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
visible body without a visible head Num. 5 6 7. His 6. first syllogismes are out of form and thereby are 6 Non-proofs Num. 11. Mr. Baxter 's skill in logical terms Num. 13. Whether Mr. Baxter or any formal Protestant be infallibly certain they love God and their neighbour as they ought to do Num. 15. c. 13. authorities 13. Non-proofs to shew the sufficiency of sole Scripture This question Mr. Baxter resolves affirmatively pag. 197. 1. You first prefix an explication of termes from p 197. to p. 204. which is of no concern to my argument nor of much to your answer I note only obiter these particulars p. 198. you define the universal visible Church thus It is the whole company of believers or true Christians upon earth subject to Iesus Christ their head where you first make believers and true Christians Synonimaes whereas one not baptized may be a believer but no Christian for he is made a Christian by baptism being before a Catechumen and then you assert the visible Church to consist as well of Catechumens as of baptiz'd Christians which is absonous for by baptism they are made Church-members 2. You use the word subject to Christ in your definition which according to you ut supra is equivocal and thereby unfit to be part of a definition and may signifie no more according to you then one of an inferiour rank and order who is not under the government of another so that when you say subject to Christ c. you may express no more by the word subject then that they are inferiour to Christ and that Christ is to take place of all Christians nor can you distinguish your self from this difficultie by alleadging you say they are subject to Christ their head for you speak equivocally in the word head too according to the former principles where you were forc'd to say head signifies no more then a principal member proceeding but not governing the rest In the same page you define Protestants thus Protestants are Christians protesting against or disallowing Poperie which is worse then the former for you cannot be ignorant that the first Origin of the word Protestant proceeded from the Elector of Saxony Landgrave of Hassia and some few other Prinees of their faction protesting against the imperial Edict decreed at Wormes an 1526 the observance whereof was established in the diet at Spire 1529 about the not changing any thing in the Churches practise publickly and commonly used before their times till a general Council was assembled and made decrees about it Now it is evident these Princes protested against Popery and disowned it some years before this and yet were not termed Protestants for that reason Take you your self to be a man of so uncontroulable authority as to make new impositions and give new significations to words as your fancie leades you what Call you the Greeks for some hundred of yeares Protestants because they protested against that which they esteem Popery the Popes supremacy the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son c. I am sure they execrate that appellation as much nay more then they do Popery nor were they ever termed Protestants till you call'd them so Are the new Arians in Polonia Antitrinitarians in Sylesia Socinians in Holland Hassiâ—â— â—â—n Bohemia Anabaptists Familists Montanists Millenaries Quakers in England all Protestants Protest not all these against Poperie If they be Protestants Protestants be they much good do it you with them you 'l say Arians and Antetrinitarians are no Christians but you shall see presently your arguments will prove them as true Christians as you can prove your self to be for an Arian or Antetrinitarian will say as you do here page 199. and 200. We profess our selves to be of no other Church and before men a man is to be taken of that Religion and Church of which he professeth himself to be till he be proved false in that profession pag. 199. You say Protestants in relation to our religion are as a man purged healed freed from Leprosie Plague Consumption c. then sure you make that which you call Popery to be infected with Leprocie Dr. Ferne Dr. Bramhall Plague Consumption as some of your Bretheren have done of late if so then tell me I pray in your next either that you hold the Catholick-Church in those imediately proceeding your beginnings to be spotted with Leprocy infected with the Plague and worn almost to nothing with a mortal Consumption and consequently teaching dangerous errors and therefore no man with a false conscience could remain in her external communion but must have forsaken the communion of all particular Churches in the world which is abominable in the eares of a Christian or you make it free from those foul disasters and then tell me where and which that holy visible Catholick Church was pure and unspotted from such diseases in the year 1500 neer to the time of your first Protestants beginning pag. 200. you say your profession shews you as much to be a true Christian as he doth the profession of a Papist shew him to be a Papist see you not the difference thousands and millions deny you to be true Christians and those not only friends but enemies also of the Pope as all the Greeks are notwithstanding all your profession to be so but not so much as one denies those to be Papists who profess themselves to be so 3. Pag. 200. Parag. Note you speak not say you of internal belief but of external profession but there you 'r out for whatsoever your internal sincerity be or be not your very external profession in the particulars of your belief or rather disbelief against the Roman Church shews your general profession of true christianity to be false so that the one convinces the other of falsity as in your principles an Arrian who as you presently say p. 203. is no Christian though he sincerely profess the belief of Christianity yet because that notwithstanding his particular profession of disbelief of the consubstantiality of the Son of God with his Father shews his general profession to be false 4. Page 201. 202. You renew first your error of making a visible body without a visible head for I have shew'd though Christs person be now visible yet as he is head of the millitant Church he is invisible that is he exercises immediately no visible office or action in governing his Church but all are purely internal spiritual and invisible Secondly you say he is visus seen to the triumphant Church but where finde you in your doctrine any corporal eye amongst the triumphant to see him pag. 202. num 2. you say the true Christians were very few to the Arrians in their prevalencie which you neither prove nor can prove for it is manifestly false I omit many such over-reaches as these that I may come to your proof Non-proof 1. 5. Pag. 204. Your first sylogism is out of form first having never an
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
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.
posteriora prioribus apud posteros praeponebat universum partibus semper jure optimo praeponitur Orthodox Writers commonly affirm that what they define is the Definition of the Catholick Church i Thus were the Arrians Quartodecimans Rebaptisers Macedonians Nestorians Eutychians even in Ethiopia and Armenia c. esteemed ever since Hereticks for resisting the Definitions of those Councils All who resist their Definitions in matter of Faith have ever since been universally branded with the note of Hereticks whether they were within or without the Empire k Canon universalis Ethiopum prays for the Fathers of the three First General Councils and affirms they were gathered for the defence of the right Faith and not for those of the Fourth Council because the Eutychian Heresie which they hold was condemned in the Council of Chalcedon Epist. Armen primae ad Leon. Imperat. ubi se subjiciunt 4 primis Conciliis in aliâ Epist. ad cundem idem faciunt Episcopi Armeniae Secundae apud Binium pag. 535. Conc. Tom. Extra-Imperial Provinces and Churches have anciently and do yet subscribe to them Lastly not onely all kind of Authority but plain reason overthrows this your Novelty For first the end why these Councils were gathered was to procure peace amongst Christians not in the Empire onely but through the whole Catholick Church and to put a final period to the controversies defined in them as appears from the Authorities now cited out of S. Austin Now if the Extra-Imperial Nations had not been obliged by those Definitions the controversies had still continued among them as much as if no such Definition had been made Secondly if any desired to embrace still the Heresies condemned in them it was but conferring themselves to the Extra-Imperial Churches and they had freedome in conscience from their former obligation as not being bound there to subscribe to the Councils Decrees So that every obstinate Heretick might shake off these Decrees at his pleasure Thirdly if any Nation or Province should have been by force of Arms won from the Empire which was under it in time of these Councils they would ipso facto have been freed from obeying the Decrees and beleeving the Doctrine of these Councils Fourthly if on the contrary any Extra-Imperial Nation had been reduced under the Empire eo ipso it would have contracted an obligation to conform to the Decrees of the said Councils so that Christian belief should have depended on the fortune of War Fifthly if your assertion were true it would follow that now de facto neither Spain France Italy England Denmark Swethland Poland nor any of the Eastern Churches are obliged to subscribe to the Nicene Council and the same is of the rest otherwise then of their free choice ever since they were from under the command of the Empire Nay hence will follow that even those of Germany by reason that is another Empire instituted independently of that in those ancient times and consequently that no Christian Churches in the world have any obligation successively descending down to them of obeying and following the Decrees of the four First General Councils My last reason is that those Extra-Imperial Christians who embraced the Heresies condemned in any one of those Councils never alledged this reason of yours that those Councils had no power to oblige them because they were not under the Empire and I pray you in your next produce any such reason authentically testified to have been alledged by them Baxter Num. 83. See now how little your objections are worth and how groundlesly you bid me See now how little my Allegations are to the purpose Iohnson Num. 83. Now you will have seen which proofs your or mine have been more to the purpose Baxter Num 84. As for the rabble of Hereticks which you reckon up as you esteem them some of them are no Christians univocally so called and those cannot be of the Christian Church Iohnson Num. 84. You would have given better satisfaction to your Reader if amongst all the Sectaries particularis'd by me pag. 43. in your Book which were to the number of eighteen you had determined which of them you had esteemed Christians univocally so called and which not but whilest you leave him thus in obscurity telling him onely that some of them were not univocal Christians and not telling him which some you mean I believe he will have little satisfaction Yet by justifying the latter part that is almost one half of them in your next ensuing words and excusing some of the rest Baxt. p. 48. he may gather that you account Montanists Donatists Nestorians Eutychians Iconoclasts Berengarians Waldensians Albigenses Wickliffists and Hussites Univocal Christians and consequently true parts of the Catholick Church in your Principles Baxter Num. 85. Others of them were better Christians then the Romanists and so were of the same Church with us And it is not many reproachfull names put on them by malice that makes them no Christians or of many Churches or Religions If an arrogant Usurper will put Nick-names on all that will not bow to him as Vice-Christ and call them Iconoclasts Berengarians Waldensians Albigenses Wickliffists Hussites Lutherans Calvinists you may as well give a thousand more names this makes them not of various Religions nor blots out their Names from the Book of Life Iohnson Num. 85. I have not Baptis'd any of them they were publickly known by these names many a fair year before you or I was born and since I desired to be understood I was to express them in such names as they commonly are known by whether they deserve the names I give them or no is not our dispute now I think they did when I called them so and that they deserve it as much as either Arrians or Donatists or Pelagians c. deserved to be branded with the names of those several Arch-Hereticks that broached them Nor can I yet find that the Roman B. whom you rudely call a Tyrant was more the imposer of those names upon the fore-named Sectaries then upon Arrians Donatists or Pelagians c. Baxter Num. 86. I have in my most retired thoughts perused the History of those mens Lives and of the Lives of many of your Popes together with their several Doctrines and with Death and Iudgement in my eyes as before the great God of Heaven I humbly beg of him that I may rather have my everlasting portion with those holy men whom you burned as Waldenses Arbigenses Hussites c. then with the Popes that burned them or those that follow them in that cruelty unless reconciling Grace hath given them repentance unto life Iohnson Num. 86. I humbly beg of God that he deliver you from ever coming to that place where any of those which I mentioned as condemned Hereticks are in the other world I hope he has prepar'd a much better for you But tell me seriously would you indeed be content rather to be with the Albigenses who held Two Gods
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
not Zygomalas suppose that the Protestants and they are two Churches that they were not then united into one saies he not that he hopes for such a Future Unity Gaudium in coelo supra terram erit si coibit in unitatem utraque Ecclesia c. Ergo that unity was not then actually made and that unity depended on the correction of those differences in Faith which were betwixt them which whilst they remained obstructed it now this is wholly destructive of your Novelty nay this Agreement and becoming one and the same Church as Synonimaes coibit in unitatem utraque Ecclesia et Idem sentiemus both Churches the Greeks and Lutherans shall join in unitie and we shall hold that is believe the same thing evinces that their disagreement was inconsistent with their being one Church nay besides Faith he requires a future charity and concord which argues it was then wanting Et simul vivemus in omni concordia pace secundum Deum in sincerae charitatis vinculo and sayes he we shall live together in all concord peace in God and in the bond of sincere Charity so that this very Text which you quote to prove the unity betwixt Greeks and Lutherans proves the quite contrary so choice are you in your Citations Mr. Baxter Num. 112. But as it is not the Patriarch that is the whole Greek Church so it is not their Errours in some lesser or tolerable points that prove us of two Churches or Religions William Iohnson Num. 112. Who saies he is the whole Church yet sure when the Patriarch writes concernings his own Jurisdiction he is supposed to understand the extent of it and when those of his Church shew no kind of contradiction against it neither when he writ this nor ever since and thereby give a tacite consent to it what he writes is to be esteemed as the tenet of his Church I am much joyed to hear you terme the differences in Faith betwixt you and the Grecians some lesser or tolerable points for they being in substance the very same with those betwixt you and us as the Authors confesse cited by me pag. 46. of your Edition you must consequently acknowledge the differences betwixt you and us to be some lesser or tolerable points but give me leave then to tell you that as you judge those points tolerable so must you also judge your separation from the external communion of the Greek and Roman Church intolerable for if those parts in difference be tolerable they were to have been tolerated by you without proceeding to an open and scandalous Schisme by reason of them nor will it excuse you to alledge you were forc't to separate in detestation of those things which you judged Errours otherwise you would have compell'd us by punishments to have assented to them for you were rather to have suffered patiently that force though it had been to death it self then to have made so notorious a Schisme for tolerable Errours or fear of persecution I have already shewed that every Errour in Faith against a divine truth sufficiently proposed separates the erring partie from the true visible Church of Christ. Mr. Baxter Num. 113. Whereas you say it is against all antiquity and Christianity to admit condemned Hereticks into the Church I Reply 1. I hate their condemnation rather then reverence it that even being non Judices dare condemn whole Nations without hearing one man of them speak for himself or hearing one witnesse that ever heard them defend Heresie and this merely because some few Bishops have in the dayes of all maintained Heresie and perhaps some may doe so still or rather differ from you in words while you misunderstand each other I see you have a sharp tooth against Bishops why name you them onely as maintainers of Heresies how many Bishops found you broaching or spreading heresie in the 2. first hundred yeares was either Simon Magus or Nicolaus or Cerinthus or Menander or Valentinian or Manes or Montanus Bishops and in the third Age was there not Arius and Eutyches neither of them Bishops broachers of two most pernicious Heresies as well as Nestorius and Dioscorus who were Bishops William Iohnson Num. 113. You mistake the manner of the Churches condemnation of Hereticks it is neither personal nor National save in some notorious Arch-Hereticks who either by their words or writings evidently professe or teach Heresie but general or abstractive viz. whosoever holds such or such Errours let him be accursed or we excommunicate all such as hold them c. where there can be no wrong done to any for those who de facto held them not are not cast out of the Church now when this sentence comes to Execution those who either acknowledge themselves to hold those Heresies or communicate with them who professe it are esteemed as Hereticks because they join with an heretical party against the Church and in case they profess to disbelieve their heresie and yet live in communion with them and subjection to them they become open Schismaticks separating themselves from the whole visible Church by communicating with Hereticks Mr. Baxter Num. 114. Did I find such Errours with them as with you yet first I durst charge them on no one man that I had not reason to hold guilty of them I dare not accuse whole Nations of your Errours but of all these things and of sundry words which you cite I have spoken already in two books and in the latter fully proved that you differ in many points of Faith and greater things then you call Heresies in others among your selves even your Pope's Saints and Councils and yet neither part is judged by you to be out of the Church see my Key pag. 124 125 127 128 129. and pag. 52. ad 62. William Iohnson Num. 114. You or any Christian may safely judge those Hereticks who publickly communicate and side with those who professe and teach open heresie for the very siding with them Argues a consent to their Doctrine and is a sufficient profession of it unlesse they professe publickly a difference from their heresie your recrimination is unseasonable the question is not for the present wherein or how We differ but whether You be guiltie of heresie or no our innocencie or guiltiness clears not you clear your Selves first and then you will have gained credit to accuse us 'till that be done you do nothing but divert the Question â—â—y removing it from your selves to us In your Key pag. 128. you trifle in using the words Material point Equivocally and proceeding à specie ad genus fallociously Mr. Turberville speaks of material Points against your 39. Articles saying for if they differ from them in any material point c. and you make him speak of all kinds of material points in Religion whether contrary to any Article or Ecclesiastical decree of Faith or no. Mr. Baxter Num. 115. When you say so much to prove the Greeks guiltie of manifest heresy
clearly then I have done I say we hold no such Monarch in the Church as is an imperious sole Commander as temporal Kings are c. And when I have said all this in sensu conjuncto and knit my words and sense together as close as I can you go and pull all in pieces and ask me if I understand them in sensu diviso Is not this very handsome think you Should I say that Iane Shore was no honest Christian woman would you have askt me which of these is it that I deny not that she was a woman not that she was a Christian not that she was honest in her conversation would it not have been ridiculous in a high degree and if upon this you should adde after I had said she was no honest Christian woman conform to what you do here I would either you or I could know what you hold about Iane Shore Would not every one laugh at you But in sober sadness did you not understand what I denyed as plainly as what I deny of Iane Shore Hold we him to be an Imperious sole Commander as temporal Kings are whom we unanimously affirm to have no power to deprive Church Officers at his pleasure as Kings have power to put out what Officer soever they please through their whole Kingdom who is not alone to govern the Church either immediately or mediately as Kings govern their Kingdoms according to Christs institution But every Bishop being Christs Officer and not the Popes as truly as the Pope is within the precincts of his Diocess are as true Governours of the different respective parts of the Church as the Pope is of the whole Now I hope at last you understand me how Popes differ from temporal Kings Mr. Baxter Num. 385. Sure your following words shew not the difference First Kings may receive power from Christ. 2. Kings must rule in meekness charity and humility William Iohnson When we say he receives power from Christ you cannot be ignorant that we understand it of Christ as author of Christian Religion and not as author of nature and morality nor can you but know that temporal Kings as such abstract from Christian Religion and are truly Kings whether they be Christians or no they cannot therefore be said in any formal proper sense to receive power from Christ as he is head of his Church but from God as author of nature and morality Mr. Baxter Num. 386. But I think the meekness charity and humility of Popes hath been far below even wicked Kings if cruel murthering Christians for Religion and setting the world on fire may be witness as your own Histories assure us William Iohnson You tear my discourse all in pieces I join that of governing in charity c. to this as Brethren and Children and you fallaciously divide it it is not contrary to the humility of a King to account all in his Kingdom to be his vassals Substitutes Officers but it would be contrary to the humility of a Pope A King will not be thought cruel and defective in meekness if he judge a person and condemn a malefactor to death but a Pope would The rest is a pure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I spake of the Office of Popes and you of the persons I of what we hold they ought to do and you of what they do or may hap to do If any personal cruelty have been exercised by Popes let them answer it not I who have not in the least medled with it here But I see such fallacies as these in passing à jure ad factum and the like are spread thick over your whole answer yet even in this objected cruelty we must take your honest word for here 's no other proof then that you affirm at a venture our Historians assure us it is so You 'l tell us I hope in your next who those Historians are Mr. Baxter Num. 387. The Government of Kings also is for mens eternal good how ever Papists would make them but their executioners in such things William Iohnson Num. 387. Of what Kings know you not we dispute now in sensu formali that is of temporal Kings for that was my term and would you have temporal Kings that is temporal Governours as such tend to a spiritual and eternal good for if as such they tend to a spiritual end then all temporal Princes even Turks and Heathens must do so Mr. Baxter Num. 388. Brethren as such are no subjects and therefore if the Pope rule men but as brethren he rules them not by governing authority at all William Iohnson Num. 388. What mean you by brethren as such are no subjects abstractively to what purpose is it also true to say men and women as such are no subjects that is they are not subjects precisely quatenus under the formal notion of men and women for then all men and women should be subjects exclusively that is their being brethren repugnes to their being subjects Take heed that doctrine will be dangerous at Court what were not his Majesties brethren his subjects or because his Majesty ruled them but as brethren he ruled them not by any governing authority as you say here of the Pope the like is if any elder brother should be Schoolmaster or General or Magistrate over his younger brother did he not rule him by governing authority And have you not an express prophesie of two brethren major serviet minori the greater shall serve the lesser Nay calls not Christ himself his Apostles brethren will you therefore say he rul'd them not by governing authority But you I suppose very innocently fall into a grosse folly here when I say he governs them as brethren you would have my meaning to be as they are brethren by a reduplication upon the object whereas by the term as brethren I mean he governs them as brethren use or ought to be govern'd reduplicating upon the act of governing not upon the object that is to be govern'd that is the chief Governour of Christs Church is according to the will and institution of Christ to govern all Christians as a brother who is a Superiour and Governour of his brethren and ought to govern them to wit in meekness charity and humility and therefore I make all my reduplications and reflections upon the act when I say if only for one who hath received power from Christ in meekness charity and humility to govern all the rest for their eternal good as brethren or children I grant it Mr. Baxter Num. 398. Children to him we are not you must mean it but metaphorically and what mean you then Is it that he must do it in love for their good so also must Kings so that you have yet exprest no difference at all William Iohnson Num. 389. To what purpose trifle you thus do I say Christians are the Popes natural children Say I not as children and know you not that nullum simile est idem who can think they are otherwise then
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
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
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
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