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.
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
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
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
his eminent authority in that Kingdom he might do you some favour and he upon the receipt of those accusations should summon those Brethren of yours to appear before him and for not appearance condemn them and acquit and restore you would not all the World see that he exceeded his Commission No Patriarch by vertue of his Patriarchal dignity though preceeding the other in place had power to condemn any belonging to another Patriarchate if the fact were not committed within his jurisdiction without the consent of that Patriarch under whose Authority he was according to the Council of Nice Mr. Baxter Num. 176. Our own Communion with men is to be directed by the judgement of our own well informed consciences William Iohnson Num. 176. But our consciences if well regulated must avoid all those whose Communion is prohibited by the lawful Governours of Gods Church nor are private persons to avoid any whom the lawful Prelates of the Church retain in their Communion Mr. Baxter Num. 177. Julius desired not any man then to be one with a Council that should decide the Case William Iohnson Num. 177. There 's another non-proof make that appear Non-proof 18. Mr. Baxter Num. 178. Councils then had the Rule and the Patriarchs were the most honourable members of those Councils but no Rulers of them Non-proof 19. William Iohnson Num. 178. And that 's another let us see that prov'd Mr. Baxter Num. 179. Yet Zozomen and others tell you that Julius when he had done his best to befriend Athanasius and Paulus could do no good nor prevail with the Bishops of the East till the Emperours commands prevailed Non-proof 20. William Iohnson Num. 179. And that 's another cite the place in Zozomen who be those others Mr. Baxter Num. 180. Yea the Eastern Bishops tell him that he should not meddle with their proceedings no more then they did with his when he dealt with the Novatians seeing the greatness of Cities maketh not the power of one Bishop greater then another And so they took it ill that he interposed though but to call the matter to a Synode when a Patriarch was deposed William Iohnson Num. 180. What then Ergo the Pope had no Authority over them So did the Pharisees resist our Saviour the Jews Moses and Aaron and the late Rebels our most gratious Soveraign Ergo will you deduce thence they had no Authority over them But see you not how inconsequent you are to your self you said just now p. 148. that it seemed irregular that any Patriarch should be deposed without the knowledge of the Patriarch of the preceeding Sea Ergo say you the Eastern Bishops seem I suppose you mean truly and with reason or you urge that reason p. 148. without reason to have proceeded irregularly in opposing Iulius If so either this your first reason is against reason or you against your self Tradition Mr. Baxter Num. 181. Any Bishops might have attempted to relieve the oppressed as far as Julius did especially if he had such advantages as aforesaid to encourage him William Iohnson Num. 181. Another non proof why give you neither instance nor reason for what you say Mr Baxter Num. 182. All your consequences here therefore are denyed It is denyed that because Julius made this attempt that therefore he was universal Ruler in the Empire 2. It is denyed that it will thence follow if he were so that it had been by divine right any more then Constantinople had equal previledges by divine right 3 It is denyed that it hence followeth that either by divine or humane right he had any power to govern the rest of the world without the Empire Had you all you would rack these testimonies to speak it is but that he was mad by Councils and Emperours the cheif Bishop or Patriarck in a National Church I mean a Church in one Princes Dominion as the arch-Bishop of Canterbury was in England But a national or imperial Church is not the universal and withal oppressed men will seek releif from any that may help them William Iohnson Num. 182. All those consequences are proved at large in other parts of this treatise The first because this proceeding of Iulius having been approved in all ages by the whole Church there can be no other reason given of his power over the Bishops of Alexandria and others of the East save this that he was head in Government over all the Churches through the whole Empire The second that it was by divine right for it was exercised by virtue of an ancient rule or canon received in the Church as Iulius affirms which could not be that of Nice for that was instituted a very few years before Hence followes the third for Christs institution was for the whole Church not for the sole Empire CHAP. IV. ARGUMENT St. Athanasius Theodoret St. Chrysostome Innocentius NUm 182. Mr. Baxter miscites his adversaries words and then accuses him of want of Conscience for writing what he never wrote ibid. What sense Chamiers words can have whether they be referred to a Iudge or to a friend ibid. c. St. Athanasius his recourse to Iulius and effectual proceding in it and that Iulius had authority to restore him ibid. Theodorets appeal as to a Iudge acknowledged by Chamier nor is it directly contradicted by Mr. Baxter If the Pope were Theodorets lawful Iudge by way of appeal then was he also Iudge of all the Bishops in the Church Num. 184. St. Chrysostomes appeal convinces the Popes soveraign power Num. 185. 186. His appealing first to a Council hindred not his appeal afterward made to the Bishop of Rome Num. 187. None but superiours to a Council can reverse the sentence given by that Council Num. 187.188.189 How Mr. Baxter declines and Sophisticates the words of St. Chrysostome Num. 193. Whether Arcadius and Eudoxia were excommunicated by Pope Innocentius In what year Eudoxia dyed Num. 194. Mr. Baxter involves and lames the words of his adversarie Num. 201. What authority St. Ambrose had to excommunicate Theodosius which act is falliciously instanced by Mr. Baxter Mr. Baxter Num. 183. In your margin you add that concerning St. Athanasius being judged and rightly by Pope Juliu s Chamier acknowledgeth the matter of fact to be so but against all antiquity pretends that judgement to have been unjust Corruption Reply Take it not ill Sr I beseech you If I awake your conscience to tell me how you dare to write so many untruths which you knew or might know I could quickly manifest Both parts of your saying of Chamier p. 497. are untrue 1 the matter of fact is it that he denyeth He proveth to you from Zozomen's words that Athanasius did make no appeal to a judge but only fled for help to a friend he shewes you that Julius did not play the Iudge but the helper of the spoiled and that it was not an act of judgement 2 He therefore accuseth him not of wrong judging but only mentioneth his not hearing the
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
us as you do p. 242. were they to prove the succession of their Church as you do of yours what would you have us answer but deny the consequence for it will never follow because we have not bin that Arrians have bin perpetually visible Nay should he argue thus against you Protestants have not bin perpetually visible Ergo Arrians have bin might you not omitting his antecedent deny his consequence judge therefore by your own cause and prove your consequence nay should we argue thus against you Protestants qua tales have not bin perpetualy visible Ergo the Church whereof Papists are members hath bin perpetually visible might you deny our consequence the reason why this consequence is denyed by all true Christians is this because ours not being perpetually visible confers nothing to your being perpetually visible no more then Cayphas his not being a good Priest made Annas to be a good one And as little followes it that though multitudes of Christians as you have it in your 10 argument page 275. the like you have page 249. argument the fourth and page 251. argu 5. c. Had bin ignorant of Poperie not of Christianity and a succession of visible professors of Christianity that were no Papists that therefore the Church whereof Protestants are members hath bin alwayes visible unless you first prove that all who are profess'd Christians but no Papists are of that Church whereof Protestants are members which I have shewed to be false Suppose therefore ex suppositione impossibili that the Roman Church had not bin alwaies visible thence will not follow that the Church whereof Protestants are members has bin alwaies visible this only will follow that neither it nor Protestants is the true Church I press you therefore once more to prove your consequence and till that be prov'd I am free from all obligation of answering to the proof of your antecedent for no man according to logical form is oblig'd to answer the proofs of any proposition which is neither denied nor distinguished by the respondent but purely omitted 69. I will only ex abundanti clear one difficultie which touches somthing of the main point about the Ogin of the Popes supremacy and is in every pedants mouth who can chatter against us this you have rais'd as a fierce batterie against the walls of Rome and have placed eight pieces of canon upon it Regino contractus Marianus Sigibertus Rumbaldis Pomponius c. And these make a fearful thundering about our ears but sure you did it rather to fright us then to hurt us otherwise you would have taken care to charge them with something else then powder see you not how they vanish away all into smoak have you indeed produced a Caput sieret should be made head of all Churches you had made some breach but to bring no more then ut Caput esset caput esse Phocas constituted the Roman Church should be head or to be head of all Churches is an emptie puffe and no more Did not a late Parliament immediately before his Sacred Majesties return vote and constitute Charles the second to be King of England c. or that he ought to be King of England c. dare you therefore say that he had no other right precedent to be our Soveraign before the Vote and constitution of that Parliament know you not when titles and rights are controverted as it was in Phocas his time the soveraign tribunal decrees to whom the right or title belongs not by conferring it upon them as a free gift but by declaring it to be their right and giving them what they judge to be their due now that this was so in the case of Boniface 3. is manifest first out of Platina who was no extraordinary favourer of Popes in Boniface 3. Bonifacius tertius patria Romanus à Phoca Imperatore obtinuit magna tamen contentione ut sedes Beati Petri Apostoli quae est caput omnium Ecclesiarum ita diceretur haberetur ab omnibus Bonifacius the third sayes Platina by Nation a Roman obtein'd of Phocas the Emperour that the seat of Blessed Peter the Apostle which is head of all Churches should be so call'd and esteem'd of all 2. from Carion p. 229. Sabiniano defuncto creatus est Pontifex 65. Bonifacius tertius hic autem Pontifex ab Imperatore Phochà Augusto obtinuit ut Ecclesia Romana Beati Petri Apostolorum principis sedes quae jure Caput est omnium Ecclesiarum ita diceretur haberetur ab omnibus c. Sabinianus being dead Boniface the third was made Bishop this Bishop obtein'd of the Emperour Phocas that the Roman Church the Sea of St. Peter Prince of the Apostles which by right is head of all Churches should be so call'd and esteem'd by all and he cites for this Onuphrius Panninius and Pompeius Letus 3. Illesius in his spanish history of Popes delivers the substance of Phocas his decree wherein it appeares he constituted no more then this that the Roman Bishop and no other was supream visible governour of the Militant Church and that neither Constantinople nor Ravenna nor any other City save old Rome was deputed by our Saaviour and by St. Peter and Paul for the seat of Christs vicar and Prelates of the whole Church now it is most evident that this constitution of Phocas was not as you ungroundedly imagine the beginning of the Popes universal headship for besides the many texts whâ—â—ch I have already alleadged and you acknowledged from Councils and Fathers long before the time of Phocas wherein the Bishop and Church of Rome is acknowledged to be head of all Churches Iustinian much ancienter then Phocas in codice parte prima lib. 1. Tit. 5. de sacro Sanctis Ecclesiis c. (a) Nec patimur ut non vestrae innotescat sanctitati quod caput est omnium sanctarum Ecclesiaerum omnes vero sacerdotes sanctae Catholicae Apostolicae Ecclesiae Reverendissimae Archemandritae sanctorum Monasteriorum sequentes sanctitatem vestram custodientes statum unitatem sanctarum Dei Ecclesiarum quam habent ab apostolica vestrae sanctitatis sede nihil penitus in mutantes de Ecclesiastiâ—â—o statu quam hactenus ob inuit utque obtinet uno consensu confitetur c. lege 4. nos Reddentes in Epist. Iustinian ad Iohannem Papam 15. Imp. August annoo 1576. affirms the Bishop of Rome to be the head of all the holy Churches and that the unitie of the whole Church derives it self from him that all Priests of the Catholick and Apostolick Church follow the Bishop of Rome changing nothing of the state Ecclesiastical which he to that time had continued and then did continue and many years before Iustinian Gratian Valentinianus and Theodosius Emperours lib 1. cod Tit. 3 desumma Trinitate c. 1. Cunctos populos c command that all who were within their Empire were to follow the doctrine of St. Peter delivered to the Romans
your Argument against your self as much as it is against us and so cast it away e. g what ever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ hath been alwayes Visible But no Congregation of Christians hath been alwayes Visible but that which quoad partem denieth the Popes universal Headship therefore whatever Congregation of Christians is the true Church denieth the Popes universal Headship Well! but for all this supposing you will do your part I will fail you in nothing that 's reasonable which I can perform A Catholick Church in all ages that was against the Pope in every member of it I hope I cannot shew you because I hope that you are members though corrupt But you shall have more then a particular Congregation or a hundred 1. At this present two or three parts of the Catholick Church is known to be against your Vniversal Monarchy The Greeks Armenians Etheopians c. besides the Protestants 2. In the last age there were as many or more 3. I the former ages till An. D. 1000. there were neer as many or rather many more For more be faln off in Tenduè Nubia and other parts then the Protestants that came in 4. About the year 600. there were many more incomparably and I think then but at least of 400. years after Christ I never yet saw valid proof of one Papist in all the world that is one that was for the Popes Vniversal Monarchy or Vice-Christ-ship So that most of the Catholick Church about three parts to one hath been against you to this day and all against you for many hundred years Could I name but a Nation against you I should think I had done nothing much lesse if I cited a few men in an age 5. And of all those of Ethiopia India c. that are without the verge and awe of the Ancient Roman Empire never so much as gave the Pope that Primacy of dignity which those within the Empire gave him when he was chief as the Earl of Arundel is of the Earls of England that governeth none of them and as the Lord Chancellour may be the chief Iudge that hath no power in alieno foro or as the eldest Iustice is chief in the County and on the Bench that ruleth not the rest Mistake not this Primacy for Monarchy nor the Roman Empire for the world and you can say nothing At present ad hominem I give you sufficient proof of this succession As you use to say that the present Church best knew the judgement of the former age and so on to the head and so Tradition beareth you out I turn this unresistibly against you The far greatest part of Christians in the world that now are in possession of the doctrine contrary to your Monarchy tell us that they had it from their Fathers and so on And as in Councils so with the Church Real the Major part three to one is more to be credited then the Minor part especially when it is a visible self-advancement that the Minor part insisteth on And were not this enough I might add That your Western Church it self in its Representative Body at Constance and Basil hath determined that not the Pope but a General Council is the chief Governour under Christ and that this hath been still the judgement of the Church and that its Heresie in whoever that hold the contrary 7. And no man can prove that one half or tenth part of your people called Papists are of your opinion For they are not called to professe it by words and their obedience is partly forced and partly upon their principles some obeying the Pope as their Western Patriarch of chief dignity and some and most doing all for their safety and peace Their outward acts will prove no more And now Sir I have told you what Church of which we are members hath been visible yea and what part of it hath opposed the Vice-christ of Rome This I delayed not an hour after I received yours because you desired speed Accordingly I crave your speedy return and intreat you to advise with the most learned men whether Iesuites or others of your party in London that think it worth their thoughts and time not that I have any thoughts of being their equall in learning but partly because the case seemeth to me so exceeding palpable that I think it will suffice me to supply all my defects against the ablest men on earth or all of them together of your way and principally because I would see your strength and know the most that can be said that I may be rectified if I err which I suspect not or confirmed the more if you cannot evince it and so may be true to Gods Truth and my own soul. Rich. Baxter Mr. Iohnsons second PAPER SIR IT was my happiness to have this Argument transmitted into your learned and quiet hands which gratefully returns as fair a measure as it received from you that Animâ—â—sities on both sides reposed Truth may appear in its full splendor and seat it self in the Center of both our hearts To your first Exception My Thesis was sufficiently made clear to my friend who was concerned in it and needed no explication in its address to the learned To your second Exception My Propositions were long that my Argument as was required might be very short and not exceed the quantity of half a sheet which enforced me to penetrate many Syllogisms into one and by that means in the first not to be so precise in form as otherwise I should have been To your third Exception Seeing I required nothing but Logical form in answering I conceive that regard was more to be had amongst the learned to that then to the errors of the vulgar that whilest ignorance attends to most words learning might attend to most reason To your fourth Exception My Argument contains not precisely the terms of my Thesis because when I was called upon to hasten my Argument I had not then at hand my Thesis Had I put more in my Thesis then I prove in my Argument I had been faulty but proving more then my Thesis contained as I clearly do no body hath reason to find fault with me save my self The reall difference betwixt Assemblies of Christians and Congregations of Christians and betwixt Salvation is only to be had in those Assemblies and Salvation is not to be had out of that Congregation I understand not seeing all particular Assemblies of true Christians must make one Congregation To your Answer to my first Syllogism He who distinguishes Logically the terms of any proposition must not apply his distinction to some one part of the term only but to the whole term as it stands in the proposition distinguished Now in my proposition I affirm that the Congregation of Christians I speak of there is such a Congregation that it is the true Church of Christ that is as all know the whole Catholick Church and you distinguish