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
such as with the belief of what they esteem universally essential and fundamental in themselves not to be joyn'd with an actual disbelief of any point though not so generaly necessary to be expresly believed by every one yet sufficiently propounded to them hic nunc as a point of Christian faith To what purpose cite you Tertul p. 219. What is that rule which he speaks of Is it sole Scripture without Church or tradition prove that or what hurts us in his other sentence c. 8. Do we teach any thing against it prove that or why make you such observations upon Tertullians prescriptions p. 220. why prove you not your observations froÌ„ Tertul. words where say's he the rules of Essentials extracted from the whole Scriptures is the Churches ancient creed that the compleat rule of all points of faith is the whole Scripture what mean you to cite that from Tertullian which destroyes you have you ever yet cleared your selves from denying some Essentials I am sure Tertullian puts in the book cited by you the Eucharist Baptisme amongst the things which he would have to be principal points taught by St. Peter and to be believed by all Christians to whom they were sufficiently propounded are not our controversies about these leave not you many books of Scripture out of the Canon and use you not the large feild of Scripture to puzzle the weak how then can you turne your selves more from the lash of Tertullian then the Hereticks against whom he writes And you say this ancient Author advised the ordinary Christians of his time instead of long puzling disputes to hold them to the Churches prescription of the simple doctrine of the creed do you not confound your own publick practise in perswading every ordinary Christian to read the Scriptures in his own language to maintain their cause by some obscure mistaken passages out of them against the Churches prescriptions nay and the simple doctrine of the Creed too by perverting that article of believing the holy Catholick Church instance if you can the prescription of the Church in the year 1500 to justifie your so many oppositions against the prescriptions of all particular visible Churches in that age and be sure you fail not with all to tell me what Church prescribed in the same year against the Church of Rome in opposing those which you call supplemental traditions held by her and all other visible Churches at that time 19. Page 221. You cite St. Augustine de doctrina Christiana lib. 2. cap. 9. and note in an English parenthesis he was not against the vulgar reading Scripture which how it follows I know not unless you would have him also not against the vulgars being vers'd both in Latin Greek and Hebrew which he here requires for the perfect understanding of Scriptures Secondly you put an N. B. upon St. Augustines words minding your reader to note that he affirms all things which belong to Christian faith and manners are thereby set down in Scripture which N. B. might have been well omitted where you place it and a N. B. put upon his next following words whereby it would have appeared that this holy Doctor speakes not of all manner of points of Faith but de quibus libro superiore tractavimus of such as he had treated in the foregoing book and in that he treates only of the Trinity of the Incarnation of the Church of the resurrection of the dead which we acknowledge are openly set down in Scripture so much heed take you to the words you cite so pertinent is your collection drawn from these words about the sufficiencie of Scripture and so faire are you in your citations let an N. B. passe upon that pag. 223 223. What conclude you from St. Augustines words lib 3. cap. 6. contra lit Petiliani which of us ever thought it lawful to teach any thing praeterquam besides that is against for so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in greek signifies the law or gospel and as wise is your question collected thence page 223. viz was not the Church then purely protestant in their religion 20. To the proof of the minor by your profession p. 223. I have told you already your particular profession in disbelieving many things conteined in Scripture evidences your general profession of taking Scripture for the sole rule of your faith to be false and nugatorie 21. As to your discourse page 224. tells us first which are all the Essentials of Christianity in your account and then we shall see whether they are all expresly conteined in Scripture or no. The rest is course and unhandsome better suiting with a country ballad then with a controversie You add in good time the parenthesis if you know how to keep those Friars and Iesuits as much out as to keep out the devil I see they stay not in through any want of opposition in you 't is well you have not as much of the knowledge as you have of the malice of him to whom you compare them I beseech God to pardon you for then they had been all sent packing long ere this and t is not I see for want of ignorance in you that you are not quit of them if any such be within the Nation yet if you drive them no more out then you can drive out the devil they have no great reason to fear you You must think your Reader to be very silly when you go about to perswade him that the Popes supremacie and transubstantiation were brought into the kingdome by Friars and Jesuits of late since you begun your new gospel 22 Page 225. you answer the Catholicks question where your Church was c. very profoundly what if you can neither tell where it all was nor half nor a considerable part nor for all ages nor by entire catalogues can you not at least tell where existed any one though a smal part of it in the year 1500 immediately before your doctrine appeared in Germany shew that and we press you no farther at this time Pag. 226.227 You change the terme Protestant Church into Catholick Church the question was where was the Protestant Church and you shew where the Catholick Church was call you this answering nor can you suppose the Protestant to be part of the Catholick for I have shewed that hitherto you have not proved it pag. 227. You first say your Church was in Europe c. 1. and l. 8. you say you 'l say nothing of Europe n. b. 23. Page 227.228.229.230 To what purpose have you taken so much paines in copying the Latin texts of St. Augustine you were afraid I see to English them least the vulgar whom you chiefâ—â—ly lalour to please should finde many flawes in them Intend you therefore to prove no more by those authorities then the Churches being spread all the world over which of us ever denyed nay who amongst us have not constantly asserted that Intend you to shew that whatsoever professors of Christianity are
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
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
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.
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
had the Description from your self then have been thus bobb'd off to Blondel so laxely cited without Page Paragraph Number Chapter or Book as you cite him here so that I must be enforced if I will find it to turn over his whole Treatise a Book in Folio of 1268 Pages Whatsoever therefore is of him with whom I have nothing to do for the present for if I would answer every particular Author of yours whom you cite as wildly as you do this Blondell I might have work enough it is evident that some Extra-Imperial Provinces were under the Ancient Patriarchs And in the first place concerning the Bishop of Rome the 39 Canon of the Nicene Council in the Arabick Edition published by Pisanus which I shall cite more particularly hereafter and prove the Authenticalness of those Canons affirms expresly that the Roman Bishop as being Christ's Vicar has power over all Christian Princes and their people subject to them Tom. 1. Conc. p. 416. and that he as being the Vicar of Christ is over all people and all Christian Churches and Can. 36. declares that the Bishop of Alexandria has Jurisdiction over the Ethiopick Churches And Can. 35. orders that the Bishop of Antioch should have Authority over the Church of Persia which was Extra-Imperial And the Council of Chalcedon Ibid. pag. 4â—â—5 Can. 28 th so much extolled by you gives to the Bishop of Constantinople Authority over the Barbarous Nations near those parts that is such as were Extra-Imperial as that of Russia and Muscovia Baxter Num. 65. The Emperors themselves did sometime giving power to the Councils Acts make Rome the chief and sometime as the Councils did also give Constantinople equal priviledge and sometime set Constantinople highest as I have shewed in my Key pag. 174 175. But the Emperours had no power to do thus with respect to those without the Empire Iohnson Num. 65. I will here give my Reader an assay of the solidity of your proofs heaped confusedly one upon another in your Key You cite in pag. 174 175. Now pag. 174. you translate Pontifex Pope and summus Pontifex chief Pope Sure you never had this Translation from any Grammarian new or old Who ever before you said that Pontifex signifies Pope or what similitude is there betwixt Pontifex and Pope save onely that they both begin with the same Letter When S. Paul saith speaking of our Saviour Habemus Pontificem magnum Hâ—â—b 4.14 would you translate it We have a great Pope Or when he affirms that he is Pontifex secundum ordinem Melchisedec would you English it Hâ—â—b 6.20 He is a Pope according to the order of Melchisedec I alwayes thought that Pontifex or summus Pontifex signified the highest sort of Priests both in the Old Testament and the New but never heard that it signified Pope before But you have some drift in this Baronius say you in Martyrolog Roman April 9. affirms that all Bishops were stiled anciently not onely Pontifices but summi Pontifices that is say you Popes and chief Popes to infringe thereby what some gather as you say viz the Supremacy of the Roman Bishop from this Title of being stiled Summi Pontifices chief Popes say you pag. 173. You should have done well to have told us who those some were and would have done so had you writ like a Scholar But I 'le help you out for once Bellarmin is one of that some you speak of Lib. 2. de Pontif. Roman cap. 31. sect Quartum But Barenius say you affirms that Title to have been attributed anciently to all Bishops that 's true too if you take the Latin words but not in that sense wherein Bellarmin takes Summus Pontifex For Baronius takes it for a chief Priest and Bellarmin for the chiefest or highest Priest not onely in respect of simple Priests who are in a rank below Bishops and in relation to whom Bishops were anciently stiled summi Pontifices such as were in the highest order of Priests but absolutely in respect of all other Bishops in the Church For Bellarmin in proof of this Title cites an Epistle of Pope Stephen where the Bishop of Rome is stiled Summus omnium praesulum Pontifex the highest Bishop of all Prelates or Bishops In the same sense he cites S. Gregory and S. Bernard And lastly the sixth Synod which intitles him Act. 18. in Sermon Acclamatorio Sanctissimum Patrem nostrum summum Papam their most holy Father and most high Pope that is the highest of all Bishops even over the Bishops of that Council And though Baronius cited by you grant the bare words of summus Pontifex as they signifie onely a chief Priest were anciently given to all Bishops yet in his Annals Anno 215 216. num 3. from the Title of Pontifex maximus the greatest or highest Bishop that is summus Pontifex in Bellarmins sense he proves the eminent Authority of the Roman Bishop Now this is worth the noting also that you first take summus Pontifex for the chief Pope in Bellarmins sense and then prove that summus Pontifex as it signifies not the chief Pope but a chief Priest as Baronius takes it is no proof of his universal Authority In your second Paragraph you shew that the Titles Papa Dominus Pater Sanctissimus Beatissimus Dei amantissimus c. were commonly given to all Bishops Who confute you here who ever said these Titles prove his Supremacy The like is of the Church of Rome being called the mother of all Churches Paraph. 3. for the term mother may be understood either in relation to the first origin or fountain of Christanity and in this sense Hierusalem is the mother Church or in regard of authority and government which a mother hath over her children And in this sense the title of mother is attributed to the Roman Church and proves evidently her aâ—â—thority over all Christian Churches But is it not very handsome for you first to affix the title of mother absolutely to the Roman Church and then to infringe that title by saying the Church of Cesarea out of S. Basil is the mother of all Churches in a manner Would you think it a rational answer if one should prove your mother had authority to correct you by vertue of the title of mother Fallacy 10. you should answer that the tiof mother proves nothing for your elder sister was as a mother to you in a manner though she had no authority over you Is not not this a plain Fallacy from simpliciter to secundum quid In your fourth Paragraph you say If the words be consulted where the Roman Church is stiled mater Ecclesiarum mother of all Churches for that 's her title they signifie only priority of dignity that is without authority and jurisdiction over all Churches joyned to that dignity And this you never go about to prove so irrefragable is your authority that your bare word must passe for a proof I wonder you have
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
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
was the Imperial Seat If you believe this Synode the Controversie is at an end if you do not why do you cite it and why pretend you to believe General Councils William Iohnson Num. 213. You have a strange way of shifting off the force of an argument and that quite out of form and that illogical and it is to bring in some preface or other to weaken the authority of those whence this proof is brought before you give a Categorical answer What have we now to do with your proof alleadged many leaves after Part. 2. Is there not time enough to answer it when it comes in treaty Have you forgot that you are a Respondent not an Opponent are you so much inamoured with your own arguments that you must shew them at every turn even when there is no just occasion to mention them one would think it timely enough to boast of them when you and all men see no satisfactory answer given to them Have patience a while and you shall see ere long you authority from Chalcedon hurts us nothing It is partly shewed already and when it shall be treated in its place I hope you 'l have no cause to brag of it Mr. Baxter Num. 214. But what have you from this Council against this Council Why 1. you say Martian wrote to Leo that by the Pope's authority a General Council might be gathered in what City of the Eastern Church he should please Reply 1. Whereas for this you write Act. Concil Chalced. 1. You tell me not what Author Crab Binius Surius Nicolinus or where I must seek it I have perused the Act. 1. in Binius which is 74. pages in folio such tasks your citations set me and find no such thing and therefore take it to be your mistake William Iohnson Num. 214. I am sorry you have taken so much pains and lost your labour but sure I gave you no occasion of it for as I cited in the margin Con. Chalced. Act. 1. so I quoted in the Text Martian's Epistle to Leo when I said Martian wrote to Leo so that you had no more to do then to turn to the first Action of that Council and seek Martian's Epistle to Pope Leo which because it is in the full editions of Councils I thought it needless to name any Now this might have been done in a very short time nor could it be more exactly cited then I cited it giving both the Action and the Epistle extant in that Action Could you not as well have found the Epistle of Martian as of Valentinian and Martian if they be different Epistles Sure the one was as visible and legible as the other I tell you 't is no mistake of mine but your mishap that you found it not Please to look again and you will find those very words which I cite in that very Epistle which I quote Mr. Baxter Num. 215. But in the Preambul Epistle I find that Valentinian and Martian desire Leo's prayers and contrary to your words that they say hoc ipsum nobis propiis literis tua sanctitas manifestet quatenus in omnem Orientem in ipsam Thraciam Illyricum sacrae nostrae literae dirigantur ut ad quendam definitum locum qui nobis placuerit omnes sanctissimi Episcopi debeant convenire It is not qui vobis placuerit but qui nobis William Iohnson Num. 215. Your words from the Epistle of Valentinian and Martian infringe not those mentioned by me for it may well be that Pope Leo remitted the designation of the place to the Emperour as judging it more belonging to them then to himself as a thing wholly temporal though the precise words qui nobis placuerit may be in rigor applied both to the Emperour and Pope My first authority therefore from that Council is not answered at all in this your paper Mr. Baxter Num. 216. But what if you had spoke truth doth it follow that Pope Leo was Christs Vicar-general Governour of the world because that the Soveraign of one Common-wealth did give him leave to chuse the place of a Council Serious things should not be thus jested with William Iohnson Num. 216. I argue not so you proceed fallaciously a secundum quid ad simpliciter The force of my argument consists not in the chusing of the place by the Pope that 's a pure circumstance but the strength of my reason consists in this that the Council was gathered by the Popes authority And to this you say nothing which notwithstanding is an evident proof that the Pope had authority over the whole Church as I shall prove hereafter Serious things should be seriously answered and not be thus jested at by fraudulent fallacies and disguises Now in my words here cited viz. Martian wrote to Leo that by the Bishops authority a General Council might be gathered in what City of the Eastern Church he should please to chuse the word he may as well be related to Martian as to the Pope So that you cannot inforce from the precise words that I say the place was left to the Pope's choice Mr. Baxter Num. 217.2 You say Anatolius the rest of the Eastern Bishops sent to Pope Leo the professions of their Faith by his Order Reply 1. And what then Therefore Pope Leo was both Governour of them and all the Christian world You should not provoke men to laughter about serious things I tell you Can you prove this Consequence Confessions were ordinarily sent in order to communion or to satisfie the offended without respect to superiority Corruption William Iohnson Num. 217. I see y' are merrily disposed y' are so full of jesting and laughing but truly see no other jest here â—â—hen your misreporting my argument and then saying it moves laughter I spake of confessions of Faith exacted from others by command or order of the Pope and this I alleadge to be a proof of the Popes universal supremacy And you answer that Confessions were ordinarily sent in order to Communion or to satisfie the offended without respect to superiority As if I made the bare sending a Confession of Faith to another an argument that he to whom it is sent is superiour to him that sends it Whereas I say in express termes that it is the ordering such a Confession to be sent to him who orders it and not the bare sending without order which argues superiority in him who orders the sending such professions Might I not here deservedly retort your Sarcasmus and tell you you should not provoke men to laughter by such gross perversions as these in serious things But I spare and pitty you Mr. Baxter Num. 218.2 But I see not the proof of your impertinent words Pulcherius Epistle to Leo expresseth that Leo had sent his Confession first to Anatolius to which Anatolius consented By your Rule then Leo was subject to Anatolius Corruption William Iohnson Num. 218. I find no Epistle of Pulcherius to Leo nor so much as any such
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
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
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
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
and whether their disobedience unchurch them or not Rejoynder But if you reject the Constable and with him all superiour Magistrates who maintain his Authoritie and come at last so far that you reject the Authority of the supreme or Soveraign power rather then depend on the Constable you will become a Rebel this is my case for the Church being visible is governed in this world by visible governours if therefore one Reject the Authority first of a parish Priest and then of the Bishop of the Diocesse and after of all those who are Superiour to that Bishop even to the highest authority whether this be in one single person or in the assembly of these Pastours in general Council imports little for the present question he becomes a Rebell to the visible Church and casts himself out of it and by consequence because our Saviour hath said he who heareth you heareth me and he who contemneth you contemneth me rejects also Christ's Authority by rejecting them and thereby casts himself from being any longer whilst he remains in that contempt of the Flock and Kingdome of Christ which is his Church For this contempt must be the same kind in respect of Christ that it is in regard of all the aforesaid visible Governours and therefore must reject the Authority of Christ because it rejects their Authority but none of those who reject Christ's Authority over them can be parts of his Flock or Kingdome Ergo note the fallacie of your Assertion in making many Hereticks and Schismaticks properly so called Real parts of the Catholick Church Reply I earnestly crave your Answer to the uncertainties which I have mentioned in my Safe Religion pag. 9 3. to 104. and tell us how all our Pastours may be known and whether every particular sin un-Church men and if not why the contempt and rejection of a drunken Priest doth it while all the rest are perhaps too much honoured Rejoynder Really Sir I am too full of employments either to Answer or peruse your Books I never oblig'd my self to answer them You make a visible Body with an invisible Head that is you admit no other head or supreme Ecclesiastical Magistrate over the visible Church save Christ who is invisible to the Church as he is head of it and whose government is internal and invisible if you abstract from all visible supreme Authority and hence you assert that though all the Respective visible governours in spiritual things be rejected by a subject yet he may be a part of the visible Church because he is still subject to Christ who is invisible to to him in his Head-ship I suppose I have said enough above to what you demand here and take those Arguments in your safe Religion to be much of the same nature with these Mr. Baxter Qu. 4. Why exclude you the chief Pastours that depend on none William Iohnson Ans. I exclude them not but include them as those of whom all the rest depend as St. Ierome does in his definition Ecclesia est plebs Episcopo unita Mr. Baxter How inconstant are you among your selves in the use of Terms how frequent is it with you to appropriate the name of the Church to the Clergie but remember hereafter when you tell us of the Determinations Traditions of the Church that it is the people that you mean and not onely the Pastours in Council much lesse the Pope alone Rejoynder This Requires no Answer as opposing nothing against what I say to that Question who knowes not that Termes have different acceptions both amongst you and us both in Scripture Ecclesiastical and Civil Authors Of HERESIE Heresie is an obstinate intellectual Opposition against Divine Authority revealed when it is sufficiently propounded Mr. Baxter Qu. 1. Is the obstinacie that makes Heresie in that Intellectual Will William Iohnson Answ. In the will by an imperate act restraining the understanding to that Mr. Baxter Still your descriptions signifie just nothing you describe it to be an Intellectual obstinate opposition and yet say that this is in the will William Iohnson You still Reply lesse then nothing to what I say yes it is an intellectual obstinate opposition but I say not that the intellectualtie is in the will or do you demand that Read I pray my description and your question and you will find no such matter I say the obstinacy is in the will directly to your question but the heresie is in the understanding and therefore comes it to be an intellectual obstinate opposition because that obstinacie in the will imperates a kind of immobility in the understanding whereby it adheres firmly to it's Errour Intellectual therefore it is from the understanding and obstinate from the will Mr. Baxter And yet again you contradict your self by saying that it is an Imperate act William Iohnson Where say I that imperate act is in the will prove from my words I say so I say indeed that obstinacy is in the will by an imperate restraining the understanding to that Errour but I never said that imperate act was in the will nay I insinuate sufficiently that it is in the understanding by affirming that it restrains the understanding for the imperate act is a kind of immoveable judgement imperated in the understanding by the obstinacy of the will all therefore that I say is this that there is an obstinacy in the will shewing it self to be there by that immobility which it imperates in the understanding and adheres to that errour when therefore I say by that imperate act I mean not formally by that but causally Reply No imperate act is in the will though it be from the will it is voluntary but not in volunte an imperate act may be in the will but not an imperate all imperate acts are in and immediately by the commanded faculties The Intelligere which is the imperate act is in the intellect though the velle intelligere which is an elicite act be in the will Rejoynder You seem to discourse very strangely and inconsequently of imperate acts what Philosopher before you ever said no imperate act is in the will though it be from the will shew your Authours for this is not the quite contrary the common assertion of the schools does not the will by an imperant act of charity e. g. imperate within it self an act of obedience contrition patience c. Nay do not many Philosophers from hence argue that the will and the understanding must be one and the same soul and not two powers really distinct because the will imperates acts in the understanding not by way of production or proper efficiency but by a certain Sympathetical emanation of an act imperated from the act imperating Mr. Baxter 2. From hence it is plain that you cannot prove me or any man to be an Heretick that is unfeignedly willing to know the truth and is not obstinately willing in opposing it which are things you cannot ordinarily discern and prove by others that are ready
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
it in your Edition p. 35. But why do you refer what I admit not I say not that every Opponent may come to a Negative at his pleasure as you make me say but when that Negative is deduced by force of Syllogistical form and denied by the Respondent in a matter proveable by instances as this is I affirm and desire it should be sent to both our Learned Universities that he who denies the universal Negative is obliged in Logical process to give some instance to the contrary and that there is no other means to prove that Negative but by infringing the instances which the Respondent produces against it For if the Opponent go to prove his universal negative by Induction viz. in my present Minor But no Congregation of Christians hath been alwayes visible save those which acknowledge St. Peter c. he must come at last to this Such a Congregation is neither that of the Arrians nor of the Eutychians nor of Nestorians nor any other Congregation that can be named Then if the Respondent deny that Proposition and affirm there is some nameable he is obliged to tell which it is otherwise it is impossible to make progress in the Argument which way of arguing notwithstanding is most Logical and usually practised amongst Learned Disputants Baxter Num. 25. We are all agreed that Christianity is the true Religion and Christ the Churches universal Head and the Holy Scriptures the Word of God Papists tell us of another Head and Rule the Pope and Tradition and Iudgement of the Church Protestants deny these Additionals and hold to Christianity and Scripture onely our Religion being nothing but Christianity we have no controversie about their Papal Religion superadded is that which is controverted They affirm 1. the Right 2. the Antiquity of it We deny both The Right we disprove from Scripture though it belongs to them to prove it The Antiquity is it that is now to be referred Protestancy being the denial of Popery it is we that really have the Negative and the Papists that have the Affirmative The Essence of our Church which is Christian is confessed to have been successively visible But we deny that theirs as Papal hath been so and now they tell us that it is Essential to ours to deny the Succession of theirs and therefore require us to prove a Succession of ours as one that still hath denied theirs Now we leave our Case to the Lawyers seeing to them you make your Appeal 1. Whether the Substance of all our Cause lie not in this question Whether the Papacy or universal Government by the Pope be of Heaven or of Men Fallacy 8. and so Whether it hath been from the beginning which we deny and therefore are called Protestants and they affirm and are therefore called Papists 2. If they cannot first prove a Successive visibility of their Papacy and Papal Church then what Law can bind us to prove that it was denied before it did arise in the world or ever any pleaded for it 3. And as to the point of Possession I know not what can be pretended on your side 1. The possession of this or that particular Parish Church or Tythes is not the thing in question but the universal Headship is the thing But if it were yet it is I that am yet here in Possession and Protestants before me for many Ages Successively And when possessed you the Head-ship of the Ethiopian Indian and other Extra-Imperial Churches never to this day No nor of the Eastern Churches though you had Communion with them 2. If the question be who hath possession of the universal Church we pretend not to it but onely to a part and the soundest safest part 3. The Case of Possession therefore is Whether we have not been longer in Possession of our Religion which is bare Christianity then you of your super-added Popery Our Possession is not denied of Christianity yours of Popery we deny and our denial makes us called Protestants Let therefore the reason of Logicians Lawyers or any rational sober man determine the case whether it do not first and principally belong to you to prove the visible Succession of a Vice-Christ over the universal Church Iohnson Num. 25. Fair and softly Sir you are run quite out of the field and have lost your self I know not where The present question is not who is to prove the universal and perpetual Supremacy of the Roman-Bishop See you not that I have already undertaken the proof of that in this present Argument The question at present is nothing but this when I have brought the Argument to this Head that no other Congregation of Christians can be named perpetually visible save that which acknowledges the Roman Supremacy and you deny that negative Proposition of mine whether you be not obliged upon that denial to name some Congregation which has been perpetually visible beside it This and this onely is that which I referr'd and still refer to the the judgement of the Learned as to your Case when it comes in season it shall be resolved This onely ex abundanti for the present whatsoever may be or not be of the Indians and Ethiopians c. which shall hereafter be examined You who confess the Pope to have been constituted Part 2. at least by the Churches grant Patriarch of the West and thereby to have acquired a lawfull Supremacy over the Western Churches and consequently over that of England and was in full and quiet possession of that Right when your first Protestants began to reject it you I say cannot deny those first Protestants at least to have been obliged by reason of that possession to bring convincing proofs that it was unlawfull which notwithstanding you must hold impossible to be done because you hold that Patriarchal power over them to have been lawfull Now what obligation falls upon you as maintaining successively so wrongfull a cause I leave to your consciences to determine Nay it is most evident in time of the first breach with the Roman Bishop he was in as quiet possession of Supremacy over the English Church in quality of Supreme visible Pastor over the whole Church as he was in quality of the Western Patriarch for the English obeyed him as Supreme over all and not as Patriarch of the West onely as appears by thousands of testimonies extant in our National Councils Doctors Bishops Historians Records Decrees c. Therefore those who dispossest him of that possession were bound either to have demonstrated it undeniably to be unlawfull or to have procured a definitive Sentence against him by such as had full Authority to judge him that his possession was unjust neither of which either hath been done nor can ever be done Baxter Num. 26 As to your contradictory impositions I reply 1. Your exception was not exprest and your imposition was peremptory Iohnson Num. 26. But I supposed my Adversaries to be Logicians and stood not in need to be instructed
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
declared the second Patriarchate by the Decree of the Nicene Council because it was the second Seat in the Empire and Antioch which was the third was likewise appointed to be the third Patriarchate and other eminent Cities according to their greatness and precedency in the Empire had the dignity of Primacy and Metropolitane Seas for by this means Church-government was more sweetly and peaceably instituted and maintained both to the satisfaction of the Cities themselves of the temporal Governours and of spiritual Pastors It was say you not the Dignity and Authority of St. Peter Nâ—â—w Sâ—â—ct but the Merits of Vertue and Sanctity which was alledged in hâ—â—se and â—â—hâ—â— like Texts as ground of the Supereminency of his Sea aâ—â— Rome for still they press meritis Beati Petri by the merits of St. Peter I am glad to hear you against your own Tenets acknowledge merits of Saints to haâ—â—e been delivered by the Authority of so great a stream of Antiquity in these purer Ages but it seems withal you were sore press'd for an Answer when you could find no other but what is so disadvantageous to your Cause And that which is yet worse it cannot serve your turn neither For if those Ancients mean't by merita B. Petri the merits of his Sanctity and grounded the Primacy of his Sea in them it must have been undoubtedly known to them that St. Peter was a greater Saint and of a life more meritorious then either S. Paul or S. Iohn Evangelist or S. Andrew or any of the other Apostles of which none of these had any certainty at all much less was it a thing received in the Church that S. Peter had a higher degree of Sanctity then any of his fellow-Apostles prove there was any such perswasion Nay it would probably have been esteemed a temerity a very great curiosity to have preferr'd the sanctity of any one amongst them before all the rest But I wonder much you observed not the manner of speaking of those holy Fathers and grave Authors who give it clearly enough to be understood what Merits they meant For had they been of your opinion they should have added by way of explication Meritis Beati Petri qui sanctissimus erat inter omnes Apostolos by the Merits of S. Peter who was the holiest amongst all the Apostles But to shew they understood not that but the Merits of Dignity and Authority they usually add this clause Meritis Beati Petri qui Princeps est omnium Apostolorum by the Merits of S. Peter who is the Prince of all the Apostles which speaks manifestly a merit or worth of Authority And it were very strange to regulate the Authority of Episcopal Seas by the personal merits of their first Institutors both because that is without an express revelation a thing known to God onely and would occasion a thousand contentions about the precedency of Bishops every one being desirous to esteem the Apostle of his City or Nation the greater Saint and because there never was in Ancient times any such reason given for the precedency of Episcopal or Apostolical Seas if there were shew it nor was any of the other Apostles successors preferred before the rest upon pretence that his merits and sanctity was esteemed greater then that of others Baxter Num. 61. But those Councils gave the Pope no preheminence over the Extra-Imperial Nations Iohnson Num. 61. If he had it before what needed they to give it him or how could they give him what was due to him by Christs Institution But supposing Argumentandi gratiâ not granting that they had had power to confer these priviledges upon S. Peters Sea how do you prove they did not de facto give them to him and thereby gave him power over those Extra-Imperial Nations You prove it thus Baxter Num. 62. For 1. Those Nations being not called to the Council could not be bound by it Iohnson Num. 62. Were they not called sure then they came without calling for there they were For had they not been there how came the Bishops of Persia of both the Armenia's and Gothia which were all out of the Empire to subscribe to the first Council of Nice Vide Act. Conc. Nicen. et Ephes. How came Phoebamnon Bishop of the Copti to subscribe to the first Council of Ephesus How came that Circular Letter writ by Eusebius Bishop of Caesaria in Palestine in the name of the Council to be directed to all Bishops and in particular to the Churches through all Persia and the great India if the Bishops of those Churches were not called or the Council had no Authority over them Theod. l. 1. c. 7. Mar. Victor lib. 1. adv Arium Euseb. l. 3. de vitâ—â— Constannin c. 7. Socrat. l. 1. c. 5. Lastly if those Bishops were not called to the Council why do Theodoret Marianus Victor Eusebius Socrates all of them affirm that to the Council of Nice were called Bishops from all the Churches of Europe Africa and Asia You will not forget to answer these questions in your next CHAP. IV. ARGUMENT Num. 63. Emperors alone called no General Councils so that Extra-Imperial Bishops must have been called by the Pope Extra-Imperial Churches under the Patriarchs num 65 c. One page and a half of Mr. Baxters Key for Catholicks occasionally examined and what defects are found in them n. 67. Had the Extra-Imperial Churches not acknowledg'd the Popes Iurisdiction over them they had not been of the same kind of Government with those within the Empire n. 68. S. Prosper's and S. Leo's Texts for the Popes Supremacy without the Roman Empire num 69. S. Leo highly injur'd by Mr. Baxter num 71. No full express nomination of all the particular Provinces under Alexandria in the sixth Canon of the Nicene Council n. 71. By Egypt may be understood Ethiopia and other adjacent Countreys num 72. Dr. Heylen and Ross Protestant Authors against Mr. Baxter n. 37. The first of these acknowledges the Arabick Translation of the Nicene Council to be Authentick Baxter Num. 63. The Emperours called and enforced the Councils Non-proof 5. who had no power out of their Empire Iohnson Num. 63. Called they them alone had they not the Authority of the Roman Bishop joyn'd with them or rather presuppos'd to theirs Prove that the Emperours onely called them What if they had no coercive power out of the Empire had they not power to signifie to those Extra-Imperials that a Council was to be celebrated and to invite them at least to it Or if they did not could not the Bishop of Rome or the other Patriarchs under whose Jurisdiction they were respectively notifie to them the celebration of those Councils and require their presence in them You cannot but see this Baxter Num. 64. The Dioceses are described and expresly confined within the verge of the Empire See both the description and full proof in Blondel de Primatu in Ecclesiâ Gall. Iohnson Num. 64. I should much rather have
justly condemned for not beleeving Gods revelation Now suppose some new Heretick as I have heard of one such lately should beleeve that Christ did rise again from the dead yet dis-believes that he rose the third day and perswades himself that his Resurrection happened some time after the third day Let such an Heretick be asked why he beleeves that Christ rose from death if he tell you because God hath revealed it in the forenamed sentence then ask him what moves him to beleeve that God has revealed it if he tells you because he finds it clearly expressed in this sentence of Scripture which he beleeves to be Gods revealed word demand further why he beleeves it to be his word he will tell you because it is sufficiently propounded to him as such so that he is satisfied that it is the Word of God Then presse him thus But certainly you beleeve not that place of Scripture to be the Word of God for if you did you would beleeve all that it contained in it which you do not for it is as clearly exprest in that sentence That Christ rose again the third day as that he rose at all but you beleeve not that he rose the third day Ergo You beleeve not that Sentence to be the Word of God Ergo You cannot beleeve that Christ rose again for the authority of Gods word in that sentence Ergo You beleeve it not because God has revealed it Ergo You have no divine Faith at all of the mystery of the Resurrection but a meer humane perswasion grounded upon your own particular phansie or reason that it is so Thus you see it is impossible to beleeve any thing which God has revealed for the Authority of Divine revelation unless he who beleeves gives the like assent to every other truth be it of what importance great or small in it self makes nothing to our present difficulty which is as plainly proposed to him to be revealed from God as that which he beleeves To make this yet more facile to the unlearned I will declare it by a Vulgar instance Suppose there were some honourable and worthy Person in a Common-wealth of so great credit that what he saves is beleeved by every one as an undoubted truth Some other of credible Authority tells his friend this Honourable person has told him two things and affirmed both of them to be true of his own knowledge his friend tells him he beleeves the one but will not by any means assent to the other He asks his friend Why beleeve you the first He answers because such a person affirmes it to be true He demands further why beleeve you he said so the friend answers upon your relation Then sayes the other you hold my relation to be a sufficient inductive to make you beleeve he said the first Yes says his friend I do not so replies the relator for if you did you would beleeve he said the second as well as the first for I assure you as much that he said the one as the other Now what can his Friend answer he must either say that he beleeves not the Honourable person said so upon the sole authority of the others relation and consequently that neither of those truths were sufficiently propounded to him by that relator and so could beleeve neither the first not the second contrary to his former acknowledgment and our present supposition or he must deny that he beleeves the second of those relations though the Honourable Personage said both the one and the other and then it is evident he beleeved not the first upon the sole credit of his saying but for som other reason of his own For if he had beleeved the first upon his sole word he must have beleeved the second also seeing he had as much reason to beleeve he said the second as the first Thus I have endeavoured to prove the first part of my Major Now I prove the second Viz. That no man can have true Christian faith who beleeves any thing as revealed from God which is as sufficiently propounded to him to be erroneous or not revealed from God as are the Articles of Faith to be Gods revelations the very same Authority which affirms the one denying the other Let us suppose some rigid Calvinist beleeving the Pope to be that great Antichrist foretold in the Revelation and that the very same authority which as he acknowledges sufficiently propounded to him the Articles of Christian Faith as revealed from God assured him that no such matter as the Popes being that great Antichrist was ever revealed and that it was a manifest error in Faith In this case either that Calvinist must dis-beleeve that propounding Authority and thereby loose his Faith in the former Articles and have no true Faith at all in the first or beleeve it in the second because it is still the very same Authority in both For that very Authority which propounds the Articles of Faith as revealed from God propounds this as not revealed and as contrary to Gods revelation Baxter Num. 89. Yet I have herewith satisfied your demand but shewed you the unreasonableness of it beyond all reasonable contradiction Non-proof 12. Iohnson Num. 89. You are very prone to assert without proof Where have you shewed the unreasonableness of my demand Tell me I pray in your next for you have not yet done it Baxter Num. 90. You next inquire Whether we account Rome and us one Congregation of Christians I answer the Roman Church hath two heads and ours but one and that 's the difference Iohnson Num. 90. Who ever accounted a King and a Viceroy a Bishop and a Vicar a Captain and a Lieutenant a Master and a Steward two Heads respectively to their Territories and Jurisdictions Can you call the head and the neck two heads because both of them with subordination the one to the other are placed above the rest of the body The head is the highest part of an Organical body and whatsoever is subordinate to that is no head absolutely though it be next the head and higher then all the other parts Christ is only the Head of his whole Church comprising the Militant and Triumphant and of this whole Church the Pope is a part but no Head The Holy Councils and Fathers indeed stile him sometimes Head of the visible Militant Church as we shall see hereafter but that is only in regard of the visible government of the Church not absolutly and soveraignly for the only soveraign head of the Militant Church works in it and governs it invisibly by his holy lights and inspirations and particularly him who is its visible Head according to its visible government There is therefore amongst us one only absolute head of the Church the other hath no absolute Independent power over it but is as truly a part of the Church depending as much on the absolute head as any other pâ—â—râ—â— doth There is but one King and Master of the Militant
say to so many poor souls that are ready to enter into another World Either sin against your Consciences and so damn your souls or else let us burn and murder you or else you do not love us you are uncharitable if you deny us leave to kill you and you separate from the Communion of the Church We appeal from the Pope and all unreasonable men to the great God of heaven and earth to judge righteously between you and us concerning this dealing As for possessing our selves of your Bishopricks and Cures if any particular person had personal injury in the change being cast out without cause they must answer for it that did it not I though I never heard any thing to make me beleeve it But must the Prince and the people let alone Delinquent Pastors for fear of being blamed for taking their Bishopricks Ministers of the same Religion with us may be cast out for their crimes Princes have power over Pastors as well as David Solomon and other Kings of Israel had Guil. Barclay and some few of your own knew this The Popes treasonable exemption of the Clergie from the Soveraigns judgement will not warrant those Princes before God that neglect to punish offending Pastors And I beseech you tell us when our Consciences after the use of all means that we can use to be informed cannot renounce all our senses nor our reason nor the judgement of the most of the Church or of Antiquity or the Word of God and yet we must do so or be no members of your Church what wrong is it to you if we chuse us Pastors of our own in the order that God hath appointed Had not the people in all former ages the choice of their Pastors We and our late Fore-fathers here were never under your over-sight but we know not why we may not now choose our Pastors as well as formerly we do it not by Tumults We kill not men and tread not in their blood while we chuse our Pastors as Pope Damasus was chosen The Tythes and other Temporal maintenance we take from none but the Magistrate disposeth of it as he seeth meet for the Churches good And the maintenancâ—â— is for the cure or work and therefore that are justly cast out of the cure are justly deprived of the maintenance And surely when they are dead none of you can with any shew of reason stand up and say These Bishopricks are yours or These Parsonages are yours It is the Incumbent personally that only can claim the Title saving the super-eminent title of Christ to whom they are devoted But the successive Popes cannot have title to all the Tythes and Temples in the World nor any of his Clergy that never were called to the charges If this be dis-union it is you that are the Separatists and cause of all If you will needs tell all the Christian World that except they will be ruled by the Pope of Rome and be burned if they beleeve not as he bids them in spight of their senses he will call them Separatists Schismaticks and say they dis-unite and are uncharitable again we appeal to God and all wise men that are impartial whether it be he or we that is the divider Iohnson Num. 98. By what is now answered this your long Rhetorical Exclamation from page 108. to page 112. is also solved For all that the Church of Rome demands of you even to the denying of your senses and subjecting of your judgement was in the year 1500. required of you by all Visible Ancient Churches in the World and you are not able to nominate any one where it was not Change therefore the term Pope or Church of Rome into that of the Catholick Church of Christ that is all Orthodox particular Churches existent at that time which are comprised in the number of all visible ancient particular Churches then existing and address your exclamations to it and then you will see how little of a Christian complaint there is in that whole digression To this therefore I presse you once again to produce some Visible Church in the year 1500. from whose visible Communion you were not separated in your first beginning Anno 1517. as much as were the Pelagians or Donatists from all Visible Churches in their times And to render a sufficient reason why your dis-obeying or substracting your selves from the dependance and obedience of all the Visible Pastors in all Churches Anno 1500. was not as much deserving to be termed and held a criminal Schism and spiritual Rebellion as any former separation from all Visible Churches Mr. Baxter Num. 99. You ask me 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 a Congregation of Commonwealth's-men Answ. yes it is But as all the world is one kingdome under God the universal King but yet hath no universal vice-king but every Commonwealth only hath it's own Sovereign even so all the Christian world is one Church under Christ the universal king of the Church but hath not one vice-Christ but every Church hath it's own Pastours as every School hath it's own School-master But all the Anger is because we are loth to be ruled by a cruel usurper therefore we are uncharitable William Iohnson Num. 99. You commit the Fallacy of ignoratio Elenchi and pass à genere in genus I speak of a visible Kingdome or Commonwealth as it is regulated by a visible Government and you take it as it is invisibly govern'd by an invisible Providence In this sense only are all the kindomes of the earth one kingdome under the invisible Government of the Invisible God but cannot be truly called one visible kingdome but more Now it is evident through the whole discourse that our present Controversie is of the visible Church as it is visible and in this sense it is and must be one and consequently must be under some visible Government which must make it one That cannot be Christ for he governs not his Church now visibly Ergo there must be some other and that must either be some Assembly of chief Governours as would be a General Council or some one person who has Authority to govern the whole body of the Church A general Council it cannot be for that was never held to be the ordinary but only the extraordinary Church-Government when emergent occasions require it and even when that is convened there must be some one person to avoid Schisme and quiet Controversies which may possibly arise in the Council with Authority above all the rest It is therefore manifest the Church cannot be perfectly one visible politick Body unless there be one visible head to govern it visibly as the ordinary Governour of it I beseech you Sir reflect often upon this distinction and you will see the chief ground of your discourse answered by it For to say as you do here that the Church
is scarce faire pardon this plainness consider of it your self The substance of Nilus book is about the Primacie of the Pope the very Contents prefixed to the first book are these Oratio demonstrans non aliam c. an Oration demonstrating that there is no other cause of dissention between the Latine and the Greek Churches then that the Pope refuseth to defer the Cognisance and Iudgement of that which is Controverted to a General Council but he will sit the sole Master and Iudge of the Controversie and will have the rest as Disciples to be hearers of or obey his word which is a thing aliene from the Lawes and Actions of the Apostles and Fathers and he begins his Book after a few words thus Causa itaque hujus dissidii c. The Cause therefore of this difference as I judge is not the sublimity of the point exceeding man's capacitie for other matters that have divers times troubled the Church have been of the same kind this therefore is not the cause of the dissention much lesse is the speech of the Scripture it self which as being concise doth pronounce nothing openly of that which is Controverted for to accuse the Scripture is as much as to accuse God himself But God is without all fault but who the fault is in any one may easily tell that is well in his wits He next shews that it is not for want of learned men on both sides nor is it because the Greeks do claim the Primacy and then concludeth it as before he maintaineth that your Pope succeedeth Peter onely as a Bishop ordained by him as many other Bishops that originally were ordained by him in like manner to succeed him and that his Primacy is no governing power nor given him by Peter but by Princes and Councils for order sake and this he proves at large and makes this the main difference Bellarmine 's answering his so many Arguments might have told you this if you had never read Nilus himself and if you say that this point was the Cause I deny it but if it were true yet was it not the onely or chief Cause afterwards The manner of bringing in the Filioque by Papal Authority without a general Council was it that greatly offended the Greeks from the beginning William Iohnson Num. 118. This is a strange manner of Arguing what if his chief subject be about the Popes Primacy may he not ex incidente and occasionaliter treat other matters Is not your chief matter in this Treatise to prove the succession of your Church and oppose ours and yet treat you not in this very place incidentally the procession of the holy Ghost I say then that Nilus declaring the cause why the Bishop of Rome hath lost all that Primacy and Authority which he had anciently by reason he is fallen from the Faith in adding Filioque to the Creed and teaching that the holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son the words you cite out of Nilus proves nothing he pretends indeed that the cause of the present dissention is the Popes challenging so high a Primacy which they are unwilling as all schismaticks ever were to grant him but that may well stand with what I affirm him to say that the first original cause of the breach betwixt the Greeks and Latines was the adding of Filioque and holding the holy Ghost's procession from the Father and the Son But see you not how fair a thread you have spun by pressing those words as you do against me is there indeed no other cause of dissention betwixt the Greek and Latine Church nor ground of their breach save the Popes supremacy then sure there is a full agreement in all other things if so there is a main disagreeing betwixt you and the Greeks in all other points of Faith controverted betwixt you and us for if they agree with us they disagree from you in every one of them nay you press Nilus his words in that sense you must take them to frame an Argument against me quite against the very words themselves for you alledge them to shew that he touches not the procession of the holy Ghost in that Book as the first ground of their difference to prove this you must proceed thus he treats nothing there save the Pope's Supremacie ergo he touches not the holy Ghost's procession you prove the Antecedent by the words of the Title of his first book here cited because he affirmes in them there is no other cause of dissention then that the Pope refuses to stand to the judgement of a general Council as if that onely were controverted betwixt them for otherwise you prove nothing Now it is most evident that Nilus supposes many other Controversies betwixt them and the Latines for he saies even as you cite him thus then that the Pope refuseth to defer the Cognisance and Iudgement of that which is Controverted to a general Council Ergo you must acknowledge that according to Nilus there was something controverted betwixt the Greeks and the Latines besides the Pope's Supremacie and after you bring him in pag. 124. mentioning this very point of the procession when you alledge him thus the cause therefore of this difference as I judge is not the sublimity of the point exceeding man's capacitie where he speaks of the holy Ghost's procession as I affirm him to doe thus you play fast and loose say and unsay at your pleasure thus you confound times and by not distinguishing the past as before you did not the future from the present make that which is now onely pretended by Nilus to be the chief cause of their not coming to Agreement to have been many hundred yeares agoe the original cause of their breach and opposition against the Latines whereby you confound the first occasion of the breach and the present obstacle to the making it up and reconciling them together as if they were one and the same thing Now it is most manifest that the first occasion of the breach made by the Greeks from the Latine Church was the Exception they took against the Latines for adding the word Filioque and from the Son to the Nicene Creed for Michael Patriarch of Constantinople anno 1054. in time of Leo the 9. Pope and Constantine the 10. Emperour styled Monomachos aspiring not onely in name and Title as many of his predecessours had done before him but in reality and effect to be universal Patriarch proclaimed Leo and all the Latines who adhered to him to be Excommunicated because contrary to the decree of the Ephesine Council they had made an Addition to the Creed so that the Roman Bishop being pretended by the Greeks to be thereby deposed from his Sea The Primacie of the Church fell by Course and right upon him as being the next Patriarch after the Bishop of Rome which gave occasion to Nilus of acknowledging that Controversie about the procession of the holy Ghost to have been the first occasion of
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.
that is to such a one to whom every Bishop might appeal in the like case Mr. Baxter Num. 185. Your tenth proof is from Chrysostome's case where you say some things untrue and some impertinent 1. That Chrysostome appeals to Innocent from the Council of Constantinople is untrue if you mean it of an appeal to a superiour Court or Iudge much more if as to an universal Iudge But indeed in his banishment when all other help failed he wrote to him to interpose and helps him as far as he could I need no other proof of the Negative then 1. That there is no proof of the Affirmative that ever he made any such appeal William Iohnson Num. 185. Every appeal from a juridical sentence to have it reversed and the injured person restored to his former right and the unjust Judges punished by the authority of him to whom the appeal is made is to a superiour Court or Judge But St. Chrysostome's appeal was such Ergo it was to a superiour Court or Judge the Minor is evident from the matter of fact for St. Chrysostome writes thus to Pope Innocent Scribite precor authoritate vestra discernite St. Chrys. ep ad Inocent Papam apud Palladium in Dialogo hujusmodi iniqua gesta nobis absentibus judicium non declinantibus nullius esse roboris sicut per suam naturam sunt profecto irrita nulla porro qui talia gessere eos Ecclesiae censurae subjicite nos autem insontes neque convictos neque deprensos neque ullius criminis reos comprobate Ecclesiis nostris jubete restitui ut charitate frui pace confratibus nostris consuetâ possimus Write I beseech you and decree by your Authority that the unjust proceedings against us who were absent and not refusing Iudgement are of no force as indeed in their own nature they are void and null moreover make those to lye under the Churches censure who have committed such injustices but command that we who are innocent unconvicted and unguilty be restored to our Churches that we may re-enjoy our wanted charity and peace with our Brethren Is not this a full proof of the Minor The Major is also evident for none have power when appealed to perform those acts of authority over those of any Court unless they be a higher Court and Judge then the other from whom the appeal is made as all Jurists know and confess Mr. Baxter Num. 186. In his first Epistle to Innocent he tells him over and over that he appealed to a Synode and required Iudgement and that he was cast into a Ship for banishment because he appealed to a Synode and a righteous Iudgement never mentioning a word of any such appeal to the Pope William Iohnson Num. 186. What then Ergo he appealed not to Innocent as a superiour Iudge prove that consequence Was it not the custom then of approved Prelates as also in all well ordered Common-wealths first to appeal to the next ordinary Court and if Justice were done there to acquiesce and not to come to the highest Tribunal till no Justice could be had in the inferiour Did not St. Chrysostome all this must he needs mention his appeal to the Pope before he made it I think in earnest you were in jest here Mr. Baxter Num. 187. Yea he urgeth the Pope to befriend and help him by that Argument that he was still ready to stand to uncorrupted Iudges never mentioning the Pope as Iudge William Iohnson Num. 187. And was it not his duty to do so according to Canonical proceeding what need had he in that Epistle whilst he was in hopes of an inferiour tryal to mention an appeal to the highest Court must he upon all occasions mention every thing was it not sufficient that he did it when necessity required it Mr. Baxter Num. 188. By all which it appears it was but the assistance of his intercession that he requireth and withal perhaps the excommunicating of the wicked which another Bishop might have done William Iohnson Num. 188. But could any Bishop who was not a superiour Judge which make against you annul the Sentence of a Council by his Authority inflict Ecclesiastical censures upon those Judges and command the injured persons to be restored to their Seas as we have seen St. Chrysostome beseeched Innocent to do If you will undertake the writing of Controversies answer like a Scholar to the proofs alleadged against you and be sure in your next you fall no more into this fault for by dallying thus you may write to the worlds end to no purpose at all whilst you neither answer nor so much as mention the words which make aginst you pardon me if I tell you my mind plainly it is for your good Mr. Baxter Num. 189. Yea and it seems it was not to Innocent only but to others with him that he wrote for he would scarce else have used the termes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 William Iohnson Num. 189. How familiar is it in writing to persons of most eminent Authority to use the plural number how usual is this both in Scripture and other Authors Mr. Baxter Num. 190. But what need we more then his own words to know his request Saith he let those that are found to have done so wickedly be subject to the penalty of the Ecclesiastical Laws but as for us that are not convicted nor found guilty grant us to enjoy your letters and your charity and all others whose socâ—â—ety we did formerly enjoy Corruption William Iohnson Num. 190. This is a strange Metamorphosis of St. Chrysostomes words why leave you out the beginning of the Sentence scribite precor c. I beseech you to write and decree that by your authority those unjust acts are void and null I see this was not for your purpose nor could well admit of a handsom mistranslation 2. Why cite you not the Latin or Greek words that the equity of your Translation might appear O that would have spoyled your market Signifies then subjicite let them be subject what Grammer hath taught you that what word is there in the Latin Sentence that signifies your letters or your charity and what English word is there here which answers to jubete command or to restitui Ecclesiis vestris to be restored to our Churches See the Latin Text of St. Chrysostom cited above num Sir give me leave once more to be plain with you it had been much better for you and thousands of your too credulous Readers that you had never set pen to paper then to delude your own soul and theirs with such sophistications as these are and I pray God you come not one day with a great Patron of your Religion to curse the time that you ever writ Controversies which notwithstanding were rather to be wished then feared if the Grace of true Repentance accompany it Mr. Baxter Num. 191. The Ecclesiastical Laws enabled each Patriarch and Bishop to Sentence in his own
recorded the Histories and transactions of the said Churches so that 't is unknown to us what either passed betwixt them and the Bishop of Rome or amongst themselves Mr. Baxter Num. 207. Your next instance of Theodosius his not permitting the Council at Ephesus to be assembled and his reconciling himself to the Church is meerly impertinent We know that he and other Princes usually wrote to Rome Constantinople Alexandria c. Or spoke or sent to more then one of the Patriarcks before they called a Council William Iohnson Num. 207. You still seek diversions to avoid the difficulty The question is not now whether Theodosius and other Emperours did or might write to other Patriarcks about the celebration of Councils as well as the Roman but it is this whether they wrote in the same manner to them as they did to him that is as Pope Leo witnesses epist. 15. that he Theodosius bare this respect to the divine institution that he would use the authority of the Apostolick Sea for the effecting of his holy disposition And this was celebrating that Council the 2d of Ephesus which as then appeared to the Pope to be good and holy Finde me such a sentence of his writ by Theodosius or other Emperours to any of the Patriarcks beside the Roman that their authority was necessary according to divine institution for the celebrating of a general Council and you will have done something without which you trifle Mr Baxter Num. 208. You cannot but know that Councils have been called without the Pope William Iohnson Num. 208. Truly if you speak of lawful general â—â—ouncils I am so unknowing that I know it not supposing there were a known undoubted Pope in the Church as there was in Theodosius's time and I fear I shall be so dull that you will not be able to make me know it I am sure yet you have not gone about it and I presse you to nominate any such lawful general Councils call'd without the B. of Romes consent and authority Mr. Baxter Num. 209. And that neither this nor an Emperours forsaking his errour is a sign of the Popes universal Government William Iohnson Num. 209. Take the context of my proofs along with you which you conceal here and you confess this demanding the Popes authority as necessary to the celebration of a general Council and in that giving respect to divine restitution is a sign of his universal government seeing general Councils as I have proved are representatives not of the Empire but of the whole visible Church And Theodosius his pennance whereof one effect was that he required the confirmation of Anatolius in the Sea of Constantinople from Pope Leo and thereby attested his power over that Patriarck and a simili over all the rest he shewed himself to believe that the Roman Bishop was supream governour of the universal Church Mr. Baxter Num. 210. That Emperour gave sufficient testimony and so did the Bishops that adhered to Dioscorus that in those dayes the Pope was taken for fallible and controulable when they excommunicated him William Iohnson Num. 210. No more then the Clergy of Sweden would shew it now if they ventured so far as to excommunicate the Pope Is think you authority overthrown or rendred or argued null because it is opposed and contemned by Rebels you shew in this what your spirit is and how inconsistent with true Government when you make the contempt of Rebels an argument that all whom they reject have no lawful power over them a thing seasonable enough when you wrote this having then rebellious times and persons well suiting with it but yet demonstrative what you thought then and may still be esteemed one of your principles But I wonder much you were so venturous as to let it passe the print and see light since the happy return of our most gracious Soveraign For think you men are so blind as not to see this consequence that if Hereticks outing and contemning the authority of a Catholique Bishop as Dioscorus an Eutychian and his party did that of Leo be a good argument as you make it to prove he had no authority over the Church nor over Dioscorus who excommunicated him you must also hold that a publique Rebel's deposing a Soveraign is a good argument to justifie the fact and to prove that Soveraign had no authority over him Or if you your self dare not go so far you have laid a principle emboldning all Rebels to do it Mr. Baxter Num. 211. But when you cite out of any Author the words that you build on I shall take more particular notice of them William Iohnson Num. 211. I have cited them out of St. Leo and expect your answer Mr. Baxter Num. 212. Till then this is enough with this addition that the Emperours subjection if he had been subject not to an Ambrose or other Bishop but only to Rome would have been no proof that any without the Empire were his subjects no more then the King of Englands subjection to the Arch-bishop of Canterbury would have proved that the King of France was subject to him William Iohnson Num. 112. You flie again the difficulty I make not this argument the Emperour was subject to the Pope in spirituals Ergo all those Christians who were Extra-Imperial were also subject to him This is no argument of mine but your imposition My argument is this The Emperour and all Christians within this Empire were subject to the Pope as to St. Peters Successor and Supream Pastor of the whole flock and Vineyard of Christ by Christs institution Ergo all Extra-Imperial Churches were also subject to him Now this to have been the reason of their subjection is evident both from St. Leo's Epistle lately cited concerning Theodosius and from the Council of Chalcedon treated by me hereafter and from the command of Martian and all the other declaratives of the Bishop of Romes supereminent authority delivered and received in antiquity where not so much as any one of them hath chained it up within the circuit of the Roman Empire or given that for a measure or reason of his power and it still remained in full force in such Kingdoms as were taken by Christians from the Roman Emperors who as I have said never affirmed their freedom from the Emperours command to have franchised them from the Bishop of Romes authority Whence is clearly answered your parity in the Kings of Englands subjection to the Bishop of Canterbury for the Kings of England never subjected themselves to the Bishop of Canterbury as to the Supream visible Governour in spirituals of the whole Catholique Church no not as to one who had any jurisdiction out of England at all Mr. Baxter Num. 112. Your twelfth proof from the Council of Chalcedon is from a witness alone sufficient to overthrow your cause as I have proved to you This Synode expresly determineth that your Primacy is a novel humane invention that it was given you by the Fathers because Rome
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
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
what he was not obliged to prove Num. 277. Why the Roman supremacy in spirituals is necessary to the being of Christs visible Church Num 278. He proceeds fallaciously a sensu conjuncto ad sensu divisum The difference between temporal Kings and Popes government not understood by Mr. Baxter Num. 279. He proceeds a jure ad factum from what should be done to what is done Num. 280. He mistakes his adversaries meaning in governing others as Brethren Num. 281. Wâ—â—e her the Pope be absolutely the Monarch of the visible Church Mr. Baxter Num. 275. Yet fear you not to say that in the time of the holy oecumenical Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon the universal consent of the whole Catholick Church was for you in this point The Lord keep our consciences from being the servants of our opinions or interests 1. Was the Popes legate the whole Church 2. Was there one man at either of these Councils but within the Empire yea a piece of the Empire So that they were but such as we now call national Councils that is consisting only of the subjects of one republick 3. Did the Council speak a word for your power without the Empire 4. Do they not determine it so expresly to be of humane right that Bellarmine hath nothing regardable to say against it Can. 28. Con. Chal. but that they spoke falsly And yet your opinion or interest hath tempted you to appeal viz. to the Sun that there is no such thing as light William Iohnson Num. 275. Here 's nothing but a good face put upon a bad cause and a repetition of what is answered imboldned with a new confidence your first qu. about the Popes legate is answered To your second I answer yes there were no small number of extra-imperials but had there been none if all were summoned it ceased not to be a general Council To the third yes every decree it made was spoken to the whole Church and as it appeares by the letters of Leo the Emperour writ presently after the Council of Chalcedon to all Churches even the most distant in those parts it was universally received in their respective answers by every one of them To your fourth about can 28. Con. Chal. I have answered already and shall say more when it is more fully treated Mr. Baxter Num. 276. After the conclusion you have a supernumerary in your margin from Greg. lib. 10. Epist. 30. But there is no such word in that Epistle nor is it of any such subject But it s the 31 Epistle its like that your leader meant And there is no more but that a Bishop not named person or place having fallen into Schism voluntarily swore never more to depart from the unity of the Catholick Church or the Sea of Rome But. 1. So may a Bishop of the Roman Province do or Patriarchate without beleiving Rome to be the universal head William Iohnson Num. 276. Could they and yet make the communion with the Bishop of Rome to be the certification and evidence they reconciled themselves to the Catholick Church If any Schismatick in France should reconcile himself to the Catholick Church could he promise to remain allwayes in the communion of the Bishop of Rhemes suppose that Bishop should so be excommunicated or turne Schismatick as he might could he promise never to forsake his communion seeing therefore an absolute promise was made to remain alwayes in the communion of the Bishop of Rome it was presupposed that Bishop once lawfully chosen and installed could never be excommunicated or become a Schismatick so long as he remained Bishop of Rome otherwise the promise had been illegal and impious obliging them to communicate with Schismaticks Now there can be no other sufficient reason given why the Bishop of Rome can never be excommunicated or become a Schismatick so long as he is Bishop of that Sea then that he is the visible head of the whole Church from whose communion whosoever seperates becomes a Schismatick as he who seperates from the loyal obedience of the visible head of a Kingdome becomes a Rebel but because he has no power above him against whom he can rebel but as a King can never be a Rebell so not the highest visible governour of the Church can be excommunicated or commit Schisme by contempt of the lawful authority of the Church because he who is the highest of all has no authority in the Church over him for then he were not the highest Mr. Baxter Num. 277. So might any one in any other Province have done And yet it followes not that he ought to do so because he did so You see now what all your proofs are come too and how shamefully naked you have left your cause William Iohnson Num. 277. I have so illustrated and strengthened my instances to open them to your understanding that every one of them by an argument a paritate rationis onis ut supra evinces the Popes power to have been universal over all Christendome seeing those Patriarchs and Prelates that were within the verge of the Empire obeyed him upon no other score save this that they still conceived him to be by vertue of the priviledges and powers given by our Saviour to St. Peter and his lawful successors the cheif Governour of themselves and of all other Prelates whatsoever and of the whole Church and I challenge you to produce one sole instance of Authority from antiquity which sayes in expresse termes that those of the Empire obeyed them because they were members of the Empire or that his authority reached not without the Empire Nay even in time of the Council of Ephesus and Chalcedon Spain though seperate from the Empire obeyed the Roman Bishop for it was possest by the Gothes an 414. who have ever since kept it and the Council of Ephesus began 430. And not long after an 475. France was possest by barbarous Kings and never since returned to the Empire yet still remained under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome When England was after converted betwixt six and seven hundred years it was no part of the same Empire yet yeilded it obedience to the Bishop of Rome the like is of many other Western and Northern Countries out of the Empire converted about or after these times See more of this in my reasons against your grand noveltie in restraint of general councils what you mention here of a parity from Canterbury hath no parity at all For the English Church rendred obeisance to the Bishop of Canterbury as to the Primate of the English Church only whereas those in the Empire obeyed the Bishop of Rome not as cheif Bishop only of the Roman â—â—mpire but as having authority over the whole Church in vertue of succession from St. Peter who received it from Christ which I will demonstrate hereafter Mr. Baxter Num. 278. You have not named one man that was a Papist Pope Lâ—â—o was the nearest of any man nor one testimony that ever a
and of him that liveth for ever William Iohnson Num. 403. But see you not the text speakes of Patâ—â—iarchal Seas and how can you say there were any Patriarchal Seas before Rome was one seeing you conceit they were all constituted together in the Council of Nice I have shewed that all obedience argues not servitude or being the servants of those wee obey Children obey their Parents and Scholars their Masters and people their pastors yet are they not his servants And see you not that he sayes they are only tanquam famulae in some short attenders and joynes to it quasi filiae that they are as children nor speaks he of the Patriarchs wherein many Millions who were quasi filiae and tanquam famulae as daughters and attendants of the Roman sea and the whole custom and constitution of those Patriarchates was to serve as mediums and instruments that the whole Church might more facily be governed by the sea Apostolick as we shall see hereafter Mr. Baxter Num. 404. Truely the reading of your own historians and the Popes Bulls c. have more perswaded me that the Pope is Anti-Christ then the Apocalips hath done because I distrusted my understanding of it William Iohnson Num. 404. Truely Sir if I may be plain with you without offence by what you collect from these Historians Popes c you had reason to mistrust your understanding these as well as the Apocalips c. which I leave to judgement Mr. Baxter Num. 405. Benedictus de Benedictis wrote a book against Dr. Whitaker to prove its as false that the Pope is Anti-Christ as that Chirst is Anti-Christ and dedicated it to Pope Paul 5. with this inscription Paul 5. the Vice-God printed at Bononia 1608. William Iohnson Num. 405. Suppose that were so is Benedictus de Benedictis a sufficient authority being but a single Author or Paul 5. the generality of Popes you know I speak in such cases and not of particulars Mr. Baxter Num. 406. Caraffas Theses printed at Naples 1609. had the same inscription Paulo 5. Vice Deo to Paul 5. Vice-God William Iohnson Num. 406. The like is of Caraffa Mr. Baxter Num. 407. Alcazar in Apocal. in carmine ad Johannem Apostolum saith of the same Pope Paul 5. Quem numinis instar vera colit pietas whom as a God true Piety adores William Iohnson Num. 407. Nor is Alcazar more then one private person who when he plaies the Poet uses Licentia Poetica qui dlibet audendi CHAP. X. NUm 408. What Marcellus said to Iulius 2. Num. 410. Mr. Baxter makes the gloss upon the Canon Law to be the Canon Law he misscites the words of the gloss whether the Glosser cal the Pope God or the Printer err'd in inserting the word Deum into some late impression Num. 412. Antonius Puccius gives no more to the Pope then Pulcheria and the Council of Chalcedon gave to the Emperour Martian Num. 413. Begnius mistaken and mistranslated Stephanus Petracensis miscited St. Bernard condemned St. Antonine miscalled by Mr. Baxter Num. 414. the Oecumenical power of the four first Councils vindicated by authority and reason Mr. Baxter Num. 408. Christopher Marcellus in his Oration before Pope Julius 2. in the approved Council at Latarane Sess. 4. and you take not contradicting to be consenting and verily to such blasphemy in a Council so it is saith thus Quum tantae reipublicae unicus atque supremus princeps fueris institutus beatissime Pontifex cui summa data potestas ad divinum injunctum imperiuÌ„ c. ante sub tuo imperio unus Princeps qui summam in terris habeat potestatem But these are small things Teque omnis aevi omnium seculorum omnium gentium principem caput appellant But yet the Prince and head of all ages and Nations is too low cura Pater beatissime ut sponsae tuae forma decorque redeat But yet to make the Church his Spouse is nothing cura denique ut salutem quam dedisti nobis ut vitam spiritum non amittamus Tu enim Pastor tu medicus tu gubernator tu cultor tu denique alter Deus in terris That is see that we lost not the health that thou hast given us and the life and spirit For thou art the Pastor the Physition c. To conclude thou art another God on earth William Iohnson Num. 408. Marcellus is indeed of more concern because he speaks in a Council but the world may see he play'd the Orator his first expressions are no way extravagant but true and proper that of divinum imperium is so aâ—â—tered by you c that it seems a riddle you interlace it thus ad divinum imperium c. ante sub tuo imperio unus princeps qui summam in terris habeat potestatem to the divine command injoyn'd c. and before under thy command c. and one prince which hath the highest power in earth riddle me riddle me what 's this Now that particle ad divinum injunctum imperium is not spoken of the Popes power but of Gods divine command obliging Iulius to take care of those who were committed to him for he â—â—ayes thus cum igitur tantae-reipublicae unicus atque supremus princeps fueris institutus cui summa data potestas ad divinum injunctum imperium tuum est quemadmodum oppressum armis erexisti amplificasti ita moribus depravatam rulesiam reformare corrigere illustrare That of stiling the Church his Spouse had he meant it of the whole Church militant and triumphantâ—â— had been very extravagant and directly false and scandalous but applying it only to the visible Church on earth which is the more ignoble part of Christs Church I see not why that may not be termed according to the sole external government of it his Spouse as much as particular Bishopricks or parts of the visible Church are usually stiled the Spouses of their respective Bishops and they said to be espoused to those respective Churches His exhorting Iulius to preserve the health life and spirit which he had given them is easily explicated that he both gave them and preserved them by a careful direction teaching an external governing the visible Church His last stiling him alter Deus in terris another God upon earth is that which offends you most but had you considered that Moses in holy Scripture is made by God himself the God of Pharaoh that God titles those who are in lawful authority Gods ego dixi dij estis I have said you are Gods and that St. Paul affirms that all Gods true servants and children are participes divinae naturae participant of the divine nature which are as high and much higher expressions then Marcellus gives here to Iulius you would not I suppose so confidently have impeached him of blasphemy nor indeed could unless you make both St. Paul and the holy Scriptures nay and God himself to pronounce blasphemies in applying the like titles to
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
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
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
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
themselves to Christs manner of Government they virtually subject themselves to a chief Pastour Mr. Baxter If it be necessary that a particular Church must be assigned for such members by the supream Pastours then they are yet little the better that never have any Assignation from him as few have Rejoynder Who sayes it is necessary ad esse to be a part of the Catholick Church that all Assemblies of Christians should be actual members of some particular visible Church prove I say so from my words nor is it necessary the chief Pastour should assign any it suffices that those Christians be resolved to conform when it is assigned Mr. Baxter Qu. 2. What is that faith in unity where all members of the Catholick Church do live Is it the belief of all that God hath revealed to be believed or of part and what part William Iohnson Answ. Of all either explicitely or implicitely Mr. Baxter Your second Answer further proves that your Definitions signifie just nothing they must live in the unity of the faith that is either with faith or without it with a belief of what God hath revealed to be be believed or without it for to believe any point implicitly in your ordinary sense is not to believe it but onely to believe one of the premises whence the conclusion must be inferr'd But why do you not tell me what you mean by an implicite faith faith is called implicite in several senses 1. When several truths are actually understood and believed in confuso or in grosse in some one proposition which containeth the substance of them all but not with accurate distinct conceptions nor such as are ripe for any fit expression This indistinct immature imperfect kind of apprehension may be called implicite 2. When a general proposition is believed as the matter of our faith but the particulars are not understood or not believed As to believe that omne Animal vivit not knowing whether you be Animal or Cadaver or to believe all that is in Scripture is the word of God and true but not to know what is in the Scripture 3. What is onely the formal object of faith that is believed without understanding the Material object The first sort of these I confess is actual though indistinct but I suppose you mean not this 1. Because it is not the ordinary sense of your party 2. Because else you damn either all the world or most of your own professed party at least as no members of the Church for few or none have an actual understanding and belief of all that God ever revealed to them because all men or most at least have been sinfully negligent in searching after and receiving truth and so are sinfully ignorant no man knoweth all that God hath revealed or that he ought to know 3. Because by this rule it is impossible for you or any man to know who is indeed a member of your Church for you cannot know mens confused knowledge or know that it extendeth to all revealed for if you speak of all revealed in general or in Scripture you still damn all or most in your own sense for none as I said understand it all to a word but if you speak of all which that particular man hath had sufficient means to know It is then impossible for you to make a judgement of any mans faith by this for you can never discern all the means internal or external that ever he had much less can you discern whether his faith be commensurate to the truth so farre revealed so that by this course you make your Church invisible I pray tell me how you can avoid it William Iohnson Your discourse about implicite faith seems strange I require a proof from you that in your ordinary sense it is no belief at all 2. That it is onely to believe one of the premises whence the conclusion must be inferr'd 3. Tell me why you require that I should have declared to you what I meant by implicite faith when you suppose that I speak in the ordinary sense of our schoolmen and I could not but suppose you understood their doctrine 4. Why do you put the belief of the formal object without the belief of the material object of faith a third member of implicite belief or who did ever so before you 5. Why do you confound the two first members of your Distinction both of them being knowledge or belief in confuso your first is when several truths are actually understood and believed in confuso or in gross in some one proposition which containeth the substance of them all c. thus you Your second is to believe that omne animal vivit not knowing whether you be Animal or Cadaver or to believe that all that is in Scripture is the word of God and true but not to know what is in the Scripture thus you Now tell me does not this proposition omne Animal vivit contain the substance of these truths Equus vivit Leo vivit Aquila vivit c. so that by believing or knowing this proposition distinctly omne Animal vivit I believe or know in confuso those other propositions contained as species under their genus in it and the like is of your second proposition for believing all that is in Scripture is the word of God and true expresly I believe in confuso all that is in Genesis Exodus Leviticus c. to be the word of God and true though I neither believe or know expresly and distinctly all that is contained in those books can you deny this If you proceed in Philosophical principles is not the express knowledge of the genus a confused knowledge of species under it and an express knowledge of the species a confused knowledge of the individua under it and a knowledge or belief when they are known or believed in confuso Thus you give distinctions without differences and examples to illustrate your distinctions which quite destroy them 6. Why put you a contradictory proposition you say thus not knowing whether you that is such a man be Animal or Cadaver now this is a plain implicancy in adjecto for it is as impossible that you or any man should be a Cadaver as that a man should be a barn door the one being as truely disparate from a true man as the other and disparates you know cannot predicate the one of the other every one therefore knows who knows what a man is that no man is or can be Cadaver a dead caâ—â—kass so that no man can be ignorant whether you be Animal or Cadaver A little more heed to what you write would do well when you dispute 7. Why say you you suppose I mean nor your first manner of implicite faith when I and all who understand themselves must either mean that or nothing The object of implicite faith delivered in the Schools being nothing else save particular truths contained in substance under some general proposition so that though they be
of all that ever God revealed to them and within three or four lines you say absolutely and without all exception no man knoweth all that God hath revealed first you say all men or most at least have been sinfully negligent in searching after and receiving truth and within a Line or two you leave out your Restriction and say no man knoweth all that God hath revealed or that he ought to know 13. I would know the reason why you first suppose your principle that no man can believe all unlesse he actually knows all and thence inferre against me that in my Principles who deny that of yours I cannot know who is who is not of my Church because I cannot know what Reasons any particular have had to know more or fewer divine Truths or whether they have concurred with those Reasons or no and so must make my Church invisible now I make my Church visible though by comprehending in it all those who professe an Explicite Faith in several Articles which they understand distinctly and an implicite Belief of the rest whereof they have not distinct understanding by professing that they believe all that God hath revealed to be believed by them whatsoever they be in particular now so long as they persevere in this behalf though they should happen through culpable negligence not arrive to the knowledge of many things which they ought to know necessitati praecepti yet they remain members though corrupt and wicked of the Church whereby you see how easily I avoid that difficulty which you thought I could not Mr. Baxter The second sort of implicite belief is no belief of the particulars at all an Animal may live and yet it followeth not that you are alive or an Animal William Iohnson How impossibly dispute you here your instance is from the matter for when you say omne Animal vivit every sensible creature lives it must have this sense that it lives onely so long as it is and as it continues Animal or a sensible Creature for otherwise you would have it to be when it is not and to live when it is dead now understanding the proposition thus whosoever believes omne Animal vivit believes me to be a sensible creature so long as I am in being and to live before my Death nay you seem not to reflect upon the sense of such propositions for they relate not to the proposition by chance in relation to particular individua but to the Essence of the subject whereof they predicate for when Philosophers say omne Animal vivit they mean it is of the Essence or notion of Animal to be a living thing and this is true of me and all particulars whether we be in actual existency or no nay you bring an instance of a particular to confirm an universal your Question was of omne Animal all sensible creatours as appears above and of all that God has revealed and to confirm your assertion in this you being a particular an individuum vagum saying an Animal may live c. that is some particular Animal nor stay you here but to amend the matter you bring an instance of changeable things to confirm a proof of things unchangeable I who now am may cease to be in actual existencie but whatsoever is once revealed from God can never cease to be revealed or become a thing unrevealed though therefore it follows not that because omne Animal vivit therefore I live actually yet it follows that whatsoever is once revealed of God remains alwaies actually revealed Mr. Baxter If this were your meaning then either you mean that it is enough if all be believed implicitly besides that general proposition or you mean that some things must be believed explicitly that is actually and some implicitly that is not at all Rejoinder I have told you something more must be believed explicitely how much or what is a dispute amongst Divines not necessary to be determined here yet I will speak something to that presently Reply If the former be your sense then Infidels or heathens may be of your Church for a man may believe in general that the Bible is the word of God and true and yet not know a word that is in it and so not know that Christ is the Messias or that ever there was such a Person Rejoynder Your instance is morally impossible for either such a person believes the Bible rashly and imprudently and then according to all Divines his faith cannot be supernatural and Divine or sufficient to constitute him a Christian or he believes it prudently and then he must be moved by prudential motives of credibility which must draw him to afford credit to that Authority as derived from God which commends to him the Bible as the written word of God now that can be no other then the Authority of the Catholick Church which he cannot be ignorant to profess the faith of Christ there being no other save that though therefore he knows not by experience that Christ is mentioned in the Bible yet he cannot but know that he is professed to be the Son of God and Saviour of the world by those of the Catholick Church who delivered the Bible to him as the word of God and that such a faith in him is necessary to salvation Reply But if somewhat be explicitly that is actually believed the question that you would have answered was what is it for till that be known no man can know a member of your Church by your discriptions Rejoynder There was no necessity to tell you that for when you so often distinguish betwixt points of faith Essential and accidental seeing you ought to understand the terms of your own distinction as I could not but suppose you did you had no need to be informed what points were to be believed by explicite faith all Essentials in your opinion are such Reply If you take implicite in the third sense then implicite faith is either Divine or humane Divine when the Divine veracity is the formal object humane when mans veracity is the formal object which may be conjunct where the Testimonies are so conjunct as that we are sure that it is God that speaks by man who is therefore credible because God infallibly guideth or inspireth him that is at once to believe a humane and Divine veracity If any of this be your meaning that last question remains still to be resolved by you A man may believe that God is true and that his Prophets and inspired messengers are true and yet not understand a word of the message so that still if this will serve a man may be of your Church that knoweth not that ever there was such a person as Iesus Christ or that ever he died for our sins or rose again or that we shall rise William Iohnson Your third member I have rejected before as a stranger to implicite faith but I think you speak not true Divinity when you say that to believe God to be true
and his inspired Prophets to speak truth is to believe a humane and Divine veracity for what Divine ever said before you that Christian faith which is to believe God speaking by the Prophets c. is to believe so much as partially a humain veracity for that would make Christian faith partly humaine which no Christian can affirm it being a pure Theological virtue and having no other formal object save Divine veracity revealing for though the Prophet be a humaine person yet he speakes when he is inspired by God not with humain but with Divine authority God speaking by his mouth Mr. Baxter And are all Infidels of your Church while you are arguing us out but if there be some trueths besides the veracity of God and his messengers that must be believed you must shew what it is or your Church members cannot be known tell me Ergo without tergiversation what are the revealed truths that must be actually believed or what is the Faith material in unity whereof all members of the Catholique Church do live William Iohnson Tell me what points of Faith you account Essential to make a Christian precisely which is part of your own distinction and you will save me the labour of telling you what points are to be believed explicitely if you know not that you delivered a distinction which you understood not Mr. Baxter I pray fly not but plainly tell me and if again you fly to uncertain points because of the diversity of means of informations and say it must be so much every man as he had means to know I again answer you First If a man had no means to know that there is a Christ it seemes then he is one of your Church Secondly you still damn all your own there being not a man that knoweth all that he hath meanes to know because all have culpably neglected meanes and so you have no Church Thirdly still you make your Church invisible if you had any for no man can tell as I said who knoweth in full proportion to his helps and meanes do you not see now whether your Implicite Faith hath brought you William Iohnson Truly Sir your demand is not so great a Bug-bear to make me fly from it for fear it devour me you cannot but know in your perusal of our Divines that your question has bin answered by them an hundred times over have you not heard them deliver in materia de fide that trite distinction that some points of faith are necessary to be believed explicitely necessitate medii and others necessitate praecepti and those of the first classe are absolutely necessary for all men to be so beleived to obtein salvation and to become parts at least in voto if they be not baptized of the Catholique Church and know you not that Divines are devided what are the points necessary to be believed explicitely necessitate medii some and those the more ancient hold that the expliâ—â—tte belief of God of the whole Trinity of Christ his passion resurrection c. are necessary necessitate medii others amongst the recentiors that no more then the belief of the Deity and that he is rewarder of our workes is absolutely necessary with that necessity to be explicitely believed now to answer your question what it is whereby our Church members are known I answer that First all those who are baptised and believe all the points of our faith explicitely if any such persons be to be found are undoubted members of our Church Secondly all those who believe explicitely all the Articles and whatsoever belongs to them in particular by reason of their respective offices in the Church Thirdly those who so believe all things necessary necessitate medii or necessitate praecepti extended to all adulti Fourthly all those who believe in that manner all things held necessary necessitate medii according to the first oppinion of the more ancient Doctors Fifthly It is probable though not altogether so certain as the former that such as believe explicitely the Diety and that he is a rewarder of our works and the rest implicitely as conteined in confuso in that Baptisme supposed are parts of the Catholique Church now seeing all those who are conteined in my four first numbers which comprehend almost all Christians are certainly parts of the Catholique Church we have a sufficient certainty of a determinate Church consisting at least of these by reason whereof our Church has a visible consistency these of the fift rank though not so certain as the former take not away the certainty of the former but that consistency supposed Divines found a question amongst themselves those of the first oppinion will answer that such as believe not the aforesaid Christian mysteries expresly are not parts of the Catholick Christian Church though they believe the Deity remunerating and the rest implicitely see you not by this discourse that we answer sufficiently to your questions by telling which are undoubted members of our Church and thereby give a sufficient description of it and rendering it visible by assigning those which are undoubted members of it though in some others without which it hath consistency be controverted amongst us in this discourse I suppose that such as only believe the Diety or some few of our misteries are excused by invisible ignorance from the obligation of knowing the rest for if their ignorance be vincible culpable and willfull it will indanger at least their implicite faith would not a Philosopher give a sufficient discription of a humane living body by defining it to consist undoubtfully of head shoulders armes c. which are the known parts of it though there be a doubt amongst Philosophers whether the nailes humors c. be animated and parts of it here therefore you may consider that we all agree in these parts which give a real visible constitution to our Church though some question be amongst us about the Exclusion or Admittance of some few which whether they be admitted or no our Church remains by reason of the former in a real visible Existency and by this are Answered your three ensuing Numbers Mr Baxter Quaest. Is it any Lawfull Pastours or all that must necessarily be depended on by every member and who are those Pastours William Iohnson Ans. Of all respectively to each subject that is that the Authority of none of them mediate or immediate be rejected or contemned Mr. Baxter Here still you tell me that your descriptions signified nothing you told me that the members must live in dependance on their lawfull Pastours and now you tell me that their Authority must not be Rejected or contemned and indeed is dependance and non-Rejection all one The millions of heathens that never heard of the Pope or any of your Pastours reject them not nor contemn them are they therefore fit matter for your Church 2. If you say that you mean it of such onely as have a sufficient Revelation of the Authority of these Pastours Rejoynder You
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
some time or other all those whom you term Christians were not such Heretiques as in Reality were no Christians being Christians onely in name as the Arians were nay how shall they know they were any Christians at all for five hundred yeares agoe they must take all upon your word and so as much resolve their Faith into your Authority as you would have ours to resolve theirs into that of their Parish Priests Resolve this and you have solved your own difficulty against us General Council William Iohnson A general Council I take to be an Assembly of Bishops and other chief Prelates called convened confirmed by those who have sufficient spiritual Authority to call convene and confirm it Mr. Baxter Qu. 1. Who is ad esse that must call convene and confirm it till I know that I am never the nearer knowing what a Council is and which is one indeed William Iohnson Answ. Definitions abstract from inferiour subdivisions for your satisfaction I affirm it belongs to the Bishop of Rome Mr. Baxter If it be necessary to the being or validity of a Council that it be called or confirmed by the Pope then your Definition signifies nothing if you abstract from that which is so necessary an ingredient unlesse it were presupposed to be understood William Iohnson I have often told you that Definitions must abstract if my Definition be true why yield you not to it if false why shew not wherein my Genus is an Assembly my Differentia of Bishops and chief Prelates called convened c. Is there here either a false genus or a false Differentia In this first objection you admit both and yet will not be satisfied with my Definition this I understand not when I named the Bishop of Rome I told you it was for your satisfaction not for compleating my Definition for that abstracts from particulars Mr. Baxter If it belong to the Bishop of Rome to call a Council as necessary to its being then the first great general Council and others following were none it being certain that they were not called by him and as certain that he hath never proved any such Authority to call them or confirm William Iohnson What with you is certain till you prove it I hold not onely to be uncertain but untrue also Mr. Baxter Qu. 2. Must it represent all the Catholick Church doth not your Definition agree to a provincial or the smallest Council William Iohnson Answ. My Definition speaks specifically of Bishops and those Prelates as contradistinct from inferiour Pastours and Clergie and thereby comprised all the Priest conteined in the Species and consequently makes a distinction from the National or particular Councils whom some Bishops onely Convened not all that being onely some part and not the whole Species or specifical notion applyed to Bishops of every age and yet I said not all Bishops But Bishops and chief Prelates because though all are to be called yet it is not necessary that all should convene whence appears what I am to answer to the next Questions Mr. Baxter Then you have no General Councils much lesse can you have any now for you have none to represent the greatest part of the Church unlesse by a mock-Representation 2. If all must be called your Councils have not been General that called not a great part of the Church William Iohnson The matter we are now about is to explicate Termes whether those Explications agree with us or make against us belongs to our further Dispute what you say of our having had no Councils representing the whole Church is as easily denied as affirmed without proof which are those which called not all Mr. Baxter If most are necessarily detained as by distance the Prohibition of Princes c. the call made it not their duty to be there and so make it not a generall Council which is so called from the Generality of the meeting and representation and not of the Invitation no more than a Call would make it a true Council if none come William Iohnson Your Reason concludes not drawn from none present to most absent when a Parliament is summoned in our Nation if none at all should come it would be no Parliament follows it therefore if most fall sick or are lawfully hindered or wilfully absent themselves that by reason of the absence of them it is neither Representative sufficiently of the Kingdome nor enabled to enact Lawes binding all the Inhabitants see you not that such Principles as this of yours are of dangerous Consequence and render the Lawes of our Nation dubious and uncertain nor is the Call a sole invitation but a summon or command Mr. Baxter Qu. How many Bishops and from what parts ad esse make such a Council William Iohnson The number is morally to be considered more or fewer according to the difference of times distances of place and other circumstances from whence thay are to come Mr. Baxter This is put off for want of an Answer is it a Council if difficulties keep away all if not it can be no General Council when difficulties keep away the most much lesse when such a petty Confederacy as met at Trent shall pretend to represent the Christian world you thus leave us uncertain when a Council is General and when not how can the people tell when you cannot tell your selves when the Bishops are so many as make a Council General William Iohnson By this is answered what you say here tell me what number present may consist with the Essence of a Parliament or a Diet in the Empire and I will tell you with proportion what number may suffice for a Representation of the Church in a General Council will you have things of a moral consideration to consist in indivisibles But who sees not how by cavilling in in this manner against the validity of a Council you lay grounds of dangerous consequence for rejecting the authority of lawfull Parliaments whilst you thus carp at the members present and thereby render it as difficult to know which is a sufficient number foâ—â— Parliament as for a Council Mr. Baxter Qu. 4. May none but Bishops and chief Prelates be members as you intimate William Iohnson Answ. No others unlesse such inferiours as are sent to supply their places and as Deputies of those Bishops or Prelates who are such members of the Council as have decisive Votes in framing Decrees and Definitions Mr. Baxter This is your private opinion no Council hath defined it unlesse they are Contradictory for I suppose you know that Basil and many Councils before it had Presbyters in them William Iohnson Basil in many things is not allowed of by us name those others received as General Councils amongst us which had simple Priests with power of giving voices belonging to them as such SCHISM I understand by Schism a wilfull Separation or Division of ones self from the whole visible Church of Christ. Mr. Baxter Qu. 1. Is it no Schisme to separate
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