it if expresly containing all things necessary to salvation I deny it Again I distinguish all things necessary to salvation either you mean all things necessary to be distinctly known and expresly believed by all to obtain salvation and so I grant it or all things also to be believed implicitly and to be distinctly known to all and so I deny it These distinctions suppos'd I deny your consequence viz. That the Church whereof Protestants are members hath been visible ever since the dayes of Christ on earth 15. Pag. 210. your authorities prove nothing the aforesaid distinctions applied Bellar. and Costerus speaks of things necessary to be expresly believed by all Ragusa of the Scripture well understood which include the interpretation of the Church Gerson not of articles of Faith but of Theological conclusions drawn by private and fallible authority Durandus treats of private conclusions drawn from Scripture by himself as you cite him pag. 212. of delivering nothing contrary to Scripture and of using the interpretation of the Roman Church St. Thomas speaks not a word of Scripture nor so much as names it in those words cited by you and in his summe de veritate addes the interpretation of the Church to Scripture as you cite his words pag. 213. Scotus cited p. 213. is quite against you he sayes add you that many needful things are not expressed in Scripture but virtually contained which is not protestant but sound catholick doctrine Gregor Ariminensis p. 14. speaks not of points of faith but of Theological conclusions drawn by private discourse which is not as you add next more then to intend the sufficiency of express Scripture to matters of faith for the seusteine of faith is infallible and divine Theological discourse only fallible and humane now he sayes diametrically against your tenet that all truths are not in themselves formally contain'd in holy Scripture but of necessity following these that are contained in them c. but here 's the difficulty we say that every point we teach is contain'd as in general principles at least in Scripture and necessarily deduced from it but you adde they must be contained formally for what seems a necessary consequence of Scripture to us seems not so to you and the like is of what seems necessary to you seems neither necessary nor propable to us so that neither of us can be convinced that our respective deductions are points of faith and both you must confess yours are not because you have not infallibly authority deducing them and we do acknowledge that conclusions drawn from Scripture abstracting from the Churches authority oblige us not to receive them as matters of faith 16. Pag. 216. Gulielmus Parisiensis sayes no more then say the former Authors and Bellar. nothing at all to your purpose draw if you can the sufficiency of sole Scripture held by you from words which so cleerly declare its insufficiency Pag. 217. Your whole discourse is a pure parorgon our question is not what is essential or necessary necessitate medii or praecepti to be known and expresly believed by all per se and absolutely but whether one believing all that is essential and necessary in that manner and withal disbelieving any other point of faith whatsoever after it is hic nunc sufficiently propounded as such to any particular person can either be saved or be a true real part of the visible Church of Christ. Now we answer negatively to this question because such a disbelief excludes an implicite belief of that point so disbelieved and consequently a belief of all that God hath revealed and therby all supernatural saving faith To illustrate the truth of this assertion let us instance in a Pelagian who believed all that which you account essential that is the common Articles necessary for all to salvation the Creeds the Scriptures c. And had sufficiently propounded to him the belief of Original sin as a point of Christian faith which he refuses to believe and accounts an errour the question will not be in this case whether that Pelagian believe all these essentials in the account but whether that supposed he be not excluded out of the Church and dismembred from it by that wilful disbelief of Original sin This is our present case controverted betwixt us so that though it were admitted that you believe all that material object of faith which you esteem essential and necessary for all to be expresly believed yet because we accuse and judge you to disbelieve many points of as much concern as is that of Original sin and as sufficiently propounded to you as such as that was to the Pelagians we have as much reason to judge you to be excluded out of the Catholique Church and dismembred from it as we have to judge them either therefore you acknowledge the point disbelieved by you and propounded as matter of faith by us to you to be as sufficiently propounded as was that of Original sin to the Pelagians or you deny it if you acknowledge it you must acknowledge you are as much dismembred from the Church by your disbelief as they were if you deny it then we will put our selves upon the proof of it so that till our proofs be heard and fully answer'd you cannot secure your selves of being parts of the Catholique Church no more then could the Pelagians 17. If you affirm as your principles lead you that even the disbelief of Original sin hinder'd not the Pelagians from remaining parts of the Catholique Church you contradict St. Augustine and St. Epiphanius In Catalogis Haereticorum the Council of Nice all antiquity nay all modern authors even your own and I provoke you to produce so much as one Author who affirms Pelagians to be parts of the Catholique Church CHAP. II. Mr. Baxters authorities NUm 18. Whether Mr. Baxters doctrine about sole scripture agree with Tertullians in his prescriptions Num. 21. Mr. Baxter would send all his adversaries packing if he knew how he supposes his Readers to be very simple Num. 19. Whether St. Augustin taught that common people were to reade-Scipture in the place cited by Mr. Baxter whereas St. Augustine taught there that all things belonging to Christian Faith and manners are expressed in Scripture his two other Collections from St. Augustine examined Num. 22. He knowes not where his Church was An. 1500. Num. 25. He cites two texts of S. Augustine distructive to his own doctrine Num. 25.26 How much Optatus makes for Mr. Baxter Num. 26.27 What Optatus meanes by being within or in communion with the seven Churches of Asia Mr. Baxter cites two texts in Optatus which quite overthrow him Num. 28. Divers of his Effugiums examined and confuted concerning Tertullians prescriptions Num. 29.30 Many texts of Tertullian not Englished by Mr. Baxter make directly against him 18. Hence falls to nothing all you alledge from Bell. Costerus Gulielmus Parisiensis Aquinas Bannes Espenseus c. p. 216.217.218 For they speak of
such as with the belief of what they esteem universally essential and fundamental in themselves not to be joyn'd with an actual disbelief of any point though not so generaly necessary to be expresly believed by every one yet sufficiently propounded to them hic nunc as a point of Christian faith To what purpose cite you Tertul p. 219. What is that rule which he speaks of Is it sole Scripture without Church or tradition prove that or what hurts us in his other sentence c. 8. Do we teach any thing against it prove that or why make you such observations upon Tertullians prescriptions p. 220. why prove you not your observations froÌ„ Tertul. words where say's he the rules of Essentials extracted from the whole Scriptures is the Churches ancient creed that the compleat rule of all points of faith is the whole Scripture what mean you to cite that from Tertullian which destroyes you have you ever yet cleared your selves from denying some Essentials I am sure Tertullian puts in the book cited by you the Eucharist Baptisme amongst the things which he would have to be principal points taught by St. Peter and to be believed by all Christians to whom they were sufficiently propounded are not our controversies about these leave not you many books of Scripture out of the Canon and use you not the large feild of Scripture to puzzle the weak how then can you turne your selves more from the lash of Tertullian then the Hereticks against whom he writes And you say this ancient Author advised the ordinary Christians of his time instead of long puzling disputes to hold them to the Churches prescription of the simple doctrine of the creed do you not confound your own publick practise in perswading every ordinary Christian to read the Scriptures in his own language to maintain their cause by some obscure mistaken passages out of them against the Churches prescriptions nay and the simple doctrine of the Creed too by perverting that article of believing the holy Catholick Church instance if you can the prescription of the Church in the year 1500 to justifie your so many oppositions against the prescriptions of all particular visible Churches in that age and be sure you fail not with all to tell me what Church prescribed in the same year against the Church of Rome in opposing those which you call supplemental traditions held by her and all other visible Churches at that time 19. Page 221. You cite St. Augustine de doctrina Christiana lib. 2. cap. 9. and note in an English parenthesis he was not against the vulgar reading Scripture which how it follows I know not unless you would have him also not against the vulgars being vers'd both in Latin Greek and Hebrew which he here requires for the perfect understanding of Scriptures Secondly you put an N. B. upon St. Augustines words minding your reader to note that he affirms all things which belong to Christian faith and manners are thereby set down in Scripture which N. B. might have been well omitted where you place it and a N. B. put upon his next following words whereby it would have appeared that this holy Doctor speakes not of all manner of points of Faith but de quibus libro superiore tractavimus of such as he had treated in the foregoing book and in that he treates only of the Trinity of the Incarnation of the Church of the resurrection of the dead which we acknowledge are openly set down in Scripture so much heed take you to the words you cite so pertinent is your collection drawn from these words about the sufficiencie of Scripture and so faire are you in your citations let an N. B. passe upon that pag. 223 223. What conclude you from St. Augustines words lib 3. cap. 6. contra lit Petiliani which of us ever thought it lawful to teach any thing praeterquam besides that is against for so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in greek signifies the law or gospel and as wise is your question collected thence page 223. viz was not the Church then purely protestant in their religion 20. To the proof of the minor by your profession p. 223. I have told you already your particular profession in disbelieving many things conteined in Scripture evidences your general profession of taking Scripture for the sole rule of your faith to be false and nugatorie 21. As to your discourse page 224. tells us first which are all the Essentials of Christianity in your account and then we shall see whether they are all expresly conteined in Scripture or no. The rest is course and unhandsome better suiting with a country ballad then with a controversie You add in good time the parenthesis if you know how to keep those Friars and Iesuits as much out as to keep out the devil I see they stay not in through any want of opposition in you 't is well you have not as much of the knowledge as you have of the malice of him to whom you compare them I beseech God to pardon you for then they had been all sent packing long ere this and t is not I see for want of ignorance in you that you are not quit of them if any such be within the Nation yet if you drive them no more out then you can drive out the devil they have no great reason to fear you You must think your Reader to be very silly when you go about to perswade him that the Popes supremacie and transubstantiation were brought into the kingdome by Friars and Jesuits of late since you begun your new gospel 22 Page 225. you answer the Catholicks question where your Church was c. very profoundly what if you can neither tell where it all was nor half nor a considerable part nor for all ages nor by entire catalogues can you not at least tell where existed any one though a smal part of it in the year 1500 immediately before your doctrine appeared in Germany shew that and we press you no farther at this time Pag. 226.227 You change the terme Protestant Church into Catholick Church the question was where was the Protestant Church and you shew where the Catholick Church was call you this answering nor can you suppose the Protestant to be part of the Catholick for I have shewed that hitherto you have not proved it pag. 227. You first say your Church was in Europe c. 1. and l. 8. you say you 'l say nothing of Europe n. b. 23. Page 227.228.229.230 To what purpose have you taken so much paines in copying the Latin texts of St. Augustine you were afraid I see to English them least the vulgar whom you chiefâ—â—ly lalour to please should finde many flawes in them Intend you therefore to prove no more by those authorities then the Churches being spread all the world over which of us ever denyed nay who amongst us have not constantly asserted that Intend you to shew that whatsoever professors of Christianity are
themselves to Christs manner of Government they virtually subject themselves to a chief Pastour Mr. Baxter If it be necessary that a particular Church must be assigned for such members by the supream Pastours then they are yet little the better that never have any Assignation from him as few have Rejoynder Who sayes it is necessary ad esse to be a part of the Catholick Church that all Assemblies of Christians should be actual members of some particular visible Church prove I say so from my words nor is it necessary the chief Pastour should assign any it suffices that those Christians be resolved to conform when it is assigned Mr. Baxter Qu. 2. What is that faith in unity where all members of the Catholick Church do live Is it the belief of all that God hath revealed to be believed or of part and what part William Iohnson Answ. Of all either explicitely or implicitely Mr. Baxter Your second Answer further proves that your Definitions signifie just nothing they must live in the unity of the faith that is either with faith or without it with a belief of what God hath revealed to be be believed or without it for to believe any point implicitly in your ordinary sense is not to believe it but onely to believe one of the premises whence the conclusion must be inferr'd But why do you not tell me what you mean by an implicite faith faith is called implicite in several senses 1. When several truths are actually understood and believed in confuso or in grosse in some one proposition which containeth the substance of them all but not with accurate distinct conceptions nor such as are ripe for any fit expression This indistinct immature imperfect kind of apprehension may be called implicite 2. When a general proposition is believed as the matter of our faith but the particulars are not understood or not believed As to believe that omne Animal vivit not knowing whether you be Animal or Cadaver or to believe all that is in Scripture is the word of God and true but not to know what is in the Scripture 3. What is onely the formal object of faith that is believed without understanding the Material object The first sort of these I confess is actual though indistinct but I suppose you mean not this 1. Because it is not the ordinary sense of your party 2. Because else you damn either all the world or most of your own professed party at least as no members of the Church for few or none have an actual understanding and belief of all that God ever revealed to them because all men or most at least have been sinfully negligent in searching after and receiving truth and so are sinfully ignorant no man knoweth all that God hath revealed or that he ought to know 3. Because by this rule it is impossible for you or any man to know who is indeed a member of your Church for you cannot know mens confused knowledge or know that it extendeth to all revealed for if you speak of all revealed in general or in Scripture you still damn all or most in your own sense for none as I said understand it all to a word but if you speak of all which that particular man hath had sufficient means to know It is then impossible for you to make a judgement of any mans faith by this for you can never discern all the means internal or external that ever he had much less can you discern whether his faith be commensurate to the truth so farre revealed so that by this course you make your Church invisible I pray tell me how you can avoid it William Iohnson Your discourse about implicite faith seems strange I require a proof from you that in your ordinary sense it is no belief at all 2. That it is onely to believe one of the premises whence the conclusion must be inferr'd 3. Tell me why you require that I should have declared to you what I meant by implicite faith when you suppose that I speak in the ordinary sense of our schoolmen and I could not but suppose you understood their doctrine 4. Why do you put the belief of the formal object without the belief of the material object of faith a third member of implicite belief or who did ever so before you 5. Why do you confound the two first members of your Distinction both of them being knowledge or belief in confuso your first is when several truths are actually understood and believed in confuso or in gross in some one proposition which containeth the substance of them all c. thus you Your second is to believe that omne animal vivit not knowing whether you be Animal or Cadaver or to believe that all that is in Scripture is the word of God and true but not to know what is in the Scripture thus you Now tell me does not this proposition omne Animal vivit contain the substance of these truths Equus vivit Leo vivit Aquila vivit c. so that by believing or knowing this proposition distinctly omne Animal vivit I believe or know in confuso those other propositions contained as species under their genus in it and the like is of your second proposition for believing all that is in Scripture is the word of God and true expresly I believe in confuso all that is in Genesis Exodus Leviticus c. to be the word of God and true though I neither believe or know expresly and distinctly all that is contained in those books can you deny this If you proceed in Philosophical principles is not the express knowledge of the genus a confused knowledge of species under it and an express knowledge of the species a confused knowledge of the individua under it and a knowledge or belief when they are known or believed in confuso Thus you give distinctions without differences and examples to illustrate your distinctions which quite destroy them 6. Why put you a contradictory proposition you say thus not knowing whether you that is such a man be Animal or Cadaver now this is a plain implicancy in adjecto for it is as impossible that you or any man should be a Cadaver as that a man should be a barn door the one being as truely disparate from a true man as the other and disparates you know cannot predicate the one of the other every one therefore knows who knows what a man is that no man is or can be Cadaver a dead caâ—â—kass so that no man can be ignorant whether you be Animal or Cadaver A little more heed to what you write would do well when you dispute 7. Why say you you suppose I mean nor your first manner of implicite faith when I and all who understand themselves must either mean that or nothing The object of implicite faith delivered in the Schools being nothing else save particular truths contained in substance under some general proposition so that though they be
to be so without evident Reason giveth scope to every one at his pleasure to make every other promise of Christ to be conditional And so we shall be certain of nothing that Christ hath promised neither that there shall always be a visible or invisible Church nor any Church at all no nor of Judgement nor of Eternal life or of the Resurrection of the dead c. for one may say with as much ground as this is said that some conditions were included in all those promises which being not fulfilled hinders the execution of them There remains only to prove the Minor of the second Syllogism viz. That no Congregation of Christians hath been always visible c. save that which acknowledges S. Peter and his lawfull successors c. to be their chief Head and Governour c. next under Christ. This Minor I prove by obliging the answerers to nominate any Congregation of Christians which always till this present time since Christ hath been visible either under persecution or in peace and flourishing save that only which acknowledges S. Peter c. ut supra Sir To comply with your desires of brevity and of confining my self to half a sheet of paper I send you at present only one Argument which being fully discussed shall be followed by others God willing To this as to all the rest of my Arguments which may hereafter be urged I require a Categorical and strict Syllogistical Answer in Form by Concedo Nego Distinguo Omitto Transeat And the particular Propositions specified to which the Respondents apply any of them and no more then precisely thus neither adding Amplifications Reasons Proofs c. of their own out of form and that this may be done with all convenient speed To the place of Scripture Ephes. 4. c. is also required a Categorical answer to what is precisely pressed in it without directing the Discourse to other things And what is answered otherwise I shall not esteem an Answer but an Effugium or declining of the difficulty By this method exactly observed Truth will easily and speedily be made manifest and your desires of Brevity will be punctually complied with I also desire that the Respondent or Respondents will as I do to this subscribe his or their name or names to their answers so often as any are by him or them returned with the day of the month when returned Decemb. 9. 1658. William Iohnson The Answer to the first PAPER I received yours and writ this Answer Ian. 4. 1658. Sir WHoever you are a serious debate with so sober a Disputant is to me an exceeding acceptable employment I shall not I hope give you any cause to say that I decline any difficulties or balk your strength or transgress the part of a Respondent But because 1. You have not as you ought to have done explained the terms of your Thesis 2. And have made your Propositions so long 3. And have so cunningly lapped up your fallacies your Respondent is necessitated to be the larger in distinction and explication And seeing you are so instant with me for strictness you thereby oblige your self if you will be ingenuous to make onely the learned and not any ignorant men the Iudges of our dispute because you know that to the unlearned a bare Nego signifieth nothing but when such have read your Arguments at length they will expect as plain and large a confutation or judge you to be in the right for speaking most TO your Argument 1. Your conclusion containeth not your Thesis or Question And so you give up your cause the first step and make a new one It should have contained your Question in terms and it doth not so much as contain it in the plain sense so much difference is there between Assemblies of Christians united c. and Congregation of Christians and between Salvation or the Church never was in any other then those Assemblies and no Salvation out of that Congregation as I shall shew you besides other differences which you may see Ad Majorem Resp. 1. By Congregation you mean either the whole Catholick Church united in Christ or some particular Congregation which is but part of that whole In the latter sense your Subject hath a false supposition viz. that a part is the whole and your Minor will be false And your whatsoever Congregation of Christians seems to distinguish that from some other excluded Congregation of Christians that is no part of the Catholick Church which is a supposing the chief part of the Question granted you which we deny We know no universal Congregation of Christians but one which containeth all particular Congregations and Christians that univocally deserve that name 2. Either you mean that this whole Congregation or true Church acknowledgeth the Popes Soveraignty or else that some part of it doth acknowledge it The former I deny and challenge any man living to prove If it be part onely that you mean then either the greater part or the lesser that it is the greater I as confidently almost deny for it is against the common knowledge of men acquainted with the world c. If you mean the lesser part you shall see anon that it destroyes your cause 3. Either you speak de Ecclesia quae talis or de Ecclesia qua talis and mean that this acknowledgment is essential to it or at least an inseparable property or else that it is a separable accident The latter will do you no good the former I deny In sum I grant that a small corrupt part of the Catholike Church doth now acknowledge the Pope to be Christs Vicar or the Vice-christ but I deny 1. That the whole doth so which is your great cause 2. Or the Major part 3. Or any Congregation through all ages though if they had it would do you no good 4. Or that it is done by any upon just ground but is their corruption Ad Minorem Resp. 1. If you mean any part of the Vniversal Church by that Congregation which is now the true Church I deny your Minor If the who le I grant it 2. You say all Christians agree in it c. Resp. I think all Protestants or near all do but Franciscus à sancta Clara hath copiously told us in Artic. Anglic. that most of your own Doctors are for the salvation of Infidels and then either you take Infidels for your Church membrs or your Doctors for no Christians or you play not fair play to tell us so grosse an untruth that all Christians are agreed in it To your Conclusion Resp. 1. Either you mean that there is no Salvation to be had out of that Vniversal Church whose part a minor corrupt part acknowledgeth the Popes Soveraignty or else that there is no Salvation to be had out of that Universal Church which wholly acknowledgeth it or else that there is no Salvation to be had out of that part of the Universal Church which acknowledgeth it In the
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
Church be true or false that 's stated in the Argument but whether it be in a matter Accidental or Essential Now I affirm that nothing which Christ hath Instituted to be ever in the Church is Accidental to the Church for every Accident is separable from the Subject without destroying the Subject whose Accident it is But what Christ ha's Instituted to be ever in his Church is inseparable from it Mat. 19.6 for Quae Deus conjunxit homo non separet Those things which God hath conjoyned man must not separate In the mean time you fairly acknowledge your instances were not home to the present purpose because not in matters Instituted to be perpetual by one of that Authority whose Institution no man can change and consequently not necessary to be ever in those Nations or Commonwealths to whom you ascribe them Baxter Num. 17. For 1. The holding it alwayes done and that of Christs Institution may be either an Accident or but of the Integrity and ad bene esse yea possibly an errour Iohnson Num. 17. If of the Integrity then not Accidental for no Integral part is an Accident to the whole So you yield up your cause and acknowledge your errourâ—â— and 't is laudable in you The question is not what you might have done but what you did your instances given fell short and were plainly fallacious I have already shew'd that nothing can be an Accident to the Church which Christ hath instituted to be ever that is perpetually in the Church and consequently the Churches holding any thing to be so if true is Essential to the Subsistance of the Church if false is essentially destructive of the Church so that whether true or false it will never be accidental to the Church Baxter Num. 18. And I might as easily have given you instances of that kind Iohnson Num. 18. Had you more fully reflected upon your Adversaries words you might have done many things more pertinently then you have done them but here again you acknowledge your error in alledging instances which were not to the purpose But your Readers and I should have been much more satisfied had you amended what you acknowledge to be a fault and brought at least in this your last Reply those instances which you say here you might have given then Be sure therefore in your next to produce instances of Accidentals in such things as Christ hath instituted to be ever in his Church whereby it may appear that this Roman acknowledgment whether true or false is accidental to the true Church So that the acknowledgment of it by all those to whom it is sufficiently propounded is necessary to make them parts of the true Church and the denial of it when so propounded hinders them from being parts of it Baxter Num. 19. To your third Syllogism I reply 1. When you say your Church had Pastors Fallacy 5. as you must speak of what existed and universals exist not of themselves so it is necessary that I tell you how far I grant your Minor and how far I deny it Iohnson Num. 19. What though universalls exist not of themselves may not therefore a Logician expresse things which have existed in an abstract or universal term Is not this a true Logical Proposition Ever since Adam there have been parents and children in the world though the terms abstract from lawful and unlawful from male or female children would you carp at this Proposition as you do here at mine because universalls exist not of themselves or go about to distinguish different sorts of children or parents as you do Pastors here to find out the true meaning of that Proposition No man sayes or need to say in such Enunciations that universalls exist but expresses particulars which have existed by abstract and universall terms Baxter Num. 20. My Argument from the Indians and others is not solved by you For 1. You can never prove that the Pope was preached to the Iberians by the captive maid Fallacy 6. nor to the Indians by Frumentius 2. Thousands were made Christians and Baptized by the Apostles Three non-proofs without any preaching or profession of a Papacie Acts 2. pasâ—â—im 3. The Indians now converted in America by the English and Dutch hear nothing of the Pope nor thousands in Ethiopia 3. Your own doe or may baptize many without their owning the Pope who yet would be Christians And a Pastor not known or beleeved or owned is actually no Pastor to them Iohnson Num. 20. To all these Instances I answer They conclude nothing against my Assertion for I never said that all particular persons or communities are obliged to have an express belief or acknowledgment of the Roman-Bishops Supremacy that being necessary to all neither necessitate medii nor praecepti It is sufficient that they beleeve it implicitely in subjecting themselves to all those whom Christ hath instituted to be their lawfull Pastors and when the Bishop of Rome is sufficiently proposed to them to be the supream visible Pastor of of those Pastors upon earth that then they obstinately reject not his authority To your first instance of the Captive maid and Saint Frumentius I answer we can prove as much at least that to have been preacht to them as you can prove either Justification by Faith only or any other particular point of your doctrine to have been preacht to them And both of us must say that all important Christian Truths both for particular persons and Churches were delivered to those people and till you have evinced this of Supremacy to have been none of those it is to be supposed it was sufficiently declared to those Nations At least in explicating the Article of the Catholike Church to them they must be supposed to have told them it consisted of Pastors and people united and that the people were to obey all their lawful Pastors in which doctrine the Pope is implicitely included To your second from Acts 2. The Scripture relates not there all that S. Peter said but affirmeth vers 40. that he gave testimony to them in many other words And who can tell whether amongst the rest that of his Supremacy might not have been sufficiently intimated to them However it appears by the Text vers 37. that the people addrest themselves first and in particular to S. Peter before all the rest of the Apostles as the prime amongst them and he who first preacht the Gospel to them Prove the English and Dutch Convertites converted by Protestants if you mean those as you must do if your argument have any force to be instructed in the true Faith and then your Instance will have some force prove those of Ethiopia to be Orthodox and Catholick Christians To what purpose produce you instances which are assoon denied as they are proposed Your last touches only particular persons which I have shewed are not obliged to know this expresly to be of the Church the Pope is their true pastor and so
it in your Edition p. 35. But why do you refer what I admit not I say not that every Opponent may come to a Negative at his pleasure as you make me say but when that Negative is deduced by force of Syllogistical form and denied by the Respondent in a matter proveable by instances as this is I affirm and desire it should be sent to both our Learned Universities that he who denies the universal Negative is obliged in Logical process to give some instance to the contrary and that there is no other means to prove that Negative but by infringing the instances which the Respondent produces against it For if the Opponent go to prove his universal negative by Induction viz. in my present Minor But no Congregation of Christians hath been alwayes visible save those which acknowledge St. Peter c. he must come at last to this Such a Congregation is neither that of the Arrians nor of the Eutychians nor of Nestorians nor any other Congregation that can be named Then if the Respondent deny that Proposition and affirm there is some nameable he is obliged to tell which it is otherwise it is impossible to make progress in the Argument which way of arguing notwithstanding is most Logical and usually practised amongst Learned Disputants Baxter Num. 25. We are all agreed that Christianity is the true Religion and Christ the Churches universal Head and the Holy Scriptures the Word of God Papists tell us of another Head and Rule the Pope and Tradition and Iudgement of the Church Protestants deny these Additionals and hold to Christianity and Scripture onely our Religion being nothing but Christianity we have no controversie about their Papal Religion superadded is that which is controverted They affirm 1. the Right 2. the Antiquity of it We deny both The Right we disprove from Scripture though it belongs to them to prove it The Antiquity is it that is now to be referred Protestancy being the denial of Popery it is we that really have the Negative and the Papists that have the Affirmative The Essence of our Church which is Christian is confessed to have been successively visible But we deny that theirs as Papal hath been so and now they tell us that it is Essential to ours to deny the Succession of theirs and therefore require us to prove a Succession of ours as one that still hath denied theirs Now we leave our Case to the Lawyers seeing to them you make your Appeal 1. Whether the Substance of all our Cause lie not in this question Whether the Papacy or universal Government by the Pope be of Heaven or of Men Fallacy 8. and so Whether it hath been from the beginning which we deny and therefore are called Protestants and they affirm and are therefore called Papists 2. If they cannot first prove a Successive visibility of their Papacy and Papal Church then what Law can bind us to prove that it was denied before it did arise in the world or ever any pleaded for it 3. And as to the point of Possession I know not what can be pretended on your side 1. The possession of this or that particular Parish Church or Tythes is not the thing in question but the universal Headship is the thing But if it were yet it is I that am yet here in Possession and Protestants before me for many Ages Successively And when possessed you the Head-ship of the Ethiopian Indian and other Extra-Imperial Churches never to this day No nor of the Eastern Churches though you had Communion with them 2. If the question be who hath possession of the universal Church we pretend not to it but onely to a part and the soundest safest part 3. The Case of Possession therefore is Whether we have not been longer in Possession of our Religion which is bare Christianity then you of your super-added Popery Our Possession is not denied of Christianity yours of Popery we deny and our denial makes us called Protestants Let therefore the reason of Logicians Lawyers or any rational sober man determine the case whether it do not first and principally belong to you to prove the visible Succession of a Vice-Christ over the universal Church Iohnson Num. 25. Fair and softly Sir you are run quite out of the field and have lost your self I know not where The present question is not who is to prove the universal and perpetual Supremacy of the Roman-Bishop See you not that I have already undertaken the proof of that in this present Argument The question at present is nothing but this when I have brought the Argument to this Head that no other Congregation of Christians can be named perpetually visible save that which acknowledges the Roman Supremacy and you deny that negative Proposition of mine whether you be not obliged upon that denial to name some Congregation which has been perpetually visible beside it This and this onely is that which I referr'd and still refer to the the judgement of the Learned as to your Case when it comes in season it shall be resolved This onely ex abundanti for the present whatsoever may be or not be of the Indians and Ethiopians c. which shall hereafter be examined You who confess the Pope to have been constituted Part 2. at least by the Churches grant Patriarch of the West and thereby to have acquired a lawfull Supremacy over the Western Churches and consequently over that of England and was in full and quiet possession of that Right when your first Protestants began to reject it you I say cannot deny those first Protestants at least to have been obliged by reason of that possession to bring convincing proofs that it was unlawfull which notwithstanding you must hold impossible to be done because you hold that Patriarchal power over them to have been lawfull Now what obligation falls upon you as maintaining successively so wrongfull a cause I leave to your consciences to determine Nay it is most evident in time of the first breach with the Roman Bishop he was in as quiet possession of Supremacy over the English Church in quality of Supreme visible Pastor over the whole Church as he was in quality of the Western Patriarch for the English obeyed him as Supreme over all and not as Patriarch of the West onely as appears by thousands of testimonies extant in our National Councils Doctors Bishops Historians Records Decrees c. Therefore those who dispossest him of that possession were bound either to have demonstrated it undeniably to be unlawfull or to have procured a definitive Sentence against him by such as had full Authority to judge him that his possession was unjust neither of which either hath been done nor can ever be done Baxter Num. 26 As to your contradictory impositions I reply 1. Your exception was not exprest and your imposition was peremptory Iohnson Num. 26. But I supposed my Adversaries to be Logicians and stood not in need to be instructed
the Scholiastes and where they are to be found For the matter it self it seems I must needs tell you very improbable both because the Scripture it self hath hoc and not hic panis and were it not a great boldness in a whole Church to consent to the changing of Christs words of Institution in this divine Sacrament and foisting in others in place of them nor see I any reason why the Ethiopique Church in particular should do it when in the very same Liturgie it delivers cleerly the change of bread into Christ Body effected in the consecration of the divine Mysteries Canon universalis Aethiop Hoc est corpus sanctum honoratum Vitale domini salvatoris nostri Iesu Christi quod datum est in remissionem peccatorum vere sumentibus ipsum Hic est sanguis Domini salvatoris nostri Iesu Christi sanctus honoratus ac vivificus qui datus est in remissionem peccatorum advitum consequendam voce sumentibus eum Dicit intra divinum sacramentum esse corpus quod assumpsit ex Maria Virgine Eâ—â— supra dicit Sacerdos hoc est corpus meum Respondet populus Amen Amen Amen hoc est vere corpus tuum Dein dicit sacerdos Hic est calix sanguinis mei qui pro nobis effundetur pro redemptione multorum c. Baxter Num 57. Constantines letters of request to the King of Persia for the Churches there which Eusebius in vitâ Constantini mentioneth do intimate that then the Roman Bishop ruled not there Iohnson Num. 57. Why so Might not the Roman Bishop rule there though the Emperour did not The King of Persia as not Subject to the Emperour was not to be commanded but entreated by him but might not that stand with the Authority of the Roman Bishop over that Church May not the King of France intreat the King of Spain to send his Bishops to a general Council though both of them acknowledge the Popes Authority over them and the Churches in their respective Kingdomes Call you this an Argument Baxter Num. 58. Even at home the Scots and Brittains obeyed not the Pope nor conformed about Easter-Observation even in the dayes of Gregory but resisted his changes and refused Communion with his Ministers Iohnson Num. 58. No more do you conform to him now follows it thence that he never exercised authority over the Church in this Nation Will you draw a consequence from the disobedience of a Subject to the want of power in a Superiour Was not this very error ascrib'd to them by Venerable Bede Beda Histor. Ang. lib. 2. cap. 2. and here acknowledged by you condemned as an Heresie in the Council of Nice and may you not as well argue thus even against your own principles Those Brittains and Scots conformed not about the Easter-Observation prescribed in the Council of Nice therefore they acknowledged no subjection to the authority of that Council Ergo That Council never had authority over them And as to Communion with his Ministers See V. Bede Hist. Angl. l. 2. cap. 2. Bede tells you they refused also to communicate with the English who were then converted or to help towards their conversion were they also justifiable in this Or had they any right in Christian charity to refuse it Baxter Num. 59. I have already elsewhere given you the testimony of some of your own Writers as Reynerius contra Waldenses Catal. in Bibliothecâ patr Tom. 4. pag. 773. saying The Churches of the Armenians and Ethiopians and Indians and the rest which the Apostles converted are not under the Church of Rome Iohnson Num. 59. No more are you what then our question is not of what is done de facto for the present but what de jure ought to be done or has been done at one time or other This Author says not these Nations were never under the Church of Rome even as you cite him but are not now for the present under him Know you not that many things have been heretofore which are not now Thus I have shewed you and doubt not but you see it the weakness of the first eight points of your Reasons I come now to the ninth which requires a deeper and larger discussion as being a main point in your Novel Divinity Baxter Num. 60. I have proved from the Council of Chalcedon that it was the Fathers that is the Councils that gave Rome its preheminence Iohnson Num. 60. Sir I take the boldness to tell you that you have proved nothing nothing at all of that matter what you say in your second part of the 28 Canon of the Council of Chalcedon proves not what you say here though that Canon were admitted of which more hereafter For the Greek word is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gave to or conferred upon Rome those priviledges but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exhibited or deferred to them to Rome as ever before due unto it by right of the Apostolick Sea of S. Peter established there And though the Canon alledge for the reason of this the Imperial power of that Citie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it was the Imperial City yet it neither says as you would infer from it that this was the sole and compleat reason no nor the chief neither of Romes preheminence but one amongst some others Nor can it be understood to be the sole reason without imputing a contradiction to the Council For those Holy Fathers in their Epistle to St. Leo Pope affirm Conc. Calced in relat ad Leonem That Dioscorus had extended his Felony against him to whom our Saviour had committed the charge and care of his vineyard that is the whole Catholique Church when that wicked Heretick presumed to excommunicate St. Leo. Now the true reason why this Canon mentions rather the Imperial Authority of that City then the right from St. Peter was because it suited better with the pretensions of Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople and his complices for the elevation of that Sea then any other because Constantinople had no other prevalent plea for its preheminence save the Imperiality of Constantinople Now that this reason of the Imperial seat at Rome is no way exclusive of the right from S. Peter is evident from the conjoyning them together by the Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian in their Laws made six years before the Council of Chalcedon whereof the Fathers of that Council cannot be supposed ignorant where they say thus Vâ—â—de infra Three things have established the Primacy of the Sea Apostolick the Merit of S. Peter who is the Prince of the Episcopal Society the Dignity of the City and Synodical Authority Where the original and prime ground is the Merit of S. Peter the other two are subsequent and subservient For therefore the Imperial Throne is given as a reason because St. Peter thought it convenient that the Highest Spiritual Authority should be placed in that City which had highest Temporal Power as also Alexandria was anciently
justly condemned for not beleeving Gods revelation Now suppose some new Heretick as I have heard of one such lately should beleeve that Christ did rise again from the dead yet dis-believes that he rose the third day and perswades himself that his Resurrection happened some time after the third day Let such an Heretick be asked why he beleeves that Christ rose from death if he tell you because God hath revealed it in the forenamed sentence then ask him what moves him to beleeve that God has revealed it if he tells you because he finds it clearly expressed in this sentence of Scripture which he beleeves to be Gods revealed word demand further why he beleeves it to be his word he will tell you because it is sufficiently propounded to him as such so that he is satisfied that it is the Word of God Then presse him thus But certainly you beleeve not that place of Scripture to be the Word of God for if you did you would beleeve all that it contained in it which you do not for it is as clearly exprest in that sentence That Christ rose again the third day as that he rose at all but you beleeve not that he rose the third day Ergo You beleeve not that Sentence to be the Word of God Ergo You cannot beleeve that Christ rose again for the authority of Gods word in that sentence Ergo You beleeve it not because God has revealed it Ergo You have no divine Faith at all of the mystery of the Resurrection but a meer humane perswasion grounded upon your own particular phansie or reason that it is so Thus you see it is impossible to beleeve any thing which God has revealed for the Authority of Divine revelation unless he who beleeves gives the like assent to every other truth be it of what importance great or small in it self makes nothing to our present difficulty which is as plainly proposed to him to be revealed from God as that which he beleeves To make this yet more facile to the unlearned I will declare it by a Vulgar instance Suppose there were some honourable and worthy Person in a Common-wealth of so great credit that what he saves is beleeved by every one as an undoubted truth Some other of credible Authority tells his friend this Honourable person has told him two things and affirmed both of them to be true of his own knowledge his friend tells him he beleeves the one but will not by any means assent to the other He asks his friend Why beleeve you the first He answers because such a person affirmes it to be true He demands further why beleeve you he said so the friend answers upon your relation Then sayes the other you hold my relation to be a sufficient inductive to make you beleeve he said the first Yes says his friend I do not so replies the relator for if you did you would beleeve he said the second as well as the first for I assure you as much that he said the one as the other Now what can his Friend answer he must either say that he beleeves not the Honourable person said so upon the sole authority of the others relation and consequently that neither of those truths were sufficiently propounded to him by that relator and so could beleeve neither the first not the second contrary to his former acknowledgment and our present supposition or he must deny that he beleeves the second of those relations though the Honourable Personage said both the one and the other and then it is evident he beleeved not the first upon the sole credit of his saying but for som other reason of his own For if he had beleeved the first upon his sole word he must have beleeved the second also seeing he had as much reason to beleeve he said the second as the first Thus I have endeavoured to prove the first part of my Major Now I prove the second Viz. That no man can have true Christian faith who beleeves any thing as revealed from God which is as sufficiently propounded to him to be erroneous or not revealed from God as are the Articles of Faith to be Gods revelations the very same Authority which affirms the one denying the other Let us suppose some rigid Calvinist beleeving the Pope to be that great Antichrist foretold in the Revelation and that the very same authority which as he acknowledges sufficiently propounded to him the Articles of Christian Faith as revealed from God assured him that no such matter as the Popes being that great Antichrist was ever revealed and that it was a manifest error in Faith In this case either that Calvinist must dis-beleeve that propounding Authority and thereby loose his Faith in the former Articles and have no true Faith at all in the first or beleeve it in the second because it is still the very same Authority in both For that very Authority which propounds the Articles of Faith as revealed from God propounds this as not revealed and as contrary to Gods revelation Baxter Num. 89. Yet I have herewith satisfied your demand but shewed you the unreasonableness of it beyond all reasonable contradiction Non-proof 12. Iohnson Num. 89. You are very prone to assert without proof Where have you shewed the unreasonableness of my demand Tell me I pray in your next for you have not yet done it Baxter Num. 90. You next inquire Whether we account Rome and us one Congregation of Christians I answer the Roman Church hath two heads and ours but one and that 's the difference Iohnson Num. 90. Who ever accounted a King and a Viceroy a Bishop and a Vicar a Captain and a Lieutenant a Master and a Steward two Heads respectively to their Territories and Jurisdictions Can you call the head and the neck two heads because both of them with subordination the one to the other are placed above the rest of the body The head is the highest part of an Organical body and whatsoever is subordinate to that is no head absolutely though it be next the head and higher then all the other parts Christ is only the Head of his whole Church comprising the Militant and Triumphant and of this whole Church the Pope is a part but no Head The Holy Councils and Fathers indeed stile him sometimes Head of the visible Militant Church as we shall see hereafter but that is only in regard of the visible government of the Church not absolutly and soveraignly for the only soveraign head of the Militant Church works in it and governs it invisibly by his holy lights and inspirations and particularly him who is its visible Head according to its visible government There is therefore amongst us one only absolute head of the Church the other hath no absolute Independent power over it but is as truly a part of the Church depending as much on the absolute head as any other pâ—â—râ—â— doth There is but one King and Master of the Militant
Church in this opposition Mr. Baxter Num. 109. They do not claim to be vice Christi the universal Governours of the Church Contradiction the Title of universal Patriarch they extended but to the then Roman Empire and that not to an universal government but Primacy William Iohnson Num. 109. I wonder to hear you say here the Greeks intended the Title of universal Patriarch only to the Empire and that not of Government but of Primacie that is as you mistake that word precedencie in place when you labour mightily to prove Pag. 154. 155.156 c. from St. Gregorie's Epistles that the Title the Greeks then pretended to and S. Gregory exclaimed against was to be Bishop and to have spiritual Jurisdiction over all Churches and Christians in the world either therefore you must grant that your Argument drawn there from St. Gregorie's words is fallacious and of no force or if it be of force and well grounded That then Iohn of Constantinople and with and after him the Patriarchs of that City pretended to be universal Governours of the whole Church both extra and intra-Imperial And as to the later Patriarchs of Constantinople seeing there is now no Christian Empire amongst them and they still retain that former Title of Vniversal Patriarchs you cannot pretend they inclose their Authorities within the Verge of the Christian Empire And that you may see what Authoritie the Constantinopolitan Patriarch assumes to himself and how plaguely he stiles himself a vice-Christ quite contrary to your groundlesse Assertion here Hieremias in his Epistle to the Lutherans of Germany prefixed before his censure of their Doctrine saies thus Si enim volueritis inquit Scriptura audieritis me bona terrae comedetis quibus sane verbis mediocritas item nostra quae ipsa Christi Domini miseratione successione quadam hic in terris ejus locum tenet ad amabilem concordiam consensum cum ea quae apud nos est Jesu Christi Ecclesia charitatem vestram cohortatur If you be willing and shall hear me saith the Scripture you shall eat the good things of the Land in which words our mediocrity likewise which by the mercy of Christ our Lord by a certain succession here upon earth holds his Christ's place Exhorts you to an amiable concord and charity with that which is with us the Church of Iesus Christ where this Patriarch of Constantinople Hieremias affirmes expresly of himself that he holds Christ's place upon earth which is to be a vice-Christ as you term it as much as the Pope esteems himself one yet sure Hieremias knew what Authoritie he had in Christ's Church now that you may know undoubtedly he speaks not of a Church of Christ which may be affirmed of every particular true Church but of the Church of Christ that is the whole Catholick visible Church he exhorts those German Lutherans to an amiable concord with that Church of Christ which is with him that is in the Government whereof he holds the place of Christ and that this is no other then the whole visible Catholick Church he declared in the last Paragraph of the eight chapter saying Et ut conâ—â—idimus ubi ei quâ—â— apud nos est sanctae Catholicae Iesu Christi Ecclesiae vos subjiâ—â—ietis c. And as we confide when you shall subject your selves to that holy and Catholick Church of Christ which is with us or belongs to us which can be meant of no other save the whole visible Church for he accounts none to be in communion with that Church which is with him save those who believe and observe all the Apostolical and Synodical traditions and all who believe and observe them to be of his communion that is all orthodox Christians which is the whole Catholick Church nor can these words quae apud nos est be so understood as if they denominated only some part of the Catholick Church to be with him and some other not with him or against him for the Greek hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if he had said the holy Catholick Church existing amongst us or with us Mr. Baxter Num. 110. And for Hieremias his Predecessor whom you mention though they disputed with him by letters Stephanus Gerlochius and Martinus Crusius did not agree in all things with him yet he still professed his desire of unity and concord with us and in the beginning of his second Answer rejoiceth that we agreed with them in so many things William Iohnson Num. 110. So do we to and labour to procure that unity with all our forces but why cast you a mist upon the point in question by saying he agreed not with them in all things what mean you by all things I had said the Greeks and others profess generally all those points of Faith with us against you wherein you differ from us and prove this out of Hieremias his Epistle you answer that the Lutherans did not agree in all things with Hieremias what all things mean you those wherein you and we differ why then have you not designed some at least of those points in difference betwixt us wherein they agree with you against us if you mean they agreed not in all things that is in some wherein we and you agree they agreed also with you us that 's true but is no Answer at all to my Assertion for I meddle not with those but disagreed they with you in the points controverted betwixt us that 's true too but it is a confirmation of my Assertion But you artificially to dissemble what you could not answer serve your self only of a general terme whereby the Reader may remain still unsatisfied whether they agree with you or us in the Points under controversie betwixt us Tell us therefore and I beseech you fail not to do it whether my Assertion be true or no in this point when you Reply to it and whether my Allegations prove it not that is whether the modern Greeks agree with the Roman Church in all points now controverted betwixt us and you except that of the Popes supremacie and whether Hieremias the Patriarch assume not to himself as true a supreme authority over the whole Church as does the Pope Mr. Baxter Num. III. Iohannes Zygomalas in his letters to Crusius 1576. May 15. saith Perspienum tibi omnibus futurum est quod in continuis causam fidei praecipue continentibus articulis consentiamus quae autem videntur consensum inter vos nos Impedire talia sunt si velit quis ut facile ea corrigere possit Gaudium in coelo super terram erit si coibit in unitatem utraque Ecclesia Idem sentiemus simul vivemus in omni concordia pace secundum Deum in sincerae Charitatis vinculo William Iohnson Num. III. To what purpose are these words cited cannot any of the Roman Church write the very same now to Lutherans But does
that is to such a one to whom every Bishop might appeal in the like case Mr. Baxter Num. 185. Your tenth proof is from Chrysostome's case where you say some things untrue and some impertinent 1. That Chrysostome appeals to Innocent from the Council of Constantinople is untrue if you mean it of an appeal to a superiour Court or Iudge much more if as to an universal Iudge But indeed in his banishment when all other help failed he wrote to him to interpose and helps him as far as he could I need no other proof of the Negative then 1. That there is no proof of the Affirmative that ever he made any such appeal William Iohnson Num. 185. Every appeal from a juridical sentence to have it reversed and the injured person restored to his former right and the unjust Judges punished by the authority of him to whom the appeal is made is to a superiour Court or Judge But St. Chrysostome's appeal was such Ergo it was to a superiour Court or Judge the Minor is evident from the matter of fact for St. Chrysostome writes thus to Pope Innocent Scribite precor authoritate vestra discernite St. Chrys. ep ad Inocent Papam apud Palladium in Dialogo hujusmodi iniqua gesta nobis absentibus judicium non declinantibus nullius esse roboris sicut per suam naturam sunt profecto irrita nulla porro qui talia gessere eos Ecclesiae censurae subjicite nos autem insontes neque convictos neque deprensos neque ullius criminis reos comprobate Ecclesiis nostris jubete restitui ut charitate frui pace confratibus nostris consuetâ possimus Write I beseech you and decree by your Authority that the unjust proceedings against us who were absent and not refusing Iudgement are of no force as indeed in their own nature they are void and null moreover make those to lye under the Churches censure who have committed such injustices but command that we who are innocent unconvicted and unguilty be restored to our Churches that we may re-enjoy our wanted charity and peace with our Brethren Is not this a full proof of the Minor The Major is also evident for none have power when appealed to perform those acts of authority over those of any Court unless they be a higher Court and Judge then the other from whom the appeal is made as all Jurists know and confess Mr. Baxter Num. 186. In his first Epistle to Innocent he tells him over and over that he appealed to a Synode and required Iudgement and that he was cast into a Ship for banishment because he appealed to a Synode and a righteous Iudgement never mentioning a word of any such appeal to the Pope William Iohnson Num. 186. What then Ergo he appealed not to Innocent as a superiour Iudge prove that consequence Was it not the custom then of approved Prelates as also in all well ordered Common-wealths first to appeal to the next ordinary Court and if Justice were done there to acquiesce and not to come to the highest Tribunal till no Justice could be had in the inferiour Did not St. Chrysostome all this must he needs mention his appeal to the Pope before he made it I think in earnest you were in jest here Mr. Baxter Num. 187. Yea he urgeth the Pope to befriend and help him by that Argument that he was still ready to stand to uncorrupted Iudges never mentioning the Pope as Iudge William Iohnson Num. 187. And was it not his duty to do so according to Canonical proceeding what need had he in that Epistle whilst he was in hopes of an inferiour tryal to mention an appeal to the highest Court must he upon all occasions mention every thing was it not sufficient that he did it when necessity required it Mr. Baxter Num. 188. By all which it appears it was but the assistance of his intercession that he requireth and withal perhaps the excommunicating of the wicked which another Bishop might have done William Iohnson Num. 188. But could any Bishop who was not a superiour Judge which make against you annul the Sentence of a Council by his Authority inflict Ecclesiastical censures upon those Judges and command the injured persons to be restored to their Seas as we have seen St. Chrysostome beseeched Innocent to do If you will undertake the writing of Controversies answer like a Scholar to the proofs alleadged against you and be sure in your next you fall no more into this fault for by dallying thus you may write to the worlds end to no purpose at all whilst you neither answer nor so much as mention the words which make aginst you pardon me if I tell you my mind plainly it is for your good Mr. Baxter Num. 189. Yea and it seems it was not to Innocent only but to others with him that he wrote for he would scarce else have used the termes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 William Iohnson Num. 189. How familiar is it in writing to persons of most eminent Authority to use the plural number how usual is this both in Scripture and other Authors Mr. Baxter Num. 190. But what need we more then his own words to know his request Saith he let those that are found to have done so wickedly be subject to the penalty of the Ecclesiastical Laws but as for us that are not convicted nor found guilty grant us to enjoy your letters and your charity and all others whose socâ—â—ety we did formerly enjoy Corruption William Iohnson Num. 190. This is a strange Metamorphosis of St. Chrysostomes words why leave you out the beginning of the Sentence scribite precor c. I beseech you to write and decree that by your authority those unjust acts are void and null I see this was not for your purpose nor could well admit of a handsom mistranslation 2. Why cite you not the Latin or Greek words that the equity of your Translation might appear O that would have spoyled your market Signifies then subjicite let them be subject what Grammer hath taught you that what word is there in the Latin Sentence that signifies your letters or your charity and what English word is there here which answers to jubete command or to restitui Ecclesiis vestris to be restored to our Churches See the Latin Text of St. Chrysostom cited above num Sir give me leave once more to be plain with you it had been much better for you and thousands of your too credulous Readers that you had never set pen to paper then to delude your own soul and theirs with such sophistications as these are and I pray God you come not one day with a great Patron of your Religion to curse the time that you ever writ Controversies which notwithstanding were rather to be wished then feared if the Grace of true Repentance accompany it Mr. Baxter Num. 191. The Ecclesiastical Laws enabled each Patriarch and Bishop to Sentence in his own
then either the Church Canons or the consent of classick Authours warrant them If you had proceeded like a Scholar to confute my assertion you should have alleadged either some Popes who inserted Vice-Christus Vice-Christ into their titles or who taught it in their publick Bulls or writings to be due to them or at least some Council or consent of Catholick Doctours who give him that title or prove it to belong to him But to draw a solemn title from Orators Poets Rhetoritians Encomiasticks what is it but a trifle to give rather an intertainment then an argument to youâ—â— Readers And for Antonius Puccius he sayes no more here to the Pope then was gâ—â—ven in time of the Council of Chacedon to the Emperour Martian by Pulcheria the Empresse who sayes Literae Divinitatis ejus the letters of his Divinity and even by the Fathers of that Council Martian is called divinissimus most divine â—â—on Chal. Act. apud Binium Tom. 2. p. 106. Mr. Baxter Num. 413. In the same Council Simon Beginus Modrusiensis Episcopus in an oration Sess. 6. calls Leo the Lyon of the tribe of Juda the root of Jesse him whom they had looked for as the Saviour William Iohnson Num. 413. It seems you either took these authorities on trust or reade them very cursorily over Beginus says not Radix Iesses the root of Iesse as you have it but Radix David the root of David And his meaning is perverted by you culling out those words from the rest conjoyned to them in the Oration for it is evident that he gives Pope Leo these titles in allusion to his name and applies them only restrictively to the saving or preserving the Roman Church from the invasions of Turkes and Hereticks then appearing and threatning Christendome this is so evident that no man can read the oration and not see it Now what crime is there in calling him a Saviour in this particular external preservation Why did you not fall as heavie upon the holy Scripture Iudicum 3 15. for intitling Ehud a Saviour and 4 Reg. 13.5 that the same title is given to Ioas. But here you shew your spleen and cunning in translating the word Salvatorem the Saviour as if Beginus made the Pope to be Christ he only having due to him the title of being called the Saviour Mr. Baxter Num. 414. In the same Council Sess. 10. Steph. Patracensis Archiep. saith Reges in compedibus magnitudinis magni regis liga nobiles in manicis ferreis censurarum constringe quoniam tibi data est omnis potestas in coelo in terra and before qui totum dicit nihil excludit So that all power in Heaven and Earth is given to the Pope Paulus Emilius de gestis Francor lib. 7. saith that the Sicilian Embassadours lay prostrate at the Popes feet thrice repeated thou that takest away the sins of the world have mercy upon us And prove to me that ever any such man was reprehended for these things by the Popes of late Augustinus Triumphus in praefat sum ad Johan 22. saith that the Popes power is infinite for great is the Lord great is his power of his greatenesse there is no end And qu. 36. ad 6. He saith that the Pope influenceth or giveth the Motion of direction and the sense of cognition into all the members of the Church for in him we live and move and have our being And a little after he saith The will of God and consequently of the Pope who is his vicar is the first and highest cause of all Corporal and spiritual motions Would you have more witnesse of the falshood of your words Saith Zabarella I. C. lib de Schism Innocent 7. and Bened. pag. 20. For this long time past and even to this day those that would please the Popes perswaded them that they could do all things and so they might do what they pleased even things unlawful and so more then God Antonius parte 3. tit 21. cap. 5.4 Saith the Pope receiveth faithful adorations prostrations and kisses of his feet which Peter permitted not from Cornelius nor the Angel from John the Evangelist Cardinalis Bertrandus Tract de Origin jurisd q. 4. num 4. in Glos. extrag com l. 1. fol. 12. saith Because Iesus Christ the Son of God while he was in this world and even from Eternity was a natural Lord and by natural right could pronounce the sentence of deposition on Emperours or any others and the sentence of damnation and any other as upon the Persons which he had created and endowed with natural and free gifts and also did conserve it is his will that on his account his vicar may do the same things For the Lord should not seem discreet that I may speak with his reverence unless he had left behinde him one vicar that can do all these things Tell me now whether you said true in the Paragraph about the title Vice-Christ yea whether it be not much more that hath been given and accepted But what name else is that you agree on as proper to express the power which is controverted I know no name so fitted to the real controversie and therefore in disclaiming the Name for ought I know you disclaime your cause and confess the shame of Popery If he that seeks to the King of England should say he disclaimeth the title of the King as insolent and proud doth he not allow me to conclude the same of the thing which he concludeth of the proper name the Name Papa Pope you know its like was usually by the ancients given to other Bishops as well as to him of Rome and therfore that cannot distinguish him from other men the same I may say of the titles Dominus Pater sanctissimus Dei amantissimus and many such like And for summus Pontifex Baronius tells you Martirol Rom. April 9. that it was the ancient Custome of the Church to call all Bishops not only Pontifices Popes but the highest or chief Popes citing Hierom. Ep. 99. And for the word head of the Church or of all Bishops it hath been given to Constantinople that yet claimeth not as Nilus tells you neither a precedency to Rome nor an universal Government much less as the Vice-Christ And that the Bishop of Constantinople was called the Apostolick Vniversal Bishop Baronius testifieth from an old Vatican monument which on the other side calls Agapetus Episcoporum Princeps the Title Apostolick was usually given to others Hierusalem was called the Mother of the Churches A Council gave Constantinople the Title of universal Church which though Gregory pronounced so impious and intolerable for any to use yet the following Popes made an agreement with Constantinople that their Patriarch should keep his Title of universal Patriarch and the Bishop of Rome be called the universal Pope which can signifie nothing proper to him the name Pope being common more then universal Patriarch doth the foundations and Pillars of the Church
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
neither known nor believed distinctly or expresly yet they are known or believed in confuso confusedly and implicitly by the knowledge or belief of their general proposition 8. Why misconceive you the notion of implicite faith it is not as you conceit therefore no faith at all of all the particulars in Scripture because he who has it understands not distinctly many truths contained in Scripture for a Christian has implicite faith because such determinate truths being de facto contained in Scripture by believing all that is contained therein he believes confusedly or implicitly every one of the said truths though he have not distinct knowledge of many of them 9. But most of all I wonder why you take my second answer in a quite other sense then I intended it for your second question being this whether I mean by faith the belief of all that God hath revealed to be believed or of part c. My Answer is this of all either Explicitly or Implicitly that is that those of the Catholick Church must believe all the very same Articles and points of faith by an Explicite faith in order at least to some of them and by an Implicite faith in order to the rest so an explicite faith of some Articles is necessary to all who actually believe with a Divine faith now you would make me say as appears by your Reply that implicite faith is sufficient in relation to all points of faith whatsoever as if I held it not necessary to believe any thing at all explicitly for you press me thus they must live in unity of the faith that is either with faith or without it with a belief of what God hath revealed or without it which inference you could never urge against me if you had supposed me to hold that some explicite faith is alwayes necessary to salvation in such as are capable of actual belief for whilst they have explicite faith of some Articles they can never be thought to be without faith nor could you with reason draw any such consequence from my speaking in this distributive sense both because it is the ordinary sense of the Schools where an explicite faith of some Articles is held necessary to salvation and because my Answer connaturally admits of that sense And lastly because though the words precisely in themselves were capable of your affixed sense yet when words are of a doubtful meaning no man with reason can bind his words to one determinate sense but must leave the determination to him who framed the proposition 10. But now let us try a while what will follow from your Doctrine of Implicite Faith as that term is ordinarily understood by us To believe any point in our ordinary sense say you is not to believe it now our ordinary sense as I have declared is so to believe that point that we have no distinct or expresse knowledge of it but onely a confused understanding because it is contained in confuso under this Proposition I believe all that God has revealed or I believe all that is delivered to be believed in Canonical Scripture Let us therefore settle this Assertion out of your Doctrine whosoever believes all that God has revealed or all that is in canonical Scripture believes no one particular point contained confusedly in those Propositions which he understands not with an actual understanding in particular to be revealed farther then as contained in those Propositions this is your Doctrine now I subsume But no man knoweth all that God hath revealed to wit with that actual understanding of every particular required by you immediately before as is above explicated this minor is yours Ergo say I no man believes all that God hath revealed now I proceed if no man believe all that God has revealed then you believe not all that God has revealed this is evident then further whosoever believs not all that God has revealed is no good Christian nor in state of Salvation But you believe not all that God has revealed Ergo you are no good Christian nor in state of Salvation See you not how fair a thred you have spun against your self or will you say that he who believes not all which God hath revealed is a good Christian if you will you may but sure if you doe so no good Christian will believe you and that you may see how far you are out in asserting this that one cannot truly believe what he understands not actually and in particular or no farther then as the particulars are contained in that universal proposition I believe all that God has revealed or that is in Scripture when you recite the Nicene Creed wherein you professe to believe that God is creator of all things visible and invisible I demand do you truly believe as you professe to believe when you say those words if you do not you make a profession against your own Conscience if you do then you may believe with an actual Belief that he is Creator of many particular things both visible and invisible whereof you have no actual understanding or which are wholly unknown in particular or distinctly to you or by any other knowledge then as confusedly contained in the word all you recite the Athanasian Creed and there professe to believe that all men shall rise at the last coming of Christ and give an account of their works and yet you have no actual knowledge of many thousands and millions of them The like is of St. Paul when he tells us all men are to stand before the Tribunal of Christ c. shall we say that St. Paul believed not as he professed to believe Acts 24.5 14. Credens omnibus quae in Lege Prophetis scripta sunt yet cannot we suppose that he had then an actual understanding of every particular contained in them II. And that you may see by instances how untrue your Assertion is a Christian I suppose has by vincible or culpable oblivion forgot some grievous Sinne of his Life past he comes to the point of Death he is heartily sorrowfull even for the pure love of God for all his sinnes committed against the Law of God without any actual remembrance or understanding of that forgotten sin and so dyes must not one say in your Principle that such a Penitent had no actual sorrow for that forgotten sin implicitly because he had no actual understanding of it what horrid Doctrine would this be the like is of one who forgives from his heart all Injuries done against him but has no actual Remembrance of some of them does he not therefore actually forgive even those which he has forgotten a thousand like Examples might be brought which I leave to your learned consideration having been something with the longest in this Point because I know it imports much to make a true understanding betwixt us 12. why are you so wavering and inconstant in your Propositions first you say that few or none have an actual understanding or belief
interiour Pastours do but interiour Pastours also Mr. Baxter This is but your naked affirmation I have proved the Contrary from Scriptures Fathers and Councils in my dispute of Episcopacy viz. that a Bishop may be and of old ordinarily was over the Presbyters onely of one parish of single Congregation or a people no more numerous then our Parishes you must shew us some Scripture or General Council for the contrary before we can be sure you here speak truth was Gregory Thaumaturgus no Bishop because when he came first to Neocaesarâ—â—a he had but seventeen soules in his Charge the like I may say of many more Rejoynder Am I obliged to Answer in this paper all the reasons you alledged in your Book of Episcopacy what you say here of Gregory Thaumaturgus is easily answered he was sent to be Bishop of Caesarea and of the country about it or under it's Command and though there had been no more then seventeen Christians in the Citie yet how know you there were no more in all the Countrey adjacent whereof he was Bishop But suppose there had been no more then that small number neither in that City nor Countrey know you not that he was sent to multiply Christians there as he did and thereby to make himself a Competent Diocesse the Apostle S. Iames is recorded to have converted no more the seven persons at the first coming in Spain would you thence deduce that the Apostolical office did not include in it a superiority over both Priests Bishops TRADITION I understand by Tradition the visible Delivery from hand to hand in all cases of the Revealed Will of God either written or unwritten Mr. Baxter Qu. But all the Doubt is by whom this Traditions that is valid must be by the Pastour or People or both by Pope or Councils or Bishops Disjunct by the major part of the Church or Bishops or Presbyters or the minor and by how many William Iohnson By such and so many proportionably as suffice in a Kingdome to certifie the people which are the ancient universal received Customes in that Kingdome which is to be morally considered Mr. Baxter I consent to this General But then 1. how certainly is Tradition against you when most of the Christian World yea all except an Interested Party doe deny your Soveraignty and plead Tradition against it And how lame is your Tradition when it is carried on your private Affirmations and is nothing but the improved Saying of a Sect. William Iohnson The Intention both of you and me was to know what was meant by our Terms that we might come to some Agreement about them here we are as appears by your Reply agreed about what is meant by Tradition first your Objection how this agrees not with our Tradition is now out of season and should have it's place when we come to the main Controversie If the notion of Tradition wherein we are agreed make against me so much the better for you who denyed our Soveraignty as I describe it in my Thesis or had a Church Government inconsistent with it in the First three and four hundred yeares Let those Churches be named and since those times nominate any particular body of Christians which opposed it whom I cannot shew evidently to have sprang up of new since those times Mr. Baxter Qu. 2. What proof or notice of it must satisfie me in particulars that it is so past William Iohnson Answ. Such as with proportion is a sufficient proof or notice of the Lawes and Customes of temporal Kingdomes Mr. Baxter But is it necessary for every Christian to be able to weigh the credit of Contradicting parties when one half of the world say one thing and the other another thing what opportunity have ordinary Christians to compare them and discern the moral advantages on each side William Iohnson As much as they have to know which Books are and which are not Canonical Scripture amongst those which are in Controversie Mr. Baxter As in case of the Popes Soveraignty when two or three parts of the Christian world is against it and the rest for it can private men try which party is the more credible or is it necessary to their Salvation William Iohnson As much as they can try which is Canonical Scripture in Books Controverted Mr. Baxter If so they are cast upon unavoidable despair if not must they all take the words of their present teacher William Iohnson As much as they do for the Determination of Canonical Scriptures Mr. Baxter That most of the World must believe against you because most of the Teachers are against you There is no Congregation of Christians united in the same profession of Faith External Communion and dependance of Pastours which is contrary in Belief to us any way to be Parallel with us in Extent and Multitude prove there is and name it All our Adversaries together are a patcht body of a thousand different professions and as much Adversaries one to another as they are to us the one Justifying us in that wherein the other condemn us so that no heed is to be taken to their Testimonies non sunt Convenientia Mr. Baxter And it seems mens faith is resolved into the Authority of the Parish Priest or their Confessour the Lawes of a Kingdome may be easilier known then Christian Doctrine can be known especially such as are controverted among us by mere unwritten Tradition Kingdomes are of narrower compass then the world And though the sense of Lawes is often in question yet the being of them is seldome matter of Controversie because men conversing constantly and familiarly with each other may plainly and fully reveal their mindes when God that condescendeth not to such a familiarity hath his minde by inspired persons long agoe with much lesse sensible Advantages because it is a Life of Faith that he directeth us to Live VVilliam Iohnson No such matter no more then the belief of such a Determinate Canon of Scipture is Resolved by your Parishioners into your Authority can you not distinguish betwixt a Propounder and a Revealer good Christians Resolve their Faith into God Revealing and so pronouncing their Creed say I believe in God c. when did you ever hear any of ours say I believe in my Parish Priest he indeed is the means whereby they came to believe as God's Instrument but he is no principle or formal object of Faith into which it is Resolved But constitute you what Systeme you please of the Christian Religion let us for the present suppose it be that which you mention in your papers that all Christians even heretiques and schismatiques compose onâ—â— Catholique Church whereof Christ is the head now you say there that some heretiques are not Christians of which sort the Church is not composed how shall your Parishioners know as the like is of all the unlearned which Heretiques were Christians which not nay or what Heretiques there have been in all succeeding ages or whether at