges William Iohnson Num. 225. This is already toucht and shall be more fully answered in its place Mr. Baxter Num. 226. You say all the Fathers acknowledged themselves Leo's children and wrote to him as their Father Reply Of this you give me not any proof but leave me to read a 190 pages in folio to see whether you say true or not and what if you do as I believe you doe can a man of any reading be ignorant how ordinarily other Bishops were stiled Fathers even by their fellow Bishops as well as the Bishop of Rome William Iohnson Num. 226. You are deeply plunged in difficulties that you have no way to make a seeming escape but by throwing your self out of one fallacy into another See Blondel p. 997. acknowledging these words my argument is grounded in this that the Chalcedon Fathers call'd Pope Leo their Father and themselves his children and you might as you did by printing it in a different character easily perceive that the whole force of my argument was grounded in those termes their Father his children Now you wholly dissemble the answer to this and tell me that ordinarily other Bishops were stiled Fathers even by their fellow Bishops as well as the Bishop of Rome which is a pure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to my argument for one may stile another Father because he is Father to those who are his spiritual children in the Church as all Bishops are in relation to their diocesans Thouhg their equals who writ to them neither stile them their Fathers nor themselves their children as the Fathers of this Council did here style Leo and themselves Whereas you should have given an instance of some number or assembly of Bishops stiling any one their Father and themselves his children to whom they were equal and had no subjection to them nor dependance in government of them this you have not done because you could not do it whereby my argument hath received no solution from you but remaines in its full force against you As concerning your pains of reading a 190 pages in folio to finde out my citation I take so much pains to have been needless for I cite in my text the precise Epistle of that Council to Pope Leo saying in their Letter to Pope Leo which is not above two or three pages at most nor was I obliged to cite it more punctually then I did Mr. Baxter Num. 227. You adde that they humbly begged of him that the Patriarch of Constantinople might have the first place next Rome which notwithstanding the Council had consented to as had also the third general Council at Ephesus before yet they esteemed their grants of no sufficient force till they were confirmed by the Pope Reply So farre were the Council from what you fastely say of them that they put it into their canons that Constantinople should have the second place yea and equal priviledges with Rome and that they had this on the same grounds as Rome had its Primacy even because it was the Imperial â—â—eate vid. Bin. pag 133.134 col 2. William Iohnson Num. 227. I am sorry to see you in passion and that so deeply as to accuse my words of falsity either without duely examining whether they were true or false or if you did examine the place I cite quite against your conscience for these expresse words stand in the Councils Epistle to Pope Leo cited by me where speaking of their canon about the priviledges of Constantinople they say See Blondel p. 997. acknowledging these words rogamus igitur tuis decretis nostrum honor a
true but not to our purpose or mean you they desisted not from proceeding practically in conformity to them as esteeming them absolutely and compleatly obligatory whether the Pope yielded consent to them or no that 's not true For to what purpose used they so many reasons and perswasions so earnest entreaties Rogamus dignare we beseech thee vouchsafe most blessed Father to imbrace them c. had they not thought his consent necessary to the confirmation of them and that this very 28. had not the authority of a legitimate Canon of that Council as having been secretly and illegally framed neither the Judges nor Synode nor Popes Legates being present at it and very many Bishops especially those of Alexandria being departed as Blundel acknowledges pag. 966. and Leo refusing to confirm it is witnessed by Theodoret who was present in the Council by Dionysius exiguus and Theodorus Lector and the rest both Latins and Greeks who writ the Ecclesiastical History in that age and it is your task to quote some of them who inserted it into the number of the Canons of Chalcedon so that it was excluded and thereby at least suspended from being numbred with the other Canons of that Council till many years after which happily might have given occasion to St. Gregory of saying that the Council of Chalcedon in one place was falsified by the Church of Constantinople nor can it be found to have been cited as a true Canon of Chalcedon before the Trullan Conventicle mentioned it as one of them which was assembled a hundred and forty years after the council of Chalcedon CHAP. VII Agapet Anthymus St. Cyril Nestorius ARGUMENT NUm 233. Whether Pope Agapets deprivation of Anthymus Bishop of Constantinople were unjust Num. 236. Mr. Baxter is put to another desperate shift to avoid the force of Pope Gregorie the great 's words Num. 140. St. Cyril and Nestorius acknowledge the Popes Supremacy Num. 241. Celestines condemning Nestorius proves his universal authority Num. 242. No National nor Patriarchal Synode is of force to oblige any out of that Nation or Patriarchate where it is celebrated Num. 245. Whether St. Cyril Patriarch of Alexandria and President in the first Ephesine Council or Mr. Richard Baxter Minister of Kiddermunster be the wiser Num. 246. A threefold corruption of his Adversaries words Num. 247. Another corruption of his Adversaries argument Num. 248. Mr. Baxters Prophesie Num. 250. and Num. 252. His instances inapposite Num. 254. He slights the Council of Chalcedon Mr. Baxter Num. 233. That which they desired of him was what Synodes ordinarily did of Bishops of their Communion that were absent haec sicut propria amica ad decorem convenientissima dignare complecti sanctissime beatissime pater Non-proof 23. William Iohnson Num. 233. Here 's another of your Non-proofs shew if you can that Oecumenical Councils such as this at Chalcedon was did ordinarily beseech rogamus and entreat other Bishops to yeeld to what they had decreed as did here this Council St. Leo in this their Epistle to him General Councils understood the extent of their authority too well to beg of any Patriarch save him of Rome to yeeld consent to their decrees for they esteemed them all obliged to assent to them when they were approved by the Roman Bishop as appears both in this Council by the Emperours writing to all Churches to know whether they consented to it and their punishing Dioscorus the first In Epistolis ad diversas Ecclesias in fine Conc. Chalced. and Iohn of Antioch the second Oriental Patriarch and the like in that of Ephesus in condemning Nestorius c. But you use a petty sleight or two here first you say they write to Leo for his consent in the former Paragraph not specifying the manner of their writing and thereby leaving your Reader an occasion to think they might write by way of command or exaction for there are very different manners of writing one to another whereas I have declared their writing to Leo to have been by humble requests and intreaties and then in this Paragraph you say Councils ordinarily writ to Bishops in the same manner as this Council did to Leo not expressing what Councils you mean For if you speak of such Councils as were accounted in their respective times only National or Provincial 't is true they might entreat other Patriarchs and Bishops to give their approbation of them but that 's a stranger to our present matter if of general Councils which is only in question you should not have supposed but proved it Such minute underminings as these will gain you no great credit Mr. Baxter Num. 233. In your Margin you tell me that Agapet in the time of Justinian deposed Arithymus in Constantinople against the will of the Emperour and the Empress Reply And doth it follow that because he did it therefore he did it justly yea and as the Governour of that Church when Menna Bishop of Constantinople excommunicated Pope Vigilius was he not even with him and did that prove that Rome was subject unto Constantinople Niceph. l. 17. c. 26. when Dioscorus excommunicated Leo and an Eastern Synode excommunicated Julius Zozom l. 3. c. 11. that proves not that they did it justly or as his Governours Honorius the Emperour deposed Boniface Otho with a Synode deposed Johan 13. Justinian deposed Sylverius and Vigilius will you confess it therefore justly done as to the History I refer you to the full answer of Blondel to Perron cap. 25. sect 84 85. usurpation and deposing one another by rash sentences was then no rare thing Eusebius of Nicomedia threatned the deposing of Alexander of Constantinople who sure was not his subject Socrat. lib. 1. c. 37. vel 25. Acacius of Caesarea and his party depose not only Eleusius Basilius and many other but with them also Macedonius Bishop of Constantinople Socrat. lib. 2. c. 33. vel 42. did this prove Acacius the Vice-Christ what should I instance in Theophilus actions against Chrysostome or Cyrils against Johan Antiochen and many such like William Iohnson Num. 234. What will not obstinacy do rather then yeeld hitherto you have laboured to evade all the Instances I brought against you as insufficient to prove the Bishops of Rome did any act of true jurisdiction over the other Patriarchs Blond p. 438. and 439. Iustifies this proceeding of Agapet and Bishops of the East Church Now seeing this act cannot be pretended not to shew an exercise of power and jurisdiction over the Patriarch of Constantinople you confess the fact to be an act of power and superiority but alleadge it was unjust that is above the power of the Roman Bishops and then to make your plea good you demand this question of me and doth it follow that because he did it therefore he did it justly and that done to prove that consequence null you instance in many who excommunicated both Popes and other Bishops unjustly But see you not a wide
Communion with a notorious Heretick though he had been Pope William Iohnson Num. 246. We have had essayes enough of what you can do I see you are much wiser and learneder then was St. Cyril who presided in the Ephesine Council He would be first informed from Pope Celestine whether Nestorius his opinion were Heresie or no before he avoided him you if you had liv'd in his time would have taken a wiser course and have had nothing to do with never a Celestine of them all but upon your own judgement avoided him And yet you thought just now that prudence made St. Cyril so cautelous as to proceed as he did and if it were prudence in him what was it think you that mov'd you to proceed otherwise yet you even in what you say here mistake grosly the state of the question which is not whether every one was then bound to avoid a notorious Heretick for none are notorious Heretiques but such as are sufficiently declared to be so by the Church and the very same authority which declared them obliged every one to avoid them but what was here questioned was this whether private men upon their particular judgement when a novelty ariseth not yet expresly condemned by the Church are to avoid the maintainers of it as Heretiques before they be declared to be so by publique authority of those who have power to judge them and their doctrine Mr. Baxter Num. 247. The long story that you next tell is but to fill up paper that Cyril received the Popes letters that Nestorius repented not that he accused Cyril that Theodosius wrote to Celestine about a Council and many such impertinent words 2. Non-proofs 3. Corruption of my words William Iohnson Num. 247. Here are more of your non-proofs all belike is impertinent which you call so had I indeed said no more then what you make me say here I had been impertinent look upon p. 56. your Edit and you 'l find another story I say there that Celestines letters to Cyril were to execute Nestorius his condemnation and to send his condemnatory letters unto him this you dissemble which only makes the Epistle of Celestine to be a proof of his power over St. Cyril the first of the three Patriarchs before I related there the irrepentance of Nestorius I say p. 57. in your Edit that Celestine had given order in his letters to Cyril to send Celestines condemnatory letters to Nestorius this also you dissemble which is not withstanding a strong proof against you and you make me say no more then that Nestorius repented not never mentioning the occasion given him to repent Then you say I write that Theodosius writ to Celestine about a Council neither declaring as I do p. 57. that it was the general Council of Ephesus nor mentioning Pope Celestines answer both consenting to the assembling that general Council and prescribing the manner how he would have it celebrated which was my proof of Celestines Soveraign authority nor say you any thing of Celestines order given to his Legates that the Council should not again examine the cause of Nestorius but without any farther examination put his precedent condemnation of him in execution All this that is all the force of my proofs you handsomly conceal and foisting in non-proofs of your own making in place of my proofs and all this done you say my words are impertinent in what School of conscience learn't you these duplicities Mr. Baxter Num. 248. But the proof is that Cyril was the Popes chief Legate ordinary forsooth because in his absence he was the chief Patriarch therefore he is said Celestini locum tenere which he desired Corruption William Iohnson Num. 248. No that 's neither my argument nor the reason of his being Legate my argument is this p. 58. your edit Cyril being constituted by Celestine his chief Legate ordinary in the East Con. Ephes. impres Heidelberg c. 16. ibid. c. 17. ibid. c. 18. ibid. c. 65. Concil Ephes. c. 15. Marcel comes in chron Liberat. in brev c. 5. Balsam in nomo can Prosp. in chron Id. contra collatorem c. and that before the Council of Ephesus was begun or indicted now his being constituted so by Celestine you again dissemble making me say only that he was the Popes chief Legate ordinary that is as you would have it by vertue of his being the first Patriarch of the East not by Pope Celestines institution whence appears you have given no answer to my argument but miserably mangled it because you could not answer it For sure Pope Celestine neither made Cyril in that letter Patriarch of Alexandria for he was so before nor that Patriarch the chief in the Eastern Church for he was declared to be so long before the Council of Nice but by vertue of a particular order constituted Cyril his Legate ordinary as he might have done any other Patriarch had he pleased Mr. Baxter Num. 249. Well let your Pope sit highest being he so troubles all the world for it Christ will shortly bid him come down lower when he humbleth them that exalt themselves William Iohnson Num. 249. This is not replying but prophesying and would better become an exclamation in a Country Pulpit then a reply in Controversie It had been timely enough to use such Phanaticismes as these after you had either prov'd unanswerably the Pope exalted himself too high or answered fully and cleerly the arguments which prove he hath not Mr. Baxter Num. 250. That Cyril subscribed before Philip you may see Tom. 2. cap. 23. but where I may find that Philip subscribed first you tell me not William Iohnson Num. 250. When I cited the sixt action immediately after those words you might have gathered that subscription as it is to have been in the fift Mr. Baxter Num. 251. But what if the Arch-bishop of Canterbury sate highest and subscribed first in England doth it follow that he was Governour of all the world no nor of York it self neither William Iohnson Num. 250. No. It follows not because such a Council would be only National not General as that of Ephesus was but it would follow according to the antient Canons that the Arch-bishop of Canterbury presiding as Primate of the English Church had power in Government over the Bishop of York in some cases as all true Primates have over all the Bishops and Metrolitans within their Primacies Mr. Baxter Num. 252. And here you tell us of Iuvenal Act. 6. Reply 1. The Council is not divided into Acts in Binius but many Tomes and Chapters but your words are in the Notes added by your Historian but how to prove them Juvenals words I know not nor find in him or you William Iohnson Num. 252 I think you would infuse the spirit of Prophesie into me too how should I know otherwise you had the Councils in no other Edition save that of Binius I cited the sixt action of the Council which is an usual citation and full
proves evidently that there was at least one papist that is one who was for the Popes univer +sal monarchy or vice-Christship in the extent of those ages wherein you profess not to have found so much as one single person in that whole tract of time For those legates give testimony not only for that precise time of the Council but also for all precedent ages before it as I have evidenced by their words Mr. Baxter Num. 271. Yet I have given you instances in my key which I would transcribe if I thought you could not as well read print as M. S. of higher expressions then Caput fundamentum given to Andrew by Isychius and equal expressions to others as well as Rome and Peter William Iohnson Num. 271. You might have pleased to have told me where thinke you I 'me bound to were your key at my girdle as if I had nothing to doe but busie my self in reading it over to finde your wild citations Mr. Baxter Num. 272. And who is ignorant that knoweth any thing of Church history that others were called successors of Peter as well as the Bishop of Rome William Iohnson Num. 272. What successors mean you such as were received by Christians to succeed in the place of St. Peter as he was fidei columna and ecclesiae Catholicae fundamentum the pillar of Faith and foundation of the Catholick Church as the legate speakes here of him truly Sr. I confesse I am so ignorant that I know no such matter as you talke of Mr. Baxter Num. 273. And that the the Claves regni were given him is no proof that they were not given also to all the rest of the Apostles William Iohnson Num. 273. The question is not at present whether it prove absolutely they were not given to others because they were given to St. Peter but whether the legate in this sentence must not mean this to have been a priviledge peculiar to St. Peter as much as all the former were understood by him to be peculiar to St. Peter Now he could not without manifest absurdity be understood in any other sense for seeing he intended to demonstrate to the Council the preheminence of St. Peter and his successors above all others he had fallen into a grosse inconsequence had he enumerated those excelencies to shew St. Peter to be greater then were the other Apostles and his successor higher in authority then the successors of any of the Apostles should he have specified such particulars as were common with him and the rest of the Apostles seeing those are so far from proving him to be above them that they prove the quite contrary for equal priviledges common to all prove all were equal in those priviledges Mr. Baxter Num. 274. And where you say Arcadius condemneth Nestorius for contemning the command of the Apostolick sea You tell me not where to finde it I answer you still that its long since your sea begun to swell and rage but if you must have us grant you all these consequences Celestine commanded therefore he justly commanded therefore another might not as well have commanded him as one Pastor may do another though equal in the name of Christ And therefore he had power to command without the Empire over all the Catholick Church and therefore the Council was of this minde yea therefore the universal Church was of this minde that the Pope was its universal head You still are guilty of sporting about serious things and moving pitty instead of offering the least proof William Iohnson Num. 274. By what I have now writ in answer I think you will not have found me in jest in the proof of these consequences taken with due circumstances Celestine sayes the legate commanded and Nestorius was condemned by him for not obeying Celestines command and no man was either in the council or in the whole Church who had then the repute of an orthodox Christian either reprehended Celestine for commanding or justifyed Nestorius for not obeying and if any did so produce them in your next by good authority ergo it was a just command 2. It being a just command and must proceed from one who had true authority to command and against one whome you say by right of the first Council of Constantinople was the first Patriarch then in the Church had he true authority over him he must have had true authority over all those who were inferiour to him ergo there was no man to be found in the church who had power to command Celestine there the second consequence The third I prove thus he had power to command justly as is proved the highest Patriarch in the Empire and that Patriarch and the others also had power to command the Empire as I have proved above ergo Celestine had consequently power to command all those whom they commanded The fourth consequence I prove the legate said this in full and publick council and were all highly concern'd in it as is also prov'd and yet did not in the least contradict it ergo the council was of this mind that it was no abridgement to their priviledges but an establishment of their authority a prime preservative of the Churches unity and a fundamental institution of Christ in the perfect orders of Ecclesiastical Hierarchy as the legates had delivered it to the council You suppose here without any proof at all that one pastour though equal may command another in the name of Christ. Who ever taught this doctrine before you everts it not inevitably the order of Church government commanded by St. Paul for what is order but a due observance and subjection of inferiours to their respective superiours which is wholly subverted when an equal takes authority upon him to command his equal whatsoever pretence of the name of Christ he assume to glosse it for unless that conferre a real authority upon him who commands over him who is commanded he remaines his equal still that notwithstanding and then he commands without any true authority which destroyes order or if it communicate a reall authority over the person commanded it makes him superiour who commands and not equal to the other which destroyes your supposition of one equal commanding an other This made good the last consequence followes inevitably for seeing his Council has ever â—â—een reverenced and received as a true general Council and what such Councils consent to is the consent of the Catholick Church for all bodies diffusive are to confirm themselves to their true representatives it follows and that very seriously without all jesting that these consequences are so fast lockt up together that all the tuâ—â—nâ—â—s of your key will not be able to unlock them CHAP. VIII NUm 275. Why perpetual adherence to the Roman Church was promised by a Bishop who was reconciled from Schism to the Church Extra-imperial Bishops obeyed the Bishops of Rome Num. 276. Mr. Baxter forgets what his adversary undertook to prove and thereupon accuses him of not proving
Pope of Rome had the government of all the Church without the verge of the Roman Empire but only that he was to the Roman Church as the arch-bishop of Canterbury to the English Church and as between Canterbury and York so between Rome and Constantinople there have been contentions for preheminency but if you can prove Canterbury to be before York or Rome before Constantinople that will prove neither of them to be Ruler of the antipodes or of all the Christian world William Iohnson Num. 278. But if you can prove Canterbury to be not only in place and precedency but in authority and jurisdiction above York and withall above all the Metropolitans Primates and Patriarchs which were anciently within the Roman Empire because they acknowledged his authority to be above all the Prelates of God to have Christs vineyard committed to his care from Christ to be the Father to all the Bishops met in general Councils and they his professed children acknowledged by them to be their head and they as parts subject to him c. And never to have been acknowledged as supream in spirituals by these in the Empire because his authority reached as I have prov'd the Bishops of Rome to have been acknowledged by them no farther then the Empire When I say you shall have prov'd the Bishop of Canterbury to have been over all the Metropolitans Primates and Patriarchs within the Empire in this manner as I have proved the Bishop of Rome to be you will have proved Canterbury to have had all the preheminences given him by antiquity to be the Supream spiritual governour of the whole Church But seeing neither you nor any one in his right wits would ever undertake so great a peice of nonsence I should have wondered you dazle the eyes of your readers with such empty shewes as these had it not been so ordinary with you This very argument hath proved that not only one man but as you cannot deny all the Churches in the Empire acknowledge it and yet you say I have not proved one man to hold it whether this be to be termed confidence or impudence I leave to judgement Mr. Baxter Num. 279. Much less have you proved that ever any Church was of this opinion that the Pope was by divine Right the Governour of the world when you cannot prove one man of that opinion 3. much less have you proved a succession of such a Church from the Apostles having said as much as nothing to the first 300 yeares William Iohnson Num. 279. You forget and have proceeded in that act of oblivion through your whole reply that I undertook in these instances noe more then to prove against your bold assertion that within the first 600. 500. and 400 yeares there were some at least who testified the Supremacy of the Roman Bishop over the whole Church by Christs institution though therefore my proofs had not been taken out of those who flourished within the first 300 years seeing they were within the first 400 they had been of force against you But you may remember also that I cited St. Cyprian who was within the first 300 and Vincentius Lyrinensis who witnesses the same of Pope Stephen contemporary with St. Cyprian and very many of my cheif instances prove V. G. in the councils of Nice Ephesus and Chalcedon that it descended from our Saviour and had been in all ages since the Apostles and was to be in all future ages Mr. Baxter Num 380. And much less have you proved that the whole Catholique Church was of this opinion William Iohnson Num. 380. Whether I have or no let others judge Mr. Baxter Num. 381. And yet least of all have you proved that the whole Church took this Primacy of Rome to be of necessity to the very being of the Church to our salvation and not only ad melius esse as a point of order William Iohnson Num. 381. I have proved it to have been a matter ever necessary in the Church by Christs institution and therefore necessary ad esse to the being and not only ad bene esse to the perfection of the Church For seeing some Governours are essential to the Church as appears Ephes. 4. v. 11 12 13. in the order and Hierarchy of those Governours there must be some who are to be over all the rest in visible government otherwise neither could schism be avoided and unity preserved as Optatus cited hereafter affirms l. 2. contra Parmen nor would a visible body have a visible head which would be monstrous Mr. Baxter Num. 382. So that you have left your cause in shameful nakedness as if you had confessed that you can prove nothing William Iohnson N. 382. If you mean to such eyes as yours which I have demonstrated either discovered not or mis-saw the face of my arguments I grant it but all open and right sighted eyes I hope will have seen my cause so invested with grace and truth by what I have here replyed that it will have no shame to appear before heaven and earth before men and angels for its justification Mr. Baxter Num. 383. In the end you return to terms To what you say about the word Christians I only say that it s but equivocally applied to any that profess not all the essentials of Christianity of which Popery is none any more then pride is William Iohnson Num. 383. I leave it to judgement whether this answer related to my explication as of Christianity pag. 64. your edit have any sense in it For what though Popery as you conceit were no more essential to Christianity then pride is yet if a Papist hold all the essentials of Christianity as you hold he does he may be univocally a Christian. Will you say that because pride is none of the essentials of Christianity therefore no proud man holds all the essentialls of Christianity to what purpose then have you added this clause of Pride and Popery when I speak in general and abstractive terms not medling at all with particulars Now you give no satisfaction to your Reader about the clear notion of an univocal Christian you tell him here that an univocal Christian is he who believes all the essentials of Christianity but through this whole answer you never give him either a distinct catalogue of essentials or prescribe any direct rule or means to know which they are as we shall see hereafter Mr. Baxter Num. 384. About the word Monarch in good sadness do you deny the Pope to be an imperious sole Commander Which of these is it you do deny not that he is a Commander not that he is imperious not that he is sole in his Soveraignty I would either you or we knew what you hold or deny But perhaps the next words shew the difference as temporal Kings But this saith not a word wherein they differ from temporal Kings William Iohnson 384. You are really a strange man to deal withal Can any one speak more
clearly then I have done I say we hold no such Monarch in the Church as is an imperious sole Commander as temporal Kings are c. And when I have said all this in sensu conjuncto and knit my words and sense together as close as I can you go and pull all in pieces and ask me if I understand them in sensu diviso Is not this very handsome think you Should I say that Iane Shore was no honest Christian woman would you have askt me which of these is it that I deny not that she was a woman not that she was a Christian not that she was honest in her conversation would it not have been ridiculous in a high degree and if upon this you should adde after I had said she was no honest Christian woman conform to what you do here I would either you or I could know what you hold about Iane Shore Would not every one laugh at you But in sober sadness did you not understand what I denyed as plainly as what I deny of Iane Shore Hold we him to be an Imperious sole Commander as temporal Kings are whom we unanimously affirm to have no power to deprive Church Officers at his pleasure as Kings have power to put out what Officer soever they please through their whole Kingdom who is not alone to govern the Church either immediately or mediately as Kings govern their Kingdoms according to Christs institution But every Bishop being Christs Officer and not the Popes as truly as the Pope is within the precincts of his Diocess are as true Governours of the different respective parts of the Church as the Pope is of the whole Now I hope at last you understand me how Popes differ from temporal Kings Mr. Baxter Num. 385. Sure your following words shew not the difference First Kings may receive power from Christ. 2. Kings must rule in meekness charity and humility William Iohnson When we say he receives power from Christ you cannot be ignorant that we understand it of Christ as author of Christian Religion and not as author of nature and morality nor can you but know that temporal Kings as such abstract from Christian Religion and are truly Kings whether they be Christians or no they cannot therefore be said in any formal proper sense to receive power from Christ as he is head of his Church but from God as author of nature and morality Mr. Baxter Num. 386. But I think the meekness charity and humility of Popes hath been far below even wicked Kings if cruel murthering Christians for Religion and setting the world on fire may be witness as your own Histories assure us William Iohnson You tear my discourse all in pieces I join that of governing in charity c. to this as Brethren and Children and you fallaciously divide it it is not contrary to the humility of a King to account all in his Kingdom to be his vassals Substitutes Officers but it would be contrary to the humility of a Pope A King will not be thought cruel and defective in meekness if he judge a person and condemn a malefactor to death but a Pope would The rest is a pure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I spake of the Office of Popes and you of the persons I of what we hold they ought to do and you of what they do or may hap to do If any personal cruelty have been exercised by Popes let them answer it not I who have not in the least medled with it here But I see such fallacies as these in passing à jure ad factum and the like are spread thick over your whole answer yet even in this objected cruelty we must take your honest word for here 's no other proof then that you affirm at a venture our Historians assure us it is so You 'l tell us I hope in your next who those Historians are Mr. Baxter Num. 387. The Government of Kings also is for mens eternal good how ever Papists would make them but their executioners in such things William Iohnson Num. 387. Of what Kings know you not we dispute now in sensu formali that is of temporal Kings for that was my term and would you have temporal Kings that is temporal Governours as such tend to a spiritual and eternal good for if as such they tend to a spiritual end then all temporal Princes even Turks and Heathens must do so Mr. Baxter Num. 388. Brethren as such are no subjects and therefore if the Pope rule men but as brethren he rules them not by governing authority at all William Iohnson Num. 388. What mean you by brethren as such are no subjects abstractively to what purpose is it also true to say men and women as such are no subjects that is they are not subjects precisely quatenus under the formal notion of men and women for then all men and women should be subjects exclusively that is their being brethren repugnes to their being subjects Take heed that doctrine will be dangerous at Court what were not his Majesties brethren his subjects or because his Majesty ruled them but as brethren he ruled them not by any governing authority as you say here of the Pope the like is if any elder brother should be Schoolmaster or General or Magistrate over his younger brother did he not rule him by governing authority And have you not an express prophesie of two brethren major serviet minori the greater shall serve the lesser Nay calls not Christ himself his Apostles brethren will you therefore say he rul'd them not by governing authority But you I suppose very innocently fall into a grosse folly here when I say he governs them as brethren you would have my meaning to be as they are brethren by a reduplication upon the object whereas by the term as brethren I mean he governs them as brethren use or ought to be govern'd reduplicating upon the act of governing not upon the object that is to be govern'd that is the chief Governour of Christs Church is according to the will and institution of Christ to govern all Christians as a brother who is a Superiour and Governour of his brethren and ought to govern them to wit in meekness charity and humility and therefore I make all my reduplications and reflections upon the act when I say if only for one who hath received power from Christ in meekness charity and humility to govern all the rest for their eternal good as brethren or children I grant it Mr. Baxter Num. 398. Children to him we are not you must mean it but metaphorically and what mean you then Is it that he must do it in love for their good so also must Kings so that you have yet exprest no difference at all William Iohnson Num. 389. To what purpose trifle you thus do I say Christians are the Popes natural children Say I not as children and know you not that nullum simile est idem who can think they are otherwise then
metaphorical children and he a metaphorical Father but will you scruple at the Pater noster because we call God our Father and consequently our selves his children because we are not the proper and natural but his metaphorical children when you next talk of governing them in love for their good and affirm that Kings must do the like why leave you out the word eternal which is my epithite and wherein the force of my words consists and then tell me I have exprest no difference at all is this fair will not every one who hath but half an eye discover such petty slights as these Mr. Baxter Num. 390. But our question is not new nor in universal terms what Soveraignty you claim you know or should know Are you ignorant that Bellarmine Boverius and ordinarily your Writers labour to prove that the Government of the Church is Monarchical and that the Pope is the Monarch the supream head and Ruler which in English is Soveraign Are you ashamed of the very cause or Title of it which you will have necessary to our salvation William Iohnson 390. 'T is one thing to say the Government is Monarchical and another to affirm the Pope to be the Monarch as you do and Bell. cited by you does not of the whole Church without ever explicating what kind of Monarch you mean A government may be termed Monarchical which hath a great part of Monarchy in it though it be not strict and perfect Monarchy as a man may be called Angelical though he be no Angel thus our Authors and particularly Bellarmine put the Church-government to have something of the mixt in it Bell. l. 1. de Rom. pont c. 5. sect ultimo though he esteems it to incline more to Monarchy then to Aristocracy Whence appears that your inference drawn from a government thus imperfectly Monarchical to intitle the chief Governour in it the Monarch of it without all restriction as you do is of no force And of as little force is your other inference grounded in your former mistake that I am ashamed of any title which I hold necessary to salvation first prove we call the Pope Monarch and then say I am ashamed of it CHAP. IX Num. 391. Whether the title of the Vice-Christ be accounted either due or given by sufficient authority amongst Roman Catholiques to the Pope or accepted by them Num. 392. Mr. Baxter confounds Vice-Christi in place of Christ and Vice-Christus the Vice-Christ Num. 393. How far the Pope is understood to be in the place of Christ. Num. 394. He miscites his Adversaries words Num. 395. How the Vice-Christ and the Vicar of Christ differ Num. 396. Why a Deputy for a King may be called the Vice-King but a Deputy of Christ cannot be called the Vice-Christ Num. 397. Mr. Baxter makes Vice God to be a a higher title then Vice-Christ Num. 398. Mr. Baxter in place of alleadging a sufficient that is a publique authority cites Oratours Poets Encomiasticks c. and yet mistake most of those Mr. Baxter Num. 391. Next you say that you very much dislike the title of Vice-Christ as proved and insolent and utterly disclaim from it neither was it ever given by any sufficient authority to your Popes or did they ever accept of it Reply Now blessed be God that makes sin a shame to it self that the Patrons of it dare scarce own it without some paint or vizard William Iohnson Num. 391. Had you first confuted this answer and then broke out into this exclamation it had been much more seasonable but as it stands it relishes more of passion then of reason and will appear so to any who shall consider the weakness of your proofs against it whereof most consist in a pure digression by a fallacy usual to you proceeding à notione secunda ad primam from the second notion to the first or from the title to the thing it self as we shall now see Mr. Baxter Num. 392. Is not the very life of the cause between you and us whether the Pope be the universal head of the Church Vice-Christi Vicarius Christi Are not these the most common titles that Papists give them and that they take unto themselves William Iohnson Num. 392. Here you begin your fallacie Vicarius Christi is indeed a title but Vice-Christi is none the one signifies the Vicar of Christ but the other signifies in the place or stead of Christ which having no substantive or demonstrative annext to it cannot possibly be a title for of it self it signifies no determinate substance Now if you will joyn to it a substantive and say Papa est Vice-Christi the Pope is in place of Christ you may make some kind of title to it but you can never make it that about which we controvert for that is Vice-Christus the Vice-Christ so that all those who are Vice-Christi in the genitive case that is the place of Christ are not Vice-Christi in the nominative that is Vice-Christi which title onlie is in question betwixt us you were as some of your Parishioners esteemed you to govern those of Kidderminster Vice-Christi in the place of Christ were you therefore the Vice-Christ of Kiddermunster Nor is the title of universal head of the Church set down in your illimited terms here either a title acknowledged by us as due to the Pope or given to him by us For that Christ being the sole universal head of the Church which comprehends the Church militant and triumphant the term universal head signifies that which is due to Christ onlie we therefore acknowledge there is none but Christ himself according to your expression universal head of the Church nor is there any universal Vice-head nor Vice-Christ corresponding to that universal head to be found in the whole Church Nay even speaking of the sole militant Church we never say without some restriction the Pope is universal head of the Church for universal head comprises as well the internal and invisible as the visible Governour of the militant Church now we all deny that the Pope is head in the invisible government of the visible Church for that manner of government Christ only is the universal head nor say we that there is any Vice-christ or Vice-head constituted in the place of Christ in this invisible direction of the Church We therefore restrain the term universal head by this restrictive visible nor intend we to say any more then this that the Bishop of Rome is the visible head of the universal visible Church so far as it is capable of a visible government together with other Bishops who are as truely Christs officers and vice-gerents in their respective governments though subject to the Pope as he is in his government And in this sense only can he be termed a vice-Christ or vice-God that is holding the place of Christ in the visible government of his Militant Church But he cannot be stiled the vice-Christ which is the sole title about which we now contend
who decreed that there should be one every ten years Here 's a nominative case the way c. without a verb. Mr. Baxter Num. 417. The Councils that continue so many years as that at Trent did are then become an ordinary Government William Iohnson Num. 417. Here you fall into a scond Equivocation about the word ordinary that which lasts about twenty years in the Church with a soveraign power must be for the time they so continue the ordinary governour of the Church where you take ordinary for that which continues a considerable space of time See you not how handsomly you insinuate here that the late long Parliament which continued about as long as did the Council of Trent was for that time become with you and your abettors the ordinary Soveraign governour of the Kingdome and thereby his Majesty was excluded from being ordinary Sovereign over it I hope this will be noted too Mr. Baxter Num. 418. Fourthly what is given to the Church representative is by many of you given to the Church real or essential as you call it which is ordinarily existent only not capable of exerting the power it hath the singulis major ut universis minor is no rare doctrine with you William Iohnson Num. 418. Here you fumble in the dark I pray unriddle this in your next for I cannot what is that wee give to the Church real and representative wherein is the Church real not able to exert its power what mean you by singulis major and universis minor to whom apply you this or to what purpose Mr. Baxter Num. 419. Fiftly but let it be as extraordinary as you please if while these Councils sit the Pope lose his headship your Church is then two Churches specifically distinct and the form of it changeth when a Council siteth not like the Spouse of Iesus Christ. William Iohnson Num. 419. You should have done well to have prest this argument against those who hold Councils to be above the Pope it touches not me at all who am of the contrary opinion yet even those of that opinion will answer you with a wet finger that the Church hath neither then two heads nor loses the Pope his headship for he remaines chief ordinary governour of the Church in all ordinary causes and cases as well when there is as when there is not a Council and he being as ordinary head of the Church the chief president in the Council the Council is not its chief governour with exclusion of the Pope because it cannot be a true general Council but by including him in it So that he with the rest of the Bishops assembled make up the Council you cannot therefore divide the Council from him unlesse you divide him from himself so that he and a general Council are not two things adequately distant but involve him in it as a humane body involves the head or a Parliament the King Mr. Baxter Num. 420. Sixtly As your Popes are said to live in their constitutions and laws when the person dieth and your Church is not thought by you to die with them so why may not Councils do The lawes of Councils live when they sit not and the French think that these lawes are above the Pope though I shewed you even now that Julius 2. in Con. Lateran concluded otherwise of Decrees and the Council of the Popes power William Iohnson Num. 420. Let them remain in their decrees as much as you please but that will never make them the ordinary chief governours of the Church they remain no more in their degrees then did our ancient Parliaments in their Statutes yet no man dare say who is a good subject that those Parliaments were therefore the ordinary soveraign governours of the Kingdome taken exclusively without the King Mr. Baxter Num. 421. Seventhly If a Nation be governed by Triennial and so Decennial Parliaments as the highest power and Councils of State in the intervals who shall be accountable to Parliaments will you say these Parliaments are extraordinary and not the ordinary Soveraign no doubt they are And the Council of State is the Soveraign but the chief Officer or Magistrate for execution of the intervals William Iohnson Num. 421. Hitherto you have discoursed warily and covertly but now you discover openly your opinion of State government 'T is well you put an if to it and make it a conditional that will save you at a dead lift but yet every one sees by it how great an approver you were of the soveraignty of irregular Parliaments and authority of Councils of State for you speak not of what might be but what then was when you writ this but I wonder you were so bold as to let this see light as you did before something like it even since the most happy returne of his Sacred Majestie Let others judge of such passages as these Thus farre Mr. Baxter produces his answer to my argument and instances the last four pages are spent in confident repetition of what is now answered a prescription of what he would impose upon me to be Sylogistocally proved a prophesie of Christs speedy coming to judgement a wholesome admonition to take help from others to be able to encounter him scilicet a whole Army of such Pigmees as I is not able to incounter him he is so great a Giant but let the Reader judge whether something like that hath not hapned unto him which hapned to such an other whilst he exprobated and outfaced the hosts of the living God 1. Reg. 17.49.50 And it may be thought of also whether the 16 Chap. v. 6. of Esay may not be appliable to him audivimus Superbiam Moab Superbus est valde superbia ejus arrogantia ejus indignatio ejus plus quam fortitudo ejus Finally which is only worth observance he adds an earnest request to make a favorable exposition of what he feares may be thought too confident and earnest in his expressions which I freely pardon and beg a free pardon of God for him This as it is no part of his answer so can it not challenge any part of my reply I leave the whole processe to the impartial Reader and expect Mr. Baxters rejoynder Novelty Represt The third Part. In a brief Answer to Mr. Baxters second part Quest. Whether the Churches of which Protestants are Members have been visible ever since the dayes of Christ on earth CHAP. I. Mr. Baxters definitions and divisions Num. 1. He defines the Church Num. 2. His former solutions have rendred his difinition of the Church insignificant he defines Protestants the nullity of that difinition he speaks irreverently and unchristianly of the Catholique Church Whether the profession of a Protestant shew him to be as much an univocal Christian as the profession of a Papist shews him to be a Papist Num. 3. The reason why Protestants general profefsion of Christianity makes them no univocal Christians Num. 4. Mr. Baxter frames again a monster having a
visible body without a visible head Num. 5 6 7. His 6. first syllogismes are out of form and thereby are 6 Non-proofs Num. 11. Mr. Baxter 's skill in logical terms Num. 13. Whether Mr. Baxter or any formal Protestant be infallibly certain they love God and their neighbour as they ought to do Num. 15. c. 13. authorities 13. Non-proofs to shew the sufficiency of sole Scripture This question Mr. Baxter resolves affirmatively pag. 197. 1. You first prefix an explication of termes from p 197. to p. 204. which is of no concern to my argument nor of much to your answer I note only obiter these particulars p. 198. you define the universal visible Church thus It is the whole company of believers or true Christians upon earth subject to Iesus Christ their head where you first make believers and true Christians Synonimaes whereas one not baptized may be a believer but no Christian for he is made a Christian by baptism being before a Catechumen and then you assert the visible Church to consist as well of Catechumens as of baptiz'd Christians which is absonous for by baptism they are made Church-members 2. You use the word subject to Christ in your definition which according to you ut supra is equivocal and thereby unfit to be part of a definition and may signifie no more according to you then one of an inferiour rank and order who is not under the government of another so that when you say subject to Christ c. you may express no more by the word subject then that they are inferiour to Christ and that Christ is to take place of all Christians nor can you distinguish your self from this difficultie by alleadging you say they are subject to Christ their head for you speak equivocally in the word head too according to the former principles where you were forc'd to say head signifies no more then a principal member proceeding but not governing the rest In the same page you define Protestants thus Protestants are Christians protesting against or disallowing Poperie which is worse then the former for you cannot be ignorant that the first Origin of the word Protestant proceeded from the Elector of Saxony Landgrave of Hassia and some few other Prinees of their faction protesting against the imperial Edict decreed at Wormes an 1526 the observance whereof was established in the diet at Spire 1529 about the not changing any thing in the Churches practise publickly and commonly used before their times till a general Council was assembled and made decrees about it Now it is evident these Princes protested against Popery and disowned it some years before this and yet were not termed Protestants for that reason Take you your self to be a man of so uncontroulable authority as to make new impositions and give new significations to words as your fancie leades you what Call you the Greeks for some hundred of yeares Protestants because they protested against that which they esteem Popery the Popes supremacy the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son c. I am sure they execrate that appellation as much nay more then they do Popery nor were they ever termed Protestants till you call'd them so Are the new Arians in Polonia Antitrinitarians in Sylesia Socinians in Holland Hassiâ—â— â—â—n Bohemia Anabaptists Familists Montanists Millenaries Quakers in England all Protestants Protest not all these against Poperie If they be Protestants Protestants be they much good do it you with them you 'l say Arians and Antetrinitarians are no Christians but you shall see presently your arguments will prove them as true Christians as you can prove your self to be for an Arian or Antetrinitarian will say as you do here page 199. and 200. We profess our selves to be of no other Church and before men a man is to be taken of that Religion and Church of which he professeth himself to be till he be proved false in that profession pag. 199. You say Protestants in relation to our religion are as a man purged healed freed from Leprosie Plague Consumption c. then sure you make that which you call Popery to be infected with Leprocie Dr. Ferne Dr. Bramhall Plague Consumption as some of your Bretheren have done of late if so then tell me I pray in your next either that you hold the Catholick-Church in those imediately proceeding your beginnings to be spotted with Leprocy infected with the Plague and worn almost to nothing with a mortal Consumption and consequently teaching dangerous errors and therefore no man with a false conscience could remain in her external communion but must have forsaken the communion of all particular Churches in the world which is abominable in the eares of a Christian or you make it free from those foul disasters and then tell me where and which that holy visible Catholick Church was pure and unspotted from such diseases in the year 1500 neer to the time of your first Protestants beginning pag. 200. you say your profession shews you as much to be a true Christian as he doth the profession of a Papist shew him to be a Papist see you not the difference thousands and millions deny you to be true Christians and those not only friends but enemies also of the Pope as all the Greeks are notwithstanding all your profession to be so but not so much as one denies those to be Papists who profess themselves to be so 3. Pag. 200. Parag. Note you speak not say you of internal belief but of external profession but there you 'r out for whatsoever your internal sincerity be or be not your very external profession in the particulars of your belief or rather disbelief against the Roman Church shews your general profession of true christianity to be false so that the one convinces the other of falsity as in your principles an Arrian who as you presently say p. 203. is no Christian though he sincerely profess the belief of Christianity yet because that notwithstanding his particular profession of disbelief of the consubstantiality of the Son of God with his Father shews his general profession to be false 4. Page 201. 202. You renew first your error of making a visible body without a visible head for I have shew'd though Christs person be now visible yet as he is head of the millitant Church he is invisible that is he exercises immediately no visible office or action in governing his Church but all are purely internal spiritual and invisible Secondly you say he is visus seen to the triumphant Church but where finde you in your doctrine any corporal eye amongst the triumphant to see him pag. 202. num 2. you say the true Christians were very few to the Arrians in their prevalencie which you neither prove nor can prove for it is manifestly false I omit many such over-reaches as these that I may come to your proof Non-proof 1. 5. Pag. 204. Your first sylogism is out of form first having never an
universal proposition in it in place of the word those form required all those Secondly you put more in the medium of the major to wit in its parts then you do in the medium of your minor and so make it consist of 4. terms Thirdly you make the predicate of the minor the subject of the conclusion This is a hopeful beginning put your sylogism first in form and then I 'le answer it suppose all adjusted I deny your minor Protestants are no part of that Church on earth whereof Christ is head Non-proof 2. 6. Pag. 204. the second sylogism is likewise out of form having no universal proposition in it Adde all to your major to set it in form and I first deny it It is not true that all who profess true Christian Religion in all its essentials are members of Christs Church for to these essentials they may add some error or non-essential as an essential to them and thereby destroy faith as you your self cite Durandus pag. 211. and put a N. B. not a bene upon it I deny also your minor but first prove your major which you have not done Protestants professe not the true Christian Religion in all its essentials you prove that in this manner Non-proof 3. 7. Your third sylogism p. 295. is also out of form for want of an universal proposition add All to your major I grant that and deny your minor Protestants profess not so much as God hath promised salvation upon the Covenant of Grace Non-proof 4. Your fourth sylogism is also out of form not assuming the whole proposition to be proved for in that proposition was this term in the Covenant of Grace which is not to be found in this fourth sylogism To your fourth sylogism therefore page 205. supposing it were in form I deny that part of your major that Protestants have willingness and diligence to know the true meaning of all the law of nature and holy Scripture for if they were willing and diligent they would take the expositions of the universal Church and not follow their novel interpretations and private judgements I deny also that they believe with a saving divine faith any of the mysteries here named or that their profession general and particular affirm this Non-proof 5. 8. Your 5. sylogism p. 206. nu 2. is likewise out of form for want of an universal proposition make it universal and I deny your major they profess not so much as Catecumens and Competentes for those profess to believe implicitly all that was taught as matter of faith by the Catholique Church in that article I believe the Catholique Church which Protestants do not nor can they do it truly since their profest disbelief of many points evinces the contrary Non-proof 6. 9. Your 6. sylogism p. 206. nu 3. is also out of form for the same reasons add all to the major I deny your major their general profession is contradicted by their particular denial of such points as are sufficiently propounded to them as articles of faith Secondly you distinguish not betwixt being implicitly contained in general principles and being expresly contain'd in the Creeds and Scriptures Thirdly Creeds and Scriptures are not enough traditions and decrees of general Councils in matters of faith must be believed Fourthly I deny those Protestants who are such wittingly and willingly and not excused with invincible ignorance believe any article of faith at all with a supernal saving faith Thus in six sylogisms you have not so much as one in form So mighty strong is your first argument Non-proof 7. 10. Pag. 206. sect ad hominem infra p. 207. you cite Bellar. and Costerus to no purpose for our question is not of what is to be believed expresly only but of what is to be believed both expresly and implicitly respectively by all Christians 11. Your second Argument is p. 207. lit b I grant your major and deny your minor Protestants are not members of the true Church as intrinsecally informed 12. Pag. 208. you prove say you your antecedent or minor which is a Syntax in Logick and deserves a ferula for no minor can be an antecedent Pag. 208. The antecedent I deny your minor Protestants formally such have not enough to be brought to the unfeigned love of God above all things and special love to his servants and unfeigned willingness to obey him for had they this they would never have disobeyed and disbelieved all the visible Churches in the world anno 1517. as their first broachers did and they follow that disbelief to this day Pag. 208. I deny your minor what I deny in the former sylogism is not in your profession both general and particular the second shews the contrary and contradicts the first as did the Arrians ut supra 13. Pag. 208. nu 2. I deny you have any certain knowledge or feeling that you love God or his servants or willingness to obey his precepts as you ought to love and obey him if you be a formal Protestant for if you be such your heart deceives you and your false feelings delude you please to peruse Ier. 17.9 Pravum est cor hominis inscrutabile quis cognoscit illud Ego Dominus scrutans cor probans renes qui do unicuique juxta viam suam juxta fructum ad inventionum suarum And Sapient 9.14 cogitationes mortalium timidae incertae providentiae nostrae ponder a while the strange delusion which bewitched the Angel or Pastor of Laodicea Apoc. 3.17 quia dicis quia dives sum locupletatus nullius egeo nescis quia tu es miser miserabilis pauper caecus nudus consider the Pharisee Luk. 18.13 how much he was deceiv'd in his own judgement of his own state and let not that saying of the Wise man pass without reflection Ecclesiastes 9.1 Nescit homo utrum odio an amore dignus sit sed omnia in futurum servantur incerta What would you answer to a new Arrian or Antitrinitarian c. nay to a Turk or Iew which you hold to be no Christian should they urge the like knowledge and feeling in themselves against you to prove they were members of Gods true Church what you would reply to them take as said to your self 14. Pag. 209. num 2. your sylogism is not in form making the predicate of the minor the subject of the conclusion for your conclusion in form should not be as you have it Ergo the Church of which the Protestants are members hath been visible ever since the dayes of Christ on earth which is your Thesis to be proved but it ought to have been this Ergo the Church which hath been alwayes visible since the dayes of Christ on earth is that whereof the Protestants are members which is not your Thesis nor the thing you are immediately to prove but supposing it right I distinguish your major if you mean contained in volutely as in general principles I grant
spread through the world are the Catholick Church why then cite you words quite overthrowing that position out of St. Augustine pag. 230. 24. Quicunque de ipso capite ab scripturis sanctio dissentiunt etiamsi in omnibus locis inveniantur in quibus ecclesia designata est non sunt in ecclesia whosoever discents from the holy Scriptures concerning the head our Saviour though they be found in all places in which the Church is design'd yet are they not in this Catholick Church or intend you to evince that all those who profess the Essentials of Christianity as you understand them though they separate from the external communion of all visible Churches existent when they first begun communicate only amongst themselves in some particular countries are parts of the Church why then cite you the words immediately following Et rursus quicunque de ipso capite scripturis fanctis consentiunt unitati ecclesiae non communicant or as after ab ejus corpore quod est ecclesia ita dissentiunt ut eorum communio non sit cum toto quacunque diffunditur sed in aliqua parte separata inveniatur manifestum est eos non esse in ecclesia Catholica And againe whosoever consents with the holy Scripture concerning the head Christ communicate not with the unity of the Church as after but so dissent from his body which is the Church that their communion be found in some separate part it is manifest they are not in the Catholick Church Now seeing St. Augustine intends by this argument to convince the Donatists not being parts of the Catholick Church because they departed from the external communion of all particular Churches existing immediately before in their time yet it is manifest that in your opinion they held all the essentials of Christian Faith and thereby communicated with those Churches as they were Christians as much as you do you separate from external communion as much as they did it is evident that this very text cited by your self against us unanswerably confutes the substance of your whole book against me overthrowes the foundation of your key and suppresses that grand noveltie of Schismaticks being parts of the true Church O you are a stout disputer are you not 25. Pag. 231. Optatus is cited to as little purpose as was St. Augustine why distinguish you obedience and subjection from charity is not it a preserving of charity in the Church to yield subjection to Superiours is not that a part of Christian charity being a performance of a command touching the love to our neighbour otherwise you must argue thus Optatus sayes the schismatiques were charitatis desertores non subjectionis desertores desertors of charity not desertors of subjection ergo he makes no spiritual Superiours or Pastors at all essential parts of the Catholique Church nor talks of unity caused by subjection to them how like you this consequence If you admit it every old wife at Kidderminster might have tanted you and told you there needs no subjection to you from me more then to me from you so long as I am in charity with you and all men I have no need of subjection to any and therefore as you acknowledge in your answer to Iohnson pag. 231. Optatus calls the schismatiques desertors of charity not of subjection O this is a welcom doctrine to the vulgar and a precious seed of rebellion for if no subjection but a charity as amongst equals be required to the Essence of the Church why should it be essential to a common-wealth O how sweet will this sound in the ear of a Leveller But why say you he accounts not the Apostolick Roman See to be an essential part of the Catholique Church sayes he not expresly in the words now cited by me that unity is to be preserv'd through the whole Church by means of the singular Seat unica sedes of St. Peter at Rome and is not both unity and that which is necessary to preserve it essential to the Church sayes not Optatus presently after those words that this unica sedes the one only See of Rome is Dos Ecclesiae one of the Dowries or properties of the Church and are not they essential 26. Pag. 231. It is cleer Optatus means by extra septem Ecclesias out of the seven Churches no more then out of their communion as they were parts of the Catholique Church as appears from the next words you cite dissentio schisma tibi displicuit concordasti cum fratri tuo cum una Ecclesia quae est in toto orbe terrarum communicasti septem Ecclesiis memoriis Apostolorum amplexus es unitatem Dissention and Schism hath displeased thee thou hast agreed with thy brother and with one Church which is in the whole earth thou hast communicated with the seven Churches and the memories of the Apostles thou hast imbraced unity Thus you save me the labour of salving your arguments by salving them your self 27. But why cite you Optatus his words lib. 6. p. 93. in your 232. page I know not if it be not to confute and confound your grand novelty of Schismaticks properly so called being parts of Christs Church sayes he not after his description of the Catholique Church aquâ vos concisos esse from which you are cut off Why have you not added this sentence to leave your Reader doubtful whether Optatus say these Schismaticks were or were not cut off from the Church nothing surer then that but it 's most certain Optatus was in the affirmative as the full sentence declares Optat. lib. 6. Itra Parm. p. 93. which quite ruines that your novelty Thus you save me again the labour of confuting your novelties by confuting them your self Are you not a strong Disputant let the world judge that 28. Pag. 232. you say first Tertullian thought it a tiresome way to dispute with the Hereticks of and before his time out of Scripture that they were to be convinc'd by prescription and what I pray think you of the matter are you of Tertullians mind why then have you press'd so much the sufficiency of sole Scripture as the rule by which you intend to dispute against us may not we reply against you as Tertullian did against those that it is a tiresome thing to dispute with Hereticks out of Scripture and that you are to be convinc'd by prescription But these Heretick say you err'd in fundamentals tell us I pray precisely once for all which are those how shall we know otherwise whether they err'd in sole fundamentals or no Please also to tell me where Tertullian restrains his rules of prescription to such only as erre in those which you would put in the number if you were able to sum it up of fundamentals what fundamental point even in your account deny'd the Chilliasts or Millenaries the Nicolaitans the Sacramentaries mention'd by St. Ignatius as he is cited by Theod. Dial. 3. deny they any article
deliver'd in the Creed or propos'd to be expresly believed by Catecumens as necessarie to Baptism But they say you lived neer the Churches that were planted by the Apostles and how far lived your beginners from one of them were they not so neer it that everie one of them was of it before they began to novelize That 's not all say you but they were neer the Apostles daies and were those Christians who liv'd neer the Apostles daies to have another rule of faith and principles to confound Heretickes then those of succeeding ages Tertullians rule of prescription is universal and illimitted either to time or place is it not if it be not how came all insuing ages to make use of it against Hereticks of their respective ages And were the Christians in Brittanie Spain and Affrica neerer to those Churches then then they are now what perergons are these Or are those of Armenia and Graecia farther from them now then they were in Tertul. time Num. 1. pag. 232. It was the common Creed then say you and is it not now nay but you adde no other doctrine save that what mean you by other contrary doctrine to the Creed no more is it now not express'd in the Creed so were not many doctrines inculcated then by Tertullian as the holy Eucharist and Pennance where read you these express'd in the Creed which Christian mysteries notwithstanding Tertullian requires in his prescriptions Num. 2. pag. 132. if he would have all Apostolical Churches to be assured witnesses then sure Rome was not excluded why exclude you't now Num. 3. pag. 232 233. if he woâ—â—lâ—â— have the present Churches to the respective beginnings of Hereticks the immediate witnesses as you acknowledge here why refus'd you the witnesse of all immediate Churches existent in the world in your beginnings did they not all celebrate Mass pray for the dead fast Lent desire the prayer of Saints held merits of good works Confession Purgatorie c. Name those who did not hold some or all of these in those times Pag. 232. you cite Latin Texts without rendring them into English there 's something in 't what mean you when you say Tertullian understands not the Church of Rome by una Ecclesia no more then this that it was not the Church of Rome when it first begun in Jerusalem who ever contradicted you in this mean you that it was not made one visible Church by the same visible government first under our Saviour whilst he remain'd on earth then under St. Peter both before and after he became Bishop of Rome which it had under his lawful Successors the Roman Bishops in all ensuing ages that 's indeed the question and seeing Tertullian speaks here of one Church as propagated thorough the world successively from the Apostolical Churches and that of Rome was one and the chief amongst them how can Tertullian speak of the Church and not speak of the Church of Rome in this sentence and seeing also he treats here of a Church as one visible and there is no other means to render it so one if it have not one supream visible ordinary Tribunal to whom all are subject as Optatus had said above and that can neither be the Bishops diffus'd thorough the whole Church nor assembled in a general Council for that is an extraordinarie Tribunal as I have proved there must be some one supream ordinarie Pastor over all other Bishops which if it be not the Bishop of Rome pray tell me in your next who it is By this is satisfied your seven notanda pag. 234. for though Tertullian instance in the Apostolical Churches of his time whilst they agreed in faith with that of Rome as paterns of Christian faith yet experience hath told us and you cannot denie it that all the rest by departing from the faith profest in Rome fell by degrees into heresie so that now you must either say there is no Apostolical not fallen into Heresie or that the sole Roman remains pure from it and a pattern of unitie and puritie of faith to all Christians even till and at this day 29. Pag. 235. you make Tertullian speak both false Latin and non-sence by putting tenentem for tenendum 'T is not put amongst your errata's your English parenthesises as you larded the Latin Text with them three in number look methinks something odlie 30. Pag. 235. what if Tertullian in that passage send us not to the Roman Church would you have him to write nothing in his whole works but dispatches to Rome what if he call the holy Ghost only Vicarius Christi in that place sayes he therefore that he only is his Vicar cannot Christ have one invisible and another visible Vicar Why not sayes Tertullian as you here acknowledge that it is the holy Ghosts office to procure that all the Churches lose not the Apostles doctrine why then say you they have all lost it you 'l replie they have not all lost it in its essentials names Tertullian essentials he sayes the holy Ghost would never permit all Churches to leave the Apostles doctrine now that which you account non-essential was as we now suppose as much their doctrine as was that which you account essential besides ut supra what essentials were contradicted by the Millenaries Nicolaitans c yet they in Tertullians account left the Apostles doctrine but you 'l reply again those onlie are said to leave the Apostles doctrine who leave all their doctrine not those who hold some points though they leave others Then no Heretick can be said to have left the Apostles doctrine for never did any leave it all then though the Church should deny some articles of the Creed and hold others it could not be said to have left the Apostles doctrine you 'l bring I see the Church at last to a fair pass I am glad to see you so ingenuous as to cite the words of Tertullian ecquid verisimili est c. but should have been more satisfied had you English'd them He saies there that it is unlikely all Churches should agree in one and the same errour so that when many agree in one it is no errour but tradition and then demands whether any one have the audaciousness to say those err'd who deliver'd such a doctrine How like you this did not all the visible Churches in the world deriveable from the Apostles agree in the celebration of Mass real Sacrifice desiring the prayers of Saints in heaven praying for the dead fasting in Lent c. immediately before Luther begun to play the Novelist name me any such Church who did not ergo non est erratum sed traditum therefore these are no errours but traditions according to Tertullians doctrine here you are an excellent confuter of your self 31. Pag. 236. you cite Tertullian again reckoning Smirna with many others before Rome Answer it was enough for illustrating Tertullians argument prest there of reducing Churches to their first Originals to bring any instance
Apostoloâ—â—um Capuâ—â— Petrus unde Cephas appellatus est In qua una Cathedra unitâ—â—s ab omnibus servaretur ne caeteri Apostoli singuli sibi quisque defenderent Ut jam Schismaticus peccator esset qui contra singularem Cathedram alteram collocaret Ergo Cathedra unica quae est prima de dotibus sedit prior Petrus cui successit Linus c. Therefore sayes Optatus thou canst not deny that thou knowest in the City of Rome the Episcopal chaire was first given to Peter wherein sate the head of all the Apostles Peter whence he is called Cephas In which one chaire unity should be kept by all least every one of the rest of the Apostles should defend another chair to himselfe That now he should be a Schismatick and a sinner who should erect another chaire against this that is single or one only therefore in this only chair which is one of the dowries of the Church first sate Peter to whom Linus succeeded c. Thus farr Optatus and then he reckons up seven and thirtie Popes succeeding one another to Ciricius who sate in his time then adds Cum quo nobis totus orbis commercio formarum in una communionis societate concordat Literarum supplendum videtur with whom Ciricius the whole world accords with us by the correspondence of formed Letters This done he relates that this truth of unity in faith and communion was then a thing so notoriously known throughout the whole Christian world for a mark of a true Christian that the Donatists themselves to have some pretence to it even from their first beginning sent one of their partie to be Bishop of the African Donatists in Rome and still continued the succession of those Donatists Bishops there to the number of four whose names he mentions so ambitious were they of having at least a shadow of communicating with a Bishop at Rome seeing they could never have it with the true Bishop of Rome as Optatus notes here St. Chrysostome (t) Orat. Encom in Petrum Paulum orat 5. contr Iudeos hom 83 in Math. hom 87. in Ioan. hom 80. ad po Anteoch stiles St. Peter Doctour or Teacher of the Apostles and that he was the first of the Apostles brought under his subjection the whole world and that Christ built his Church upon him The top of the Apostolical Colledge that he was President of the Church throughout the whole world St. Augustine (u) In questi novi test q. 75 in fine That all titles of Authority next after Christ were in St. Peter that he was the head to be Pastor of Christs flock that our Saviour praying for St. Peter pray'd for all the Apostles (x) Serm. 15. de Sanctis Serm. 16. because what is done for a Superiour or Governour is done for all those who are under his charge that he was the foundation of the Church by virtue of our Saviours words upon this rock I will build my Church he calls the Roman Sea the Sea Apostolick absolutely (y) Lit. 2. contr lit petil c. 51. (z) Himno cont partem Donati in initio That the succession of the Roman Bishops is the rock which the gates of Hell do not overcome I omit for brevity sake many other holy Fathers of those ages hoping these will be a sufficient testimony of St. Peters and the Roman Bishops authority not within the Empire only but through the whole Christian world 44. To your fift Argument p. 251. I deny your Antecedent you prove it by an outfacing confidence in five particulars to the first and second I answer it is not necessary he should either have chosen or ordain'd them nor authorize any other to the validitie of ordaining them nor that they should receive their Episcopal power of ordaining from him but their Patriarchal power was from him as I have proved above in that he both restored and deposed those Patriarchs as occasion requir'd To your third the lawes and canons of the Church they receiv'd and those were confirm'd by his authority To your fourth I have evidenced they were commanded and judged by him To your fift I deny the Patriarch of Constantinople to be equal with him in all things nor can you prove it No nor so much as essay to prove it without contradicting your self who grant him a precedency of place before the Bishop of Constantinople which is one priviledge CHAP. IV. St. Gregories doctrine about universal Bishop Num. 45. In what sence St. Gregory condemn'd the title of universal Bishop how cleerly he attributes to St. Peter the Soveraign authority over the whole Church by Christs authority and consequently to his lawful Succâ—â—ssors after his death the Bishops of Rome Num. 47 Whether the title of universal were offered St. Leo by the Council of Chalcedon why St. Gregory refus'd and condemn'd that title Num. 52. Mr. Baxter contradicts St. Gregory and himself and brings all he hath objected in 8. or 10. pages to nothing Num. 53 54 55. how various he is in his accounts Num. 57. into what difficulties Mr. Baxter casts himself 45. Pag. 253. You trifle about the title of universal Bishop or Patriarch this St. Gregory took to be full of pride and insolency and injurious to all Patriarchs and Bishops in the Church because it was capable of this signification that he was the universal Bishop of the whole Church so that there were no other true and effectual Bishops in the whole Church save himself and the rest were not Christs but his officers nor receiving their power from Christ but from him this he insinuates in the words you cite here and after sayes Iam vos Episcopi non estis if once an universal Bishop were admitted in the Church then all the rest were no longer Bishops for this reason this holy Pope refused and condemn'd this title but as for the thing it self which is in controversie betwixt us that the Pope hath power and jurisdiction over the whole Church we have above proved St. Gregory to be most positive in it in several passages of his works See St. Gregories Epistles throughout nor was there every any Pope exercised more acts of jurisdiction through the whole Church as occasion required then he did And in his Epistles themselves even in those he writ in time of this controversie with Iohn of Constantinople he gives most evident proofs of it Ep. lib. 1. ep 24. he sayes thus Hinc namque est quod Petrus authore Deo principatum tenens a bene urgente Cornelio sese ei humiliter prosternanti immoderatius venerari recusavit Hence it is that Peter holding the principality by Gods authority or God being the author refused to be immoderately venerated by good Cornelius who prostrated himself unto him where he attributes St. Peters principality to the institution of God that is of our Saviour but then presently St. Gregory addes that when St. Peter dealt with Ananias
mox quanta potentia super caeteros excussit ostendit summum se intra Ecclesiam contra peccata recoluit He corroborated himself as the highest within the Church against sin N. B. he sayes summā intra Ecclesiam non intra imperium the highest within the Church not within the Empire And ep 32. ad Maurit Cunctis ergo Evangelium scientibus liquet quod voce dominica sancto omnium Apostolorum Petro principi Apostolo totius Ecclesiae cura commissa est cum totius Ecclesiae principatus ei committitur tamen universalis Episcopus non vocatur It is manifest to all who know the Gospel that by the voice of our Lord the care of the whole Church is committed to Peter the care and principality of the whole Church is committed to him and yet he is not call'd the universal Bishop Nor can you say with reason as you pretend that the rest of the Apostles had the care of the whole Church committed to them by our Saviour as St. Peter had For he had it sayes St. Gregory as being Prince of the Apostles themselves and so had not only the care of the people and inferiour Pastors and Prelates but of the very Apostles committed to him and in this exceeded all the other Apostles as having the care of the whole Church people Pastors Bishops Apostles committed to him by our Saviour which no other had the same nor said he to any of them absolutely feed my Lambes feed my Sheep that is all my Lambes all my Sheep but to him Thus St. Paul when he saith the care of all Churches lay upon him he includes not the Apostles themselves as never having challenged nor ever having ascribed to him by antiquity to be princeps Apostolorum Prince of the Apostles as St. Peter had Beside the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. 11.28 signifies a soliditude or anctious care which he took for all the Churches which might have been taken for them out of an excess of charity extended to all though he had had no power or care commited to him by our Saviour as St. Peter had over them See you not the care not of the Churches within the Empire as you fancy but of the whole Church as now declared not by humane right from Fathers or Councils as you imagin but by the voice of Christ himself was committed to St. Peter and this was no secret in St. Gregories dayes nor a thing known to many or most but to all sayes this holy Doctor who knew the Gospel And hence also appears the difference betwixt the title of universal and the thing it self controverted betwixt you and me which you would have signified by that title of having care and power committed to one from Christ over the whole Church this second sayes St. Gregory St. Peter had but not the first and this difference appears yet more evidently for the holy Pope instances also in the high Priest in Moses Law as you acknowledge page 265. who as all men know had not only precedency of place but real power and authority over the whole Church of the Jews and yet sayes he was not call'd universal Now this being St. Gregories doctrine in relation to St. Peter and our Saviour having subjected his Church under the care and providence of St. Peter as supream visible Governour in his place after his Ascention into Heaven it will follow that our Saviour judged this government alwayes necessary for his Church for the very same reason which made it necessary in the Apostles time evince it to be necessary in all succeeding ages this government therefore was to be perpetuated in his Church and seeing it was fix'd upon St. Peter by our Saviour it must fall upon St. Peters lawful successors after his death and seeing none can claim that succession save the supream Bishop for he of Antioch succeeded him in his life time and therefore could not have that soveraign power derived to him for St. Peter retained that as long as he lived as all acknowledge none save the Bishop of Rome can claim the care of the universal Church committed to him by vertue of Christs institution Ergo he and he only is the ordinary supream visible Governour of the whole Church of Christ in St. Gregories principles 46. But St. Gregory is not only positive in the principle but in the sequel also in relation to St. Peters successour at Rome for l. 4. ep 36. ad Eulog Alexandrinum Anastas Antioch speaking of the Constantinopolitane Synod which had given the title of universal to Iohn of Canstantinople he sayes thus Idem decessor meus ex authoritate sancti Petri directis litteris cassavit That his Predecessor had annul'd that Council by the authority of St. Peter behold the Roman Bishops used the authority of St. Peter and by power of that invalidated a Council collected out of their Patriarchate which shews that St. Peters authority descends down to his successors the Roman Bishops and that having been extended over the universal Church the successors also have the same extent of authority in vertue of their first predecessor St. Peter Now this phrase of exercising acts of government in the Church was ordinarily exprest by doing them by the authority of St. Peter as appears in a hundred passages of the ancients This annulling the acts of that Constantinopolitan Synod is again asserted by St. Gregory lib. 4. ep 34. ad Constant. Agustam where treating of Iohn of Constantinople he sayes Ita ut sanctae memoriae decessoris mei tempore ascribi se in Synodo See the like Text cited above lib. 7. ep 65. lib. 2. ep 37. lib. 7. ep 64. lib. 1. ep 72. tali hoc superbo vocabulo faceret quamvis cuncta acta illius Synodi sede contradicente Apostolicâ soluta sunt So that he John of Constantinople procur'd himself to be honour'd with that proud title in a Synod although all the acts of that Synod be dissolved the Apostolical See contradicting them Nor shews St. Gregory the authority of his predecessor only but his own also over the Bishops of Constantinople for lib. 4. ep ep 38. ad Ioan. constant Quicquid facere humiliter debui non omisi sed si in mea correptione despiciar restat at Ecclesiam debeam adhibere whatsoever I ought to do in humility I have not omitted but if I be despis'd in my correction it remains that I must use the Church that is as he treats immediately before use the authority of the Church in casting him out of it as a Heathen and Publican because he refused to hear the Church And again lib. 7. ep ep 70. ad Episcop Thessalon alios complures After he had strictly prohibited them to give any consent to the title of universal Bishop he addes si quis neglexerit a beati Petri Apostolorum principis pace se noverit segregatum If any one of you neglect this my command let him know
that he is segregated or divided from the peace of St. Peter that is from the communion of the Catholique Church What follows for six leaves together is nothing but a farago of equivocations misconceits contradictions p. 154. after you your self had cited St. Greg. words that this title was offer'd him per Concilium Chalcedonense by the Council of Chalcedon you say it was but a brag of his and that it was offer'd only by two Deacons in the Council 47. Thus you first cite authors against us and then accuse them of vanities and falsity when those very citations which you cite for your self make against you the question is not what is or is not now extant in the Council of Chalcedon or wherein St. Gregory grounded his sayings but whether St. Gregory affirms that this title was offer'd him in that Council as you confess by citing his words he does and is it fit for so mean a worm as you are to make this most honourable and holy Pope the Apostle of our Nation to be a bragger when he relates what pass'd in general Councils But now let us see a piece of your skill in History first you say the title was writ by two Now Blundel p. 452. acknowledges there was four and Barron ad an 451. num 32. sayes they were varii clerici alii Alexandrini then say you these two were Deacons Blundel sayes no such matter but that they were particular persons and Barronius that they were clerici and others Next you add they had no votes in the Council what wonder 's that when they did not so much as sit in it You say the names of those who compos'd those bills libellos against Dioscorus were Theodorus and Ischirion who as they were only those who offer'd them to the Council in the names of their Authors the bills being compos'd by others as well as by them after his you call those writings libels on purpose to disgrace them as it may seem for though they be called libelli that is little writings in Latin yet the word libels in English is alwayes taken in a bad sence and signifies a a false seditious infamous pamphlet but this you thought a fitter name for them because they had a superscription containing the title of universal Patriarch given to Pope Leo never considering what a disgrace you put upon that holy Council by making it a favourer and receiver of libels but suppose St. Greg. had had no other ground of his so constant affirmation that the title of universal Patriarch offer'd him by those Clerks of Alexandria in the Council of Chalcedon read publickly and no way disallowed by any one in the Council when it concern'd them so much ut supra yet this very thing convinces that he thought such a â—â—acite approbation was sufficient to affirm it was offer'd him not only in the Council but per consilium by the Council of Chalcedon Next page 254. You shew your skill in Grammar and argue that if the thing were due signified by the title of universal the name was also due never reflecting that one word may be taken in divers senses whereof one may agree with one particular thing signified and not the other Thus Tyrannus signified a King in the ancient signification but now a Tyrant only thus Minister in Latin signifies both a Minister and a servant c. Nay you your self confess and that is one of your contradictions that the Council offered it not to him in that sense wherein it signifies an vniversal governour of the Church but in an other now because this word beside the moderate signification in which the Council offer'd it is capable of another most pernicious and ante-Christian sense as I have declared St. Gregory thought it undue and unfit to be accepted because he esteemed himself oblig'd to avoid all appearance of evil and never accept of any title which was apt to breed publick scandal in the Church 48. Your next work is pag. 255. to confound those two significations of this word or the thing it self for that which is to be debated betwixt us is not what St. Gregory judged to be the thing signified by this word for that was most wicked and unchristian but the being the supream visible governour of Christs Militant Church yet so that inferiour Bishops and Pastours are true governours also each of his portion and immediate officers and Vice-gerents of Christ receiving their original power from him and not from the Pope which may also be signified by the word universal Now you shift cunningly from this second to the first and thereby work a confusion in your whole discourse and deceive your reader you take it in the first bad signification or the unchristian thing signified by it as St. Greg. understood it pag. 254. then say it is plain that it is the thing as well as the name that St. Gregory wrote against but that is not the thing now debated betwixt us but that which St. Greg. took to be signifyed by that word which we disallow asmuch as he did or you can do 49. Page 255. num 2. You equivocate againe about the taking away Episcopacie by that title for we affirm not that St. Gregory thought or Iohn of Constantinople either to expel all Bishops directly crudely out of the Church as you and your zealous brethren lately did out of the English Hierarchy But that although they remain'd still in the possession of their former titles and office of Bishops yet in effect according to the malignancie of this proud title St. Gregory thought the virtue and proper force of Episcopacie to be ennervated that is that whosoever made himself universal Bishop made himself Bishop of every particular Diocess in the Church in capite and thereby the rest who were possest of those Diocesses held their titles as from him as his vicars a moveable at pleasure by him as it were his servants or officers And though happily Iohn of Constantinople penetrated not so deep into the malignancy of this title Yet St. Gregory might suppose he did or fear he would do therefore would not permit so dangerous a title in the Church by force whereof one might lay a claim so obnoxius to and destructive of Ecclesiastial Hierarchy and this is that which St. Gregory signifies that Iohn by force of that title would subjugate all Christs members to himself that is make them his officers and vicars holding their Original powers from him and not immediatly from Christ. Now to say as you adjoyn that this is the very form of Popery is nothing but either your calumnie or want of true understanding of our doctrine wherewith you ought to have bin furnished before you had taken to write so bitterly against us We subject no Bishop according to his Episcopal power of ordination or original power of jurisdiction in his Diocess to the Pope no more then are the Collonels or Captaines of an Army who recieve their
Patents and Commissions immediately from the King subject to the general in order to their respective commands but are as truly Officers of the King as the general is nor can the General displace any of them at his pleasure as the King can do though he has power to command them upon the Kings service or to correct punish or displace them when they give sufficient cause for that is also belonging to the Kings service Now you had not consideration enough to see this difference t' was not some will say for want of ignorance Now if we take the word universal in the malignant signification it will follow that if such an universal Bishop fall the Church falls with him because there will be no other true Pastour to maintain her in the truth through the whole Church the rest being not absolute pastours but his Officers 50. Page 257. Is spent in reciting St. Gregories execrations against the title of universal which touch'd not our controversie 51. Page 258. Whether your reply or Bellar. answer be more miserable I leave to the Reader he speaks of a Vicar to sinful man and you answer t is no indignity to a Bishop to be a Vicar of Christ the eternal God next you equivocate again num 2. the question is not what Iohn thought or pretended by that title who can prove or disprove evidently what were his secret thoughts but what St. Gregory expresses himself to judge of his pretences either what he did think or probably speaking might be judged to think by assuming that title Now that St. Gregory thought such to be Iohns pretensions by that title is out of question 52. Page 258.259 num 3. You make Pope Gregory his exceed in censure of Iohns pretensions in assuming that title and thereby take away all force from those very citations which you cite against us so strong a disputant are you against your self why should you think groundless discourses should be of any force against your adversarie nay you are so favourable to St. Iohn and so froward to St. Gregory that you make the one pretend no farther then to a precedency of place before all other Bishops which he had before in relation to all save only the Bishop of Rome so that it was not in reallity a subjection of all the members of Christ to him which he sought by that title supposing that it included no more then a primacy of order or precedency but that he sought only by that title having before precedency before all the rest to obtain precedencie before one more then he had that is the Bishop of Rome And for St. Gregory you make him an arrand lyer for he sayes neither himself nor any of his predecessours ever accepted of that proud title and yet if it were no more but a supremacy of place before all not an universal government as you say here it was not you your felf acknowledge that he and all his predecessors at least since the Council of Nice accepted of it nay you will make St. Gregory speak absurdly and ridiculously in inveighing so earnestly against Iohn of Constantinople as a forerunner of Anti-Christ a prophane person a destroyer of Episcopal dignitie c. For having pretended no more then to take place of the Pope whereas you say here the Pope had then no rite to nor possession in that precedency of place but only striv'd for it and why then might not Iohn strive also for't against him without blasphemy or Anti-Christanism What say you of the Greeks refusing to have the universal government of the Church I have above confuted out of Hieremius against the Lutherans 53. Page 259. The text you urge proves no more then the former and shews the truth of my answer the like is of page 260. That title as subjecting all Christs members to one as their universal Bishop as though they had no other Bishop nor true Pastour but him is as manifestly against Christ as if a General should subject all the souldiers and Officers under him as if he were their sole commander by immediate commission from the King and the rest by commission from him would be against the King 54. Page 261. The words you urge do manifestly illustrate my interpretation of St. Gregory when he sayes Et solus omnibus praeesse videretur for in our opinion it is not true that the Pope solus omnibus praeest is alone above all for all Christians have some other above them then the Pope as he is supream governour of the Church videlicet their respective Bishops and Pastours but in the sense St. Gregory speakes of the universal Bishop only is above all there being no others but such as have their authority from him and govern as his Officers in his place and by his authority 55. Page 261. Your first reply to Bellarm. is now answer'd t' was but two Deacons three leaves of and now t is two or three they 'l increase in time like Falstafs blades in buckerome The Fathers of the Council cal'd him not only head or head-Bishop as London is cal'd the head City but they cal'd him their head and themselves the members of that body whereof he was head and said that he governed them as the head governs the members Tu sicut caput Membris prae eras ut supra To number the third p. 262. t' was first two then on the other side of the leaf it increased to two or three Deacons who offer'd St. Leo this title and without the Councils approbation and on this side it is the whole Council according to St. Gregory whose words you cite against us and therefore must esteem them true which consisted of thrice 200 Bishops Falstafs bounce buckerome was nothing to this increase Next you fall into a fallacie ex insufficiente enumeratione partium It was neither in the sense now explicated he thought it was offered by the Council nor as he was Episcopus primae sedis Bishop of the first sea in your sense i. e. The first in place order or precedency only but as it signified the supream Bishop who governed all other Bishops though they were as true and proper governours of their respective flocks as he was of his which immediate power and commission from our Saviour as Colonels and Captaines are govern'd by their General To num 3. Nor have to this day any Roman Bishop incerted this name of universal into their titles as the Bishops of Constantinople doe But contrary wise ever since this proud title was assumed by the Bishops of Constantinople the Bishops of Rome have inserted this humble title into theirs of Servi servorum Dei Servant of the servants of God as may be seen in St. Gregories Epistles written after that time to which is prefixed by him that humble title Gregorius servus servorum Dei But if it signified no more then that the Roman Bishop is the first in place before all others why might he not use it seeing you
acknowledge it to be his due you can give me no other reason for this then because the word universal is capable of a worse signification and therefore to be avoided which is the very reason I give you why St. Gregory both refused it and inveighed so much against it 56. How the rest of the Apostles had the care of the whole Church you oppose Bellar. p. 262. sect 2. To your first answer I have now replyed To your n. 2. No man questions St. Peters being a member of Christs Church under Christ the head but so is every Bishop a member of the Church which hinders not their being true Governours and visible heads of their respective Diocesses so was the high Priest amongst the Jews a member of the Church next under God the absolute chief head yet was withal indued with the power of governing visibly the whole Jewish Church as all grant 57. Pag. 262. But see you not into what bryars you have cast your self if you follow the ordinary Edition read it as you do thus certe Petrus Apostolus primum membrum sanctae universalis Ecclesiae est Peter the Apostle is the first member of the holy universal Church You establish St. Peters supremacy for what is primum membrum sanctae universalis Ecclesiae is it in place only then the Bishops of Rome as St. Peters successors have their precedency in place from him and not conferr'd upon them by the Fathers which destroyes the main ground of your novelty you cannot therefore say it is a naked precedency in place it must therefore have been a primacy over the whole Church in government as was that of the other Apostles in their singular jurisdictions yet was he not to be stiled absolutely head of the whole Church for the reasons above declar'd But if you follow the lection of Mr. Iames whom I credit as much as you do Mr. Ross you will make a fair piece of non-sence of St. Gregories words for they constitute St. Peter no more then a common member of the Church membrum sanctae universalis Ecclesiae est which is true of every good Christian and yet constitute the other Apostles heads of particular Churches and thereby give a greater honour and power to them then to St. Peter which you your self every where deny CHAP. V. Saint Leo and other holy Fathers NUm 58. what means Ecclesiae Catholicae Episcopus given by St. Leo and other Fathers to the Roman Bishop how Episcopus universalis Ecclesiae and universalis Episcopus Bishop of the universal Church and universal Bishop are said by Bellar. to be of the same signification Num. 60. How Mr. Baxter abuses both Bellar. and St. Gregory he makes St. Greg. speak false Latin and non-sence by misciting his words he understands not St. Greg. Latin phrase Num. 62. In what sense Catholiques affirm Christians to be opposers of the Pope Bellar. misreported by Mr. Baxter Num. 64.66 He gives a false translation to Raynerius his words twice over and misreports his meaning by concealing the words following in Canus once Num. 67. 68 69 c. He proves his antecedent but not his consequence which I deny Num. 69. Whether the Papacy began in Phocas his time 58. To your third numb pag. 263. you are sore pinch'd to find an answer to the Popes being intituled Episcopus universalis Ecclesiae Bishop of the universal Church could you think it would satisfie any rational man to say that this title imported no more then what may be and ought to be given to every Bishop who adhered to the common Communion was a Catholick to wit that he was a Bishop of the Catholick Church can you be so ignorant as not to know this and the like titles were given him as signal declaratives of his place honour whereby he was both distinguish'd and preferr'd before all other Bishops and Patriarchs neither of which could be done had Episcopus universalis Ecclesiae signified no more then that he was a Bishop that is to be accounted amongst the Bishops of the universal Church for this was common to him with all other Bishops thorough the whole Church And I pray you tell me in good earnest when any one should have intituled his letter to Pope Leo v. g. thus Leoni Episcopo universalis Ecclesiae to Leo a Bishop of the Catholick Church would it not have been profoundly ridiculous for seeing there might have been some other Catholick Bishops call'd Leo as well as the Bishop of Rome who could know to whom this letter was written by vertue of that title but that it may appear evidently how incongruous this your effugium is several Epistles of Pope Leo intituled with his own hand will sufficiently manifest it Saint Leo Epist. 97. intitles his Epist. thus Leo Romae universalis Catholicaeque Ecclesiae Episcopus would you translate these words thus Leo a Bishop of Rome and of the universal and Catholique Church I pray you how many Bishops of Rome were there at that time beside Leo Or sees not every one who sees any thing that they must be thus render'd into English Leo Bishop of Rome and of the universal and Catholique Church Now this evinces that as he was in power and jurisdiction Bishop of Rome so was he also Bishop of the universal and Catholique Church in power and jurisdiction for otherwise the sentence will be incongruous and equivocal In the like manner ep 13. he intitles himself Leo Catholicae Romanae Ecclesiae Episcopus Leo the Bishop of the Catholique Roman Church Now who sees not both that this must be in authority and government and that the appellation of the Roman Catholique Church is of 12. hundred years standing Ep. 42. he writes himself thus Leo Catholicae Ecclesiae Episcopus now had that imported no more then this Leo a Bishop of the Catholick Church who could have known who writ this Epistle ep 88. he gives himself this title Leo Romanae Ecclesiae Apostolicae sedis Episcopus Leo Bishop of the Roman Church and Apostolique Sea Now seeing he takes the Roman Church for the same with the Catholique Church as we have now seen it imports thus much Leo Bishop of the Roman or Catholique Church of the Apostolical Sea for had he meant only the particular Roman Church by Romanae Ecclesiae he had committed a tautology in adadding presently Apostolicae sedis for that design'd the particular Church of Rome Now seeing he was by power of government Bishop of the Apostolique Sea either he must speak equivocally and absonously or signifie by those words that he was by power of government also Bishop of the Roman Catholique Church ep 54. thus Leo Episcopus Romanae universalis Ecclesiae Leo Bishop of the Roman and universal Church ep 62. Leo Catholicae Ecclesiae Episcopus Leo Bishop of the Catholique Church by all this appears the truth of Bellarmines illation from this title against your novel and
jejune gloss upon the title of universalis Ecclesiae Episcopus for in effect it comprehends all the authority which we ascribe to the Roman Bishop over the Church and as much nay much more then you would have signified by the title of the universal Bishop conformable to this title in its genuine signification are others of the like nature given to the Popes by the ancient Fathers Thus writes St. Ambrose ep 81. Ad Cyricium Papam Recognovimus literis sanctitatis tuae boni pastoris excubias quam fideliter tibi commissam januam serves pia solicitudine Christi ovile custodias we discover by your Holiness letters the watchfulness of a good Pastor how faithfully you keep the door committed to you and with how holy a care you preserve the fold of Christ. And again in 1. ad Tim. 3. Domus Dei est Ecclesia cujus hodie Rector est Damasus the house of God is the Church the Governor whereof is Damasus who was then the Bishop of Rome The Council of Chalcedon as we have already seen â—â—p ad Leonem sayes thus in super contra ipsum â—â—ui vineae custodia a Salvatore commissa est id est contra tuam Apostolicam sanctitatem extendit insaniam Moreover Dioscorus extends his madness against him to whom the care of the Vineyard was committed by our Saviour that is against this Apostolical sanctity An. Ed. Binnii p. 141. The Popes Legates in the Council of Chalcedon intitle Leo Caput universalis Ecclesiae head of the universal Church Now to imbroyle the controversie and cast a slurre upon Bellar. you put St. Greg. at odds with him and then ask which of those two is the wiser whereas Bell. promises first a distinction of two different significations of universalis Episcopus universal Bishops In the one he accords with St Gregory that the said title is prophane sacrilegious and Anti-christian and proves that St. Greg. took the words in that sence when he inveighed so highly against them and never asserts that Episcopus universalis taken in that prophane sence and Episcopus universalis Ecclesiae are of the same force Then he accommodates as you your self do though another way another signification to those words universal Bishop wherein they were taken in the bills directed to St. Leo in the Council of Chalcedon for neither would the Council have permitted nor those Catholiques and Clericks have ascribed a prophane sacrilegious and Anti-christian title to Pope Leo and it appears that as they took the word universal it had no more of the prophane c. in it as applyed to St. Leo then it had as apply'd to the Council of Chalcedon for to both of them they attribute universal as therefore the Council was truly universal in a most Catholique sence without any prejudice to other Bishops or the Hierarchy of the Church in the like sence did they understand Pope Leo to be universal Archbishop his universal jurisdiction suiting as well with the compleat authority of all other Bishops as did that of the Council for though the Council was truly universal in jurisdiction over the whole Church as I have proved yet that notwithstanding the Patholick Bishops became no substitutes Vicars or Officers to those of the Council but still remain'd absolute Officers of Christ and true Pastours Bishops Governors in place of Christ in their respective districts c. In like manner the Popes being universal in jurisdiction took not away any part of the full power and authority of other Bishops but consisted together with it as did the universal jurisdiction of the Council Now in this second and Catholick sense only Bellar. affirms that universal Bishop and Bishop of universal Church are the same in sense wherein there is no debate between him and St. Gregory Thus you cunningly delude your Readers by casting such confused mists as these before their eyes 59. By this the weakness of what you say next p. 264. is clearly discover'd where you vent rather your passion then speak reason against Bellar. for who can doubt but St. Gregory had ground enough to execrate as he did that title when it was so obnoxious in it self to prophaness c. And pretended by a person of so ambitious a spirit as was that Iohn of Constantinople that he was in danger to make the worse use of it for his own advantage Thus though Christotocos be capable of a true and Catholick sense yet because it is also capable and obnoxius since Nestorius his heresie to be taken in an heretical signification the Church forbade it as sacrilegious and prophane and much more as it was then used by Nestorius 60. In your answer to Bellar. second reason p. 264. you abuse both him and St. Gregory Bell. sayes the title of universal was not due to Iohn of Constantinople in neither of the two senses now delivered which you conceal and therefore was absolutely prophane and sacrilegious as applied to him in any sense whatsoever and yet even St. Gregory himself refus'd it as prophane c. Though in some sense it might be due to him to beat down the pride of Iohn you abuse St. Gregory in saying p. 265. That he approv'd that title for himself or that Bell. affirms he approved of it as for himself neither of them say any such matter prove they do Know you not that Malum ex quocunque defectu that every defect makes a thing evil seeing therefore there was a defect of a prophane signification and scandal in the title of universal for that defect he accounted it evil and absolutely disallowed of it nor could the capacity of that word to be taken in a more moderate sense prevail with him to approve of it quia malum ex quocunque defectu the other defect had corrupted it nor sayes Bellarmine that he approved it even for himself but that in some sence it agreed with him yet the danger of scandal in accepting a title so subject to bear a prophane sense deterr'd him from approving of it even for himself as knowing the curse which lyes upon those which give scandal to their weak brethren and that Christians are to avoy'd all appearance of evil 61. In your last clause of this paragraph you fall again into your old fallacie proceeding a notione secunda ad primam from the titles which hath two significations to the thing controverted which corresponds but to one of those significations I have proved though St. Greg. disallowed of that scandalous title yet both he and his predecessors allwaies admitted of an universal Soveraignty as it was explicated above most untrue therefore is your illation that it sprung up since St. Greg. dayes your next citation out of St. Gregory confirmes what I have now said he thought the title of universal by reason of the scandal comprized in it absolutely to be refus'd by all good Prelats And so does the rest that followes out of St. Gregory page 266. only in these words sed
quoad in me correptione despicior restat ut ecclesiam debeam adhibere I note these particulars 1. you miscite St. Gregories words and thereby make them both non-sense and bald Latin it should not be as you have it sed quoad but sed quia thus I find it in two different editions of St. Gregory the one anno 1564. Basiliae and the other 1572. Antwerpiae both which have it quia nor ever found I it printed or cited otherwise till I read in your book now what sense is this but until I am despis'd in my correction it remaines that I use the Church that is I must lay the Churches censures upon you before you offend I must take them of and who ever joyn'd a present tense of the Indicative mood with a quoad before you for that is as much as to say until I am now despised which makes the time present and future all one and that I think is Nonsense what think you of it 2. you prove St. Gregory held the Churches authoritie to be greater then his own by these words now treated Now whatsoever St. Gregory held in this is not of any concern now but most certain it is he neither did nor could prove it by these words for this phrase Ecclesiam debeam adhibere I must use the Church signifies no more then this I must proceed according to the rigor of the Church canons and discipline in inflicting upon you the censures of the Church that is I must proceed no longer as a friend to intreat exhort and admonish you as hitherto I have done but as the chief Pastor of the Church use the fulness of that authoritie which I have in the name and for the good of the Church in casting you out of it by the severity of excommunication that this only is his meaning is evident both by the precedent words where he declares our Saviours doctrine about excommunication of obstinate offenders and by the words immediately subsequent where he affirms he must not prefer his person though never so dear to him before the institution of the Canons c. Now when will you ever prove the consequence viz. St. Gregory threatned the use of censures of the Church against Iohn of Constantinople Ergo he took the Churches authority to be greater then his own 62. Now you come in good time to prove your seventh argument page 257. Which you draw from the confession of Papists I distinguish your antecedent if you mean Papists confess that multitudes or the most part of Christians not univocally so call'd have bin opposers or no subjects of the Pope I grant it if univocally so cal'd I deny it therefore by those testimonies there have bin visible Churches of such I deny your consequence To your first authority from Eneas Silvius I answer he cannot mean that so smal regard was had to the Church of Rome before the Council of Nice that it was not believed to be the head of all other Churches c. as I have prov'd it was unless you make him accuse the Council of Nice of Innovation and of introducing a new government into the Church of God which notwithstanding they supposed to have been ever before their time for the Council of Chalcedon cites the Sixth Nicene Canons as affirming that the Church of Rome had alwayes the Primacy your answer to Bellar. is fallacious proceeding a parte Se Con. Chal. Can. 28. ad totum Bell. you acknowledge sayes he it is partly true and partly false you subsume but if true which supposes Bellarmine to affirm that its wholly true whereas you should have subsumed but if partly true as you alledge Bellar. to have said it was and then you fall again into the same fallacy if it be false say you that is if the whole be false whereas you should have said if it be partly false as Bellar. said it was And had you thus proceeded candidly and logically in your subsupmtion your subsequel against our Historians authority had been Evacuated for very many good Authors may speak some things which in part are true and in part false that is in some respect true and in others false they understanding what they writ in that respect wherein they are true 63. Page 268. You mention first the Greeks in opposition to the Pope recorded by our Historians what then Ergo by their testimony there have been visible Churches of such that is of true univocal Christians who opposed the Pope that 's the thing to be proved but to prove that you must prove those historians to have held those schismatical Greeks to have bin univocal Christians which is necessary to compose a visible Church this you have not done then you cite Golestaldus but where the Lords knows making mention of such as were under the Popes patriarchal power and yet oppos'd him but if that Golestaldus were truly ours prove also that he held them whilst they stood thus in opposition against the Pope to be univocal Christians that 's your main work and yet you do it not but see you not how you first take such as you must acknowledge to be subjects to the Pope in spirituals resisting their true superiour as being under his Patriarchal power to be patrons of your cause another seed of Rebellion and then you acknowledge Emperours and Kings to be under the Popes patriarchal power for many opposers of the Pope were such I speak of an opposition in faith and communion not in civil oppositions which may happen upon just occasions 64. Page 268. Next I wonder to see you so abominably false in your translations you your self page 251. cite Raynerius his words non subsunt which in my grammar signifies are not under and yet you translate them here were not under the Roman Church is it not true now to say Constantinople and Alexandria non subsunt are not under the Roman Emperour must it therefore be true they were not under it 65 Ibid. Canus speaks of different times not that altogether but interruptedly some at on time time some at another strove to oppose the Pope but accounts Canus such opposers in sensu conjuncto so were univocal christians that 's the point and you never so much as think of proving it might not you as well argue that so many Provinces Nations and Kingdomes belonging to the Roman Emperours have opposed the authority of the Roman Emperours Ergo they had no lawful authority over them or to look homeward so many Nations Provinces Cities Ministers and Commons have oppos'd the authority of our royal Soveraign Ergo neither had he any lawful power over them nor ceased they to be univocal parts of the Kingdome notwithstanding that opposition here 's another root of rebellion Page 268. But you relapse again into your accustomed falsitie in translation which would have appeared had you printed Canus his Latin words thus you make Authors speak in what language you please English or Latin as it
as the Religion continued in Rome to that day declared and which Pope Damasus then followed and Peter Bishop of Alexandria and that those only who followed that Religion ought to imbrace the name of Catholicks and all others to be accounted as mad men and Hereticks and Iohn Bishop of Rome writes thus to Iustinian Ibid. lege quarta long before Phocas raign'd That both the Rules of the Fathers the statutes of the Emperours declares the Sea of Rome is truly the head of all Churches Quam esse omnium vere Ecclesiarum caput Patrum Regulae principum statuta declarant And this done Pope Iohn delivers this doctrine precept that all those who yield not obedience to his commands and laws should be esteemed as câ—â—st out of the Church therefore affirmes that all those who adhere to the doctrine of their own Bishops refuse to hear the voice of him their Pastor he receiv'd not into his communion but commanded them to be Aliens from the whole Catholick Church ab omni Ecclesia Catholica esse jussimus alienos n. b. ab omni Ecclesia it reaches to all Churches none excepted and jussimus it is a command from the Pope In the Council of Chalcedon many years before Iustinian it is said to be the head of all Churches to have alwaies had the Primatum the primacy which word I have proved signifies Eccclesiastical power authoritie and yet some years before Valentinian ut supra ascribes the same authority to the Roman Bishop Thus much in answer to your second part 70. From page 293 to page 305. You busie your self in answering a question I propounded to you which only say you page 292. you receiv'd instead of an answer I wonder not you write this but that you printed it for before this was or could be printed it was sufficiently intimated to you that Mr. Iohnson intended to answer your paper and obliged himself to answer it wherewith you seem to be satisfied and sure if he had before patience to expect your answer almost three quarters of a year upon your excuse of being hindr'd by other more weighty imployments all equal proceeding should have obliged you to excuse him also alleadging the like reason CHAP. VI. Of Hereticks and Schismaticks NUm 71. Whether some Hereticks are parts of the Church Mr. Baxter is in the affirmative his explications unnecessarie to the question Num. 72. His distinctions excluded in the termes of the question Num 73. His Citations from Alphonsus a Castro Bellar. and Canus prove nothing Num. 74. The negative is proved from scriptures and Fathers Num. 75. The same is proved by reason 71. The question I propounded was this as you have printed it page 293. a Whether any professed Heretiques properly so called are true parts of the universal visible Church of Christ so that they compose one universal Church with the other visible parts of it And you first gave it this answer b My words are plain distinctly answer your question so that I know not what more is needful for the explication of my sense unless you would call us back from the thing to the word by your properly so called you are answered already Now the former answer to which you relate is mentioned in my other to you and printed by you page 292. c Some are Heretiques for denying points essential to Christianty and those are no Christians and so not in the Church but many are also called Heretiques by you and by the Fathers for lesser errors consistent with Christianity and those may be in the Church You therefore grant the thing it self that some profess Heretiques are true members of the universal visible Church this I confess is a categorical answer to my question and you had no reason to add any more but I see you love to be doing and cannot remain quiet when the thing is well but must be tampering with it though you marr it in the moulding you take an occasion upon my words Heretick properly so called to intangle your self and your Reader through twelve pages in twelve distinctions twelve conclusions and twelve observations and in this you descant upon universal Church Heretique Schismatique properly so called c being the principal words used in my question now to what purpose all this had not you the word universal Church Heretique Schismatique repeated often over through your whoâ—â—e writing and did you not think your self sufficiently understood when you writ them if you did not why omitted you then to explicate the termes so that you might be understood if you did then speak clearly and distinctly what need had you now to give any further explication did I complain that I understood not what you meant by these termes 72. But it is much more absonous to heare you distinguish termes in order to the answer of my question by distinctions excluded in the proposition of the question p 293. I mention the universal visible Church of Christ can any Christian speak more distinctly then I do in the expression of the Church you say page 294. We are not agreed what the universal visible Church is what of that are we not agreed there is such a thing think you or I what we will of the definition of it t' is sufficient to give an answer pro or con to my question whether Heretiques be true members of the Church that we agree there is such a thing as the universal visible Church of Christ and it will be timely enough to explicate what you mean by the universal visible Church when your answer is impugned Then page 294. you distinguish Heritique properly so called into Etimological Canonical usual all these you reject as insufficient to know what is meant by an Heretick properly so called so that after you have so often treated in this and other books of Heretiques either you speak of them alwaies improperly or know not what you say when you speak of them as properly understood or you have here made an insufficient division of an Heretique properly so called but see you not again that whatsoever you or I understand by Heretique properly so called we both agre there are Heretiques properly so call'd that 's enough to answer my question then page 295 you distinguish Heretique first into Heretique in opinion and in communion and then you run into seven more distinctions of Heretiques never considering that I had exprest my question in such termes that all these distinctions were excluded by the very termes I say thus whether any professed Heretiques c. now could you not have said that some professed Heretiques are parts of the Cathlique Chucrch without making such a pudder with so many distinctions what was it to my question that some are convict others tryed some judged by Pastors others by others some by usurpers some by lawful Iudges c. I did not demand what sort of Heretiques properly so called were held by you to be of
mistake me I speak of a Rejection and contempt of a subject as appears by my words and your Reply mentions the independance without Rejection of such as are no subjects now the Rejection or contempt of Superiouâ—â—s Authority in a Subject takes away this dependance of that Superiour and his very working independently of them cannot be done without Rejection and contempt of their Authority so long as he remains a subject I pray minde a little better to what you Reply Reply I further Reply 1. It seems then it is not onely the Pope but every Priest respectively that is an essential member of your Church or to whom each member must be subject necessarily ad esse If so then in every man that by falling out or prejudice doth culpably Reject the Authority of any one Pastour or Priest among a swarm is damned or none of the Church though he believe in the Pope and twenty thousand Priests besides 2. And then have we not cause to pray God to blesse us from the company of your Priests or at least that we may not have too many among a multitude we may be in danger of Rejecting some one and then we are cast out of that Church what if a Gentleman should find some such as Watson or Montaltus described in bed with his wife or a Prince finde a Garnet a Campian or a Parsons in Treason and by such temptation should be so weak as to contemn or reject the Authority of that single Priest while he obeyeth all the rest It is certain that such a man is none of the Catholique Church for that how hard it is in France Italy then to be a Catholick where Priests are so numerous that it 's ten to one but among that croud the Authority of some one may be Rejected 3. But is it all the Priests that we never knew or knew not to be Priests that we must depend on or is it onely those whose Authority is manifested to us by sufficient Evidence doubtless if you will confine our dependanâ—â—e to these onely or else no man could be a Christian. And if so be you know we are never the nearer a Resolution for your Answer till you yet tell us how we must know our Pastours to have Authority indeed William Iohnson Sir you mistake again I speak onely of all Respectively to each subject that is of such as are properly the Pastours of such soules mediate or immediate and you wave the consideration of the word Respectively and thereby would extend my words to all Priests in the whole Church know you not the difference betwixt Pastours and Priests are there not millions of Priests amongst us and a number of Ministers amongst you which are no Pastours that is have no care or cure of souls committed to them my Assertion therefore is that a private christian rejecting the authority of his Parish-Priest Bishop Arch-bishop Metrapolitane Primate Patriarch or supream Bishop who are in some cases at least his Pastour becomes a Schismatick casts himself out of the Church now for all the rest who are not his proper Pastours though they may be Pastours to others his rejecting or contemning them will be a grevious fin of pride but not sufficient alone to cast men out of the Church because he remaines still dependent of his own Pastours and here falls to ground all your ensuing discourse of the multitude of Priests c. Where I will not take notice of an accusation made without proof and relishing too little of Christian charity against some particuler persons humbly beseeching God to forgive you for it and hoping so to temper my expressions that they still run peaceably on within the bank of Charity Mr. Baxter What if they shew me the Bishops orders and I know that many have had forged orders am I bound to believe in this authority William Iohnson As much as you can be assured of any being Pastour of such a Church or Bishop of such a Diocesse or Justice of peace or Earle or Baron by his Majesties Patents or publick orders Reply What if I be utterly ignorant whether he that ordained were himself ordained per intentionem ordinandi how shall I then be sure of his authority that he is ordained Rejoynder As sure as you can be that you were the lawful child of your Father and Mother who could not be truly married without intention of being Husband and Wife one to the other how know you that they had such an intention solve this and you solve your own argument Mr Baxter And how can the People be acquainted with the passages in Election and ordination that are necessary to the knowledge of their authority especially of the Popes and Prelates and what if you tell me your own opinion of the â—â—ufficient meanes by which I must be convicted of the Popes and the Priests authority William Iohnson When it is publickly allowed in the Church witnessed to be performed according to the Canonical prescription by such as were present and derived to the people without contradiction by publick fame Mr Baxter How shall I know that you are not deceived and that these are the sufficient meanes indeed unless a general Council have defined them to be sufficient and if they have If it were not as an Article of Faith you will say I am not bound of necessity to believe their definition William Iohnson The orders prescrihed in the canon law and universally received are sufficient for this without decrees of General Councils for these are no points of faith but of order and discipline whereof a moral certainty and ecclesiastical authority is sufficient Mr. Baxter And what if I have sufficient meanes to know the Authority of a thousand Bishops but am culpably ignorant of some few through my neglect doth it follow that I am out of the Church Is my obedience to each Priest as necessary as my belief of every Article or multyplying Priests doth fill Hell faster If men must be judged by your laws Rejoynder This is grounded in your former mistake and solved above it is not all Priests but all Pastours in relation to their flocks that I speak of Mr. Baxter But is it our allegiance to our Soveraign that is the character of a subject in the common wealth and not our allegiance or duty to every inferiour Magistrate the rejection of one of them may stand with subjection though not with innocency It is not reason to reject a Constable why then should it more be necessary to our Church membership and Salvation But still you make your Church invisible for as no man can know that liveth in the remote parts of the world whether your Popes themselves are truely Popes as being duly qualified and elected now which is that true Pope when you have often more then one at once so you can never know concerning your members whether their dependance on their Pastors be extensively proportionate to the meanes that discovers their Authority
Divino you confesse you are but a humane Policie and Society and therefore that no man need to fear the lesse of his salvation by renouncing you William Iohnson Who leaves it indifferent must all things which are not exprest in Definitions be left indifferent there is no mention of Risibile in the definition of homo do Philosophers therefore leave it indifferent whether homo be Risibilis or no. Qu. 4. How shall we know who hath this power what election or consecration is necessary thereto if I know not who hath it I am never the better William Iohnson Answ. As you know who hath temporal power by an universal or most common consent of the people the election is different according to different times places and other circumstances Episcopal consecration is not absolutely necessary to true Episcopal jurisdiction Reply How now are al the Mysteries of your Succession and Mission resolved into popular consent William Iohnson Why how now what is the matter who sayes our Succession and Mission is resolved into popular consent things use to be resolved into their principles where have I constituted popular consent the principle of election the first part of the question propounded here by you was not what election was of what principle it consisted but how it should be known I pray if you mark not my words at least reflect upon your own how shall we know say you who hath this power to this I answer directly thus as you know who hath temporal power by an universal or most common consent of the people Is there no difference with you betwixt the Mysteries of our Succession and Mission and the manner how to know them The Mysterie of the most blessed Trinity c. is known to your Parishoners by your Preaching and Chatechising is it therefore resolved into your Preaching and Chatechising resolved I say into its formal object for that is the question and the absurdity which you would infer against me Mr. Baxter Is no one way of election necessary do you leave that to be varied as a thing indifferent William Iohnson Why should it it is sufficient that some generalities of it be determined Iure Divino as that it be done by Christians by such as are capable to know who is a fit person for the Office choosing freely according to the Laws of God the further Determinations are left to the Church according to the different wayes of proceeding in different Churches Nations Diocesses what is there to be wondered at in this have you not this practice among you Mr. Baxter And is Episcopal consecration also necessary I pray you here again remember that none of our Churches are disabled from the plea of a continued Succession for want of Episcopal consecration or any way of election if our Pastours have had our peoples consent they have been true Pastours But we have more 2. By this rule we cannot tell of one Bishop of an hundred whether he be a Bishop or no for we cannot know whether that he hath the consent of the people yea we know that abundance of your Bishops have no such consent William Iohnson No man argues you of the want of Succession in your Respective Seas because you want Episcopal consecration but because you want Episcopal election confirmation vocation Mission Jurisdiction for your first Bishops in Queen Elizabeths time and the same is of your Ministers of Parishes were intruded by secular power into their Respective Seas and Parishes the proper Bishops and Pastours of those Churches yet living and that without legal deposition or deprivation of them by their lawfull Superiours or true election by those Respective capitula who had the present power of electing the Bishops of their Diocesse in such Diocesses as had then no Bishops or of constituting Parish Priests in such places as wanted them they had no Jurisdiction but from the Queen and Parliament as is manifest by the publick Statutes yet extant cited in Erastus Iunior part 2. All those who succeeded to those Intruders can have no more Jurisdiction then they first had nor had you ever the full consent of the People for all those of the Roman party who in the first institution of your Elizabeth Bishops were a great part of the Kingdome if not the greatest never elected them nor was there any such popular eâ—â—ction required or admitted in those times Mr. Baxter Yea we know that your Popes have none of the consent of the most of the Christians in the world nor for ought you or any man knows of most in Europe William Iohnson Of what Christians such as you and your Associates are we regard that no more then did the Ancient holy Popes not to have had the consent of Nestorians Eutichians Pelagians Donatists Arians c. Mr. Baxter It is few of your own party that know who is Pope much lesse are called to consent till after he is setled in possession William Iohnson What then is not the same in all Elective Princes where the extent of their Dominions are exceeding large Reply 3. According to this rule your Successions have been frequently interrupsed when against the will of General Councils and of the farre greatest part of Christians your Popes have kept the seat by force Rejoynder These are Generalities what Popes what Councils in particular name and prove if you will be answered Mr. Baxter 4. In temporals your Rule is not universally true what if the people be ingaged to one Prince and afterward break their vow and consent to an usurper though in this case a particular person may be obliged to submission and obedience in judicial administrations yet the Vsurper cannot thereby defend his Right and justifie his possession nor the people justifie their adhesion to him while they lye under an obligation to disclaim him because of their preingagement to another though some part of the truth be found in your Assertion William Iohnson The people cannot be supposed to consent freely lawfully and effectually to an usurper now I suppose to consent I speak of to be lawfull for I speak of ordinary causes and not of what seldome or never happens for where shall you finde an universal or common consent to a known usurper acknowledging him to have a temporal power over them it is one thing to tolerate or not resist and another to consent to his power now I speak of a free universal consent where no force or constraint is used Mr. Baxter Qu. 3. Will any Diocesse suffice ad esse what if it be but in particular Assemblies William Iohnson It must be more then a Parish or then one single Congregation which hath not different inferiour Pastours and one who is their Superiour for a Bishop when consecrated as he hath a higher power then single Priests have in acts of Order so hath he a power over single Pastours in acts of Jurisdiction when he is installed in a Diocess for he is to govern not onely the people as