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
NOVELTY REPREST In a Reply to M r. BAXTER'S Answer to WILLIAM JOHNSON WHEREIN The oecumenical Power of the four first General Councils is Vindicated the Authority of Bishops asserted the compleat Hierarcy of Church Government established his novel succession evacuated and professed Hereticks demonstrated to be no true parts of the visible Church of Christ. By WILLIAM JOHNSON Prophanas vocum i. e. dogmatum novitates devita quas recipere atque sectari numquam Catholicorum semper vero Haereticorum fuit Lirinensis contra Haereses c. 23 24. c. Retenta est Antiquitas explosa Novitas Idem c. 10. PARIS Printed for E. C. Anno 1661. The Preface MEdusa sister to Euryale and Sthemione and daughter of a sea-monster ensnared by her beautie and golden tresses Neptune god of the Ocean and with him polluted the Temple of Minerva and had for issue Pegasus the winged Courser Minerva that learned and Virgin Goddess in revenge of so foul an injury metamorphos'd each hair of Medusaes head into a serpent and laid so heavy a Curse upon her that every one whose eyes were so curious as fixedly to behold her chang'd into stones whereupon the Beldam Medusa took her flight into the Dorcades islands in the Aethiopick sea and there raging like a hellish furie made her self Queen and Generaless of a femal armie her two sisters being the chief Commanders under her wasting and depopulating all where they march'd with unheard of cruelty The noble and valiant Captain Perseus covering his breast with a brazen shield of Minerva marched undauntedly towards this hideous Monster and discovering by the reflexion she made in the brightness of his shield while shee and her brood of serpents were all asleep at one blow cut off her head and those of the serpents with it and took it upon the point of his fauchion with him into Africa but such was the venome and pestilence of that inchaunted head that every drop of bloud which fell from it turn'd into a serpent whereby the whole coast of Africa was fill'd with snakes and vipers This though a fiction seems to be a fit Embleme of Heresie S. Greg. in Iob. lib. 35. cap. 34. The sea whale or Monster mother of Medusa by reason of her immense bulk and strength of body toweing her self over all other creatures in the Ocean is Pride and Ambition styled by Saint Austin the mother of hereticks Lib. 2. c. 3. contra lit Parmen Medusa seducing the heart of inconstant Neptune with her youth and beauty is a luxuriant wit priding it self in the invention of novelties in Religion The violation of Minervaes Temple the staining of the holy Church with sordid tenets and practices Pegasus the high flying thoughts of heretical spirits Those snakes and serpents crawling from Medusaes head and twisting themselves about her neck gnawing and consuming not onely one another but the head which bore them are wicked Heresies hatch'd in the brain and nourish'd in the head of Arch-Hereticks condemning and thwarting one another by perpetual contrarieties and still gnawing upon the Conscience which brought them forth The Petrifying Metamorphosis wrought upon the curious spectators of Medusa is the obduratenesse of those hearts who open too broad an eye to the speculations of Hereticks The wasting and destroying what ever oppos'd that femal army the horrible rebellions civil warres destractions desolations caus'd by Hereticks both in ancient and in our present ages The undaunted Perseus the supreme Bishop of the Catholick Church guarded with the shield of Faith and arm'd with the sword of Saint Peter cuts off the serpentine head of Medusa errours and heresies with his definitions decrees censures and anathemaes the drops of bloud distilling from Medusaes head even after it was struck dead and divided from her shoulders turning into so many snakes and adders the pullulation of new divisions and subdivisions of Heresies spreading themselves all o-over and infesting the countries where they fall with implacable dissentions and tumults each against other This is the sad story of Medusa Emblemis'd And yet happy had been our Nation and many others with it had it rested in the nature of an Embleme and been no more then a bare speculation But as it hath faln heavy upon several Countries in all precedent ages so in this and the former has it almost crush'd ours and many adjacent to us the histories are too too fresh in our memories and the late pressures too broad before our eyes to need recital and yet we might hope to obliterate their foul Characters in time were there not new drops distilling from Medusaes ghastly head and perpetuating that generation of vipers which took their first birth from it Force of Reason and Authority had devested our adversaries of both and so enervated their Principles that they had no consistency when behold a new brood of unheard of Novelties dropping from Medusa's brain rise-up to reestablish their dying cause Sects and Schismes are united as parts to the Catholick Church Oecumenicall Councils are despoiled of their ancient Authority Ecclesiasticall Decrees pin'd up within the Circuit of the Romane Empire true Christian and Divine Faith made consistent in the same soul with Heresie ancient Theologicall Definitions question'd and revers'd c. And those Principles once advanced which both Parties condemned and execrated as Diabolicall our Arguments are frustrated and we put upon a necessity to prove what we and all Christians suppos'd hitherto as undeniable Truths This is the task which Mr. Richard Baxter inventer of the said Novelties hath put upon me a man who had his fecunditie of invention been equalliz'd with a soliditie in Learning might have proved as offensive as he is now invective against the Roman Church My present work therefore is not so much a defence of mine own as of the common cause of Christians against those young Meducean Serpents new bred Novelties hissing against it so that it may be equally intitled CHISTIANITY MAINTAIN'D and NOVELTY REPRES'T Yet I have made choice of the latter as not daring to assume a Title to any writing of mine which a Person so far excelling me in all respects has prefixed to his own in answer to another bold oppugner of Christian Principles Whosoever therefore shall please to peruse this present Tract shall I hope find the whole controversie laid open so plain before his eyes that he needs no more then to parallell each answer to its respective objection in their severall Paragraphs for to this end I have inserted the whole first part of Mr. Baxters last Answer by Sections verbatim and to each applyed my rejoinder that neither the Reader may be put to the cost or trouble of perusing Mr. Baxters Book nor he himself have any occasion to complain that I accuse him to say any thing which he expresses not in his own Treatise For the same end also I have reprinted here the whole precesse of the argument with all our precedent respective Answers and Replies that the
Bernard Lutsemburg de Albigens Vide etiam S. Anton. 4 parte summae Tit. 11 c. 7. the one Good and the other Evil with the Manichees who denied 1. the Old Testament 2. that Baptism profited Infants to Salvation 3. that an unworthy Minister could consecrate the holy Sacrament 4. that wicked Prelates had any Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction or were to be obeyed 5. that it is lawfull to swear in any occasion whatsoever c. then with Alexander the Third whom no Christian in those times ever accused of Heresie or Errour in Faith who was elected against his will and after a Schisme made by Octavianus the Anti-Pope and Frederick the Emperour was received both by the Western and Eastern Churches excepting onely the party of Frederick who notwithstanding after acknowledged him and relinquisht Octavianus the Anti-Pope And whatsoever latter Historians relate by Hear-say Acta Alexâ—â—nd 3. ap Romuald Episcop Salern in suo Chronico ap Rogerium in Epist. Alexand in Histor. suâ of the insulting of this Pope over that Emperour yet those who recorded what past before their eyes in the time of Alexander record nothing but what became a modest and Christian Prelate of his eminency Baxter Num. 87 The Religion of all these men was one and they were all of one Vniversal Church Iohnson Num. 87. This is your grand Novelty at which I chiefly aim in this Answer It is not easie to conjecture what you mean by all these men whether the Iconoclasts Berengarians Waldensians Albigenses Wickliffists Hussites Lutherans Calvinists which you named in the end of pag. 105. and again pag. 106. in your Edit or those whom I named pag. 43. of your Book that is all at least amongst them whom you account Univocal Christians amongst which are Donatists Nestorians Eutychians Pelagians And can you or did yet ever any Christian before you account these men to have had one Religion Is the Religion of those who say there are Two Gods the same with that which teaches there is no more but one onely God if so then Heathens and Christians may be as well of one Religion If not then could not at least the Albigenses be of one Religion with the rest Vide supra whom I have proved to have held two gods Of the rest more hereafter Baxte Num. 88. Where you again call for one Congregation I tell you again that we know no unity Essential from whence the Church can be called one but either Christ or the Vice-Christ the former only is asserted by us and the latter also by you which we deny And therefore we cannot call the Universal Church one in any other formal respects but as it is Christian and so one in Christ. Iohnson Num. 88. We acknowledge the Church to be one in Christ as much as you but we acknowledge him as Head not to be the Formal but the Causal unity that is working the formal unity to wit Faith and Charity in his Church It is not enough to make one living organical body that there be one head and parts but those parts must be united to their Head and amongst themselves and to that Head Nor is it enough that there be several parts in the Church and one head of it but those parts must also be united to their Head and amongst themselves otherwise they are not one Now that which is the formall cause of this Unity is true Christian Faith and Charity which do both unite Christians amongst themselves and to Christ their Head I mean that necessary and prime charity which preserves external Communion and society amongst Christians so much celebrated by the Fathers and Schoolmen which is taken away by nothing but Schism or that which includes Schism Whence appears that to whomsoever the name of Christian is vulgarly given unless there be found true Faith and this Christian charity amongst all the other members they cannot be actual parts of the one true Catholick Church When therefore you say the Church universal cannot be called one in any other formal respect but as it is Christian if you mean by Christian all such as have true Christian faith and charity ut supra you say true and you say nothing but what all good Christians say But then here comes the difficulty how any Heretick or Schismatick can be a Christian more then nomine tenus in denomination only or in a laxe acception of the word for such as make a bare profession to beleeve in Christ and are thereby distinguished from Jewes Mahumetans and Heathens and so pass under the notion of Christians For if to be a Christian in our present strict sense be required a true Christian Faith then all that are true Christians have true faith but no Heretick hath true faith Ergo No Heretick is in this strict acception a Christian The Major is evident I prove the Minor Whosoever hath true faith beleeveth the material object of faith or the thing beleeved for the Divine Authority of God revealing it But no Heretick beleeves the material object of faith or the thing beleeved for the Divine Authority of God revealing it Ergo no Heretick hath true faith The Major is granted by all Divines yours and ours For Christian faith must rest upon Gods revelation as its formal object I prove the Minor Whosoever beleeves the material object of faith or thing beleeved for the Divine Authority of God revealing it must beleeve all things which are as suffiâ—â—iently propounded to him to be revealed by God as are the rest of the Articles which he beleeveth protesteth to and beleeve nothing as revealed which is as sufficiently declared to him to be erroneous or not revealed by Divine Authority as are the Articles of Faith propounded to be revealed by God But every Heretick either refuses to beleeve something which is so sufficiently propounded to him to be revealed from â—â—od or beleeves something as revealed which is so sufficiently declared to him to be erroneous or not revealed from God Ergo no Heretick hath true faith The Major I prove thus as to the first part Whosoever refuses to beleeve what is so sufficiently propounded to be revealed by God either beleeves all that is so propounded or beleeves some things and refuses to beleeve others as sufficiently propounded as those which he beleeves But if he refuses all he can have no true faith for he beleeves nothing and consequently is no Christian. If he beleeves some and refuses others equally propounded he beleeves them not for the Divine Authority revealing for when that is equally propounded to his understanding it ought to work equally upon it but upon his own willful choice or private judgement refuses one and assents to the other To illustrate this Let this sentence of Scripture Tertiâ die refurget he shall rise again the third day be so sufficienly propounded to be Gods revelation that whosoever refuses to beleeve the substance of our Saviours Resurrection delivered in it is
justly condemned for not beleeving Gods revelation Now suppose some new Heretick as I have heard of one such lately should beleeve that Christ did rise again from the dead yet dis-believes that he rose the third day and perswades himself that his Resurrection happened some time after the third day Let such an Heretick be asked why he beleeves that Christ rose from death if he tell you because God hath revealed it in the forenamed sentence then ask him what moves him to beleeve that God has revealed it if he tells you because he finds it clearly expressed in this sentence of Scripture which he beleeves to be Gods revealed word demand further why he beleeves it to be his word he will tell you because it is sufficiently propounded to him as such so that he is satisfied that it is the Word of God Then presse him thus But certainly you beleeve not that place of Scripture to be the Word of God for if you did you would beleeve all that it contained in it which you do not for it is as clearly exprest in that sentence That Christ rose again the third day as that he rose at all but you beleeve not that he rose the third day Ergo You beleeve not that Sentence to be the Word of God Ergo You cannot beleeve that Christ rose again for the authority of Gods word in that sentence Ergo You beleeve it not because God has revealed it Ergo You have no divine Faith at all of the mystery of the Resurrection but a meer humane perswasion grounded upon your own particular phansie or reason that it is so Thus you see it is impossible to beleeve any thing which God has revealed for the Authority of Divine revelation unless he who beleeves gives the like assent to every other truth be it of what importance great or small in it self makes nothing to our present difficulty which is as plainly proposed to him to be revealed from God as that which he beleeves To make this yet more facile to the unlearned I will declare it by a Vulgar instance Suppose there were some honourable and worthy Person in a Common-wealth of so great credit that what he saves is beleeved by every one as an undoubted truth Some other of credible Authority tells his friend this Honourable person has told him two things and affirmed both of them to be true of his own knowledge his friend tells him he beleeves the one but will not by any means assent to the other He asks his friend Why beleeve you the first He answers because such a person affirmes it to be true He demands further why beleeve you he said so the friend answers upon your relation Then sayes the other you hold my relation to be a sufficient inductive to make you beleeve he said the first Yes says his friend I do not so replies the relator for if you did you would beleeve he said the second as well as the first for I assure you as much that he said the one as the other Now what can his Friend answer he must either say that he beleeves not the Honourable person said so upon the sole authority of the others relation and consequently that neither of those truths were sufficiently propounded to him by that relator and so could beleeve neither the first not the second contrary to his former acknowledgment and our present supposition or he must deny that he beleeves the second of those relations though the Honourable Personage said both the one and the other and then it is evident he beleeved not the first upon the sole credit of his saying but for som other reason of his own For if he had beleeved the first upon his sole word he must have beleeved the second also seeing he had as much reason to beleeve he said the second as the first Thus I have endeavoured to prove the first part of my Major Now I prove the second Viz. That no man can have true Christian faith who beleeves any thing as revealed from God which is as sufficiently propounded to him to be erroneous or not revealed from God as are the Articles of Faith to be Gods revelations the very same Authority which affirms the one denying the other Let us suppose some rigid Calvinist beleeving the Pope to be that great Antichrist foretold in the Revelation and that the very same authority which as he acknowledges sufficiently propounded to him the Articles of Christian Faith as revealed from God assured him that no such matter as the Popes being that great Antichrist was ever revealed and that it was a manifest error in Faith In this case either that Calvinist must dis-beleeve that propounding Authority and thereby loose his Faith in the former Articles and have no true Faith at all in the first or beleeve it in the second because it is still the very same Authority in both For that very Authority which propounds the Articles of Faith as revealed from God propounds this as not revealed and as contrary to Gods revelation Baxter Num. 89. Yet I have herewith satisfied your demand but shewed you the unreasonableness of it beyond all reasonable contradiction Non-proof 12. Iohnson Num. 89. You are very prone to assert without proof Where have you shewed the unreasonableness of my demand Tell me I pray in your next for you have not yet done it Baxter Num. 90. You next inquire Whether we account Rome and us one Congregation of Christians I answer the Roman Church hath two heads and ours but one and that 's the difference Iohnson Num. 90. Who ever accounted a King and a Viceroy a Bishop and a Vicar a Captain and a Lieutenant a Master and a Steward two Heads respectively to their Territories and Jurisdictions Can you call the head and the neck two heads because both of them with subordination the one to the other are placed above the rest of the body The head is the highest part of an Organical body and whatsoever is subordinate to that is no head absolutely though it be next the head and higher then all the other parts Christ is only the Head of his whole Church comprising the Militant and Triumphant and of this whole Church the Pope is a part but no Head The Holy Councils and Fathers indeed stile him sometimes Head of the visible Militant Church as we shall see hereafter but that is only in regard of the visible government of the Church not absolutly and soveraignly for the only soveraign head of the Militant Church works in it and governs it invisibly by his holy lights and inspirations and particularly him who is its visible Head according to its visible government There is therefore amongst us one only absolute head of the Church the other hath no absolute Independent power over it but is as truly a part of the Church depending as much on the absolute head as any other pâ—â—râ—â— doth There is but one King and Master of the Militant
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
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
which he presently did and many other Eastern Bishops unjustly accused by the Arians aforesaid had recourse to Rome with him and expected there a year and half All which time his Accusers though also summoned appeared not fearing they should be condemned by the Pope and his Council Yet they pretended not as Protestants have done in these last ages of the Kings of England That Constantius the Arian Emperour of the East was Head or chief Governour over their Church in all Causes Ecclesiastical and consequently that the Pope had nothing to do with them but only pretended certain frivolous excuses to delay their apearance from one time to another Where it is worth the noting that Iulius reprehending the said Arian Bishops before they published their Heresie and so taking them to be Catholicks for condemning S. Athanasius in an Eastern Council gathered by them before they had acquainted the Bishop of Rome with so important a cause useth these words An ignari estis hanc consuetudinem esse ut primum nobis scribatur ut hinc quod justum est definiri possit c. Are you ignorant saith he that this is the custome to write to us first That hence that which is just may be defined c. where most clearly it appears that it belonged particularly to the Bishop of Rome to passe a definitive sentence even against the Bishops of the Eastern or Greek Church which yet is more confirmed by the proceedings of Pope Innocent the first about 12. hundred years since in the case of S. Chrysostome Where first Saint Chrysostome appeals to Innocentius from the Council assembled at Constantinople wherein he was condemned Secondly Innocentius annuls his condemnation and declares him innocent Thirdly he Excommunicates Atticus Bishop of Constantinople and Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria for persecuting S. Chrysostome Fourthly after S. Chrysostome was dead in Banishment Pope Innocentius Excommunicates Arcadius the Emperour of the East and Eudoxia his wife Fifthly the Emperor and Empress humble themselves crave pardon of him and were absolved by him The same is evident in those matters which passed about the year 450. where Theodosius the Emperour of the East having too much favoured the Eutychian Hereticks by the instigation of Chrysaphius the Eunuch and Pulcheria his Empress and so intermedled too far in Ecclesiasticall causes yet he ever bore that respect to the See of Rome which doubtless in those circumstances he would not have done had he not beleeved it an Obligation that he would not permit the Eutychian Council at Ephesus to be assembled without the knowledge and authority of the Roman Bishop Leo the first and so wrote to him to have his presence in it who sent his Legats unto them And though both Leo's letters were dissembled and his Legate affronted and himself excommunicated by wicked Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria and president of that Conventicle who also was the chief upholder of the Eutychians yet Theodosius repented before his death banished his wife Pulcheria and Chrysaphius the Eunuch the chief favourers of the Eutychians and reconciled himself to the Church with great evidences of sorrow and pennance (m) Concil Chalced. Act. 1. Presently after An. 451. follows the fourth General Council of Chalcedon concerning which these particulars occur to our present purpose First Martianus the Eastern Emperour wrote to Pope Leo That by the Popes Authority a General Council might be gathered in what City of the Eastern Church he should please to chuse Secondly both Anatolius Patriarch of Constantinople and the rest of the Eastern Bishops sent to the Legats of Pope Leo by his order the profession of their faith Thirdly the Popes Legats sate in the first place of the Council before all the Patriarchs (n) Concil Chalced. Act 3. Fourthly they prohibited by his order given them That Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria and chief upholder of the Eutychians should sit in the Council but be presented as a guilty person to be judged because he had celebrated a Council in the Eastern Church without the consent of the Bishop of Rome which said the Legats never was done before nor could be done lawfully This order of Pope Leo was presently put in execution by consent of the whole Council and Dioscorus was judged and condemned his condemnation and deposition being pronounced by the Popes Legats and after subscribed by the Council Fifthly the Popes Legats pronounced the Church of Rome to be * Which could not be by reason of the Sanctity and truth which was then in it for the Church of Milan and many others in France Africa and Greece were also then pure and holy and yet none have this title save the Church of Rome In the time of Iustinian the Emperour Agapet Pope even in Constantinople against the will both of the Emperour and Empress deposed Anthymus and ordained Mennas in his place Liberat. in Breviario cap. 21. Marcellinus Comes in Chronico Concil Constantin sub Menna act 4. And the same S Greg. c. 7. ep 63. declares that both the Emperour and Bishop of Constantinople acknowledged that the Church of Constantinople was subject to the See of Rome And l. 7. Ep. 37. Et alibi pronounceth that in case of falling into offences he knew no Bishop which was not subject to the Bishop of Rome Caput omnium Ecclesiarum the Head of all Churches before the whole Council and none contradicted them Sixtly all the Fathers assembled in that Holy Council in their Letter to Pope Leo acknowledged themselves to be his children and wrote to him as to their Father Seventhly they humbly begged of him that he would grant that the Patriarch of Constantinople might have the first place among the Patriarchs after that of Rome which notwithstanding that the Council had consented to as had also the third General Council of Ephesus done before yet they esteemed their grants to be of no sufficient force untill they were confirmed by the Pope And Leo thought not fit to yeeld to their petition against the express ordination of the first Council of Nice where Alexandria had the preheminence as also Antioch and Hierusalem before that of Constantinople Saint Cyril of Alexandria though he wholly disallowed Nestorius his doctrine yet he would not break off Communion with him till Celestinus the Pope had condemned him whose censure he required and expected Nestorius also wrote to Celestine acknowledging his Authority and expecting from him the censure of his doctrine Celestinus condemned Nestorius and gave him the space of ten daies to repent after he had received his condemnation All which had effect in the Eastern Church where Nestorius was Patriarch of Constantinople (o) S. August Tom. 1. Epist. Rom. Pontif. post Epist. 2. ad Celestinum After this Saint Cyrill having received Pope Leo's Letters wherein he gave power to Saint Cyril to execute his condemnation against Nestorius and to send his condemnatory letters to him gathered a Council of his next Bishops and sent Letters
Church be true or false that 's stated in the Argument but whether it be in a matter Accidental or Essential Now I affirm that nothing which Christ hath Instituted to be ever in the Church is Accidental to the Church for every Accident is separable from the Subject without destroying the Subject whose Accident it is But what Christ ha's Instituted to be ever in his Church is inseparable from it Mat. 19.6 for Quae Deus conjunxit homo non separet Those things which God hath conjoyned man must not separate In the mean time you fairly acknowledge your instances were not home to the present purpose because not in matters Instituted to be perpetual by one of that Authority whose Institution no man can change and consequently not necessary to be ever in those Nations or Commonwealths to whom you ascribe them Baxter Num. 17. For 1. The holding it alwayes done and that of Christs Institution may be either an Accident or but of the Integrity and ad bene esse yea possibly an errour Iohnson Num. 17. If of the Integrity then not Accidental for no Integral part is an Accident to the whole So you yield up your cause and acknowledge your errourâ—â— and 't is laudable in you The question is not what you might have done but what you did your instances given fell short and were plainly fallacious I have already shew'd that nothing can be an Accident to the Church which Christ hath instituted to be ever that is perpetually in the Church and consequently the Churches holding any thing to be so if true is Essential to the Subsistance of the Church if false is essentially destructive of the Church so that whether true or false it will never be accidental to the Church Baxter Num. 18. And I might as easily have given you instances of that kind Iohnson Num. 18. Had you more fully reflected upon your Adversaries words you might have done many things more pertinently then you have done them but here again you acknowledge your error in alledging instances which were not to the purpose But your Readers and I should have been much more satisfied had you amended what you acknowledge to be a fault and brought at least in this your last Reply those instances which you say here you might have given then Be sure therefore in your next to produce instances of Accidentals in such things as Christ hath instituted to be ever in his Church whereby it may appear that this Roman acknowledgment whether true or false is accidental to the true Church So that the acknowledgment of it by all those to whom it is sufficiently propounded is necessary to make them parts of the true Church and the denial of it when so propounded hinders them from being parts of it Baxter Num. 19. To your third Syllogism I reply 1. When you say your Church had Pastors Fallacy 5. as you must speak of what existed and universals exist not of themselves so it is necessary that I tell you how far I grant your Minor and how far I deny it Iohnson Num. 19. What though universalls exist not of themselves may not therefore a Logician expresse things which have existed in an abstract or universal term Is not this a true Logical Proposition Ever since Adam there have been parents and children in the world though the terms abstract from lawful and unlawful from male or female children would you carp at this Proposition as you do here at mine because universalls exist not of themselves or go about to distinguish different sorts of children or parents as you do Pastors here to find out the true meaning of that Proposition No man sayes or need to say in such Enunciations that universalls exist but expresses particulars which have existed by abstract and universall terms Baxter Num. 20. My Argument from the Indians and others is not solved by you For 1. You can never prove that the Pope was preached to the Iberians by the captive maid Fallacy 6. nor to the Indians by Frumentius 2. Thousands were made Christians and Baptized by the Apostles Three non-proofs without any preaching or profession of a Papacie Acts 2. pasâ—â—im 3. The Indians now converted in America by the English and Dutch hear nothing of the Pope nor thousands in Ethiopia 3. Your own doe or may baptize many without their owning the Pope who yet would be Christians And a Pastor not known or beleeved or owned is actually no Pastor to them Iohnson Num. 20. To all these Instances I answer They conclude nothing against my Assertion for I never said that all particular persons or communities are obliged to have an express belief or acknowledgment of the Roman-Bishops Supremacy that being necessary to all neither necessitate medii nor praecepti It is sufficient that they beleeve it implicitely in subjecting themselves to all those whom Christ hath instituted to be their lawfull Pastors and when the Bishop of Rome is sufficiently proposed to them to be the supream visible Pastor of of those Pastors upon earth that then they obstinately reject not his authority To your first instance of the Captive maid and Saint Frumentius I answer we can prove as much at least that to have been preacht to them as you can prove either Justification by Faith only or any other particular point of your doctrine to have been preacht to them And both of us must say that all important Christian Truths both for particular persons and Churches were delivered to those people and till you have evinced this of Supremacy to have been none of those it is to be supposed it was sufficiently declared to those Nations At least in explicating the Article of the Catholike Church to them they must be supposed to have told them it consisted of Pastors and people united and that the people were to obey all their lawful Pastors in which doctrine the Pope is implicitely included To your second from Acts 2. The Scripture relates not there all that S. Peter said but affirmeth vers 40. that he gave testimony to them in many other words And who can tell whether amongst the rest that of his Supremacy might not have been sufficiently intimated to them However it appears by the Text vers 37. that the people addrest themselves first and in particular to S. Peter before all the rest of the Apostles as the prime amongst them and he who first preacht the Gospel to them Prove the English and Dutch Convertites converted by Protestants if you mean those as you must do if your argument have any force to be instructed in the true Faith and then your Instance will have some force prove those of Ethiopia to be Orthodox and Catholick Christians To what purpose produce you instances which are assoon denied as they are proposed Your last touches only particular persons which I have shewed are not obliged to know this expresly to be of the Church the Pope is their true pastor and so
is scarce faire pardon this plainness consider of it your self The substance of Nilus book is about the Primacie of the Pope the very Contents prefixed to the first book are these Oratio demonstrans non aliam c. an Oration demonstrating that there is no other cause of dissention between the Latine and the Greek Churches then that the Pope refuseth to defer the Cognisance and Iudgement of that which is Controverted to a General Council but he will sit the sole Master and Iudge of the Controversie and will have the rest as Disciples to be hearers of or obey his word which is a thing aliene from the Lawes and Actions of the Apostles and Fathers and he begins his Book after a few words thus Causa itaque hujus dissidii c. The Cause therefore of this difference as I judge is not the sublimity of the point exceeding man's capacitie for other matters that have divers times troubled the Church have been of the same kind this therefore is not the cause of the dissention much lesse is the speech of the Scripture it self which as being concise doth pronounce nothing openly of that which is Controverted for to accuse the Scripture is as much as to accuse God himself But God is without all fault but who the fault is in any one may easily tell that is well in his wits He next shews that it is not for want of learned men on both sides nor is it because the Greeks do claim the Primacy and then concludeth it as before he maintaineth that your Pope succeedeth Peter onely as a Bishop ordained by him as many other Bishops that originally were ordained by him in like manner to succeed him and that his Primacy is no governing power nor given him by Peter but by Princes and Councils for order sake and this he proves at large and makes this the main difference Bellarmine 's answering his so many Arguments might have told you this if you had never read Nilus himself and if you say that this point was the Cause I deny it but if it were true yet was it not the onely or chief Cause afterwards The manner of bringing in the Filioque by Papal Authority without a general Council was it that greatly offended the Greeks from the beginning William Iohnson Num. 118. This is a strange manner of Arguing what if his chief subject be about the Popes Primacy may he not ex incidente and occasionaliter treat other matters Is not your chief matter in this Treatise to prove the succession of your Church and oppose ours and yet treat you not in this very place incidentally the procession of the holy Ghost I say then that Nilus declaring the cause why the Bishop of Rome hath lost all that Primacy and Authority which he had anciently by reason he is fallen from the Faith in adding Filioque to the Creed and teaching that the holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son the words you cite out of Nilus proves nothing he pretends indeed that the cause of the present dissention is the Popes challenging so high a Primacy which they are unwilling as all schismaticks ever were to grant him but that may well stand with what I affirm him to say that the first original cause of the breach betwixt the Greeks and Latines was the adding of Filioque and holding the holy Ghost's procession from the Father and the Son But see you not how fair a thread you have spun by pressing those words as you do against me is there indeed no other cause of dissention betwixt the Greek and Latine Church nor ground of their breach save the Popes supremacy then sure there is a full agreement in all other things if so there is a main disagreeing betwixt you and the Greeks in all other points of Faith controverted betwixt you and us for if they agree with us they disagree from you in every one of them nay you press Nilus his words in that sense you must take them to frame an Argument against me quite against the very words themselves for you alledge them to shew that he touches not the procession of the holy Ghost in that Book as the first ground of their difference to prove this you must proceed thus he treats nothing there save the Pope's Supremacie ergo he touches not the holy Ghost's procession you prove the Antecedent by the words of the Title of his first book here cited because he affirmes in them there is no other cause of dissention then that the Pope refuses to stand to the judgement of a general Council as if that onely were controverted betwixt them for otherwise you prove nothing Now it is most evident that Nilus supposes many other Controversies betwixt them and the Latines for he saies even as you cite him thus then that the Pope refuseth to defer the Cognisance and Iudgement of that which is Controverted to a general Council Ergo you must acknowledge that according to Nilus there was something controverted betwixt the Greeks and the Latines besides the Pope's Supremacie and after you bring him in pag. 124. mentioning this very point of the procession when you alledge him thus the cause therefore of this difference as I judge is not the sublimity of the point exceeding man's capacitie where he speaks of the holy Ghost's procession as I affirm him to doe thus you play fast and loose say and unsay at your pleasure thus you confound times and by not distinguishing the past as before you did not the future from the present make that which is now onely pretended by Nilus to be the chief cause of their not coming to Agreement to have been many hundred yeares agoe the original cause of their breach and opposition against the Latines whereby you confound the first occasion of the breach and the present obstacle to the making it up and reconciling them together as if they were one and the same thing Now it is most manifest that the first occasion of the breach made by the Greeks from the Latine Church was the Exception they took against the Latines for adding the word Filioque and from the Son to the Nicene Creed for Michael Patriarch of Constantinople anno 1054. in time of Leo the 9. Pope and Constantine the 10. Emperour styled Monomachos aspiring not onely in name and Title as many of his predecessours had done before him but in reality and effect to be universal Patriarch proclaimed Leo and all the Latines who adhered to him to be Excommunicated because contrary to the decree of the Ephesine Council they had made an Addition to the Creed so that the Roman Bishop being pretended by the Greeks to be thereby deposed from his Sea The Primacie of the Church fell by Course and right upon him as being the next Patriarch after the Bishop of Rome which gave occasion to Nilus of acknowledging that Controversie about the procession of the holy Ghost to have been the first occasion of
141. It is really unanswerable for I see nothing to be answered in it you only say you prove it by the testimony of the Council of Chalcedon and stating the primacy at least in St. Gregories dayes in Constantinople but neither produce here any authority of that Council nor of the Pope then you come with an if it be so c. when you have not proved it is so and then say your Argument is unanswerable 't is so indeed for no man can answer an argument before it be made considering men will think it had been soon enough to honour your own arguments with the illustrious title of unanswerable when you have set them out in their full glory but very unseasonable before you have given them a being now how unanswerable your argument will prove when it has a being time will inform us Mr. Baxter Num. 142. Your next instance is of Pope Leo's restoring Theodoret upon an appeal to just judgement Reply every Bishop hath a power to discerne who is fie for his own Communion and so Leo and the Bishops of the West perceiving Theodoret to be Orthodox received him as a Catholick into their communion and so might the Bishop of Constantinople have done William Iohnson Num. 142. Was there no more in it think you men a bare receiving an Orthodox Bishop into communion what need was there of that for I read not that Theodoret was excommunicated by the false Councill of Ephesus but deposed from his Bishopprick but having been accused of Nestorianisme and as such condemned in this Councill the Pope according to the usual custome declared him Orthodox and received him into his communion it was a restoration to his Episcopal Sea which he appealed for and a reversing the unjust sentence in his absence and having no warning given him to plead his cause and defence which he sought for to Pope Leo and he was accordingly restored in the first Session of the Councill of Chalcedon and consequently by the Authority of Pope Leo and took his seat in the Councill with the other Fathers because the Bishop of Rome had judged him innocent and restored him nor is there any mencion made of the Bishops of the West but only of a restauration ordered by Leo's authority nor could the Bishop of Constantinople have don any such soveraign act as this was which you say but prove not shew me if you can ever nay appeal like this of Theodorets made from the sentence of a generall Council to any patriarch in the world save the Bishop of Rome or any Bishop thus appealing restored to his sea after deposition by a general Council save only by the Popes authority Mr. Baxter Num. 143. But when this was done the Council did not thereupon receive him and restore him to his Bishopprick no nor would heare him read the passage between Pope Leo and him no nor make a confession of his Faith but cryed out against him as a Nestorian till he had expresly Anathematiz'd Nestorius and Eutiches before the Councill and then received and Restored him so that the finall judgement was not by Leo but by the Council William Iohnson Num. 143. Here are many untruths put up together 1. First it is most certain the Councill did receive him and he sat amongst them as Bishop of Cyrus upon his Restitution by Leo though the Bishops of Palestine Egypt and Illyria excepted and exclaimed against him 2. It was not the Councill but those Bishops which opposed him Con. Chalced ac 1. for whose satisfaction he Anathemis'd Nestorius 3. The Councill did not restore him otherwise then by ratifying and approving Pope Leo's act of Restaurations which is not to have the final judgement of the cause but to consent and approve by a publick act what was justly and Canonically adjudged before which may be and is very frequently don by equall or inferiour judges if indeed the judgement of Leo had been reverst in the Councill without the recourse had to him about it you might have had some Colour to affirm the finall judgement was by the Councill Mr. Baxter Num. 244. But if in his distress he appealed as you say to a just judgement from an unjust or sought to make Leo his friend no wonder but this is no grant of an universal Soverâ—â—ignty in Leo William Iohnson Num. 144. It was an act of jurisdiction out of the Western Patriarchs therefore it could not proceed from Leo as he was Patriarch of the West so that he must have done it as having authority and judicatory power over other Patriarchals and seeing there is no reason alleadgeable why he should have power in the Patriarchals where Theodoret was Bishop more then in any other à paritate rationis it proves that he had juridical power over all the Patriarchals ergo an universal power over the whole Church at least within the Empire if you will solve this argument you must shew a disparity why Theodoret was more subject to the Sea of Rome then any other Bishop within the Empire or the rest of the Patriarchs Mr. Baxter Num. 145. And if it had granted it in the Empire that is nothing to the Churches in other Empires William Iohnson Num. 145. It is manifest by this instance that Leo had power to annull the sentence of a general Council at least which esteemed it self so nor can I see why Protestants in their principles should not account it as true a general Council as others of those times there having been present both the Emperour and the Patriarchs either by themselves or their Legates and as many or more Bishops then were in â—â—her general Councils now seeing general Councils had power over the extra-imperial Provinces as is manifest above from the Couâ—â—cils of Nice and Chalcedon which subjected the barbarous Provinces that is Russia and Muscovia c. to the Bishop of Constantinople and the two Arabia's to the Patriarch of Antioch of which some were the extra-imperial seeing I say that this instance evidences that the Bishop of Rome had power to judge of the sentence of a general Council and reverse it too he must have had power also over that which is subject to general Councils that is over the extra-imperial Provinces Mr. Baxter Num. 146. Or if he had granted it as to all the world he was but one man of the world and not the Catholick Church William Iohnson Num. 146. 'T is true Theodoret was but one man but it was not Theodoret alone who thought this appeal lawful but it was approved as such by the whole general Council of Chalcedon which was the Church representative having exercised power as well without as within the Empire and after this the whole Catholick Church was satisfied with it never having accepted against it by any Orthodox writer in or about these times nor any memory lost that the Church or any true parts of it excepted against it in your next it will be expected you either produce
of all that ever God revealed to them and within three or four lines you say absolutely and without all exception no man knoweth all that God hath revealed first you say all men or most at least have been sinfully negligent in searching after and receiving truth and within a Line or two you leave out your Restriction and say no man knoweth all that God hath revealed or that he ought to know 13. I would know the reason why you first suppose your principle that no man can believe all unlesse he actually knows all and thence inferre against me that in my Principles who deny that of yours I cannot know who is who is not of my Church because I cannot know what Reasons any particular have had to know more or fewer divine Truths or whether they have concurred with those Reasons or no and so must make my Church invisible now I make my Church visible though by comprehending in it all those who professe an Explicite Faith in several Articles which they understand distinctly and an implicite Belief of the rest whereof they have not distinct understanding by professing that they believe all that God hath revealed to be believed by them whatsoever they be in particular now so long as they persevere in this behalf though they should happen through culpable negligence not arrive to the knowledge of many things which they ought to know necessitati praecepti yet they remain members though corrupt and wicked of the Church whereby you see how easily I avoid that difficulty which you thought I could not Mr. Baxter The second sort of implicite belief is no belief of the particulars at all an Animal may live and yet it followeth not that you are alive or an Animal William Iohnson How impossibly dispute you here your instance is from the matter for when you say omne Animal vivit every sensible creature lives it must have this sense that it lives onely so long as it is and as it continues Animal or a sensible Creature for otherwise you would have it to be when it is not and to live when it is dead now understanding the proposition thus whosoever believes omne Animal vivit believes me to be a sensible creature so long as I am in being and to live before my Death nay you seem not to reflect upon the sense of such propositions for they relate not to the proposition by chance in relation to particular individua but to the Essence of the subject whereof they predicate for when Philosophers say omne Animal vivit they mean it is of the Essence or notion of Animal to be a living thing and this is true of me and all particulars whether we be in actual existency or no nay you bring an instance of a particular to confirm an universal your Question was of omne Animal all sensible creatours as appears above and of all that God has revealed and to confirm your assertion in this you being a particular an individuum vagum saying an Animal may live c. that is some particular Animal nor stay you here but to amend the matter you bring an instance of changeable things to confirm a proof of things unchangeable I who now am may cease to be in actual existencie but whatsoever is once revealed from God can never cease to be revealed or become a thing unrevealed though therefore it follows not that because omne Animal vivit therefore I live actually yet it follows that whatsoever is once revealed of God remains alwaies actually revealed Mr. Baxter If this were your meaning then either you mean that it is enough if all be believed implicitly besides that general proposition or you mean that some things must be believed explicitly that is actually and some implicitly that is not at all Rejoinder I have told you something more must be believed explicitely how much or what is a dispute amongst Divines not necessary to be determined here yet I will speak something to that presently Reply If the former be your sense then Infidels or heathens may be of your Church for a man may believe in general that the Bible is the word of God and true and yet not know a word that is in it and so not know that Christ is the Messias or that ever there was such a Person Rejoynder Your instance is morally impossible for either such a person believes the Bible rashly and imprudently and then according to all Divines his faith cannot be supernatural and Divine or sufficient to constitute him a Christian or he believes it prudently and then he must be moved by prudential motives of credibility which must draw him to afford credit to that Authority as derived from God which commends to him the Bible as the written word of God now that can be no other then the Authority of the Catholick Church which he cannot be ignorant to profess the faith of Christ there being no other save that though therefore he knows not by experience that Christ is mentioned in the Bible yet he cannot but know that he is professed to be the Son of God and Saviour of the world by those of the Catholick Church who delivered the Bible to him as the word of God and that such a faith in him is necessary to salvation Reply But if somewhat be explicitly that is actually believed the question that you would have answered was what is it for till that be known no man can know a member of your Church by your discriptions Rejoynder There was no necessity to tell you that for when you so often distinguish betwixt points of faith Essential and accidental seeing you ought to understand the terms of your own distinction as I could not but suppose you did you had no need to be informed what points were to be believed by explicite faith all Essentials in your opinion are such Reply If you take implicite in the third sense then implicite faith is either Divine or humane Divine when the Divine veracity is the formal object humane when mans veracity is the formal object which may be conjunct where the Testimonies are so conjunct as that we are sure that it is God that speaks by man who is therefore credible because God infallibly guideth or inspireth him that is at once to believe a humane and Divine veracity If any of this be your meaning that last question remains still to be resolved by you A man may believe that God is true and that his Prophets and inspired messengers are true and yet not understand a word of the message so that still if this will serve a man may be of your Church that knoweth not that ever there was such a person as Iesus Christ or that ever he died for our sins or rose again or that we shall rise William Iohnson Your third member I have rejected before as a stranger to implicite faith but I think you speak not true Divinity when you say that to believe God to be true
interiour Pastours do but interiour Pastours also Mr. Baxter This is but your naked affirmation I have proved the Contrary from Scriptures Fathers and Councils in my dispute of Episcopacy viz. that a Bishop may be and of old ordinarily was over the Presbyters onely of one parish of single Congregation or a people no more numerous then our Parishes you must shew us some Scripture or General Council for the contrary before we can be sure you here speak truth was Gregory Thaumaturgus no Bishop because when he came first to Neocaesarâ—â—a he had but seventeen soules in his Charge the like I may say of many more Rejoynder Am I obliged to Answer in this paper all the reasons you alledged in your Book of Episcopacy what you say here of Gregory Thaumaturgus is easily answered he was sent to be Bishop of Caesarea and of the country about it or under it's Command and though there had been no more then seventeen Christians in the Citie yet how know you there were no more in all the Countrey adjacent whereof he was Bishop But suppose there had been no more then that small number neither in that City nor Countrey know you not that he was sent to multiply Christians there as he did and thereby to make himself a Competent Diocesse the Apostle S. Iames is recorded to have converted no more the seven persons at the first coming in Spain would you thence deduce that the Apostolical office did not include in it a superiority over both Priests Bishops TRADITION I understand by Tradition the visible Delivery from hand to hand in all cases of the Revealed Will of God either written or unwritten Mr. Baxter Qu. But all the Doubt is by whom this Traditions that is valid must be by the Pastour or People or both by Pope or Councils or Bishops Disjunct by the major part of the Church or Bishops or Presbyters or the minor and by how many William Iohnson By such and so many proportionably as suffice in a Kingdome to certifie the people which are the ancient universal received Customes in that Kingdome which is to be morally considered Mr. Baxter I consent to this General But then 1. how certainly is Tradition against you when most of the Christian World yea all except an Interested Party doe deny your Soveraignty and plead Tradition against it And how lame is your Tradition when it is carried on your private Affirmations and is nothing but the improved Saying of a Sect. William Iohnson The Intention both of you and me was to know what was meant by our Terms that we might come to some Agreement about them here we are as appears by your Reply agreed about what is meant by Tradition first your Objection how this agrees not with our Tradition is now out of season and should have it's place when we come to the main Controversie If the notion of Tradition wherein we are agreed make against me so much the better for you who denyed our Soveraignty as I describe it in my Thesis or had a Church Government inconsistent with it in the First three and four hundred yeares Let those Churches be named and since those times nominate any particular body of Christians which opposed it whom I cannot shew evidently to have sprang up of new since those times Mr. Baxter Qu. 2. What proof or notice of it must satisfie me in particulars that it is so past William Iohnson Answ. Such as with proportion is a sufficient proof or notice of the Lawes and Customes of temporal Kingdomes Mr. Baxter But is it necessary for every Christian to be able to weigh the credit of Contradicting parties when one half of the world say one thing and the other another thing what opportunity have ordinary Christians to compare them and discern the moral advantages on each side William Iohnson As much as they have to know which Books are and which are not Canonical Scripture amongst those which are in Controversie Mr. Baxter As in case of the Popes Soveraignty when two or three parts of the Christian world is against it and the rest for it can private men try which party is the more credible or is it necessary to their Salvation William Iohnson As much as they can try which is Canonical Scripture in Books Controverted Mr. Baxter If so they are cast upon unavoidable despair if not must they all take the words of their present teacher William Iohnson As much as they do for the Determination of Canonical Scriptures Mr. Baxter That most of the World must believe against you because most of the Teachers are against you There is no Congregation of Christians united in the same profession of Faith External Communion and dependance of Pastours which is contrary in Belief to us any way to be Parallel with us in Extent and Multitude prove there is and name it All our Adversaries together are a patcht body of a thousand different professions and as much Adversaries one to another as they are to us the one Justifying us in that wherein the other condemn us so that no heed is to be taken to their Testimonies non sunt Convenientia Mr. Baxter And it seems mens faith is resolved into the Authority of the Parish Priest or their Confessour the Lawes of a Kingdome may be easilier known then Christian Doctrine can be known especially such as are controverted among us by mere unwritten Tradition Kingdomes are of narrower compass then the world And though the sense of Lawes is often in question yet the being of them is seldome matter of Controversie because men conversing constantly and familiarly with each other may plainly and fully reveal their mindes when God that condescendeth not to such a familiarity hath his minde by inspired persons long agoe with much lesse sensible Advantages because it is a Life of Faith that he directeth us to Live VVilliam Iohnson No such matter no more then the belief of such a Determinate Canon of Scipture is Resolved by your Parishioners into your Authority can you not distinguish betwixt a Propounder and a Revealer good Christians Resolve their Faith into God Revealing and so pronouncing their Creed say I believe in God c. when did you ever hear any of ours say I believe in my Parish Priest he indeed is the means whereby they came to believe as God's Instrument but he is no principle or formal object of Faith into which it is Resolved But constitute you what Systeme you please of the Christian Religion let us for the present suppose it be that which you mention in your papers that all Christians even heretiques and schismatiques compose onâ—â— Catholique Church whereof Christ is the head now you say there that some heretiques are not Christians of which sort the Church is not composed how shall your Parishioners know as the like is of all the unlearned which Heretiques were Christians which not nay or what Heretiques there have been in all succeeding ages or whether at