no Hetick ever did so that if this excuse save you from Schismatical separation every Heretick in the world may be excused as well as you Actual separation and refusal of external Communion with all the Churches in the world of their time as your first beginners did was ever esteemed and will ever be esteemed by Orthodox Christians a destruction of true union with the visible Church of Christ under what notion or precission soever it be done because as Dr. Hammâ—â—nd affirms lib. de schismate there can be no sufficient cause given for any such separation Baxter Num. 96. And for your other form the Papacy 1. Neither I nor my Grand-father or great Grand-father did separate from it because they never entertained it Iohnson Num. 96. This is strange doctrine and would help out an Arrian or a Donatist at a dead lift after a hundred or two hundred years continuance of those Heresies no lesse then your self Is not the maintaining of a Separation or Schisme ever termed amongst Christians a Schism or separation even many generations after it begun Were not the succeeding Donatists after some ages as truly esteemed Schismaticks as the first beginners of their Schisme S. Austin called them Schismaticks and said they had left the Church above a hundred years after their first parting from it Baxter Num. 97. Those that did so did but repent of their sin and that 's no sin We still remain separated from you as Papists even as we are separated from such as we are commanded to avoid for impenitency in some corrupting Doctrine or scandalous sin Whether such mens sins or their professed Christianity be most predominant at the heart we know not but till they shew repentance we must avoid them yet admonishing them as brethren and not taking them as men of another Church but as finding them unfit for our Communion Iohnson Num. 97. This is one of the handsomest passages of your whole Reply and shews a fecundity of invention to maintain a Novelty But give me leave to tell you it will not it cannot acquit you of separating from the true â—â—hurch of Christ. Had you indeed deserted the sole Communion of the Papacy as you term it it might have born some shew of defence though no more then a shew but seeing when you separated from that you remained also separate as much from all particular visible Churches in the world as from that there can be neither shew nor shadow of excuse in it For you must either say that all the particular Churches in the world existent immediatly before you Anno 1500. were guilty of impenitency in some corrupting Doctrine or scandalous sin for which you were commanded to avoid them which were both to contradict Tertullian cited by your self page 235. Eâ—â—quid verisimile est c. to prove the contrary and thereby to condemn your selves of manifest Schisme which is nothing but a separation of ones self from the whole Visible Church or you must say there were some particular Churches then existent not guilty of that impenitency in some corrupting Doctrine or scandalous sin to which Churches you adhered when you first separated from the Roman and with which you lived in external Communion and then you are obliged to shew design and nominate which that Church oâ—â— those Churches were which neither you nor any of your professors ever yet did or could doe Nor will it excuse you to alledge you communicate with all Churches as Christian for whilest you profess your selves Christians you cannot affirm that you left all Churches as they are Christian and by this means never yet any Heretick no neither Arrian nor Sabellian could be convinced to have separated from all Churches for never would any of them acknowledge that they left them as Christian seeing they all not only protested but really beleeved themselves to be Christians Now if you will acquit your selves of separation from Christs Church shew in your Rejoynder some visible Churches pre-existent immediatly before you and co-existent with you in your first beginning which did not pray for the dead desire the assistance and Prayers of Saints for themselves use and reverence Images in their Churches which had not Altars Priests Masses reall and proper Sacrifice which held not Bread and Wine to be really changed by vertue of consecration into Christs true Body and Blood before they received them which held not S. Peter and him whom they esteemed his lawfull Successor to be the Supream visible Governour next under Christ of the whole Militant Church as is declared above Or which held not some other points as points of Faith which you deny or held not or denied some points which you hold to be points of Christian faith by reason wherof you had sufficient reason to leave their external Communion if you had reason to forsake that of Rome For till this be shewed all the world will see that as you separated from all other particular Churches as much as from those who adhere to the Church of Rome so had you the very same or equivalent Reasons to separate from them So that in accusing the Church of Rome of impenitency in some corrupting Doctrine and scandalous sin you accuse in like manner all other Christian Churches then existent in the World together with her Baxter Num. 98. But O Sir what manner of dealing have we from you must we be imprisoned rackt harg'd and burned if we will not beleeve that Bread and Wine are not Bread and Wine contrary to our own and all mens senses and if we will not worship them with divine Worship and will not obey the Pope of Rome in all such matters contrary to our Consciences and then must we be chidden for separating from you if we can but a while escape the Strappado and the flames What! will you blame us for not beleeving that all mens senses are deceived and the greater part of Christians and their Traditions against you are false when we read studie and suspect our selves and pray for light and are willing to hear any of your reasons but cannot force our own understandings ti beleeve all such things that you beleeve and meerly because the Pope commands it and when we cannot thus force our own understandings must we be burned or else called Separatists Would you have the Communion of our Ashes or else say We forsake your Communion In your Churches we cannot have leave to come without lying against God and our Consciences and saying We beleeve what our senses contradict and without committing that which our Consciences tell us are most hainous sins We solemnly protest that we would do as you do and say as we say were it not for the love of truth and holiness and for fear of the wrath of God and the flames of Hell but we cannot we dare not rush upon those Errors and sell our souls to please the Pope And must we then either be murthered or taken for uncharitable Will you
visible body without a visible head Num. 5 6 7. His 6. first syllogismes are out of form and thereby are 6 Non-proofs Num. 11. Mr. Baxter 's skill in logical terms Num. 13. Whether Mr. Baxter or any formal Protestant be infallibly certain they love God and their neighbour as they ought to do Num. 15. c. 13. authorities 13. Non-proofs to shew the sufficiency of sole Scripture This question Mr. Baxter resolves affirmatively pag. 197. 1. You first prefix an explication of termes from p 197. to p. 204. which is of no concern to my argument nor of much to your answer I note only obiter these particulars p. 198. you define the universal visible Church thus It is the whole company of believers or true Christians upon earth subject to Iesus Christ their head where you first make believers and true Christians Synonimaes whereas one not baptized may be a believer but no Christian for he is made a Christian by baptism being before a Catechumen and then you assert the visible Church to consist as well of Catechumens as of baptiz'd Christians which is absonous for by baptism they are made Church-members 2. You use the word subject to Christ in your definition which according to you ut supra is equivocal and thereby unfit to be part of a definition and may signifie no more according to you then one of an inferiour rank and order who is not under the government of another so that when you say subject to Christ c. you may express no more by the word subject then that they are inferiour to Christ and that Christ is to take place of all Christians nor can you distinguish your self from this difficultie by alleadging you say they are subject to Christ their head for you speak equivocally in the word head too according to the former principles where you were forc'd to say head signifies no more then a principal member proceeding but not governing the rest In the same page you define Protestants thus Protestants are Christians protesting against or disallowing Poperie which is worse then the former for you cannot be ignorant that the first Origin of the word Protestant proceeded from the Elector of Saxony Landgrave of Hassia and some few other Prinees of their faction protesting against the imperial Edict decreed at Wormes an 1526 the observance whereof was established in the diet at Spire 1529 about the not changing any thing in the Churches practise publickly and commonly used before their times till a general Council was assembled and made decrees about it Now it is evident these Princes protested against Popery and disowned it some years before this and yet were not termed Protestants for that reason Take you your self to be a man of so uncontroulable authority as to make new impositions and give new significations to words as your fancie leades you what Call you the Greeks for some hundred of yeares Protestants because they protested against that which they esteem Popery the Popes supremacy the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son c. I am sure they execrate that appellation as much nay more then they do Popery nor were they ever termed Protestants till you call'd them so Are the new Arians in Polonia Antitrinitarians in Sylesia Socinians in Holland Hassiâ—â— â—â—n Bohemia Anabaptists Familists Montanists Millenaries Quakers in England all Protestants Protest not all these against Poperie If they be Protestants Protestants be they much good do it you with them you 'l say Arians and Antetrinitarians are no Christians but you shall see presently your arguments will prove them as true Christians as you can prove your self to be for an Arian or Antetrinitarian will say as you do here page 199. and 200. We profess our selves to be of no other Church and before men a man is to be taken of that Religion and Church of which he professeth himself to be till he be proved false in that profession pag. 199. You say Protestants in relation to our religion are as a man purged healed freed from Leprosie Plague Consumption c. then sure you make that which you call Popery to be infected with Leprocie Dr. Ferne Dr. Bramhall Plague Consumption as some of your Bretheren have done of late if so then tell me I pray in your next either that you hold the Catholick-Church in those imediately proceeding your beginnings to be spotted with Leprocy infected with the Plague and worn almost to nothing with a mortal Consumption and consequently teaching dangerous errors and therefore no man with a false conscience could remain in her external communion but must have forsaken the communion of all particular Churches in the world which is abominable in the eares of a Christian or you make it free from those foul disasters and then tell me where and which that holy visible Catholick Church was pure and unspotted from such diseases in the year 1500 neer to the time of your first Protestants beginning pag. 200. you say your profession shews you as much to be a true Christian as he doth the profession of a Papist shew him to be a Papist see you not the difference thousands and millions deny you to be true Christians and those not only friends but enemies also of the Pope as all the Greeks are notwithstanding all your profession to be so but not so much as one denies those to be Papists who profess themselves to be so 3. Pag. 200. Parag. Note you speak not say you of internal belief but of external profession but there you 'r out for whatsoever your internal sincerity be or be not your very external profession in the particulars of your belief or rather disbelief against the Roman Church shews your general profession of true christianity to be false so that the one convinces the other of falsity as in your principles an Arrian who as you presently say p. 203. is no Christian though he sincerely profess the belief of Christianity yet because that notwithstanding his particular profession of disbelief of the consubstantiality of the Son of God with his Father shews his general profession to be false 4. Page 201. 202. You renew first your error of making a visible body without a visible head for I have shew'd though Christs person be now visible yet as he is head of the millitant Church he is invisible that is he exercises immediately no visible office or action in governing his Church but all are purely internal spiritual and invisible Secondly you say he is visus seen to the triumphant Church but where finde you in your doctrine any corporal eye amongst the triumphant to see him pag. 202. num 2. you say the true Christians were very few to the Arrians in their prevalencie which you neither prove nor can prove for it is manifestly false I omit many such over-reaches as these that I may come to your proof Non-proof 1. 5. Pag. 204. Your first sylogism is out of form first having never an
Church all the rest even the highest are no more then his Officers with a limited and restrained power that is in order to the sole sole external and visible government of it not having other Bishops under him as his Officers but as Officers of Christ and subject to him as hereafter shall be further declared Nor yet have you given here any direct answer to my Question I demand whether you account Rome and Protestants one Congregation To which you answer the Roman Church hath two heads and the Protestant but one and that 's the difference Now this gives no satisfaction to my demand for the Question inquires not Whether there be any difference betwixt us and you that was out of Question but whether that difference assigned by you be so great that it hinders them from being one Congregation and that you resolve not and thereby leave the difficulty unanswered Baxter Num. 91. They are Christians and so one Church as united in Chrst with us and all other true Christians If any so hold their Papacy and other Errors as effectively and practically to destroy their Christianity those are not Christians and so not of the same Church as we But those that do not so but are so Papists as yet to be truly and practically Christians are and shall be of the same Church with us whether they will or not Iohnson Num. 91. You tell us what would follow if such things as you fancy were done but you tell us not whether it is possible to do them or no. Can a Papist think you remaining still a Papist so hold his Papacy and other pretended errors as to destroy Christianity If he cannot why trifle you away time in printing such Chymerical conditionals if he can tell us how and by what means which you have not done nor indeed can you do it For how is it possible for two persons to be both Papists that is of the same Faith in all things for otherwise they will not be both Papists and the one of them only to be a Christian and the other none but practically and effectually destroying Christianity Baxter Num. 92. And your modest stile makes me hope that you and I are of one Church though you never so much renounce it Iohnson Num. 92. I never saw a man labor so confidently to perswade one out of his Religion upon so weak grounds as you do And truly something might be done in time to make you and me of one Church if I knew what Church you are of For you contradict so loudly the Tenets of all those who pretend either to be the Church or parts of the Church before you that I cannot finde but you are of a Church by your self which no man knows but your self and then I 'me sure you neither are nor can be of one Church with me so long as you remain in the state you are in yet it is the height of my desires that we may both be joyned in one Catholick Church which I shall most earnestly and unfainedly beg of God still hoping that your zeal and ardency in what you profess may as it did S. Paul bring you to see and imbrace his true Church Baxter Num. 93. As Papal we are not of your Church that 's a new Church-form Iohnson Num. 93. Prove it is new you know well enough we hold it to be ancient Baxter Num. 94. But as Christian we are and will be of it even when you are condemning torturing and burning us if such persecution can stand with your Christianity Iohnson Num. 94. I have shewed you are not as Christian speaking univocally of one Church with us For true Christianity requires true faith which I cannot beleeve you have nor have you proved it as shall appear hereafter I am unwilling to revive the memory of those severities you mention and you also might have pleased to have buried them in Oblivion for in objecting them to us you refresh the remembrance of yours towards us nor yet see I why such severities can better stand with your Christianity then with ours CHAP. VII ARGUMENT Num. 95. Roman Catholicks and Protestants cannot be of one and the same Church num 96 Length of time or continuance excuses not the succeeding Hereticks or Schismaticks from the crimes of their first beginners num 97. When Protestants deserted external Communion with Rome they deserted together with it the external Communion of all other particular visible Churches and that upon the same grounds n. 98. Mr. Baxters exclamation against Rome is injurious to all other ancient particular Churches existent immediatly before the first beginners of Protestancy n. 99. All the Kingdoms in the world not one visible but only invisible Kingdome under Gods invisible providence and power which governs them and in that regard an unfit instance to prove different particular Churches without one visible governour of them all to be one visible Church num 100. His opinion of actual Hereticks and Schismaticks properly so called contrary to all Authors ours or his own and to Christianity it self num 101. How Alphonsus à Castro held them to be members of the Church num 102. Every Heretick properly so called denies some essentials of Christianity num 103. Pelagians undoubted and manifest Hereticks and Schismaticks The Catholick Church so perfectly one that it s not capable to be divided Baxter Num. 95. But you ask Why did you then separate your selves and remain still separate from the Communion of the Roman Church Answ. 1. We never separated from you as you are Christians we still remain of that Church as Christian and we know or will know no other form because that Scripture and Primitive Churches knew no other Either you have by Popery separated from the Church as Christian or not If you have it s you that are the damnable Separatists If you have not then we are not separated from you in respect of the form of the Christian Church Iohnson Num. 95. You separated as much from us as did either Novatians or Pelagians or Donatists or Acacians or Luciferians or Nestorians Eutychians c. did from the Catholick Church of their respective times which is enough for us to deny you to be of one Church with us or to be any true parts of the Catholick Church If it be not so shew what you can say for your selves which any of those Hereticks might not as well have alledged in their own defence for neither did any of them separate from the Church as it was Christian nor did either the Pelagians Donatists Acacians Luciferians Novatians dis-beleeve any essential point of Christian faith if Protestants dis-beleeve no essential what you say of not separating from us as we are Christians is a precision never used by Catholick or Heretick in ancient times nor indeed did ever any Heretick who esteemed himself a Christian affirm he separated from the Church as it was Christian for that had been to deny himself to be a Christian which
is one visible Kingdome yet to make it no more one visibly then the School of christ-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
not Zygomalas suppose that the Protestants and they are two Churches that they were not then united into one saies he not that he hopes for such a Future Unity Gaudium in coelo supra terram erit si coibit in unitatem utraque Ecclesia c. Ergo that unity was not then actually made and that unity depended on the correction of those differences in Faith which were betwixt them which whilst they remained obstructed it now this is wholly destructive of your Novelty nay this Agreement and becoming one and the same Church as Synonimaes coibit in unitatem utraque Ecclesia et Idem sentiemus both Churches the Greeks and Lutherans shall join in unitie and we shall hold that is believe the same thing evinces that their disagreement was inconsistent with their being one Church nay besides Faith he requires a future charity and concord which argues it was then wanting Et simul vivemus in omni concordia pace secundum Deum in sincerae charitatis vinculo and sayes he we shall live together in all concord peace in God and in the bond of sincere Charity so that this very Text which you quote to prove the unity betwixt Greeks and Lutherans proves the quite contrary so choice are you in your Citations Mr. Baxter Num. 112. But as it is not the Patriarch that is the whole Greek Church so it is not their Errours in some lesser or tolerable points that prove us of two Churches or Religions William Iohnson Num. 112. Who saies he is the whole Church yet sure when the Patriarch writes concernings his own Jurisdiction he is supposed to understand the extent of it and when those of his Church shew no kind of contradiction against it neither when he writ this nor ever since and thereby give a tacite consent to it what he writes is to be esteemed as the tenet of his Church I am much joyed to hear you terme the differences in Faith betwixt you and the Grecians some lesser or tolerable points for they being in substance the very same with those betwixt you and us as the Authors confesse cited by me pag. 46. of your Edition you must consequently acknowledge the differences betwixt you and us to be some lesser or tolerable points but give me leave then to tell you that as you judge those points tolerable so must you also judge your separation from the external communion of the Greek and Roman Church intolerable for if those parts in difference be tolerable they were to have been tolerated by you without proceeding to an open and scandalous Schisme by reason of them nor will it excuse you to alledge you were forc't to separate in detestation of those things which you judged Errours otherwise you would have compell'd us by punishments to have assented to them for you were rather to have suffered patiently that force though it had been to death it self then to have made so notorious a Schisme for tolerable Errours or fear of persecution I have already shewed that every Errour in Faith against a divine truth sufficiently proposed separates the erring partie from the true visible Church of Christ. Mr. Baxter Num. 113. Whereas you say it is against all antiquity and Christianity to admit condemned Hereticks into the Church I Reply 1. I hate their condemnation rather then reverence it that even being non Judices dare condemn whole Nations without hearing one man of them speak for himself or hearing one witnesse that ever heard them defend Heresie and this merely because some few Bishops have in the dayes of all maintained Heresie and perhaps some may doe so still or rather differ from you in words while you misunderstand each other I see you have a sharp tooth against Bishops why name you them onely as maintainers of Heresies how many Bishops found you broaching or spreading heresie in the 2. first hundred yeares was either Simon Magus or Nicolaus or Cerinthus or Menander or Valentinian or Manes or Montanus Bishops and in the third Age was there not Arius and Eutyches neither of them Bishops broachers of two most pernicious Heresies as well as Nestorius and Dioscorus who were Bishops William Iohnson Num. 113. You mistake the manner of the Churches condemnation of Hereticks it is neither personal nor National save in some notorious Arch-Hereticks who either by their words or writings evidently professe or teach Heresie but general or abstractive viz. whosoever holds such or such Errours let him be accursed or we excommunicate all such as hold them c. where there can be no wrong done to any for those who de facto held them not are not cast out of the Church now when this sentence comes to Execution those who either acknowledge themselves to hold those Heresies or communicate with them who professe it are esteemed as Hereticks because they join with an heretical party against the Church and in case they profess to disbelieve their heresie and yet live in communion with them and subjection to them they become open Schismaticks separating themselves from the whole visible Church by communicating with Hereticks Mr. Baxter Num. 114. Did I find such Errours with them as with you yet first I durst charge them on no one man that I had not reason to hold guilty of them I dare not accuse whole Nations of your Errours but of all these things and of sundry words which you cite I have spoken already in two books and in the latter fully proved that you differ in many points of Faith and greater things then you call Heresies in others among your selves even your Pope's Saints and Councils and yet neither part is judged by you to be out of the Church see my Key pag. 124 125 127 128 129. and pag. 52. ad 62. William Iohnson Num. 114. You or any Christian may safely judge those Hereticks who publickly communicate and side with those who professe and teach open heresie for the very siding with them Argues a consent to their Doctrine and is a sufficient profession of it unlesse they professe publickly a difference from their heresie your recrimination is unseasonable the question is not for the present wherein or how We differ but whether You be guiltie of heresie or no our innocencie or guiltiness clears not you clear your Selves first and then you will have gained credit to accuse us 'till that be done you do nothing but divert the Question â—â—y removing it from your selves to us In your Key pag. 128. you trifle in using the words Material point Equivocally and proceeding à specie ad genus fallociously Mr. Turberville speaks of material Points against your 39. Articles saying for if they differ from them in any material point c. and you make him speak of all kinds of material points in Religion whether contrary to any Article or Ecclesiastical decree of Faith or no. Mr. Baxter Num. 115. When you say so much to prove the Greeks guiltie of manifest heresy
and of him that liveth for ever William Iohnson Num. 403. But see you not the text speakes of Patâ—â—iarchal Seas and how can you say there were any Patriarchal Seas before Rome was one seeing you conceit they were all constituted together in the Council of Nice I have shewed that all obedience argues not servitude or being the servants of those wee obey Children obey their Parents and Scholars their Masters and people their pastors yet are they not his servants And see you not that he sayes they are only tanquam famulae in some short attenders and joynes to it quasi filiae that they are as children nor speaks he of the Patriarchs wherein many Millions who were quasi filiae and tanquam famulae as daughters and attendants of the Roman sea and the whole custom and constitution of those Patriarchates was to serve as mediums and instruments that the whole Church might more facily be governed by the sea Apostolick as we shall see hereafter Mr. Baxter Num. 404. Truely the reading of your own historians and the Popes Bulls c. have more perswaded me that the Pope is Anti-Christ then the Apocalips hath done because I distrusted my understanding of it William Iohnson Num. 404. Truely Sir if I may be plain with you without offence by what you collect from these Historians Popes c you had reason to mistrust your understanding these as well as the Apocalips c. which I leave to judgement Mr. Baxter Num. 405. Benedictus de Benedictis wrote a book against Dr. Whitaker to prove its as false that the Pope is Anti-Christ as that Chirst is Anti-Christ and dedicated it to Pope Paul 5. with this inscription Paul 5. the Vice-God printed at Bononia 1608. William Iohnson Num. 405. Suppose that were so is Benedictus de Benedictis a sufficient authority being but a single Author or Paul 5. the generality of Popes you know I speak in such cases and not of particulars Mr. Baxter Num. 406. Caraffas Theses printed at Naples 1609. had the same inscription Paulo 5. Vice Deo to Paul 5. Vice-God William Iohnson Num. 406. The like is of Caraffa Mr. Baxter Num. 407. Alcazar in Apocal. in carmine ad Johannem Apostolum saith of the same Pope Paul 5. Quem numinis instar vera colit pietas whom as a God true Piety adores William Iohnson Num. 407. Nor is Alcazar more then one private person who when he plaies the Poet uses Licentia Poetica qui dlibet audendi CHAP. X. NUm 408. What Marcellus said to Iulius 2. Num. 410. Mr. Baxter makes the gloss upon the Canon Law to be the Canon Law he misscites the words of the gloss whether the Glosser cal the Pope God or the Printer err'd in inserting the word Deum into some late impression Num. 412. Antonius Puccius gives no more to the Pope then Pulcheria and the Council of Chalcedon gave to the Emperour Martian Num. 413. Begnius mistaken and mistranslated Stephanus Petracensis miscited St. Bernard condemned St. Antonine miscalled by Mr. Baxter Num. 414. the Oecumenical power of the four first Councils vindicated by authority and reason Mr. Baxter Num. 408. Christopher Marcellus in his Oration before Pope Julius 2. in the approved Council at Latarane Sess. 4. and you take not contradicting to be consenting and verily to such blasphemy in a Council so it is saith thus Quum tantae reipublicae unicus atque supremus princeps fueris institutus beatissime Pontifex cui summa data potestas ad divinum injunctum imperiuÌ„ c. ante sub tuo imperio unus Princeps qui summam in terris habeat potestatem But these are small things Teque omnis aevi omnium seculorum omnium gentium principem caput appellant But yet the Prince and head of all ages and Nations is too low cura Pater beatissime ut sponsae tuae forma decorque redeat But yet to make the Church his Spouse is nothing cura denique ut salutem quam dedisti nobis ut vitam spiritum non amittamus Tu enim Pastor tu medicus tu gubernator tu cultor tu denique alter Deus in terris That is see that we lost not the health that thou hast given us and the life and spirit For thou art the Pastor the Physition c. To conclude thou art another God on earth William Iohnson Num. 408. Marcellus is indeed of more concern because he speaks in a Council but the world may see he play'd the Orator his first expressions are no way extravagant but true and proper that of divinum imperium is so aâ—â—tered by you c that it seems a riddle you interlace it thus ad divinum imperium c. ante sub tuo imperio unus princeps qui summam in terris habeat potestatem to the divine command injoyn'd c. and before under thy command c. and one prince which hath the highest power in earth riddle me riddle me what 's this Now that particle ad divinum injunctum imperium is not spoken of the Popes power but of Gods divine command obliging Iulius to take care of those who were committed to him for he â—â—ayes thus cum igitur tantae-reipublicae unicus atque supremus princeps fueris institutus cui summa data potestas ad divinum injunctum imperium tuum est quemadmodum oppressum armis erexisti amplificasti ita moribus depravatam rulesiam reformare corrigere illustrare That of stiling the Church his Spouse had he meant it of the whole Church militant and triumphantâ—â— had been very extravagant and directly false and scandalous but applying it only to the visible Church on earth which is the more ignoble part of Christs Church I see not why that may not be termed according to the sole external government of it his Spouse as much as particular Bishopricks or parts of the visible Church are usually stiled the Spouses of their respective Bishops and they said to be espoused to those respective Churches His exhorting Iulius to preserve the health life and spirit which he had given them is easily explicated that he both gave them and preserved them by a careful direction teaching an external governing the visible Church His last stiling him alter Deus in terris another God upon earth is that which offends you most but had you considered that Moses in holy Scripture is made by God himself the God of Pharaoh that God titles those who are in lawful authority Gods ego dixi dij estis I have said you are Gods and that St. Paul affirms that all Gods true servants and children are participes divinae naturae participant of the divine nature which are as high and much higher expressions then Marcellus gives here to Iulius you would not I suppose so confidently have impeached him of blasphemy nor indeed could unless you make both St. Paul and the holy Scriptures nay and God himself to pronounce blasphemies in applying the like titles to
spread through the world are the Catholick Church why then cite you words quite overthrowing that position out of St. Augustine pag. 230. 24. Quicunque de ipso capite ab scripturis sanctio dissentiunt etiamsi in omnibus locis inveniantur in quibus ecclesia designata est non sunt in ecclesia whosoever discents from the holy Scriptures concerning the head our Saviour though they be found in all places in which the Church is design'd yet are they not in this Catholick Church or intend you to evince that all those who profess the Essentials of Christianity as you understand them though they separate from the external communion of all visible Churches existent when they first begun communicate only amongst themselves in some particular countries are parts of the Church why then cite you the words immediately following Et rursus quicunque de ipso capite scripturis fanctis consentiunt unitati ecclesiae non communicant or as after ab ejus corpore quod est ecclesia ita dissentiunt ut eorum communio non sit cum toto quacunque diffunditur sed in aliqua parte separata inveniatur manifestum est eos non esse in ecclesia Catholica And againe whosoever consents with the holy Scripture concerning the head Christ communicate not with the unity of the Church as after but so dissent from his body which is the Church that their communion be found in some separate part it is manifest they are not in the Catholick Church Now seeing St. Augustine intends by this argument to convince the Donatists not being parts of the Catholick Church because they departed from the external communion of all particular Churches existing immediately before in their time yet it is manifest that in your opinion they held all the essentials of Christian Faith and thereby communicated with those Churches as they were Christians as much as you do you separate from external communion as much as they did it is evident that this very text cited by your self against us unanswerably confutes the substance of your whole book against me overthrowes the foundation of your key and suppresses that grand noveltie of Schismaticks being parts of the true Church O you are a stout disputer are you not 25. Pag. 231. Optatus is cited to as little purpose as was St. Augustine why distinguish you obedience and subjection from charity is not it a preserving of charity in the Church to yield subjection to Superiours is not that a part of Christian charity being a performance of a command touching the love to our neighbour otherwise you must argue thus Optatus sayes the schismatiques were charitatis desertores non subjectionis desertores desertors of charity not desertors of subjection ergo he makes no spiritual Superiours or Pastors at all essential parts of the Catholique Church nor talks of unity caused by subjection to them how like you this consequence If you admit it every old wife at Kidderminster might have tanted you and told you there needs no subjection to you from me more then to me from you so long as I am in charity with you and all men I have no need of subjection to any and therefore as you acknowledge in your answer to Iohnson pag. 231. Optatus calls the schismatiques desertors of charity not of subjection O this is a welcom doctrine to the vulgar and a precious seed of rebellion for if no subjection but a charity as amongst equals be required to the Essence of the Church why should it be essential to a common-wealth O how sweet will this sound in the ear of a Leveller But why say you he accounts not the Apostolick Roman See to be an essential part of the Catholique Church sayes he not expresly in the words now cited by me that unity is to be preserv'd through the whole Church by means of the singular Seat unica sedes of St. Peter at Rome and is not both unity and that which is necessary to preserve it essential to the Church sayes not Optatus presently after those words that this unica sedes the one only See of Rome is Dos Ecclesiae one of the Dowries or properties of the Church and are not they essential 26. Pag. 231. It is cleer Optatus means by extra septem Ecclesias out of the seven Churches no more then out of their communion as they were parts of the Catholique Church as appears from the next words you cite dissentio schisma tibi displicuit concordasti cum fratri tuo cum una Ecclesia quae est in toto orbe terrarum communicasti septem Ecclesiis memoriis Apostolorum amplexus es unitatem Dissention and Schism hath displeased thee thou hast agreed with thy brother and with one Church which is in the whole earth thou hast communicated with the seven Churches and the memories of the Apostles thou hast imbraced unity Thus you save me the labour of salving your arguments by salving them your self 27. But why cite you Optatus his words lib. 6. p. 93. in your 232. page I know not if it be not to confute and confound your grand novelty of Schismaticks properly so called being parts of Christs Church sayes he not after his description of the Catholique Church aquâ vos concisos esse from which you are cut off Why have you not added this sentence to leave your Reader doubtful whether Optatus say these Schismaticks were or were not cut off from the Church nothing surer then that but it 's most certain Optatus was in the affirmative as the full sentence declares Optat. lib. 6. Itra Parm. p. 93. which quite ruines that your novelty Thus you save me again the labour of confuting your novelties by confuting them your self Are you not a strong Disputant let the world judge that 28. Pag. 232. you say first Tertullian thought it a tiresome way to dispute with the Hereticks of and before his time out of Scripture that they were to be convinc'd by prescription and what I pray think you of the matter are you of Tertullians mind why then have you press'd so much the sufficiency of sole Scripture as the rule by which you intend to dispute against us may not we reply against you as Tertullian did against those that it is a tiresome thing to dispute with Hereticks out of Scripture and that you are to be convinc'd by prescription But these Heretick say you err'd in fundamentals tell us I pray precisely once for all which are those how shall we know otherwise whether they err'd in sole fundamentals or no Please also to tell me where Tertullian restrains his rules of prescription to such only as erre in those which you would put in the number if you were able to sum it up of fundamentals what fundamental point even in your account deny'd the Chilliasts or Millenaries the Nicolaitans the Sacramentaries mention'd by St. Ignatius as he is cited by Theod. Dial. 3. deny they any article
we have seen nor will the communion of one heretick or schismatick with another serve the turn as St. Aug. cited by your self delivers l. de unitate Eccles. c. 4. That such as communicate with a part and not with the whole wheresoever it is diffused it is manifest they are not in the Catholick Church Now suppose one singular person turn a professed heretick or schismatick and leaves the external communion of the whole Church he can have no external communion at all if then he seduce to his party another that other can have no communion but with the first who had no communion with the Church so that their communion is without the Church and so will ever be though they increase to thousands and millions This truth therefore thus established my first argument returns upon you shew me said I any Congregation of Christians perpetually visible besides that which acknowledges the Popes supremacy c. This you have not been able to do but by producing known and notorious heretical congregations those I have proved not to be either one and the same congregation amongst themselves which I demanded nor one with the Catholick visible Church because no profess'd hereticks properly so call'd can be true members of the true Church And particularly you fail in this second part for till you prove Protestants to be no hereticks you can never evince them to be true parts of Christs visible Church Now therefore it remains that you begin again and find out some new solution for my argument for as yet you have brought nothing satisfactory to salve it but I hope God will give you the grace to desist from such imposible enterprises strike you with a sweet stroak of mercy as he did St. Paul and change you into a child of his holy Church which are the truest hearty desires of Your assured best wishing friend William Iohnson An Explication of The Catholick Church The chief terms used in this Controversie disputed betwixt Mr. Baxter and William Iohnson William Iohnson THe Catholick Church of Christ is all those visible Assemblies Congregations or Communities of Christians who live in unity of true faith and external Communion with one another and in dependance of their lawfull Pastours Mr. Baxter Of your definition of the Catholick Church Qu. 2. Whether you exclude not all those converted among Infidels that never had external Cemmunion nor were members of any particular visible Church of which you make the Catholick to be constituted William Iohnson It is sufficient that such be subject to the supream Pastours in voto or quantum in se est resolved to be of that particular Church actually which shall or may be designed for them by that Pastour to be included in my Definition Mr. Baxter You see then that your Definitions signifie nothing no man knows your meaning by them William Iohnson You shall presently see that your Exceptions signifie lesse then nothing Mr. Baxter First you make the Catholick Church to consist onely of visible Assemblies and after you allow such to be members of the Church that are no visible Assemblies William Iohnson I make those converted Infidells visible Assemblies as my Definition speaks though not actuall members of any particular visible Church as your Exception speaks for though every particular visible Church be an Assembly of Christians yet every Assembly of Christians is not a particular visible Church I do not therefore allow such to be of the Church who are no visible Assemblies as you misconceive me Mr. Baxter 3. You now mention subjection to the supream Pastour as sufficient which in your discription or Definition you did not William Iohnson Am I obliged to mention all things in my Definitions which I express after in answering your Exceptions prove that Mr. Baxter 3. If to be onely in voto resolved to be of a particular Church will serve then inexistence is not necessary to be onely in voto of the Catholick Church proves no man a member of the Catholick Church but proves the contrary because it is Terminus Diminuens seeing then by your own confession inexistence in a particular Church is not of necessity to inexistence in the Catholick Church why do you not onely mention it in your Definition but confine that Church to such William Iohnson I make them Actually inexsistent in some visible Assembly according to my Definition and in voto onely in a particular Church which is your Exception now every particular family or neighbourhood nay of two or three gathered together in prayer is an actual Assembly of Christians though it be no actual particular Church for according to S. Hierom Ecclesia est plebs unita Episcopo now this part of my Definition so much here opposed by you is in effect the same with the first part of the Definition of the visible Church delivered in your 39. Articles Article 19. for that sayes the visible Church of Christians is a Congregation of faithfull men c. And my Definition sayes the Catholick Church is all those Assemblies Congregations or Communities of Christians who live in unity of faith c. which unity makes them one intire and universal congregation of the faithfull In this therefore consists your fallacy that you esteem none to be actually members of the universal Church unlesse they be actual members of some particular Church which I denie and affirm that one may be actually a member of the universal Church though he be not actually but in voto a member of any particular Church for to be actually of the universal requires no more necessarily then to be an actual part of some Assembly though it be no particular Church Reply Will you say you meant in voto who then can understand you when you say they must be of visible Assemblies and mean they need not be of any but onely to wish desire or purpose it Rejoynder This is answered already above it is not necessary all should be actual members of any particular Church it is sufficient if they be actually of some Assembly or Congregation of Christians though it be no particular Church Mr. Baxter But yet you say nothing to my ease in its latitude many a one may be converted to Christ by a solitary Preacher or by two or three that never tell him that there is any supream pastour in the world how then can he be subject to that supposed Pastour that never heard of him The English and Dutch convert many Indians to the faith of Christ that never heard of a supream Pastour William Iohnson Whether he be named or no yet the Church must be supposed to be sufficiently explicated to those Convertists and that must be represented as having some prudent manner of Government so that they must be instructed to render obedience to such Governours as Christ instituted in his Church which seeing all of my profession hold to be by a chief Pastour and I have here undertaken to prove it is so by subjecting
themselves to Christs manner of Government they virtually subject themselves to a chief Pastour Mr. Baxter If it be necessary that a particular Church must be assigned for such members by the supream Pastours then they are yet little the better that never have any Assignation from him as few have Rejoynder Who sayes it is necessary ad esse to be a part of the Catholick Church that all Assemblies of Christians should be actual members of some particular visible Church prove I say so from my words nor is it necessary the chief Pastour should assign any it suffices that those Christians be resolved to conform when it is assigned Mr. Baxter Qu. 2. What is that faith in unity where all members of the Catholick Church do live Is it the belief of all that God hath revealed to be believed or of part and what part William Iohnson Answ. Of all either explicitely or implicitely Mr. Baxter Your second Answer further proves that your Definitions signifie just nothing they must live in the unity of the faith that is either with faith or without it with a belief of what God hath revealed to be be believed or without it for to believe any point implicitly in your ordinary sense is not to believe it but onely to believe one of the premises whence the conclusion must be inferr'd But why do you not tell me what you mean by an implicite faith faith is called implicite in several senses 1. When several truths are actually understood and believed in confuso or in grosse in some one proposition which containeth the substance of them all but not with accurate distinct conceptions nor such as are ripe for any fit expression This indistinct immature imperfect kind of apprehension may be called implicite 2. When a general proposition is believed as the matter of our faith but the particulars are not understood or not believed As to believe that omne Animal vivit not knowing whether you be Animal or Cadaver or to believe all that is in Scripture is the word of God and true but not to know what is in the Scripture 3. What is onely the formal object of faith that is believed without understanding the Material object The first sort of these I confess is actual though indistinct but I suppose you mean not this 1. Because it is not the ordinary sense of your party 2. Because else you damn either all the world or most of your own professed party at least as no members of the Church for few or none have an actual understanding and belief of all that God ever revealed to them because all men or most at least have been sinfully negligent in searching after and receiving truth and so are sinfully ignorant no man knoweth all that God hath revealed or that he ought to know 3. Because by this rule it is impossible for you or any man to know who is indeed a member of your Church for you cannot know mens confused knowledge or know that it extendeth to all revealed for if you speak of all revealed in general or in Scripture you still damn all or most in your own sense for none as I said understand it all to a word but if you speak of all which that particular man hath had sufficient means to know It is then impossible for you to make a judgement of any mans faith by this for you can never discern all the means internal or external that ever he had much less can you discern whether his faith be commensurate to the truth so farre revealed so that by this course you make your Church invisible I pray tell me how you can avoid it William Iohnson Your discourse about implicite faith seems strange I require a proof from you that in your ordinary sense it is no belief at all 2. That it is onely to believe one of the premises whence the conclusion must be inferr'd 3. Tell me why you require that I should have declared to you what I meant by implicite faith when you suppose that I speak in the ordinary sense of our schoolmen and I could not but suppose you understood their doctrine 4. Why do you put the belief of the formal object without the belief of the material object of faith a third member of implicite belief or who did ever so before you 5. Why do you confound the two first members of your Distinction both of them being knowledge or belief in confuso your first is when several truths are actually understood and believed in confuso or in gross in some one proposition which containeth the substance of them all c. thus you Your second is to believe that omne animal vivit not knowing whether you be Animal or Cadaver or to believe that all that is in Scripture is the word of God and true but not to know what is in the Scripture thus you Now tell me does not this proposition omne Animal vivit contain the substance of these truths Equus vivit Leo vivit Aquila vivit c. so that by believing or knowing this proposition distinctly omne Animal vivit I believe or know in confuso those other propositions contained as species under their genus in it and the like is of your second proposition for believing all that is in Scripture is the word of God and true expresly I believe in confuso all that is in Genesis Exodus Leviticus c. to be the word of God and true though I neither believe or know expresly and distinctly all that is contained in those books can you deny this If you proceed in Philosophical principles is not the express knowledge of the genus a confused knowledge of species under it and an express knowledge of the species a confused knowledge of the individua under it and a knowledge or belief when they are known or believed in confuso Thus you give distinctions without differences and examples to illustrate your distinctions which quite destroy them 6. Why put you a contradictory proposition you say thus not knowing whether you that is such a man be Animal or Cadaver now this is a plain implicancy in adjecto for it is as impossible that you or any man should be a Cadaver as that a man should be a barn door the one being as truely disparate from a true man as the other and disparates you know cannot predicate the one of the other every one therefore knows who knows what a man is that no man is or can be Cadaver a dead caâ—â—kass so that no man can be ignorant whether you be Animal or Cadaver A little more heed to what you write would do well when you dispute 7. Why say you you suppose I mean nor your first manner of implicite faith when I and all who understand themselves must either mean that or nothing The object of implicite faith delivered in the Schools being nothing else save particular truths contained in substance under some general proposition so that though they be
NOVELTY REPREST In a Reply to M r. BAXTER'S Answer to WILLIAM JOHNSON WHEREIN The oecumenical Power of the four first General Councils is Vindicated the Authority of Bishops asserted the compleat Hierarcy of Church Government established his novel succession evacuated and professed Hereticks demonstrated to be no true parts of the visible Church of Christ. By WILLIAM JOHNSON Prophanas vocum i. e. dogmatum novitates devita quas recipere atque sectari numquam Catholicorum semper vero Haereticorum fuit Lirinensis contra Haereses c. 23 24. c. Retenta est Antiquitas explosa Novitas Idem c. 10. PARIS Printed for E. C. Anno 1661. The Preface MEdusa sister to Euryale and Sthemione and daughter of a sea-monster ensnared by her beautie and golden tresses Neptune god of the Ocean and with him polluted the Temple of Minerva and had for issue Pegasus the winged Courser Minerva that learned and Virgin Goddess in revenge of so foul an injury metamorphos'd each hair of Medusaes head into a serpent and laid so heavy a Curse upon her that every one whose eyes were so curious as fixedly to behold her chang'd into stones whereupon the Beldam Medusa took her flight into the Dorcades islands in the Aethiopick sea and there raging like a hellish furie made her self Queen and Generaless of a femal armie her two sisters being the chief Commanders under her wasting and depopulating all where they march'd with unheard of cruelty The noble and valiant Captain Perseus covering his breast with a brazen shield of Minerva marched undauntedly towards this hideous Monster and discovering by the reflexion she made in the brightness of his shield while shee and her brood of serpents were all asleep at one blow cut off her head and those of the serpents with it and took it upon the point of his fauchion with him into Africa but such was the venome and pestilence of that inchaunted head that every drop of bloud which fell from it turn'd into a serpent whereby the whole coast of Africa was fill'd with snakes and vipers This though a fiction seems to be a fit Embleme of Heresie S. Greg. in Iob. lib. 35. cap. 34. The sea whale or Monster mother of Medusa by reason of her immense bulk and strength of body toweing her self over all other creatures in the Ocean is Pride and Ambition styled by Saint Austin the mother of hereticks Lib. 2. c. 3. contra lit Parmen Medusa seducing the heart of inconstant Neptune with her youth and beauty is a luxuriant wit priding it self in the invention of novelties in Religion The violation of Minervaes Temple the staining of the holy Church with sordid tenets and practices Pegasus the high flying thoughts of heretical spirits Those snakes and serpents crawling from Medusaes head and twisting themselves about her neck gnawing and consuming not onely one another but the head which bore them are wicked Heresies hatch'd in the brain and nourish'd in the head of Arch-Hereticks condemning and thwarting one another by perpetual contrarieties and still gnawing upon the Conscience which brought them forth The Petrifying Metamorphosis wrought upon the curious spectators of Medusa is the obduratenesse of those hearts who open too broad an eye to the speculations of Hereticks The wasting and destroying what ever oppos'd that femal army the horrible rebellions civil warres destractions desolations caus'd by Hereticks both in ancient and in our present ages The undaunted Perseus the supreme Bishop of the Catholick Church guarded with the shield of Faith and arm'd with the sword of Saint Peter cuts off the serpentine head of Medusa errours and heresies with his definitions decrees censures and anathemaes the drops of bloud distilling from Medusaes head even after it was struck dead and divided from her shoulders turning into so many snakes and adders the pullulation of new divisions and subdivisions of Heresies spreading themselves all o-over and infesting the countries where they fall with implacable dissentions and tumults each against other This is the sad story of Medusa Emblemis'd And yet happy had been our Nation and many others with it had it rested in the nature of an Embleme and been no more then a bare speculation But as it hath faln heavy upon several Countries in all precedent ages so in this and the former has it almost crush'd ours and many adjacent to us the histories are too too fresh in our memories and the late pressures too broad before our eyes to need recital and yet we might hope to obliterate their foul Characters in time were there not new drops distilling from Medusaes ghastly head and perpetuating that generation of vipers which took their first birth from it Force of Reason and Authority had devested our adversaries of both and so enervated their Principles that they had no consistency when behold a new brood of unheard of Novelties dropping from Medusa's brain rise-up to reestablish their dying cause Sects and Schismes are united as parts to the Catholick Church Oecumenicall Councils are despoiled of their ancient Authority Ecclesiasticall Decrees pin'd up within the Circuit of the Romane Empire true Christian and Divine Faith made consistent in the same soul with Heresie ancient Theologicall Definitions question'd and revers'd c. And those Principles once advanced which both Parties condemned and execrated as Diabolicall our Arguments are frustrated and we put upon a necessity to prove what we and all Christians suppos'd hitherto as undeniable Truths This is the task which Mr. Richard Baxter inventer of the said Novelties hath put upon me a man who had his fecunditie of invention been equalliz'd with a soliditie in Learning might have proved as offensive as he is now invective against the Roman Church My present work therefore is not so much a defence of mine own as of the common cause of Christians against those young Meducean Serpents new bred Novelties hissing against it so that it may be equally intitled CHISTIANITY MAINTAIN'D and NOVELTY REPRES'T Yet I have made choice of the latter as not daring to assume a Title to any writing of mine which a Person so far excelling me in all respects has prefixed to his own in answer to another bold oppugner of Christian Principles Whosoever therefore shall please to peruse this present Tract shall I hope find the whole controversie laid open so plain before his eyes that he needs no more then to parallell each answer to its respective objection in their severall Paragraphs for to this end I have inserted the whole first part of Mr. Baxters last Answer by Sections verbatim and to each applyed my rejoinder that neither the Reader may be put to the cost or trouble of perusing Mr. Baxters Book nor he himself have any occasion to complain that I accuse him to say any thing which he expresses not in his own Treatise For the same end also I have reprinted here the whole precesse of the argument with all our precedent respective Answers and Replies that the
Reader may have all ready at hand for a more facil understanding of the whole matter Yet in my Answer to his second part in proof of the perpetual visibility of the Protestant Church I have not inserted his Text both by reason it would haveâ—â— rendred the tome improportionable and that he often spends many Leafs in proving Propositions which I deny not so that it had bin to no purpose at all to insert them what I found material in that part I have recited and answered and remit the judgement and censure of the whole work to any impartial Reader If Mr. Baxter will venture upon an Answer I expect as fair a proceeding from him as he has here from me to insert by Sections as I have done my Text and apply a particular Answer to each Section for otherwise all impartiall eyes will see that he flies the light and seeks corners to hide himself and takes a new occasion both to pervert my words distort my sense and make me say what he pleases when he cannot answer what I say as he has done more then once in this his Answer The whole issue of the work is not onely a discovery of the weaknesse and dâ—â—ssatisfaction of this his Answer but withall an enervating of the main Principles Arguments and Instances against the Roman Church in his other Works and particularly in his KEY this against Johnson being a Receul or Epitome of what he has more largely treated in his former Invectives so that the Authour hopes the serious perusal of this will so far rectifie the judgement of his Readers that they will be enabled to see the vanity and fallacy of all he has with so much labour and bitternesse given out against us All we have to say or doe in relation to his Person is earnestly to beg of the God of mercy pardon and forgivenesse for him for what is past and a new beam of light from heaven to guide and direct him for the future and bring him into that saving way wherein he may attain unto a never ending felicity A Brief Advertisement to the READER THat the Reader may be sufficiently informed how this controversie took its rise and progresse he may please to take notice That Mr. Johnsons Argument was first sent to Mr. Baxter concerning the necessity of being a member of the Roman Church to obtain salvation next Mr. Baxter sent back an Answer to the said Argument and thereupon Mr. Johnson sent a Reply to Mr. Baxters Answer Thus far the whole Process is comprised in Mr. Baxters Edition from page 1. to page 66. which I have here reprinted Word for Word that the Reader may have a full view of the whole Controversie and have at hand the matter to which Mr. Baxter fram'd his last Answer to the end that this Rejoynder to it may be the better understood and the force of it more fully examined and weighed by the Iudicious Peruser of this Tract Mr. Baxter therefore sets down Mr. Johnsons Argument Mr. Baxters Answer and Johnsons Reply in this manner following Mr. Iohnsons first PAPER THe Church of Christ wherein only Salvation is to be had never was nor is any other then those Assemblies of Christians who were united in Communion and obedience to S. Peter in the beginning since the Ascension of Christ. And ever since to his lawfull Successors the Bishops of Rome as to their chief Pastor Proof Whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ acknowledges S. Peter and his lawful Successors the Bishops of Rome ever since the Ascension of Christ to have been and now to be by the Institution of Christ their chief Head and Governour on earth in matters belonging to the soul next under Christ. But there is no salvation to be had out of that Congregation of Christians which is now the true Church of Christ. Ergo There is no salvation to be had out of that Congregation of Christians which acknowledges S. Peter and his lawful Successors the Bishops of Rome ever to have been since the Ascension of Christ and now to be by the Institution of Christ their chief Head and Governour on earth in matters belonging to the soul next under Christ. The Minor is clear For all Christians agree in this that to be saved it is necessary to be in the true Church of Christ that only being his mystical Body Spouse and Mother of the faithful to which must belong all those who ever have been are or shall be saved The Major I prove thus Whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ hath been always visible since the time of Christ either under persecution or in peace and flourishing But no Congregation of Christians hath been always visible since the time of Christ either under persecution or in peace and flourishing save that only which acknowledges S. Peter and his lawfull successors the Bishops of Rome ever to have been since the Ascension of Christ and now to be by Christs Institution their chief Head and Governour on earth in matters belonging to the soul next under Christ. Ergo Whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ acknowledges S. Peter and his lawful successors the Bishops of Rome ever to have been since the Ascension of Christ and now to be by Christs Institution their chief Head and Governour on earth in matters belonging to the soul next under Christ. The Major is proved thus Whatsoever Congregation of Christians hath always had visible Pastors and people united hath always been visible either under persecution or in peace and flourishing But whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the the true Church of Christ hath always had visible Pastors and People united Ergo Whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ hath always been visible either under persecution or in peace and flourishing The Major of this last Syllogism is evident for seeing a visible Church is nothing but a visible Pastor and people united where there have always been visible Pastors and people united there hath always been a visible Church The Minor I prove from Ephesians cap. 4. ver 10 11 12 13 14 c. Where S. Paul says that Christ had instituted that there should be Pastors and Teachers in the Church for the work of the Ministry and preserving the people under their respective charges from being carried away with every wind of doctrine c. which evidently shews those Pastors must be visible seeing the work of the Ministry which is Preaching and Administration of Sacraments and governing their flocks are all external and visible actions And this shews likewise that those Pastors and People must be always visible because they are to continue from Christs Ascension untill we all meet together in the unity of faith c. which cannot be before the day of judgement Neither can it be said as some say that this promise of Christ is only conditional since to put it
first sense I grant your conclusion if really you are part of the Church There is no Salvation to be had out of Christs Universal Church of which you are a small corrupted part In the second sense I told you we deny the supposition in the subject In the third sense I deny the sequel non sequitur because your Major Proposition being false de Ecclesia universali the conclusion must be false de parte ista as excluding the rest But to the unskilful or unwary Reader your conclusion seemeth to import that the being in such a Church which acknowledgeth the Popes Soveraignty as it is such a Church is necessary to Salvation and so that the persons acknowledgement is neccesary But it is a fallacia accidentis cunningly lapt up that is the life of your imported cause That part of the Universal Church doth hold to the Popes Soveraignty is per accidens and could you prove that the whole Church doth so which you are unlike to do I would say the like And that your fallacy may the beter appear I give you some examples of such like Sophismes Whatsoever Nation is the true Kingdom of Spain is proud and cruel against Protestants But there is no protection there due to any that are not of that Kingdome therefore there is no protection due to any that are not proud and cruel Or whatsoever Nation is the true Kingdome of France acknowledgeth the Pope but no protection is due from the Governours to any that are not of that Kingdom therefore no protection is due to any that acknowledge not the Pope Or what ever Nation is the Kingdome of Ireland in the days of Queen Elizabeth was for the Earl of Tyrone but there was no right of Inheritance for any that were not of that Nation therefore there was no right of Inheritance for any that was not for the Earl of Tyrone Or suppose that you could have proved it of all the Church If you had lived four hundred years after Christ you might as well have argued thus Whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ is against kneeling in adoration on the Lords days But there is no salvation to be had out of that Congregation of Christians which is now the true Church of Christ therefore there is no salvation to be had out of that Congregation which is against kneeling on the Lords day c. But yet 1. There was Salvation to be had in that Congregation without being of that opinion 2. And there is now Salvation to be had in a Congregation that is not of that opinion as you will confess Or whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ doth hold the Canticles and the Epistle to Philemon to be Canonical Scripture and so have done c. But there is no Salvation to be had out of the true Church therefore there is no Salvation to be had out of that Congregation which holdeth the Canticles and Epistle to Philemon to be Canonical Scripture But yet 1. Salvation is to be had in that Church without holding it 2. And its possible hereafter a Church may deny those two books and yet you will think Salvation not thereby overthrown This is but to shew your fallacy from a corrupt accident and indeed but of a part of the Church and a small part Now to your proof of the Major Resp. ad Major The present matter of the Church was not visible in the last Generation for we were not then born but the same form of the Church was then existent in a visible Matter and their Profession was visible or audible though their faith it self was invisible I will do more then you shall do in maintaining the constant visibility of the Church Ad minorem 1. If you mean that no Congregation hath been alwayes visible but that Vniversal Church whose lesser corrupt part acknowledges the Popes Soveraignty I grant it For besides the whole containing all Christians as the parts there can be no other If you mean save that part which acknowledgeth you contradict your self because a part implyeth other parts If you mean save that Universal Church all whose members or the most acknowledg it there is no such subject existent 2. I distinguish of Visibility It s one thing to be a visible Church that is visible in its essentials and another thing to be visible quoad hoc as to some separable accident The Universal Church was ever visible because their Profession of Christianity was so and the persons professing But the acknowledgment of the Vice-christ was not alwayes visible no not in any parts much less in the whole And if it had it was but a separable accident if your disease be not incurable that was visible and therefore 1. It was not necessary to Salvation nor a proper mark of the Church 2. Nor can it be so for the time to come I need to say no more to your conclusion Your Argument is no better then this whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ hath been alwayes visible since the time of Christ But no congregation of Christians hath been so visible save onely that which condemneth the Greeks which hath a Colledge of Cardinals to chose the Popes which denieth the cup to the laity which forbiddeth the reading of Scripture in a known tongue without license c. Therefore whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ hath all these 1. In a corrupt part it hath 2. But it had not alwayes 3. And may be cured hereafter To your proof of the Major 1. I grant your Major 2. Ad minorem 1. Either you mean Vniversal Pastors each one or some one having charge and Government of the whole Church or you mean unfixed Pastors having an indefinite charge of Preaching and Guiding when they come and have particular calls and opportunities or you mean the fixed Pastors of particular Churches In the first sense your Minor is false the Catholike Church was never so united to any Universal Head but Christ no one of the Apostles governed the rest and the whole Church much less any since their time In the second sense I grant that the Church hath ever had Pastors since the Ascension In the third sense I grant that some parts or other of the Catholick Church have ever had fixed Pastors of Congregations since the first setling of such Pastors But any one particular Congregation may cease to have such Pastors and may cease it self And Rome hath been long without any true Pastors and therefore was then no such visible Church 2. If by Congregation you mean not the Universal Church but a part or if you mean it of all the parts of the Universal Church I deny your Minor Communities of Christians and particular persons have been and may be without any Pastors to whom they are united or subject The Indians that died in the faith while Frumentius and Edesius were
there preaching before they had any Pastor were yet Christians and saved If a Lay man convert one or a thousand and you will say that he may baptize them and they die before they can have a Pastor or ever hear of any to whom they owe subjection they are nevertheless saved as members of the Church And if all the Pastors in a Nation were murdered or banished the people would not cease to be Christians and members of the Church Much lesse if the Pope were dead or deposed or a vacancy befell his seat would all the Catholick Church be annihilated or cease To your Confirmation of the Major that a visible Church is nothing but a Visible Pastor and people united I answer 1. It s true of the Universal Church as united in Christ the great Pastor but not as united in a Vice-Christ or humane head 2. It is true of a particular Political or organized Church as united to their proper Pastors 3. But it is not true of every Community of Christians who are a part of the Universal Church A companie converted to Christ are members of the Vniversal Church though they never heard of a Pope at Rome before they are united to Pastors of their own The Proof of the Minor from Ephes. 4. I grant as aforesaid The Text proveth that Pastors the Church shall have I disclaim the vain Objection of Conditionality in the Promise which you mention But it proves not 1. That the Church shall have an Universal Monarch or Vice-Christ under Christ. 2. Nor that every Member of the Universall Church shall certainly be a member of a particular Church or ever see the face of Pastor or be subject to him You say next There remains only to prove the Minor of the second Syllogism Viz. That no Congregation of Christians hath been always visible but that which acknowledges c. This is the great point which all lyeth on The rest hath been all nothing but a cunning shooing horn to this Prove this and prove all Prove not this and you have lost your time You say The Minor I prove by obliging the answerers to nominate any Congregation of Christians which always till this present time since Christ hath been visible save that only which acknowledges c. And have I waited all this while for this You prove it by obliging me to prove the contrary Ridiculous sed quo jure 1. Your undertaken form of arguing obligeth you to prove your Minor You cannot cast your Respondent upon proving and so arguing and doing the Opponents part 2. And in your Postscript you presently forbid it me You require me to hold to a Concedo Nego Distinguo Omitto Transeat threatning that else you will take it for an Effugium And I pray you tell me in your next to which of these doth the nomination or proof of such a Church as you describe belong Plainly you first slip away when you should prove your Minor and then oblige me to prove ehe contrary and then tell me if I attempt it you 'l take it for an Effugium A good cause needs not such dealing as this which me thinks you should be loth a learned man should hear of 3. Your interest also in the Matter as well as your office as Opponent doth oblige you to the proof For though you make a Negative of it you may put it in other terms at your pleasure It is your main work to prove that all the members of the Vniversal Church have in all ages held the Popes Soveraignty or Universal Headship Or the whole Visible Church hath held it Prove this and I will be a Papist you have my promise You affirm and you must prove Prove a Catholike Church at least that in the Major part was of that mind though that would be nothing to prove the condemnation of the rest If you are an impartial enquirer after truth fly not when you come to the setting too I give you this further evident reason why you cannot oblige me to what you here impose 1. Because you require me to prove the Visibility of a Church which held not your point of Papacy and so put an unreasonable task upon me about a Negative Or else I must prove that they held the contrary before your opinion was started And it is the Catholike Church that we are disputing about so that I must prove this Negative of the Catholike Church 2. It is you that lay the great stress of Necessity on your Affirmative more then we do on the Negative you say that no man can be saved without your Affirmative that the Pope is the universal Head and Governour But we say not that no man can be saved that holdeth not our Negative that he is not the Vice-Christ For one that hath the plague or leprosie may live Therefore it is you that must prove that all the Catholike Church was still of your mind 3. And it is an Accident and but an Accident of a smaller corrupted part of the Catholike Church that you would oblige me to prove the Negation of and therefore it is utterly needlesse to my proof of a visible Catholike Church I will without it prove to you a successive Visibility of the Catholike Church from the Visibility of its Essential or Constitutive parts of which your Pope is none I will prove a successive visible Church that hath still professed faith in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost and been united to the Universal Head and had particular Pastors some fixed some unfixed and held all essential to a Christian. And proving this I have proved the Church of which I am a member To prove that England hath been so long a Kingdom requireth no more but to prove the two Essential parts King and Subjects to have so long continued united It requireth not that I prove that it either had or opposed a Vice-King This is our plain case if a man have a botch on one of his hands it is not needful in order to my proving him a man heretofore that I prove he was born and bred without it so be it I prove that he was born a man it sufficeth Nor is it needful that I prove the other hand always to have been free in order to prove it a member of the body It sufficeth that I prove it to have been still a hand I do therefore desire you to perform your work and prove that no Congregation hath been still visible but such as yours or that the whole Catholike Church hath ever since the ascention held a Humane Universal Governour under Christ or else I shall take it as a giving up your cause as indefensible And observe if you shall prove onely that a part of the Catholick Church still held this which you can never do then 1. You will make the contrary opinion as Consistent with salvation as yours For the rest of the Catholick Church is savable 2. And then you well allow me to turn
your Argument against your self as much as it is against us and so cast it away e. g what ever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ hath been alwayes Visible But no Congregation of Christians hath been alwayes Visible but that which quoad partem denieth the Popes universal Headship therefore whatever Congregation of Christians is the true Church denieth the Popes universal Headship Well! but for all this supposing you will do your part I will fail you in nothing that 's reasonable which I can perform A Catholick Church in all ages that was against the Pope in every member of it I hope I cannot shew you because I hope that you are members though corrupt But you shall have more then a particular Congregation or a hundred 1. At this present two or three parts of the Catholick Church is known to be against your Vniversal Monarchy The Greeks Armenians Etheopians c. besides the Protestants 2. In the last age there were as many or more 3. I the former ages till An. D. 1000. there were neer as many or rather many more For more be faln off in Tenduè Nubia and other parts then the Protestants that came in 4. About the year 600. there were many more incomparably and I think then but at least of 400. years after Christ I never yet saw valid proof of one Papist in all the world that is one that was for the Popes Vniversal Monarchy or Vice-Christ-ship So that most of the Catholick Church about three parts to one hath been against you to this day and all against you for many hundred years Could I name but a Nation against you I should think I had done nothing much lesse if I cited a few men in an age 5. And of all those of Ethiopia India c. that are without the verge and awe of the Ancient Roman Empire never so much as gave the Pope that Primacy of dignity which those within the Empire gave him when he was chief as the Earl of Arundel is of the Earls of England that governeth none of them and as the Lord Chancellour may be the chief Iudge that hath no power in alieno foro or as the eldest Iustice is chief in the County and on the Bench that ruleth not the rest Mistake not this Primacy for Monarchy nor the Roman Empire for the world and you can say nothing At present ad hominem I give you sufficient proof of this succession As you use to say that the present Church best knew the judgement of the former age and so on to the head and so Tradition beareth you out I turn this unresistibly against you The far greatest part of Christians in the world that now are in possession of the doctrine contrary to your Monarchy tell us that they had it from their Fathers and so on And as in Councils so with the Church Real the Major part three to one is more to be credited then the Minor part especially when it is a visible self-advancement that the Minor part insisteth on And were not this enough I might add That your Western Church it self in its Representative Body at Constance and Basil hath determined that not the Pope but a General Council is the chief Governour under Christ and that this hath been still the judgement of the Church and that its Heresie in whoever that hold the contrary 7. And no man can prove that one half or tenth part of your people called Papists are of your opinion For they are not called to professe it by words and their obedience is partly forced and partly upon their principles some obeying the Pope as their Western Patriarch of chief dignity and some and most doing all for their safety and peace Their outward acts will prove no more And now Sir I have told you what Church of which we are members hath been visible yea and what part of it hath opposed the Vice-christ of Rome This I delayed not an hour after I received yours because you desired speed Accordingly I crave your speedy return and intreat you to advise with the most learned men whether Iesuites or others of your party in London that think it worth their thoughts and time not that I have any thoughts of being their equall in learning but partly because the case seemeth to me so exceeding palpable that I think it will suffice me to supply all my defects against the ablest men on earth or all of them together of your way and principally because I would see your strength and know the most that can be said that I may be rectified if I err which I suspect not or confirmed the more if you cannot evince it and so may be true to Gods Truth and my own soul. Rich. Baxter Mr. Iohnsons second PAPER SIR IT was my happiness to have this Argument transmitted into your learned and quiet hands which gratefully returns as fair a measure as it received from you that Animâ—â—sities on both sides reposed Truth may appear in its full splendor and seat it self in the Center of both our hearts To your first Exception My Thesis was sufficiently made clear to my friend who was concerned in it and needed no explication in its address to the learned To your second Exception My Propositions were long that my Argument as was required might be very short and not exceed the quantity of half a sheet which enforced me to penetrate many Syllogisms into one and by that means in the first not to be so precise in form as otherwise I should have been To your third Exception Seeing I required nothing but Logical form in answering I conceive that regard was more to be had amongst the learned to that then to the errors of the vulgar that whilest ignorance attends to most words learning might attend to most reason To your fourth Exception My Argument contains not precisely the terms of my Thesis because when I was called upon to hasten my Argument I had not then at hand my Thesis Had I put more in my Thesis then I prove in my Argument I had been faulty but proving more then my Thesis contained as I clearly do no body hath reason to find fault with me save my self The reall difference betwixt Assemblies of Christians and Congregations of Christians and betwixt Salvation is only to be had in those Assemblies and Salvation is not to be had out of that Congregation I understand not seeing all particular Assemblies of true Christians must make one Congregation To your Answer to my first Syllogism He who distinguishes Logically the terms of any proposition must not apply his distinction to some one part of the term only but to the whole term as it stands in the proposition distinguished Now in my proposition I affirm that the Congregation of Christians I speak of there is such a Congregation that it is the true Church of Christ that is as all know the whole Catholick Church and you distinguish
thus That I either mean by Congregation the whole Catholick Church or only some part of it as if one should say Whatsoever Congregation of men is the Common-wealth of England and another in answer to it should distinguish either by Congregation of men you mean the whole Common wealth or some part of it when all men know that by the Common-wealth of England must be meant the whole Common-wealth for no part of it is the Common-wealth of England Again you distinguish that some things are Essentials or Necessaries and others accidents which are acknowledged or practised in the Church Now to apply this distinction to my Proposition you must distinguish that which I say is acknowledged to have been ever in the Church by the Institution of Christ either to be meant of an Essential or an Accident when all the world knows that whatsoever is acknowledged to have been ever in the Church by Christs Institution cannot be meant of any Accidental thing but of a necessary unchangeable and essential thing in Christs true Church If one should advance this proposition Whatsoever Congregation is the true Church of Christ acknowledges the Eucharist ever to have been by Christs Institution a proper Sacrament of the new Law and another should distinguish as you do my proposition This may be meant either of an Essential or Accidental thing to Christs true Church Seeing whatsoever is acknowledged to have been always in Christs Church and instituted by Christ cannot be acknowledged but as necessary and essential to his Church If therefore my Major as the terms lie expressed in it be true it should have been granted if false it should have been denyed But no Logick allows that it should be distinguished into such different members whereof one is expresly excluded in the very terms of the Proposition These distinctions therefore though learned and substantial in themselves yet were they here unseasonable and too illogical to ground an answer in form as you ground yours still insisting upon them in your address almost to every proposition Hence appears first that I used no fallacy at all ex Accidente seeing my proposition could not be verified of an accident Secondly that all your instances of Spain France c. which include Accidents are not apposite because your propositions as they lie have no term which excludes Accidental Adjuncts as mine hath To the proof of my Major Syl. 2. You seem to grant the Major of my second Syllogism not excepting any thing material against it To my Minor You fall again into the former distinctions now disproved and excluded of the meaning of Congregation c. in my Proposition and would have me to understand determinately either the whole Catholick Church or some part of it and so make four terms in my Syllogism whereas in my Minor Congregation of Christians is taken generically and abstracts as an universal from all particulars I say no Congregation which is an universal negative and when I say none Save that Congregation which acknowledges Saint Peter c. the term Congregation supposes for the same whole Catholick Church mentioned in my former Syllogism but expresses it under a general term of Congregation in confuso as I express Homo when I say he is Animal a man when I say he is a living creature but only generically or in confuso Now should I have intended determinately either the whole Catholike Church or any part of it I should have made an inept Syllogism which would have run thus Whatsoever true Church of Christ is now the true Church of Christ hath been alwaies visible c But no true Church of Christ hath been always visible save the true Church of Christ which acknowledges Saint Peter c. Ergo whatsoever true Church of Christ is now the true Church acknowledges Saint Peter c. which would have been idem per idem for every one knows that the true Church of Christ is now the true Church of Christ. But speaking as I do in abstractive and generical terms I avoid this absurdity and frame a true Syllogism Now my meaning in this Minor could be no other then this which my words express That the Congregation that is the whole Congregation acknowledges Saint Peter c. and is visible c. and not any part great or small of it For when I say the Parliament of these Nations doth or hath enacted a Statute who would demand of me whether I meant the whole Parliament or some determinate part of it You should therefore have denyed not thus distinguished my Minor quite against the express words of it What you say again of Essentials and Accidents is already refuted and by that also your Syllogism brought by way of instance For your Proposition doth not say that the Church of Rome acknowledges those things were always done and that by Christs Institution as my Proposition says she acknowledges Saint Peter and his Successors To my third Syllogism Granting my Major you distinguish the term Pastors in my Minor into particular and universal fixed and unfixed c. I answer that the term Pastors as before Congregation signifies determinately no one of these but generically and in confuso all and so abstracts from each of them in particular as the word Animal abstracts from homo and brutum Neither can I mean some parts of the Church only had Pastors for I say whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ hath always had visible Pastors and People united Now the Church is not a part but the whole Church that is both the whole body of the Church and all particular Churches the parts of it And hence is solved your argument of the Indians of people converted by lay-men when particular Pastors are dead c. For those were subjects of the chief Bishop alone till some inferiour Pastors were sent to them For when they were taught the Christian Doctrine in the explication of that Article I beleeve the holy Catholick Church they were also taught that they being people of Christs Church must subject themselves to their lawful Pastors this being a part of the Christian doctrine Heb. 13. who though absent in body may yet be present in spirit with them as Saint Paul saith of himself 1 Cor. 5.3 Your Answer to the confirmation of my Major seems strange For I speak of visible Pastors and you say 't is true of an invisible Pastor that is Christ our Saviour who is now in heaven invisible to men on earth The rest is a repetition of what is immediatly before answered Ephes. 4. proves not only that some particular Churches or part of the whole Church must always have Pastors but that the whole Church it self must have Pastors and every particular Church in it for it speaks of that Church which is the Body of Christ which can be no lesse then the whole Church For no particular Church alone is his mystical Body but only a part of it Ephes. 4.
is not directly alledged to prove an universal Monarch as you say but to prove an uninterrupted continuance of visible Pastors that being only affirmed in the proposition which I prove by it 2. This is already answered I stand to the judgement of any true Logician nay or expert Lawyer or rational person whether a Negative proposition be to be proved otherwise then by obliging him who denies it to give an instance to infringe it Should you say no man hath right to my Benefice and Function in my Parish save my self and another should deny what you said would not you or any rational man in your case answer him that by denying your proposition he affirmed that some other had right to them and to make good that affirmation was obliged to produce who that was which till he did you still remained the sole just possessor of your Benefice as before and every one will judge that he had no reason to deny your assertion when he brought no proof against it This is our case The Contradiction which you would draw from this against my Nego Concedo c. exacted from the Respondent and nothing else follows not For that prescription is to be understood that the Respondent of himself without scope given him by the opponent was not to use any other forms in answering but if the opponent should require that the respondent give reasons or instances or proofs of what he denies that then the Respondent is to proceed to them And this is most ordinary in all Logical Disputations where strict form is observed and known to every young Logician Instances therefore demanded by the opponent were not excluded but only such excursions out of form as should proceed from the respondent without being exacted by the opponent You say though I make a Negative of it I may put it in other terms at my pleasure But the question is not what I may do but what I did I required not an Answer to an Argument which I may frame but to that which I had then framed which was expressed in a negative proposition You tell me if I prove the Popes universal Supremacy you will be a Papist And I tell you I have proved it by this very Argument That either He hath that supremacy or some other Church denying that he hath alwaies had it hath been always visible and that Church I require should be named if any such be and whilest you refuse to name that Church as here you do you neither answer the Argument nor become a Papist You say I affirm and I must prove I say in the Proposition about which we now speak I affirm not so must not prove and you by denying it must affirm so must prove You prove it is not your part here to prove because the Popes Supremacy could not be denied before it was affirmed and you must be obliged to prove that deniall I oblige you not to prove a continued visible Church formally and expresly denying it but that it was of such a constitution as was inconsistent with any such supremacy or could and did subsist without it which is an Affirmative You affirm that because I say you cannot be saved if you deny that Supremacy and you say that I may be saved though I hold it therefore you are not bound to prove what I reprove but I to prove my negative proposition But this would prove as well that a Mahumetan is not bound to prove his religion to you but you to prove yours to him because you say he cannot be saved being a Mahumetan and he says that you may be saved being a Christian. See you not that the obligation of proof in Logical form depends not of the first Position or Thesis but must be drawn from the immediate proposition affirmative or negative which is or ought to be proposed To what you say of an Accident and a corrupt part I have already answered To what you say of a Vice-king not being necessary to the constitution of a kingdom but a king and subjects only is true if a vice-king be not instituted by the Full power of an absolute Authority over that kingdom to be an Ingredient into the essence of the Kingdom in the Kings absence But if so constituted it will be essential now my proposition saith and my Argument proves that by the Absolute Authority of Christ Saint Peter and his Successors were instituted Governors in Christs place of his whole visible Church and whatsoever Government Christ institutes of his Church must be essential to his Church You see now the Disparity You insist to have me prove a Negative and I insist to have you prove that Affirmative which you fall into by denying my Negative and leave it to judgement whose exaction is the more conform to reason and Logical form But if I prove not here say you the whole Catholick Churches holding ever the Popes Supremacy you shall take it as a giving up my cause I tell you again that I have proved it by this very Argument by force of Syllogistical form and it is not reasonable to judge that I have given up my cause if I prove not again what I have already proved Your taking upon you the part of an Opponent now is you know out of Season when that is yours mine shall be the Respondent AT length you give a fair attempt to satisfie your Obligation and to return such an Instance as I demanded of you But you are too free by much in your offer I demand one Congregation and you promise to produce more then an hundred But as they abound in the number so are they deficient in the quality which I require I demand that the Answerer nominate any Congregation of Christians which always till this present time since Christ hath been visible c. and you tell me of more then an hundred Congregations besides that which acknowledges Saint Peter c. whereof not any one hath been all that designed time visible which is as if I had demanded an Answerer to nominate any Family of Gentry which hath successively continued ever since William the Conquerour till this present time and he who undertakes to satisfie my demand should nominate more then a hundred Families whereof not so much as one continued half that time You nominate first all these present the Greeks Armenians Ethiopians besides the Protestants These you begin with Now to satisfie my demand you must assert that these whom you first name are both one Congregation and have been visible ever since Christs time This you do not in the pursuit of your Allegations For Numb 2. you nominate none at all but tell me that in the last age there were as many or more What were these as many or more were they the same you nominated first or others I required some determinate Congregation to be nominated all the while and you tell me or as many or more but say not of what
and Articles to be subscribed with the Letters of Celestine to Nestorius which when Nestorius had received he was so far from repentance that he accused St. Cyril in those Articles to be guilty of the Heresie of Apollinaris so that St. Cyril being also accused of Heresie was barred from pronouncing sentence against Nestorius so long as he stood charged with that Accusation Theodosius the Emperour seeing the Eastern Church embroiled in these difficulties writes to Pope Celestine about the assembling of a general Council at Ephesus by Petronius afterwards Bishop of Bononia as is manifest in his life written by Sigonius Pope in his Letters to Theodosius not only professeth his consent to the calling of that Council but also prescribeth in what form it was to be celebrated as Firmus Bishop of Cesarea in Cappadocia testified in the Council of Ephesus Hereupon Theodosius sent his Letters to assemble the Bishops both of the East and West to that Council And Celestine sent his Legats thither with order not to examine again in the Council the cause of Nestorius but rather to put Celestines condemnation of him given the year before into execution S. Cyril Bishop of Alexandria being constituted by Celestine his chief Legate ordinary in the East by reason of that preheminency and primacy of his See after that of Rome presided in the Council yet so that Philip who was only a Priest and no Bishop by reason that he was sent Legatus à Latere from Celestine and so supplied his place as he was chief Bishop of the Church subscribed the first even before S. Cyril and all the other Legats and Patriarchs In the sixth Action of this holy Council Iuvenalis patriarch of Hierusalem having understood the contempt which Iohn patriarch of Antioch who was cited before the Council shewed of the Bishops and the Popes Legats there assembled expressed himself against him in these words Quod Apostolica ordinatione Antiqua Traditione which were no way opposed by the Fathers there present Antiochena sedes perpetuo à Romana diregeretur judicareturque That by Apostolical ordination and ancient Tradition the See of Antioch was perpetually directed and judged by the See of Rome which words not only evidence the precedency of place as Dr. Hammond would have it but of power and judicature in the Bishop of Rome over a Patriarch of the Eastern Church and that derived from the time and ordination of the Apostles The Council therefore sent their decrees with their condemnation of Nestorius to Pope Clestize who presently ratified and confirmed them Not long after this in the year 445. Valentinian the Emperour makes this manifesto of the most high Ecclesiastical authority of the See of Rome in these words Seeing that the merit of S. Peter who is the Prince of the Episcopal Crown and the Dignity of the City of Rome and no less the authority of the holy Synod hath established the primacy of the Apostolical See lest presumption should attempt any unlawful thing against the authority of that * See this at length in Baronius in the year 445. See for then finally will the peace of the Churches be preserved every where if the whole universality acknowledge their Governour when these things had been hitherto inviolably observed c. Where he makes the succession from S. Peter to be the first foundation of the Roman Churches primacy and his authority to be not only in place but in power and government over the whole visible Church And adds presently that the definitive sentence of the Bishop of Rome given against any French Bishop was to be of force through France even without the Emperors Letters Patents For what shall not be lawful for the authority of so great a Bishop to exercise upon the Churches and then adds his Imperial precept in these words But this occasion hath provoked also our command that hereafter it shall not be lawful neither for Hilarius whom to be still intituled a Bishop the sole humanity of the meek Prelate i. e. the Bishop of Rome permits neither for any other to mingle arms with Ecclesiastical matters or to resist the commands of the Bishop of Rome c. We define by this our perpetual decree that it shall neither be lawful for the French Bishops nor for those of other Provinces against the ancient custom to attempt any thing without the authority of the venerable Pope of the eternal City But let it be for a law to them and to all whatsoever the authority of the Apostolick See hath determined or shall determine So that what Bishop soever being called to the Tribunal of the Roman Bishop shall neglect to come is to be compelled by the Governour of the same Province to present himself before him Which evidently proves that the highest Universal Ecclesiastical Judge and Governour was and ever is to be the Bishop of Rome which the Council of Chalcedon before mentioned plainly owned when writing to Pope Leo they say * Epist. Concil ad Leon. Pap. Act. 1. sequ Thou governest us as the head doth the members contributing thy good will by those which hold thy place Behold a Primacy not only of Precedency but of Government and Authority which Lerinensis confirms contr Haeres cap. 9. where speaking of Stephen Pope he saies Dignum â—â—t opinor existimans si reliquos omnes tantum fidei devotione quantum loci authoritate superabat esteeming it as I think a thing worthy of himself if he overcame all others as much in the devotion of faith as he did in the Authority of his place And to confirm what this universal Authority was he affirms that he sent a Law Decree or Command into Africa Sanxit That in matter of rebaptization of Hereticks nothing should be innovated which was a manifest argument of his Spiritual Authority over those of Africa and à paritate rationis over all others I will shut up all with that which was publickly pronounced and no way contradicted and consequently assented to in the Council of Ephesus one of the four first general Councils in this matter Tom. 2. Concil p. 327. Act. 1. where Philip Priest and Legat of Pope Celestine says thus Gratias agimus sanctae venerandaeque synodo quod literis sancti beatique Papae nostri vobis recitatis sanctas chartas sanctis vestris vocibus sancto capiti vestro sanctis vestris exclamationibus exhibueritis Non enim ignorat vestra beatitudo totius fidei vel etiam Apostolorum caput esse beatum Apostolum Petrum And the same Philip Act. 3. p. 330. proceeds in this manner Nulli dubium imo saeculis omnibus notum est quod sanctus beatissimusque Petrus Apostolorum Princeps caput Fideique columna Ecclesiae Catholicae Fundamentum à Domino nostro Jesu Christo Salvatore generis humani ac redemptore nostro claves regni accepit solvendique ac ligandi peccata potestas ipsi data est qui ad hoc usque tempus ac
semper in suis successoribus vivit judicium exercet Hujus itaque secundum ordinem successor locum-tenens sanctus beatissimusque Papa noster Celestinus nos ipsius praesentiam supplentes huc misit And Arcadius another of the Popes Legats inveighing against the Heretick Nestorius accuses him though he was Patriarch of Constantinople which this Council requires to be next in dignity after Rome as of a great crime that he contemned the command of the Apostolick See that is of Pope Celestine Now had Pope Celestine had no power to command him and by the like reason to command all other Bishops he had committed no fault in transgressing and contemning his command By these testimonies it will appear that what you are pleased to say That the most part of the Catholick Church hath been against us to this day and all for many hundred of years is far from truth seeing in the time of the holy Oecumenical Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon the universal consent of the whole Catholick Church was for us in this point For the age 600 see S. Gregory Pope l. 10. ep 30 where Hereticks and Schismaticks repenting were received then into the Church upon solemn promise and publick protestation that they would never any more separate from but always remain in the unity of the Catholick Church and communion in all things with the Bishop of Rome As to what you say of Congregation of Christians in the beginning I answer I took the word of Christians in a large sense comprehending in it all those as it is vulgarly taken who are baptized and profess to beleive in Christ and are distinguished from Jews Mahumetans and Heathens under the denomination of Christians What you often say of an universal Monarch c. if you take Monarch for an Imperious sole Commander as temporal Kings are we acknowledge no such Monarch in the Church if onely for one who hath received power from Christ in meekness charity and humility to govern all the rest for their own eternal good as brethren or children we grant it What also you often repeat of a Vice-christ we much dislike that title as proud and insolent and utterly disclaim from it neither was it ever given by any sufficient Authority to our Popes or did they ever accept of it As to the Council of Constance they never questioned the Supremacy of the Pope as ordinary chief Governour of all Bishops and people in the whole Church nay they expresly give it to Martinus Quintus when he was chosen But in extraordinary cases especially when it is doubtful who is true Pope as it was in the beginning of this Council till Martinus Quintus was chosen whether any extraordinary power be in a general Council above that ordinary power of the Pope which is a question disputed by some amongst our selves but touches not the matter in hand which proceeds only of the ordinary and constant Supream Pastor of all Christians abstracting from extraordinary tribunals and powers which are seldome found in the Church and collected only occasionally and upon extraordinary accidents Thus honoured Sir I have as much as my occasions would permit me hastened a Reply to your Answer and if more be requisite it shall not be denied Only please to give me leave to tell you that I cannot conceive my Argument yet answer'd by all you have said to it Feb. 3. 1658. William Iohnson Novelty Represt In a Rejoynder to Mr. Baxters Reply to William Iohnson The First Part. CHAP. I. ARGUMENT Num. 1. Exordium n. 3. Assembly and Congregation not different n. 5. Acknowledgment or Denial of what is Essential to the Church is it self Essential to the constitution or destruction of the Church my words mis-cited by omitting the word ever n. 7. Three Fallacies discovered Franciscus à S ta Clarâ mis-alledged n. 12. Congregations of Christians and Church not Synonyma's n. 16 17. Nothing instituted by Christ to be ever in his Church can be accidentall to his Church n. 19. Though universals exist not yet particulars which exist may be exprest in universal or abstractive terms n. 20. Many things necessary to the whole Church which are not necessary for every particular Christian. num 21 22. Christ now no visible Pastor of the Church militant though his person in heaven be visible n. 22. A visible Body without a visible Head is a Monster Such is Mr. Baxters Church Mr. Baxter SIR Num. 1. THe multitude and urgency of my employments gave me not leave till this day May 2. so much as to read over all your Papers but I shall be as loath to break off our disputation as you can be though perhaps necessity may sometime cause some weeks delay And again I profess my indignation against the hypocritical jugling of this age doth provoke me to welcome so Ingenuous and Candid a Disputant as your self with great content But I must confess also that I was the lesse hastie in sending you this Reply because I desired you might have leasure to peruse a Book which I published since your last a Key for Catholicks seeing that I have there answered you already and that more largely then I am like to doe in this Reply For the sharpness of that I must crave your patience the persons and cause I thought required it William Iohnson Num. 1. Sir Your Plea is my Defence I had my imployments and those of great concern as much as you which have hitherto detained me from accomplishing this Reply I have my Adversaries as well as you and no lesse then three at once in Print against me yet the esteem I have of your worth hath exacted from me to desist a while from what I had begun in Answer to the chief of them that I might bestow the whole time on you which notwithstanding was lately interrupted even when I was drawing towards an end by an unexpected and unrefusable occasion which hath already taken from me many weeks and is like to deprive me of many more Some small time an interstitium through the absence of my Adversary hath afforded me and that hath drawn the work almost to a period I have not hitherto had any leisure to peruse your Key and indeed what you here acknowledge of it Sharpness deterrs me from medling any further with it then what may be occasioned in this your Answer I finde even this in several passages of a relish tart enough but I can bear with that and I hope observe a moderacy where passion speaks against my cause or me For I tell you truly I had rather shew my self a patient Christian then a passionate Controvertist What reason utters will have power with rational men Passion never begins to speak but when reason is struck dumb and so cannot speak according to reason Mr. Baxter Num. 2. If you will not be precise in arguing you had little reason to expect much lesse so strictly to exact a precise Answer which cannot be made as you prescribed
beleeved to be implicitely by them when they subject themselves to all their lawful pastors he being one and the chief of them Baxter Num. 21. To your Confirmation I reply You mis-read my words I talk not of invisible I say it is true that the universal Church is united to Christ as their universal Head Iohnson Num. 21. Nor say I you have writ there the word invisible but that the pastor or Head which you there name Viz. Christ is an invisible pastor nor say I as you mis-conceive that Christ is an invisible person that toucht not the controversie but that he was an invisible Pastor and that most certainly he is both in heaven and earth for though his person may be seen there yet the exercise of his pastorship consisting only in spiritual influxions and internal graces cannot be seen by any corporal eye whatsoever therefore as pastor of the Militant Church he is wholly invisible whence it is evident that you put a visible body the universal Militant Church for we treat no other here save that without a visible Head for Christ as head that is as supream pastor of this Church is invisible all that is visible in the pastoral Function being performed by visible pastors and all that is invisible by our Saviour Thus whilest you by a strange piece of Novelty constitute a visible Body without a visible Head you destroy the visible Church and frame a Monster Baxter Num. 22. And is visible 1. In the members 2. In the profession 3. Christ himself is visible in the heavens and as much seen of most of the Church as the Pope is that is not at all As the Pope is not invisible though one of a million see him not no more is Christ who is seen by most of the Church and by the best part even by the glorified You know my meaning whether you will call Christ visible or not I leave to you I think he is visible But that which I affirm is that the universal Church hath no other visible universal Head or Pastor But particular Churches have their particular Pastors all under Christ. Iohnson Num. 22. If Christ be no otherwise visible as Head of the Church then in his members and their profession of his Faith you may as well affirm that God the Father is visible in his creatures and make him also visible which were absonous and contrary to Christian Faith It seems you regard not much what follows from your doctrine so you may at present oppose your Adversary The question in treatie is seeing we both confess the members and profession of the Universal Militant Church to be visible whether Christ in the exercise of his Headship or chief-Pastorship over the Church renders himself visible to our corporal eyes or performs immediatly any visible action in relation to his Church To constitute therefore Christ to be a visible Head of the Church when he performs nothing visible as Head of the Church or to make a visible Body without a visible Head is another of your grand Novelties fit to be represt and stifled in the cradle And all men will expect that in your Rejoynder to this you shew that Christ not in his person but in the exercise of his pastoral Headship works visibly by himself One thing is worth observation in this Paragraph that you affirm Christ is seen by most of the Church and by the best part even by the glorified whereby you must either affirm that the glorified are now conjoyned to their bodies and thereby evacuate the general resurrection of Saints bodies at the day of judgement or that the souls of Saints in heaven have corporal eyes for we speak only of corporal sight Baxter Of Ephes. 4. I easily grant that the whole Church may be said to have Pastors in that all the particular Churches have Pastors But I deny that the whole have any one Universal Pastor but Christ. Of that which is the point in controversie you bring no proof If you mean no more then I grant Fallacy 7. That the whole Church hath Pastors both in that each particular Church hath Pastors and in that unfixed Pastors are to preach to all as they have opportunity then your Minor hath no denial from me Iohnson Num. 23. All I intend from Ephes. 4. is to prove my Minor the perpetual Succession of visible Pastors whatsoever those be you grant here it proves thus much Why then presse you me to know whether I would prove from it one supream visible Pastor on earth when I alledge it not to prove that It is strange Logick to ask an Opponent whether he intend to prove more by his Syllogism then what he was obliged to prove in Form when the Respondent grants he has proved that and by proving the Proposition which was to be proved has evinced the Thesis to be true which he first undertook to prove by his Argument Viz. the Popes Supremacy CHAP. II. The ARGUMENT No Negative fram'd in Positive Historical matters to be proved num 24. but the Instances alledged against it to be disproved by the Opponent num 25. The Pope obeyed in England not only as Patriarch of the West but as Supream visible Pastor of the whole Militant Church See Stow and Spâ—â—ed with the Statutes of Parliaments and decrees of our English Councils in and before the beginning of King Hâ—â—nry the eighths Râ—â—ign of this matter was in quiet possession of the spiritual government of the English Church when Protestancy first appeared in it Mr. Baxter forced n. 27. to deny two common principles n. 28. His unfair dealing with his adversary n. 33 34. Visible Pastors though Christs Officers Essential to his visible Church and if they why not the Supream amongst them n. 35 36. Some under Officers are Essential to Monarchies p. 38. No new work to be attempted till the old be finish'd n. 39 40 41 42 c. Mr. Baxter puts many questions and doubts where there is no need and n. 46. mistakes grosly his Adversaries words and meaning Baxter Num. 24. In stead of prosecuting your Argument when you had cast the work of an Opponent upon me you here appeal to any true Logician or expert Lawyer Content I admit your Appeal But why then did you at all put on the face of an Opponent Could you not without this lost labour at first have called me to prove the successive visibility of our Church But to your Appeal Ho all you true Logicians this Learned man and I refer it to your Tribunal whether it be the part of an Opponent to contrive his Argument so as that the Negative shall be his and then change places and become Respondent and make his Adversary Opponent at his pleasure We leave this Cause at your Bar and expect your Sentence But before we come to the Lawyers Bar I mâ—â—st have leave more plainly to state our Case Iohnson Num. 24. I am still content to refer my case as I state
it in your Edition p. 35. But why do you refer what I admit not I say not that every Opponent may come to a Negative at his pleasure as you make me say but when that Negative is deduced by force of Syllogistical form and denied by the Respondent in a matter proveable by instances as this is I affirm and desire it should be sent to both our Learned Universities that he who denies the universal Negative is obliged in Logical process to give some instance to the contrary and that there is no other means to prove that Negative but by infringing the instances which the Respondent produces against it For if the Opponent go to prove his universal negative by Induction viz. in my present Minor But no Congregation of Christians hath been alwayes visible save those which acknowledge St. Peter c. he must come at last to this Such a Congregation is neither that of the Arrians nor of the Eutychians nor of Nestorians nor any other Congregation that can be named Then if the Respondent deny that Proposition and affirm there is some nameable he is obliged to tell which it is otherwise it is impossible to make progress in the Argument which way of arguing notwithstanding is most Logical and usually practised amongst Learned Disputants Baxter Num. 25. We are all agreed that Christianity is the true Religion and Christ the Churches universal Head and the Holy Scriptures the Word of God Papists tell us of another Head and Rule the Pope and Tradition and Iudgement of the Church Protestants deny these Additionals and hold to Christianity and Scripture onely our Religion being nothing but Christianity we have no controversie about their Papal Religion superadded is that which is controverted They affirm 1. the Right 2. the Antiquity of it We deny both The Right we disprove from Scripture though it belongs to them to prove it The Antiquity is it that is now to be referred Protestancy being the denial of Popery it is we that really have the Negative and the Papists that have the Affirmative The Essence of our Church which is Christian is confessed to have been successively visible But we deny that theirs as Papal hath been so and now they tell us that it is Essential to ours to deny the Succession of theirs and therefore require us to prove a Succession of ours as one that still hath denied theirs Now we leave our Case to the Lawyers seeing to them you make your Appeal 1. Whether the Substance of all our Cause lie not in this question Whether the Papacy or universal Government by the Pope be of Heaven or of Men Fallacy 8. and so Whether it hath been from the beginning which we deny and therefore are called Protestants and they affirm and are therefore called Papists 2. If they cannot first prove a Successive visibility of their Papacy and Papal Church then what Law can bind us to prove that it was denied before it did arise in the world or ever any pleaded for it 3. And as to the point of Possession I know not what can be pretended on your side 1. The possession of this or that particular Parish Church or Tythes is not the thing in question but the universal Headship is the thing But if it were yet it is I that am yet here in Possession and Protestants before me for many Ages Successively And when possessed you the Head-ship of the Ethiopian Indian and other Extra-Imperial Churches never to this day No nor of the Eastern Churches though you had Communion with them 2. If the question be who hath possession of the universal Church we pretend not to it but onely to a part and the soundest safest part 3. The Case of Possession therefore is Whether we have not been longer in Possession of our Religion which is bare Christianity then you of your super-added Popery Our Possession is not denied of Christianity yours of Popery we deny and our denial makes us called Protestants Let therefore the reason of Logicians Lawyers or any rational sober man determine the case whether it do not first and principally belong to you to prove the visible Succession of a Vice-Christ over the universal Church Iohnson Num. 25. Fair and softly Sir you are run quite out of the field and have lost your self I know not where The present question is not who is to prove the universal and perpetual Supremacy of the Roman-Bishop See you not that I have already undertaken the proof of that in this present Argument The question at present is nothing but this when I have brought the Argument to this Head that no other Congregation of Christians can be named perpetually visible save that which acknowledges the Roman Supremacy and you deny that negative Proposition of mine whether you be not obliged upon that denial to name some Congregation which has been perpetually visible beside it This and this onely is that which I referr'd and still refer to the the judgement of the Learned as to your Case when it comes in season it shall be resolved This onely ex abundanti for the present whatsoever may be or not be of the Indians and Ethiopians c. which shall hereafter be examined You who confess the Pope to have been constituted Part 2. at least by the Churches grant Patriarch of the West and thereby to have acquired a lawfull Supremacy over the Western Churches and consequently over that of England and was in full and quiet possession of that Right when your first Protestants began to reject it you I say cannot deny those first Protestants at least to have been obliged by reason of that possession to bring convincing proofs that it was unlawfull which notwithstanding you must hold impossible to be done because you hold that Patriarchal power over them to have been lawfull Now what obligation falls upon you as maintaining successively so wrongfull a cause I leave to your consciences to determine Nay it is most evident in time of the first breach with the Roman Bishop he was in as quiet possession of Supremacy over the English Church in quality of Supreme visible Pastor over the whole Church as he was in quality of the Western Patriarch for the English obeyed him as Supreme over all and not as Patriarch of the West onely as appears by thousands of testimonies extant in our National Councils Doctors Bishops Historians Records Decrees c. Therefore those who dispossest him of that possession were bound either to have demonstrated it undeniably to be unlawfull or to have procured a definitive Sentence against him by such as had full Authority to judge him that his possession was unjust neither of which either hath been done nor can ever be done Baxter Num. 26 As to your contradictory impositions I reply 1. Your exception was not exprest and your imposition was peremptory Iohnson Num. 26. But I supposed my Adversaries to be Logicians and stood not in need to be instructed
in usual Logical processes belonging to Syllogistical Form p. 37. Baxt. Edit Do what I can you will mistake me I speak of a Church denying that the Pope hath alwayes had it that is of a Church which now or of late times denies it and you make me speak of a Church which hath alwayes denied it contrary to my express words immediately following as you presently acknowledge All I pretend is this Prove that any Church which now denies it hath been alwayes visible and I am satisfied whether that Church alwayes denied it or no. Baxter Num. 27. I told you I would be a Papist if you prove That the whole visible Church in all Ages held the Popes universal Head-ship You say that you have proved it by this Argument that either he hath that Supremacy or some other Church denying that he hath alwayes had it hath been alwayes visible and that Church you require should be named I reply 1. Had not you despaired of making good your Cause you should have gone on by Argumentation till you had forced me to contradict some common Principle 2. If you should shew these Papers to the world and tell them that you have no better proof of the Succession of your Papacy then that we prove not that it hath alwayes been denied by the visible Church you would sure turn thousands from Popery if there be so many rational considering impartial men that would peruse them and believe you For any man may know that it could not be expected that the Churches should deny a Vice-Christ before he was sprung up Why did not all the precedent Roman Bishops disclaim the title of universal Bishop or Patriarch till Pelagius and Gregory but because there was none in the world that gave occasion for it How should any Heresie be opposed or condemned before it doth arise Iohnson Num. 27. I have manifestly forced you to contradict a common Principle and not one but Two of them First you are forced to contradict that Principle in Logick That he who denies an universal Negative Proposition framed in a positive Historical matter as mine is is not obliged to give an instance when it is demanded to infringe the universality of it and this I have and do refer The second is a Theological or rather Christian Principle That no professed Heretick nor Schismatick properly so called is a true part of the universal visible Church of Christ. That this is such a Principle shall appear hereafter where I shall make it evident that a professed Heretick properly so called had or could have true Christian Faith or the profession of it without which no man can be a true member of the Catholick Church that is united to Christ as his Head as you explicate your meaning Your other difficulties about the Title of Universal Bishop c. shall be answered in their place Baxter Num. 28. But you fairly yield me somewhat here and say that you oblige me not to prove a continued visible Church formally and expresly denying it but that it was of such a Constitution as was inconsistent with any such Supremacy or could and did subsist without it Reply I confess your first part is very ingenious and fair Remember it hereafter that you have discharged me from proving a Church that denied the Papacy formally and expresly Iohnson Num. 28. But have you dealt as fairly with me when after I had so clearly explicated my self in my former Answer not to exact a perpetual visible Church formally and expresly denying that Supremacy you make me frame an Argument in the precedent Paragraph exacting the formal and express denial of it in all Ages is this fair You corrupt again my Proposition I say not that I freed you from proving a Church that denied the Papacy formally and expresly but as you acknowledge in this Paragraph that I obliged you not to prove a continued visible Church formally and expresly denying it that is such a Church as denied it so all the time that it was visible yet I quitted you not of the obligation of instancing in a Church which at some time or other denied it formally and expresly as your inference seems to affirm I do For seeing it has for many hundred years been publickly acknowledged as due to the Bishop of Rome it was deniable by those who lived in the said Ages Baxter Num. 29. But as to what you yet demand 1. I have here given it you because you shall not say Iâ—â—le fail you I have answered your desire But 2. It is not as a thing necessary but ex abundanti as an overplus For you may now see plainly that to prove that the Church was without an universal Pastor which you require is to prove the Negative viz. that then there was none such whereas it's you that must prove that there was such I prove our Religion do you prove yours though I say to pleasure you I le disprove it and have done it in two Books already Iohnson Num. 29. I had no farther Obligation in the Process of this Argument then to inforce you to produce an instance of some Church perpetually visible which either denied or was inconsistent with and Independent of that Supremacy And this I say you were obliged to do according to Logical Form say as much as you please that it was ex abundanti no good Logician will beleeve you I mention not the Churches being without a Supream visible Pastor which you term universal nor oblige I you precisely to prove that but to prove a perpetual visible Church whose government was inconsistent with one supream visible Pastor over all which is an Affirmative Proposition Why mistake you perpetually prove this and I am satisfied Nor yet have you in what you have done performed what you undertake as shall appear in my following Rejoynder to your Arguments Baxter Num. 29. My reason from the stress of necessity which you lay on your Affirmative and Additions was but subservient to the foregoing Reasons not first to prove you bound but to prove you the more bound to the proof of your Affirmative And therefore your instance of Mahumetans is impertinent He that saith you shall be damned if you beleeve not this or that is more obliged to prove it then he that affirmeth a point as of no such moment Iohnson Num. 30. Sure if you prove me more bound you prove me bound à fortiori For every comparative supposes its positive The instance I bring is pertinent and all who read it attentively will see it is so Your last sentence is a repetition of what I denied without answering my answering my Argument against it Then say I a Christian is bound to prove his Religion to a Mahumetan but a Mahumetan is not bound to prove his to a Christian or if you will have it so is more bound of the two this you answer not because the same reason holding in both you saw you could not answer it Baxter Num.
31. To what I say of an Accident and a corrupt part you say you have answered and do but say so having said nothing to it that is considerable Iohnson Num. 31. Let the Reader judge that by what hath been said on both parts Baxter Num. 32 Me thinks you that make Christ to be corporally present in every Church in the Eucharist should not say Fallacy 8. That the King of the Church is absent Iohnson Num. 32. Why dally you thus to amuse your Reader you know we we dispute now of a proper visible presence Such as is not that in the Eucharist Baxter Num. 33. But when you have proved 1. That Christ is so absent from his Church that there 's need of a Deputy to Essentiate his Kingdom and 2. That the Pope is so deputed you will have done more then is yet done for your cause Iohnson Num. 33. I have proved that Christ instituted S. Peter and his Successors to govern visibly his whole Universal Church on earth in all ages and that nothing so instituted is accidental to his Church and you have not yet given any instance to infringe it so that my proof stands in full force against you till it be answered I presse you therefore once more to give an instance of something which has been ever in the visible Church by Christs Institution and yet is accidental to his Church Baxter Num. 34. And yet let me tell you that in the absence of a King it is only the King and Subjects that are Essential to the Kingdome the Deputy is but an Officer and not essential Iohnson Num. 34. 'T is so indeed de facto but suppose as I do that a Vice-King be by full Authority made an Ingredient into the Essence of the Kingdome See my words Baxter p. 38. then sure he must be essential this is evident in our present subject For though all the Pastors in Christs Church be only his Officers and Deputies yet you cannot deny such Officers are now Essential to his visible Church I wonder you look no deeper then to the Superficies nor consider what inconveniences follow against your self by your replies for what true Christian ever yet denied that either Bishops or Presbyters or both though they are all Christs Officers and Deputies are essential to Christs visible Church Baxter Fallacy 6. The word ever left out the thiâ—â—d time Num. 35. Your naked Assertion That whatsoever Government Christ instituteth of his Church must be essential to his Church is no proof nor like the task of an Opponent Iohnson Num. 35. My Assertion is of force till you produce some instance of perpetual Church Government instituted by our Saviour which is not Essential to his Church which you neither have done nor can you do it And certainly when any Common-wealth is instituted in such a determinate kind of perpetual Government by one of so eminent Authority that no other hath power to change that Institution as it passes in our case the government which he instituted is not accidental to that Common-wealth so far that it will be no longer the Common-wealth instituted by him when the Government is changed Baxter Num. 36. The Government of Inferiour Officers is not Essential to the Vniversal Church no more then Iudges and Iustices to a Kingdom Iohnson Num. 36. Your Assertion is not true for Iudges and Iustices may be changed into other Officers by the Supream authority whereas none have power to change the Officers which Christ hath instituted to be perpetual in his Church Again even in Common-wealths and Kingdoms though these determinate Officers are not essential to them yet it is essential to have some inferiour Officers seeing it is impossible that the Supream Magistâ—â—ate should govern the whole Common-wealth immediatly by himself Baxter Num. 37. And yet we must wait long before you will prove that Peter and the Pope of Rome are in Christs place as Governours of the Universal Church Iohnson Num. 37. I have proved it and my proof is good till it be convinced that you have answered my Argument Governours they are but under Christ and no farther then to a visible government of the universal Militant Church Baxter Num. 38. Sir I desire open dealing as between men that beleeve these matters are of eternal consequence I watch not for any advantage against you Though it be your part to prove the Affirmative yet I have begun the proof of our Negative but it was on supposition that you will equally now prove your Affirmative better then you have here done I proved a visible Church successively that held not the Popes Vniversal Government Do you now prove That the Universal Church in all ages did hold the Popes Universal Government which is your part or I must say again I shall think you do but run away and give up your cause as unable to defend it I have not failed you do not you fail me Iohnson Num. 38. Sir All that I contend is that my Argument sent to you and the Answer to it promised and assayed by you be respectively accomplished by us both when that is done I shall refuse no reasonable Propositions and shall endeavour to give you all possible satisfaction But give me leave to tell you till that be done I shall take it for an Effugium from you and and so I think will all rational men to set upon a new work before the old be finisht For by this means we shall bring nothing to an Issue but still flit superficially from one difficulty to another without bringing any thing to a period and thereby both lose our time and credit Let us first follow this close and when we are come to an end we shall be ready to begin another It is not for the present the proof of the perpetual visibility of your Protestant Church in particular which is aimed at for answer to my Argument Be it that or any other Independent of the Bishop of Romes authority 't is all one for solution of the Argument The force of my discourse consists in this No Congregation of Christians has been perpetually visible save that which acknowledges the Popes Supremacy Ergo No Congregation of Christians is Christs true Church save that Now this Argument presses all Congregations of Christians whether Ancient or Modern not acknowledging that Supremacy as much as Protestants and if any of them can be proved to be perpetually visible the Argument is solv'd So that the Argument is not directed particularly against Protestants but as well against Grecian Schismaticks Eutychians Nestorians Montanists c. as against them and had it fallen into their hands as it did into yours the proving their visibility though yours had not been proved would have given satisfaction nay if you had shewed the perpetual visibility of any others as you have assayed to do of yours you had given an equal satisfaction to the Argument But seeing you have pitcht upon the visibility of your Protestant
Church you have imposed an obligation upon me of answering the reasons and allegations whereby you labour to prove it to have been perpetually visible Baxter Num. 39. You complain of a deficiency in quality though you confess that I abound in number But where is the deseâ—â—t You say I must assert both that these were one Congregation and ever visible since Christs time Reply If by one Congregation you meant one Assembly met for personal Communion which is the first sense of the word Congregation it were ridiculous to feign the universal Church to be such Iohnson Num. 39. You know I mean not that why lose you time in putting an if upon it Baxter Num. 40. If you mean one as united in one visible humane Head that 's it that we deny and therefore may not be required to prove Iohnson Num. 40. I abstract from that also be it but truly and properly one whencesoever that unity is drawn 't is all alike to the Solution of my Argument Baxter Num. 41. But that these Churches are one as united in Christ the Head we easily prove in that from him the whole Family is named the Body is Christs Body 1 Cor. 12.12 13. and one in him Ephes. 4.4 5 6. c. Iohnson Num. 41. These Churches which these mean you all that you seem to point at in your Catalogue All sure or you prove nothing but which are those all You name only those of the present age Greeks Armenians Ethiopians Protestants After these for eleven hundred years you name none at all How shall we then know determinately what you mean here by these Churches when you give no light to know your meaning Let us therefore first know which are these Churches you here relate to by some particular designation and denomination of them or how can you either prove or we know whether they were united in Christ or no and then and not till then can it be discerned whether these Churches be or be not parts of Christs family or body according to the places you here cite Baxter Num. 42. All that are true Christians are one Kingdome or Church of Christ but these of whom I speak are true Christians therefore they are one Kingdom or Church of Christ. Iohnson Num. 42. I grant your Major and deny your Minor if they were independent of the Roman Bishop Baxter Num. 43. And that they have been visible since Christs time till now all History even your own affirm as in Judea and from the Apostles times in Ethiopia Egypt and other parts Rome was no Church in the time of Christs being on earth Iohnson Num. 43. Let them have been as visible as you please that 's nothing to me so were the Arrians Sabellians Montanists c. as much as many of these prove they were no more then one visible Congregation of Christians amongst themselves and with Orthodox Christians that 's the present controversie Baxter Num. 44. And to what purpose talk you of determinate Congregations Do you mean individual Assemblies those cease when the persons die Or do you mean Assemblies meeting in the same place So they have not done still at Rome Iohnson Num. 44. Why do you still ask me if I mean what you know I mean not Baxter Num. 45. I told you and tell you still that we hold not that God hath secured the perpetual visibility of his Church in any one City or Country but if it cease in one place it is still in others It may cease at Ephesus at Phillippi Colosse c. in Tenduc Nubia c. and yet remain in other parts I never said that the Church must needs be visible still in one Town or Country Iohnson Num 45. I assent to you in this why lose you labour in asserting that which no man questions Baxter Num. 46. And yet it hath been so de facto as in Asia Ethiopia c. But you say I nominate none Are you serious must I nominate Christians of these Nations to prove that there were such You reqâ—â—ire not this of the Church-Historians It sufficâ—â—th that they tell you that Ethiopia Egypt Armenia Syria c. had Christians without naming them When all History tells you that these Countreys were Christians or had Churches I must tell you what and who they were Must you have their Names Sirnames and Genealogies I cannot name you one of a thousand in this small Nation in the Age I live in how then should I name you the people of Armenia Abassia c. so long ago You can name but few of the Roman Church in each Age and had they wanted Learning and Records as much as Abassins and Indians and others you might have been as much to seek for names as they Iohnson Num. 46. You trifle away time exceedingly I require as you have seen above the nomination of the determinate Opinions or Societies as Hussites Waldenses Nestorians Eutychians c. not of their persons And therefore I say you nominate none See Baxt. p. 41. much less prosecute you those with whom you begun Now these were Greeks Armenians Ethiopians Protestants so that I speak undeniably of the nomination of Sects and Societies not of Names Sirnames and Genealogies of persons There were different Sects and Professions in different Countreys as Armenia Abassia c. I require the nomination of which of those Sects or parties you mean in those times and Nations not what were their names and sirnames Nor is it sufficient that you say there were Christians that is Christians univocally so called or true Christians in all Ages in Armenia Ethiopia Egypt c. who denied the Popes Supremacy for unless you nominate of what party sect opinion or profession they were how shall any man judge whether they held not some Opinion contrary to the Essentials of Christianity and by that became no Christians even in your opinion You must therefore either have nominated and designed what sort of professions you mean or acknowledge you have spoken in the air and produc'd a pure non-proof in the nomination of those Countreys since no man can know by that what sort of profession you mean amongst all those different professions which have inhabited the said Nations for Arrians Sabellians Manichees Menandrians c. whom you hold to be no Christians and to erre in Essentials denied the Popes Supremacy in those Nations CHAP. III. ARGUMENT Num. 47. No Congregations of Christians can be united in Christ which are not united in the profession of one and the same Faith and in the Unity of external Communion n. 50 51 c. Assertors of the Popes Supremacy within the first 400. years after Christ. Extra Imperial Nations subject to the Roman Bishop n. 51. India and outer Armenians not alwayes Extra-Imperial n. 51. An Universal prov'd from a Particular by Mr. Baxter His word a proof n. 55. A bold Assertion of his contrary both to Ancient and Modern Writers n. 54. The Ethiopians subject to the Three
Instances in your next Reply as are here demanded of you You cite me here Blondel and Aeneas Silvius so confusedly without Book Chapter Page or Column that I think it not worth my pains to spend time in seeking them if they have any thing worth your citing or satisfactory to what here I say either set it clearly down in your next or give me some clear means to know what you stand upon in those two Authors Baxter Num 80. Whether the Bishop of Rome had power over the Bishop of Arles Fallacy 11. by the Heathen Emperors is a frivolous question Arles was in the Roman Patriarchate and not out of the Empire The Churches in the Empire might by consent dispose themselves into the Patriarchal Orders Non-proof 10 without the Emperors and yet not meddle out of the Empire Iohnson Num. 80. You proceed Sophistically à possibili ad actum The Question is not What the Bishops might have done but what they did Now you affirm they did form themselves into Patriarchates by free consent make it appear to have been so by Authentical Testimonies from Antiquity I bring you proofs that their subjection to him was out of that most publick Tradition that he was successor to S. Peter Vide infra Bring me as many that he was made Patriarch of the West before Constantines time by force of free consent of the Western Bishops under the Empire Is it not a plain Paradox to affirm that a thing should be done by publick consent of a thousand Bishops through the whole Western Church and yet there should be no one step of proof no word of any Historian for it in all Antiquity Baxter Num. 81. Yet indeed Cyprians words intimate no power Rome had over Arles more then Arles had over Rome that is to reject Communion with each other upon dissent Iohnson Num. 81. S. Cyprians words shall be examined hereafter in their proper place CHAP. VI. ARGUMENT Num. 82. The four first General Councils proved by many Reasons and Authorities to be truly and properly Oecumenical having Authority over all Christian Churches as well without as within the Roman Empire num 84 85. Whom Mr. Baxtâ—â—r accounts univocal Christians and proper parts of the Catholick Church num 86. Whether he have made a good choice for himself num 88. No Heretick properly so called can have true Christian Faith in any Article whatsoever and consequently can be no part of the Catholick Church num 90 91. Christ the sole Head of the whole Church Triumphant and Militant The Bishop of Rome no more then Head of the visible Church on earth and not absolutely but secundum quid that is according to the external and visible Government onely and even that not as having all other Bishops under him as his Officers but as Christs Officers together with him they of their respective Districts and he of them to direct and correct them when need requires it Baxter Num. 82. Nay it more confuteth you that even under Heathen Emperours when Church-associations were by voluntary consent of Pastors only and so if they had thought it necessary Non-proof 11. they might have extended them to other Principalities yet de facto they did not do it as all History of the Church declareth mentioning their Councils and Associations without these taken in Iohnson Num. 82. Where are your proofs I deny any such consent to be extant in Antiquity nor could those Provincial or Nationall Councils call the Extra-Imperials to sit with them because they were only of the Provinces which were within the Empire and had no Authority without the precincts of their respective Churches Now you will give me leave to discover the weakness and inconsistency of your Novelty about the first four General Councils having had no power without the Empire First the very a Vide titulum Conc. Nicen. Titles of the Councils themselves confute you where they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is universal or General Nor can you say that is meant onely through the Empire for you hotly contend that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 universal is extended to all Christians through the whole world Part. 2. Secondly b Conc. Chalcedon Act. 16. ap Binium p. 464. they call themselves General Thirdly the Canons Decrees Definitions are General without any limitation more to the Empire then to any other part of the world as is clear out of all the Canons and Decrees themselves Fourthly Historians of all Ages call them Oecumenical or General and never intimate any Imperial limitation if they do produce the Historian that calls them National or Imperial Councils Fifthly the whole Christian world ever since their times have esteemed them General and to have had an obligatory power and authority over all Christians Sixthly the holy Fathers c D. Aug. tom 7. contra Denatist lib. 2. cap. 13. ut diu Concil in suis quibusque regionibus diversa Statuta nutaâ—â—rint donec plenario totius orbis Concilio quod saluberrimè sentieâ—â—atur etiam remoâ—â—is dubitationibus â—â—irmaretur Hoc enim jam in ipsa totius orbis unitate discussum consideratum perfectum etque firmatum est loquitur de Concil Niceno Now it is evident that S. Aug. by his totius orbis means totius orbis Christians the whole Christian world that is the whole Church of Christ as appears by a hundred places of his against the Donatiffs when he sayes they have separated themselves from the whole world that is from the whole visible Church and this you confess to be true pag. 229 230 c. of your Book who speak of them stile them General Oecumenical plenary yea plenissima c. d Produce any one of them who limits these Councils to the Empires or denies them to have had power to oblige all Christians Seventhly Protestant Authors so far as I can see before you esteemed them General without any limitation and if you can cite any who say the contrary I pray do it e Anno 1 Elizabeth cap. 1. Versus finem capitis Eighthly the very Statute-Books of England since Protestant times call them General f Artic. 21. where by saying Some General Councils have erred they suppose there have been General Councils in the Church which had Authority out of the Empire For those as you confess were onely National or Imperial Councils Ninthly your 39 Articles call them General and the Fathers g D. Aug. tom 7. de Baptism cont Donatist lib. 2. cap. 3. when they call them General they distinguish them also from Provincial or National Councils Tenthly h D. Aug. ibid. cap. 1. cap. 4. cap. 9. Sic ait si autem Concilium ejus Cypriani attenditur huic universae Ecclesiae posterius Concilium Nicenum intelligit praeponendum cujus se membrum ostendebat ut se in totius corporis compage retinendâ caeteri imitarentur saepiùs admonâ—â—bat Nam ut Concilia
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
say to so many poor souls that are ready to enter into another World Either sin against your Consciences and so damn your souls or else let us burn and murder you or else you do not love us you are uncharitable if you deny us leave to kill you and you separate from the Communion of the Church We appeal from the Pope and all unreasonable men to the great God of heaven and earth to judge righteously between you and us concerning this dealing As for possessing our selves of your Bishopricks and Cures if any particular person had personal injury in the change being cast out without cause they must answer for it that did it not I though I never heard any thing to make me beleeve it But must the Prince and the people let alone Delinquent Pastors for fear of being blamed for taking their Bishopricks Ministers of the same Religion with us may be cast out for their crimes Princes have power over Pastors as well as David Solomon and other Kings of Israel had Guil. Barclay and some few of your own knew this The Popes treasonable exemption of the Clergie from the Soveraigns judgement will not warrant those Princes before God that neglect to punish offending Pastors And I beseech you tell us when our Consciences after the use of all means that we can use to be informed cannot renounce all our senses nor our reason nor the judgement of the most of the Church or of Antiquity or the Word of God and yet we must do so or be no members of your Church what wrong is it to you if we chuse us Pastors of our own in the order that God hath appointed Had not the people in all former ages the choice of their Pastors We and our late Fore-fathers here were never under your over-sight but we know not why we may not now choose our Pastors as well as formerly we do it not by Tumults We kill not men and tread not in their blood while we chuse our Pastors as Pope Damasus was chosen The Tythes and other Temporal maintenance we take from none but the Magistrate disposeth of it as he seeth meet for the Churches good And the maintenancâ—â— is for the cure or work and therefore that are justly cast out of the cure are justly deprived of the maintenance And surely when they are dead none of you can with any shew of reason stand up and say These Bishopricks are yours or These Parsonages are yours It is the Incumbent personally that only can claim the Title saving the super-eminent title of Christ to whom they are devoted But the successive Popes cannot have title to all the Tythes and Temples in the World nor any of his Clergy that never were called to the charges If this be dis-union it is you that are the Separatists and cause of all If you will needs tell all the Christian World that except they will be ruled by the Pope of Rome and be burned if they beleeve not as he bids them in spight of their senses he will call them Separatists Schismaticks and say they dis-unite and are uncharitable again we appeal to God and all wise men that are impartial whether it be he or we that is the divider Iohnson Num. 98. By what is now answered this your long Rhetorical Exclamation from page 108. to page 112. is also solved For all that the Church of Rome demands of you even to the denying of your senses and subjecting of your judgement was in the year 1500. required of you by all Visible Ancient Churches in the World and you are not able to nominate any one where it was not Change therefore the term Pope or Church of Rome into that of the Catholick Church of Christ that is all Orthodox particular Churches existent at that time which are comprised in the number of all visible ancient particular Churches then existing and address your exclamations to it and then you will see how little of a Christian complaint there is in that whole digression To this therefore I presse you once again to produce some Visible Church in the year 1500. from whose visible Communion you were not separated in your first beginning Anno 1517. as much as were the Pelagians or Donatists from all Visible Churches in their times And to render a sufficient reason why your dis-obeying or substracting your selves from the dependance and obedience of all the Visible Pastors in all Churches Anno 1500. was not as much deserving to be termed and held a criminal Schism and spiritual Rebellion as any former separation from all Visible Churches Mr. Baxter Num. 99. You ask me Is not Charity Subordination and obedience to the same State and Government required as well to make one Congregation of Christians as it is required to make a Congregation of Commonwealth's-men Answ. yes it is But as all the world is one kingdome under God the universal King but yet hath no universal vice-king but every Commonwealth only hath it's own Sovereign even so all the Christian world is one Church under Christ the universal king of the Church but hath not one vice-Christ but every Church hath it's own Pastours as every School hath it's own School-master But all the Anger is because we are loth to be ruled by a cruel usurper therefore we are uncharitable William Iohnson Num. 99. You commit the Fallacy of ignoratio Elenchi and pass à genere in genus I speak of a visible Kingdome or Commonwealth as it is regulated by a visible Government and you take it as it is invisibly govern'd by an invisible Providence In this sense only are all the kindomes of the earth one kingdome under the invisible Government of the Invisible God but cannot be truly called one visible kingdome but more Now it is evident through the whole discourse that our present Controversie is of the visible Church as it is visible and in this sense it is and must be one and consequently must be under some visible Government which must make it one That cannot be Christ for he governs not his Church now visibly Ergo there must be some other and that must either be some Assembly of chief Governours as would be a General Council or some one person who has Authority to govern the whole body of the Church A general Council it cannot be for that was never held to be the ordinary but only the extraordinary Church-Government when emergent occasions require it and even when that is convened there must be some one person to avoid Schisme and quiet Controversies which may possibly arise in the Council with Authority above all the rest It is therefore manifest the Church cannot be perfectly one visible politick Body unless there be one visible head to govern it visibly as the ordinary Governour of it I beseech you Sir reflect often upon this distinction and you will see the chief ground of your discourse answered by it For to say as you do here that the Church
of the denyal of original Sin That Infants which dye without Baptisme are not in the state of Salvation c. Now these are enough to make them Hereticks and out of the Church whatsoever is of the rest of their Heresie which howsoever some dispute now wherein it consisteth yet when they were first condemned there was no dispute about it But here 's another grand Noveltie of yours to be considered Who ever yet before you said that Catholick Church could be divided in it self when it is a most perfect unity See what the Fathers say of this point why is it called una Ecclesia Catholica one Catholick Church in the Nicene Creed if it can be divided and then you adde another Novelty as the former For who but you ever said the Donatists were not divided absolutely from the Church does not S. Aug. lib. de Baptismo contra Donatistas say they separated and divided from the Church a hundred times over But more of this hereafter Mr. Baxter Num. 105. I know that Heresie is a personal Crime and cannot be charged on Nations unlesse you have Evidence that the Nations consent to it which here you have none William Iohnson Num. 105. I have your own Author for it an approved Historian amongst you there is no Authority alledged by you which contradicts his Testimony or clears them from Eutychianisme why therefore seek you evidence against what you are not able to disprove But for your farther satisfaction first it is certain in the year One thousand one hundred seventy and seven the Abyssines or Ethiopians under Prester Iohn desired Doctours to be sent to them from Pope Alexander the third to Instruct them in the Roman Faith from which they differed at that time The Pope write to their King and high Bishop that he desired nothing more then to gratifie them in their Request intreating them to send their doubts and requests in particular to Rome Now that these differences from the Roman Church in part at least were the Heresie of Eutyches is Evident from the Canon of their Mass wherein they commemorate three or four times the Fathers of the three first general Councils but never make mention of those in the fourth that is the Council of Chalcedon whereof no other probable reason can be given save their adhering to the Heresie of Eutyches which was condemned in that Council so that there needs no farther Testimony against them seeing they condemn themselves of Eutychianisme Mr. Baxter Num. 106. Some are Hereticks for denying Points essential to Christianity these are not Christians and so not in the Church but many also are called Hereticks by you and by the Fathers for lesser Errours consistent with Christianity and these may be in the Church Abyssines and all the rest have not been yet tryed and convicted before any competent Iudge and Slanderers we regard not William Iohnson Num. 106. This is already answered all Hereticks deny the veracity of Christ which is Essential to Christ and Christianity whatsoever their Heresies be the Abyssines confess themselves to follow as I have proved Eutyches and Dioscorus and therefore need neither tryal nor conviction Mr. Baxter Num. 107. Many of your own Writers acquit them of Heresie and say †Non-proof 13. the difference is now found to be but in words or little more William Iohnson Num. 107. Name those Writers and you shall be answered think you that any rational man will be convinced by your bare affirmation Mr. Baxter Num. 108. What you say of their disclaiming us unless we take the Patriarch of Constantinople for the vice Christ you many wayes mistake 1. if this were true that they rejected us it were not proof that we are not of one universal Church William Iohnson Num. 108. But sure I mistake not in saying they disclaim you if it be supposed true as you suppose now they doe disclaim you and I think impartial men will take it to be a proof for if both the whole Westerne Church with the Bishop of Rome and the Easterne with the Bishop of Constantinople each claiming the Soveraignty of visible Government over the whole Church of Christ reject you as Hereticks and no other Church existent in the world anno Dom. 1500. Immediately before your first visible opposition against the Roman Church own you as you have not proved nor can you ever prove they doe but upon the same or for some other reasons Reject you for which the Easterne and Westerne Churches have disclaimed you you cannot but confess you are rejected by the whole Catholick Church of Christ seeing you were Rejected by all the visible Churches of that time Now whosoever is rejected as an Heretick by the whole Catholick visible Church either must be no part of it or the Catholick Church must not be able to know which are which are not her true parts and be fallen into so desperate an Errour as to reject as out-casts and enemies those who are her true Children Or what phrenzie would it be in a Novellist vainly and presumptuously to give himself out for a Member of the Church when the whole Catholick Church disclaims and Anathematises him as an Alien Now reduce your selves as Tertullian sayes to your first origine in the year 1500 even in your Principles the visible Catholick Church was all the Congregations of Christians through the whole world but all these Congregations disowned you as Aliens and Separatists from them when you first begun an 1517. ergo the whole Catholick Church disowned you as Aliens and Separatists Ergo you were then either such as the Church esteemed you to be or the whole Catholick Church was deceived but all good Christians will rather believe that you who were then but a handfull of new-hatched Novellists were deceived in fancying your selves to be parts of the Church against the censure and judgement of the whole Christian world then that the whole Christian world should be deceived and you only in the Right Nay that you may have no shadow to shroud your self under not only the whole Christian world when you begun rejected you as not belonging to their Body but you your selves never so much as pretended then to be parts of any of these Churches but hated and abominated them as much as they did you and condemned them all of Errour and Superstition of Babylonish captivity and utter darknesse of Antichrianisme and Idolatry c. Read your first Writers and you will find it so for seeing all the visible Christian Congregations held many of those Points which your first beginners held to be Idolatrous and Superstitious in the Roman Church in condemning the Roman and separating from it upon those pretended Superstitions and Errours you separated from and condemned the whole Catholick Church nor can you free your self from this unless you nominate some Church in those times spread all the Christian world over which resisted those said Errours as you did and joined with you against the Roman
Church in this opposition Mr. Baxter Num. 109. They do not claim to be vice Christi the universal Governours of the Church Contradiction the Title of universal Patriarch they extended but to the then Roman Empire and that not to an universal government but Primacy William Iohnson Num. 109. I wonder to hear you say here the Greeks intended the Title of universal Patriarch only to the Empire and that not of Government but of Primacie that is as you mistake that word precedencie in place when you labour mightily to prove Pag. 154. 155.156 c. from St. Gregorie's Epistles that the Title the Greeks then pretended to and S. Gregory exclaimed against was to be Bishop and to have spiritual Jurisdiction over all Churches and Christians in the world either therefore you must grant that your Argument drawn there from St. Gregorie's words is fallacious and of no force or if it be of force and well grounded That then Iohn of Constantinople and with and after him the Patriarchs of that City pretended to be universal Governours of the whole Church both extra and intra-Imperial And as to the later Patriarchs of Constantinople seeing there is now no Christian Empire amongst them and they still retain that former Title of Vniversal Patriarchs you cannot pretend they inclose their Authorities within the Verge of the Christian Empire And that you may see what Authoritie the Constantinopolitan Patriarch assumes to himself and how plaguely he stiles himself a vice-Christ quite contrary to your groundlesse Assertion here Hieremias in his Epistle to the Lutherans of Germany prefixed before his censure of their Doctrine saies thus Si enim volueritis inquit Scriptura audieritis me bona terrae comedetis quibus sane verbis mediocritas item nostra quae ipsa Christi Domini miseratione successione quadam hic in terris ejus locum tenet ad amabilem concordiam consensum cum ea quae apud nos est Jesu Christi Ecclesia charitatem vestram cohortatur If you be willing and shall hear me saith the Scripture you shall eat the good things of the Land in which words our mediocrity likewise which by the mercy of Christ our Lord by a certain succession here upon earth holds his Christ's place Exhorts you to an amiable concord and charity with that which is with us the Church of Iesus Christ where this Patriarch of Constantinople Hieremias affirmes expresly of himself that he holds Christ's place upon earth which is to be a vice-Christ as you term it as much as the Pope esteems himself one yet sure Hieremias knew what Authoritie he had in Christ's Church now that you may know undoubtedly he speaks not of a Church of Christ which may be affirmed of every particular true Church but of the Church of Christ that is the whole Catholick visible Church he exhorts those German Lutherans to an amiable concord with that Church of Christ which is with him that is in the Government whereof he holds the place of Christ and that this is no other then the whole visible Catholick Church he declared in the last Paragraph of the eight chapter saying Et ut conâ—â—idimus ubi ei quâ—â— apud nos est sanctae Catholicae Iesu Christi Ecclesiae vos subjiâ—â—ietis c. And as we confide when you shall subject your selves to that holy and Catholick Church of Christ which is with us or belongs to us which can be meant of no other save the whole visible Church for he accounts none to be in communion with that Church which is with him save those who believe and observe all the Apostolical and Synodical traditions and all who believe and observe them to be of his communion that is all orthodox Christians which is the whole Catholick Church nor can these words quae apud nos est be so understood as if they denominated only some part of the Catholick Church to be with him and some other not with him or against him for the Greek hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if he had said the holy Catholick Church existing amongst us or with us Mr. Baxter Num. 110. And for Hieremias his Predecessor whom you mention though they disputed with him by letters Stephanus Gerlochius and Martinus Crusius did not agree in all things with him yet he still professed his desire of unity and concord with us and in the beginning of his second Answer rejoiceth that we agreed with them in so many things William Iohnson Num. 110. So do we to and labour to procure that unity with all our forces but why cast you a mist upon the point in question by saying he agreed not with them in all things what mean you by all things I had said the Greeks and others profess generally all those points of Faith with us against you wherein you differ from us and prove this out of Hieremias his Epistle you answer that the Lutherans did not agree in all things with Hieremias what all things mean you those wherein you and we differ why then have you not designed some at least of those points in difference betwixt us wherein they agree with you against us if you mean they agreed not in all things that is in some wherein we and you agree they agreed also with you us that 's true but is no Answer at all to my Assertion for I meddle not with those but disagreed they with you in the points controverted betwixt us that 's true too but it is a confirmation of my Assertion But you artificially to dissemble what you could not answer serve your self only of a general terme whereby the Reader may remain still unsatisfied whether they agree with you or us in the Points under controversie betwixt us Tell us therefore and I beseech you fail not to do it whether my Assertion be true or no in this point when you Reply to it and whether my Allegations prove it not that is whether the modern Greeks agree with the Roman Church in all points now controverted betwixt us and you except that of the Popes supremacie and whether Hieremias the Patriarch assume not to himself as true a supreme authority over the whole Church as does the Pope Mr. Baxter Num. III. Iohannes Zygomalas in his letters to Crusius 1576. May 15. saith Perspienum tibi omnibus futurum est quod in continuis causam fidei praecipue continentibus articulis consentiamus quae autem videntur consensum inter vos nos Impedire talia sunt si velit quis ut facile ea corrigere possit Gaudium in coelo super terram erit si coibit in unitatem utraque Ecclesia Idem sentiemus simul vivemus in omni concordia pace secundum Deum in sincerae Charitatis vinculo William Iohnson Num. III. To what purpose are these words cited cannot any of the Roman Church write the very same now to Lutherans But does
the breach Mr. Baxter Num. 119. But you say that when I have made the best of those Greeks Armenians Ethiopians Protestants I cannot deduce them successively in all Ages till Christ as a different Congregation of Christians from that which holds the Pope's Supremacie which was your Proposition Reply I have oft told you we owne no universal Informing Head but Christ in Respect to him I have proved to you that it is not my Interest or designe to prove us or them a different Congregation from you as you are Christians nor shall you tempt me to be so uncharitable as to damn or unchristen all Papists as far as you do others incomparably safer and better then your selves William Iohnson Num. 119. This is answered above no Heretick ever professed to separate from the Church as it is Christian for in so doing he must professe himself to be no Christian which no Heretick ever did yet for by professing himself no Christian he falls into the sin of Apostacie and becomes not an Heretick but an Apostate Mr. Baxter But as you are Papal and set up a new informing Head I have proved that you differ from all the ancient Churches but yet that my Cause requireth me not to make this proof but to call you to prove your own universal succession William Iohnson I have shewed above there must be alwayes some who Exercise visible Government as ordinary Governours of the whole Church and seeing a general Council is not the ordinary way of Governing the Church there must be some one who is supreme in visible Government over the whole Church this I affirm to be the Bishop of Rome and seeing there must be some one and you confesse the Roman Bishop to be the highest in place and honour me thinks even in your principles he has a stronger claim to be supream in authority also then any one singular person through the Church now if we set up the Pope as a new informing head over the whole Church as you say we do I should be much obliged if you would please to nominate the first Pope whom we set up as such a head who they were that set him up and who withstood it as a noveltie you cannot in your principles alleadge Boniface the third for the having his title as you pretend from Phocas and Phocas having no power out of the Empire could not give him any authority over the extra-imperial Pormies no not so much as precedency in place over all the extra-imperial Bishops for what reasons had they to conform themselves to the Emperours orders who had no authority over them and consequently not over the whole Church nor was the Emperour so foolish to give more then he had power to give now that Popes before Boniface's time had jurisdiction over the whole Empire you are forc't to acknowledge divers times in your reply not being able otherwise to resolve my arguments Phocas therefore neither made nor could make Boniface head over the whole Church nor was he the first who set him up over all the Churches within the Empire oblidge me therefore in nominating to me the first head so set up in your rejoynder to this I have no obligation to prove my succession my argument presses you to the proof who though you made a bold essay to produce one Congregation of Christians perpetually visible either denying and opposing the Popes universal supremacy or at least of such a nature in Church government as rendered it inconsistent with it and in this your present reply p. 92. you undertake the proof of such a visible Congregation distinct in all ages from that which hold the said supremacy yet being told by your adversary that none of the particular Congregations instanced and nominated by you in your former answer were perpetually visible as distinct from that which held the Popes supremacy in those two paragraphes you recoile and manifestly give up your cause as not being able to perform what you first undertooke Mr. Baxter Num. 120. You adde your reason because these before named were at first involved in your Congregations and then fell off as dead branches Reply this is but an untruth in a most publique matter of fact William Iohnson Num. 120. This is your bare affirmation without proof you nominate p. 23 your edit the Armenians Greeks Ethiopians Indians Protestants and no more Now it is evident by what I have said above that the first Protestants before their change were of that Congregation which held the Popes supremacy the Armenians and Greeks consented to it in the council of Florence the Ethiopians and Indians I have proved to have reconciled themselves to the Bishop of Rome since he publickely exercised and claimed the said supremacy ergo no one of those nominated by you no nor all together have been a perpetually visible Congregation distinct from that which held the Popes supremacy Mr. Baxter Num. 121. All the truth is this 1. those Indians Ethiopians Persians c. without the Empire never fell from you as to subjection as never being your subjects prove that they were and you have done a greater wonder then Baronius in all his annals William Iohnson Num. 121. I have proved it out of the Arabick edition of the nicene canons and from that very text of the council of Calcedon cap. 28 c. which you use against us Mr. Baxter Num. 122. The Greeks and all the rest within the Empire without the Roman Patriarchate are fallen from your communion if renouncing it be a fall but not from your subjection having given you but a primacy as Nilus shews and not a governing power over them William Iohnson Num. 122. You your self in the insueing replyes acknowledg a governing power over the Churches through the whole Empire and consequently over Constantinople nay you cannot deny the fact of Agapeâ—â— over Anthymus Bishop of Constantinople nor of Celestin over Nestorius c. you are therefore as much obliged to answer Nilus his argument as I am and Bell hath saved us both a labour of answering him 't is true according to what you say of being subject the Greeks hold now a subjection to the Pope and sure if they professe subjection to him they must professe themselves to be his subjects now according to you subjection may signifie no more then to be inferiour to another in place and every subject has a superiour to whom he is subject ergo they professe the Pope to be their superiour which gives him even in your principles at least a precedency before them but Nilus never granted they were in any proper sense subject to the Pope but only inferiour in place to him seeing therefore S. Gregory as we shall see hereafter declares the Bishops of Constantinople and all other Bishops in the Church to be subject to him and his sea and the Greeks now acknowledge no subjection to him it is manifest they are not only fallen from communion with him but also from their
when they call the Roman Church Caput omnium Ecclesiarum head of all Churches as they doe very familiarly should allwayes according to you mean no more then the Churches within the Empire and yet should never signifie they mean no more then those if they ever doe signifie it name the place and words in any one of them and you shall be answered As to the word Caput head applied here to an original body As St. Paul declares the Church to be 1 Cor. 12.12 c. it must not only have the propriety of being the highest part in the body but also of having a power and capacity of governing and directing all the other parts as the head hath in natural bodies whereby it is evident that the legates in stiling the Roman Church the head of all Churches must be properly understood to mean that the Roman Church hath not only the cheif place but the cheif visible government and direction also over all other particular Churches Now St. Paul 1 Cor. 12.21 Composing the Church of different organical parts affirms that one amongst them is the head and by head he cannot mean our Saviour for he speaks of such a head as cannot say to the feet they are not necessary for it which cannot be true of Christ he must therefore mean a visible created head which hath need of the inferiour members as they have of it Mr. Baxter Num. 224. The Popes legates were not the Council nor judges in their own cause and not opposing signifies not alwaies a consent William Iohnson Num. 224. What if they were not the whole Council at least they spoke those words to the whole Council and I pretend no more Why should they be Iudges in their own cause seeing it was in a matter which no man then in the whole Council call'd in question or required that any new judgement should be given about it what if not opposing signifie not alwaies consent do I or need I pretend that it alwaies doth so it is sufficient for me that it argues consent here for certainly considering the matter they propose touches deeply upon the priviledges of the Fathers there assembled had they not spoken a known and unquestionable truth all the Fathers had been obliged to defend their liberties given them by our Saviour and represse this injury done them by the legates in that expression which seeing none of them did and yet every one had his full freedome to speak his minde for the Emperour had then no particular affection to the Sea of Rome it is an evident signe then all held it for a received truth so that it was the unanimous opinion and doctrine of the whole Council All therefore which I affirm is this that when any thing is publickly pronounced tending as this did in your opinion to the manifest and great disadvantage of all those who hear it some of them would contradict it if therefore noe one amongst many hundreds present offer to contradict it it is a manifest signe they conceived it no way injurious or disadvantageous to them and therefore assented to it as a most known and undeniable truth in those dayes Mr. Baxter Num. 225. This Council doe as I said expresly define the point both what your Primacy is and of how long standing and of what institution and that Constantinople on the same grounds had equal priviledges William Iohnson Num. 225. This is already toucht and shall be more fully answered in its place Mr. Baxter Num. 226. You say all the Fathers acknowledged themselves Leo's children and wrote to him as their Father Reply Of this you give me not any proof but leave me to read a 190 pages in folio to see whether you say true or not and what if you do as I believe you doe can a man of any reading be ignorant how ordinarily other Bishops were stiled Fathers even by their fellow Bishops as well as the Bishop of Rome William Iohnson Num. 226. You are deeply plunged in difficulties that you have no way to make a seeming escape but by throwing your self out of one fallacy into another See Blondel p. 997. acknowledging these words my argument is grounded in this that the Chalcedon Fathers call'd Pope Leo their Father and themselves his children and you might as you did by printing it in a different character easily perceive that the whole force of my argument was grounded in those termes their Father his children Now you wholly dissemble the answer to this and tell me that ordinarily other Bishops were stiled Fathers even by their fellow Bishops as well as the Bishop of Rome which is a pure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to my argument for one may stile another Father because he is Father to those who are his spiritual children in the Church as all Bishops are in relation to their diocesans Thouhg their equals who writ to them neither stile them their Fathers nor themselves their children as the Fathers of this Council did here style Leo and themselves Whereas you should have given an instance of some number or assembly of Bishops stiling any one their Father and themselves his children to whom they were equal and had no subjection to them nor dependance in government of them this you have not done because you could not do it whereby my argument hath received no solution from you but remaines in its full force against you As concerning your pains of reading a 190 pages in folio to finde out my citation I take so much pains to have been needless for I cite in my text the precise Epistle of that Council to Pope Leo saying in their Letter to Pope Leo which is not above two or three pages at most nor was I obliged to cite it more punctually then I did Mr. Baxter Num. 227. You adde that they humbly begged of him that the Patriarch of Constantinople might have the first place next Rome which notwithstanding the Council had consented to as had also the third general Council at Ephesus before yet they esteemed their grants of no sufficient force till they were confirmed by the Pope Reply So farre were the Council from what you fastely say of them that they put it into their canons that Constantinople should have the second place yea and equal priviledges with Rome and that they had this on the same grounds as Rome had its Primacy even because it was the Imperial â—â—eate vid. Bin. pag 133.134 col 2. William Iohnson Num. 227. I am sorry to see you in passion and that so deeply as to accuse my words of falsity either without duely examining whether they were true or false or if you did examine the place I cite quite against your conscience for these expresse words stand in the Councils Epistle to Pope Leo cited by me where speaking of their canon about the priviledges of Constantinople they say See Blondel p. 997. acknowledging these words rogamus igitur tuis decretis nostrum honor a
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
have no lesse then a bakers dozen of non proofs I have noted them by figures in your text let them be prov'd and then they shall be answered till then they deserve no answer To what has any seeming ground or proof I answer First it imports little whether Theodosius had any hand in this Epistle or no I say nothing of him in my text p. 59.60.61 Secondly Your proof from Iustinian is already answered in my observation made upon p. 174. of your key only I see you have mended your citation and put lib. in place of lege 3. Must it needs follow that it is my fiction because it is not the words of Valentinian that the succession from St. Peter is the foundation of Romes primacy May not a medium be given betwixt those two extremes what if it were the true sense of Valentinians words it was then neither his words nor my fiction but a true interpretation of his words and that it is so is manifest for there must be some reason sure why the merit of St. Peter conferr'd a primacy rather upon the Bishop of Rome then upon any other Bishop but none can be imagined save this that the Bishops of Rome succeeded St. Peter in the sea of Rome ergo it must be that succession or nothing You seem to say that because St. Peter last preached and was martired and buried and his relicks lay there he should be most honoured and by honoured you must mean as Hosius cited by you here and Valentinian doe in the power acknowledged in the Bishops of Rome But this cannot subsist for St. Paul preached last at Rome also was martyred and buried and his relicks lay there yet no authors say the primacy of the Roman Bishops was founded in St. Pauls merits now no reason can be given of this save that which I gave viz that the Roman Bishops succeed not to St. Paul as they doe to St. Peter because St. Paul was never Bishop of Rome as St. Peter was What you say of the succession from St. Peter in Antioch availes nothing for he having deserted the Bishopprick of Antioch in his life time and transferr'd his seate to Rome were he dyed Bishop of the Roman see was to have his proper successour there for by tranferring his see to Rome he transferr'd the dignity of Primacy of the Episcopal crown as Valentinian sayes there appropriated to him and took it from Antioch and by dying Bishop of Rome left it there to his successours whence appears that the Bishop of Antioch was a successor to St. Peter as were other Bishops but no successor to his supereminent dignity and primacy over the Church because so long as St. Peter lived it could not descend upon any other Fourthly I deny not that he ascribes the establishment of Romes primacy to those three St. Peter the city and the Synod yet he makes the first foundation of it the dignity of St. Peter and therefore prefixes it before the other two and that it may appear he makes this the first and fundamental reason and not the Synod he addes these words haec cum fuerint hactenus inviolabiter custodita since these things i. e. that nothing of great concern should be done without the authority of the Roman see have been hitherto inviolably observ'd for if the Synod had conferr'd that dignity to the Bishop of Rome he could not have said with truth that those things had been alwayes observ'd for before the Synod which gave it which was three hundred years and more after the re-Surrection of our Saviour they were observed seeing therefore they were alwayes observed that power authority must have been in the Bishop of Rome long in being before those Synods were celebrated Now how the dignity of the Roman city concurr'd to this primacy I have above declared whence appears the loud untruth which you pronounce n. 4. Here is not the least intimation that this primacy was but by the appointment of the Synod nor that it had continued so from St. Peters dayes Since you use not to read over the texts which are brought against you I pray you what signifie these words haec cum fuerint hactenus inviolabiliter observata these things have been hitherto inviolably observed what signifies hitherto but from St. Peters time to his Your guess at the Synod of Sardica as aimed at by Valentinian though say you it was of little credit in those dayes which I have numbred amongst your non-proofs is a pure mistake for the Synod he alludes to is that of Nice which in the 6 canon as it is recited in the Council of Chalcedon sayes thus Ecclesia Romana semper habuit primatum the Church of Rome hath allwaies had the primacy where that holy council gives it not as you surmise but declares it to have been alwaies due to that see since the Apostles time whence also appears the falshood of what you say next that Leo durst not pretend divine right and institution nor to a succession of Primacy from the Apostle for this very Synod to which Leo alludes warrants both For if it were alwayes due to it or that it had alwayes possession of it semper habuit it must have come not only from the time of the Apostles but from Christ himself otherwise it had been semper for in the time of the Apostles it had not been due to it When you say next I translate the word universitas the whole visible Church you wrong me for I translate it universality see pag. 59. and when I name the whole visible Church p. 60. I make no translation of his words but deliver that which I think to be the sense of them To what you say there was a Roman universality If you mean that those who were under the sole Roman Empire with exclusion of all extra-imperial Churches communicating with them were called anciently the universal Church or the universality of Christians you are much deceived where prove you that if as united with them and giving the denomination to the whole 't is true and confirms what I say Now to shew that Valentinian meanes by universalities not those of the Roman Empire exclusively to all others he joynes to universalitie ubique for then sayes he the peace of the Church will be kept every where when the whole universality acknowledges their governour but certainly Valentinian was not so ignorant as not to know there were then many Churches out of the Roman Empire For about the year 414. that is above 20 years before Valentinian enacted this law Spain was possest by the Goths and divided from the Roman Empire and was Valentinian think you ignorant of that so that I am not ashamed to confesse my ignorance that I really know not any Roman universality Ecclesiastical in your precisive and exclusive sense nor know I any Council anciently stiled oecumenical or universal where no Bishops out of that one the Roman common-wealth were present and you have not yet
what he was not obliged to prove Num. 277. Why the Roman supremacy in spirituals is necessary to the being of Christs visible Church Num 278. He proceeds fallaciously a sensu conjuncto ad sensu divisum The difference between temporal Kings and Popes government not understood by Mr. Baxter Num. 279. He proceeds a jure ad factum from what should be done to what is done Num. 280. He mistakes his adversaries meaning in governing others as Brethren Num. 281. Wâ—â—e her the Pope be absolutely the Monarch of the visible Church Mr. Baxter Num. 275. Yet fear you not to say that in the time of the holy oecumenical Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon the universal consent of the whole Catholick Church was for you in this point The Lord keep our consciences from being the servants of our opinions or interests 1. Was the Popes legate the whole Church 2. Was there one man at either of these Councils but within the Empire yea a piece of the Empire So that they were but such as we now call national Councils that is consisting only of the subjects of one republick 3. Did the Council speak a word for your power without the Empire 4. Do they not determine it so expresly to be of humane right that Bellarmine hath nothing regardable to say against it Can. 28. Con. Chal. but that they spoke falsly And yet your opinion or interest hath tempted you to appeal viz. to the Sun that there is no such thing as light William Iohnson Num. 275. Here 's nothing but a good face put upon a bad cause and a repetition of what is answered imboldned with a new confidence your first qu. about the Popes legate is answered To your second I answer yes there were no small number of extra-imperials but had there been none if all were summoned it ceased not to be a general Council To the third yes every decree it made was spoken to the whole Church and as it appeares by the letters of Leo the Emperour writ presently after the Council of Chalcedon to all Churches even the most distant in those parts it was universally received in their respective answers by every one of them To your fourth about can 28. Con. Chal. I have answered already and shall say more when it is more fully treated Mr. Baxter Num. 276. After the conclusion you have a supernumerary in your margin from Greg. lib. 10. Epist. 30. But there is no such word in that Epistle nor is it of any such subject But it s the 31 Epistle its like that your leader meant And there is no more but that a Bishop not named person or place having fallen into Schism voluntarily swore never more to depart from the unity of the Catholick Church or the Sea of Rome But. 1. So may a Bishop of the Roman Province do or Patriarchate without beleiving Rome to be the universal head William Iohnson Num. 276. Could they and yet make the communion with the Bishop of Rome to be the certification and evidence they reconciled themselves to the Catholick Church If any Schismatick in France should reconcile himself to the Catholick Church could he promise to remain allwayes in the communion of the Bishop of Rhemes suppose that Bishop should so be excommunicated or turne Schismatick as he might could he promise never to forsake his communion seeing therefore an absolute promise was made to remain alwayes in the communion of the Bishop of Rome it was presupposed that Bishop once lawfully chosen and installed could never be excommunicated or become a Schismatick so long as he remained Bishop of Rome otherwise the promise had been illegal and impious obliging them to communicate with Schismaticks Now there can be no other sufficient reason given why the Bishop of Rome can never be excommunicated or become a Schismatick so long as he is Bishop of that Sea then that he is the visible head of the whole Church from whose communion whosoever seperates becomes a Schismatick as he who seperates from the loyal obedience of the visible head of a Kingdome becomes a Rebel but because he has no power above him against whom he can rebel but as a King can never be a Rebell so not the highest visible governour of the Church can be excommunicated or commit Schisme by contempt of the lawful authority of the Church because he who is the highest of all has no authority in the Church over him for then he were not the highest Mr. Baxter Num. 277. So might any one in any other Province have done And yet it followes not that he ought to do so because he did so You see now what all your proofs are come too and how shamefully naked you have left your cause William Iohnson Num. 277. I have so illustrated and strengthened my instances to open them to your understanding that every one of them by an argument a paritate rationis onis ut supra evinces the Popes power to have been universal over all Christendome seeing those Patriarchs and Prelates that were within the verge of the Empire obeyed him upon no other score save this that they still conceived him to be by vertue of the priviledges and powers given by our Saviour to St. Peter and his lawful successors the cheif Governour of themselves and of all other Prelates whatsoever and of the whole Church and I challenge you to produce one sole instance of Authority from antiquity which sayes in expresse termes that those of the Empire obeyed them because they were members of the Empire or that his authority reached not without the Empire Nay even in time of the Council of Ephesus and Chalcedon Spain though seperate from the Empire obeyed the Roman Bishop for it was possest by the Gothes an 414. who have ever since kept it and the Council of Ephesus began 430. And not long after an 475. France was possest by barbarous Kings and never since returned to the Empire yet still remained under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome When England was after converted betwixt six and seven hundred years it was no part of the same Empire yet yeilded it obedience to the Bishop of Rome the like is of many other Western and Northern Countries out of the Empire converted about or after these times See more of this in my reasons against your grand noveltie in restraint of general councils what you mention here of a parity from Canterbury hath no parity at all For the English Church rendred obeisance to the Bishop of Canterbury as to the Primate of the English Church only whereas those in the Empire obeyed the Bishop of Rome not as cheif Bishop only of the Roman â—â—mpire but as having authority over the whole Church in vertue of succession from St. Peter who received it from Christ which I will demonstrate hereafter Mr. Baxter Num. 278. You have not named one man that was a Papist Pope Lâ—â—o was the nearest of any man nor one testimony that ever a
Pope of Rome had the government of all the Church without the verge of the Roman Empire but only that he was to the Roman Church as the arch-bishop of Canterbury to the English Church and as between Canterbury and York so between Rome and Constantinople there have been contentions for preheminency but if you can prove Canterbury to be before York or Rome before Constantinople that will prove neither of them to be Ruler of the antipodes or of all the Christian world William Iohnson Num. 278. But if you can prove Canterbury to be not only in place and precedency but in authority and jurisdiction above York and withall above all the Metropolitans Primates and Patriarchs which were anciently within the Roman Empire because they acknowledged his authority to be above all the Prelates of God to have Christs vineyard committed to his care from Christ to be the Father to all the Bishops met in general Councils and they his professed children acknowledged by them to be their head and they as parts subject to him c. And never to have been acknowledged as supream in spirituals by these in the Empire because his authority reached as I have prov'd the Bishops of Rome to have been acknowledged by them no farther then the Empire When I say you shall have prov'd the Bishop of Canterbury to have been over all the Metropolitans Primates and Patriarchs within the Empire in this manner as I have proved the Bishop of Rome to be you will have proved Canterbury to have had all the preheminences given him by antiquity to be the Supream spiritual governour of the whole Church But seeing neither you nor any one in his right wits would ever undertake so great a peice of nonsence I should have wondered you dazle the eyes of your readers with such empty shewes as these had it not been so ordinary with you This very argument hath proved that not only one man but as you cannot deny all the Churches in the Empire acknowledge it and yet you say I have not proved one man to hold it whether this be to be termed confidence or impudence I leave to judgement Mr. Baxter Num. 279. Much less have you proved that ever any Church was of this opinion that the Pope was by divine Right the Governour of the world when you cannot prove one man of that opinion 3. much less have you proved a succession of such a Church from the Apostles having said as much as nothing to the first 300 yeares William Iohnson Num. 279. You forget and have proceeded in that act of oblivion through your whole reply that I undertook in these instances noe more then to prove against your bold assertion that within the first 600. 500. and 400 yeares there were some at least who testified the Supremacy of the Roman Bishop over the whole Church by Christs institution though therefore my proofs had not been taken out of those who flourished within the first 300 years seeing they were within the first 400 they had been of force against you But you may remember also that I cited St. Cyprian who was within the first 300 and Vincentius Lyrinensis who witnesses the same of Pope Stephen contemporary with St. Cyprian and very many of my cheif instances prove V. G. in the councils of Nice Ephesus and Chalcedon that it descended from our Saviour and had been in all ages since the Apostles and was to be in all future ages Mr. Baxter Num 380. And much less have you proved that the whole Catholique Church was of this opinion William Iohnson Num. 380. Whether I have or no let others judge Mr. Baxter Num. 381. And yet least of all have you proved that the whole Church took this Primacy of Rome to be of necessity to the very being of the Church to our salvation and not only ad melius esse as a point of order William Iohnson Num. 381. I have proved it to have been a matter ever necessary in the Church by Christs institution and therefore necessary ad esse to the being and not only ad bene esse to the perfection of the Church For seeing some Governours are essential to the Church as appears Ephes. 4. v. 11 12 13. in the order and Hierarchy of those Governours there must be some who are to be over all the rest in visible government otherwise neither could schism be avoided and unity preserved as Optatus cited hereafter affirms l. 2. contra Parmen nor would a visible body have a visible head which would be monstrous Mr. Baxter Num. 382. So that you have left your cause in shameful nakedness as if you had confessed that you can prove nothing William Iohnson N. 382. If you mean to such eyes as yours which I have demonstrated either discovered not or mis-saw the face of my arguments I grant it but all open and right sighted eyes I hope will have seen my cause so invested with grace and truth by what I have here replyed that it will have no shame to appear before heaven and earth before men and angels for its justification Mr. Baxter Num. 383. In the end you return to terms To what you say about the word Christians I only say that it s but equivocally applied to any that profess not all the essentials of Christianity of which Popery is none any more then pride is William Iohnson Num. 383. I leave it to judgement whether this answer related to my explication as of Christianity pag. 64. your edit have any sense in it For what though Popery as you conceit were no more essential to Christianity then pride is yet if a Papist hold all the essentials of Christianity as you hold he does he may be univocally a Christian. Will you say that because pride is none of the essentials of Christianity therefore no proud man holds all the essentialls of Christianity to what purpose then have you added this clause of Pride and Popery when I speak in general and abstractive terms not medling at all with particulars Now you give no satisfaction to your Reader about the clear notion of an univocal Christian you tell him here that an univocal Christian is he who believes all the essentials of Christianity but through this whole answer you never give him either a distinct catalogue of essentials or prescribe any direct rule or means to know which they are as we shall see hereafter Mr. Baxter Num. 384. About the word Monarch in good sadness do you deny the Pope to be an imperious sole Commander Which of these is it you do deny not that he is a Commander not that he is imperious not that he is sole in his Soveraignty I would either you or we knew what you hold or deny But perhaps the next words shew the difference as temporal Kings But this saith not a word wherein they differ from temporal Kings William Iohnson 384. You are really a strange man to deal withal Can any one speak more
metaphorical children and he a metaphorical Father but will you scruple at the Pater noster because we call God our Father and consequently our selves his children because we are not the proper and natural but his metaphorical children when you next talk of governing them in love for their good and affirm that Kings must do the like why leave you out the word eternal which is my epithite and wherein the force of my words consists and then tell me I have exprest no difference at all is this fair will not every one who hath but half an eye discover such petty slights as these Mr. Baxter Num. 390. But our question is not new nor in universal terms what Soveraignty you claim you know or should know Are you ignorant that Bellarmine Boverius and ordinarily your Writers labour to prove that the Government of the Church is Monarchical and that the Pope is the Monarch the supream head and Ruler which in English is Soveraign Are you ashamed of the very cause or Title of it which you will have necessary to our salvation William Iohnson 390. 'T is one thing to say the Government is Monarchical and another to affirm the Pope to be the Monarch as you do and Bell. cited by you does not of the whole Church without ever explicating what kind of Monarch you mean A government may be termed Monarchical which hath a great part of Monarchy in it though it be not strict and perfect Monarchy as a man may be called Angelical though he be no Angel thus our Authors and particularly Bellarmine put the Church-government to have something of the mixt in it Bell. l. 1. de Rom. pont c. 5. sect ultimo though he esteems it to incline more to Monarchy then to Aristocracy Whence appears that your inference drawn from a government thus imperfectly Monarchical to intitle the chief Governour in it the Monarch of it without all restriction as you do is of no force And of as little force is your other inference grounded in your former mistake that I am ashamed of any title which I hold necessary to salvation first prove we call the Pope Monarch and then say I am ashamed of it CHAP. IX Num. 391. Whether the title of the Vice-Christ be accounted either due or given by sufficient authority amongst Roman Catholiques to the Pope or accepted by them Num. 392. Mr. Baxter confounds Vice-Christi in place of Christ and Vice-Christus the Vice-Christ Num. 393. How far the Pope is understood to be in the place of Christ. Num. 394. He miscites his Adversaries words Num. 395. How the Vice-Christ and the Vicar of Christ differ Num. 396. Why a Deputy for a King may be called the Vice-King but a Deputy of Christ cannot be called the Vice-Christ Num. 397. Mr. Baxter makes Vice God to be a a higher title then Vice-Christ Num. 398. Mr. Baxter in place of alleadging a sufficient that is a publique authority cites Oratours Poets Encomiasticks c. and yet mistake most of those Mr. Baxter Num. 391. Next you say that you very much dislike the title of Vice-Christ as proved and insolent and utterly disclaim from it neither was it ever given by any sufficient authority to your Popes or did they ever accept of it Reply Now blessed be God that makes sin a shame to it self that the Patrons of it dare scarce own it without some paint or vizard William Iohnson Num. 391. Had you first confuted this answer and then broke out into this exclamation it had been much more seasonable but as it stands it relishes more of passion then of reason and will appear so to any who shall consider the weakness of your proofs against it whereof most consist in a pure digression by a fallacy usual to you proceeding à notione secunda ad primam from the second notion to the first or from the title to the thing it self as we shall now see Mr. Baxter Num. 392. Is not the very life of the cause between you and us whether the Pope be the universal head of the Church Vice-Christi Vicarius Christi Are not these the most common titles that Papists give them and that they take unto themselves William Iohnson Num. 392. Here you begin your fallacie Vicarius Christi is indeed a title but Vice-Christi is none the one signifies the Vicar of Christ but the other signifies in the place or stead of Christ which having no substantive or demonstrative annext to it cannot possibly be a title for of it self it signifies no determinate substance Now if you will joyn to it a substantive and say Papa est Vice-Christi the Pope is in place of Christ you may make some kind of title to it but you can never make it that about which we controvert for that is Vice-Christus the Vice-Christ so that all those who are Vice-Christi in the genitive case that is the place of Christ are not Vice-Christi in the nominative that is Vice-Christi which title onlie is in question betwixt us you were as some of your Parishioners esteemed you to govern those of Kidderminster Vice-Christi in the place of Christ were you therefore the Vice-Christ of Kiddermunster Nor is the title of universal head of the Church set down in your illimited terms here either a title acknowledged by us as due to the Pope or given to him by us For that Christ being the sole universal head of the Church which comprehends the Church militant and triumphant the term universal head signifies that which is due to Christ onlie we therefore acknowledge there is none but Christ himself according to your expression universal head of the Church nor is there any universal Vice-head nor Vice-Christ corresponding to that universal head to be found in the whole Church Nay even speaking of the sole militant Church we never say without some restriction the Pope is universal head of the Church for universal head comprises as well the internal and invisible as the visible Governour of the militant Church now we all deny that the Pope is head in the invisible government of the visible Church for that manner of government Christ only is the universal head nor say we that there is any Vice-christ or Vice-head constituted in the place of Christ in this invisible direction of the Church We therefore restrain the term universal head by this restrictive visible nor intend we to say any more then this that the Bishop of Rome is the visible head of the universal visible Church so far as it is capable of a visible government together with other Bishops who are as truely Christs officers and vice-gerents in their respective governments though subject to the Pope as he is in his government And in this sense only can he be termed a vice-Christ or vice-God that is holding the place of Christ in the visible government of his Militant Church But he cannot be stiled the vice-Christ which is the sole title about which we now contend
for that imports an absolute Vice-gerency under Christ in all things Now in the othet sense above explicated every lawful Bishop also or Pastor may be termed a Vice-Christ and every King a Vice-God in reference to those whom they govern as truly as the Pope can be yet neither we nor you attribute usually any such title to any of them because they seem neither to suite with Christian humility nor with the incomparable supereminency of Christ. Now to shew that even when they are attributed by some Encomiasticks to our Popes it is done with restrictions as v. g. in terris upon earth visibilis visible c. And every one who knowes any thing knows this is all we mean Mr. Baxter Num 393. Nay look back into your own papers here pag. 6. Whether you say not that they are instituted governours in Christs place of his whole visible Church William Iohnson Num. 393. You are a man of a strange confidence I have lookt back upon pag. 6. in your edition and finde evidently I say not so much as one word of what you cite here and had you lookt back with an even eye you would have seen no such words nor any thing like them in that place let all the world see and judge and in those pag where I advance a proposition about the Popes supremacy p. 23. I have not those words in Christs place in which only you ground your argument let the world again see and judge my proposition there is this that the Pope is cheif governour on earth in matters belonging to the soule next under Christ where I limit the extent of his government by saying on earth and the power in governing by not saying in all matters belonging to the soul but in matters belonging to the soul that is no other save those though not in all those to wit not in the internal illuminations graces and influences inspired by the holy ghost into the harts of Christians whereby it is evident I speak such things as are visible and external for that restriction was added to distinguish his power in government from that of temporal Princes who can govern only the external If you deal so unfairely in your citations even where every one with the turne of a leaf can discover you what credit can your readers afford to those which they cannot examine Corruption Mr. Baxter Num. 394. 2. Doth not Bellarmine as I have cited else where labour to prove that it is not as an Apostle that the Pope succeeds Peter but as a head of the Church in Christs stead doth not Boverius cited in my key labour to prove him the Vicar of Christ and to be Vice-Christi William Iohnson Num. 394. Both Bellarmine and Boverius make him head no farther in Christs place then in order to the visible government over the Militant Church nor make they him the vice-Christus the vice-Christ but to be vice-Christi in place of Christ or Vicarius Christi which I have shewed to be mainly different from the title of vice-Christus the vice-Christ for that put absolutely seems to impart that he is in the place of Christ in the intire government of the militant Church both visible and invisible and that the Pope as the vice-Christ can infuse illuminations and spiritual graces into soules and knew them and regulated them perfectly as Christ did whilst he was upon earth and in the visible government of the Church that he hath a power to displace any Bishop or Prelate at his pleasure through the whole Church as if they were his own officers and not the officers of Christ. And here appeares the disparity in that which you being for a parity of those who rule in the place of a King to be stiled vice-regis vice-kings for by reason that Kings have no other governing power save what is visible all the acts of that power may be communicated by way of vicegerency to him who is vicegerent of the King who therefore may be absolutely stiled the vice-King because all those acts are committed to him by the King but in our case the cheif and primacy only of government being the internal influxes into the soul are not committed to the Pope so that he cannot be absolutely termed vice-Christus the vice-Christ but still with a restraint and limitation or secundum quid And by thâ—â—s appeares also your fallacy that first you proceed a parte ad totum from one part of government to the whole and then a secundum quid ad simpliciter to one who in some consideration only is in the place of Christ to wit the Pope or vicar of Christ to an other who is in all respects and absolutely in place of a King that is a vice-roy or vice-King I never therefore contended with you that the Pope may not be stiled Vice-Christ with restriction or limitation but that the title of the vice-Christ absolutely put is not as you put it due to him Mr. Baxter Num. 395. And what fitter English have we for the Kings deputy in a distant Kingdome who is vice-Regis then the vice-King or a Chancellors deputy then the vice Chancelor vice-Christi is your own common word and vicarius Christi none more common scarce then the latter and what English is there fitter for this then the vice-Christ or vicar of Christ. William Iohnson Num. 395. Your joining together the vice-Christ and vicar of Christ as Sinonomas is frivilous for they have a quite different signification when vice-Christ is put absolutely and your making vice-Christi in place of Christ to be the same with vice-Christus vice-Christ is absonus the rest is answered The English therefore to signifie how the Pope is in place of Christ is the vicar of Christ not the vice-Christ Mr. Baxter Nume 396. It is evident indeed the very terme that expresseth properly as men can speak the true point and life of the controversie between us And how could you suffer your pen to set down that the Popes did never accept of this when it is their own common phrase vice-Christi vicarius Christi William Iohnson Num 396. I never suffered my pen to deny the title of Vicarius Christi the vicar of Christ nor that he is vice-Christi in place of Christ in his visible government but that which I deny is that we either use to stile them or they assume the title of vice-Christ and you have not the consideration to distinguish betwixt vice-Christi and vice-Christus which every school boy is able to distinguish Mr. Baxter Num. 397. But here againe remember and let it be a witnesse against you that you dislike and utterly disclaim the very name that signifieth the Papal power as proud and insolent And if you abhor Popery while you tice men to it let my soul abhor it and let all that regard their soules abhor it blessed be that light that hath brought it to be numbred with the works of darkness William Iohnson Num. 397. All will pitty you who see
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
and the Apostles successors yea Peters successours were Titles given to others as well as him and more then these It being therefore the point in controversie between us whether the Bishop of Rome be in the place of Christ or as his Vicar the Head Monarch or Governour of the Church universal and the termes Vice-Christi Vicarius Christi being those that Popes and Papists choose to signifie their claim what other shoâ—â—lâ—â— I use William Iohnson Num. 414. This discourse of yours is defective many wayes First it is fallacious ex insufficiente enumeratione partium For amongst all the titles you have reckoned you have not that of Pontifex maximus and the like may be said of many others which is peculiar to the Bishop of Rome and was never attributed to any other nor was any other ever intituled Vicarius-Christi the Vicar of Christ nor Episcopus universalis Ecclesiae Bishop of the universal Church nor Caput omnium sacerdotum Dei the head of all Priests of God save the Pope see how much you are out in the accounts Secondly it is corrupt for you fall againe as you did in your key ut supra to translate Pontifex Pope and summus Pontifex Chief Pope Thirdly you assert the same things without proof as that Head of the Church was given to Constantinople that the Popes made an agreement with Constantinople that their Patriarch should keep the title of universal Patriarch and the Bishop of Rome be called the universal Pope Fourthly you speak equivocally for though summus Pontifex as Baronius notes was given anciently to all Bishops yet that was in relation to inferiour Clarks not to all even Bishops Metropolitanes and Patriarchs as it is given to the Bishop of Rome So that Summus Pontifex in Baronius his sense signifies no more then a chief or highest Priest but ascribed to the Pope it signifies the chief and the highest Bishop and is consignificant with Pontifex Maximus which Baronius affirms to be peculiar to the Pope as I have already noted you equivocate also in the title of Saint Peters successours as I have declared above for though other Bishops may be said to be his successours secundum quid in some part of his Ecclesiastical power viz as he was a Bishop yet none can be said to be his successour simpliciter absolutely and intirely that is in the fulnesse of his power as he was Prince of the Apostles and chief Bishop of Gods visible Church as it is visible save the Bishop of Rome for the reason above alleadged by me and thus much your self must grant according to your own principles for though you assert other Bishops to be his successours in his Episcopal dignity yet seeing you grant him a precedency of place before all other Bishops and Patriarchs as Saint Peter had precedency before all the rest of the Apostles for otherwise he could not have been as the Ancient Fathers familiarly call him Princeps Apostolorum the Prince and chief amongst the Apostles for that must at least signifie a principallity in place and rank seeing I say you yield him this precedency none can have been successour to Saint Peter in the full extent of his dignity save the Bishop of Rome As to the particular Authours you cite here you have very ill luck in your citations you first produce these words qui totum dicit nihil excludit as spoken by Stephanus Patracensis when they are St. Bernards words and cited by this Stephanus out of his book de consideratione to Eugenius the Pope and to which words of St. Bernard Stephanus Alcides in this place So that you cannot condemn him unlesse you condemn Saint Bernard for using that allusion out of Scripture to the Pope The meaning of this Author is no more then this that he having before termed the Church Coelum Heaven he prosecutes that metaphor and by Heaven meanes nothing but Ecclesiastical persons and by earth those of the laity for he speakes first of Bishops and Prelates and then of Christian Kings and Princes saying to the Pope Et vera reformatio fiat tam in spiritualibus quam in temporalibus ubicunque terrarum tuo decreto diffusa fuerit after which he adds immediately Accipe ergo gladium divinae potestatis c. Quia tibi data est omnis potestas in caelo in terra Antoninus whom you very leardnedly call Antonius in that place of his History if you mean that has not one word of what you cite here Paulius Emilius Augustin Triumphus Zabarella and Bertrandus I have not yet seen but these are only particular Authors not of sufficient authority which I required to conferre the title of the Vice-Christ upon Popes nor yet do they so much as mention any such title Now these authorities were either alleadged by you to confute my position denying the title of Vice-Christ was given him by sufficient authority or they so many pure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and proofs in the air you pretend by these allegations to prove against my assertion that the title of the Vice-Christ is given by authority to our Popes and accepted by them and to prove this you cite five particular Authors whereof not so much as one names the title of the Vice-Christ Is not this as much as to say they give him not the title of Vice-Christ ergo they give him the title of Vice-Christ Sure you dream'd of logick when you writ this yet farther if these five authorities prove any thing against us tis that they make the Pope not the Vice-Christ but Christ himself or of equal power with him and one of them that the Pope is of greater power then God himself which is directly contrary to your pretence for no Vice-King is the King nor of equal power with the King If you reply in proving they make him equal to God and Christ c. They prove more then was undertaken to be proved and that they make him higher then the Vice-Christ And secondly you may please to remember you had two things to prove the first that the Popes were held by sufficient authority amongst us to be the Vice-Christ and secondly that the Popes accepted of that title Now though you had prov'd that some have given them eulogiums sounding something more then the Vice-Christ yet that will neither prove it was done by sufficient authority nor unlesse you prove the Popes have accepted them which you never so much as essay to doe your intent in these prooss for the authorities you alledge are not sufficient to ground a publick solemn title so that your Thesis is left bare and naked yet without proof You say here the ancient Councils though câ—â—ld General yet were but of one principallity that is as you have often affirmed their authority extended no farther then the Empire so that in effect they were not truly general but national or provincial Now I have already produced many reasons to represse this your grand novelty and prov'd
who decreed that there should be one every ten years Here 's a nominative case the way c. without a verb. Mr. Baxter Num. 417. The Councils that continue so many years as that at Trent did are then become an ordinary Government William Iohnson Num. 417. Here you fall into a scond Equivocation about the word ordinary that which lasts about twenty years in the Church with a soveraign power must be for the time they so continue the ordinary governour of the Church where you take ordinary for that which continues a considerable space of time See you not how handsomly you insinuate here that the late long Parliament which continued about as long as did the Council of Trent was for that time become with you and your abettors the ordinary Soveraign governour of the Kingdome and thereby his Majesty was excluded from being ordinary Sovereign over it I hope this will be noted too Mr. Baxter Num. 418. Fourthly what is given to the Church representative is by many of you given to the Church real or essential as you call it which is ordinarily existent only not capable of exerting the power it hath the singulis major ut universis minor is no rare doctrine with you William Iohnson Num. 418. Here you fumble in the dark I pray unriddle this in your next for I cannot what is that wee give to the Church real and representative wherein is the Church real not able to exert its power what mean you by singulis major and universis minor to whom apply you this or to what purpose Mr. Baxter Num. 419. Fiftly but let it be as extraordinary as you please if while these Councils sit the Pope lose his headship your Church is then two Churches specifically distinct and the form of it changeth when a Council siteth not like the Spouse of Iesus Christ. William Iohnson Num. 419. You should have done well to have prest this argument against those who hold Councils to be above the Pope it touches not me at all who am of the contrary opinion yet even those of that opinion will answer you with a wet finger that the Church hath neither then two heads nor loses the Pope his headship for he remaines chief ordinary governour of the Church in all ordinary causes and cases as well when there is as when there is not a Council and he being as ordinary head of the Church the chief president in the Council the Council is not its chief governour with exclusion of the Pope because it cannot be a true general Council but by including him in it So that he with the rest of the Bishops assembled make up the Council you cannot therefore divide the Council from him unlesse you divide him from himself so that he and a general Council are not two things adequately distant but involve him in it as a humane body involves the head or a Parliament the King Mr. Baxter Num. 420. Sixtly As your Popes are said to live in their constitutions and laws when the person dieth and your Church is not thought by you to die with them so why may not Councils do The lawes of Councils live when they sit not and the French think that these lawes are above the Pope though I shewed you even now that Julius 2. in Con. Lateran concluded otherwise of Decrees and the Council of the Popes power William Iohnson Num. 420. Let them remain in their decrees as much as you please but that will never make them the ordinary chief governours of the Church they remain no more in their degrees then did our ancient Parliaments in their Statutes yet no man dare say who is a good subject that those Parliaments were therefore the ordinary soveraign governours of the Kingdome taken exclusively without the King Mr. Baxter Num. 421. Seventhly If a Nation be governed by Triennial and so Decennial Parliaments as the highest power and Councils of State in the intervals who shall be accountable to Parliaments will you say these Parliaments are extraordinary and not the ordinary Soveraign no doubt they are And the Council of State is the Soveraign but the chief Officer or Magistrate for execution of the intervals William Iohnson Num. 421. Hitherto you have discoursed warily and covertly but now you discover openly your opinion of State government 'T is well you put an if to it and make it a conditional that will save you at a dead lift but yet every one sees by it how great an approver you were of the soveraignty of irregular Parliaments and authority of Councils of State for you speak not of what might be but what then was when you writ this but I wonder you were so bold as to let this see light as you did before something like it even since the most happy returne of his Sacred Majestie Let others judge of such passages as these Thus farre Mr. Baxter produces his answer to my argument and instances the last four pages are spent in confident repetition of what is now answered a prescription of what he would impose upon me to be Sylogistocally proved a prophesie of Christs speedy coming to judgement a wholesome admonition to take help from others to be able to encounter him scilicet a whole Army of such Pigmees as I is not able to incounter him he is so great a Giant but let the Reader judge whether something like that hath not hapned unto him which hapned to such an other whilst he exprobated and outfaced the hosts of the living God 1. Reg. 17.49.50 And it may be thought of also whether the 16 Chap. v. 6. of Esay may not be appliable to him audivimus Superbiam Moab Superbus est valde superbia ejus arrogantia ejus indignatio ejus plus quam fortitudo ejus Finally which is only worth observance he adds an earnest request to make a favorable exposition of what he feares may be thought too confident and earnest in his expressions which I freely pardon and beg a free pardon of God for him This as it is no part of his answer so can it not challenge any part of my reply I leave the whole processe to the impartial Reader and expect Mr. Baxters rejoynder Novelty Represt The third Part. In a brief Answer to Mr. Baxters second part Quest. Whether the Churches of which Protestants are Members have been visible ever since the dayes of Christ on earth CHAP. I. Mr. Baxters definitions and divisions Num. 1. He defines the Church Num. 2. His former solutions have rendred his difinition of the Church insignificant he defines Protestants the nullity of that difinition he speaks irreverently and unchristianly of the Catholique Church Whether the profession of a Protestant shew him to be as much an univocal Christian as the profession of a Papist shews him to be a Papist Num. 3. The reason why Protestants general profefsion of Christianity makes them no univocal Christians Num. 4. Mr. Baxter frames again a monster having a
universal proposition in it in place of the word those form required all those Secondly you put more in the medium of the major to wit in its parts then you do in the medium of your minor and so make it consist of 4. terms Thirdly you make the predicate of the minor the subject of the conclusion This is a hopeful beginning put your sylogism first in form and then I 'le answer it suppose all adjusted I deny your minor Protestants are no part of that Church on earth whereof Christ is head Non-proof 2. 6. Pag. 204. the second sylogism is likewise out of form having no universal proposition in it Adde all to your major to set it in form and I first deny it It is not true that all who profess true Christian Religion in all its essentials are members of Christs Church for to these essentials they may add some error or non-essential as an essential to them and thereby destroy faith as you your self cite Durandus pag. 211. and put a N. B. not a bene upon it I deny also your minor but first prove your major which you have not done Protestants professe not the true Christian Religion in all its essentials you prove that in this manner Non-proof 3. 7. Your third sylogism p. 295. is also out of form for want of an universal proposition add All to your major I grant that and deny your minor Protestants profess not so much as God hath promised salvation upon the Covenant of Grace Non-proof 4. Your fourth sylogism is also out of form not assuming the whole proposition to be proved for in that proposition was this term in the Covenant of Grace which is not to be found in this fourth sylogism To your fourth sylogism therefore page 205. supposing it were in form I deny that part of your major that Protestants have willingness and diligence to know the true meaning of all the law of nature and holy Scripture for if they were willing and diligent they would take the expositions of the universal Church and not follow their novel interpretations and private judgements I deny also that they believe with a saving divine faith any of the mysteries here named or that their profession general and particular affirm this Non-proof 5. 8. Your 5. sylogism p. 206. nu 2. is likewise out of form for want of an universal proposition make it universal and I deny your major they profess not so much as Catecumens and Competentes for those profess to believe implicitly all that was taught as matter of faith by the Catholique Church in that article I believe the Catholique Church which Protestants do not nor can they do it truly since their profest disbelief of many points evinces the contrary Non-proof 6. 9. Your 6. sylogism p. 206. nu 3. is also out of form for the same reasons add all to the major I deny your major their general profession is contradicted by their particular denial of such points as are sufficiently propounded to them as articles of faith Secondly you distinguish not betwixt being implicitly contained in general principles and being expresly contain'd in the Creeds and Scriptures Thirdly Creeds and Scriptures are not enough traditions and decrees of general Councils in matters of faith must be believed Fourthly I deny those Protestants who are such wittingly and willingly and not excused with invincible ignorance believe any article of faith at all with a supernal saving faith Thus in six sylogisms you have not so much as one in form So mighty strong is your first argument Non-proof 7. 10. Pag. 206. sect ad hominem infra p. 207. you cite Bellar. and Costerus to no purpose for our question is not of what is to be believed expresly only but of what is to be believed both expresly and implicitly respectively by all Christians 11. Your second Argument is p. 207. lit b I grant your major and deny your minor Protestants are not members of the true Church as intrinsecally informed 12. Pag. 208. you prove say you your antecedent or minor which is a Syntax in Logick and deserves a ferula for no minor can be an antecedent Pag. 208. The antecedent I deny your minor Protestants formally such have not enough to be brought to the unfeigned love of God above all things and special love to his servants and unfeigned willingness to obey him for had they this they would never have disobeyed and disbelieved all the visible Churches in the world anno 1517. as their first broachers did and they follow that disbelief to this day Pag. 208. I deny your minor what I deny in the former sylogism is not in your profession both general and particular the second shews the contrary and contradicts the first as did the Arrians ut supra 13. Pag. 208. nu 2. I deny you have any certain knowledge or feeling that you love God or his servants or willingness to obey his precepts as you ought to love and obey him if you be a formal Protestant for if you be such your heart deceives you and your false feelings delude you please to peruse Ier. 17.9 Pravum est cor hominis inscrutabile quis cognoscit illud Ego Dominus scrutans cor probans renes qui do unicuique juxta viam suam juxta fructum ad inventionum suarum And Sapient 9.14 cogitationes mortalium timidae incertae providentiae nostrae ponder a while the strange delusion which bewitched the Angel or Pastor of Laodicea Apoc. 3.17 quia dicis quia dives sum locupletatus nullius egeo nescis quia tu es miser miserabilis pauper caecus nudus consider the Pharisee Luk. 18.13 how much he was deceiv'd in his own judgement of his own state and let not that saying of the Wise man pass without reflection Ecclesiastes 9.1 Nescit homo utrum odio an amore dignus sit sed omnia in futurum servantur incerta What would you answer to a new Arrian or Antitrinitarian c. nay to a Turk or Iew which you hold to be no Christian should they urge the like knowledge and feeling in themselves against you to prove they were members of Gods true Church what you would reply to them take as said to your self 14. Pag. 209. num 2. your sylogism is not in form making the predicate of the minor the subject of the conclusion for your conclusion in form should not be as you have it Ergo the Church of which the Protestants are members hath been visible ever since the dayes of Christ on earth which is your Thesis to be proved but it ought to have been this Ergo the Church which hath been alwayes visible since the dayes of Christ on earth is that whereof the Protestants are members which is not your Thesis nor the thing you are immediately to prove but supposing it right I distinguish your major if you mean contained in volutely as in general principles I grant
it if expresly containing all things necessary to salvation I deny it Again I distinguish all things necessary to salvation either you mean all things necessary to be distinctly known and expresly believed by all to obtain salvation and so I grant it or all things also to be believed implicitly and to be distinctly known to all and so I deny it These distinctions suppos'd I deny your consequence viz. That the Church whereof Protestants are members hath been visible ever since the dayes of Christ on earth 15. Pag. 210. your authorities prove nothing the aforesaid distinctions applied Bellar. and Costerus speaks of things necessary to be expresly believed by all Ragusa of the Scripture well understood which include the interpretation of the Church Gerson not of articles of Faith but of Theological conclusions drawn by private and fallible authority Durandus treats of private conclusions drawn from Scripture by himself as you cite him pag. 212. of delivering nothing contrary to Scripture and of using the interpretation of the Roman Church St. Thomas speaks not a word of Scripture nor so much as names it in those words cited by you and in his summe de veritate addes the interpretation of the Church to Scripture as you cite his words pag. 213. Scotus cited p. 213. is quite against you he sayes add you that many needful things are not expressed in Scripture but virtually contained which is not protestant but sound catholick doctrine Gregor Ariminensis p. 14. speaks not of points of faith but of Theological conclusions drawn by private discourse which is not as you add next more then to intend the sufficiency of express Scripture to matters of faith for the seusteine of faith is infallible and divine Theological discourse only fallible and humane now he sayes diametrically against your tenet that all truths are not in themselves formally contain'd in holy Scripture but of necessity following these that are contained in them c. but here 's the difficulty we say that every point we teach is contain'd as in general principles at least in Scripture and necessarily deduced from it but you adde they must be contained formally for what seems a necessary consequence of Scripture to us seems not so to you and the like is of what seems necessary to you seems neither necessary nor propable to us so that neither of us can be convinced that our respective deductions are points of faith and both you must confess yours are not because you have not infallibly authority deducing them and we do acknowledge that conclusions drawn from Scripture abstracting from the Churches authority oblige us not to receive them as matters of faith 16. Pag. 216. Gulielmus Parisiensis sayes no more then say the former Authors and Bellar. nothing at all to your purpose draw if you can the sufficiency of sole Scripture held by you from words which so cleerly declare its insufficiency Pag. 217. Your whole discourse is a pure parorgon our question is not what is essential or necessary necessitate medii or praecepti to be known and expresly believed by all per se and absolutely but whether one believing all that is essential and necessary in that manner and withal disbelieving any other point of faith whatsoever after it is hic nunc sufficiently propounded as such to any particular person can either be saved or be a true real part of the visible Church of Christ. Now we answer negatively to this question because such a disbelief excludes an implicite belief of that point so disbelieved and consequently a belief of all that God hath revealed and therby all supernatural saving faith To illustrate the truth of this assertion let us instance in a Pelagian who believed all that which you account essential that is the common Articles necessary for all to salvation the Creeds the Scriptures c. And had sufficiently propounded to him the belief of Original sin as a point of Christian faith which he refuses to believe and accounts an errour the question will not be in this case whether that Pelagian believe all these essentials in the account but whether that supposed he be not excluded out of the Church and dismembred from it by that wilful disbelief of Original sin This is our present case controverted betwixt us so that though it were admitted that you believe all that material object of faith which you esteem essential and necessary for all to be expresly believed yet because we accuse and judge you to disbelieve many points of as much concern as is that of Original sin and as sufficiently propounded to you as such as that was to the Pelagians we have as much reason to judge you to be excluded out of the Catholique Church and dismembred from it as we have to judge them either therefore you acknowledge the point disbelieved by you and propounded as matter of faith by us to you to be as sufficiently propounded as was that of Original sin to the Pelagians or you deny it if you acknowledge it you must acknowledge you are as much dismembred from the Church by your disbelief as they were if you deny it then we will put our selves upon the proof of it so that till our proofs be heard and fully answer'd you cannot secure your selves of being parts of the Catholique Church no more then could the Pelagians 17. If you affirm as your principles lead you that even the disbelief of Original sin hinder'd not the Pelagians from remaining parts of the Catholique Church you contradict St. Augustine and St. Epiphanius In Catalogis Haereticorum the Council of Nice all antiquity nay all modern authors even your own and I provoke you to produce so much as one Author who affirms Pelagians to be parts of the Catholique Church CHAP. II. Mr. Baxters authorities NUm 18. Whether Mr. Baxters doctrine about sole scripture agree with Tertullians in his prescriptions Num. 21. Mr. Baxter would send all his adversaries packing if he knew how he supposes his Readers to be very simple Num. 19. Whether St. Augustin taught that common people were to reade-Scipture in the place cited by Mr. Baxter whereas St. Augustine taught there that all things belonging to Christian Faith and manners are expressed in Scripture his two other Collections from St. Augustine examined Num. 22. He knowes not where his Church was An. 1500. Num. 25. He cites two texts of S. Augustine distructive to his own doctrine Num. 25.26 How much Optatus makes for Mr. Baxter Num. 26.27 What Optatus meanes by being within or in communion with the seven Churches of Asia Mr. Baxter cites two texts in Optatus which quite overthrow him Num. 28. Divers of his Effugiums examined and confuted concerning Tertullians prescriptions Num. 29.30 Many texts of Tertullian not Englished by Mr. Baxter make directly against him 18. Hence falls to nothing all you alledge from Bell. Costerus Gulielmus Parisiensis Aquinas Bannes Espenseus c. p. 216.217.218 For they speak of
such as with the belief of what they esteem universally essential and fundamental in themselves not to be joyn'd with an actual disbelief of any point though not so generaly necessary to be expresly believed by every one yet sufficiently propounded to them hic nunc as a point of Christian faith To what purpose cite you Tertul p. 219. What is that rule which he speaks of Is it sole Scripture without Church or tradition prove that or what hurts us in his other sentence c. 8. Do we teach any thing against it prove that or why make you such observations upon Tertullians prescriptions p. 220. why prove you not your observations froÌ„ Tertul. words where say's he the rules of Essentials extracted from the whole Scriptures is the Churches ancient creed that the compleat rule of all points of faith is the whole Scripture what mean you to cite that from Tertullian which destroyes you have you ever yet cleared your selves from denying some Essentials I am sure Tertullian puts in the book cited by you the Eucharist Baptisme amongst the things which he would have to be principal points taught by St. Peter and to be believed by all Christians to whom they were sufficiently propounded are not our controversies about these leave not you many books of Scripture out of the Canon and use you not the large feild of Scripture to puzzle the weak how then can you turne your selves more from the lash of Tertullian then the Hereticks against whom he writes And you say this ancient Author advised the ordinary Christians of his time instead of long puzling disputes to hold them to the Churches prescription of the simple doctrine of the creed do you not confound your own publick practise in perswading every ordinary Christian to read the Scriptures in his own language to maintain their cause by some obscure mistaken passages out of them against the Churches prescriptions nay and the simple doctrine of the Creed too by perverting that article of believing the holy Catholick Church instance if you can the prescription of the Church in the year 1500 to justifie your so many oppositions against the prescriptions of all particular visible Churches in that age and be sure you fail not with all to tell me what Church prescribed in the same year against the Church of Rome in opposing those which you call supplemental traditions held by her and all other visible Churches at that time 19. Page 221. You cite St. Augustine de doctrina Christiana lib. 2. cap. 9. and note in an English parenthesis he was not against the vulgar reading Scripture which how it follows I know not unless you would have him also not against the vulgars being vers'd both in Latin Greek and Hebrew which he here requires for the perfect understanding of Scriptures Secondly you put an N. B. upon St. Augustines words minding your reader to note that he affirms all things which belong to Christian faith and manners are thereby set down in Scripture which N. B. might have been well omitted where you place it and a N. B. put upon his next following words whereby it would have appeared that this holy Doctor speakes not of all manner of points of Faith but de quibus libro superiore tractavimus of such as he had treated in the foregoing book and in that he treates only of the Trinity of the Incarnation of the Church of the resurrection of the dead which we acknowledge are openly set down in Scripture so much heed take you to the words you cite so pertinent is your collection drawn from these words about the sufficiencie of Scripture and so faire are you in your citations let an N. B. passe upon that pag. 223 223. What conclude you from St. Augustines words lib 3. cap. 6. contra lit Petiliani which of us ever thought it lawful to teach any thing praeterquam besides that is against for so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in greek signifies the law or gospel and as wise is your question collected thence page 223. viz was not the Church then purely protestant in their religion 20. To the proof of the minor by your profession p. 223. I have told you already your particular profession in disbelieving many things conteined in Scripture evidences your general profession of taking Scripture for the sole rule of your faith to be false and nugatorie 21. As to your discourse page 224. tells us first which are all the Essentials of Christianity in your account and then we shall see whether they are all expresly conteined in Scripture or no. The rest is course and unhandsome better suiting with a country ballad then with a controversie You add in good time the parenthesis if you know how to keep those Friars and Iesuits as much out as to keep out the devil I see they stay not in through any want of opposition in you 't is well you have not as much of the knowledge as you have of the malice of him to whom you compare them I beseech God to pardon you for then they had been all sent packing long ere this and t is not I see for want of ignorance in you that you are not quit of them if any such be within the Nation yet if you drive them no more out then you can drive out the devil they have no great reason to fear you You must think your Reader to be very silly when you go about to perswade him that the Popes supremacie and transubstantiation were brought into the kingdome by Friars and Jesuits of late since you begun your new gospel 22 Page 225. you answer the Catholicks question where your Church was c. very profoundly what if you can neither tell where it all was nor half nor a considerable part nor for all ages nor by entire catalogues can you not at least tell where existed any one though a smal part of it in the year 1500 immediately before your doctrine appeared in Germany shew that and we press you no farther at this time Pag. 226.227 You change the terme Protestant Church into Catholick Church the question was where was the Protestant Church and you shew where the Catholick Church was call you this answering nor can you suppose the Protestant to be part of the Catholick for I have shewed that hitherto you have not proved it pag. 227. You first say your Church was in Europe c. 1. and l. 8. you say you 'l say nothing of Europe n. b. 23. Page 227.228.229.230 To what purpose have you taken so much paines in copying the Latin texts of St. Augustine you were afraid I see to English them least the vulgar whom you chiefâ—â—ly lalour to please should finde many flawes in them Intend you therefore to prove no more by those authorities then the Churches being spread all the world over which of us ever denyed nay who amongst us have not constantly asserted that Intend you to shew that whatsoever professors of Christianity are
deliver'd in the Creed or propos'd to be expresly believed by Catecumens as necessarie to Baptism But they say you lived neer the Churches that were planted by the Apostles and how far lived your beginners from one of them were they not so neer it that everie one of them was of it before they began to novelize That 's not all say you but they were neer the Apostles daies and were those Christians who liv'd neer the Apostles daies to have another rule of faith and principles to confound Heretickes then those of succeeding ages Tertullians rule of prescription is universal and illimitted either to time or place is it not if it be not how came all insuing ages to make use of it against Hereticks of their respective ages And were the Christians in Brittanie Spain and Affrica neerer to those Churches then then they are now what perergons are these Or are those of Armenia and Graecia farther from them now then they were in Tertul. time Num. 1. pag. 232. It was the common Creed then say you and is it not now nay but you adde no other doctrine save that what mean you by other contrary doctrine to the Creed no more is it now not express'd in the Creed so were not many doctrines inculcated then by Tertullian as the holy Eucharist and Pennance where read you these express'd in the Creed which Christian mysteries notwithstanding Tertullian requires in his prescriptions Num. 2. pag. 132. if he would have all Apostolical Churches to be assured witnesses then sure Rome was not excluded why exclude you't now Num. 3. pag. 232 233. if he woâ—â—lâ—â— have the present Churches to the respective beginnings of Hereticks the immediate witnesses as you acknowledge here why refus'd you the witnesse of all immediate Churches existent in the world in your beginnings did they not all celebrate Mass pray for the dead fast Lent desire the prayer of Saints held merits of good works Confession Purgatorie c. Name those who did not hold some or all of these in those times Pag. 232. you cite Latin Texts without rendring them into English there 's something in 't what mean you when you say Tertullian understands not the Church of Rome by una Ecclesia no more then this that it was not the Church of Rome when it first begun in Jerusalem who ever contradicted you in this mean you that it was not made one visible Church by the same visible government first under our Saviour whilst he remain'd on earth then under St. Peter both before and after he became Bishop of Rome which it had under his lawful Successors the Roman Bishops in all ensuing ages that 's indeed the question and seeing Tertullian speaks here of one Church as propagated thorough the world successively from the Apostolical Churches and that of Rome was one and the chief amongst them how can Tertullian speak of the Church and not speak of the Church of Rome in this sentence and seeing also he treats here of a Church as one visible and there is no other means to render it so one if it have not one supream visible ordinary Tribunal to whom all are subject as Optatus had said above and that can neither be the Bishops diffus'd thorough the whole Church nor assembled in a general Council for that is an extraordinarie Tribunal as I have proved there must be some one supream ordinarie Pastor over all other Bishops which if it be not the Bishop of Rome pray tell me in your next who it is By this is satisfied your seven notanda pag. 234. for though Tertullian instance in the Apostolical Churches of his time whilst they agreed in faith with that of Rome as paterns of Christian faith yet experience hath told us and you cannot denie it that all the rest by departing from the faith profest in Rome fell by degrees into heresie so that now you must either say there is no Apostolical not fallen into Heresie or that the sole Roman remains pure from it and a pattern of unitie and puritie of faith to all Christians even till and at this day 29. Pag. 235. you make Tertullian speak both false Latin and non-sence by putting tenentem for tenendum 'T is not put amongst your errata's your English parenthesises as you larded the Latin Text with them three in number look methinks something odlie 30. Pag. 235. what if Tertullian in that passage send us not to the Roman Church would you have him to write nothing in his whole works but dispatches to Rome what if he call the holy Ghost only Vicarius Christi in that place sayes he therefore that he only is his Vicar cannot Christ have one invisible and another visible Vicar Why not sayes Tertullian as you here acknowledge that it is the holy Ghosts office to procure that all the Churches lose not the Apostles doctrine why then say you they have all lost it you 'l replie they have not all lost it in its essentials names Tertullian essentials he sayes the holy Ghost would never permit all Churches to leave the Apostles doctrine now that which you account non-essential was as we now suppose as much their doctrine as was that which you account essential besides ut supra what essentials were contradicted by the Millenaries Nicolaitans c yet they in Tertullians account left the Apostles doctrine but you 'l reply again those onlie are said to leave the Apostles doctrine who leave all their doctrine not those who hold some points though they leave others Then no Heretick can be said to have left the Apostles doctrine for never did any leave it all then though the Church should deny some articles of the Creed and hold others it could not be said to have left the Apostles doctrine you 'l bring I see the Church at last to a fair pass I am glad to see you so ingenuous as to cite the words of Tertullian ecquid verisimili est c. but should have been more satisfied had you English'd them He saies there that it is unlikely all Churches should agree in one and the same errour so that when many agree in one it is no errour but tradition and then demands whether any one have the audaciousness to say those err'd who deliver'd such a doctrine How like you this did not all the visible Churches in the world deriveable from the Apostles agree in the celebration of Mass real Sacrifice desiring the prayers of Saints in heaven praying for the dead fasting in Lent c. immediately before Luther begun to play the Novelist name me any such Church who did not ergo non est erratum sed traditum therefore these are no errours but traditions according to Tertullians doctrine here you are an excellent confuter of your self 31. Pag. 236. you cite Tertullian again reckoning Smirna with many others before Rome Answer it was enough for illustrating Tertullians argument prest there of reducing Churches to their first Originals to bring any instance
whatsoever of any Apostolical Church nor was he there to have regard to the order but to the substance of his instances Pag. 236. you make Tertullian speak false Latin and non-sence again by printing institutum for instituuntur so careful are you in your citations fill they but up paper and help to patch up a new volum 't is enough for you Who can doubt but the Apostolical doctrine will prove an Apostolical Church when ever planted as you collect from this Text of Tertullian but how come those succeeding Churches to agree with the precedent but by means of a visible head who hath preserved all in the unity of faith which subject themselves to him where did you ever find any Churches continue long in the same faith with the Apostolical Churches after they had put themselves in opposition to the See of Rome let such Churches be nam'd in your next CHAP. III. More of Mr. Baxters Arguments Num. 32. Mr. Baxters third Argument out of form Num. 33. If the Roman Church were infected with the plague c. anno 1500. the whole visible Catholick Church was infected with it which is a foul Blasphemy Num. 34. Possession stands in force against Protestants Num. 36. the Popes Supremacy in spirituals essential to the Church Num. 37. The true meaning of the 28. Canon of Chalcedon and of the 2. Canon of the first Council of Constantinople Num. 39. Whether the ancient Fathers were accustomed to press the Authority of the Roman See against Heretiques Num. 40. A loud untruth of Mr. Baxter Num. 41. Extra-Imperial Churches subject to the Bishop of Rome Num. 44. 5. Reasons of Mr. Baxters against the Popes supremacy in spirituals answered 32. Pag. 238. Your third argument is out of form having the term as Christian in the first part of the antecedent and not in the sequel or second part therefore I deny the antecedent viz. Though the Roman as Christian hath been alwayes visible yet the Protestant hath not been alwayes visible It is fallacia à secundum quid and simpliciter For all that can be pretended to follow is no more then this that the Protestants have been visible as Christians that is so far as they profess the belief of the chief articles in Christian faith nor yet follows so much for I deny they believe any one of them as Christians ought to do that is with an infallible supernatural divine faith so that they have not been alwayes a visible Church as Christian though the Roman have been so Hence falls the proof of your consequence 33. Pag. 239. I denie your supposition that when Protestants first pretended to reform what displeas'd them in the doctrine of the Roman Church that thereby they were cured of the plague c. for if the Roman Church were then infected with the plague all the visible Churches in the world and consequently the whole Catholique Church was infected with it which is diametrically contrary to the Texts here cited by you out of Tertullian and a horrible blasphemie to affirm that the mystical body of Christ is infected with the plague or any such like mischief Here you trifle again prove the Popes supremacie first to be an usurpation and then take it for a ground of your argument what millions abroad and within the Roman Territories are those you talk of is everie number which you fancie a million Ibid. you frame an objection of your own and then answer it what 's the one or the other to me That which I have objected to be proved by you is no negative but a plain affirmative for 't is this that you prove any Church now denying or opposing the Popes Supremacy to have been alwayes visible Pag. 240. you essay to answer the argument about possession Your first answer is petitio principii or falsum suppositum that any parts of the Catholique Church much less the most fit can be nominated wherin the Popes Supremacy had not possession Non-proof 34. Your second of making good against our title of supremacy c. is only affirm'd by you who are a party but never yielded by us nor legitimately judged or defin'd against us so that sub judice lis est the matter is still in process and you know lite pendente till the cause be decreed or yielded up by one of the parties the possessor is to enjoy his title according to all law and reason you therfore by actual dispossessing the Roman Bishops of that right and title whereof he was quietly possest in the year 1500 in this our Nation and in all other places where you entred upon this pretence only that you think you have sufficiently disproved it from the divine law is to do him as much wrong as if a plantif in a suite at law should thrust the defendant out of quiet possession without decree or order from any competent Judge upon this sole pretence that he frames a judgement to himself he has convinced by law the others title to be null for in these cases both he and you make your selves judges in your own cause and proceed to an execution without a warrant 35. Page 240. To your question what you must prove I answer 't is this that any Church which has at any time or does now deny the Popes supremacy or remain independent of it has bin allwaies visible Ibid. of such as know nothing of the Popes supremacy I say nothing it being not our case then only they are bound to alledge proof for the denyal of it when it is or shall be sufficiently propunded to them 36. Page 241. The Smpremacie it self I have proved to be essential to the Church for there can be no visible body without a head But then it is essential to the subsistance of Christian faith in particular persons when it is sufficiently propounded to them as a point of faith page 241. You propose your fourth argument in proof of the Catholick Church not acknowledging the Popes supremacy for some time Your first Sylogism is out of form 1 for want of the word ever it should be ever since in your antecedent 2 and in the sequel for you say only that the Church whereof the Protestants are members hath been visible where as you should say hath been ever or alwayes visible for that only is the present question 3 You suppose the sole denyal of the Popes supremacy constitutes the Church whereof the Protestants are members which I deny for all hereticks as well as Protestants denyed his supremacy 37. Page 232 233. I have already answered to your 28 canon of Chalcedon first it uses the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is deferr'd or attributed not gave or conferr'd a new 2 they pretend to give no more to Constantinople then the second general Council had done as appeares by the words now that was to be next after Rome so that the principallity which Rome had before the Council of Constantinople was no way infringed by that canon 3
mox quanta potentia super caeteros excussit ostendit summum se intra Ecclesiam contra peccata recoluit He corroborated himself as the highest within the Church against sin N. B. he sayes summā intra Ecclesiam non intra imperium the highest within the Church not within the Empire And ep 32. ad Maurit Cunctis ergo Evangelium scientibus liquet quod voce dominica sancto omnium Apostolorum Petro principi Apostolo totius Ecclesiae cura commissa est cum totius Ecclesiae principatus ei committitur tamen universalis Episcopus non vocatur It is manifest to all who know the Gospel that by the voice of our Lord the care of the whole Church is committed to Peter the care and principality of the whole Church is committed to him and yet he is not call'd the universal Bishop Nor can you say with reason as you pretend that the rest of the Apostles had the care of the whole Church committed to them by our Saviour as St. Peter had For he had it sayes St. Gregory as being Prince of the Apostles themselves and so had not only the care of the people and inferiour Pastors and Prelates but of the very Apostles committed to him and in this exceeded all the other Apostles as having the care of the whole Church people Pastors Bishops Apostles committed to him by our Saviour which no other had the same nor said he to any of them absolutely feed my Lambes feed my Sheep that is all my Lambes all my Sheep but to him Thus St. Paul when he saith the care of all Churches lay upon him he includes not the Apostles themselves as never having challenged nor ever having ascribed to him by antiquity to be princeps Apostolorum Prince of the Apostles as St. Peter had Beside the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. 11.28 signifies a soliditude or anctious care which he took for all the Churches which might have been taken for them out of an excess of charity extended to all though he had had no power or care commited to him by our Saviour as St. Peter had over them See you not the care not of the Churches within the Empire as you fancy but of the whole Church as now declared not by humane right from Fathers or Councils as you imagin but by the voice of Christ himself was committed to St. Peter and this was no secret in St. Gregories dayes nor a thing known to many or most but to all sayes this holy Doctor who knew the Gospel And hence also appears the difference betwixt the title of universal and the thing it self controverted betwixt you and me which you would have signified by that title of having care and power committed to one from Christ over the whole Church this second sayes St. Gregory St. Peter had but not the first and this difference appears yet more evidently for the holy Pope instances also in the high Priest in Moses Law as you acknowledge page 265. who as all men know had not only precedency of place but real power and authority over the whole Church of the Jews and yet sayes he was not call'd universal Now this being St. Gregories doctrine in relation to St. Peter and our Saviour having subjected his Church under the care and providence of St. Peter as supream visible Governour in his place after his Ascention into Heaven it will follow that our Saviour judged this government alwayes necessary for his Church for the very same reason which made it necessary in the Apostles time evince it to be necessary in all succeeding ages this government therefore was to be perpetuated in his Church and seeing it was fix'd upon St. Peter by our Saviour it must fall upon St. Peters lawful successors after his death and seeing none can claim that succession save the supream Bishop for he of Antioch succeeded him in his life time and therefore could not have that soveraign power derived to him for St. Peter retained that as long as he lived as all acknowledge none save the Bishop of Rome can claim the care of the universal Church committed to him by vertue of Christs institution Ergo he and he only is the ordinary supream visible Governour of the whole Church of Christ in St. Gregories principles 46. But St. Gregory is not only positive in the principle but in the sequel also in relation to St. Peters successour at Rome for l. 4. ep 36. ad Eulog Alexandrinum Anastas Antioch speaking of the Constantinopolitane Synod which had given the title of universal to Iohn of Canstantinople he sayes thus Idem decessor meus ex authoritate sancti Petri directis litteris cassavit That his Predecessor had annul'd that Council by the authority of St. Peter behold the Roman Bishops used the authority of St. Peter and by power of that invalidated a Council collected out of their Patriarchate which shews that St. Peters authority descends down to his successors the Roman Bishops and that having been extended over the universal Church the successors also have the same extent of authority in vertue of their first predecessor St. Peter Now this phrase of exercising acts of government in the Church was ordinarily exprest by doing them by the authority of St. Peter as appears in a hundred passages of the ancients This annulling the acts of that Constantinopolitan Synod is again asserted by St. Gregory lib. 4. ep 34. ad Constant. Agustam where treating of Iohn of Constantinople he sayes Ita ut sanctae memoriae decessoris mei tempore ascribi se in Synodo See the like Text cited above lib. 7. ep 65. lib. 2. ep 37. lib. 7. ep 64. lib. 1. ep 72. tali hoc superbo vocabulo faceret quamvis cuncta acta illius Synodi sede contradicente Apostolicâ soluta sunt So that he John of Constantinople procur'd himself to be honour'd with that proud title in a Synod although all the acts of that Synod be dissolved the Apostolical See contradicting them Nor shews St. Gregory the authority of his predecessor only but his own also over the Bishops of Constantinople for lib. 4. ep ep 38. ad Ioan. constant Quicquid facere humiliter debui non omisi sed si in mea correptione despiciar restat at Ecclesiam debeam adhibere whatsoever I ought to do in humility I have not omitted but if I be despis'd in my correction it remains that I must use the Church that is as he treats immediately before use the authority of the Church in casting him out of it as a Heathen and Publican because he refused to hear the Church And again lib. 7. ep ep 70. ad Episcop Thessalon alios complures After he had strictly prohibited them to give any consent to the title of universal Bishop he addes si quis neglexerit a beati Petri Apostolorum principis pace se noverit segregatum If any one of you neglect this my command let him know
acknowledge it to be his due you can give me no other reason for this then because the word universal is capable of a worse signification and therefore to be avoided which is the very reason I give you why St. Gregory both refused it and inveighed so much against it 56. How the rest of the Apostles had the care of the whole Church you oppose Bellar. p. 262. sect 2. To your first answer I have now replyed To your n. 2. No man questions St. Peters being a member of Christs Church under Christ the head but so is every Bishop a member of the Church which hinders not their being true Governours and visible heads of their respective Diocesses so was the high Priest amongst the Jews a member of the Church next under God the absolute chief head yet was withal indued with the power of governing visibly the whole Jewish Church as all grant 57. Pag. 262. But see you not into what bryars you have cast your self if you follow the ordinary Edition read it as you do thus certe Petrus Apostolus primum membrum sanctae universalis Ecclesiae est Peter the Apostle is the first member of the holy universal Church You establish St. Peters supremacy for what is primum membrum sanctae universalis Ecclesiae is it in place only then the Bishops of Rome as St. Peters successors have their precedency in place from him and not conferr'd upon them by the Fathers which destroyes the main ground of your novelty you cannot therefore say it is a naked precedency in place it must therefore have been a primacy over the whole Church in government as was that of the other Apostles in their singular jurisdictions yet was he not to be stiled absolutely head of the whole Church for the reasons above declar'd But if you follow the lection of Mr. Iames whom I credit as much as you do Mr. Ross you will make a fair piece of non-sence of St. Gregories words for they constitute St. Peter no more then a common member of the Church membrum sanctae universalis Ecclesiae est which is true of every good Christian and yet constitute the other Apostles heads of particular Churches and thereby give a greater honour and power to them then to St. Peter which you your self every where deny CHAP. V. Saint Leo and other holy Fathers NUm 58. what means Ecclesiae Catholicae Episcopus given by St. Leo and other Fathers to the Roman Bishop how Episcopus universalis Ecclesiae and universalis Episcopus Bishop of the universal Church and universal Bishop are said by Bellar. to be of the same signification Num. 60. How Mr. Baxter abuses both Bellar. and St. Gregory he makes St. Greg. speak false Latin and non-sence by misciting his words he understands not St. Greg. Latin phrase Num. 62. In what sense Catholiques affirm Christians to be opposers of the Pope Bellar. misreported by Mr. Baxter Num. 64.66 He gives a false translation to Raynerius his words twice over and misreports his meaning by concealing the words following in Canus once Num. 67. 68 69 c. He proves his antecedent but not his consequence which I deny Num. 69. Whether the Papacy began in Phocas his time 58. To your third numb pag. 263. you are sore pinch'd to find an answer to the Popes being intituled Episcopus universalis Ecclesiae Bishop of the universal Church could you think it would satisfie any rational man to say that this title imported no more then what may be and ought to be given to every Bishop who adhered to the common Communion was a Catholick to wit that he was a Bishop of the Catholick Church can you be so ignorant as not to know this and the like titles were given him as signal declaratives of his place honour whereby he was both distinguish'd and preferr'd before all other Bishops and Patriarchs neither of which could be done had Episcopus universalis Ecclesiae signified no more then that he was a Bishop that is to be accounted amongst the Bishops of the universal Church for this was common to him with all other Bishops thorough the whole Church And I pray you tell me in good earnest when any one should have intituled his letter to Pope Leo v. g. thus Leoni Episcopo universalis Ecclesiae to Leo a Bishop of the Catholick Church would it not have been profoundly ridiculous for seeing there might have been some other Catholick Bishops call'd Leo as well as the Bishop of Rome who could know to whom this letter was written by vertue of that title but that it may appear evidently how incongruous this your effugium is several Epistles of Pope Leo intituled with his own hand will sufficiently manifest it Saint Leo Epist. 97. intitles his Epist. thus Leo Romae universalis Catholicaeque Ecclesiae Episcopus would you translate these words thus Leo a Bishop of Rome and of the universal and Catholique Church I pray you how many Bishops of Rome were there at that time beside Leo Or sees not every one who sees any thing that they must be thus render'd into English Leo Bishop of Rome and of the universal and Catholique Church Now this evinces that as he was in power and jurisdiction Bishop of Rome so was he also Bishop of the universal and Catholique Church in power and jurisdiction for otherwise the sentence will be incongruous and equivocal In the like manner ep 13. he intitles himself Leo Catholicae Romanae Ecclesiae Episcopus Leo the Bishop of the Catholique Roman Church Now who sees not both that this must be in authority and government and that the appellation of the Roman Catholique Church is of 12. hundred years standing Ep. 42. he writes himself thus Leo Catholicae Ecclesiae Episcopus now had that imported no more then this Leo a Bishop of the Catholick Church who could have known who writ this Epistle ep 88. he gives himself this title Leo Romanae Ecclesiae Apostolicae sedis Episcopus Leo Bishop of the Roman Church and Apostolique Sea Now seeing he takes the Roman Church for the same with the Catholique Church as we have now seen it imports thus much Leo Bishop of the Roman or Catholique Church of the Apostolical Sea for had he meant only the particular Roman Church by Romanae Ecclesiae he had committed a tautology in adadding presently Apostolicae sedis for that design'd the particular Church of Rome Now seeing he was by power of government Bishop of the Apostolique Sea either he must speak equivocally and absonously or signifie by those words that he was by power of government also Bishop of the Roman Catholique Church ep 54. thus Leo Episcopus Romanae universalis Ecclesiae Leo Bishop of the Roman and universal Church ep 62. Leo Catholicae Ecclesiae Episcopus Leo Bishop of the Catholique Church by all this appears the truth of Bellarmines illation from this title against your novel and
quoad in me correptione despicior restat ut ecclesiam debeam adhibere I note these particulars 1. you miscite St. Gregories words and thereby make them both non-sense and bald Latin it should not be as you have it sed quoad but sed quia thus I find it in two different editions of St. Gregory the one anno 1564. Basiliae and the other 1572. Antwerpiae both which have it quia nor ever found I it printed or cited otherwise till I read in your book now what sense is this but until I am despis'd in my correction it remaines that I use the Church that is I must lay the Churches censures upon you before you offend I must take them of and who ever joyn'd a present tense of the Indicative mood with a quoad before you for that is as much as to say until I am now despised which makes the time present and future all one and that I think is Nonsense what think you of it 2. you prove St. Gregory held the Churches authoritie to be greater then his own by these words now treated Now whatsoever St. Gregory held in this is not of any concern now but most certain it is he neither did nor could prove it by these words for this phrase Ecclesiam debeam adhibere I must use the Church signifies no more then this I must proceed according to the rigor of the Church canons and discipline in inflicting upon you the censures of the Church that is I must proceed no longer as a friend to intreat exhort and admonish you as hitherto I have done but as the chief Pastor of the Church use the fulness of that authoritie which I have in the name and for the good of the Church in casting you out of it by the severity of excommunication that this only is his meaning is evident both by the precedent words where he declares our Saviours doctrine about excommunication of obstinate offenders and by the words immediately subsequent where he affirms he must not prefer his person though never so dear to him before the institution of the Canons c. Now when will you ever prove the consequence viz. St. Gregory threatned the use of censures of the Church against Iohn of Constantinople Ergo he took the Churches authority to be greater then his own 62. Now you come in good time to prove your seventh argument page 257. Which you draw from the confession of Papists I distinguish your antecedent if you mean Papists confess that multitudes or the most part of Christians not univocally so call'd have bin opposers or no subjects of the Pope I grant it if univocally so cal'd I deny it therefore by those testimonies there have bin visible Churches of such I deny your consequence To your first authority from Eneas Silvius I answer he cannot mean that so smal regard was had to the Church of Rome before the Council of Nice that it was not believed to be the head of all other Churches c. as I have prov'd it was unless you make him accuse the Council of Nice of Innovation and of introducing a new government into the Church of God which notwithstanding they supposed to have been ever before their time for the Council of Chalcedon cites the Sixth Nicene Canons as affirming that the Church of Rome had alwayes the Primacy your answer to Bellar. is fallacious proceeding a parte Se Con. Chal. Can. 28. ad totum Bell. you acknowledge sayes he it is partly true and partly false you subsume but if true which supposes Bellarmine to affirm that its wholly true whereas you should have subsumed but if partly true as you alledge Bellar. to have said it was and then you fall again into the same fallacy if it be false say you that is if the whole be false whereas you should have said if it be partly false as Bellar. said it was And had you thus proceeded candidly and logically in your subsupmtion your subsequel against our Historians authority had been Evacuated for very many good Authors may speak some things which in part are true and in part false that is in some respect true and in others false they understanding what they writ in that respect wherein they are true 63. Page 268. You mention first the Greeks in opposition to the Pope recorded by our Historians what then Ergo by their testimony there have been visible Churches of such that is of true univocal Christians who opposed the Pope that 's the thing to be proved but to prove that you must prove those historians to have held those schismatical Greeks to have bin univocal Christians which is necessary to compose a visible Church this you have not done then you cite Golestaldus but where the Lords knows making mention of such as were under the Popes patriarchal power and yet oppos'd him but if that Golestaldus were truly ours prove also that he held them whilst they stood thus in opposition against the Pope to be univocal Christians that 's your main work and yet you do it not but see you not how you first take such as you must acknowledge to be subjects to the Pope in spirituals resisting their true superiour as being under his Patriarchal power to be patrons of your cause another seed of Rebellion and then you acknowledge Emperours and Kings to be under the Popes patriarchal power for many opposers of the Pope were such I speak of an opposition in faith and communion not in civil oppositions which may happen upon just occasions 64. Page 268. Next I wonder to see you so abominably false in your translations you your self page 251. cite Raynerius his words non subsunt which in my grammar signifies are not under and yet you translate them here were not under the Roman Church is it not true now to say Constantinople and Alexandria non subsunt are not under the Roman Emperour must it therefore be true they were not under it 65 Ibid. Canus speaks of different times not that altogether but interruptedly some at on time time some at another strove to oppose the Pope but accounts Canus such opposers in sensu conjuncto so were univocal christians that 's the point and you never so much as think of proving it might not you as well argue that so many Provinces Nations and Kingdomes belonging to the Roman Emperours have opposed the authority of the Roman Emperours Ergo they had no lawful authority over them or to look homeward so many Nations Provinces Cities Ministers and Commons have oppos'd the authority of our royal Soveraign Ergo neither had he any lawful power over them nor ceased they to be univocal parts of the Kingdome notwithstanding that opposition here 's another root of rebellion Page 268. But you relapse again into your accustomed falsitie in translation which would have appeared had you printed Canus his Latin words thus you make Authors speak in what language you please English or Latin as it
best serves your turne and covers your falsitie Canus sayes there ab aliis plerisque totius orbis Episcopis which you translate thus but almost all the rest of the Bishops of the whole world so that alii plerique very many others is with you almost all the rest had you only said a great sort or the most part even that had bin to stretch the word plerique to its full length but to translate it almost all is too too bad and cryes shame of the translator for by this meanes you would perswade your Reader that scarce any Bishop at all adher'd to the Bishop of Rome according to this Author whereas he in the beginning of this seventh Chapter saith that not only the Bishops but Ecclesia the Church from the time of the Apostles alwayes acknowledg'd that the Roman Bishops succeeded place Faith and authority of St Peter and that all Catholicks respected his judgement in the controversies of Religion and this is most cleer and evident but yet this is not all your foul play You had undertook to prove Papists affirm that univocal Christians composing visible Churches have bin opposers of the Pope And here you seem'd to have cull'd out a text for your pupose for Canus acknowledges in this place that a very great number of Bishops and the greater number of Churches were against the Pope and who could he suppose these to be but true Catholick Bishops and Churches here you think you have your Reader sure but why cited you not these words the next following O that would have marr'd your market Canus is so farr from holding these mutineering Bishops and Churches to be true univocal Christians that he affirms expresly they were either Schismaticks or Hereticks Quinimo qui à Romanâ quidem sede defecerunt hi Schismatici semper ab ecclesia sunt habiti qui vero hujus sedis de fide judicia detrectarunt heretici But those sayes Canus who made a defection from the Roman Sea were alwaies accounted Schismaticks by the Church and those who refused to stand to the judgement of this Sea in matters of faith were esteemed Hereticks these are fair characters of your great sincerity If you should reply though Canus account them not univocal Christians nor true Churches who made those oppositions yet them not to be no true Churches nor no univocal Christians I reply it makes thus much at least that Canus his testimony proves not that any true Catholick Christians or Churches withstood the Pope for the proof whereof you cited this his testimony 66. Ibid You have a third bout with Raynerius I answer whatsoever he may hold of the antiquity of the Waldenses is nothing to me now holds he them to be univocal Christians prove that thus in all the testimonies you have alleadged for the proof of your antecedent against my distinction you have not so much as one that assayes to prove it Your eight Argument page 269. Is a pure non-proof that which you undertake to prove as appears by your question premised in the beginning of this second part page 197. Is to prove the Church whereof Protestants are members hath been visible ever since the dayes of Christ on earth and your title upon every page pretends to shew the successive visibility of the Church of which the Protestants are members Now as if you had quite forgot what you were about you pretend in this your Argument to shew that anciently the Papal soveraignty was not part of the Churches faith nor own'd by the Ancients when therefore you shall have logically deduced this consequence the Papal soveraingty hath not been alwayes visible Ergo the Church whereof Protestants are members hath bin alwayes visible I will esteem my self obliged to answer the proofs from your testimonies till then I purely omit your antecedent and deny the consequence which you ought to draw from it thence follows not that the Church whereof you Protestants are members hath bin alwaies visible though your antecedent were true the truth whereof I neither grant nor deny for the present but omit it as not being now to our purpose 67. Page 271. Your ninth argument halts of the same leg it follows not that though our Church as papal had no successive visibilitie that the Church whereof the Protestants are members had ever since Christs time on earth a successive visibility when you have proved this consequence which you do not so much as mention in your argument I oblige my self to answer every one of your instances till that be done all I am obliged to do by force of logical forme is to omit your antecedent as nothing to our purpose for you undertake not in this second part to disprove ours but to prove your own perpetual visibility and I deny again your consequence which you ought to draw logically from your antecedent to wit that it follows not from this argument that the Church whereof the Protestant are members hath bin visible ever since the dayes of Christ on earth 68. Your 10. argument is sick of the same disease is propounded p. 275. this reaches no further then to prove that there hath bin a succession of visible professors of Christianity that were no Papists Transeat pro praesente I let that pass for the present neither granting it nor denying it nor medling at all with it because I judge it of no present concern to our purpose but whatsoever is of that I deny it follows thence what you are to prove that the Church whereof the Protestants are members hath bin visible ever since the daies of Christ upon earth Moreover by this manner of illogical proceeding you change the part of the respondent which only was yours into the part of an opponent you were to shew some other Church beside the Roman to have bin perpetually visible and this you undertake in this second part by proving the Protestants to be so Now you turne the scales and labour by 10. arguments to prove the Roman Church as Roman is not so You promis'd in the beginning a fair logical answer keep your word and turne not opponent whil'st you are to be respondent stick to something otherwise you confound all and render it impossible to draw any controversie to a period or open a passage to truth acquit your self of your present obligation prove your said consequence that accomplished when your instances come into logical course I here oblige my self again to answer every one of them but first let us dispatch this shew your consequence undertaken here of the perpetual visibility of the Protestant Church to follow from the want of perpetual visibilitie in the Roman no more then your perpetual visibility follows from the want of it in the Greek or Abissme Church what if neither of them have bin perpetually visible For there is no Heretick in the world no neither Arrian or Sabellian c. whom you hold no Christians which may not argue in the same manner against
us as you do p. 242. were they to prove the succession of their Church as you do of yours what would you have us answer but deny the consequence for it will never follow because we have not bin that Arrians have bin perpetually visible Nay should he argue thus against you Protestants have not bin perpetually visible Ergo Arrians have bin might you not omitting his antecedent deny his consequence judge therefore by your own cause and prove your consequence nay should we argue thus against you Protestants qua tales have not bin perpetualy visible Ergo the Church whereof Papists are members hath bin perpetually visible might you deny our consequence the reason why this consequence is denyed by all true Christians is this because ours not being perpetually visible confers nothing to your being perpetually visible no more then Cayphas his not being a good Priest made Annas to be a good one And as little followes it that though multitudes of Christians as you have it in your 10 argument page 275. the like you have page 249. argument the fourth and page 251. argu 5. c. Had bin ignorant of Poperie not of Christianity and a succession of visible professors of Christianity that were no Papists that therefore the Church whereof Protestants are members hath bin alwayes visible unless you first prove that all who are profess'd Christians but no Papists are of that Church whereof Protestants are members which I have shewed to be false Suppose therefore ex suppositione impossibili that the Roman Church had not bin alwaies visible thence will not follow that the Church whereof Protestants are members has bin alwaies visible this only will follow that neither it nor Protestants is the true Church I press you therefore once more to prove your consequence and till that be prov'd I am free from all obligation of answering to the proof of your antecedent for no man according to logical form is oblig'd to answer the proofs of any proposition which is neither denied nor distinguished by the respondent but purely omitted 69. I will only ex abundanti clear one difficultie which touches somthing of the main point about the Ogin of the Popes supremacy and is in every pedants mouth who can chatter against us this you have rais'd as a fierce batterie against the walls of Rome and have placed eight pieces of canon upon it Regino contractus Marianus Sigibertus Rumbaldis Pomponius c. And these make a fearful thundering about our ears but sure you did it rather to fright us then to hurt us otherwise you would have taken care to charge them with something else then powder see you not how they vanish away all into smoak have you indeed produced a Caput sieret should be made head of all Churches you had made some breach but to bring no more then ut Caput esset caput esse Phocas constituted the Roman Church should be head or to be head of all Churches is an emptie puffe and no more Did not a late Parliament immediately before his Sacred Majesties return vote and constitute Charles the second to be King of England c. or that he ought to be King of England c. dare you therefore say that he had no other right precedent to be our Soveraign before the Vote and constitution of that Parliament know you not when titles and rights are controverted as it was in Phocas his time the soveraign tribunal decrees to whom the right or title belongs not by conferring it upon them as a free gift but by declaring it to be their right and giving them what they judge to be their due now that this was so in the case of Boniface 3. is manifest first out of Platina who was no extraordinary favourer of Popes in Boniface 3. Bonifacius tertius patria Romanus à Phoca Imperatore obtinuit magna tamen contentione ut sedes Beati Petri Apostoli quae est caput omnium Ecclesiarum ita diceretur haberetur ab omnibus Bonifacius the third sayes Platina by Nation a Roman obtein'd of Phocas the Emperour that the seat of Blessed Peter the Apostle which is head of all Churches should be so call'd and esteem'd of all 2. from Carion p. 229. Sabiniano defuncto creatus est Pontifex 65. Bonifacius tertius hic autem Pontifex ab Imperatore Phochà Augusto obtinuit ut Ecclesia Romana Beati Petri Apostolorum principis sedes quae jure Caput est omnium Ecclesiarum ita diceretur haberetur ab omnibus c. Sabinianus being dead Boniface the third was made Bishop this Bishop obtein'd of the Emperour Phocas that the Roman Church the Sea of St. Peter Prince of the Apostles which by right is head of all Churches should be so call'd and esteem'd by all and he cites for this Onuphrius Panninius and Pompeius Letus 3. Illesius in his spanish history of Popes delivers the substance of Phocas his decree wherein it appeares he constituted no more then this that the Roman Bishop and no other was supream visible governour of the Militant Church and that neither Constantinople nor Ravenna nor any other City save old Rome was deputed by our Saaviour and by St. Peter and Paul for the seat of Christs vicar and Prelates of the whole Church now it is most evident that this constitution of Phocas was not as you ungroundedly imagine the beginning of the Popes universal headship for besides the many texts whâ—â—ch I have already alleadged and you acknowledged from Councils and Fathers long before the time of Phocas wherein the Bishop and Church of Rome is acknowledged to be head of all Churches Iustinian much ancienter then Phocas in codice parte prima lib. 1. Tit. 5. de sacro Sanctis Ecclesiis c. (a) Nec patimur ut non vestrae innotescat sanctitati quod caput est omnium sanctarum Ecclesiaerum omnes vero sacerdotes sanctae Catholicae Apostolicae Ecclesiae Reverendissimae Archemandritae sanctorum Monasteriorum sequentes sanctitatem vestram custodientes statum unitatem sanctarum Dei Ecclesiarum quam habent ab apostolica vestrae sanctitatis sede nihil penitus in mutantes de Ecclesiastiâ—â—o statu quam hactenus ob inuit utque obtinet uno consensu confitetur c. lege 4. nos Reddentes in Epist. Iustinian ad Iohannem Papam 15. Imp. August annoo 1576. affirms the Bishop of Rome to be the head of all the holy Churches and that the unitie of the whole Church derives it self from him that all Priests of the Catholick and Apostolick Church follow the Bishop of Rome changing nothing of the state Ecclesiastical which he to that time had continued and then did continue and many years before Iustinian Gratian Valentinianus and Theodosius Emperours lib 1. cod Tit. 3 desumma Trinitate c. 1. Cunctos populos c command that all who were within their Empire were to follow the doctrine of St. Peter delivered to the Romans
as the Religion continued in Rome to that day declared and which Pope Damasus then followed and Peter Bishop of Alexandria and that those only who followed that Religion ought to imbrace the name of Catholicks and all others to be accounted as mad men and Hereticks and Iohn Bishop of Rome writes thus to Iustinian Ibid. lege quarta long before Phocas raign'd That both the Rules of the Fathers the statutes of the Emperours declares the Sea of Rome is truly the head of all Churches Quam esse omnium vere Ecclesiarum caput Patrum Regulae principum statuta declarant And this done Pope Iohn delivers this doctrine precept that all those who yield not obedience to his commands and laws should be esteemed as câ—â—st out of the Church therefore affirmes that all those who adhere to the doctrine of their own Bishops refuse to hear the voice of him their Pastor he receiv'd not into his communion but commanded them to be Aliens from the whole Catholick Church ab omni Ecclesia Catholica esse jussimus alienos n. b. ab omni Ecclesia it reaches to all Churches none excepted and jussimus it is a command from the Pope In the Council of Chalcedon many years before Iustinian it is said to be the head of all Churches to have alwaies had the Primatum the primacy which word I have proved signifies Eccclesiastical power authoritie and yet some years before Valentinian ut supra ascribes the same authority to the Roman Bishop Thus much in answer to your second part 70. From page 293 to page 305. You busie your self in answering a question I propounded to you which only say you page 292. you receiv'd instead of an answer I wonder not you write this but that you printed it for before this was or could be printed it was sufficiently intimated to you that Mr. Iohnson intended to answer your paper and obliged himself to answer it wherewith you seem to be satisfied and sure if he had before patience to expect your answer almost three quarters of a year upon your excuse of being hindr'd by other more weighty imployments all equal proceeding should have obliged you to excuse him also alleadging the like reason CHAP. VI. Of Hereticks and Schismaticks NUm 71. Whether some Hereticks are parts of the Church Mr. Baxter is in the affirmative his explications unnecessarie to the question Num. 72. His distinctions excluded in the termes of the question Num 73. His Citations from Alphonsus a Castro Bellar. and Canus prove nothing Num. 74. The negative is proved from scriptures and Fathers Num. 75. The same is proved by reason 71. The question I propounded was this as you have printed it page 293. a Whether any professed Heretiques properly so called are true parts of the universal visible Church of Christ so that they compose one universal Church with the other visible parts of it And you first gave it this answer b My words are plain distinctly answer your question so that I know not what more is needful for the explication of my sense unless you would call us back from the thing to the word by your properly so called you are answered already Now the former answer to which you relate is mentioned in my other to you and printed by you page 292. c Some are Heretiques for denying points essential to Christianty and those are no Christians and so not in the Church but many are also called Heretiques by you and by the Fathers for lesser errors consistent with Christianity and those may be in the Church You therefore grant the thing it self that some profess Heretiques are true members of the universal visible Church this I confess is a categorical answer to my question and you had no reason to add any more but I see you love to be doing and cannot remain quiet when the thing is well but must be tampering with it though you marr it in the moulding you take an occasion upon my words Heretick properly so called to intangle your self and your Reader through twelve pages in twelve distinctions twelve conclusions and twelve observations and in this you descant upon universal Church Heretique Schismatique properly so called c being the principal words used in my question now to what purpose all this had not you the word universal Church Heretique Schismatique repeated often over through your whoâ—â—e writing and did you not think your self sufficiently understood when you writ them if you did not why omitted you then to explicate the termes so that you might be understood if you did then speak clearly and distinctly what need had you now to give any further explication did I complain that I understood not what you meant by these termes 72. But it is much more absonous to heare you distinguish termes in order to the answer of my question by distinctions excluded in the proposition of the question p 293. I mention the universal visible Church of Christ can any Christian speak more distinctly then I do in the expression of the Church you say page 294. We are not agreed what the universal visible Church is what of that are we not agreed there is such a thing think you or I what we will of the definition of it t' is sufficient to give an answer pro or con to my question whether Heretiques be true members of the Church that we agree there is such a thing as the universal visible Church of Christ and it will be timely enough to explicate what you mean by the universal visible Church when your answer is impugned Then page 294. you distinguish Heritique properly so called into Etimological Canonical usual all these you reject as insufficient to know what is meant by an Heretick properly so called so that after you have so often treated in this and other books of Heretiques either you speak of them alwaies improperly or know not what you say when you speak of them as properly understood or you have here made an insufficient division of an Heretique properly so called but see you not again that whatsoever you or I understand by Heretique properly so called we both agre there are Heretiques properly so call'd that 's enough to answer my question then page 295 you distinguish Heretique first into Heretique in opinion and in communion and then you run into seven more distinctions of Heretiques never considering that I had exprest my question in such termes that all these distinctions were excluded by the very termes I say thus whether any professed Heretiques c. now could you not have said that some professed Heretiques are parts of the Cathlique Chucrch without making such a pudder with so many distinctions what was it to my question that some are convict others tryed some judged by Pastors others by others some by usurpers some by lawful Iudges c. I did not demand what sort of Heretiques properly so called were held by you to be of
the Church but whether you held any at all to be of it of what sort soever they were was all one to me should any one demand this question of you whether any who exercised the work of the ministrie since the year 1640 were favourers of the late Rebels against his Majestie and you in answer should distinguish as you do here that some of them were Episcopal other Presbyterial some who were first Presbiters turned Independents and others Anabaptists some Seâ—â—kers and others Ranters some Millinaries and others Quakers some studied in the Universities and others went no further then the Country schools some were tradesmen and others souldiers some Trumpeters and others Drummers some fancied the Rebeâ—â—s by preaching Rebellion in Pulpits others by framing the Covenants these by puting on buff coats and turning Collonels or Captaines and fighting valiantly in the field those by instituting associations of Counties others by writing seditious books and pamphlets comparing old Noll to David and young Dick to Solomon c. and those distinctions premised you should draw twelve conclusions which of those were or were not partakers with the Rebeâ—â—s could not you have saved all this labour and said in a word yes some who exercised the work of the Ministrie favoured the Rebels seeing no more then this was demanded of you but yet farther in your distinctions of Heretiques you interlace such as are expresly excluded in my question I demand whether Heretiques properly so called are true members of the Church page 293. you answer p. 296 Prop. 1. That Schismatiques that is Heretiques improperly so called are no parts of it what 's that to my question I demand whether any professed Heretiques are parts of the Catholique Church page 297. That some Heretiques if latent that is not professed Heretiques may be parts of it nay you are not content to answer thus farr from the question but contradict one answer by another you say page 293 that your answer was plain in your paper sent me videlicet that some Heretiques properly so called are parts of the Catholique Church page 229. prop. 7. you say that some softer Heresie excludes no man from the Church of it selfe unless they are legally convict of wicked impenitency and obstinacy in defending it and then it seemes to exclude them that is all Heresie excludes them for no man is guilty of Heresie unless he defend it obstinately and impenitently nor is to be held for an Heretique till he be convicted of that obstinacy and thus much you acknowledge your self page 298. n. 7. where you constitute formal Heresie inobstinacy saying 7. They are either judged to be materially as to the qualitie of their Error Heretiques or also formally as obstinate impenitent and habitually stated Heretiques So then by your own confession all obstinate that is all formal that is Heretiques properly so called are excluded from being true members of the Church Thus you answer page 193. Some Heretiques properly so called are excluded from being of the Church this I call a contradiction what call you't Nay farther in this answer you th'wart what you answered in your book against me there without any exception you affirm page 11. Schismatiques to be true parts of the Church and here you exclude some Schismatiques from being true parts of the Church there you say whosoever held all the Essentials as do all Schismatiques as contradistinct from Heretiques properly so call'd are true parts of Christs visible Church because they are constituted Christians by believing all the Essentials of Christianity And here you say that some schismaticks who are contra-distinct from hereticks and consequently believe all the essentials are not parts of the Church nor yet is this all you contradict your self in one and the same sentence p. 297. you say thus but should any schismaticks for you speak of those only here renounce the body of Christ as such and separate not from this or that Church but from the whole or from the universal Church as such this man would not be a member of the Church Now to separate from the body of Christ or from the universal Church as such is to separate from it as it is the universal Church of Christ and as it is the body of Christ quatenus talis but that is to renounce Christ and Christianity and consequently to lose the Christian faith and thereby to become an Apostata that is neither heretick nor schismatick so that according to you a schismatick which is no schismatick is no part of the Church of Christ for never was there yet any schismatick which separated from the body of Christ as such that is as it was the body of Christ but by some false pretence or other perswaded himself that not the visible company of Christians which he left but his separate party was Christs Church as may be seen in the Donatists Luciferians and others Now all those who believe all essentials of Christian faith as you understand essentials are you say true parts of Christs visible Church because they are univocal Christians consequently all those who believe no essential of Christian faith can be no Christians so no parts of the Christian Church if therefore you mean such only as separate from the whole Church as such that is as it is Christs universal Church you make them not erroneous in faith but rejecters and contemners of Christ and Christianity and thereby Apostataes from the faith 73. Pag. 300. you cite again Alphonsus of Castro whose opinion I have already evidenced not to prove your intent nor second your opinion then you cite Bell. de Ecclesia libro 3. c. 4. saying thus Haeretici pertinent ad Ecclesiam ut oves ad ovile unde confugerunt And then you add this inference so they are oves still would you have similitudes to go upon all four is it not sufficient to Bellar. purpose that it agrees in this that both are out of the fold 't is true a natural sheep is a sheep whether it be in the fold or no but so is not a sheep of Christ which is his sheep actually no longer then it is in his fold the Church though both he and his Church have power over it to reduce it into the fold or medicinally to shut the gate against it and keep it out till it give satisfaction Might you not as well have carp'd at our Saviours words as you do at Bellarmines when he said alias oves habeo quae non sunt ex hoc ovile and I have other sheep which are not of this fold Ioan. 10. so that they are oves sheep still though our Saviour say they be not of his fold know you not that those were by him call'd sheep which though they were not actually his yet were in time to be of his fold and when he had reduced them to his fold would be his sheep actually This done you add and if it be but ovile particulare veluti Romanum that they
fly from and not the universal that proves them not out of the universal Church Who sayes it does why interlace you such parergons as those treats Bell. here of any particular fold speaks he not expresly of the whole universal Church which he defined cap. 2 but by the rules of contraries you should affirm here against your self that if all hereticks fly from the universal Church they cannot be in the universal Church Now it is most evident that all heretiques fly from the universal Church ergo none of them can be in the universal Church for therefore are they hereticks because they either reject obstinately some doctrine sufficiently propounded to them as taught by the universal Church to be a point of Christian faith or imbrace some doctrine sufficiently propounded to them to be rejected by the universal Church as an error in Christian faith de Eccles. l. 3. c. 2. Next you bring in Bellar. thus And Bellar. saith of the Catechumenis excommunicatis that they are de anima etsi non de corpore Ecclesiae Now who can understand by those words of yours but that Bellar. teaches absolutely that both all as well excommunicati as Catechumeni are de anima Ecclesiae of the soul of the Church whereas he speaks only sub conditione conditionally not absolutely and so of some excommunicate persons but not of all that is such as he declares himself c. 6. sect Respondeo lucem esse c. have faith and charity as being either unjustly excommunicated or repenting before they be absolutely absolv'd by the Church from excommunication Bellar. words cap. 2. clipt off in the midst by you are those Rursum aliqui sunt de anima non de corpore ut Catechumeni vel excommunicati si fidem charitatem habeant quod fieri potest Again sayes Bell. some are of the soul of the Church and not of the body as are the unbaptized or excommunicate if they have faith and charity which may happen You see how candidly you have proceeded with Bellarmine and in this sense and no other is Canus to be understood whom you cite next out of Bellarmine and if you could prove any profest heretick properly so call'd had faith and charity I would acknowledge with Bellar. that they were de anima Ecclesiae of the soul of the Church or de Ecclesia quae comprehendit omnes fideles c. of the Church which comprehends all the faithful from Abel to the end of the world you see by this how unfairely you have dealt with Canus also What follows in answer of yours to my question whether profess'd hereticks properly so called are true parts of the visible Church is upon matter of fact who are or who are not in particular rightly condemn'd for hereticks which is an alien to my question and so neither worth the answering nor reading I come now to the question it self 74. That therefore no profess'd heretick properly so called is or can be a true part of Christs universal visible Church I prove by those arguments 1. St. Paul in his 3 to Titus v. 10 11. writes thus A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject knowing that he that is such is subverted and sinneth being condemned of himself Thus yours translate the words but the vulgar and Pagninus have it devita avoid or decline from it signifies also in Scapula to refuâ—â—e remove or expel one from them where the Apostle speaking indefinitly is to be understood of all profess'd hereticks properly so called so that all such hereticks are to be avoided rejected removed or expelled from the community and society of all Christians for the same reason which obliged Titus to avoid them obliged all the faithful which is nothing but to be depriv'd of the communion of the universal Church and so even in your principles just now deliver'd to be cast out of the Church and St. Hierom expounds those words that Hereticks are cast out of the Church by themselves leaving the Church and separating themselves from it by their obstinacy in error 2. St. Iohn in his first Epistle and second chapter verse 19. ex nobis exerunt They went out from us where the Apostle speaks in general of all heretiques and of the whole visible Church of Christ for how could it be manifest they were not of the Church as St. Iohn sayes it was if they did not visibly go out of it Thus also St. Cyprian (a) St. Cypri lib. ep 8. unit Eccl. sive de simplicitate St. Hierom and St. Aug. writing upon those words expound them 3. Ioh. ep 2. v. 9 10 11. whosoever trangresseth and abides not in the doctrine of Christ hath not God he that abideth in the doctrine of Christ hath both the Father and the Son if there come any unto you and bring not this doctrine receive him not into your house neither bid him God speed for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil works Where the Apostle without any distinction or exception intends the denial of communion through the whole Church for he gives a general precept to all Christians to all those who teach contrarie to the doctrine of Christ. And this not as to others scandalous sinners lest they should draw others to sin by their bad example but as to Hereticks for no other crime then their maintaining a doctrine contrary to the doctrine of Christ and that in what point soever it be for he speaks in general of all doctrine contrary to that of Christ. Now since all profess'd Hereticks properly so call'd teach contrary to Christs doctrine in some point or other they are all to be avoided and deny communion thorough the whole Church consequently are out of the whole Churches communion and so out of the Catholique Church This is proved from the authorities both of the ancient fathers later Doctors and Protestant Authors which are cited and confirm'd at large in schism unmask'd in a late conference with Doctor Gunning and Doctor Pierson from p. 131. to p. 188. where the very definition of schism and heresie of schismaticks and heretiques make it most manifest that no profess'd heretick or schismatick properly so call'd can so long as they remain in that state be true parts of the Catholique Church These following I cite for a brief confirmation of this truth St. Aug. de fide symbolo c. 10. quapropter nec hereticus pertinet ad Ecclesiam Catholicam quoniam diligit Deum nec schismaticus quoniam diligit proximum wherefore neither doth an heretick belong to the Catholick Church because she the Church loves God nor a schismatick because she loves her neighbour And Optatus lib. 1. cont Parmenianum addressing himself to the Donatists whom you say were not separated from the Church sayes thus Desertâ matre Catholica impii filii dum for as excurrunt se separant ut vos fecistis à radice matris Ecclesiae invidiae
falcibus amputati errando rebelles abcedunt The Catholique mother that is the Church being forsaken wicked children run abroad and separate themselves as you have done being cut off from the root of their mother the Church by erring as rebels depart from her Now was it the unanimous consent alone of the holy ancient Fathers and all later authors yours and ours but the universal agreement of all Christendom for even in St. Cyprians time when the matter of rebaptization was so hotly agitated through the whole Church both parties and consequently all Christian Churches agreed in this that all professed hereticks and schismaticks properly so called were out of the Catholique visible Church of Christ for this was the very ground whereupon St. Cyprian and his party founded their opinion as appears in the said citations and is deliver'd by all authors that treat of it that they were to be rebaptized nor was this presupposed ground of their being no members of the Church ever called so much in question as by the opposers of Rebaptization but supposed as a known undeniable truth by the whole Church insomuch that the Council of Nice it self supposing this as a manifest truth condemned the doctrine of Rebaptization as an heresie as St. Aug. witnesseth in his book de Baptismo contra Donatistas which is largely explicated in Schism unmask'd now cited from page 557 to page 566 this universal perswasion continued ever since amongst Christians and I provoke you to cite any Author ancient or modern yours ours or of any other Professor amongst the Christians who before you taught that professed hereticks properly so called were true parts of the visible Church of Christ. St. Cyprian epist. 40. Paenas quas meruerunt perpendêrunt ut a vobis non ejecti ultro se ejicerunt de Ecclesiâ sponté se pellerent St. Hierom cited by Dr. Hammond in his book of Schism Marg. 14. Propriae conscientiae videtur esse damnatio cum quispiam suo arbitrio ab Ecclesiâ recesserit This is also the undoubted and constant doctrine of St. Cyprian lib. 5. epist. 6. ad magnum Schismaticicos v. g. Novatianum in Ecclesia non esse nec gregis pastorem That Schismatiques were not in the Church v. g. Novatian nor Pastor of the flock Si autem Grex unus est quomodo gregi connumerari potest qui in Numero gregis non est But saith he If the flock be one how can he be annumerated to the flock who is not in the number of the flock aut Pastor haberi quomodo potest qui alienus fit prophanus Or how can he be estem'd a Pastor who is become an Alien and a prophane person Non habitans in domo Dei not dwelling in the house of God that is in the Church of God and it is most evident that St. Cyprian was of this opinion for it appeares in his works that he held the rebaptization of those which were baptised by Schismatiques as well as by Heretiques because he esteem'd them both equally out of the Church St. Cyprian lib. 2. ep ad Septianum Epist. 9. ad eundem And Lucius a Castra galba in consilio Carthaginensi sub Cypriano Item Schismaticos non posse condire sapientia spirituali cum ipsi ab Ecclesia quae una est recedendo infatuati contrarii facti sunt Neither can Schismaticks season with spiritual wisdome because they being corrupted by receding from the Church become contrary or adversaries This is also taught most Emphatically by St. Augustine lib. de unitate Ecclesiae cap. 4. cited by you in your second part Quicunque credunt quidem quod Iesus Christus ita ut dictum est in carne venerit in eadem carne in qua natus passus est resurrexerit ipse sit filius Dei Deus apud Deum c. Si tamen ab ejus corpore quod est Ecclesia ita differentiant ut eorum communio non sit cum tota quacunque diffunditur sed in aliqua parte separata inveniatur manifestum est eos non esse in Catholica Ecclesia Whosoever believes that Jesus Christ as is said is come in flesh and that he rose again in the same flesh wherein he was born and suffered and that he is the Son of God and God with God c. Notwithstanding if they discent so from his body which is the Church that their communion be not with the whole Church wheresoever it be diffus'd but be found in some separate part it is manifest that they are not in the Catholique Church Which words cannot be understood of any but Schismatiques St. Fulgent de fide ad Petrum cap. 38. Firmissiime tene nullatenus dubita non solum omnes Paganos sed etiam omnes Iudeos Haereticos Schismaticos qui extra Eeclesiam Catholicam presentem finiunt vitam in ignem aeternum ituros c. Believe most firmly and doubt not at all that not only all Pagans but also all Jewes Heretiques and Schismatiques which end their lives out of the Catholique Church shall go into eternal fire St Cyprian also Ep. 40. above cited supposes some Schismatiques and a fortiore all Heretiques to be out of the Catholique Church And the separation of all Heretiques from the Church St. Austin treats Tom. 9. de symbolo lib. 2. c. 5. Haereses omnes de illa exieruut scilicot Ecclesia tanquam sarmenta inutilia de vite praecisa ipsa autem manet in sua radice Portae inferorum non vincent eam All Heresies have gon out of her that is the Chucrch as unprofitable branches cut of from the vine but she the Church remaines in her root the gates of Hell shall not overcome her St. Cyprian Epist. ad Florentium Pupianum Epist. 69. In which Epistle he reprehends Pupianus for his insolency Et quia fecit se Episcopum Episcopi and proves himself a holy Catholique by his communion with the Church and with the chief Pastor and demonstrate Schism by the contrary Inde Schismata Haereses obortae sunt oriuntur dum Episcopus qui unus est Ecclesia praest superba quorundam praesumptione contemnitur homo dignatione Dei honoratus indignus hominibus judicatur From hence arise Schisms when the Bishop that is one and who is the Governor of the Church is contemned by the proud persumption of some and the man of God honor'd by him is dishonored by men Epist. ad Rogatianum Epist. de superbo Diacono Haec sunt enim initia Haereticoruus ortus conatus Schismaticorum male cogitantium ut sibi placeant ut praepositum superbo tumore contemnant sic de Ecclesia receditur sic Altare prophanum foris collocatur sic contra pacem Christi ordinationem unitatem Dei rebellatur These are the Origine of heretiques and Schismatiques who to please themselves contemn the president of the Church and so rebel against the peace of Christ and the ordination and unitie of
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
and his inspired Prophets to speak truth is to believe a humane and Divine veracity for what Divine ever said before you that Christian faith which is to believe God speaking by the Prophets c. is to believe so much as partially a humain veracity for that would make Christian faith partly humaine which no Christian can affirm it being a pure Theological virtue and having no other formal object save Divine veracity revealing for though the Prophet be a humaine person yet he speakes when he is inspired by God not with humain but with Divine authority God speaking by his mouth Mr. Baxter And are all Infidels of your Church while you are arguing us out but if there be some trueths besides the veracity of God and his messengers that must be believed you must shew what it is or your Church members cannot be known tell me Ergo without tergiversation what are the revealed truths that must be actually believed or what is the Faith material in unity whereof all members of the Catholique Church do live William Iohnson Tell me what points of Faith you account Essential to make a Christian precisely which is part of your own distinction and you will save me the labour of telling you what points are to be believed explicitely if you know not that you delivered a distinction which you understood not Mr. Baxter I pray fly not but plainly tell me and if again you fly to uncertain points because of the diversity of means of informations and say it must be so much every man as he had means to know I again answer you First If a man had no means to know that there is a Christ it seemes then he is one of your Church Secondly you still damn all your own there being not a man that knoweth all that he hath meanes to know because all have culpably neglected meanes and so you have no Church Thirdly still you make your Church invisible if you had any for no man can tell as I said who knoweth in full proportion to his helps and meanes do you not see now whether your Implicite Faith hath brought you William Iohnson Truly Sir your demand is not so great a Bug-bear to make me fly from it for fear it devour me you cannot but know in your perusal of our Divines that your question has bin answered by them an hundred times over have you not heard them deliver in materia de fide that trite distinction that some points of faith are necessary to be believed explicitely necessitate medii and others necessitate praecepti and those of the first classe are absolutely necessary for all men to be so beleived to obtein salvation and to become parts at least in voto if they be not baptized of the Catholique Church and know you not that Divines are devided what are the points necessary to be believed explicitely necessitate medii some and those the more ancient hold that the expliâ—â—tte belief of God of the whole Trinity of Christ his passion resurrection c. are necessary necessitate medii others amongst the recentiors that no more then the belief of the Deity and that he is rewarder of our workes is absolutely necessary with that necessity to be explicitely believed now to answer your question what it is whereby our Church members are known I answer that First all those who are baptised and believe all the points of our faith explicitely if any such persons be to be found are undoubted members of our Church Secondly all those who believe explicitely all the Articles and whatsoever belongs to them in particular by reason of their respective offices in the Church Thirdly those who so believe all things necessary necessitate medii or necessitate praecepti extended to all adulti Fourthly all those who believe in that manner all things held necessary necessitate medii according to the first oppinion of the more ancient Doctors Fifthly It is probable though not altogether so certain as the former that such as believe explicitely the Diety and that he is a rewarder of our works and the rest implicitely as conteined in confuso in that Baptisme supposed are parts of the Catholique Church now seeing all those who are conteined in my four first numbers which comprehend almost all Christians are certainly parts of the Catholique Church we have a sufficient certainty of a determinate Church consisting at least of these by reason whereof our Church has a visible consistency these of the fift rank though not so certain as the former take not away the certainty of the former but that consistency supposed Divines found a question amongst themselves those of the first oppinion will answer that such as believe not the aforesaid Christian mysteries expresly are not parts of the Catholick Christian Church though they believe the Deity remunerating and the rest implicitely see you not by this discourse that we answer sufficiently to your questions by telling which are undoubted members of our Church and thereby give a sufficient description of it and rendering it visible by assigning those which are undoubted members of it though in some others without which it hath consistency be controverted amongst us in this discourse I suppose that such as only believe the Diety or some few of our misteries are excused by invisible ignorance from the obligation of knowing the rest for if their ignorance be vincible culpable and willfull it will indanger at least their implicite faith would not a Philosopher give a sufficient discription of a humane living body by defining it to consist undoubtfully of head shoulders armes c. which are the known parts of it though there be a doubt amongst Philosophers whether the nailes humors c. be animated and parts of it here therefore you may consider that we all agree in these parts which give a real visible constitution to our Church though some question be amongst us about the Exclusion or Admittance of some few which whether they be admitted or no our Church remains by reason of the former in a real visible Existency and by this are Answered your three ensuing Numbers Mr Baxter Quaest. Is it any Lawfull Pastours or all that must necessarily be depended on by every member and who are those Pastours William Iohnson Ans. Of all respectively to each subject that is that the Authority of none of them mediate or immediate be rejected or contemned Mr. Baxter Here still you tell me that your descriptions signified nothing you told me that the members must live in dependance on their lawfull Pastours and now you tell me that their Authority must not be Rejected or contemned and indeed is dependance and non-Rejection all one The millions of heathens that never heard of the Pope or any of your Pastours reject them not nor contemn them are they therefore fit matter for your Church 2. If you say that you mean it of such onely as have a sufficient Revelation of the Authority of these Pastours Rejoynder You
and whether their disobedience unchurch them or not Rejoynder But if you reject the Constable and with him all superiour Magistrates who maintain his Authoritie and come at last so far that you reject the Authority of the supreme or Soveraign power rather then depend on the Constable you will become a Rebel this is my case for the Church being visible is governed in this world by visible governours if therefore one Reject the Authority first of a parish Priest and then of the Bishop of the Diocesse and after of all those who are Superiour to that Bishop even to the highest authority whether this be in one single person or in the assembly of these Pastours in general Council imports little for the present question he becomes a Rebell to the visible Church and casts himself out of it and by consequence because our Saviour hath said he who heareth you heareth me and he who contemneth you contemneth me rejects also Christ's Authority by rejecting them and thereby casts himself from being any longer whilst he remains in that contempt of the Flock and Kingdome of Christ which is his Church For this contempt must be the same kind in respect of Christ that it is in regard of all the aforesaid visible Governours and therefore must reject the Authority of Christ because it rejects their Authority but none of those who reject Christ's Authority over them can be parts of his Flock or Kingdome Ergo note the fallacie of your Assertion in making many Hereticks and Schismaticks properly so called Real parts of the Catholick Church Reply I earnestly crave your Answer to the uncertainties which I have mentioned in my Safe Religion pag. 9 3. to 104. and tell us how all our Pastours may be known and whether every particular sin un-un-Church men and if not why the contempt and rejection of a drunken Priest doth it while all the rest are perhaps too much honoured Rejoynder Really Sir I am too full of employments either to Answer or peruse your Books I never oblig'd my self to answer them You make a visible Body with an invisible Head that is you admit no other head or supreme Ecclesiastical Magistrate over the visible Church save Christ who is invisible to the Church as he is head of it and whose government is internal and invisible if you abstract from all visible supreme Authority and hence you assert that though all the Respective visible governours in spiritual things be rejected by a subject yet he may be a part of the visible Church because he is still subject to Christ who is invisible to to him in his Head-ship I suppose I have said enough above to what you demand here and take those Arguments in your safe Religion to be much of the same nature with these Mr. Baxter Qu. 4. Why exclude you the chief Pastours that depend on none William Iohnson Ans. I exclude them not but include them as those of whom all the rest depend as St. Ierome does in his definition Ecclesia est plebs Episcopo unita Mr. Baxter How inconstant are you among your selves in the use of Terms how frequent is it with you to appropriate the name of the Church to the Clergie but remember hereafter when you tell us of the Determinations Traditions of the Church that it is the people that you mean and not onely the Pastours in Council much lesse the Pope alone Rejoynder This Requires no Answer as opposing nothing against what I say to that Question who knowes not that Termes have different acceptions both amongst you and us both in Scripture Ecclesiastical and Civil Authors Of HERESIE Heresie is an obstinate intellectual Opposition against Divine Authority revealed when it is sufficiently propounded Mr. Baxter Qu. 1. Is the obstinacie that makes Heresie in that Intellectual Will William Iohnson Answ. In the will by an imperate act restraining the understanding to that Mr. Baxter Still your descriptions signifie just nothing you describe it to be an Intellectual obstinate opposition and yet say that this is in the will William Iohnson You still Reply lesse then nothing to what I say yes it is an intellectual obstinate opposition but I say not that the intellectualtie is in the will or do you demand that Read I pray my description and your question and you will find no such matter I say the obstinacy is in the will directly to your question but the heresie is in the understanding and therefore comes it to be an intellectual obstinate opposition because that obstinacie in the will imperates a kind of immobility in the understanding whereby it adheres firmly to it's Errour Intellectual therefore it is from the understanding and obstinate from the will Mr. Baxter And yet again you contradict your self by saying that it is an Imperate act William Iohnson Where say I that imperate act is in the will prove from my words I say so I say indeed that obstinacy is in the will by an imperate restraining the understanding to that Errour but I never said that imperate act was in the will nay I insinuate sufficiently that it is in the understanding by affirming that it restrains the understanding for the imperate act is a kind of immoveable judgement imperated in the understanding by the obstinacy of the will all therefore that I say is this that there is an obstinacy in the will shewing it self to be there by that immobility which it imperates in the understanding and adheres to that errour when therefore I say by that imperate act I mean not formally by that but causally Reply No imperate act is in the will though it be from the will it is voluntary but not in volunte an imperate act may be in the will but not an imperate all imperate acts are in and immediately by the commanded faculties The Intelligere which is the imperate act is in the intellect though the velle intelligere which is an elicite act be in the will Rejoynder You seem to discourse very strangely and inconsequently of imperate acts what Philosopher before you ever said no imperate act is in the will though it be from the will shew your Authours for this is not the quite contrary the common assertion of the schools does not the will by an imperant act of charity e. g. imperate within it self an act of obedience contrition patience c. Nay do not many Philosophers from hence argue that the will and the understanding must be one and the same soul and not two powers really distinct because the will imperates acts in the understanding not by way of production or proper efficiency but by a certain Sympathetical emanation of an act imperated from the act imperating Mr. Baxter 2. From hence it is plain that you cannot prove me or any man to be an Heretick that is unfeignedly willing to know the truth and is not obstinately willing in opposing it which are things you cannot ordinarily discern and prove by others that are ready
to be sworn that they would fain know the truth William Iohnson We enter not into the heart of any particular person that we leave to God onely the Church presumes such to be Hereticks as have Catholick truths sufficiently propounded to them and that notwithstanding contradict and oppose them and let such be ready to swear what they please she has more reason to think that proceeds out of a blind zeal to their own opinion then that they are not to be presumed Hereticks by their open profession of heretical opinions Qu. 2. Must it needs be against the formal object of faith is he no Heretick that denieth the matter revealed without opposing obstinately the Authority revealing William Iohnson Answ. Yes nor is he a formal but onely a material Heretick who opposes a revealed truth which is not sufficiently propounded to him to be a Divine Revelation Mr. Baxter Every man that believeth there is a God indeed believeth that he is true for if he be not true he is not God if therefore no man be formally an Heretick that doth not obstinately oppose the veracity of God which is in the formal object then as there are I hope but few Hereticks in the world so those few cannot by ordinary means be known to you unless they will say that they take God to be a lyer so that you make none Hereticks indeed but Atheists William Iohnson There is a twofold denying of God the one formal and direct the other virtual and indirect Atheists are guilty of the first and Hereticks of the second which solves your dâ—â—fficulty This I oblige my self to prove when occasion shall require it in our Larger Controversie For the present it is sufficient to tell you that whosoever obstinately contradicts any truth revealed from God as all Hereticks do some or other of them they sinfully and wilfully affirm that what God has revealed is not true and consequently that God is a lyer and by that destroy as much as in them lies the very essence of God though their obstinacy and pride will not suffer them to acknowledge it now since you confesse here that what the Hereticks deny is the thing revealed and the revelation is from God you cannot deny that Hereticks make God a lyer and thereby take away the veracity or truth of God Mr. Baxter What if a man deny that there is a Christ a Heaven a Hell a Resurrection and also deny the Revelation it self by which he should discern these truths and yet deny not that veracity of God no nor the Church is this no Heretick I would your party that have murdered so many Hereticks if a falshood may be wished as a thing permitted to have prevented such a mischief it is not Godâ—â—s veracity that is commonly denied by Hereticks but the thing revealed and the Revelation of that thing William Iohnson If they be not sufficiently propounded to him as revealed from God he will be onely a material Heretick if propounded sufficiently as such the case is implicatory for that proposition must be made by the Church so long therefore as he believes the infallible veracity of the Church propounding he cannot disbelieve what it propounds sufficiently to him to be believed as revealed from God Mr. Baxter And your Turnbal against Barronus hath told you that the revelation is no part of the formal object of faith but as it were the copula or a condition sive qua non If he that obstinately refuseth to believe that the Godhead of Christ or the holy Ghost is any where by God revealed and so denieth it be no Heretick unlesse he also obstinately deny or resist the veracity of God then there are few that you can prove Hereticks for forma dat nomen and he that is not an Heretick formally but materially onely is no Heretick at all William Iohnson Turnballs saying touches not me nor the present difficulty an Heretick as we now treat denies not onely the thing to be revealed but the thing or Mystery it self to be true now supposing that it be sufficiently propounded to him that God reveals it he denying the thing it self to be true denies that to be true which he hath sufficient reason to judge by that proposition made to him to be revealed of God but whosoever denieâ—â— that denies virtually Gods veracity by denying the truth of that which God has revealed and which he hath obligation to believe to be revealed from God Ergo. Mr. Baxter Lastly many a truth is sinfully neglected by the members of the Church that have a proposal sufficient and yet not effectual through their own fault and yet they are no Heretiticks millions in your Church are ignorant of truths sufficiently proposed and their ignorance is their sin but it followeth not that it is their Heresie but if it be then Hereticks constitute your Church and then your Church is a thing unknown because the Hereticks cannot be known the sufficiency of each mans revelation being much unknown to others William Iohnson Whatsoever their neglect be to know what is propounded yet so long as they believe explicitly what is necessary to be so believed necessitate medii ut supra and implicitly the rest they can be no Hereticks For it is not the ignorance though culpable but the contradiction of what is sufficiently propounded to them and known to them to be propounded by those who have power to oblige them as being their lawfull Superiours which makes an Heretick Mr. Baxter Qu. 2. What mean you by sufficient proposal William Iohnson Answ. Such a proposition as is sufficient in humanis amongst men to oblige one to take notice that a King or Magistrate have enacted such and such Laws c. that is a Publick Testimony that such things are revealed by the infallible Authority of those who are the highest Tribunal of Gods Church or by notorious and universal Tradition Mr. Baxter In humanis there lieth not so much at stake as a mans salvation and man is not able as used to make a truly sufficient revelation of his will to all and therefore the proportion holds not William Iohnson Imports it not often to salvation to know some Laws of the Commonwealth wherein you live would you have God declare by revelation who are the ordinary Governours of his Church is not this to have constituted a visible Government imprudently whose Governours cannot be sufficiently known but by revelation therefore the proportion holds Mr. Baxter 2. But if it did either you think the sufficiency varieth according to the variety of advantages opportunities and capacities of the persons or else that it consisteth onely in the act of common publication and so is the same to all the subjects if the first be your sense as I suppose it is then still you are uncertain who are Hereticks as being uncertain of mens various capacities and so of the sufficiency in question unlesse you will conclude with me that thus you make all Hereticks as aforesaid
because all men living are culpably ignorant of some truths which they had a revelation of that was thus farre sufficient if the second be your sense then the same unhappy consequence will follow that all are Hereticks and moreover by that sense of obscure education are unavoidable Hereticks because they had no opportunity to know those things which as to that Majority are of publick Testimony and universal Tradition William Iohnson I tell you I judge of no mens conscience it is sufficient 1. That such as acknowledge themselves they know such points of faith to be propounded by the Roman Church which I infallibly believe to be the true Church and that notwithstanding reject them as errours give me ground to presume them to be Hereticks 2. Such as oppose what all visible Churches have most notoriously practised and believed as Divine truths whilst they were so universarily taught and practised I may safely presume to be Hereticks because things so notorious cannot morally be presumed to be unknown to any one for other particulars I may and do suspend my judgement for what obligation have I to know all the Hereticks in the world these Rules being a sufficient judge of the greatest part of them See you not your fallacy how you passe ab abstracto in concretum Our question was onely what Heresie is and you divert it to inquire which particular persons are Hereticks cannot definitions stand though we know not all the individualls which are reducible to them Mr. Baxter Is not the Bible a publick Testimony and record and being universally received is an universal Tradition and yet abundance of truths in the holy Bible are unknown and therefore not actually believed by millions that are in your Church and are not taken by your self for Hereticks your befriending ignorance would else make very many Hereticks Rejoynder What if the Bible be a publick Tradition it is onely a Tradition that whatsoever is there delivered is the word of God but it is no Tradition that such a determinate sense and no other is the word of God in every sentence contained in it when according to the Analogie of faith the words are capable of many senses all therefore that is an universal Tradition concerning the Bible is sufficiently propounded but what is not Tradition left to the several Discourses and Expositions of Doctours will it hence follow think you that because what is not an universal Tradition is not sufficiently propounded to be known Ergo what is universal Tradition also is not Pope By Pope I mean S. Peter or any of his lawfull Successours in the Sea of Rome having authority by the institution of Christ to govern all particular Churches next under Christ. Of the Pope Mr. Baxter I am never the nearer knowing the Pope by this till I know how Peters Successours may be known to me Qu. 1. What personal qualification is necessary ad esse William Iohnson Answ. Such as are necessary ad esse of other Bishops which I suppose you know Mr. Baxter If so then all these were no Popes that were Heretques or denyed Essential points of Faith William Iohnson 'T is true they were no Popes whilst formal Heretiques if any such were Baxter As Iohn 24. Iohnson prove that Baxter And so were no Christians Iohnson Prove that Baxter All those that wanted the necessary abilities to the Essentials of their work Iohnson Prove there were such Popes Mr. Baxter And so your Church hath often bin headless and your succession interrupted Councils having censured many Popes to be thus qualified William Iohnson When you have proved the precedents prove that Mr. Baxter And the dispositio materiae being of it self necessary to the reception of that form it must needs follow that such were no Popes even before the Councils charged them with incapacity or Heresie because they had it before they were accused of it and Simony then made many uncapable William Iohnson Prove they were lawfull Councils which so censured any Popes which we admit as true and lawfull Mr. Baxter Qu. 2. Where and how must the Institution of Christ be found William Iohnson Answ. In the revealed Word of God written or unwritten Mr. Baxter You never gave the World assurance how they may truly know the measure of your unwritten Word nor where to finde it so as to know what it is William Iohnson We say we have Mr. Baxter 2. 'Till you prove Christ's Institution which you have never done William Iohnson That is to be done in our Controversie Mr. Baxter You free us from believing in the Pope William Iohnson All are free from believing in the Pope we believe in God but not in the Pope who of us ever obliged you you to do so Mr. Baxter Qu. 3. Will any ones Election prove him to be Pope or who must Elect him ad esse William Iohnson Answ. Such as by approved custome are esteemed by those by to whom it belongs fit for that Charge and with whose Election the Church is satisfied Reply Here you are fain to hide your self instead of Answering and shew indeed that a Pope that 's made an Essential part of the Church subjection to whom is made of necessity to salvation is indeed but a meer name or a thing unknown and so can certainly be believed or acknowledged by none For either Election in him by somebody is necessary or not If not then you or another man unchosen may be Pope for ought I know or any man else if yea then it is either any bodies Election of him that will serve turn or not if it will then you may be Popes if your Schollars chuse you and then you have had three Popes at once for many were Elected but if it be not then it must be known who hath the Power of Election before it can be known who is indeed the Pope but you are forced here by your Answer to intimate to us that the Power of Election cannot be known therefore the Pope cannot be known for 1. Here are no Determinate Electours mentioned and therefore it seems none known to you and no wonder for if you confine it to the People or to the Cardinals or to the Emperours or to the Councils you cut off all your Popes that were Chosen by the other wayes 2. Nor do you Determine of any particular discernable note by which the Electours and power of Election may be known to that Church but all these patches make up your description 1. it must be those that are esteemed fit for the Charge 2. that by those to whom it belongs 3. and that by Custome 4. and that approved 5. and the Church must be satisfied with the Election a miserable body then that hath been so often headlesse as Rome hath been 1. well esteeming them fit to serve turn though they be unfit then it is not the fitnesse that is necessary but the Estimation true or false 2. but why did you not tell us to whom it is
from a particular Church unlesse from the whole William Iohnson Answ. No it is no Schism as Schism is taken in the holy Fathers for that great and capital crime so severely censured by them in which sense onely I take it here Mr. Baxter Though I take Schisme more comprehensibly and I think aptly my self yet hence I observe your justification of the Protestants from the Schisme seeing they separate and not from the Catholique Church for they separate not from the Armenian Ethiopian Greek William Iohnson Here you allow of my definition at least you disclaim not from it but use your objections how it makes against my party this I have told often is not now our work but belongs to our dispute in taking your best advantages of my explications Did not your first Protestants in Germany separate as much from the Armenians Ethiopians Greeks as they did from uhe Romans if they did not shew the communion they had with them did you first Ministers either take mission or jurisdiction to preach from any of their Bishops or Patriarks did they take the prescription of their Liturgie Discipline or Hirearchie from them did they upon occasion joyn in Prayer Sacraments or Sacrifice with them and did they profess the same faith in all points of faith and those the very same wherein they dissented from the Church of Rome and all this notwithstanding were they in external communion with them If so they may as well be said not to have separated from the external communion of the Roman Church and if they separate from that they also separated from the other for the very same reasons Mr. Baxter Nor from you as Christians William Iohnson Nor from us say you as Christians no sure for if you did you must be Jewes Turks or Infidels Mr. Baxter But as scandalous offenders when we are commanded to avoide we separate not from any but as they separate from Christ. William Iohnson Was there no more in 't did not the Primitive Persons who begun your breach and party ow subjection to their respective Ecclesiastical Superiours Diocesans and Pastors immediately before they revolted from them and is it lawful for a subject to subtract himself from the obedience of his lawful Pastour because that Pastour is a scandalous offender remaines he not in his former power notwithstanding those scandelous offences till he be legally deposed if you say he does not you contradict our Saviour commanding obedience to be given to the scandalous Pharises who sate in Moyses his chaire you destroy all Ecclesiastical Government and open a way to tread underfoot all temporal authority also in desisting to acknowledge their authority by reason of Scandelous offences if you hold these offences deprive him ipso facto from all Ecclesiastical power why shall not another say they deprive Kings and Magistrates nay even Fathers and Mothers of their authority over those whom they Govern and then you would have spun a fair thred and laid a more open passage to rebellion then any you can finde or shew amongst those whom you term Papists and will make this good against your self that a man cannot be a good subject unless he cease to be of your party such I suppose you esteem those to be who follow your doctrine nor yet did you only refuse obedience to them in what you thought to be scandelous and against God but you absolutely rejected their Ecclesiastical authority and refused to have any dependance at all of them as your lawful Pastour neither acknowledging those under whose immediate jurisdiction you then were nor any of the Ecclesiastical authority in that time Mr. Baxter Qu. 2. Or no Schism unless willfull W. Iohnson Noe. Mr. Baxter Again your further justifie us from Schism if it be wilful it must be against knowledge but we are farr from separating willfully or knowingly from the whole Church that we abhor the very thought of such a thing as Impious and Damnable William Iohnson Abhorr it as much as you please for your own particular I know not what excuse may be pleaded for you I am certain that your first beginners did it and that knowingly and willfully and you still maintaining what they begun must by all considering Christians be judged guilty of the same crime for still you remain separate from all those Churches from which they departed that is from all the visibe Churches existant immediately before they sprung up and in their time and still continue through the whole world Mr. Baxter Qu. 3. Is it none if you make it a division in the Church and not from the Church William Iohnson Answ. Not as we are here to understand it and as the Fathers treat it for the Church of Christ being perfectly one cannot admit of any proper Schism within it self for that would divide it into two which it cannot be Mr. Baxter Though I am sure Paul calls it Schism when men makes divisions in the Church though not from it not making it two Churches but dislocating some members and abating Charity and causing contentions where there should be peace yet I accept your continued justification of us who if we should be tempted to be dividers in the Church should yet hate to be dividers from it as believing that he that is sepâ—â—ate from the whole body is also separate from the head William Iohnson I am glad to see you accept of some thing at the last upshot If it be for your advantage God give you good on 't See Dr. Ham. in his Book of schism c. 1 2 3 I speak not of Schism taken in a large sense but of that onely which is treated by the Fathers and reckoned up amongst the most horrid sinnes which a Christian can commit and that separates from the whole Church Sir urgent and unavoidable businesse constrained me to delay my return to your Solutions or Explications of your Definitions till this Iune 29. 1660. Mr. Baxter When you desire me to Answer any such Questions or Explain any doubtfull passages of mine I shall willingly doe it In the mean time you may see while your Termes are Explained and your Explications or Definitions so insignificant how unfit we are to proceed any further in dispute till we better understand each other as to our Termes and Subject which when you have done your part to I shall gladly if God enable me go on with you till we come if it may be to our desired Issue But still I crave your performance of the double task you are ingaged in RICHARD BAXTER William Iohnson Sir I have thus far endeavoured to satisfie your expectation and to acquit my self of all my obligations wherein I have sought as I strongly hope first God's eternal glory and in the next place your eternal good with his for whom I undertake this labour and of all those who attentively and unpartially peruse this Treatise WILLIAM IOHNSON ERRATA Page 75. line 13. ad neither p. 78. l. 6 dele my answering
the heart to spend paper in such groundless Parergons In your fifth you first call those marks of flattery for giving the title of Vniversal Bishop to Pope Leo which the whole Council of Chalcedon approved and read publikely and therefore must all have concurred with flatterers and yet in the next line you affirm that by the title of universal they meant no more then the Bishop which in order of dignity is above the rest and that you confess belongs as due to the Roman Bishop how then account you them flatterers when they give the Pope no more then his due Either therefore they were no flatterers and then you injure them in branding those holy venerable persons with so black a note or they meant more then you would have them mean by universal Bishop and then you speak untruly in putting a false gloss upon their words chuse which you please you contradict your self And you are as consonant to your self in instancing that many particular Churches are oft called Catholick What then Ergo the Title of Archbishop of the Catholick Church or the Vniversal Bishop proves not the Popes Supremacy Draw these two together if you can Yes there is a difference say you next between a Catholick Church and the Catholick Church There is so but what of that Then will you say if you say any thing there must be a difference betwixt an Archbishop of a Catholick Church and the Archbishop of the Catholick Church That 's true too But see you not that this discourse quite overthrows yours for you say not that the title whose sequel you infringe is that the Pope is called an Archbishop of a Catholick Church for so is every Orthodox Archbishop as well as the Pope but that he is called the Archbishop of the Catholick Church These are your precise words Noâ—â— say you that we stile him an universal or Catholick Bishop for so are all lawfull Bishops but that we stile him the universal Bishop It seems you have two hands and those so contrary one to the other that what the one builds the other pulls down Then you say the Bishop of Constantinople had that title given him in a Council at Constantinople Anno 518. But was that Council received as publickly without contradiction in the Church as this Epistle was received without contradiction in the Council of Chalcedon Was not that Constantinopolitan Council condemned both by S. Gregory and his Predecessor as S. Gregory witnesses in his Epistle against Iohn of Constantinople and can you name any who in the Council of Chalcedon condemned the title given to Leo in that Epistle read in the Council of Chalcedon The truth is you care not much what you write so you make a noise This done you alledge Iustin. Codex de Episcopis l. 1. lege 24. that is the First Law the four and twentieth Law a learned citation if yours and not the Printers oversight in printing L. for T. for it should be Tit. 2. not 1. lege 24. You cite him thus Constantinopolitana Ecclesia omnium aliarum caput the Church of Constantinople is the Head of all other Churches whence you prove that Iustinian prefers the Church of Constantinople before the Church of Rome Surely you never read this Law of Iustinian for had you read it you would have found by his mentioning there certain Ecclesiastical Officers called Chartularii belonging to the Cathedral Church that he speaks there only of the great Patriarchal Church of St. Sophia in Constantinople and makes it the Head of all other Cathedral Churches in that Patriarchate and not of the politick body of the Constantinopolitan Church in regard of all other Christian Churches in the world And your very Concession here concludes that he prefers not the Constantinopolitan in your sense before that of Rome for you acknowledge he prefers Rome before it For all know that Iustinians Laws were so prudently couched and ordered that such palpable contradictions as these were never noted by any Classick Authors to be inserted into them But whilst you thus take Authors upon trust hand over head no marvel if you make more haste then good speed in posting out one Book after another Presently upon this you fall upon a Story concerning Vigilius and Iustinian and by that you prove nothing For Iustinian might both hold the Bishop of Rome was Head of all the holy Prelates of God as he intitles him C. l. 1. tit 2. l. 7. and yet persecute him and abuse him to draw him to subscribe to what he desired as many Emperors since Iustinian have done who notwithstanding beleeved and professed constantly the universal Supremacy of the Roman Bishop For when they are injurious to particular Popes their spleen is not against the Sea or dignity of the Roman Bishop but against this or that person who is actually in possession of it Thus Iustinianus junior endeavoured all he could even by force and violence to draw Pope Sergius to subscribe to the Trullane Cannons though he could not effect it Nay had you drawn a natural sequel from such proceedings it should rather have been That Iustinianus senior therefore proceeded so violently against Vigilius to induce him to subscribe to the condemnation of the Tria capitula decreed in the fifth Council because he esteemed him to be of so eminent power that it would never have been universally received as a lawful General Council without his Subscription to it and confirmation of it which was the reason that moved Iustinianus junior to press Sergius so forcibly to subscribe to that in Trullo Thus I have given a brief Survey of what you cite p. 174 175. in your Key whence may be collected what your manner of writing is in that loose Treatise since in little more then in one sole page occasionally light upon I have discovered no lesse then two Equivocations three Fallacies four false Translations three Inconsequences one Mistake and two Contradictions Yet were such defects now and then only to be met with in your Book it were something tolerable but such as read it attentively finde it swarmes all over with them and is indeed nothing but a Farrago of Fallacies and Falsities heap'd one upon another throughout the whole Tract Pardon me if I have been more bold with you in answering this passage of your Key then in what you have writ against me for I neither find you so mainly defective in that as in this other and where you are so I labour to smother what I can that I may not seem to be too severe with you in my own concern What you say in this Paragraph by way of Parenthesis That the Emperors gave power to the Councils Acts if you mean they gave any spiritual Authority by force of Vote or Suffrage to them you neither have prov'd it nor can prove it if you mean they gave only a coercive power for the external Observation of those decrees which by vertue of the Councils Authority obliged
all Christians to assent to them you say true but nothing against us Baxter Num. 66. But what say you now to the contrary Why 1. You ask Were those Primitive Christians of another kinde of Church Order and Government then were those under the Roman Empire Answ. When the whole body of Church-History satisfieth us that they were not subject to the Pope Non-proof 6. which is the thing in question is it any weakning of such evidence in a matter of such publick fact to put such a question as this Whether they were under another kinde of Government Iohnson Num. 66. I have now shewed that Church-History is so far from proving what you say that it proves the quite contrary and had it been otherwise why cited you not here some one Ecclesiastical Historian seeing I prest you to it in my second Paper in confirmation of your Assertion My question therefore is of force and stands unsatisfied till you prove what you say here Baxter Num. 67. We know they were under Bishops or Pastors of their own and so far their government was of the same kind Iohnson Num. 67. It could not be of the same kinde for those under the Empire acknowledged themselves subject to the Roman Sea as they were parts of the Catholick Church which whole Catholick Church they profest to be subject to that Sea and consequently all the true parts of it as shall appear when I come to the justification of my proofs whereby all this whole Paragraph of yours will be enervated Baxter Num. 68. You say that how far from truth this is appeareth from S. Leo in his Sermons De Natali Suo where he sayes Sedes Roma Petri quicquid non possidet armis religione tenet Reply If you take your religion on trust as you do your Authorities that are made your ground for it and bring others to it when you are deceived your selves how will you look Christ in the face when you must answer for such temerity Leo hath no Sermons de natali suo but only one Sermon affixed to his Sermons lately found in an old Book of Nicol Fabers And in that Sermon there is no such words as you alledge Neither doth he Poetize in his Sermons nor there hath any such words as might occasion your mistake and therefore doubtless you beleeved some body for this that told you an untruth and yet ventured to make it the ground of charging my words with untruth Iohnson Num. 68. How this citation came under the name of S. Leo I really know not My Authentical Copie written in my own hand which I have shewed to some of credit and am ready to shew it you or any one who shall desire to be satisfied hath no such citation nor can I learn how it crept into the Paper which was sent you if it were not by the addition of a confident friend who writ out part of my Reply in whose hand-writing I find it and I my self being out of Town when my Reply was sent out of a desire to comply with your request for a speedy Answer it was sent away in my absence so that it could not be perused by me which is insinuated sufficiently in the end of my paper where I desire you to excuse what errors you finde in the Copie which I sent Baxter p. 100. But however there is only a nominal error in citing St. Leo for St. Prosper who is something ancienter then St. Leo and lesse to be excepted against by you then he as being wholly disinteressed in that matter of the Popes Supremacy Now this Text of St. Prosper is so notoriously known amongst Scholars and so usually cited Authors that I wonder you perceived not that it was a mistake in the name only and that the Text it self was true and reall nay much more forcible against your new invention then as it stands cited in my Paper For whereas it is imperfectly quoted there and much more weakly as you printed it I suppose by an error of the Printer though I find it not amongst the Errata where it hath neither force nor sense for you print almis for armis whereas I say it is there cited thus Sedes Roma Petri quicquid non possidet armis religione tenet Rome the Sea of Peter whatsoever it possesses not by force of Arms it possesses by means of religion the Text of St. Prosper hath it thus Sedes Roma Petri quae Pastoralis honoris facta caput mundo D. Proâ—â—er Carm. de Iâ—â— gâ—â—atis quâ—â—cquid non possidet armis religione tenet Rome the Seat of Peter being made Head of Pastoral honour to the world possesses by means of Religion whatsoever it possesses not by force of arms Thus St. Prosper And to the same effect in another place he affirms Dâ—â— vocat Gent. lib. 2. c. 6. That the principality of the Apostolick Priesthood hath made Rome greater through the Tribunal of Religion then through that of the Empire * New Sect. But that you may see the whole force of this Text of S. Prosper is emphatically also delivered by S. Leo though not in Verse yet as it seems alluding to these Verses of St. Prosper for he uses the same expressions which I wonder you marked not in perusing his Sermons in these words making â—â—n Apostrophe to the City of Rome and relating to St. Peter and St. Paul Isti sunt qui te ad hanc gloriam provexerunt ut gens sancta populus electus S. Leâ—â— Serm. 1. de Natal Apostol Petr. Paul civitas sacerdotalis regia per sacram beati Petri sedem caput orbis effecta latius praesideres religione divina quam dominatione terrenâ Quamvis enim multis aucta victoriis jus imperii tui terrâ marique protuleris minus tamen est quod tibi bellicus labor subdidit quam quod pax Christiana subjecit These viz. S. Peter and S. Paul are they who have elevated thee to this heighth of glory that thou shouldst be a holy Nation an elect People a Priestly and Kingly City that being made Head of the World by the Seat of Blessed Peter thou shouldst have a larger command by means of Divine Religion then terrene Domination For though being aâ—â—gmented by many victories thou hâ—â—st extended thy Empire through Sea and Land yet it is less which warlike labour brought under thy command then what Christian peace hath subjected to thee And to the same effect the same S. Leo writes to Anastasius Bishop of Thessalonica telling him That the great order of the Church instituted some one in every Province S Leo. epist 82. ad Aâ—â—stâ—â—sium Episâ—â— â—â—hessâ—â— to have power over the rest and that such as were seated in the more ample and noble Cities should have power over such as were in particular Provinces by means whereof the care of the Vniversal Church n. b. might flow to the Sea of Peter Mark well he says not the care of