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.
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
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
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
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
you are of an inferiour order to his Majesty and content he shall take place of you but withal deny he has any power over you were not he likely to be well serv'd by such subjects but sure you might have discovered had you read his words attentively that St. Gregory could not mean a subjection only of inferiority in order and not in government for he sayes in another place if there be any fault committed by Bishops l. 7. ep 64. secundum Blondel ep 65. Iâ—â—dictione 2. I know no Bishop which is not subject to the Apostolical Sea but if the fault require it not according to the reason of humility wee are all equal See you not the subjection which he asserts here is grounded in the delicts or faults of Bishops and is not that in order to correction reprehension and punishment for those faults and must not that proceed from power of government and authority over them is not this evident nor can he speak in the first part of this sentence of a subjection of order only for he affirms that supposing there be no fault the Bishop of Rome is the first Patriarch in order through the whole Church and consequently the rest unequal in ranke and place that is subject to him in your sense he must therefore mean another subjection besides that when he saith they are subject by reason of their faults would it not be ridiculous if the Mayor of London shoul write thus because all other Mayors are inferiour to him in order if any fault be committed by the Mayors of this Kingdome I know none of them all who is not subject to the Mayor of London but if no fault require it in humility we are all equal I hope by this time you will have cause to doubt whether your sense be the sense of St. Gregory here or no Mr. Baxter Num. 238. But if it had been otherwise Constantinople and the Empire was not all the Christian world William Iohnson Num. 238. This seemes to be the burthen of your song but I have shewed you just now that it s quite out of the tune Mr. Baxter Num. 239. Your next citation is lib. 7. epist. 37. but its falsly cited there is no such word and you are in so much haste for an answer that I will not read over all Gregories epistles William Iohnson Num. 239. There is an errour in the figures it should be lib. 7. ep 64. where you 'l finde what I cite And that very reason which you alleadge for not reading over St. Gregories epistles viz. hasting for an answer pleads the excuse of my friends in sending my answer away to you before I could return to town and read it over to wit your importunity for a speedy answer Mr. Baxter Num. 240. You say that Cyril would not breake of communion with Nestorius till Celestine had condemned him of this you gixe us no proof William Iohnson Num. 240. Doe I not looke in the Margin p. 56. in your edit lit o. you 'l finde the proof of it cited there I see you use not to read the places cited by your adversary otherwise you could not but have seen the proof of what I say in Cyrils epistle to Celestine Mr. Baxter Num. 241. But what if it be true did you think to prove the Pope to be the vice-Christ prudence might well make Cyril cautelous in excommunicating a Patriarch And we still grant you that the order of the Empire had given the Roman Bishop the Primacy therein and therefore no wonder if his consent were expected William Iohnson Num. 241. Yes indeed I really thought so if you understand by vice-Christ no more then what we ascribe to the Pope otherwise I would never have prest that instance to prove it And as really tooke I the writing of two and those as you would have it the cheif Patriarchs of the Eastern Church to the Pope of Rome the one to have his doctrine censured that is either allowed or condemned by the Pope the other to have the Popes authority for himself and the rest of the Eastern Bishops whether Nestorius his doctrine were formal heresie and they oblig'd to avoid communion with him this I tooke to be a forcible argument to prove the Pope to be a vice-Christ if you mean as we doe no more then this by it that he is the supream visible governour of the whole Christian militant Church in the place of Christ and truly I am in the same minde still for all you have brought against it Is it think you probable that Nestorius would have written to Celestine and required his authority for the approbation of his doctine had he esteemed him to have no more power over him then the Mayor of London hath over the Mayor of York nor was the question propounded by St. Cyril about a positive excommunication of Nestorius as you misconceiv'd but onlie a non-communion with him as you presently acknowledge Mr. Baxter Num. 242. But that Nestorius was comdemned by a Council needs no proof and what if Celestine began and first condemned him Is he therefore the universal Bishop William Iohnson Num. 242. Yes he is so as universal Bishop may be understood For if the condemnation of him in the Ephesine Council in conformity to the Popes precedent censure argu'd an universal authority in that council over the whole Church as all both Catholicks and Protestants you only excepted acknowledg much more the primacy and original condemnation of his doctrine argu'd an universal authority in Celestine Mr. Baxter Num. 243. But it was not Celestine alone but a Synod of the Western Bishops William Iohnson Num. 243. This is answered above where you put the same reply No national or patriarchal Council can upon their sole authority oblidge the rest of the Patriarchs as this did Mr. Baxter Num. 244. And yet Cyril did not hereupon reject him without further warning William Iohnson Num. 244. But that warning was ordered by Celestine as I have proved p. 56. in your edit Mr. Baxter Num. 245. And what was it that he threatned but to hold no communion with him William Iohnson Num. 245. And was that in your account a matter of smal moment you may please to take notice that the Bishop of Rome's denial to receive any one into his communion or the substracting himself from communicating with them was in those dayes an undoubted marke of their being cast out of the Church and that no Catholick Bishop was to excommunicate or to permit any under his charge to communicate with them as is proved at large in Schisme unmaskt or the conference with Dr. Gunning For the rule to know with whom every one was or was not to communicate was their Câ—â—mmunion or non-communion with the Roman Bishop Mr. Baxter Num. 246. And though pride made excommunication an Engine to advance one Bishop above others I can easily prove that if I had then lived it had been my duty to avoid
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
Church be true or false that 's stated in the Argument but whether it be in a matter Accidental or Essential Now I affirm that nothing which Christ hath Instituted to be ever in the Church is Accidental to the Church for every Accident is separable from the Subject without destroying the Subject whose Accident it is But what Christ ha's Instituted to be ever in his Church is inseparable from it Mat. 19.6 for Quae Deus conjunxit homo non separet Those things which God hath conjoyned man must not separate In the mean time you fairly acknowledge your instances were not home to the present purpose because not in matters Instituted to be perpetual by one of that Authority whose Institution no man can change and consequently not necessary to be ever in those Nations or Commonwealths to whom you ascribe them Baxter Num. 17. For 1. The holding it alwayes done and that of Christs Institution may be either an Accident or but of the Integrity and ad bene esse yea possibly an errour Iohnson Num. 17. If of the Integrity then not Accidental for no Integral part is an Accident to the whole So you yield up your cause and acknowledge your errourâ—â— and 't is laudable in you The question is not what you might have done but what you did your instances given fell short and were plainly fallacious I have already shew'd that nothing can be an Accident to the Church which Christ hath instituted to be ever that is perpetually in the Church and consequently the Churches holding any thing to be so if true is Essential to the Subsistance of the Church if false is essentially destructive of the Church so that whether true or false it will never be accidental to the Church Baxter Num. 18. And I might as easily have given you instances of that kind Iohnson Num. 18. Had you more fully reflected upon your Adversaries words you might have done many things more pertinently then you have done them but here again you acknowledge your error in alledging instances which were not to the purpose But your Readers and I should have been much more satisfied had you amended what you acknowledge to be a fault and brought at least in this your last Reply those instances which you say here you might have given then Be sure therefore in your next to produce instances of Accidentals in such things as Christ hath instituted to be ever in his Church whereby it may appear that this Roman acknowledgment whether true or false is accidental to the true Church So that the acknowledgment of it by all those to whom it is sufficiently propounded is necessary to make them parts of the true Church and the denial of it when so propounded hinders them from being parts of it Baxter Num. 19. To your third Syllogism I reply 1. When you say your Church had Pastors Fallacy 5. as you must speak of what existed and universals exist not of themselves so it is necessary that I tell you how far I grant your Minor and how far I deny it Iohnson Num. 19. What though universalls exist not of themselves may not therefore a Logician expresse things which have existed in an abstract or universal term Is not this a true Logical Proposition Ever since Adam there have been parents and children in the world though the terms abstract from lawful and unlawful from male or female children would you carp at this Proposition as you do here at mine because universalls exist not of themselves or go about to distinguish different sorts of children or parents as you do Pastors here to find out the true meaning of that Proposition No man sayes or need to say in such Enunciations that universalls exist but expresses particulars which have existed by abstract and universall terms Baxter Num. 20. My Argument from the Indians and others is not solved by you For 1. You can never prove that the Pope was preached to the Iberians by the captive maid Fallacy 6. nor to the Indians by Frumentius 2. Thousands were made Christians and Baptized by the Apostles Three non-proofs without any preaching or profession of a Papacie Acts 2. pasâ—â—im 3. The Indians now converted in America by the English and Dutch hear nothing of the Pope nor thousands in Ethiopia 3. Your own doe or may baptize many without their owning the Pope who yet would be Christians And a Pastor not known or beleeved or owned is actually no Pastor to them Iohnson Num. 20. To all these Instances I answer They conclude nothing against my Assertion for I never said that all particular persons or communities are obliged to have an express belief or acknowledgment of the Roman-Bishops Supremacy that being necessary to all neither necessitate medii nor praecepti It is sufficient that they beleeve it implicitely in subjecting themselves to all those whom Christ hath instituted to be their lawfull Pastors and when the Bishop of Rome is sufficiently proposed to them to be the supream visible Pastor of of those Pastors upon earth that then they obstinately reject not his authority To your first instance of the Captive maid and Saint Frumentius I answer we can prove as much at least that to have been preacht to them as you can prove either Justification by Faith only or any other particular point of your doctrine to have been preacht to them And both of us must say that all important Christian Truths both for particular persons and Churches were delivered to those people and till you have evinced this of Supremacy to have been none of those it is to be supposed it was sufficiently declared to those Nations At least in explicating the Article of the Catholike Church to them they must be supposed to have told them it consisted of Pastors and people united and that the people were to obey all their lawful Pastors in which doctrine the Pope is implicitely included To your second from Acts 2. The Scripture relates not there all that S. Peter said but affirmeth vers 40. that he gave testimony to them in many other words And who can tell whether amongst the rest that of his Supremacy might not have been sufficiently intimated to them However it appears by the Text vers 37. that the people addrest themselves first and in particular to S. Peter before all the rest of the Apostles as the prime amongst them and he who first preacht the Gospel to them Prove the English and Dutch Convertites converted by Protestants if you mean those as you must do if your argument have any force to be instructed in the true Faith and then your Instance will have some force prove those of Ethiopia to be Orthodox and Catholick Christians To what purpose produce you instances which are assoon denied as they are proposed Your last touches only particular persons which I have shewed are not obliged to know this expresly to be of the Church the Pope is their true pastor and so
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
were the universal governours because at Nice and other Councils they sate before the legates of the Pope and in many his legates had no place Is this argument good think you O unfaithfull partiality in the matters of salvation non proof William Iohnson Num. 220. O you can do wonders but I would gladly see you doe what you say you can do You have not yet done it and I cannot believe you can do 't till I see you have don 't there is a great difference betwixt saying and doing Your groundless exclamation I regard not it is not partiality what you call so nor what you say you can prove to be so prove it in your next to be partiality Mr. Baxter Num. 221. You say they prohibited Dioscorus to sit by his order Reply 1. What then therefore he was universal governour of the Church All alike Any accuser in a Parliament or Synod may require that the accused may not sit as Iudge till he be tried fallacy 12. William Iohnson Num. 221. Your reply is fallacious procâ—â—ding ex falso supposito p. 150. See the place cited in my p. 54. Con Chal. act 3. Leo's order that Dioscorus should not sit in Council was not because he was accused but because he was condemned nor was it a bare requiring but a strickt command and injunction that he should not sit there as a Bishop of that Council Mr. Baxter Num 222.2 But did you not know that Leo's legates were not obeyed but that the Gloriosissimi judices amplissimus senatus required that the cause should be first made known and that it was not done tiâ—â— Eusebius Episcop Dorylaei had read his bill of complaint Binius Act. 1. pag. 5. Fallacy 13. William Iohnson Num. 222. No really I know it not nor I thinke you neither You commit an other fallacy by an ignoratio elenchi the Iudices Gloriosissimi c and the complaint read against him by Eusebius Epis. Dorylaei was not put as a remora to Dioscorus not sitting in the Council with the rest of the Fathers but in order to his and others publick condemnation which with great applause of the whole Council was performed in the end of the first action So skilful are you in Church history if you make not your self seem more unskilful then you are to say something which may make a noise in the ears of the unlearned It being therefore clear that Dioscorus was prohibited upon St. Leo's order to sit in Council It followes that he was universal Governour of the Church a paritate rationis ut supra for if he had power to remove the cheif Patriarch of the Church next after himself from having an Episcopal vote in a general Council which was an act of absolute jurisdiction over him much more had he power upon like grounds to remove any other inferiour Patriarck or Prelate through the whole Church there having been no proof alleadged by you that this his power was limited to the sole Empire and I having now produced many reasons that there could be no such limitation Mr. Baxter Num. 223. You say the Popes legates pronounced the Church of Rome to be Caput omnium Ecclesiarum Reply 1. What then therefore he was Governour of all the Christian world I deny the consequence You do nothing but beg not a word of proof Caput was but membrum principale the Patriarch primae sedis and that but in the Empire William Iohnson Num. 223. This consequence is made strong by the weakenes of your reply Is Caput omnium Ecclesiarum the head of all Churches no more with you then the principal member of all Churhes in the Empire that is in your new theologie one who was to take of all other Churches without any true and proper authority over them see you not in what straits you are put should some new Sabellian or Câ—â—rinthian rise up and deny that our Saviour were any more then the cheif person in the Church that is to take place before all others but without any jurisdiction or authority over the whole Church and a Catholick should labour to prove he hath authority from that place of St. Paul Coloss. 1.18 Ipse est Caput Corporis Ecclesiae he is the head of his body the Church And the Sabellian having read this book of yours Should reply as you do here to me what then therefore Christ is governour of the Christian world I deny this consequence Caput is but membrum principale head is no more then the principal part c. Would you not make pretty work with Scripture and open a gap to every novellist to elude no less yours then our proofs for Christs supream government over his Church but I see you care not whom you hurt so you can but avoide the present stroak Nay you have delivered here a precious doctrine no lesse for your she citizens at London then your good wives of Kidderminster for when their husbond teach them obedience and subjection to them from St. Paul 1 Cor. 11.3 Where he sayes that the husband is head of the wife they will have an answer ready at their fingers ends from your doctrine here that that head is no more then the principal part of the family in place but not in authority over their wives nay you have spun a fair thred also for the independency of the Protestant English Church of its head in giving ground to take away all Authority from his sacred Majestie and his royal predecessors over it in quality of heads of the English Church and making them to have no more then a bare precedency in the Church as no more then the principal members in the Church in order and dignity but not in authority But had you a little attended to those words of the Popes Legates you might have discovered they were spoke by them to prove not the bare precedency in place but soveraignty in authority for they alleadge them to corroborate the power of the Roman Church as sufficient to prohibite the sitting of Dioscorus in the Council by vertue of Pope Leo's order And you were prest as hard to finde an answer for omnium Ecclesiarum all Churches that is to say non omnium not all but only those within the Empire thus you can make all some and the whole a sole part when you have nothing else to say see you not how you give advantage to the Manichees and Menandrians c. who when one should have prest them Iohn 1.2 That our Saviour is creatour of all things they should have replyed as you do thar is not of all but only of some things not of bodies but of spirit only Are you a person fit to dispute in matters concerning conscience and salvation when rather then not reply to what cannot in reason be answered you will quite destroy the words opposed to you by your glosse upon them are not these desperate Intregues But t is very strange that the ancient Councils and Fathers
Communion with a notorious Heretick though he had been Pope William Iohnson Num. 246. We have had essayes enough of what you can do I see you are much wiser and learneder then was St. Cyril who presided in the Ephesine Council He would be first informed from Pope Celestine whether Nestorius his opinion were Heresie or no before he avoided him you if you had liv'd in his time would have taken a wiser course and have had nothing to do with never a Celestine of them all but upon your own judgement avoided him And yet you thought just now that prudence made St. Cyril so cautelous as to proceed as he did and if it were prudence in him what was it think you that mov'd you to proceed otherwise yet you even in what you say here mistake grosly the state of the question which is not whether every one was then bound to avoid a notorious Heretick for none are notorious Heretiques but such as are sufficiently declared to be so by the Church and the very same authority which declared them obliged every one to avoid them but what was here questioned was this whether private men upon their particular judgement when a novelty ariseth not yet expresly condemned by the Church are to avoid the maintainers of it as Heretiques before they be declared to be so by publique authority of those who have power to judge them and their doctrine Mr. Baxter Num. 247. The long story that you next tell is but to fill up paper that Cyril received the Popes letters that Nestorius repented not that he accused Cyril that Theodosius wrote to Celestine about a Council and many such impertinent words 2. Non-proofs 3. Corruption of my words William Iohnson Num. 247. Here are more of your non-proofs all belike is impertinent which you call so had I indeed said no more then what you make me say here I had been impertinent look upon p. 56. your Edit and you 'l find another story I say there that Celestines letters to Cyril were to execute Nestorius his condemnation and to send his condemnatory letters unto him this you dissemble which only makes the Epistle of Celestine to be a proof of his power over St. Cyril the first of the three Patriarchs before I related there the irrepentance of Nestorius I say p. 57. in your Edit that Celestine had given order in his letters to Cyril to send Celestines condemnatory letters to Nestorius this also you dissemble which is not withstanding a strong proof against you and you make me say no more then that Nestorius repented not never mentioning the occasion given him to repent Then you say I write that Theodosius writ to Celestine about a Council neither declaring as I do p. 57. that it was the general Council of Ephesus nor mentioning Pope Celestines answer both consenting to the assembling that general Council and prescribing the manner how he would have it celebrated which was my proof of Celestines Soveraign authority nor say you any thing of Celestines order given to his Legates that the Council should not again examine the cause of Nestorius but without any farther examination put his precedent condemnation of him in execution All this that is all the force of my proofs you handsomly conceal and foisting in non-proofs of your own making in place of my proofs and all this done you say my words are impertinent in what School of conscience learn't you these duplicities Mr. Baxter Num. 248. But the proof is that Cyril was the Popes chief Legate ordinary forsooth because in his absence he was the chief Patriarch therefore he is said Celestini locum tenere which he desired Corruption William Iohnson Num. 248. No that 's neither my argument nor the reason of his being Legate my argument is this p. 58. your edit Cyril being constituted by Celestine his chief Legate ordinary in the East Con. Ephes. impres Heidelberg c. 16. ibid. c. 17. ibid. c. 18. ibid. c. 65. Concil Ephes. c. 15. Marcel comes in chron Liberat. in brev c. 5. Balsam in nomo can Prosp. in chron Id. contra collatorem c. and that before the Council of Ephesus was begun or indicted now his being constituted so by Celestine you again dissemble making me say only that he was the Popes chief Legate ordinary that is as you would have it by vertue of his being the first Patriarch of the East not by Pope Celestines institution whence appears you have given no answer to my argument but miserably mangled it because you could not answer it For sure Pope Celestine neither made Cyril in that letter Patriarch of Alexandria for he was so before nor that Patriarch the chief in the Eastern Church for he was declared to be so long before the Council of Nice but by vertue of a particular order constituted Cyril his Legate ordinary as he might have done any other Patriarch had he pleased Mr. Baxter Num. 249. Well let your Pope sit highest being he so troubles all the world for it Christ will shortly bid him come down lower when he humbleth them that exalt themselves William Iohnson Num. 249. This is not replying but prophesying and would better become an exclamation in a Country Pulpit then a reply in Controversie It had been timely enough to use such Phanaticismes as these after you had either prov'd unanswerably the Pope exalted himself too high or answered fully and cleerly the arguments which prove he hath not Mr. Baxter Num. 250. That Cyril subscribed before Philip you may see Tom. 2. cap. 23. but where I may find that Philip subscribed first you tell me not William Iohnson Num. 250. When I cited the sixt action immediately after those words you might have gathered that subscription as it is to have been in the fift Mr. Baxter Num. 251. But what if the Arch-bishop of Canterbury sate highest and subscribed first in England doth it follow that he was Governour of all the world no nor of York it self neither William Iohnson Num. 250. No. It follows not because such a Council would be only National not General as that of Ephesus was but it would follow according to the antient Canons that the Arch-bishop of Canterbury presiding as Primate of the English Church had power in Government over the Bishop of York in some cases as all true Primates have over all the Bishops and Metrolitans within their Primacies Mr. Baxter Num. 252. And here you tell us of Iuvenal Act. 6. Reply 1. The Council is not divided into Acts in Binius but many Tomes and Chapters but your words are in the Notes added by your Historian but how to prove them Juvenals words I know not nor find in him or you William Iohnson Num. 252 I think you would infuse the spirit of Prophesie into me too how should I know otherwise you had the Councils in no other Edition save that of Binius I cited the sixt action of the Council which is an usual citation and full
instructed me to help my ignorance in this I have no obligation at all to tell you what power Valentinian had out of the Empire for he might first declare as he did the power of the Roman Bishop to govern the whole Church in the beginning of this breif and in the end take care that all those Provinces which were under his Empire should observe that his law concerning so much as belonged unto him that the universal power of the Pope should be observed As may now the Emperour of Germany or the King of France or Spain first declare the universal power of the Roman Bishop over all Churches and then command all their Provinces to obey him which is all the Emperour does here For Valentinian sayes not as you falsifie his words omnium provinciarum of all the Provinces but aliarum provinciarum of other Provinces nor ut Pax ubique servetur as you corrupt him but tunc ubique servabitur then peace will be observ'd every where if the whole universality acknowledge their governour and that not in the law but in the declaration made of the Popes authority vide supra as an introduction to it You answer to Valentinians affirming the Popes authority and sentence was of force without any imperial law to back it is much deficient For seeing he had before declared that the Popes commands had been alwaies observed they must have been of force both before any Patriarchate was assign'd to him by any general Council as you imagine it was and before any Christian Emperours had enacted any lawes concerning it and the very law it self destroyes your glosse for Valentinian sayes presently what shall not be lawful for the authority of so great a Bishop to exercise upon the Churches Whereby he shews his power extends it self not only to his own but to all other Patriarchates nay your very restraining his words to the Empire and yet extending them to the whole Empire shew evidently that the Popes sentence had not been only of force independently of any imperial law within his own but also in all other jurisdictions of the Patriarchs within the imperial verge and hence the consequence which you draw from this authority whereas Valentinian sayes it needed not the imperial help that it needed this extraordinary secular support is as contrary as to draw darkness from light and as inconsequent is it to argue from Hilaries repugning against the Pope sentence for a time that the Pope had no such power over him which notwithstanding you granted just now as to argue that a lawful Prince hath no power over rebellious subjects because they resist it So that it could never seem to any considering person otherwise then that it came into the thoughts and words too of Valentinian here that the Popes supremacy exceeded the limits of the Roman Empire But it is evident enough through the vein that runs through this Paragraph that you are soundly netled with this law of Valentinian and yet because you are resolved what ere comes on 't to persist in your errour you fall foul upon Hosius Leo Valentinian Bishops Popes rather then yield to a manifest truth Hosius you make so shallow that he took things away weakly and facilly upon the custome of the times Leo you make proud and fraudulent and Valentinian a young and raw Prince subject to be perswaded to any thing The most part of considering readers will smile to see Hosius the most honoured Bishop of his time through the whole Church who presided in two general Councils and legate of the holy Pope Silvester for the Western Church Leo graced with the title of most blessed Father Nicene Sardican pronounced the head of the Catholick Church and universal Bishop stiled the mouth of St. Peter in the Council of Chalcedon and ever since honoured with the title of a Saint and Valentinian a most renowned Emperour both for fortitude and prudence for he was twenty seven years of age when he composed this edict so slighted reviled and debased by the Minister of Kiddermunster and that upon your surmises and guesses without any proof at all And others will pitty and compassionate your misery as I really do to see you so deeply plunged in adhesion to your own opinion that you will break all the bonds of Christian modesty and charity rathen then acknowledge your error or yield to a manifest truth Mr. Baxter 258. And it 's no credit to your cause that this Hilary was by Baroniu's confession a man of extraordiry holiness and knowledge and is sainted among you and hath his day in your Kalendar William Iohnson Num. 258. But does not Baronius in the very same place reprehend him at that time when he fell into those defaults and tell you that after his condemnation he came again to himself crav'd most humbly pardon of the Pope and shewed manifest signs of repentance and upon this his humiliation and perseverance in obedience to the See of Rome became both a famous defender of the Catholick Faith and a Saint Was it any disadvantage to the Catholique Church that Origen Tertullian or even St. Cyprian himself men of equal understanding and learning with St. Hilary opposed the doctrine of the Church and raised troubles in it Mr. Baxter Num. 259. And yet Valentinian had great provocation to interpose if Leo told him no untruth for his own advantage for it was no lesse then laying siege to Cities to force Bishops on them without their consent That he is accused of which shews to what odious pride and usurpation prosperity even then had raised the Clergy fitter to be lamented with floods of tears then to be defended by any honest Christian Leo himself may be the Principal Instance William Iohnson Num. 259. He had so indeed but must he therefore give more power to the Bishop of Rome then of right belonged to him Who either defends or is not ready to bewail these abuses But I see where you are you would cast a blot if you could upon Episcopal Government and cry down the power and possessions wherewith God and good men had even in those times inriched them Mr. Baxter Num. 260. You next return to the Council of Chalcedon Act. 1. seq where 1. you referre me to that Act. 1. where is no such matter but you adde seq that I may have a hundred and ninety pages in folio to peruse and then you call for a speedy answer but the Epistle to Leo is in the end of Act. 16. pag. Bin. 139. And there you do but falsly thrust in the word thou governest us and so you have made your selfe a witness because you could find none The words are Quibus tu quidem sicut membris caput praeeras in his qui tuum tenebant ordinem benevolentiam praeferens Imperatores vero ad ordinandum decentissime praefidebant Now to go before with you must be to govern if so then Aurelius at the Council of Carthage and others
proves evidently that there was at least one papist that is one who was for the Popes univer +sal monarchy or vice-Christship in the extent of those ages wherein you profess not to have found so much as one single person in that whole tract of time For those legates give testimony not only for that precise time of the Council but also for all precedent ages before it as I have evidenced by their words Mr. Baxter Num. 271. Yet I have given you instances in my key which I would transcribe if I thought you could not as well read print as M. S. of higher expressions then Caput fundamentum given to Andrew by Isychius and equal expressions to others as well as Rome and Peter William Iohnson Num. 271. You might have pleased to have told me where thinke you I 'me bound to were your key at my girdle as if I had nothing to doe but busie my self in reading it over to finde your wild citations Mr. Baxter Num. 272. And who is ignorant that knoweth any thing of Church history that others were called successors of Peter as well as the Bishop of Rome William Iohnson Num. 272. What successors mean you such as were received by Christians to succeed in the place of St. Peter as he was fidei columna and ecclesiae Catholicae fundamentum the pillar of Faith and foundation of the Catholick Church as the legate speakes here of him truly Sr. I confesse I am so ignorant that I know no such matter as you talke of Mr. Baxter Num. 273. And that the the Claves regni were given him is no proof that they were not given also to all the rest of the Apostles William Iohnson Num. 273. The question is not at present whether it prove absolutely they were not given to others because they were given to St. Peter but whether the legate in this sentence must not mean this to have been a priviledge peculiar to St. Peter as much as all the former were understood by him to be peculiar to St. Peter Now he could not without manifest absurdity be understood in any other sense for seeing he intended to demonstrate to the Council the preheminence of St. Peter and his successors above all others he had fallen into a grosse inconsequence had he enumerated those excelencies to shew St. Peter to be greater then were the other Apostles and his successor higher in authority then the successors of any of the Apostles should he have specified such particulars as were common with him and the rest of the Apostles seeing those are so far from proving him to be above them that they prove the quite contrary for equal priviledges common to all prove all were equal in those priviledges Mr. Baxter Num. 274. And where you say Arcadius condemneth Nestorius for contemning the command of the Apostolick sea You tell me not where to finde it I answer you still that its long since your sea begun to swell and rage but if you must have us grant you all these consequences Celestine commanded therefore he justly commanded therefore another might not as well have commanded him as one Pastor may do another though equal in the name of Christ And therefore he had power to command without the Empire over all the Catholick Church and therefore the Council was of this minde yea therefore the universal Church was of this minde that the Pope was its universal head You still are guilty of sporting about serious things and moving pitty instead of offering the least proof William Iohnson Num. 274. By what I have now writ in answer I think you will not have found me in jest in the proof of these consequences taken with due circumstances Celestine sayes the legate commanded and Nestorius was condemned by him for not obeying Celestines command and no man was either in the council or in the whole Church who had then the repute of an orthodox Christian either reprehended Celestine for commanding or justifyed Nestorius for not obeying and if any did so produce them in your next by good authority ergo it was a just command 2. It being a just command and must proceed from one who had true authority to command and against one whome you say by right of the first Council of Constantinople was the first Patriarch then in the Church had he true authority over him he must have had true authority over all those who were inferiour to him ergo there was no man to be found in the church who had power to command Celestine there the second consequence The third I prove thus he had power to command justly as is proved the highest Patriarch in the Empire and that Patriarch and the others also had power to command the Empire as I have proved above ergo Celestine had consequently power to command all those whom they commanded The fourth consequence I prove the legate said this in full and publick council and were all highly concern'd in it as is also prov'd and yet did not in the least contradict it ergo the council was of this mind that it was no abridgement to their priviledges but an establishment of their authority a prime preservative of the Churches unity and a fundamental institution of Christ in the perfect orders of Ecclesiastical Hierarchy as the legates had delivered it to the council You suppose here without any proof at all that one pastour though equal may command another in the name of Christ. Who ever taught this doctrine before you everts it not inevitably the order of Church government commanded by St. Paul for what is order but a due observance and subjection of inferiours to their respective superiours which is wholly subverted when an equal takes authority upon him to command his equal whatsoever pretence of the name of Christ he assume to glosse it for unless that conferre a real authority upon him who commands over him who is commanded he remaines his equal still that notwithstanding and then he commands without any true authority which destroyes order or if it communicate a reall authority over the person commanded it makes him superiour who commands and not equal to the other which destroyes your supposition of one equal commanding an other This made good the last consequence followes inevitably for seeing his Council has ever â—â—een reverenced and received as a true general Council and what such Councils consent to is the consent of the Catholick Church for all bodies diffusive are to confirm themselves to their true representatives it follows and that very seriously without all jesting that these consequences are so fast lockt up together that all the tuâ—â—nâ—â—s of your key will not be able to unlock them CHAP. VIII NUm 275. Why perpetual adherence to the Roman Church was promised by a Bishop who was reconciled from Schism to the Church Extra-imperial Bishops obeyed the Bishops of Rome Num. 276. Mr. Baxter forgets what his adversary undertook to prove and thereupon accuses him of not proving
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
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
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
It is evident that the principallity of Rome before all other Patriarchal Churches was not only in precedency of place and order but in power jurisdiction and authority over them for Damascus as Photius witnesse ep 125 confirm'd that Constantinopolitan Council which was an act of Supream jurisdiction 4 That addition to the second canon about Constantinople priviledges Con. Const. 1 c. 2. must have been annexed to the canon by some sinister meanes after the Council was dissolved for it is both dissonant from the former part of the canon which decrees that the Canon of Nice c. 6. be observed in exercise of jurisdiction within their districts prescribed in that canon and yet this addition infringes the very canon of Nice where the Bishop of Alexandria was the first and of Antioch the second both before Constantinople Second when Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria with a Council celebrated by his authority pretended to exercise authority over St. Chrysostome neither St. Chrysostome nor his adherents ever mentioned this addition to the second canon of Constantinople which had it been held authentical in their time they would doubtless have done as being so powerful to defend their cause Thirdly when Sicinius successour to Atticus at Constantinople had ordain'd Proclus his competitor Bishop of Sizicene by virtue of a canon that none should be ordain'd Bishop without the consent of the Constantinopolitan Bishop those of Sizicene rejected Proclus and affirm'd that canon to have been made only for Atticus nor did Sicinius so much as mention this canon of the first Council of Constantinople which he would have don Socrat lib. 7. c. 28. had he esteemed it a genuine part of the canon in his time now what is said of equal priviledges with Rome cannot be understood of all priviledges w ch Rome had for then Constantinople should not have been next after Rome but equal with Rome but it must be limited to some particular priviledges then though it had been made equal in them it might in others remain inferiour nay subject to it 38. To what you most urge that Romes priviledges were given to it by the Fathers and consequently are not derived from our Saviours institutions besides that of the greek word now observed I answer the Council of Chalcedon could not mean that the Fathers gave as by a new gift the priviledges to Rome without a plain contradiction for in the Council of Chalcedon the sixt canon of the Nicene Council is alledged thus Ecclesia Romana semper habuit primatum the Roman Church had alwaies the primacy now if it had alwaies the primacie how could the same Council say it recieved its priviledges and consequently its primacy as you collect here from the Fathers in succeeding times Either therefore you must say that supposing as you do this canon is a genuine canon of the Council that the Council contradicts it self or that they mean not these words the Fathers gave as a new gift all the priviledges to Rome or you must say that this canon is false supposititious fram'd surreptitiously and rejected by St. Leo destructive of the Nicene canon and ancient priviledges of other Churches and coin'd by Anatolius his adherents perswasion out of pride ambition as it is most manifest it is so of no force as Leo declares in his epistle to Anatolius And Anatolius himself in part acknowledges in his answer to Leo. To what you say of the ground of these priviledges the imperialitie of the Roman city I have told you that was not urged as the sole but as a partial ground of those priviledges as it is also in the letters of Valentinian cited above but yet that only was mentioned here because it made most for Anatolius his pretension 39. Your second argument is page 244 245 246 247. You ground your arguments in a patent falshood those Fathers and others as occasion served prest mainly and largely this argument so Bellar. Baron Perrone Coccius Gualterus Stapleton and others of this subject and no smal number of them are cited by me in this answer But you call all their citations scraps and it must be so if you have once said it your word is a proof at any time but you should have don well to have cited those scraps that the world might have seen whether they be so or no are you a disputant when you have no other reason for your saying then an I say so but if you make so slight of those proofs how will you prove from the Fathers either the baptisme of Infants or the necessity of Ministers or the precedency of the Roman Bishop which you hold but by those which here you call scraps out of these Fathers 40. Your next argument page 248. is an abominable untruth set down by a fore-head of brass you might as well have out-brav'd the loyal subjects of his most excellent Majesty in time of the rebellion by teling them the tradition of the greater part of the Nation was against him and his title what man in his right wits would have had the confidence to utter so loud a falshood without any proof at all if there be any perpetual tradition receiv'd as you affirm from generation to generation that the Papal viccar-ship or soveraignty is an innovation or usurpation and that the Catholick Church hath bin many hundred years without it as known and notorious as that the Turks believe in Mahomet by common consent of histories and Travelers shew this tradition from the year 300 to the year 600 to have bin as notoriously known and credited as it is that the Turks believe in Mahomet which if you cannot do all the world will see you are one of the most insufferable out-facers of truth and assertors of open falshood that ever yet set pen to paper and if you do it I 'le leave the papacy But see you not what an obligation you have now brought upon your self by your confidence of proving what you have hitherto denyed you had any obligation to prove you seem not to understand what tradition from generation to generation is nominate to me any one profession of Christians which held the Popes soveraignty as it is proposed by the Church of Rome to be an usurpation and I here oblige my self to shew the time since Christ when that profession was not in the Chrstian world as cleerly as you can shew when the prosession of the Turks in the belief of the Mahomets doctrine was not in those Nations wherein it is now when the profession it self was not how could it have any tradition 41. Page 249 250 251. Is first spent in five non-proofs let them be prov'd in your next concerning the Indians Persians c. Armenians Parthians and Abbasins wee have already spoken as occasion served which needs no repetition Now if I can prove as I have proved that any one extra-imperial Church was subject to the Bishop of Rome and you cannot shew some evident
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
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
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
God and in the entrance of the same Epist. he compares Schismatiques to Corah Dathan Abiram who separate themselves from the communion of the Jewes and their high Priest Aaron St. Aug. lib. 20 contr Faustum c. 30. Schisma est eadem opinantem eodem ritu colentem quo caeteri solo congregationis delectari dissidio Schism is a voluntary Dissidium or separation of one who agrees in doctrine from the Congregation viz. of the Church St. Aug. lib. 4. contr Donatistas Cap. 14. Nam caetera omnia vera vel censeatis vel habeatis in eadem separatione tamen duretis contra vinculum fraternae pacis adversus unitatem omnium fratrum Thus he states the Schism of the Donatists if ye continue in separation against the bond of Brotherly peace and unitie of all the Brethren that is of the whole Church Lib 2 contr Donatistas cap. 6. Respondete quare vos separastis quare contra orbem terrarum Altare erexistis quare non communicastis Ecclesiis respondete quare separastis propterea certe ne malorum communione periretis Quomodo Ergo non perierunt Cyprianus Collegae ejus quare ab innocentibus separastis Sacrilegium Schismatis vestrum defendere noâ—â— potestis The holy Father disputing against Schismatiques askes them as we à pari aske Protestants why have you separated your selves why have you erected an Altar against the whole world answer me why did you separate certainly you separated least you should perish in the communion of the wicked how then did not Cyprian and his colleagues perish Lib. contra Petilianum nulla igitur Ratio fuit sed Maximus furor quod isti velut commmnionem caventes se ab unitate Eeclesiae quae toto orbe terrarum diffunditur separarunt There was no cause but a great madness that they fearing communion should separate themselves from the unity of the Church through the whole earth what can be more evident then this that St. Aug. held the Donatists to be out of the Church which you flatly deny St. Hierome Haeretici de Deo falso sentiendo ipsam fidem violant Schismatici discessionibus iniquis a fraterna charitate dissiliunt Contra Luciferianos quamvis ea credunt quae credimus Heretiques by teaching false things of God violate the Faith Schismatiques by unjust seperations depart from fraternal charity though they believe the same thing with us Nothing can destroy more fully your novelty then do these words for he speaks indefinitely of all Heretiques and affirms that they violate the faith and consequently have no faith without which they cannot be true members of Christs Church and that all Schismatiques leave fraternal charity which is necessary to be in the unity of the Church St. Hieron comment in Ep. ad Titum c. 3. Propterea vero a semet ipso dicitur esse damnatus Haereticus quia Fornicator Adulter Homicida caetera vitia per sacerdotes de Ecclesia propelluntur Haeretici autem in semetipsos sententiam dicant suo arbitrio ab Ecclesia recedendo Therefore he an Heretique is said to be condemned of himself because a Fornicator an Adulterer a Murtherer and the like vices are expelled out of the Church by the Priests but Heretiques pronounce a sentence against themselves by receding or departing from the Church of their own accord Does not this profound Doctor condemn your novelty in these words both by teaching that all Heretiques for he speaks indifinitely depart from the Church and by shewing a difference betwixt other criminal sinners and Heretiques when they are to be avoided which you labour to put in the same state with some Heretiques viz. That other sinners are cast out of the Church but Heretiques out themselves and yet farther that even other criminal sinners when they are excommunicated are no actual parts of the Church as you hold they are because they are cast out of it which doctrine is also Emphatically delivered by St. Aug. l. 11. quest cap. 3. Omnis Christianus qui excommunicatur Satanae traditur quomodo Scilicet quiaextra Ecclesiam est diabolus Sicut in Ecclesiae Christus ac per hoc quasi diabolo traditur qui ab Ecclesia communione removetur Vnde illos quos Apastolus Satanae traditos esse praedicat esse excommunicatos demonstrat Every Christian who is excommunicated is delivered up to Sathan how that to wit because the devil is without the Church as Christ is in the Church and by this he is as it were delivered to the devil whosoever is removed from the communion of the Church whence the Apostle demonstrates those to be excommunicated whom he pronounces to be delivered to Sathan whence followes also that seeing all profest Heretiques are excommunicated persons that according to St. Aug. they are all out of the Church I forbear the citation of more Authors esteeming these â—â—ufficient 75. I have at large deduc'd the reason of this truth against you in my answer to your first part The sum whereof is this that whosoever disbelieves any divine truth sufficiently propounded to him as such disbelieves the infallible truth of Gods word and consequently evacuates the formal object of Christian faith thereby destroyes faith which cannot subsist without its formal object and by that destroyes Christianity in so much as in him lyes and consequently Gods Church nay and God himself whence also follows that such a disbeliever hath no supernatural faith at all of any other articles which he believes but a meer humane natural and fallible assent to them for he cannot assent to any of them because they are reveal'd by Gods infallible authority for he hath made that fallible in disbelieving something which is sufficiently notified to him to be revealed from God Now if he have no true faith he can neither have salvation nor be a member of Christs true Church which is directly destructive of your novelty That which has deceiv'd you and such as follow you in this is that you make your whole reflection upon the material object of faith which considered alone is as a dead carcass in respect of true Christian faith seeing it wants the soul and life of it the infallible authority of God revealing it and though hereticks perversely perswade and delude themselves they assent for the infallible authority of God to such articles as they believe yet seeing we now suppose there is no defect in the proposition of such articles as they believe not that they are reveal'd from God they being propos'd to them equally with other articles which they believe in reallity there is no other cause of their disbelief then that they attribute not an infallible authority to God revealing the said articles which they disbelieve Now if he be fallible in one he is infallible in nothing for his erring in one supposes him subject to error which is to be fallible And as faith is wanting so is external communion also to every profest heretick and schismatick as
that it belongs to esteem the Choosers fit here you were at a streight But is not this to say nothing while you pretend to speak and to hide what you pretend to open and who knowes what Custome and of what continuance you mean Primitive Custome went one way and afterward Custome went another way and latter Custome hath varied from both and hath the power of Election changed so often and who is it that must approve this Custome and what approbation must there be all these are meer hiding and no Resolving of the Doubt and tell us that a Pope is a thing invisible or unknown 5. and your last assures us that your Succession was interrupted through many usurpations yea indeed that you never had a Pope for the Church was vnsatisfied with the Election of abundance of your Popes when whores and Simony and murder and power set them up and most of the Churches through the world is unsatisfied with them still unto this day and you have no way to know whether the greater part of the Church is satisfied or not for non-Resistance is no signe of satisfaction where men have no opportuny or power to Resist and when one part of Europe was for one Pope and another for another through so many Schisms who knows which had the approbation of that which may be called the Church William Iohnson What is hidden from your understanding you take to be hidden in it self my Answer is Categorick as it stands conjunctly in my words and you mangling them in pieces have made them obscure take them as they stand and I am content in materia subjecta to submit them to the censure of any of your learned Devines esteemed Impartial to judge whether they be not as clear as need to be given in the qualifying of Electours for Elective Princes or Magistrates where when Different occasions require they admit of Different Determinations of Electours as here it hath hapned and whether your Exceptions be not pure fallacies proceeding à sensu conjuncto ad sensum divisum which is indeed as I have marked too ordinary a fallacie with you your 4. Number is a parergon If the Church did really acquiesce in such an Elected person as Pope it was satisfied according to the substance of the Election which is all I intended though haply it might be unsatisfied in the circumstances if the Church never accepted them as Popes they are not to be accounted Legal Popes nor in the number of St. Peter's successors what abuses have hapned in the Election of some Popes happened most commonly when Lay persons intruded their power and violence into those Elections mingling Lay authority with Church Government which is out of their Sphear now this abuse is much consonant with the Doctrine of Protestants so that those for the most part who confirm their practice according to Protestants principles introduc't this abuse into the Popes Election Mr. Baxter Qu. Is Consecration necessary and by whom ad esse William Iohnson It is not absolutely necessary ad esse Mr Baxter If Consecration be not necessary to Papacy then it is not necessary that this or that man consecrate him more then another and then it is not necessary to a Bishop and then the want of it makes no interruption in succession in any Church any more then in yours William Iohnson Neither Papal nor Episcopal Jurisdiction as all the Learned know depends of Episcopal or Papal ordination nor was there ever Interruptions of Successions in Episcopal Jurisdiction in any Sea for the want of that alone that is necessary for consecrating others validly and not for Jurisdiction over them Mr. Baxter Qu. 5. What notice or proof is necessary to the Subjects William Iohnson Ans. So much as is necessary to oblige Subjects to accept of other Elected Princes to be their Soveraignes Mr. Baxter When you have answered to the afore mentioned three Doubts we shall know what that General signifieth Rejoynder I have now answered and therefore you are satisfied BISHOP I mean by Bishop such a Christian Pastour as hath power jurisdiction to govern the inferiour Pastours Clergie and people within his Diocess and to confirm and give Holy Orders to such as are subjects to him Mr. Baxter Qu. Do you mean that he must have this power jure Divino whether mediately or immediately William Iohnson Answ. The Definition abstracts from particulars and subsists without determining that Question Mr. Baxter You seem to yield the Papacy is Jure humano and sure of no necessity to salvation for if man can change the power of Election and the foundation be humane it is like that Relation is but his name and therefore if Bishops must be Jure Divino they are more excellent and necessary then the Pope William Iohnson Where yielded I that where said I the Election was Iure humano shew where that there should be an election of him by competent electours is Ius Divinum the Determination who hic nunc are competent is Ius Ecclesiasticum therefore the Papacy it self is onely Jure humano how follows that know you not that neither the electours nor consecratours of him give him Papal Jurisdiction that is given him from Christ as S. Peters Successour the election therefore is not the foundation of Papal Authority but the promise of Christ. Nor are BB. more excellent then Popes because both are Iure Divino and as the manner of the election in particular may be and often is changed in the one so is it in the other Mr. Baxter 2. How grosse a subterfuge is this either the Bishop in question is a Divine creature or humane If a Divine as you may manifest it or expresse it at least so you ought it being no indifferent thing to turn a Divine office and Church into an humane if he be not Divine he is not of necessity to a Divine Churth nor to salvation Rejoynder What mean you by Divine creature who ever spake so but you the Bishop is a humane creature but his office is Divine Right will you have all particulars exprest in Definitions are they to contain more then the abstract notions of genus differentia the question is not what ought to be expressed in a full Treatise concerning Bishops but what in a definition ought to be the Genus and differentia of Bishop I intended not to make a precise definition neither but onely to shew you how I take it in my paper as appears by my words Mr Baxter And yet thus your R. Smith Bishop of Chalcedon ubi supra confesseth it to be no point of your faith that the Pope is S. Peters Successour Jure Divino William Iohnson You should have done well to cite the place for I have no time to seek whole books over nor should you have drawn consequences upon so large citations of Authours Mr. Baxter And if you leave it indifferent to be believed or not that both your Popes and Bishops are Jure