God and in the entrance of the same Epist. he compares Schismatiques to Corah Dathan Abiram who separate themselves from the communion of the Jewes and their high Priest Aaron St. Aug. lib. 20 contr Faustum c. 30. Schisma est eadem opinantem eodem ritu colentem quo caeteri solo congregationis delectari dissidio Schism is a voluntary Dissidium or separation of one who agrees in doctrine from the Congregation viz. of the Church St. Aug. lib. 4. contr Donatistas Cap. 14. Nam caetera omnia vera vel censeatis vel habeatis in eadem separatione tamen duretis contra vinculum fraternae pacis adversus unitatem omnium fratrum Thus he states the Schism of the Donatists if ye continue in separation against the bond of Brotherly peace and unitie of all the Brethren that is of the whole Church Lib 2 contr Donatistas cap. 6. Respondete quare vos separastis quare contra orbem terrarum Altare erexistis quare non communicastis Ecclesiis respondete quare separastis propterea certe ne malorum communione periretis Quomodo Ergo non perierunt Cyprianus Collegae ejus quare ab innocentibus separastis Sacrilegium Schismatis vestrum defendere noâ—â— potestis The holy Father disputing against Schismatiques askes them as we à pari aske Protestants why have you separated your selves why have you erected an Altar against the whole world answer me why did you separate certainly you separated least you should perish in the communion of the wicked how then did not Cyprian and his colleagues perish Lib. contra Petilianum nulla igitur Ratio fuit sed Maximus furor quod isti velut commmnionem caventes se ab unitate Eeclesiae quae toto orbe terrarum diffunditur separarunt There was no cause but a great madness that they fearing communion should separate themselves from the unity of the Church through the whole earth what can be more evident then this that St. Aug. held the Donatists to be out of the Church which you flatly deny St. Hierome Haeretici de Deo falso sentiendo ipsam fidem violant Schismatici discessionibus iniquis a fraterna charitate dissiliunt Contra Luciferianos quamvis ea credunt quae credimus Heretiques by teaching false things of God violate the Faith Schismatiques by unjust seperations depart from fraternal charity though they believe the same thing with us Nothing can destroy more fully your novelty then do these words for he speaks indefinitely of all Heretiques and affirms that they violate the faith and consequently have no faith without which they cannot be true members of Christs Church and that all Schismatiques leave fraternal charity which is necessary to be in the unity of the Church St. Hieron comment in Ep. ad Titum c. 3. Propterea vero a semet ipso dicitur esse damnatus Haereticus quia Fornicator Adulter Homicida caetera vitia per sacerdotes de Ecclesia propelluntur Haeretici autem in semetipsos sententiam dicant suo arbitrio ab Ecclesia recedendo Therefore he an Heretique is said to be condemned of himself because a Fornicator an Adulterer a Murtherer and the like vices are expelled out of the Church by the Priests but Heretiques pronounce a sentence against themselves by receding or departing from the Church of their own accord Does not this profound Doctor condemn your novelty in these words both by teaching that all Heretiques for he speaks indifinitely depart from the Church and by shewing a difference betwixt other criminal sinners and Heretiques when they are to be avoided which you labour to put in the same state with some Heretiques viz. That other sinners are cast out of the Church but Heretiques out themselves and yet farther that even other criminal sinners when they are excommunicated are no actual parts of the Church as you hold they are because they are cast out of it which doctrine is also Emphatically delivered by St. Aug. l. 11. quest cap. 3. Omnis Christianus qui excommunicatur Satanae traditur quomodo Scilicet quiaextra Ecclesiam est diabolus Sicut in Ecclesiae Christus ac per hoc quasi diabolo traditur qui ab Ecclesia communione removetur Vnde illos quos Apastolus Satanae traditos esse praedicat esse excommunicatos demonstrat Every Christian who is excommunicated is delivered up to Sathan how that to wit because the devil is without the Church as Christ is in the Church and by this he is as it were delivered to the devil whosoever is removed from the communion of the Church whence the Apostle demonstrates those to be excommunicated whom he pronounces to be delivered to Sathan whence followes also that seeing all profest Heretiques are excommunicated persons that according to St. Aug. they are all out of the Church I forbear the citation of more Authors esteeming these â—â—ufficient 75. I have at large deduc'd the reason of this truth against you in my answer to your first part The sum whereof is this that whosoever disbelieves any divine truth sufficiently propounded to him as such disbelieves the infallible truth of Gods word and consequently evacuates the formal object of Christian faith thereby destroyes faith which cannot subsist without its formal object and by that destroyes Christianity in so much as in him lyes and consequently Gods Church nay and God himself whence also follows that such a disbeliever hath no supernatural faith at all of any other articles which he believes but a meer humane natural and fallible assent to them for he cannot assent to any of them because they are reveal'd by Gods infallible authority for he hath made that fallible in disbelieving something which is sufficiently notified to him to be revealed from God Now if he have no true faith he can neither have salvation nor be a member of Christs true Church which is directly destructive of your novelty That which has deceiv'd you and such as follow you in this is that you make your whole reflection upon the material object of faith which considered alone is as a dead carcass in respect of true Christian faith seeing it wants the soul and life of it the infallible authority of God revealing it and though hereticks perversely perswade and delude themselves they assent for the infallible authority of God to such articles as they believe yet seeing we now suppose there is no defect in the proposition of such articles as they believe not that they are reveal'd from God they being propos'd to them equally with other articles which they believe in reallity there is no other cause of their disbelief then that they attribute not an infallible authority to God revealing the said articles which they disbelieve Now if he be fallible in one he is infallible in nothing for his erring in one supposes him subject to error which is to be fallible And as faith is wanting so is external communion also to every profest heretick and schismatick as
enough look into that action and you 'l find it in the Edition of Paulus Quintus Mr. Baxter Num. 253. But why were not the antecedent words of the Bishop of Antioch and his Clergy as valid to the contrary as Juvenals for this William Iohnson Num. 253. Because Iuvenal was a known Catholique Bishop Liberat. in brev c. 4. act Ephes. Tom. 1. c. 21. act Ephes. Tom. 3. c. 1. Evag. c. 5. alii and consented to the council and Iohn of Antioch with his complices were favourers of Nestorius restorers of the Pelagian Heresie and open Schismatiques celebrating a conventicle against the Ephesine council Mr. Baxter Num. 254. If these words were spoken they only import a judging in Council as a chief member of it and not of himself Non-proof 24. William Iohnson Num. 254. Yes sure it must needs be so because you say 't is so shall we never have an end of your non-proofs what kinde of Council mean you a general Council that was never thought necessary for the Roman Bishops censuring of others a particular that could have no juridical authority out of the Western Church ergo the power of judging out of the Western Patriarchate was only in the Pope Mr. Baxter Num. 255. And his Apostolica ordinatione is expresly contrary to the fore-cited Canon of the Council of Chalcedon and therefore not to be believed Non-proof William Iohnson Num. 255. Still more non-proofs why is it expresly contrary why you say 't is so I deny it to be contrary that 's as good as your affirmation I have explicated that Canon of Chalcedon above and made it consonant to these words of Iuvenal But what if it were contrary I have also shewed the uncanonicalness and illegality of that Canon But at least you cannot deny that I have brought one instance here that the Popes authority over a Patriarch was by Apostolical ordination Is it not manifest by this your answer that you slight the Council of Chalcedon in granting in one Session to approve of Iuvenals sayings and in another to contradict them Mr. Baxter Num. 256. Yet some called things done ordinatione Apostolica which were ordained by the seats which were held Apostolick Non-proof 25. William Iohnson Num. 256. Some which some why say you some and name none nor prove any still more and more non-proofs Mr. Baxter Num. 257. But still you resolve to forget that Antioch or the Empire extended not to the Antipodes nor contained all the Catholick Church William Iohnson Num. 257. Your burthen must still bear up the Song we have had enough of that already Shew some solid reason why the Pope had rather power over the Church and Patriarch of Antioch then over all other Prelates and Churches and you say something Mr. Baxter Num. 258. You next tell me of Valentinians words A.D. 445. Reply It is the most plausible of all your testimonies but worth nothing to your end for 1. Though Theodosius ' s name pro forma were at it yet it was only Valentinians act and done at Rome where Leo prevailed with a raw unexperienced Prince to 1 word the Epistle as he desired so that it is rather 2 Leo's then the Emperours original 13. Non-proofs more noted in figures in the Text. 3 And Leo was the first that attempted the excessive advancement of his seat above the rest of the Patriarchs 2. It is known that the Emperours sometime gave the Primacy to Rome and sometime to Constantinople as they were pleased or displeased by each of them So did Justinian who A. D. 530. Lampadio Oreste Coss. C. de Episcopis lib. 1. lege 24. saith Constantinopolitana Ecclesia omnium aliarum est Caput The Church of Constantinople is the head of all other 3. It is your fiction and not the words of Valentinian or Leo that the succession from Peter was the foundation of Romes Primacy It was then believed that Antioch and other Churches had a succession from Peter It is the merit of Peter and the dignity of the City of Rome and the authority of the Synode jointly that he ascribeth it to The 4 merit of Peter was nothing but the motive upon which Leo would have men believe the Synode gave the Primacy to Rome And Hosius in the Council of Sardica indeed useth that as his motive Let us for the honour of Peter c. They had a conceit that where Peter last preached and was martired and buried and his relicks lay there he should be most honoured 4. Here 's is not the least intitation that this Primacy was by Gods appointment or the Apostles but the Synodes nor that it had continued so from Peters dayes but that jointly for Peters merits and honour and the Cities dignity it was given by the Synode 5. And it 6 was but Leo's fraud to perswade the raw Emperour of the authority of a Synode which he would not name because the Synode of Sardica 7 was in little or no authority in those dayes The rest of the reasons were fraudulent also which though they prevailed with this 8 Emperour yet they took not in the East And Leo himself it seems durst not pretend to a divine right and 9 institution nor to a succession of Primacy from the Apostles 6. But nothing is more false then your assertion that he extendeth the power over the whole visible Church The word universitas is all that you translate in your Comment the whole visible Church As if you knew not that there was a Roman universality and that Roman Councils were called universal when no Bishops out of that one Common-wealth were present and that the Church in the Empire 10 is oft called the whole Church yea the Roman world was not an unusual And I pray you tell me what power Valentinian had out of the Empire who yet interposeth his authority there Neque praeter authoritatem sedis istius illicitum c. ut pax ubique servetur And in the end it is all the Provinces that is the university that he extends his precepts to 7. And for that annexed that without the Emperours letters his authority was to be of force through France for what shall not be lawful c. I answ No wonder for France was part of his Patriarchate and the Laws of the Empire had confirmed his Patriarchal power and those Laws might seem with the reverence of Synodes without new letters to do much But yet it 11 seems that the rising power needed this extraordinary secular help Hilary it seems with his Bishops thought that even to his Patriarch he owed no such obedience as Leo here by force exacteth So that your highest witness Leo by the mouth of Valentinian is for no more then a Primacy with a swelled power in the Roman universality but they never 12 medled with the rest of the Christian world It seems by all their writings and 13 attempts this never came into their thoughts William Iohnson Num. 258. In this paragraph you
it if expresly containing all things necessary to salvation I deny it Again I distinguish all things necessary to salvation either you mean all things necessary to be distinctly known and expresly believed by all to obtain salvation and so I grant it or all things also to be believed implicitly and to be distinctly known to all and so I deny it These distinctions suppos'd I deny your consequence viz. That the Church whereof Protestants are members hath been visible ever since the dayes of Christ on earth 15. Pag. 210. your authorities prove nothing the aforesaid distinctions applied Bellar. and Costerus speaks of things necessary to be expresly believed by all Ragusa of the Scripture well understood which include the interpretation of the Church Gerson not of articles of Faith but of Theological conclusions drawn by private and fallible authority Durandus treats of private conclusions drawn from Scripture by himself as you cite him pag. 212. of delivering nothing contrary to Scripture and of using the interpretation of the Roman Church St. Thomas speaks not a word of Scripture nor so much as names it in those words cited by you and in his summe de veritate addes the interpretation of the Church to Scripture as you cite his words pag. 213. Scotus cited p. 213. is quite against you he sayes add you that many needful things are not expressed in Scripture but virtually contained which is not protestant but sound catholick doctrine Gregor Ariminensis p. 14. speaks not of points of faith but of Theological conclusions drawn by private discourse which is not as you add next more then to intend the sufficiency of express Scripture to matters of faith for the seusteine of faith is infallible and divine Theological discourse only fallible and humane now he sayes diametrically against your tenet that all truths are not in themselves formally contain'd in holy Scripture but of necessity following these that are contained in them c. but here 's the difficulty we say that every point we teach is contain'd as in general principles at least in Scripture and necessarily deduced from it but you adde they must be contained formally for what seems a necessary consequence of Scripture to us seems not so to you and the like is of what seems necessary to you seems neither necessary nor propable to us so that neither of us can be convinced that our respective deductions are points of faith and both you must confess yours are not because you have not infallibly authority deducing them and we do acknowledge that conclusions drawn from Scripture abstracting from the Churches authority oblige us not to receive them as matters of faith 16. Pag. 216. Gulielmus Parisiensis sayes no more then say the former Authors and Bellar. nothing at all to your purpose draw if you can the sufficiency of sole Scripture held by you from words which so cleerly declare its insufficiency Pag. 217. Your whole discourse is a pure parorgon our question is not what is essential or necessary necessitate medii or praecepti to be known and expresly believed by all per se and absolutely but whether one believing all that is essential and necessary in that manner and withal disbelieving any other point of faith whatsoever after it is hic nunc sufficiently propounded as such to any particular person can either be saved or be a true real part of the visible Church of Christ. Now we answer negatively to this question because such a disbelief excludes an implicite belief of that point so disbelieved and consequently a belief of all that God hath revealed and therby all supernatural saving faith To illustrate the truth of this assertion let us instance in a Pelagian who believed all that which you account essential that is the common Articles necessary for all to salvation the Creeds the Scriptures c. And had sufficiently propounded to him the belief of Original sin as a point of Christian faith which he refuses to believe and accounts an errour the question will not be in this case whether that Pelagian believe all these essentials in the account but whether that supposed he be not excluded out of the Church and dismembred from it by that wilful disbelief of Original sin This is our present case controverted betwixt us so that though it were admitted that you believe all that material object of faith which you esteem essential and necessary for all to be expresly believed yet because we accuse and judge you to disbelieve many points of as much concern as is that of Original sin and as sufficiently propounded to you as such as that was to the Pelagians we have as much reason to judge you to be excluded out of the Catholique Church and dismembred from it as we have to judge them either therefore you acknowledge the point disbelieved by you and propounded as matter of faith by us to you to be as sufficiently propounded as was that of Original sin to the Pelagians or you deny it if you acknowledge it you must acknowledge you are as much dismembred from the Church by your disbelief as they were if you deny it then we will put our selves upon the proof of it so that till our proofs be heard and fully answer'd you cannot secure your selves of being parts of the Catholique Church no more then could the Pelagians 17. If you affirm as your principles lead you that even the disbelief of Original sin hinder'd not the Pelagians from remaining parts of the Catholique Church you contradict St. Augustine and St. Epiphanius In Catalogis Haereticorum the Council of Nice all antiquity nay all modern authors even your own and I provoke you to produce so much as one Author who affirms Pelagians to be parts of the Catholique Church CHAP. II. Mr. Baxters authorities NUm 18. Whether Mr. Baxters doctrine about sole scripture agree with Tertullians in his prescriptions Num. 21. Mr. Baxter would send all his adversaries packing if he knew how he supposes his Readers to be very simple Num. 19. Whether St. Augustin taught that common people were to reade-Scipture in the place cited by Mr. Baxter whereas St. Augustine taught there that all things belonging to Christian Faith and manners are expressed in Scripture his two other Collections from St. Augustine examined Num. 22. He knowes not where his Church was An. 1500. Num. 25. He cites two texts of S. Augustine distructive to his own doctrine Num. 25.26 How much Optatus makes for Mr. Baxter Num. 26.27 What Optatus meanes by being within or in communion with the seven Churches of Asia Mr. Baxter cites two texts in Optatus which quite overthrow him Num. 28. Divers of his Effugiums examined and confuted concerning Tertullians prescriptions Num. 29.30 Many texts of Tertullian not Englished by Mr. Baxter make directly against him 18. Hence falls to nothing all you alledge from Bell. Costerus Gulielmus Parisiensis Aquinas Bannes Espenseus c. p. 216.217.218 For they speak of
which he presently did and many other Eastern Bishops unjustly accused by the Arians aforesaid had recourse to Rome with him and expected there a year and half All which time his Accusers though also summoned appeared not fearing they should be condemned by the Pope and his Council Yet they pretended not as Protestants have done in these last ages of the Kings of England That Constantius the Arian Emperour of the East was Head or chief Governour over their Church in all Causes Ecclesiastical and consequently that the Pope had nothing to do with them but only pretended certain frivolous excuses to delay their apearance from one time to another Where it is worth the noting that Iulius reprehending the said Arian Bishops before they published their Heresie and so taking them to be Catholicks for condemning S. Athanasius in an Eastern Council gathered by them before they had acquainted the Bishop of Rome with so important a cause useth these words An ignari estis hanc consuetudinem esse ut primum nobis scribatur ut hinc quod justum est definiri possit c. Are you ignorant saith he that this is the custome to write to us first That hence that which is just may be defined c. where most clearly it appears that it belonged particularly to the Bishop of Rome to passe a definitive sentence even against the Bishops of the Eastern or Greek Church which yet is more confirmed by the proceedings of Pope Innocent the first about 12. hundred years since in the case of S. Chrysostome Where first Saint Chrysostome appeals to Innocentius from the Council assembled at Constantinople wherein he was condemned Secondly Innocentius annuls his condemnation and declares him innocent Thirdly he Excommunicates Atticus Bishop of Constantinople and Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria for persecuting S. Chrysostome Fourthly after S. Chrysostome was dead in Banishment Pope Innocentius Excommunicates Arcadius the Emperour of the East and Eudoxia his wife Fifthly the Emperor and Empress humble themselves crave pardon of him and were absolved by him The same is evident in those matters which passed about the year 450. where Theodosius the Emperour of the East having too much favoured the Eutychian Hereticks by the instigation of Chrysaphius the Eunuch and Pulcheria his Empress and so intermedled too far in Ecclesiasticall causes yet he ever bore that respect to the See of Rome which doubtless in those circumstances he would not have done had he not beleeved it an Obligation that he would not permit the Eutychian Council at Ephesus to be assembled without the knowledge and authority of the Roman Bishop Leo the first and so wrote to him to have his presence in it who sent his Legats unto them And though both Leo's letters were dissembled and his Legate affronted and himself excommunicated by wicked Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria and president of that Conventicle who also was the chief upholder of the Eutychians yet Theodosius repented before his death banished his wife Pulcheria and Chrysaphius the Eunuch the chief favourers of the Eutychians and reconciled himself to the Church with great evidences of sorrow and pennance (m) Concil Chalced. Act. 1. Presently after An. 451. follows the fourth General Council of Chalcedon concerning which these particulars occur to our present purpose First Martianus the Eastern Emperour wrote to Pope Leo That by the Popes Authority a General Council might be gathered in what City of the Eastern Church he should please to chuse Secondly both Anatolius Patriarch of Constantinople and the rest of the Eastern Bishops sent to the Legats of Pope Leo by his order the profession of their faith Thirdly the Popes Legats sate in the first place of the Council before all the Patriarchs (n) Concil Chalced. Act 3. Fourthly they prohibited by his order given them That Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria and chief upholder of the Eutychians should sit in the Council but be presented as a guilty person to be judged because he had celebrated a Council in the Eastern Church without the consent of the Bishop of Rome which said the Legats never was done before nor could be done lawfully This order of Pope Leo was presently put in execution by consent of the whole Council and Dioscorus was judged and condemned his condemnation and deposition being pronounced by the Popes Legats and after subscribed by the Council Fifthly the Popes Legats pronounced the Church of Rome to be * Which could not be by reason of the Sanctity and truth which was then in it for the Church of Milan and many others in France Africa and Greece were also then pure and holy and yet none have this title save the Church of Rome In the time of Iustinian the Emperour Agapet Pope even in Constantinople against the will both of the Emperour and Empress deposed Anthymus and ordained Mennas in his place Liberat. in Breviario cap. 21. Marcellinus Comes in Chronico Concil Constantin sub Menna act 4. And the same S Greg. c. 7. ep 63. declares that both the Emperour and Bishop of Constantinople acknowledged that the Church of Constantinople was subject to the See of Rome And l. 7. Ep. 37. Et alibi pronounceth that in case of falling into offences he knew no Bishop which was not subject to the Bishop of Rome Caput omnium Ecclesiarum the Head of all Churches before the whole Council and none contradicted them Sixtly all the Fathers assembled in that Holy Council in their Letter to Pope Leo acknowledged themselves to be his children and wrote to him as to their Father Seventhly they humbly begged of him that he would grant that the Patriarch of Constantinople might have the first place among the Patriarchs after that of Rome which notwithstanding that the Council had consented to as had also the third General Council of Ephesus done before yet they esteemed their grants to be of no sufficient force untill they were confirmed by the Pope And Leo thought not fit to yeeld to their petition against the express ordination of the first Council of Nice where Alexandria had the preheminence as also Antioch and Hierusalem before that of Constantinople Saint Cyril of Alexandria though he wholly disallowed Nestorius his doctrine yet he would not break off Communion with him till Celestinus the Pope had condemned him whose censure he required and expected Nestorius also wrote to Celestine acknowledging his Authority and expecting from him the censure of his doctrine Celestinus condemned Nestorius and gave him the space of ten daies to repent after he had received his condemnation All which had effect in the Eastern Church where Nestorius was Patriarch of Constantinople (o) S. August Tom. 1. Epist. Rom. Pontif. post Epist. 2. ad Celestinum After this Saint Cyrill having received Pope Leo's Letters wherein he gave power to Saint Cyril to execute his condemnation against Nestorius and to send his condemnatory letters to him gathered a Council of his next Bishops and sent Letters
Church be true or false that 's stated in the Argument but whether it be in a matter Accidental or Essential Now I affirm that nothing which Christ hath Instituted to be ever in the Church is Accidental to the Church for every Accident is separable from the Subject without destroying the Subject whose Accident it is But what Christ ha's Instituted to be ever in his Church is inseparable from it Mat. 19.6 for Quae Deus conjunxit homo non separet Those things which God hath conjoyned man must not separate In the mean time you fairly acknowledge your instances were not home to the present purpose because not in matters Instituted to be perpetual by one of that Authority whose Institution no man can change and consequently not necessary to be ever in those Nations or Commonwealths to whom you ascribe them Baxter Num. 17. For 1. The holding it alwayes done and that of Christs Institution may be either an Accident or but of the Integrity and ad bene esse yea possibly an errour Iohnson Num. 17. If of the Integrity then not Accidental for no Integral part is an Accident to the whole So you yield up your cause and acknowledge your errourâ—â— and 't is laudable in you The question is not what you might have done but what you did your instances given fell short and were plainly fallacious I have already shew'd that nothing can be an Accident to the Church which Christ hath instituted to be ever that is perpetually in the Church and consequently the Churches holding any thing to be so if true is Essential to the Subsistance of the Church if false is essentially destructive of the Church so that whether true or false it will never be accidental to the Church Baxter Num. 18. And I might as easily have given you instances of that kind Iohnson Num. 18. Had you more fully reflected upon your Adversaries words you might have done many things more pertinently then you have done them but here again you acknowledge your error in alledging instances which were not to the purpose But your Readers and I should have been much more satisfied had you amended what you acknowledge to be a fault and brought at least in this your last Reply those instances which you say here you might have given then Be sure therefore in your next to produce instances of Accidentals in such things as Christ hath instituted to be ever in his Church whereby it may appear that this Roman acknowledgment whether true or false is accidental to the true Church So that the acknowledgment of it by all those to whom it is sufficiently propounded is necessary to make them parts of the true Church and the denial of it when so propounded hinders them from being parts of it Baxter Num. 19. To your third Syllogism I reply 1. When you say your Church had Pastors Fallacy 5. as you must speak of what existed and universals exist not of themselves so it is necessary that I tell you how far I grant your Minor and how far I deny it Iohnson Num. 19. What though universalls exist not of themselves may not therefore a Logician expresse things which have existed in an abstract or universal term Is not this a true Logical Proposition Ever since Adam there have been parents and children in the world though the terms abstract from lawful and unlawful from male or female children would you carp at this Proposition as you do here at mine because universalls exist not of themselves or go about to distinguish different sorts of children or parents as you do Pastors here to find out the true meaning of that Proposition No man sayes or need to say in such Enunciations that universalls exist but expresses particulars which have existed by abstract and universall terms Baxter Num. 20. My Argument from the Indians and others is not solved by you For 1. You can never prove that the Pope was preached to the Iberians by the captive maid Fallacy 6. nor to the Indians by Frumentius 2. Thousands were made Christians and Baptized by the Apostles Three non-proofs without any preaching or profession of a Papacie Acts 2. pasâ—â—im 3. The Indians now converted in America by the English and Dutch hear nothing of the Pope nor thousands in Ethiopia 3. Your own doe or may baptize many without their owning the Pope who yet would be Christians And a Pastor not known or beleeved or owned is actually no Pastor to them Iohnson Num. 20. To all these Instances I answer They conclude nothing against my Assertion for I never said that all particular persons or communities are obliged to have an express belief or acknowledgment of the Roman-Bishops Supremacy that being necessary to all neither necessitate medii nor praecepti It is sufficient that they beleeve it implicitely in subjecting themselves to all those whom Christ hath instituted to be their lawfull Pastors and when the Bishop of Rome is sufficiently proposed to them to be the supream visible Pastor of of those Pastors upon earth that then they obstinately reject not his authority To your first instance of the Captive maid and Saint Frumentius I answer we can prove as much at least that to have been preacht to them as you can prove either Justification by Faith only or any other particular point of your doctrine to have been preacht to them And both of us must say that all important Christian Truths both for particular persons and Churches were delivered to those people and till you have evinced this of Supremacy to have been none of those it is to be supposed it was sufficiently declared to those Nations At least in explicating the Article of the Catholike Church to them they must be supposed to have told them it consisted of Pastors and people united and that the people were to obey all their lawful Pastors in which doctrine the Pope is implicitely included To your second from Acts 2. The Scripture relates not there all that S. Peter said but affirmeth vers 40. that he gave testimony to them in many other words And who can tell whether amongst the rest that of his Supremacy might not have been sufficiently intimated to them However it appears by the Text vers 37. that the people addrest themselves first and in particular to S. Peter before all the rest of the Apostles as the prime amongst them and he who first preacht the Gospel to them Prove the English and Dutch Convertites converted by Protestants if you mean those as you must do if your argument have any force to be instructed in the true Faith and then your Instance will have some force prove those of Ethiopia to be Orthodox and Catholick Christians To what purpose produce you instances which are assoon denied as they are proposed Your last touches only particular persons which I have shewed are not obliged to know this expresly to be of the Church the Pope is their true pastor and so
and yet Two of these made themselves subjects to the Roman Emperour as I have now proved You undertook to prove that those three forenamed Nations and other Extra-Imperial Churches were never under the Bishop of Rome and in proof thereof you say in your first reason that all or most of them that is not all at this day are from under his Jurisdiction so that your Argument runs thus None of them were ever under him because all or most of them were never under him Take you this to be Logick You tell me we cannot tell when or how they turned from us and I tell you and have prov'd it that the Goths in Spain are not from under us at this day and that the Suedes and Danes being their off-spring departed not from us till about the year 1520. by occasion of Luther's Heresie This is your first proof and no marvel you put it as your Achilles in the front it is so mighty strong Now let us hear your second Baxter Num. 52.2 These Nations profess it to be their Tradition that the Pope was never their Governour Iohnson Num. 52. You are pleas'd to say so and I am ready to believe you when you prove what you say This is your second proof Baxter Num. 53.3 No History or Authority of the least regard is brought by your own Writers to prove these Churches under your Iurisdiction no not by Baronius himself that is so copious and so skilfull in making much of nothing Iohnson Num. 53. Those Histories and Authors which say All Churches and the whole Church of Christ was and ought to be subject to him prove sufficiently that these Churches were subject to him for these were contained in the number of All. But many Ancient Authors S. Prosper S. Leo c. infra citandi and Fathers say That All Churches and the whole Church was and ought to be subject to him Ergo they say that these Churches were subject to him The Major is evident The Minor shall be amply proved and is sufficiently already in my subsequent Allegations as I shall make good when I come to the defence of them against your Answers and Exceptions Baxter Num. 54. No credible witnesses mention your Acts of Iurisdiction over them or their Acts of subjection which Church History must needs have contained if it had been true that they were your Subjects Iohnson Num. 54. What none that were very strange Is not Genebrard a witness that Pope Eugenius wrote to the Emperour of Ethiopia anno 1437. to send Legates to the Council of Ferrara as the Greek Emperour had decreed to do to whose Letters and Legates David their Emperour returned a respectfull Answer and accordingly sent some of his Church to that Council as appears by the Acts of the Council it self where the Ethiopians are recorded to have been present and that in the year 1524. the said David and Helena his Empress promised Obedience to the Bishop of Rome Pope Clement the 7 th And witnesses not both Platina Nauclerus Volaterranus Chalcondylas Emylius Onuphrius Genebrard and also the Acts of the Florentine Council that the Armenians and Indians acknowledged the Spiritual Soveraignty of the Roman Bishop through the whole world Are these no credible witnesses And as to more Ancient times gives not the Arabick Translation of the first Nicene Council a clear witness as we shall see presently that the Ethiopians were to be under the Jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Alexandria and he under that of Rome as is witnessed and decreed in the Ephesin Council and others Are these no credible witnesses neither Witness not the whole Kingdome of Spain at this day and all the Historians of Sueden Denmark and other Northern Countreys issuing from the Extra-Imperial Goths and never subject to the Roman Empire that from their first Conversions till after the year 1500. they were all subject to the Roman Bishop and are none of these credible witnesses That 's hard But more of this hereafter Baxter Num. 55. Their absence from General Councils and no invitation of them thereunto that was ever proved or is shewed by you is sufficient evidence Non-proof Iohnson Num. 55 I intend to make a particular Tract to prove this and to evidence the falsity of your Allegation from the undeniable testimonies of Classie Authors and from the ancient subscriptions of the Councils themselves Baxter Num. 56. Their Liturgies even the most Ancient bear no footsteps of any subjection to you though your forgeries have corrupted them as I shall here digressively give one instance of The Ethiopick Liturgie because of a Hoc est corpus meum which we also use is urged to prove that they are for the Corporal Presence or Transubstantiation But saith Vsher de Success Eccles In Ethiopicarum Ecclesiarum universali Canone descriptum habebatur Hic panis est corpus meum In Latinâ Translatione contra fidem Ethiopic Exemplarium ut in primâ operis editione confirmat Pontificius ipse Scholiastes expunctum est nomen panis Iohnson Num. 56. No more does the Roman Missal it self nor those of France or Spain witness their subjection to the Roman Bishop Must every Book witness every thing Must those Books which contain nothing but the service of the Church determine points of Controversie no way pertaining to that subject What rule have you for that Yet I finde in their very Liturgie both a plain acknowledgment of St. Peters primacy and of the reverence they bear to the three first general Councils in making a particular Commemoration of the Fathers which were in them in the Cannon of their Mass whereby they profess to receive the Decrees of those three Councils and thereby their subjection to them and name not the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon the fourth general because they follow the Heresie of Eutiches who was condemned in it Your digression I confesse is something large from the Popes Supremacy to Transubstantiation Yet had you grounded it upon a more firm Authority then that of a professed Adversary it would I suppose have had more weight with your Readers What if Usher say so that moves not me a jot though I marvel not a little also why you who stand upon such Niceties in citations should fall into the same defect which you blame in me of putting me to the labour of reading over that whole Book by not citing the place where those words are found But I should have taken no notice of such small omissions had not you given me a President for it At last I found them cap. 2. p. 54. Edit 2. but then I was at a loss again For having examined three different Editions of the Bibliotheca which is all are extant and the Scholia's in the Margin I could finde no such matter nor could I know what other Scholiastes or Edition he meant and should be more satisfied if in your next you please to cite the Edition more exactly and the precise words of
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
justly condemned for not beleeving Gods revelation Now suppose some new Heretick as I have heard of one such lately should beleeve that Christ did rise again from the dead yet dis-believes that he rose the third day and perswades himself that his Resurrection happened some time after the third day Let such an Heretick be asked why he beleeves that Christ rose from death if he tell you because God hath revealed it in the forenamed sentence then ask him what moves him to beleeve that God has revealed it if he tells you because he finds it clearly expressed in this sentence of Scripture which he beleeves to be Gods revealed word demand further why he beleeves it to be his word he will tell you because it is sufficiently propounded to him as such so that he is satisfied that it is the Word of God Then presse him thus But certainly you beleeve not that place of Scripture to be the Word of God for if you did you would beleeve all that it contained in it which you do not for it is as clearly exprest in that sentence That Christ rose again the third day as that he rose at all but you beleeve not that he rose the third day Ergo You beleeve not that Sentence to be the Word of God Ergo You cannot beleeve that Christ rose again for the authority of Gods word in that sentence Ergo You beleeve it not because God has revealed it Ergo You have no divine Faith at all of the mystery of the Resurrection but a meer humane perswasion grounded upon your own particular phansie or reason that it is so Thus you see it is impossible to beleeve any thing which God has revealed for the Authority of Divine revelation unless he who beleeves gives the like assent to every other truth be it of what importance great or small in it self makes nothing to our present difficulty which is as plainly proposed to him to be revealed from God as that which he beleeves To make this yet more facile to the unlearned I will declare it by a Vulgar instance Suppose there were some honourable and worthy Person in a Common-wealth of so great credit that what he saves is beleeved by every one as an undoubted truth Some other of credible Authority tells his friend this Honourable person has told him two things and affirmed both of them to be true of his own knowledge his friend tells him he beleeves the one but will not by any means assent to the other He asks his friend Why beleeve you the first He answers because such a person affirmes it to be true He demands further why beleeve you he said so the friend answers upon your relation Then sayes the other you hold my relation to be a sufficient inductive to make you beleeve he said the first Yes says his friend I do not so replies the relator for if you did you would beleeve he said the second as well as the first for I assure you as much that he said the one as the other Now what can his Friend answer he must either say that he beleeves not the Honourable person said so upon the sole authority of the others relation and consequently that neither of those truths were sufficiently propounded to him by that relator and so could beleeve neither the first not the second contrary to his former acknowledgment and our present supposition or he must deny that he beleeves the second of those relations though the Honourable Personage said both the one and the other and then it is evident he beleeved not the first upon the sole credit of his saying but for som other reason of his own For if he had beleeved the first upon his sole word he must have beleeved the second also seeing he had as much reason to beleeve he said the second as the first Thus I have endeavoured to prove the first part of my Major Now I prove the second Viz. That no man can have true Christian faith who beleeves any thing as revealed from God which is as sufficiently propounded to him to be erroneous or not revealed from God as are the Articles of Faith to be Gods revelations the very same Authority which affirms the one denying the other Let us suppose some rigid Calvinist beleeving the Pope to be that great Antichrist foretold in the Revelation and that the very same authority which as he acknowledges sufficiently propounded to him the Articles of Christian Faith as revealed from God assured him that no such matter as the Popes being that great Antichrist was ever revealed and that it was a manifest error in Faith In this case either that Calvinist must dis-beleeve that propounding Authority and thereby loose his Faith in the former Articles and have no true Faith at all in the first or beleeve it in the second because it is still the very same Authority in both For that very Authority which propounds the Articles of Faith as revealed from God propounds this as not revealed and as contrary to Gods revelation Baxter Num. 89. Yet I have herewith satisfied your demand but shewed you the unreasonableness of it beyond all reasonable contradiction Non-proof 12. Iohnson Num. 89. You are very prone to assert without proof Where have you shewed the unreasonableness of my demand Tell me I pray in your next for you have not yet done it Baxter Num. 90. You next inquire Whether we account Rome and us one Congregation of Christians I answer the Roman Church hath two heads and ours but one and that 's the difference Iohnson Num. 90. Who ever accounted a King and a Viceroy a Bishop and a Vicar a Captain and a Lieutenant a Master and a Steward two Heads respectively to their Territories and Jurisdictions Can you call the head and the neck two heads because both of them with subordination the one to the other are placed above the rest of the body The head is the highest part of an Organical body and whatsoever is subordinate to that is no head absolutely though it be next the head and higher then all the other parts Christ is only the Head of his whole Church comprising the Militant and Triumphant and of this whole Church the Pope is a part but no Head The Holy Councils and Fathers indeed stile him sometimes Head of the visible Militant Church as we shall see hereafter but that is only in regard of the visible government of the Church not absolutly and soveraignly for the only soveraign head of the Militant Church works in it and governs it invisibly by his holy lights and inspirations and particularly him who is its visible Head according to its visible government There is therefore amongst us one only absolute head of the Church the other hath no absolute Independent power over it but is as truly a part of the Church depending as much on the absolute head as any other pâ—â—râ—â— doth There is but one King and Master of the Militant
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
was the Imperial Seat If you believe this Synode the Controversie is at an end if you do not why do you cite it and why pretend you to believe General Councils William Iohnson Num. 213. You have a strange way of shifting off the force of an argument and that quite out of form and that illogical and it is to bring in some preface or other to weaken the authority of those whence this proof is brought before you give a Categorical answer What have we now to do with your proof alleadged many leaves after Part. 2. Is there not time enough to answer it when it comes in treaty Have you forgot that you are a Respondent not an Opponent are you so much inamoured with your own arguments that you must shew them at every turn even when there is no just occasion to mention them one would think it timely enough to boast of them when you and all men see no satisfactory answer given to them Have patience a while and you shall see ere long you authority from Chalcedon hurts us nothing It is partly shewed already and when it shall be treated in its place I hope you 'l have no cause to brag of it Mr. Baxter Num. 214. But what have you from this Council against this Council Why 1. you say Martian wrote to Leo that by the Pope's authority a General Council might be gathered in what City of the Eastern Church he should please Reply 1. Whereas for this you write Act. Concil Chalced. 1. You tell me not what Author Crab Binius Surius Nicolinus or where I must seek it I have perused the Act. 1. in Binius which is 74. pages in folio such tasks your citations set me and find no such thing and therefore take it to be your mistake William Iohnson Num. 214. I am sorry you have taken so much pains and lost your labour but sure I gave you no occasion of it for as I cited in the margin Con. Chalced. Act. 1. so I quoted in the Text Martian's Epistle to Leo when I said Martian wrote to Leo so that you had no more to do then to turn to the first Action of that Council and seek Martian's Epistle to Pope Leo which because it is in the full editions of Councils I thought it needless to name any Now this might have been done in a very short time nor could it be more exactly cited then I cited it giving both the Action and the Epistle extant in that Action Could you not as well have found the Epistle of Martian as of Valentinian and Martian if they be different Epistles Sure the one was as visible and legible as the other I tell you 't is no mistake of mine but your mishap that you found it not Please to look again and you will find those very words which I cite in that very Epistle which I quote Mr. Baxter Num. 215. But in the Preambul Epistle I find that Valentinian and Martian desire Leo's prayers and contrary to your words that they say hoc ipsum nobis propiis literis tua sanctitas manifestet quatenus in omnem Orientem in ipsam Thraciam Illyricum sacrae nostrae literae dirigantur ut ad quendam definitum locum qui nobis placuerit omnes sanctissimi Episcopi debeant convenire It is not qui vobis placuerit but qui nobis William Iohnson Num. 215. Your words from the Epistle of Valentinian and Martian infringe not those mentioned by me for it may well be that Pope Leo remitted the designation of the place to the Emperour as judging it more belonging to them then to himself as a thing wholly temporal though the precise words qui nobis placuerit may be in rigor applied both to the Emperour and Pope My first authority therefore from that Council is not answered at all in this your paper Mr. Baxter Num. 216. But what if you had spoke truth doth it follow that Pope Leo was Christs Vicar-general Governour of the world because that the Soveraign of one Common-wealth did give him leave to chuse the place of a Council Serious things should not be thus jested with William Iohnson Num. 216. I argue not so you proceed fallaciously a secundum quid ad simpliciter The force of my argument consists not in the chusing of the place by the Pope that 's a pure circumstance but the strength of my reason consists in this that the Council was gathered by the Popes authority And to this you say nothing which notwithstanding is an evident proof that the Pope had authority over the whole Church as I shall prove hereafter Serious things should be seriously answered and not be thus jested at by fraudulent fallacies and disguises Now in my words here cited viz. Martian wrote to Leo that by the Bishops authority a General Council might be gathered in what City of the Eastern Church he should please to chuse the word he may as well be related to Martian as to the Pope So that you cannot inforce from the precise words that I say the place was left to the Pope's choice Mr. Baxter Num. 217.2 You say Anatolius the rest of the Eastern Bishops sent to Pope Leo the professions of their Faith by his Order Reply 1. And what then Therefore Pope Leo was both Governour of them and all the Christian world You should not provoke men to laughter about serious things I tell you Can you prove this Consequence Confessions were ordinarily sent in order to communion or to satisfie the offended without respect to superiority Corruption William Iohnson Num. 217. I see y' are merrily disposed y' are so full of jesting and laughing but truly see no other jest here â—â—hen your misreporting my argument and then saying it moves laughter I spake of confessions of Faith exacted from others by command or order of the Pope and this I alleadge to be a proof of the Popes universal supremacy And you answer that Confessions were ordinarily sent in order to Communion or to satisfie the offended without respect to superiority As if I made the bare sending a Confession of Faith to another an argument that he to whom it is sent is superiour to him that sends it Whereas I say in express termes that it is the ordering such a Confession to be sent to him who orders it and not the bare sending without order which argues superiority in him who orders the sending such professions Might I not here deservedly retort your Sarcasmus and tell you you should not provoke men to laughter by such gross perversions as these in serious things But I spare and pitty you Mr. Baxter Num. 218.2 But I see not the proof of your impertinent words Pulcherius Epistle to Leo expresseth that Leo had sent his Confession first to Anatolius to which Anatolius consented By your Rule then Leo was subject to Anatolius Corruption William Iohnson Num. 218. I find no Epistle of Pulcherius to Leo nor so much as any such
in Councils that presided did govern them Mr. Baxter Num. 260. We must have new Grammars and Dictionaries to understand your translations Who ever said before you that praeesse signifies to go before I was alwayes taught and I think you too or you had a Sir Iohn lack-Latin for your Master that esse signifies to be and not to go and so praeesse is to be before or above another and not to go before them A servant may go before his Lady to usher her can it therefore be said praeest Dominae a horse goes before the Cart can you therefore say praeest currui We read Gen. 1. v. 16. that God made the Sun ut praeesset diâ—â—i would you translate that it might go before the day and v. 26. he gave power to man ut praeesset piscibus maris volucribus caeli c. will you translate that he might go before the beasts of the Earth and the birds of the Air and the 1. Tim. 3.5 si quis quis autem Domui suae praeesse nescit if any know not how to go before his family c. But to be more serious I challenge you to give me any one instance where praeesse signifies not to govern others as I translate it either in Scripture or antiquity Indeed Sir you are a worse Critick then you are a Controvertist I say not therefore 't is you who mistake it that to go before must be to govern but that praeesse aliis to govern them which all the world sayes with me Whence also that if Aurelius in quality of Primate in Africa did praeesse conciliis he also governed them as did anciently the Primate of England the Councils in England Mr. Baxter Num. 261. It was but benevolentiam praetulisse that they acknowledged and that the Magistrates not only presided indeed but did the work of Iudges and Governours is expresse in the Acts it s after wrote in that Epistle Haec sunt quae tecum qui spiritu praesens eras complacere tanquam fratribus deliberasti qui pene per tuorum vicariorum sapientiam videbaris à nobis effecimus William Iohnson Num. 261. Will you venture to Criticize again after your late foyle know you not that the Greek language is ful of courteous and friendly expressions it was indeed Leo's good will to send his Legates with their instructions to them but was it therefore no act of power and authority is it not benevolentia Principis to confer new honours upon his well deserving subjects seems it not therefore to be an act of Royal power over them who denies the Magistrates did the work of Judges but still in their kind and within their Sphere to see good order justice and peace observed amongst the Bishops But prove if you can they ever as Judges gave their suffrages and votes together with the Bishops in definitions of faith or framing Ecclesiastical decrees Mr. Baxter Num. 262. And haec à tua sanctitate fuerunt inthoata and yet qui enim locum vestrae sanctitatis obtinent iis ita constitutis vehementer resistere tentaverunt from all which it appeareth that he only is acknowledged to lead the way and to please them as his brethren and to help them by the wisdom of his substitutes yet that the Council would not yeild to their vehement resistance of one particular William Iohnson Num. 262. These consequences I understand as little as I do your translations I beseech you in your next draw something against my assertion from them Mr. Baxter Num. 263. But I have told you oft enough that the Council shall be judge not in a complemental Epistle but in Can. 28. where your Primacy is acknowledged but 1. as a gift of the Fathers 2. And therefore as new 3. For the Cities dignity 4. And it can be of no farther extent then the Empire the givers and this Council being but the members of that one Common-wealth so that all is but a novel Imperial Primacy William Iohnson Num. 263. This is already answered in part and shall be more fully when we come to it Mr. Baxter Num. 264. And for the words of Vincentius Lyrinensis c. 9. what are they to your purpose quantum loci authoritate signifieth no more then we confess viz. that in those times the greatness of Rome and humane ordination thereupon had given them that precedency by which their loci authoritate had the advantage of any other Seat Or else they had never swelled to their impious usurpation William Iohnson Num. 264. I see here you are as skilful in Chronologie as you are in Criticismes know you not that Vincentius speaks of St. Stephen Pope and Martyr who sate in the year 258. till 260. in whose time the temporal greatness of Rome served for nothing but to render its Bishops objects of tyranny and subjects of torments nor was there then any humane ordination at all either from general Councils or Christian Emperours from whom only you derive it for it was many years before them both which notwithstanding this ancient Catholique author sayes that even then in those purest times the Roman Bishop surpassed all other Bishops loci authoritate not in precedency only but in authority of his place Now I hope you will tell us in your next who if not our Saviour gave that Soveraign authority to the Bishop of Rome in those dayes Should one say the Lord Mayor of London surpasses all those of the City in the authority of his place signifies no more then that in publique meetings he is to take place of all the other Aldermen c. without any governing power over them would any rational man think he speaks sense Mr. Baxter Num. 264. I have plainly proved to you in the end of my safe Religion that Vincentius was no Papist William Iohnson Num. 265. I am subject to believe your proofs there wil be much like those which I lately examined in your Key The question is not now of what Religion Vincentius was but whether in this place he gave an unanswerable testimony of the Popes Supremacy I am sure the answer you have given to it is fallacious not distinguishing the time wherein Vincentius writ from the time whereof he writes in that Chapter and it is no less untrue and inconsistent in it self your constituting humane ordination for the Popes authority when there was none Mr. Baxter Num. 266. But you draw an argument from the word sanxit as if you were ignorant that bigger words then that are applyed to them that have no governing power Quantum in se sanxit he charged them that they should not innovate And what is it P. Stephen that is the Law-giver of the Law against unjust innovation did not Cyprian believe that this was a Law of Christ before Stephen medled in that business what Stephen's authority was in those dayes we need no other witnesses then Firmilian Cyprian and a Council of Carthage who slighted the Pope as
much as I do William Iohnson Num. 266. You criticize again Signifies sanxit to charge one I ever yet thought that sanxit signified he made a decree or a Law look into the Dictionaries and you 'l find it so A father charges his child to rise at six a clock in the morning will you say sanxit shew me in any approved ancient author that sanxit is ever applied to any who have not power to command or to give Laws to others in regard of whom they do sancire establish any thing to be observed The question is not now what Stephen did or Cyprian believed but what Vincentius sayes of Stephen he sayes sanxit he sent or fram'd a Law or decree that in matter of baptism of those who had been baptized by heretiques nothing should be innovated but what was delivered by tradition of receiving them into the Church without rebaptizing them should be observed this St. Cyrian questioned and inclin'd too much to the contrary Nor is the question here what Stephens authority was in other particulars or was not but whether Lyrinensis say that he had power and actually did sancire enact and make a Law to oblige all those in Africa in this particular Why divert you the question by so many turnes I leave your answer to judgement You still take all occasions to enervate the Popes authority by alleadging the opposition of those who you know and all the learned with you were in error against it such were those in that Council of Carthage Firmilian and St. Cyprian then whilst they defended the error of rebaptization Whence appears the untruth of what you affirm here that St. Cyprian knew that the ancient custome maintain'd by Pope Stephen of non-rebaptization was to be observed for he with Firmilian and Council of Carthage c. practised and taught the quite contrary Mr. Baxter Num. 267. I pray answer Cyprians testimony and arguments against Popery cited by me in the Disp. 3. of my safe religion William Iohnson Mum. 267. I see you 'l give me work enough if I had nothing else to do then busie my self with the tasks you set me what have I to doe now with the third disputation of your safe religion I believe I shall finde it much of the same temper with your key or whether St. Cyprians arguments are with or against Popery Our question is about Vincentius Lyrinensis his authority answer that in the true sense of the Latin word Sanxit and then wee 'l talk with you about other questions when occasion requires it Mr. Baxter Num. 268. You say you will conclude with the saying of your Priest Philip and Arcadius at Ephesus and 1. you take it for granted that all consented to what they contradicted not but your word is all the proof of the consequence Nothing more common then Senates and Synods to say nothing to many passages in speeches not consented to If no word not consented to in any mans speech must pass without contradiction Senates and Synods would be no wiser societies then Billinsgate affords nor more harmonious then a fair or vulgar rout what confusions would contradictions make amongst them William Iohnson Num. 268. Yet certainly if any one in your Council held at London an 1562 should have said as much of St. Peters and the Popes supremacy as this legate said in the Council of Ephesus he would have had all the new Bishops about his ears and a greater noise against him then was ever yet hard at Billingsgate which would have rung all the Kingdome over You answer to my difficulty is fallacious ex ignoratione elenchi you suppose me to argue thus in an universal proposition whatsoever is said by any particular person and not contradicted in Councils is consented to by the whole Council and upon this false supposition you frame your Reply Now I advance no such universal proposition at all in that place but argue from their silence or non contradiction to their consent out of the particuler instance of the legates delivering a doctrine in your principles absolutely destructive of the authority and jurisdiction of all the Bishops in the Council and therefore were obliged in conscience to contradict it their silence therefore evinces they conceived it was no disadvantage to them but a great advantage both to them and the whole Church and so argues they consented to it All therefore that I affirm is this whatsoever is said tending directly to the destruction of the authorities and priviledges of those to whom it is said as those words of the Legates must have done in your opinion would have been contradicted by them because they were all oblig'd to stand for the priviledges which Christ had given them and to oppose every one who delivered any doctrine contrary to them Seeing therefore not so much as any one in the Council speak the least word against the Legates its evident they esteemed not themselves to be injur'd or concern'd in them and consequently consented to their doctrine as Catholick and Orthodox nor any way abridging any Bishop there of those Episcopal dignities and jurisdictions conferr'd by our Saviours institution upon them Mr. Baxter Num. 269. You turne me to Tom. 2. pag. 327. Act. 1. I began to hope of some expedition here but you tell me not att all what author you use and in Binius which I use the Tomes are not divided into acts but chapters and pag. 327. is long before this Council so that I must believe you or search paper enough for a weeks reading to disprove you this once I will believe you to save me that labour and supposing all rightly cited I reply William Iohnson Num. 269. 'T was your want of books not mine of preciseness in citations for I cite Tome Act and page which created you this labour I had reason to think you were not ignorant that the edition of Paulus quintus ut supra was by actions not chap. And there you may finde it as I have cited it Mr. Baxter Num. 270. Phillip was not the Council you bare witnese to your selves therefore your witnesse is not credible William Iohnson Num. 270. Philip was not the council who sayes he was what then ergo his authority not contradicted by the Council as I have now declared is no good argument the Council consented to his doctrine make that good But suppose it had been Philip or Arcadius alone even speaking out of the Council it had concluded against you you have it seems forgot what you affirmed p. 2. your edit viz. But at least of four hundred years after Christ I never yet saw valid proof of one Papist in all the world that is one who was for the Popes universal monarchy or vice-Christship Now you know the Council of Ephesus was celebrated in the years 430 and 431. That is in a moral consideration of so many years 400 years after Christ and who can doubt that this Philip flourisht within the first 400 this testimony therefore
you write thus confidently upon meer phantasmes and upon your own misconceit of your adversaries words and sure your light must be very dim which cannot distinguish betwixt vice-Christi and vice-Christus but you have involved in the ensuing paragraph another incongruity you say the the title of vice-Christ is not the highest which the Popes claim and to prove it you nominate a higher and that is the title of vice-God whereby one would take you to be an Arian and consequently in your principles to be no Christian then be like you beleive God to be higher then Christ and so beleive him not to be God and you take these two with a third I say the title of vice-Christ was never given by sufficient authority to our Popes neither did they ever accept of it where it is evident I speak of a solemn authoritative attribution and acceptation of such titles usually and publickly exercised by our Popes not of a rethorical expression by some particular persons or a negative silence by some particular Pope in not contradicting or tacitely accepting such expressions and therefore I say not of any Pope as speaking in particuler but of our Popes taking them collectively as assenting to and useing such titles Now you answer by a fallacy proceeding a parte ad totum as if you would argue this man is endued with reason therefore all sensible creatures are indued with reason you discourse thus some particular person may have given and some particular Pope negatively accepted of such rethorical or not legal expressions This will appear by your subsequent proofs Mr. Baxter Num. 398. Were it not more tedious then necessary I would cite you the words vice-Christi vicarius Christi out of Popes and multitudes of writers But alas tha't 's not the highest the vice-God is a title that they have not thought insolent or words of the same signification would you have my proof pardon it then for proving your pen so false and deceitful that 's not my fault William Iohnson Num. 398. The first part of this is only a transition and so requires no answer The second is answered in the fore going paragraph Mr. Baxter Num. 399. Pope Julius the second in his general Council at Laterane saith Cont. Pragmat sanct monitor Binius vol. 4. pag. 560. Though the institutions of sacred Canons holy Fathers and Popes of Rome and their decres be judged immutable as made by divine inspiration yet the Pope of Rome who though of unequal merits holdeth the place of the eternal King and the maker of all things and all laws on earth may abrogate these decres when they are abused Here from the Iudge of Faith it self you hear that the Pope holds the place of the eternal King the maker of all things and laws William Iohnson Num. 399. In this proof is neither vice-Christ nor vice-God if it be shew it in your next Every Prince spiritual or temporal holds the place of the eternal King the maker of all things and lawes and yet they assume not to themselves the title of vice-God Mr. Baxter Num. 400. Pope Sixtus Quartus in passagio sive Bulla contra Turcos sent to Philip Palatine Elector 1481. in Breheri tom 2 pag. 162. vol. 2. saith Vniversos Christianos Principes ac omnes Christi fideles requirere eisque mandare vice Dei cujus locum quamvis immeriti tenemus in terris that is we are constrained to require all Christian Princes and all believers in Christ and to command them in the stead of God whose place on earth we hold though undeserving Here is a vice-God holding his place on earth and commanding all Princes and Christians to warr against the Turks in Gods stead note vide in margine Here is neither c. William Iohnson Num. 400. Here 's is neither vice-Christ nor vice-God but only the Pope commanding in the place or stead of God and you now confound vice-dei and vice-Deus as you did before vice-Christi and vice-Christus Mr. Baxter Num. 400. I know to a particular people Gods Embassadors are said to speak in his name and stead as if God did beseech men by us 2 Cor. 5.19 But this is only as to a narrow and limited Embassage not that they hold Gods place on earth as Rulers over the universal Church William Iohnson Num. 401. This answer of yours overthrows your argument and shews evidently that every lawful governour temporal or spititual is Vice-Dei or Vice-Christi in the name of God or Christ to govern others I give also a limited embassage or Vice-government to our Popes that is no farther then in visible and external government And will you adventure to condemn the ruling of the whole visible Church on earth to be proud and insolent was not every one of the Apostles sent by our Saviour into the whole world and had not every one a part received power to govern the whole Church in the name and place of our Saviour proves not this text of the 2 Cor. 5.19 so much where he names no particular people or nation but affirms that they being Embassadors from Christ God by them exhorted the world which Christ had reconciled and that I conceive extends it self to all Nations in the world Did not the Council of the Apostles Act. 15. govern the whole Church in place of Christ and in Gods stead did not every Apostle in their canonical Epistles give rules and Commands in Gods stead to all Christians were they therefore Vice-Gods Mr. Baxter Num. 402. The same Pope Sixtus 4. saith ibid. pag. 163. Sola superest Romana sedes sedes utique immaculati agni sedes viventis in secula seculorum Haec quippe praedictas Patriarchales genuit Ecclesias quae quasi filiae in ejus gremio residebant in circuitu tanquam famulae in ipsius adsistebant obsequio that is only the Roman Church remaineth the seat of him that liveth for ever my flesh trembleth to write these things this did before beget the foresaid Patriarchal Churches notorious falshood which rested as daughters in her bosome and as servants stood about in her obedience William Iohnson Num. 402. Why should your flesh tremble at these words I am sorry to see you so subject to quaking upon so small occasion Read you not a thousand times over in holy writ that Hierusalem is called the city of God and the city of the living God is not the arke of the tabernacle called the seat of God why then may not the sea of Rome be stiled the seat of God and of his immaculate lamb therefore was Hierusalem called the city of God amongst other reasons because the cheif Priest of Gods Church resided there Mr. Baxter Num. 403. Here you see from the Pope himself that the other Patriarchs are his servants and so to obey him and that Rome begate them all that were before it except Constantinople and neither made Christians nor Patriarch by it and that Rome now is become the seate of the immaculate Lambe
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
mistake me I speak of a Rejection and contempt of a subject as appears by my words and your Reply mentions the independance without Rejection of such as are no subjects now the Rejection or contempt of Superiouâ—â—s Authority in a Subject takes away this dependance of that Superiour and his very working independently of them cannot be done without Rejection and contempt of their Authority so long as he remains a subject I pray minde a little better to what you Reply Reply I further Reply 1. It seems then it is not onely the Pope but every Priest respectively that is an essential member of your Church or to whom each member must be subject necessarily ad esse If so then in every man that by falling out or prejudice doth culpably Reject the Authority of any one Pastour or Priest among a swarm is damned or none of the Church though he believe in the Pope and twenty thousand Priests besides 2. And then have we not cause to pray God to blesse us from the company of your Priests or at least that we may not have too many among a multitude we may be in danger of Rejecting some one and then we are cast out of that Church what if a Gentleman should find some such as Watson or Montaltus described in bed with his wife or a Prince finde a Garnet a Campian or a Parsons in Treason and by such temptation should be so weak as to contemn or reject the Authority of that single Priest while he obeyeth all the rest It is certain that such a man is none of the Catholique Church for that how hard it is in France Italy then to be a Catholick where Priests are so numerous that it 's ten to one but among that croud the Authority of some one may be Rejected 3. But is it all the Priests that we never knew or knew not to be Priests that we must depend on or is it onely those whose Authority is manifested to us by sufficient Evidence doubtless if you will confine our dependanâ—â—e to these onely or else no man could be a Christian. And if so be you know we are never the nearer a Resolution for your Answer till you yet tell us how we must know our Pastours to have Authority indeed William Iohnson Sir you mistake again I speak onely of all Respectively to each subject that is of such as are properly the Pastours of such soules mediate or immediate and you wave the consideration of the word Respectively and thereby would extend my words to all Priests in the whole Church know you not the difference betwixt Pastours and Priests are there not millions of Priests amongst us and a number of Ministers amongst you which are no Pastours that is have no care or cure of souls committed to them my Assertion therefore is that a private christian rejecting the authority of his Parish-Priest Bishop Arch-bishop Metrapolitane Primate Patriarch or supream Bishop who are in some cases at least his Pastour becomes a Schismatick casts himself out of the Church now for all the rest who are not his proper Pastours though they may be Pastours to others his rejecting or contemning them will be a grevious fin of pride but not sufficient alone to cast men out of the Church because he remaines still dependent of his own Pastours and here falls to ground all your ensuing discourse of the multitude of Priests c. Where I will not take notice of an accusation made without proof and relishing too little of Christian charity against some particuler persons humbly beseeching God to forgive you for it and hoping so to temper my expressions that they still run peaceably on within the bank of Charity Mr. Baxter What if they shew me the Bishops orders and I know that many have had forged orders am I bound to believe in this authority William Iohnson As much as you can be assured of any being Pastour of such a Church or Bishop of such a Diocesse or Justice of peace or Earle or Baron by his Majesties Patents or publick orders Reply What if I be utterly ignorant whether he that ordained were himself ordained per intentionem ordinandi how shall I then be sure of his authority that he is ordained Rejoynder As sure as you can be that you were the lawful child of your Father and Mother who could not be truly married without intention of being Husband and Wife one to the other how know you that they had such an intention solve this and you solve your own argument Mr Baxter And how can the People be acquainted with the passages in Election and ordination that are necessary to the knowledge of their authority especially of the Popes and Prelates and what if you tell me your own opinion of the â—â—ufficient meanes by which I must be convicted of the Popes and the Priests authority William Iohnson When it is publickly allowed in the Church witnessed to be performed according to the Canonical prescription by such as were present and derived to the people without contradiction by publick fame Mr Baxter How shall I know that you are not deceived and that these are the sufficient meanes indeed unless a general Council have defined them to be sufficient and if they have If it were not as an Article of Faith you will say I am not bound of necessity to believe their definition William Iohnson The orders prescrihed in the canon law and universally received are sufficient for this without decrees of General Councils for these are no points of faith but of order and discipline whereof a moral certainty and ecclesiastical authority is sufficient Mr. Baxter And what if I have sufficient meanes to know the Authority of a thousand Bishops but am culpably ignorant of some few through my neglect doth it follow that I am out of the Church Is my obedience to each Priest as necessary as my belief of every Article or multyplying Priests doth fill Hell faster If men must be judged by your laws Rejoynder This is grounded in your former mistake and solved above it is not all Priests but all Pastours in relation to their flocks that I speak of Mr. Baxter But is it our allegiance to our Soveraign that is the character of a subject in the common wealth and not our allegiance or duty to every inferiour Magistrate the rejection of one of them may stand with subjection though not with innocency It is not reason to reject a Constable why then should it more be necessary to our Church membership and Salvation But still you make your Church invisible for as no man can know that liveth in the remote parts of the world whether your Popes themselves are truely Popes as being duly qualified and elected now which is that true Pope when you have often more then one at once so you can never know concerning your members whether their dependance on their Pastors be extensively proportionate to the meanes that discovers their Authority