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
were the universal governours because at Nice and other Councils they sate before the legates of the Pope and in many his legates had no place Is this argument good think you O unfaithfull partiality in the matters of salvation non proof William Iohnson Num. 220. O you can do wonders but I would gladly see you doe what you say you can do You have not yet done it and I cannot believe you can do 't till I see you have don 't there is a great difference betwixt saying and doing Your groundless exclamation I regard not it is not partiality what you call so nor what you say you can prove to be so prove it in your next to be partiality Mr. Baxter Num. 221. You say they prohibited Dioscorus to sit by his order Reply 1. What then therefore he was universal governour of the Church All alike Any accuser in a Parliament or Synod may require that the accused may not sit as Iudge till he be tried fallacy 12. William Iohnson Num. 221. Your reply is fallacious procâ—â—ding ex falso supposito p. 150. See the place cited in my p. 54. Con Chal. act 3. Leo's order that Dioscorus should not sit in Council was not because he was accused but because he was condemned nor was it a bare requiring but a strickt command and injunction that he should not sit there as a Bishop of that Council Mr. Baxter Num 222.2 But did you not know that Leo's legates were not obeyed but that the Gloriosissimi judices amplissimus senatus required that the cause should be first made known and that it was not done tiâ—â— Eusebius Episcop Dorylaei had read his bill of complaint Binius Act. 1. pag. 5. Fallacy 13. William Iohnson Num. 222. No really I know it not nor I thinke you neither You commit an other fallacy by an ignoratio elenchi the Iudices Gloriosissimi c and the complaint read against him by Eusebius Epis. Dorylaei was not put as a remora to Dioscorus not sitting in the Council with the rest of the Fathers but in order to his and others publick condemnation which with great applause of the whole Council was performed in the end of the first action So skilful are you in Church history if you make not your self seem more unskilful then you are to say something which may make a noise in the ears of the unlearned It being therefore clear that Dioscorus was prohibited upon St. Leo's order to sit in Council It followes that he was universal Governour of the Church a paritate rationis ut supra for if he had power to remove the cheif Patriarch of the Church next after himself from having an Episcopal vote in a general Council which was an act of absolute jurisdiction over him much more had he power upon like grounds to remove any other inferiour Patriarck or Prelate through the whole Church there having been no proof alleadged by you that this his power was limited to the sole Empire and I having now produced many reasons that there could be no such limitation Mr. Baxter Num. 223. You say the Popes legates pronounced the Church of Rome to be Caput omnium Ecclesiarum Reply 1. What then therefore he was Governour of all the Christian world I deny the consequence You do nothing but beg not a word of proof Caput was but membrum principale the Patriarch primae sedis and that but in the Empire William Iohnson Num. 223. This consequence is made strong by the weakenes of your reply Is Caput omnium Ecclesiarum the head of all Churches no more with you then the principal member of all Churhes in the Empire that is in your new theologie one who was to take of all other Churches without any true and proper authority over them see you not in what straits you are put should some new Sabellian or Câ—â—rinthian rise up and deny that our Saviour were any more then the cheif person in the Church that is to take place before all others but without any jurisdiction or authority over the whole Church and a Catholick should labour to prove he hath authority from that place of St. Paul Coloss. 1.18 Ipse est Caput Corporis Ecclesiae he is the head of his body the Church And the Sabellian having read this book of yours Should reply as you do here to me what then therefore Christ is governour of the Christian world I deny this consequence Caput is but membrum principale head is no more then the principal part c. Would you not make pretty work with Scripture and open a gap to every novellist to elude no less yours then our proofs for Christs supream government over his Church but I see you care not whom you hurt so you can but avoide the present stroak Nay you have delivered here a precious doctrine no lesse for your she citizens at London then your good wives of Kidderminster for when their husbond teach them obedience and subjection to them from St. Paul 1 Cor. 11.3 Where he sayes that the husband is head of the wife they will have an answer ready at their fingers ends from your doctrine here that that head is no more then the principal part of the family in place but not in authority over their wives nay you have spun a fair thred also for the independency of the Protestant English Church of its head in giving ground to take away all Authority from his sacred Majestie and his royal predecessors over it in quality of heads of the English Church and making them to have no more then a bare precedency in the Church as no more then the principal members in the Church in order and dignity but not in authority But had you a little attended to those words of the Popes Legates you might have discovered they were spoke by them to prove not the bare precedency in place but soveraignty in authority for they alleadge them to corroborate the power of the Roman Church as sufficient to prohibite the sitting of Dioscorus in the Council by vertue of Pope Leo's order And you were prest as hard to finde an answer for omnium Ecclesiarum all Churches that is to say non omnium not all but only those within the Empire thus you can make all some and the whole a sole part when you have nothing else to say see you not how you give advantage to the Manichees and Menandrians c. who when one should have prest them Iohn 1.2 That our Saviour is creatour of all things they should have replyed as you do thar is not of all but only of some things not of bodies but of spirit only Are you a person fit to dispute in matters concerning conscience and salvation when rather then not reply to what cannot in reason be answered you will quite destroy the words opposed to you by your glosse upon them are not these desperate Intregues But t is very strange that the ancient Councils and Fathers
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
spread through the world are the Catholick Church why then cite you words quite overthrowing that position out of St. Augustine pag. 230. 24. Quicunque de ipso capite ab scripturis sanctio dissentiunt etiamsi in omnibus locis inveniantur in quibus ecclesia designata est non sunt in ecclesia whosoever discents from the holy Scriptures concerning the head our Saviour though they be found in all places in which the Church is design'd yet are they not in this Catholick Church or intend you to evince that all those who profess the Essentials of Christianity as you understand them though they separate from the external communion of all visible Churches existent when they first begun communicate only amongst themselves in some particular countries are parts of the Church why then cite you the words immediately following Et rursus quicunque de ipso capite scripturis fanctis consentiunt unitati ecclesiae non communicant or as after ab ejus corpore quod est ecclesia ita dissentiunt ut eorum communio non sit cum toto quacunque diffunditur sed in aliqua parte separata inveniatur manifestum est eos non esse in ecclesia Catholica And againe whosoever consents with the holy Scripture concerning the head Christ communicate not with the unity of the Church as after but so dissent from his body which is the Church that their communion be found in some separate part it is manifest they are not in the Catholick Church Now seeing St. Augustine intends by this argument to convince the Donatists not being parts of the Catholick Church because they departed from the external communion of all particular Churches existing immediately before in their time yet it is manifest that in your opinion they held all the essentials of Christian Faith and thereby communicated with those Churches as they were Christians as much as you do you separate from external communion as much as they did it is evident that this very text cited by your self against us unanswerably confutes the substance of your whole book against me overthrowes the foundation of your key and suppresses that grand noveltie of Schismaticks being parts of the true Church O you are a stout disputer are you not 25. Pag. 231. Optatus is cited to as little purpose as was St. Augustine why distinguish you obedience and subjection from charity is not it a preserving of charity in the Church to yield subjection to Superiours is not that a part of Christian charity being a performance of a command touching the love to our neighbour otherwise you must argue thus Optatus sayes the schismatiques were charitatis desertores non subjectionis desertores desertors of charity not desertors of subjection ergo he makes no spiritual Superiours or Pastors at all essential parts of the Catholique Church nor talks of unity caused by subjection to them how like you this consequence If you admit it every old wife at Kidderminster might have tanted you and told you there needs no subjection to you from me more then to me from you so long as I am in charity with you and all men I have no need of subjection to any and therefore as you acknowledge in your answer to Iohnson pag. 231. Optatus calls the schismatiques desertors of charity not of subjection O this is a welcom doctrine to the vulgar and a precious seed of rebellion for if no subjection but a charity as amongst equals be required to the Essence of the Church why should it be essential to a common-wealth O how sweet will this sound in the ear of a Leveller But why say you he accounts not the Apostolick Roman See to be an essential part of the Catholique Church sayes he not expresly in the words now cited by me that unity is to be preserv'd through the whole Church by means of the singular Seat unica sedes of St. Peter at Rome and is not both unity and that which is necessary to preserve it essential to the Church sayes not Optatus presently after those words that this unica sedes the one only See of Rome is Dos Ecclesiae one of the Dowries or properties of the Church and are not they essential 26. Pag. 231. It is cleer Optatus means by extra septem Ecclesias out of the seven Churches no more then out of their communion as they were parts of the Catholique Church as appears from the next words you cite dissentio schisma tibi displicuit concordasti cum fratri tuo cum una Ecclesia quae est in toto orbe terrarum communicasti septem Ecclesiis memoriis Apostolorum amplexus es unitatem Dissention and Schism hath displeased thee thou hast agreed with thy brother and with one Church which is in the whole earth thou hast communicated with the seven Churches and the memories of the Apostles thou hast imbraced unity Thus you save me the labour of salving your arguments by salving them your self 27. But why cite you Optatus his words lib. 6. p. 93. in your 232. page I know not if it be not to confute and confound your grand novelty of Schismaticks properly so called being parts of Christs Church sayes he not after his description of the Catholique Church aquâ vos concisos esse from which you are cut off Why have you not added this sentence to leave your Reader doubtful whether Optatus say these Schismaticks were or were not cut off from the Church nothing surer then that but it 's most certain Optatus was in the affirmative as the full sentence declares Optat. lib. 6. Itra Parm. p. 93. which quite ruines that your novelty Thus you save me again the labour of confuting your novelties by confuting them your self Are you not a strong Disputant let the world judge that 28. Pag. 232. you say first Tertullian thought it a tiresome way to dispute with the Hereticks of and before his time out of Scripture that they were to be convinc'd by prescription and what I pray think you of the matter are you of Tertullians mind why then have you press'd so much the sufficiency of sole Scripture as the rule by which you intend to dispute against us may not we reply against you as Tertullian did against those that it is a tiresome thing to dispute with Hereticks out of Scripture and that you are to be convinc'd by prescription But these Heretick say you err'd in fundamentals tell us I pray precisely once for all which are those how shall we know otherwise whether they err'd in sole fundamentals or no Please also to tell me where Tertullian restrains his rules of prescription to such only as erre in those which you would put in the number if you were able to sum it up of fundamentals what fundamental point even in your account deny'd the Chilliasts or Millenaries the Nicolaitans the Sacramentaries mention'd by St. Ignatius as he is cited by Theod. Dial. 3. deny they any article
and of him that liveth for ever William Iohnson Num. 403. But see you not the text speakes of Patâ—â—iarchal Seas and how can you say there were any Patriarchal Seas before Rome was one seeing you conceit they were all constituted together in the Council of Nice I have shewed that all obedience argues not servitude or being the servants of those wee obey Children obey their Parents and Scholars their Masters and people their pastors yet are they not his servants And see you not that he sayes they are only tanquam famulae in some short attenders and joynes to it quasi filiae that they are as children nor speaks he of the Patriarchs wherein many Millions who were quasi filiae and tanquam famulae as daughters and attendants of the Roman sea and the whole custom and constitution of those Patriarchates was to serve as mediums and instruments that the whole Church might more facily be governed by the sea Apostolick as we shall see hereafter Mr. Baxter Num. 404. Truely the reading of your own historians and the Popes Bulls c. have more perswaded me that the Pope is Anti-Christ then the Apocalips hath done because I distrusted my understanding of it William Iohnson Num. 404. Truely Sir if I may be plain with you without offence by what you collect from these Historians Popes c you had reason to mistrust your understanding these as well as the Apocalips c. which I leave to judgement Mr. Baxter Num. 405. Benedictus de Benedictis wrote a book against Dr. Whitaker to prove its as false that the Pope is Anti-Christ as that Chirst is Anti-Christ and dedicated it to Pope Paul 5. with this inscription Paul 5. the Vice-God printed at Bononia 1608. William Iohnson Num. 405. Suppose that were so is Benedictus de Benedictis a sufficient authority being but a single Author or Paul 5. the generality of Popes you know I speak in such cases and not of particulars Mr. Baxter Num. 406. Caraffas Theses printed at Naples 1609. had the same inscription Paulo 5. Vice Deo to Paul 5. Vice-God William Iohnson Num. 406. The like is of Caraffa Mr. Baxter Num. 407. Alcazar in Apocal. in carmine ad Johannem Apostolum saith of the same Pope Paul 5. Quem numinis instar vera colit pietas whom as a God true Piety adores William Iohnson Num. 407. Nor is Alcazar more then one private person who when he plaies the Poet uses Licentia Poetica qui dlibet audendi CHAP. X. NUm 408. What Marcellus said to Iulius 2. Num. 410. Mr. Baxter makes the gloss upon the Canon Law to be the Canon Law he misscites the words of the gloss whether the Glosser cal the Pope God or the Printer err'd in inserting the word Deum into some late impression Num. 412. Antonius Puccius gives no more to the Pope then Pulcheria and the Council of Chalcedon gave to the Emperour Martian Num. 413. Begnius mistaken and mistranslated Stephanus Petracensis miscited St. Bernard condemned St. Antonine miscalled by Mr. Baxter Num. 414. the Oecumenical power of the four first Councils vindicated by authority and reason Mr. Baxter Num. 408. Christopher Marcellus in his Oration before Pope Julius 2. in the approved Council at Latarane Sess. 4. and you take not contradicting to be consenting and verily to such blasphemy in a Council so it is saith thus Quum tantae reipublicae unicus atque supremus princeps fueris institutus beatissime Pontifex cui summa data potestas ad divinum injunctum imperiuÌ„ c. ante sub tuo imperio unus Princeps qui summam in terris habeat potestatem But these are small things Teque omnis aevi omnium seculorum omnium gentium principem caput appellant But yet the Prince and head of all ages and Nations is too low cura Pater beatissime ut sponsae tuae forma decorque redeat But yet to make the Church his Spouse is nothing cura denique ut salutem quam dedisti nobis ut vitam spiritum non amittamus Tu enim Pastor tu medicus tu gubernator tu cultor tu denique alter Deus in terris That is see that we lost not the health that thou hast given us and the life and spirit For thou art the Pastor the Physition c. To conclude thou art another God on earth William Iohnson Num. 408. Marcellus is indeed of more concern because he speaks in a Council but the world may see he play'd the Orator his first expressions are no way extravagant but true and proper that of divinum imperium is so aâ—â—tered by you c that it seems a riddle you interlace it thus ad divinum imperium c. ante sub tuo imperio unus princeps qui summam in terris habeat potestatem to the divine command injoyn'd c. and before under thy command c. and one prince which hath the highest power in earth riddle me riddle me what 's this Now that particle ad divinum injunctum imperium is not spoken of the Popes power but of Gods divine command obliging Iulius to take care of those who were committed to him for he â—â—ayes thus cum igitur tantae-reipublicae unicus atque supremus princeps fueris institutus cui summa data potestas ad divinum injunctum imperium tuum est quemadmodum oppressum armis erexisti amplificasti ita moribus depravatam rulesiam reformare corrigere illustrare That of stiling the Church his Spouse had he meant it of the whole Church militant and triumphantâ—â— had been very extravagant and directly false and scandalous but applying it only to the visible Church on earth which is the more ignoble part of Christs Church I see not why that may not be termed according to the sole external government of it his Spouse as much as particular Bishopricks or parts of the visible Church are usually stiled the Spouses of their respective Bishops and they said to be espoused to those respective Churches His exhorting Iulius to preserve the health life and spirit which he had given them is easily explicated that he both gave them and preserved them by a careful direction teaching an external governing the visible Church His last stiling him alter Deus in terris another God upon earth is that which offends you most but had you considered that Moses in holy Scripture is made by God himself the God of Pharaoh that God titles those who are in lawful authority Gods ego dixi dij estis I have said you are Gods and that St. Paul affirms that all Gods true servants and children are participes divinae naturae participant of the divine nature which are as high and much higher expressions then Marcellus gives here to Iulius you would not I suppose so confidently have impeached him of blasphemy nor indeed could unless you make both St. Paul and the holy Scriptures nay and God himself to pronounce blasphemies in applying the like titles to
living men especially seeing that as the holy Scriptures give ground enough to interpreters to expound them in such accomodated senses that theâ—â—e are not the least appearances of errors much less of blasphemy in them so Marcellus here gives all the world to understand by many other passages of this Oration he speaks in such a manner usual to Orators here that there is not the least shew of blasphemy at all in them Now the Council having heard the whole Oration and not only those parcels which you have spitefully cul'd out of it discover'd clearly what his meaning was and thereupon the Fathers let these expressions pass as flashes of Rhetorick Mr. Baxter Num. 409. If you say that the Pope accepteth not this I answer it was in an Oration spoken in a general Council in his presence without contradiction yea by his own command as the Orator professeth jussistitu Pater sancte parui you commanded me holy Father and I obeyed Binnius pag. 562 563 564. you may find all this William Iohnson Num. 409. I reply the Pope accepted it in that same sense as the Council did and as the other clauses conceal'd by you declar'd it to be Marcellus his meaning and no man who reads the whole Oration can suspect the least thought of blasphemy against Christ or God in it Mr. Baxter Num. 410. In gloss extravag Johan 22. de verb. signific c. cum inter in glos Credere Dominum nostrum Deum Papam conditorem dictae decretalis istius non potuisse statuere prout statuit haereticum censeatur So that by your Law we must believe the power of your Lord God the Pope or be hereticks If you meet with any Impressions that leave out Deum take Rivets note Haberi in editione formata jussu Greg. 12. à correctoribus Pontificiis nec in censuris Glossae jussu Pii 5. editis quae in expurgatorio indice habentur Dei Erasmum fuisse William Iohnson Num. 410. You erre more then once here First you commit a tautologie in repeating the words in glossa twice without any necessity for you say thus in glossa extravag Ioan. 22. de verb. significat cap. Cum inter in glossae montibus inquit erant erant in montibus illis 2. You misplace the words themselves for whereas the Gloss set forth by order of Greg. 13. Colum 153. verbo declaramus hath the words thus Credere autem Dominum Deum nostrum Papam conditorem dicti decret istius sic non potuisse statuere c. you transplace the words thus Credere Dominum nostruÌ„ DeuÌ„ Papam conditorem dicti decret c. where you joyn the words Deum Papam immediately together which are disjoyn'd in the Gloss. Thirdly you corrupt the Text for the words are haereticum censeretur it would be thought heretical and you put it haereticum senseatur let it be judg'd heretical or be it judg'd heretical and this to make your Reader believe it is a Law or Precept put in the Imperative mood when it is no more then the judgement of a private Doctor glossing upon the Law or giving an interpretation of it and by this false play you give a seeming force to your immediate inference drawn from these words viz. So that by your Law say you we must believe the power of your Lord God the Pope or be hereticks Whereby you manifestly impose upon your Reader that these words are our law whereas you your self confesse they only are a part of the glosse which was made by a particular person or interpretation of our Law Fiftly hence followes that you contradict your self within four lines for in the first and second line of this paragraph you confesse twice over 't is but a glosse of the law and in the fift line you say it is the law it self Your seventh and ninth errour is that you give here a non proof for a proof for seeing you acknowledge some impressions have not the word Deum God as appeares evidently in the edition of Paris An. 1522. where the word Deum God is not 63 yeares older then that of Gregory the 13. How will you ever prove this Glosser used this word but that it was ignorantly added by some copiest or false print to the text Yet suppose it were certain as I have prov'd it is not that this Glosser had adjoyned the Word Deum God it would be no proof at all for in this paragraph he refers what he delivered there to the correction of the Church Si in premissis vel in aliquo premissarum contingeret me errare if saith he I should happen to erre in any of the premises Mr. Baxter Num. 410. Pope Nicholas 3. de elect cap. fundamenta in 6. saith that Peter was assumed into the Society of the individual Trinity William Iohnson Num. 410. What then ergo he call's the Pope the Vice-Christ or the Vice-God that 's right Sayes not St. Paul that God hath called us into the Society of his Son are we therefore made equal to him or Vice-Christ sayes he not that if we accompany him in his passion we shall accompany him in his resurrection is not that as much as to be assumed into the Society of the individual Trinity are not Children taken by their Parents into their Societie are they therefore not inferiour to them what consequences are these nay are not all the holy Angels Saints in heaven in the Society of the individual Trinity do they not see him face to face and as he is is not that to be in Society with him Mr. Baxter Num. 411. Angelus Polit. in orat ad Alexan. 6. Pontificem ab Divinitatem ipsam sublatum asserit He saith the Pope was taken up to the God-head it self William Iohnson Num. 411. He might have said as much of any Saint in Heaven without making them Gods or Vice-Gods are they not all taken up to the divinity when they enjoy God and see him face to face collect if you can from these words a confutation of what I affirm that the title of Vice-Christ was given by sufficient authority to the Popes and accepted by them are all the Saints and Angels in heaven Vice-Christs Mr. Baxter Num. 412. At the foresaid Council at Laterane Antonius Puccius in an Oration before Leo the tenth in the Council and after published by his favour said Divinae tuae Majestatis conspectus rutilante cujus fulgore imbeâ—â—ilâ—â—es oculi mei caligant His eyes were darkned with beholding the Popes Divine Majesty None contradicted this William Iohnson Num. 412. But what if you collect the title of Vice-Christ from any of these sentences here cited by you is either Antonius Puccius or Simon Beginus or Stephanus Patracensis or Paulus Emilius or August Triumphus or Zabarella or Bertrandus of sufficient authority to conferre a solemn title upon Popes because in particular rhetorical Euloginus and some of them haply by way of assentation they extend their expressions farther