is one visible Kingdome yet to make it no more one visibly then the School of Christ-Church or Westminster is one visible School is in my Logick to speak-contraries Mr. Baxter Num. 100. Your next reason against me is because They cannot be parts of the Church unless Arians and Pelagians and Donatists be parts and so Hereticks and Schismaticks be parts Reply 1. You know sure that your own Divines are not agreed whether Hereticks and Schismaticks are parts of the Church William Iohnson Num. 100. You cannot but see I speak of parts of the Church as you understand parts and therefore I say pag. 48. in yours Secondly your position is not true Now your position is to hold that some Hereticks properly so called are parts of the Church of Christ and united to him as their Head by reason that they believe with a true Christian Faith the Essentials of Christianity whereby they are Christians though they erre in some Accidentals as appears by that distinction so often used by you In this sense then I say you hold Hereticks to be true and real parts of the Church And this I affirm to be contrary to all Christianity and a novelty never held before by any Christian. Though therefore taking the word parts in another more lax and improper sense and the Church as it is a visible body and government one only Catholick Authour * Lib. 2. de Haeret. punit c. 24. Haereticus etsi per Haeresim perdat fidem non tamen eo ipso est prorsus ab Ecclesiâ separatus sed adhuc est parâ—â— illius corporis membrum ejus c. Et infra Faâ—â—eor quidem meo quidem judicio negari non potest Haereticum esse partem Ecclesiae membrum illius non esse omnino ab illâ separatum quia etsi fidem non habeat habet tamen Characterem Baptismalem per quem primum factum est membrum Ecclesiae quâ—â— durante semper erit membrum illius Alphonsus à Castro thinks Hereticks may be called parts of the politick Body of the Church as She hath power over them to inflict punishment upon them by reason of the character of Baptisme which makes them ever remain subjects of the Church and lyable to her censures yet he holds expresly that they have no true Christian Faith at all quite against you whereby they can be made parts of Christ's Church united to Christ as their Head as you hold they are And the like is of Schismaticks For though some Catholick Author 's doubt whether they may be termed by reason of the profession of Christian Faith parts of the Church in a large sense yet none ever held as you doe that they were united to Christ as their Head and thereby compose one Christian Church with other Catholick Christians because they want that principal Christian Charity required as necessary to a compleat union to Christ. Your opinion therefore is contrary to all those of the Roman Church and shall God assisting me be * See my second Part. proved contrary to all Christians and Christianity and of most dangerous and damnable consequence But you must know that à Castro's opinion is censured by all other Doctours and thereby improbable nor yet makes the ground of his opinion Hereticks and Scismaticks more of the Catholick Church then are those Christians who are damned in hell for even they have the Character of Baptism and yet he says that so long as that Character remains they are Church-members quo durante semper erit membrum illius Mr. Baxter Num. 101. And if they were yet it is not de Fide with you as not determined by the Pope William Iohnson Num. 101. 'T is determined contrary to your sense a hundred times over by all the Anathemas and Excommunications thundred out against them in so many General Councils Mr. Baxter Num. 102. If it be then all yours are Hereticks that are for the affirmative Bellarmine nameth you some of them If they be not then how can you be sure it 's true and so impose it on me that they are no parts William Iohnson Num. 102. I have now told you None of ours ever held them parts as you doe that is united to Christ their Head as the rest of the parts are by Faith and Charity Mr. Baxter Num. 103. Arians are no Christians as denying that which is Essential to Christ and so to Christianity William Iohnson Num. 103. 'T is very true they are no real univocal Christians and your reason is good because they deny that which is Essential to Christ and so to Christianity But hence will follow that no proper Heretick whatsoever is a real univocal Christian for all of them deny something Essential to Christ and so to Christianity which I prove thus Whosoever denies Christ's most Infallible veracity Divine Authority denies Something which is Essential unto Christ. But every Heretick properly so called denies Christ's most infallible veracity and divine Authority Ergo Every Heretick properly so called denies something which is Essential to Christ and so to Christianity The Major is evident I prove the Minor Whosoever denies that to be true which is sufficiently propounded to him to be revealed from Christ denyes Christ's most infallible veracity and divine authority But every Heretick properly so called denies that to be true which is sufficiently propounded to him to be revealed from Christ. Ergo Every Heretick properly so called denyes Christs most infallible veracity and divine Authority The Minor is clear For that is properly to be an Heretick The Major is also clear For how is it possible to deny that to be true which is sufficiently propounded to me to be revealed from Christ without affirming that Christ said something which is not true which is manifestly to give Christ the lye and to doe that is to deny openly his divine veracity This Argument I hope you will please to think of seriously and either give an Answer in form to it or relinquish your Noveltie Mr. Baxter Num. 104. Pelagianisme is a thing that you are not agreed among your selves of the true naâ—â—ure of Many of the Dominicans and Jansenists think the Jesuites Pelagianize or Semi-Pelagianize at least I hope you will not shut them out Donatists were Schismaticks because they divided in the Catholick Church and not absolutely from it and because they divided from the particular Churches about them that held the most universal external Communion I think they were still members of the universal Church but I 'le not contend with any that will plead for his uncharitable denyal It 's nothing to our Case William Iohnson Num. 104. You fall again into a plain Fallacy proceeding à parte ad totum The doubt which is among some of our Divines is only about part of their Heresie and you would make your Reader believe it were about the whole Some points of their Heresie are clearly agreed upon by all Catholick Authors as is that
have no lesse then a bakers dozen of non proofs I have noted them by figures in your text let them be prov'd and then they shall be answered till then they deserve no answer To what has any seeming ground or proof I answer First it imports little whether Theodosius had any hand in this Epistle or no I say nothing of him in my text p. 59.60.61 Secondly Your proof from Iustinian is already answered in my observation made upon p. 174. of your key only I see you have mended your citation and put lib. in place of lege 3. Must it needs follow that it is my fiction because it is not the words of Valentinian that the succession from St. Peter is the foundation of Romes primacy May not a medium be given betwixt those two extremes what if it were the true sense of Valentinians words it was then neither his words nor my fiction but a true interpretation of his words and that it is so is manifest for there must be some reason sure why the merit of St. Peter conferr'd a primacy rather upon the Bishop of Rome then upon any other Bishop but none can be imagined save this that the Bishops of Rome succeeded St. Peter in the sea of Rome ergo it must be that succession or nothing You seem to say that because St. Peter last preached and was martired and buried and his relicks lay there he should be most honoured and by honoured you must mean as Hosius cited by you here and Valentinian doe in the power acknowledged in the Bishops of Rome But this cannot subsist for St. Paul preached last at Rome also was martyred and buried and his relicks lay there yet no authors say the primacy of the Roman Bishops was founded in St. Pauls merits now no reason can be given of this save that which I gave viz that the Roman Bishops succeed not to St. Paul as they doe to St. Peter because St. Paul was never Bishop of Rome as St. Peter was What you say of the succession from St. Peter in Antioch availes nothing for he having deserted the Bishopprick of Antioch in his life time and transferr'd his seate to Rome were he dyed Bishop of the Roman see was to have his proper successour there for by tranferring his see to Rome he transferr'd the dignity of Primacy of the Episcopal crown as Valentinian sayes there appropriated to him and took it from Antioch and by dying Bishop of Rome left it there to his successours whence appears that the Bishop of Antioch was a successor to St. Peter as were other Bishops but no successor to his supereminent dignity and primacy over the Church because so long as St. Peter lived it could not descend upon any other Fourthly I deny not that he ascribes the establishment of Romes primacy to those three St. Peter the city and the Synod yet he makes the first foundation of it the dignity of St. Peter and therefore prefixes it before the other two and that it may appear he makes this the first and fundamental reason and not the Synod he addes these words haec cum fuerint hactenus inviolabiter custodita since these things i. e. that nothing of great concern should be done without the authority of the Roman see have been hitherto inviolably observ'd for if the Synod had conferr'd that dignity to the Bishop of Rome he could not have said with truth that those things had been alwayes observ'd for before the Synod which gave it which was three hundred years and more after the re-Surrection of our Saviour they were observed seeing therefore they were alwayes observed that power authority must have been in the Bishop of Rome long in being before those Synods were celebrated Now how the dignity of the Roman city concurr'd to this primacy I have above declared whence appears the loud untruth which you pronounce n. 4. Here is not the least intimation that this primacy was but by the appointment of the Synod nor that it had continued so from St. Peters dayes Since you use not to read over the texts which are brought against you I pray you what signifie these words haec cum fuerint hactenus inviolabiliter observata these things have been hitherto inviolably observed what signifies hitherto but from St. Peters time to his Your guess at the Synod of Sardica as aimed at by Valentinian though say you it was of little credit in those dayes which I have numbred amongst your non-proofs is a pure mistake for the Synod he alludes to is that of Nice which in the 6 canon as it is recited in the Council of Chalcedon sayes thus Ecclesia Romana semper habuit primatum the Church of Rome hath allwaies had the primacy where that holy council gives it not as you surmise but declares it to have been alwaies due to that see since the Apostles time whence also appears the falshood of what you say next that Leo durst not pretend divine right and institution nor to a succession of Primacy from the Apostle for this very Synod to which Leo alludes warrants both For if it were alwayes due to it or that it had alwayes possession of it semper habuit it must have come not only from the time of the Apostles but from Christ himself otherwise it had been semper for in the time of the Apostles it had not been due to it When you say next I translate the word universitas the whole visible Church you wrong me for I translate it universality see pag. 59. and when I name the whole visible Church p. 60. I make no translation of his words but deliver that which I think to be the sense of them To what you say there was a Roman universality If you mean that those who were under the sole Roman Empire with exclusion of all extra-imperial Churches communicating with them were called anciently the universal Church or the universality of Christians you are much deceived where prove you that if as united with them and giving the denomination to the whole 't is true and confirms what I say Now to shew that Valentinian meanes by universalities not those of the Roman Empire exclusively to all others he joynes to universalitie ubique for then sayes he the peace of the Church will be kept every where when the whole universality acknowledges their governour but certainly Valentinian was not so ignorant as not to know there were then many Churches out of the Roman Empire For about the year 414. that is above 20 years before Valentinian enacted this law Spain was possest by the Goths and divided from the Roman Empire and was Valentinian think you ignorant of that so that I am not ashamed to confesse my ignorance that I really know not any Roman universality Ecclesiastical in your precisive and exclusive sense nor know I any Council anciently stiled oecumenical or universal where no Bishops out of that one the Roman common-wealth were present and you have not yet
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
of all that ever God revealed to them and within three or four lines you say absolutely and without all exception no man knoweth all that God hath revealed first you say all men or most at least have been sinfully negligent in searching after and receiving truth and within a Line or two you leave out your Restriction and say no man knoweth all that God hath revealed or that he ought to know 13. I would know the reason why you first suppose your principle that no man can believe all unlesse he actually knows all and thence inferre against me that in my Principles who deny that of yours I cannot know who is who is not of my Church because I cannot know what Reasons any particular have had to know more or fewer divine Truths or whether they have concurred with those Reasons or no and so must make my Church invisible now I make my Church visible though by comprehending in it all those who professe an Explicite Faith in several Articles which they understand distinctly and an implicite Belief of the rest whereof they have not distinct understanding by professing that they believe all that God hath revealed to be believed by them whatsoever they be in particular now so long as they persevere in this behalf though they should happen through culpable negligence not arrive to the knowledge of many things which they ought to know necessitati praecepti yet they remain members though corrupt and wicked of the Church whereby you see how easily I avoid that difficulty which you thought I could not Mr. Baxter The second sort of implicite belief is no belief of the particulars at all an Animal may live and yet it followeth not that you are alive or an Animal William Iohnson How impossibly dispute you here your instance is from the matter for when you say omne Animal vivit every sensible creature lives it must have this sense that it lives onely so long as it is and as it continues Animal or a sensible Creature for otherwise you would have it to be when it is not and to live when it is dead now understanding the proposition thus whosoever believes omne Animal vivit believes me to be a sensible creature so long as I am in being and to live before my Death nay you seem not to reflect upon the sense of such propositions for they relate not to the proposition by chance in relation to particular individua but to the Essence of the subject whereof they predicate for when Philosophers say omne Animal vivit they mean it is of the Essence or notion of Animal to be a living thing and this is true of me and all particulars whether we be in actual existency or no nay you bring an instance of a particular to confirm an universal your Question was of omne Animal all sensible creatours as appears above and of all that God has revealed and to confirm your assertion in this you being a particular an individuum vagum saying an Animal may live c. that is some particular Animal nor stay you here but to amend the matter you bring an instance of changeable things to confirm a proof of things unchangeable I who now am may cease to be in actual existencie but whatsoever is once revealed from God can never cease to be revealed or become a thing unrevealed though therefore it follows not that because omne Animal vivit therefore I live actually yet it follows that whatsoever is once revealed of God remains alwaies actually revealed Mr. Baxter If this were your meaning then either you mean that it is enough if all be believed implicitly besides that general proposition or you mean that some things must be believed explicitly that is actually and some implicitly that is not at all Rejoinder I have told you something more must be believed explicitely how much or what is a dispute amongst Divines not necessary to be determined here yet I will speak something to that presently Reply If the former be your sense then Infidels or heathens may be of your Church for a man may believe in general that the Bible is the word of God and true and yet not know a word that is in it and so not know that Christ is the Messias or that ever there was such a Person Rejoynder Your instance is morally impossible for either such a person believes the Bible rashly and imprudently and then according to all Divines his faith cannot be supernatural and Divine or sufficient to constitute him a Christian or he believes it prudently and then he must be moved by prudential motives of credibility which must draw him to afford credit to that Authority as derived from God which commends to him the Bible as the written word of God now that can be no other then the Authority of the Catholick Church which he cannot be ignorant to profess the faith of Christ there being no other save that though therefore he knows not by experience that Christ is mentioned in the Bible yet he cannot but know that he is professed to be the Son of God and Saviour of the world by those of the Catholick Church who delivered the Bible to him as the word of God and that such a faith in him is necessary to salvation Reply But if somewhat be explicitly that is actually believed the question that you would have answered was what is it for till that be known no man can know a member of your Church by your discriptions Rejoynder There was no necessity to tell you that for when you so often distinguish betwixt points of faith Essential and accidental seeing you ought to understand the terms of your own distinction as I could not but suppose you did you had no need to be informed what points were to be believed by explicite faith all Essentials in your opinion are such Reply If you take implicite in the third sense then implicite faith is either Divine or humane Divine when the Divine veracity is the formal object humane when mans veracity is the formal object which may be conjunct where the Testimonies are so conjunct as that we are sure that it is God that speaks by man who is therefore credible because God infallibly guideth or inspireth him that is at once to believe a humane and Divine veracity If any of this be your meaning that last question remains still to be resolved by you A man may believe that God is true and that his Prophets and inspired messengers are true and yet not understand a word of the message so that still if this will serve a man may be of your Church that knoweth not that ever there was such a person as Iesus Christ or that ever he died for our sins or rose again or that we shall rise William Iohnson Your third member I have rejected before as a stranger to implicite faith but I think you speak not true Divinity when you say that to believe God to be true
first sense I grant your conclusion if really you are part of the Church There is no Salvation to be had out of Christs Universal Church of which you are a small corrupted part In the second sense I told you we deny the supposition in the subject In the third sense I deny the sequel non sequitur because your Major Proposition being false de Ecclesia universali the conclusion must be false de parte ista as excluding the rest But to the unskilful or unwary Reader your conclusion seemeth to import that the being in such a Church which acknowledgeth the Popes Soveraignty as it is such a Church is necessary to Salvation and so that the persons acknowledgement is neccesary But it is a fallacia accidentis cunningly lapt up that is the life of your imported cause That part of the Universal Church doth hold to the Popes Soveraignty is per accidens and could you prove that the whole Church doth so which you are unlike to do I would say the like And that your fallacy may the beter appear I give you some examples of such like Sophismes Whatsoever Nation is the true Kingdom of Spain is proud and cruel against Protestants But there is no protection there due to any that are not of that Kingdome therefore there is no protection due to any that are not proud and cruel Or whatsoever Nation is the true Kingdome of France acknowledgeth the Pope but no protection is due from the Governours to any that are not of that Kingdom therefore no protection is due to any that acknowledge not the Pope Or what ever Nation is the Kingdome of Ireland in the days of Queen Elizabeth was for the Earl of Tyrone but there was no right of Inheritance for any that were not of that Nation therefore there was no right of Inheritance for any that was not for the Earl of Tyrone Or suppose that you could have proved it of all the Church If you had lived four hundred years after Christ you might as well have argued thus Whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ is against kneeling in adoration on the Lords days But there is no salvation to be had out of that Congregation of Christians which is now the true Church of Christ therefore there is no salvation to be had out of that Congregation which is against kneeling on the Lords day c. But yet 1. There was Salvation to be had in that Congregation without being of that opinion 2. And there is now Salvation to be had in a Congregation that is not of that opinion as you will confess Or whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ doth hold the Canticles and the Epistle to Philemon to be Canonical Scripture and so have done c. But there is no Salvation to be had out of the true Church therefore there is no Salvation to be had out of that Congregation which holdeth the Canticles and Epistle to Philemon to be Canonical Scripture But yet 1. Salvation is to be had in that Church without holding it 2. And its possible hereafter a Church may deny those two books and yet you will think Salvation not thereby overthrown This is but to shew your fallacy from a corrupt accident and indeed but of a part of the Church and a small part Now to your proof of the Major Resp. ad Major The present matter of the Church was not visible in the last Generation for we were not then born but the same form of the Church was then existent in a visible Matter and their Profession was visible or audible though their faith it self was invisible I will do more then you shall do in maintaining the constant visibility of the Church Ad minorem 1. If you mean that no Congregation hath been alwayes visible but that Vniversal Church whose lesser corrupt part acknowledges the Popes Soveraignty I grant it For besides the whole containing all Christians as the parts there can be no other If you mean save that part which acknowledgeth you contradict your self because a part implyeth other parts If you mean save that Universal Church all whose members or the most acknowledg it there is no such subject existent 2. I distinguish of Visibility It s one thing to be a visible Church that is visible in its essentials and another thing to be visible quoad hoc as to some separable accident The Universal Church was ever visible because their Profession of Christianity was so and the persons professing But the acknowledgment of the Vice-christ was not alwayes visible no not in any parts much less in the whole And if it had it was but a separable accident if your disease be not incurable that was visible and therefore 1. It was not necessary to Salvation nor a proper mark of the Church 2. Nor can it be so for the time to come I need to say no more to your conclusion Your Argument is no better then this whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ hath been alwayes visible since the time of Christ But no congregation of Christians hath been so visible save onely that which condemneth the Greeks which hath a Colledge of Cardinals to chose the Popes which denieth the cup to the laity which forbiddeth the reading of Scripture in a known tongue without license c. Therefore whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ hath all these 1. In a corrupt part it hath 2. But it had not alwayes 3. And may be cured hereafter To your proof of the Major 1. I grant your Major 2. Ad minorem 1. Either you mean Vniversal Pastors each one or some one having charge and Government of the whole Church or you mean unfixed Pastors having an indefinite charge of Preaching and Guiding when they come and have particular calls and opportunities or you mean the fixed Pastors of particular Churches In the first sense your Minor is false the Catholike Church was never so united to any Universal Head but Christ no one of the Apostles governed the rest and the whole Church much less any since their time In the second sense I grant that the Church hath ever had Pastors since the Ascension In the third sense I grant that some parts or other of the Catholick Church have ever had fixed Pastors of Congregations since the first setling of such Pastors But any one particular Congregation may cease to have such Pastors and may cease it self And Rome hath been long without any true Pastors and therefore was then no such visible Church 2. If by Congregation you mean not the Universal Church but a part or if you mean it of all the parts of the Universal Church I deny your Minor Communities of Christians and particular persons have been and may be without any Pastors to whom they are united or subject The Indians that died in the faith while Frumentius and Edesius were
Christian Religion which is a Falsity in Christian Religion If therefore the whole Church as I affirm hold the Popes Supremacy to be by Christs Institution that is to be essential to the Church as you admit for the present and it be not by his Institution the Church errs in an Essential matter which errour is not Accidental to the Church that is such an errour that the Church can subsist as truly with it as without it but essentially destructive of the Church If the Popes Supremacy be by Christs Institution and thereby Essential as you now suppose the Churches acknowledgement that it is so is not accidental but necessary and essential to the subsistence of the Church So that to admit as you do here the thing it self that whatsoever is of Christs Institution is Essential and yet to make the acknowledgement of its Essentiality by the whole Church to be Accidental to the Church is strange Divinity and one of your grand Novelties I intreat you therefore to tell me in your next what makes the Arrian Heresie as you hold destructive of Christianity and an essential Errour save this onely that it is against a point essential to Christian Faith And I think I have as much reason to hold the Errour either contradicting that which is Essential to Christianity or asserting that as Essential which is onely Accidental to be an Essential Errour against Christian Faith as was that of the Arrians For it had been doubtless an essential Errour in Faith and destructive of Christianity not onely to deny the Consubstantiality of the Father and the Son but also to deny that consubstantially and the belief of it to be essential to the Christian Faith and necessary to the constitution of Christianity Your Fallacy therefore consists in this that you suppose all that Christ hath instituted to be Essential to the Church and yet in that very supposition make the acknowledgement of the whole Church that such a thing is instituted by Christ to be accidental to the Church Of which more hereafter Baxter Num. 8. But that which you say all the world knows is a thing that all the world of Christians except your selves that ever I heard of do know or acknowledge to be false What! doth all the world know that Christ hath instituted in his Church nothing but what is Essential to it Fallacy 2. Corruption 1. I should hope that few in the Christian world be so ignorant as ever to have such a thought if they had the means of knowledg that Protestants would have them have There is no natural Body but hath natural Accidents as well as Essence Nor is there any other Society under Heaven Community or Policy that hath not its Accidents as well as Essence And yet hath Christ instituted a Church that hath nothing but Essence without Accidents Do you build upon such Foundations what upon the denial of Common Principles and Sense But if you did you should not have feigned all the world to do so too Were your Assertion true then every soul were cut off from the Church and so from Salvation that wanted any thing of Christs Institution yea for a moment And then what would become of you You give me an Instance in the Eucharist But 1. will it follow that if the Eucharist be not Accidental or Integral but Essential that therefore Every thing instituted by Christ is Essential Iohnson Num. 8. Sir Your Answer proceeds fallaciously à particulari ad universale I say that is Essential which hath been ever in the Church by Christs Institution and you accuse me to say whatsoever is of Christs Institution is Essential leaving out which hath been ever in the Church by his Institution Shew me therefore something which hath been ever that i in all ages in the Church by Christs Institution which is Accidental to the Church Till that be done you have answered your own Fallacy not my Proposition Whence appears the vanity of your instancing in a Pâ—â—litick Body without Accidents For those things which Christ instituted to be as Things Temporary or for a time not for ever were Accidents as some Ceremonies in his last Supper the washing of Feet and other matters belonging to the order and decency as different circumstances require in the Church which by Christs Institution were left to the direction of the Church are Accidents to the Church So that I say not nor ever said that Christ hath instituted a Politick Body without Accidents as you misconceivingly accuse me but that whatsoever he instituted to be ever in his Church is none of those Accidents You should do well to reflect more punctually upon your Adversaries words and not to leave out such terms as give the whole force and Energie to his Proposition For if this be not done an Answer may be prolong'd till Dooms-day by multiplying mistakes one upon another to no end Baxter Numb 9. The question being not whether the Being of the Eucharist in the Church be Essential to the universal Church but whether the Belief or Acknowledgement of it by all and every one of the members be Essential to the members I would crave your Answer but to this Question though it be nothing to my cause Was not a Baptized person Fallacy 3. in the Primitive and Ancient Churches a true Church-member presently upon Baptism And then tell me also Did not the Ancient Fathers and Churches unanimously hide from their Catechumens even purposely hide the Mystery of the Eucharist as proper to the Church to understand and never opened it to the Auditors till they were Baptized This is most undeniable in the concurrent vote of the Ancients I think therefore that it follows that in the judgement of the Ancient Churches the Eucharist was but of the Integrity and not the Essence of a Member of the Church and the acknowledgement of it by all the members a thing that never was existent Iohnson Num. 9. Here you commit another Fallacy proceeding à sensu conjuncto ad sensum divisum I affirm no more then that the Assembly or Congregation which is the Church See p. 30. Bax. Edâ—â—tion hath this acknowledgement and you argue against me as if I said Every particular member of the Church is obliged to have that actual express acknowledgment Know you not that many things are necessary to the whole Politick Body conjunctively which are not necessary to every part of it separate Whence your instance of the Eucharist is answered For though that be not necessary to be expresly beleeved by every Christian necessitate nudii yet it is essentially necessary to the whole Church You misconceive therefore very much in saying the question is not whether the belief if you mean explicite belief of the Eucharist is essentially necessary to all and every one of the members of the Church for I neither propounded that the express belief either of the Eucharist or the Popes Supremacy is essentially necessary to every Christian but to
Bernard Lutsemburg de Albigens Vide etiam S. Anton. 4 parte summae Tit. 11 c. 7. the one Good and the other Evil with the Manichees who denied 1. the Old Testament 2. that Baptism profited Infants to Salvation 3. that an unworthy Minister could consecrate the holy Sacrament 4. that wicked Prelates had any Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction or were to be obeyed 5. that it is lawfull to swear in any occasion whatsoever c. then with Alexander the Third whom no Christian in those times ever accused of Heresie or Errour in Faith who was elected against his will and after a Schisme made by Octavianus the Anti-Pope and Frederick the Emperour was received both by the Western and Eastern Churches excepting onely the party of Frederick who notwithstanding after acknowledged him and relinquisht Octavianus the Anti-Pope And whatsoever latter Historians relate by Hear-say Acta Alexâ—â—nd 3. ap Romuald Episcop Salern in suo Chronico ap Rogerium in Epist. Alexand in Histor. suâ of the insulting of this Pope over that Emperour yet those who recorded what past before their eyes in the time of Alexander record nothing but what became a modest and Christian Prelate of his eminency Baxter Num. 87 The Religion of all these men was one and they were all of one Vniversal Church Iohnson Num. 87. This is your grand Novelty at which I chiefly aim in this Answer It is not easie to conjecture what you mean by all these men whether the Iconoclasts Berengarians Waldensians Albigenses Wickliffists Hussites Lutherans Calvinists which you named in the end of pag. 105. and again pag. 106. in your Edit or those whom I named pag. 43. of your Book that is all at least amongst them whom you account Univocal Christians amongst which are Donatists Nestorians Eutychians Pelagians And can you or did yet ever any Christian before you account these men to have had one Religion Is the Religion of those who say there are Two Gods the same with that which teaches there is no more but one onely God if so then Heathens and Christians may be as well of one Religion If not then could not at least the Albigenses be of one Religion with the rest Vide supra whom I have proved to have held two gods Of the rest more hereafter Baxte Num. 88. Where you again call for one Congregation I tell you again that we know no unity Essential from whence the Church can be called one but either Christ or the Vice-Christ the former only is asserted by us and the latter also by you which we deny And therefore we cannot call the Universal Church one in any other formal respects but as it is Christian and so one in Christ. Iohnson Num. 88. We acknowledge the Church to be one in Christ as much as you but we acknowledge him as Head not to be the Formal but the Causal unity that is working the formal unity to wit Faith and Charity in his Church It is not enough to make one living organical body that there be one head and parts but those parts must be united to their Head and amongst themselves and to that Head Nor is it enough that there be several parts in the Church and one head of it but those parts must also be united to their Head and amongst themselves otherwise they are not one Now that which is the formall cause of this Unity is true Christian Faith and Charity which do both unite Christians amongst themselves and to Christ their Head I mean that necessary and prime charity which preserves external Communion and society amongst Christians so much celebrated by the Fathers and Schoolmen which is taken away by nothing but Schism or that which includes Schism Whence appears that to whomsoever the name of Christian is vulgarly given unless there be found true Faith and this Christian charity amongst all the other members they cannot be actual parts of the one true Catholick Church When therefore you say the Church universal cannot be called one in any other formal respect but as it is Christian if you mean by Christian all such as have true Christian faith and charity ut supra you say true and you say nothing but what all good Christians say But then here comes the difficulty how any Heretick or Schismatick can be a Christian more then nomine tenus in denomination only or in a laxe acception of the word for such as make a bare profession to beleeve in Christ and are thereby distinguished from Jewes Mahumetans and Heathens and so pass under the notion of Christians For if to be a Christian in our present strict sense be required a true Christian Faith then all that are true Christians have true faith but no Heretick hath true faith Ergo No Heretick is in this strict acception a Christian The Major is evident I prove the Minor Whosoever hath true faith beleeveth the material object of faith or the thing beleeved for the Divine Authority of God revealing it But no Heretick beleeves the material object of faith or the thing beleeved for the Divine Authority of God revealing it Ergo no Heretick hath true faith The Major is granted by all Divines yours and ours For Christian faith must rest upon Gods revelation as its formal object I prove the Minor Whosoever beleeves the material object of faith or thing beleeved for the Divine Authority of God revealing it must beleeve all things which are as suffiâ—â—iently propounded to him to be revealed by God as are the rest of the Articles which he beleeveth protesteth to and beleeve nothing as revealed which is as sufficiently declared to him to be erroneous or not revealed by Divine Authority as are the Articles of Faith propounded to be revealed by God But every Heretick either refuses to beleeve something which is so sufficiently propounded to him to be revealed from â—â—od or beleeves something as revealed which is so sufficiently declared to him to be erroneous or not revealed from God Ergo no Heretick hath true faith The Major I prove thus as to the first part Whosoever refuses to beleeve what is so sufficiently propounded to be revealed by God either beleeves all that is so propounded or beleeves some things and refuses to beleeve others as sufficiently propounded as those which he beleeves But if he refuses all he can have no true faith for he beleeves nothing and consequently is no Christian. If he beleeves some and refuses others equally propounded he beleeves them not for the Divine Authority revealing for when that is equally propounded to his understanding it ought to work equally upon it but upon his own willful choice or private judgement refuses one and assents to the other To illustrate this Let this sentence of Scripture Tertiâ die refurget he shall rise again the third day be so sufficienly propounded to be Gods revelation that whosoever refuses to beleeve the substance of our Saviours Resurrection delivered in it is
is scarce faire pardon this plainness consider of it your self The substance of Nilus book is about the Primacie of the Pope the very Contents prefixed to the first book are these Oratio demonstrans non aliam c. an Oration demonstrating that there is no other cause of dissention between the Latine and the Greek Churches then that the Pope refuseth to defer the Cognisance and Iudgement of that which is Controverted to a General Council but he will sit the sole Master and Iudge of the Controversie and will have the rest as Disciples to be hearers of or obey his word which is a thing aliene from the Lawes and Actions of the Apostles and Fathers and he begins his Book after a few words thus Causa itaque hujus dissidii c. The Cause therefore of this difference as I judge is not the sublimity of the point exceeding man's capacitie for other matters that have divers times troubled the Church have been of the same kind this therefore is not the cause of the dissention much lesse is the speech of the Scripture it self which as being concise doth pronounce nothing openly of that which is Controverted for to accuse the Scripture is as much as to accuse God himself But God is without all fault but who the fault is in any one may easily tell that is well in his wits He next shews that it is not for want of learned men on both sides nor is it because the Greeks do claim the Primacy and then concludeth it as before he maintaineth that your Pope succeedeth Peter onely as a Bishop ordained by him as many other Bishops that originally were ordained by him in like manner to succeed him and that his Primacy is no governing power nor given him by Peter but by Princes and Councils for order sake and this he proves at large and makes this the main difference Bellarmine 's answering his so many Arguments might have told you this if you had never read Nilus himself and if you say that this point was the Cause I deny it but if it were true yet was it not the onely or chief Cause afterwards The manner of bringing in the Filioque by Papal Authority without a general Council was it that greatly offended the Greeks from the beginning William Iohnson Num. 118. This is a strange manner of Arguing what if his chief subject be about the Popes Primacy may he not ex incidente and occasionaliter treat other matters Is not your chief matter in this Treatise to prove the succession of your Church and oppose ours and yet treat you not in this very place incidentally the procession of the holy Ghost I say then that Nilus declaring the cause why the Bishop of Rome hath lost all that Primacy and Authority which he had anciently by reason he is fallen from the Faith in adding Filioque to the Creed and teaching that the holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son the words you cite out of Nilus proves nothing he pretends indeed that the cause of the present dissention is the Popes challenging so high a Primacy which they are unwilling as all schismaticks ever were to grant him but that may well stand with what I affirm him to say that the first original cause of the breach betwixt the Greeks and Latines was the adding of Filioque and holding the holy Ghost's procession from the Father and the Son But see you not how fair a thread you have spun by pressing those words as you do against me is there indeed no other cause of dissention betwixt the Greek and Latine Church nor ground of their breach save the Popes supremacy then sure there is a full agreement in all other things if so there is a main disagreeing betwixt you and the Greeks in all other points of Faith controverted betwixt you and us for if they agree with us they disagree from you in every one of them nay you press Nilus his words in that sense you must take them to frame an Argument against me quite against the very words themselves for you alledge them to shew that he touches not the procession of the holy Ghost in that Book as the first ground of their difference to prove this you must proceed thus he treats nothing there save the Pope's Supremacie ergo he touches not the holy Ghost's procession you prove the Antecedent by the words of the Title of his first book here cited because he affirmes in them there is no other cause of dissention then that the Pope refuses to stand to the judgement of a general Council as if that onely were controverted betwixt them for otherwise you prove nothing Now it is most evident that Nilus supposes many other Controversies betwixt them and the Latines for he saies even as you cite him thus then that the Pope refuseth to defer the Cognisance and Iudgement of that which is Controverted to a general Council Ergo you must acknowledge that according to Nilus there was something controverted betwixt the Greeks and the Latines besides the Pope's Supremacie and after you bring him in pag. 124. mentioning this very point of the procession when you alledge him thus the cause therefore of this difference as I judge is not the sublimity of the point exceeding man's capacitie where he speaks of the holy Ghost's procession as I affirm him to doe thus you play fast and loose say and unsay at your pleasure thus you confound times and by not distinguishing the past as before you did not the future from the present make that which is now onely pretended by Nilus to be the chief cause of their not coming to Agreement to have been many hundred yeares agoe the original cause of their breach and opposition against the Latines whereby you confound the first occasion of the breach and the present obstacle to the making it up and reconciling them together as if they were one and the same thing Now it is most manifest that the first occasion of the breach made by the Greeks from the Latine Church was the Exception they took against the Latines for adding the word Filioque and from the Son to the Nicene Creed for Michael Patriarch of Constantinople anno 1054. in time of Leo the 9. Pope and Constantine the 10. Emperour styled Monomachos aspiring not onely in name and Title as many of his predecessours had done before him but in reality and effect to be universal Patriarch proclaimed Leo and all the Latines who adhered to him to be Excommunicated because contrary to the decree of the Ephesine Council they had made an Addition to the Creed so that the Roman Bishop being pretended by the Greeks to be thereby deposed from his Sea The Primacie of the Church fell by Course and right upon him as being the next Patriarch after the Bishop of Rome which gave occasion to Nilus of acknowledging that Controversie about the procession of the holy Ghost to have been the first occasion of
Patents and Commissions immediately from the King subject to the general in order to their respective commands but are as truly Officers of the King as the general is nor can the General displace any of them at his pleasure as the King can do though he has power to command them upon the Kings service or to correct punish or displace them when they give sufficient cause for that is also belonging to the Kings service Now you had not consideration enough to see this difference t' was not some will say for want of ignorance Now if we take the word universal in the malignant signification it will follow that if such an universal Bishop fall the Church falls with him because there will be no other true Pastour to maintain her in the truth through the whole Church the rest being not absolute pastours but his Officers 50. Page 257. Is spent in reciting St. Gregories execrations against the title of universal which touch'd not our controversie 51. Page 258. Whether your reply or Bellar. answer be more miserable I leave to the Reader he speaks of a Vicar to sinful man and you answer t is no indignity to a Bishop to be a Vicar of Christ the eternal God next you equivocate again num 2. the question is not what Iohn thought or pretended by that title who can prove or disprove evidently what were his secret thoughts but what St. Gregory expresses himself to judge of his pretences either what he did think or probably speaking might be judged to think by assuming that title Now that St. Gregory thought such to be Iohns pretensions by that title is out of question 52. Page 258.259 num 3. You make Pope Gregory his exceed in censure of Iohns pretensions in assuming that title and thereby take away all force from those very citations which you cite against us so strong a disputant are you against your self why should you think groundless discourses should be of any force against your adversarie nay you are so favourable to St. Iohn and so froward to St. Gregory that you make the one pretend no farther then to a precedency of place before all other Bishops which he had before in relation to all save only the Bishop of Rome so that it was not in reallity a subjection of all the members of Christ to him which he sought by that title supposing that it included no more then a primacy of order or precedency but that he sought only by that title having before precedency before all the rest to obtain precedencie before one more then he had that is the Bishop of Rome And for St. Gregory you make him an arrand lyer for he sayes neither himself nor any of his predecessours ever accepted of that proud title and yet if it were no more but a supremacy of place before all not an universal government as you say here it was not you your felf acknowledge that he and all his predecessors at least since the Council of Nice accepted of it nay you will make St. Gregory speak absurdly and ridiculously in inveighing so earnestly against Iohn of Constantinople as a forerunner of Anti-Christ a prophane person a destroyer of Episcopal dignitie c. For having pretended no more then to take place of the Pope whereas you say here the Pope had then no rite to nor possession in that precedency of place but only striv'd for it and why then might not Iohn strive also for't against him without blasphemy or Anti-Christanism What say you of the Greeks refusing to have the universal government of the Church I have above confuted out of Hieremius against the Lutherans 53. Page 259. The text you urge proves no more then the former and shews the truth of my answer the like is of page 260. That title as subjecting all Christs members to one as their universal Bishop as though they had no other Bishop nor true Pastour but him is as manifestly against Christ as if a General should subject all the souldiers and Officers under him as if he were their sole commander by immediate commission from the King and the rest by commission from him would be against the King 54. Page 261. The words you urge do manifestly illustrate my interpretation of St. Gregory when he sayes Et solus omnibus praeesse videretur for in our opinion it is not true that the Pope solus omnibus praeest is alone above all for all Christians have some other above them then the Pope as he is supream governour of the Church videlicet their respective Bishops and Pastours but in the sense St. Gregory speakes of the universal Bishop only is above all there being no others but such as have their authority from him and govern as his Officers in his place and by his authority 55. Page 261. Your first reply to Bellarm. is now answer'd t' was but two Deacons three leaves of and now t is two or three they 'l increase in time like Falstafs blades in buckerome The Fathers of the Council cal'd him not only head or head-Bishop as London is cal'd the head City but they cal'd him their head and themselves the members of that body whereof he was head and said that he governed them as the head governs the members Tu sicut caput Membris prae eras ut supra To number the third p. 262. t' was first two then on the other side of the leaf it increased to two or three Deacons who offer'd St. Leo this title and without the Councils approbation and on this side it is the whole Council according to St. Gregory whose words you cite against us and therefore must esteem them true which consisted of thrice 200 Bishops Falstafs bounce buckerome was nothing to this increase Next you fall into a fallacie ex insufficiente enumeratione partium It was neither in the sense now explicated he thought it was offered by the Council nor as he was Episcopus primae sedis Bishop of the first sea in your sense i. e. The first in place order or precedency only but as it signified the supream Bishop who governed all other Bishops though they were as true and proper governours of their respective flocks as he was of his which immediate power and commission from our Saviour as Colonels and Captaines are govern'd by their General To num 3. Nor have to this day any Roman Bishop incerted this name of universal into their titles as the Bishops of Constantinople doe But contrary wise ever since this proud title was assumed by the Bishops of Constantinople the Bishops of Rome have inserted this humble title into theirs of Servi servorum Dei Servant of the servants of God as may be seen in St. Gregories Epistles written after that time to which is prefixed by him that humble title Gregorius servus servorum Dei But if it signified no more then that the Roman Bishop is the first in place before all others why might he not use it seeing you
fly from and not the universal that proves them not out of the universal Church Who sayes it does why interlace you such parergons as those treats Bell. here of any particular fold speaks he not expresly of the whole universal Church which he defined cap. 2 but by the rules of contraries you should affirm here against your self that if all hereticks fly from the universal Church they cannot be in the universal Church Now it is most evident that all heretiques fly from the universal Church ergo none of them can be in the universal Church for therefore are they hereticks because they either reject obstinately some doctrine sufficiently propounded to them as taught by the universal Church to be a point of Christian faith or imbrace some doctrine sufficiently propounded to them to be rejected by the universal Church as an error in Christian faith de Eccles. l. 3. c. 2. Next you bring in Bellar. thus And Bellar. saith of the Catechumenis excommunicatis that they are de anima etsi non de corpore Ecclesiae Now who can understand by those words of yours but that Bellar. teaches absolutely that both all as well excommunicati as Catechumeni are de anima Ecclesiae of the soul of the Church whereas he speaks only sub conditione conditionally not absolutely and so of some excommunicate persons but not of all that is such as he declares himself c. 6. sect Respondeo lucem esse c. have faith and charity as being either unjustly excommunicated or repenting before they be absolutely absolv'd by the Church from excommunication Bellar. words cap. 2. clipt off in the midst by you are those Rursum aliqui sunt de anima non de corpore ut Catechumeni vel excommunicati si fidem charitatem habeant quod fieri potest Again sayes Bell. some are of the soul of the Church and not of the body as are the unbaptized or excommunicate if they have faith and charity which may happen You see how candidly you have proceeded with Bellarmine and in this sense and no other is Canus to be understood whom you cite next out of Bellarmine and if you could prove any profest heretick properly so call'd had faith and charity I would acknowledge with Bellar. that they were de anima Ecclesiae of the soul of the Church or de Ecclesia quae comprehendit omnes fideles c. of the Church which comprehends all the faithful from Abel to the end of the world you see by this how unfairely you have dealt with Canus also What follows in answer of yours to my question whether profess'd hereticks properly so called are true parts of the visible Church is upon matter of fact who are or who are not in particular rightly condemn'd for hereticks which is an alien to my question and so neither worth the answering nor reading I come now to the question it self 74. That therefore no profess'd heretick properly so called is or can be a true part of Christs universal visible Church I prove by those arguments 1. St. Paul in his 3 to Titus v. 10 11. writes thus A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject knowing that he that is such is subverted and sinneth being condemned of himself Thus yours translate the words but the vulgar and Pagninus have it devita avoid or decline from it signifies also in Scapula to refuâ—â—e remove or expel one from them where the Apostle speaking indefinitly is to be understood of all profess'd hereticks properly so called so that all such hereticks are to be avoided rejected removed or expelled from the community and society of all Christians for the same reason which obliged Titus to avoid them obliged all the faithful which is nothing but to be depriv'd of the communion of the universal Church and so even in your principles just now deliver'd to be cast out of the Church and St. Hierom expounds those words that Hereticks are cast out of the Church by themselves leaving the Church and separating themselves from it by their obstinacy in error 2. St. Iohn in his first Epistle and second chapter verse 19. ex nobis exerunt They went out from us where the Apostle speaks in general of all heretiques and of the whole visible Church of Christ for how could it be manifest they were not of the Church as St. Iohn sayes it was if they did not visibly go out of it Thus also St. Cyprian (a) St. Cypri lib. ep 8. unit Eccl. sive de simplicitate St. Hierom and St. Aug. writing upon those words expound them 3. Ioh. ep 2. v. 9 10 11. whosoever trangresseth and abides not in the doctrine of Christ hath not God he that abideth in the doctrine of Christ hath both the Father and the Son if there come any unto you and bring not this doctrine receive him not into your house neither bid him God speed for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil works Where the Apostle without any distinction or exception intends the denial of communion through the whole Church for he gives a general precept to all Christians to all those who teach contrarie to the doctrine of Christ. And this not as to others scandalous sinners lest they should draw others to sin by their bad example but as to Hereticks for no other crime then their maintaining a doctrine contrary to the doctrine of Christ and that in what point soever it be for he speaks in general of all doctrine contrary to that of Christ. Now since all profess'd Hereticks properly so call'd teach contrary to Christs doctrine in some point or other they are all to be avoided and deny communion thorough the whole Church consequently are out of the whole Churches communion and so out of the Catholique Church This is proved from the authorities both of the ancient fathers later Doctors and Protestant Authors which are cited and confirm'd at large in schism unmask'd in a late conference with Doctor Gunning and Doctor Pierson from p. 131. to p. 188. where the very definition of schism and heresie of schismaticks and heretiques make it most manifest that no profess'd heretick or schismatick properly so call'd can so long as they remain in that state be true parts of the Catholique Church These following I cite for a brief confirmation of this truth St. Aug. de fide symbolo c. 10. quapropter nec hereticus pertinet ad Ecclesiam Catholicam quoniam diligit Deum nec schismaticus quoniam diligit proximum wherefore neither doth an heretick belong to the Catholick Church because she the Church loves God nor a schismatick because she loves her neighbour And Optatus lib. 1. cont Parmenianum addressing himself to the Donatists whom you say were not separated from the Church sayes thus Desertâ matre Catholica impii filii dum for as excurrunt se separant ut vos fecistis à radice matris Ecclesiae invidiae
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
because all men living are culpably ignorant of some truths which they had a revelation of that was thus farre sufficient if the second be your sense then the same unhappy consequence will follow that all are Hereticks and moreover by that sense of obscure education are unavoidable Hereticks because they had no opportunity to know those things which as to that Majority are of publick Testimony and universal Tradition William Iohnson I tell you I judge of no mens conscience it is sufficient 1. That such as acknowledge themselves they know such points of faith to be propounded by the Roman Church which I infallibly believe to be the true Church and that notwithstanding reject them as errours give me ground to presume them to be Hereticks 2. Such as oppose what all visible Churches have most notoriously practised and believed as Divine truths whilst they were so universarily taught and practised I may safely presume to be Hereticks because things so notorious cannot morally be presumed to be unknown to any one for other particulars I may and do suspend my judgement for what obligation have I to know all the Hereticks in the world these Rules being a sufficient judge of the greatest part of them See you not your fallacy how you passe ab abstracto in concretum Our question was onely what Heresie is and you divert it to inquire which particular persons are Hereticks cannot definitions stand though we know not all the individualls which are reducible to them Mr. Baxter Is not the Bible a publick Testimony and record and being universally received is an universal Tradition and yet abundance of truths in the holy Bible are unknown and therefore not actually believed by millions that are in your Church and are not taken by your self for Hereticks your befriending ignorance would else make very many Hereticks Rejoynder What if the Bible be a publick Tradition it is onely a Tradition that whatsoever is there delivered is the word of God but it is no Tradition that such a determinate sense and no other is the word of God in every sentence contained in it when according to the Analogie of faith the words are capable of many senses all therefore that is an universal Tradition concerning the Bible is sufficiently propounded but what is not Tradition left to the several Discourses and Expositions of Doctours will it hence follow think you that because what is not an universal Tradition is not sufficiently propounded to be known Ergo what is universal Tradition also is not Pope By Pope I mean S. Peter or any of his lawfull Successours in the Sea of Rome having authority by the institution of Christ to govern all particular Churches next under Christ. Of the Pope Mr. Baxter I am never the nearer knowing the Pope by this till I know how Peters Successours may be known to me Qu. 1. What personal qualification is necessary ad esse William Iohnson Answ. Such as are necessary ad esse of other Bishops which I suppose you know Mr. Baxter If so then all these were no Popes that were Heretques or denyed Essential points of Faith William Iohnson 'T is true they were no Popes whilst formal Heretiques if any such were Baxter As Iohn 24. Iohnson prove that Baxter And so were no Christians Iohnson Prove that Baxter All those that wanted the necessary abilities to the Essentials of their work Iohnson Prove there were such Popes Mr. Baxter And so your Church hath often bin headless and your succession interrupted Councils having censured many Popes to be thus qualified William Iohnson When you have proved the precedents prove that Mr. Baxter And the dispositio materiae being of it self necessary to the reception of that form it must needs follow that such were no Popes even before the Councils charged them with incapacity or Heresie because they had it before they were accused of it and Simony then made many uncapable William Iohnson Prove they were lawfull Councils which so censured any Popes which we admit as true and lawfull Mr. Baxter Qu. 2. Where and how must the Institution of Christ be found William Iohnson Answ. In the revealed Word of God written or unwritten Mr. Baxter You never gave the World assurance how they may truly know the measure of your unwritten Word nor where to finde it so as to know what it is William Iohnson We say we have Mr. Baxter 2. 'Till you prove Christ's Institution which you have never done William Iohnson That is to be done in our Controversie Mr. Baxter You free us from believing in the Pope William Iohnson All are free from believing in the Pope we believe in God but not in the Pope who of us ever obliged you you to do so Mr. Baxter Qu. 3. Will any ones Election prove him to be Pope or who must Elect him ad esse William Iohnson Answ. Such as by approved custome are esteemed by those by to whom it belongs fit for that Charge and with whose Election the Church is satisfied Reply Here you are fain to hide your self instead of Answering and shew indeed that a Pope that 's made an Essential part of the Church subjection to whom is made of necessity to salvation is indeed but a meer name or a thing unknown and so can certainly be believed or acknowledged by none For either Election in him by somebody is necessary or not If not then you or another man unchosen may be Pope for ought I know or any man else if yea then it is either any bodies Election of him that will serve turn or not if it will then you may be Popes if your Schollars chuse you and then you have had three Popes at once for many were Elected but if it be not then it must be known who hath the Power of Election before it can be known who is indeed the Pope but you are forced here by your Answer to intimate to us that the Power of Election cannot be known therefore the Pope cannot be known for 1. Here are no Determinate Electours mentioned and therefore it seems none known to you and no wonder for if you confine it to the People or to the Cardinals or to the Emperours or to the Councils you cut off all your Popes that were Chosen by the other wayes 2. Nor do you Determine of any particular discernable note by which the Electours and power of Election may be known to that Church but all these patches make up your description 1. it must be those that are esteemed fit for the Charge 2. that by those to whom it belongs 3. and that by Custome 4. and that approved 5. and the Church must be satisfied with the Election a miserable body then that hath been so often headlesse as Rome hath been 1. well esteeming them fit to serve turn though they be unfit then it is not the fitnesse that is necessary but the Estimation true or false 2. but why did you not tell us to whom it is
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