not Zygomalas suppose that the Protestants and they are two Churches that they were not then united into one saies he not that he hopes for such a Future Unity Gaudium in coelo supra terram erit si coibit in unitatem utraque Ecclesia c. Ergo that unity was not then actually made and that unity depended on the correction of those differences in Faith which were betwixt them which whilst they remained obstructed it now this is wholly destructive of your Novelty nay this Agreement and becoming one and the same Church as Synonimaes coibit in unitatem utraque Ecclesia et Idem sentiemus both Churches the Greeks and Lutherans shall join in unitie and we shall hold that is believe the same thing evinces that their disagreement was inconsistent with their being one Church nay besides Faith he requires a future charity and concord which argues it was then wanting Et simul vivemus in omni concordia pace secundum Deum in sincerae charitatis vinculo and sayes he we shall live together in all concord peace in God and in the bond of sincere Charity so that this very Text which you quote to prove the unity betwixt Greeks and Lutherans proves the quite contrary so choice are you in your Citations Mr. Baxter Num. 112. But as it is not the Patriarch that is the whole Greek Church so it is not their Errours in some lesser or tolerable points that prove us of two Churches or Religions William Iohnson Num. 112. Who saies he is the whole Church yet sure when the Patriarch writes concernings his own Jurisdiction he is supposed to understand the extent of it and when those of his Church shew no kind of contradiction against it neither when he writ this nor ever since and thereby give a tacite consent to it what he writes is to be esteemed as the tenet of his Church I am much joyed to hear you terme the differences in Faith betwixt you and the Grecians some lesser or tolerable points for they being in substance the very same with those betwixt you and us as the Authors confesse cited by me pag. 46. of your Edition you must consequently acknowledge the differences betwixt you and us to be some lesser or tolerable points but give me leave then to tell you that as you judge those points tolerable so must you also judge your separation from the external communion of the Greek and Roman Church intolerable for if those parts in difference be tolerable they were to have been tolerated by you without proceeding to an open and scandalous Schisme by reason of them nor will it excuse you to alledge you were forc't to separate in detestation of those things which you judged Errours otherwise you would have compell'd us by punishments to have assented to them for you were rather to have suffered patiently that force though it had been to death it self then to have made so notorious a Schisme for tolerable Errours or fear of persecution I have already shewed that every Errour in Faith against a divine truth sufficiently proposed separates the erring partie from the true visible Church of Christ. Mr. Baxter Num. 113. Whereas you say it is against all antiquity and Christianity to admit condemned Hereticks into the Church I Reply 1. I hate their condemnation rather then reverence it that even being non Judices dare condemn whole Nations without hearing one man of them speak for himself or hearing one witnesse that ever heard them defend Heresie and this merely because some few Bishops have in the dayes of all maintained Heresie and perhaps some may doe so still or rather differ from you in words while you misunderstand each other I see you have a sharp tooth against Bishops why name you them onely as maintainers of Heresies how many Bishops found you broaching or spreading heresie in the 2. first hundred yeares was either Simon Magus or Nicolaus or Cerinthus or Menander or Valentinian or Manes or Montanus Bishops and in the third Age was there not Arius and Eutyches neither of them Bishops broachers of two most pernicious Heresies as well as Nestorius and Dioscorus who were Bishops William Iohnson Num. 113. You mistake the manner of the Churches condemnation of Hereticks it is neither personal nor National save in some notorious Arch-Hereticks who either by their words or writings evidently professe or teach Heresie but general or abstractive viz. whosoever holds such or such Errours let him be accursed or we excommunicate all such as hold them c. where there can be no wrong done to any for those who de facto held them not are not cast out of the Church now when this sentence comes to Execution those who either acknowledge themselves to hold those Heresies or communicate with them who professe it are esteemed as Hereticks because they join with an heretical party against the Church and in case they profess to disbelieve their heresie and yet live in communion with them and subjection to them they become open Schismaticks separating themselves from the whole visible Church by communicating with Hereticks Mr. Baxter Num. 114. Did I find such Errours with them as with you yet first I durst charge them on no one man that I had not reason to hold guilty of them I dare not accuse whole Nations of your Errours but of all these things and of sundry words which you cite I have spoken already in two books and in the latter fully proved that you differ in many points of Faith and greater things then you call Heresies in others among your selves even your Pope's Saints and Councils and yet neither part is judged by you to be out of the Church see my Key pag. 124 125 127 128 129. and pag. 52. ad 62. William Iohnson Num. 114. You or any Christian may safely judge those Hereticks who publickly communicate and side with those who professe and teach open heresie for the very siding with them Argues a consent to their Doctrine and is a sufficient profession of it unlesse they professe publickly a difference from their heresie your recrimination is unseasonable the question is not for the present wherein or how We differ but whether You be guiltie of heresie or no our innocencie or guiltiness clears not you clear your Selves first and then you will have gained credit to accuse us 'till that be done you do nothing but divert the Question â—â—y removing it from your selves to us In your Key pag. 128. you trifle in using the words Material point Equivocally and proceeding à specie ad genus fallociously Mr. Turberville speaks of material Points against your 39. Articles saying for if they differ from them in any material point c. and you make him speak of all kinds of material points in Religion whether contrary to any Article or Ecclesiastical decree of Faith or no. Mr. Baxter Num. 115. When you say so much to prove the Greeks guiltie of manifest heresy
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
is one visible Kingdome yet to make it no more one visibly then the School of Christ-Church or Westminster is one visible School is in my Logick to speak-contraries Mr. Baxter Num. 100. Your next reason against me is because They cannot be parts of the Church unless Arians and Pelagians and Donatists be parts and so Hereticks and Schismaticks be parts Reply 1. You know sure that your own Divines are not agreed whether Hereticks and Schismaticks are parts of the Church William Iohnson Num. 100. You cannot but see I speak of parts of the Church as you understand parts and therefore I say pag. 48. in yours Secondly your position is not true Now your position is to hold that some Hereticks properly so called are parts of the Church of Christ and united to him as their Head by reason that they believe with a true Christian Faith the Essentials of Christianity whereby they are Christians though they erre in some Accidentals as appears by that distinction so often used by you In this sense then I say you hold Hereticks to be true and real parts of the Church And this I affirm to be contrary to all Christianity and a novelty never held before by any Christian. Though therefore taking the word parts in another more lax and improper sense and the Church as it is a visible body and government one only Catholick Authour * Lib. 2. de Haeret. punit c. 24. Haereticus etsi per Haeresim perdat fidem non tamen eo ipso est prorsus ab Ecclesiâ separatus sed adhuc est parâ—â— illius corporis membrum ejus c. Et infra Faâ—â—eor quidem meo quidem judicio negari non potest Haereticum esse partem Ecclesiae membrum illius non esse omnino ab illâ separatum quia etsi fidem non habeat habet tamen Characterem Baptismalem per quem primum factum est membrum Ecclesiae quâ—â— durante semper erit membrum illius Alphonsus à Castro thinks Hereticks may be called parts of the politick Body of the Church as She hath power over them to inflict punishment upon them by reason of the character of Baptisme which makes them ever remain subjects of the Church and lyable to her censures yet he holds expresly that they have no true Christian Faith at all quite against you whereby they can be made parts of Christ's Church united to Christ as their Head as you hold they are And the like is of Schismaticks For though some Catholick Author 's doubt whether they may be termed by reason of the profession of Christian Faith parts of the Church in a large sense yet none ever held as you doe that they were united to Christ as their Head and thereby compose one Christian Church with other Catholick Christians because they want that principal Christian Charity required as necessary to a compleat union to Christ. Your opinion therefore is contrary to all those of the Roman Church and shall God assisting me be * See my second Part. proved contrary to all Christians and Christianity and of most dangerous and damnable consequence But you must know that à Castro's opinion is censured by all other Doctours and thereby improbable nor yet makes the ground of his opinion Hereticks and Scismaticks more of the Catholick Church then are those Christians who are damned in hell for even they have the Character of Baptism and yet he says that so long as that Character remains they are Church-members quo durante semper erit membrum illius Mr. Baxter Num. 101. And if they were yet it is not de Fide with you as not determined by the Pope William Iohnson Num. 101. 'T is determined contrary to your sense a hundred times over by all the Anathemas and Excommunications thundred out against them in so many General Councils Mr. Baxter Num. 102. If it be then all yours are Hereticks that are for the affirmative Bellarmine nameth you some of them If they be not then how can you be sure it 's true and so impose it on me that they are no parts William Iohnson Num. 102. I have now told you None of ours ever held them parts as you doe that is united to Christ their Head as the rest of the parts are by Faith and Charity Mr. Baxter Num. 103. Arians are no Christians as denying that which is Essential to Christ and so to Christianity William Iohnson Num. 103. 'T is very true they are no real univocal Christians and your reason is good because they deny that which is Essential to Christ and so to Christianity But hence will follow that no proper Heretick whatsoever is a real univocal Christian for all of them deny something Essential to Christ and so to Christianity which I prove thus Whosoever denies Christ's most Infallible veracity Divine Authority denies Something which is Essential unto Christ. But every Heretick properly so called denies Christ's most infallible veracity and divine Authority Ergo Every Heretick properly so called denies something which is Essential to Christ and so to Christianity The Major is evident I prove the Minor Whosoever denies that to be true which is sufficiently propounded to him to be revealed from Christ denyes Christ's most infallible veracity and divine authority But every Heretick properly so called denies that to be true which is sufficiently propounded to him to be revealed from Christ. Ergo Every Heretick properly so called denyes Christs most infallible veracity and divine Authority The Minor is clear For that is properly to be an Heretick The Major is also clear For how is it possible to deny that to be true which is sufficiently propounded to me to be revealed from Christ without affirming that Christ said something which is not true which is manifestly to give Christ the lye and to doe that is to deny openly his divine veracity This Argument I hope you will please to think of seriously and either give an Answer in form to it or relinquish your Noveltie Mr. Baxter Num. 104. Pelagianisme is a thing that you are not agreed among your selves of the true naâ—â—ure of Many of the Dominicans and Jansenists think the Jesuites Pelagianize or Semi-Pelagianize at least I hope you will not shut them out Donatists were Schismaticks because they divided in the Catholick Church and not absolutely from it and because they divided from the particular Churches about them that held the most universal external Communion I think they were still members of the universal Church but I 'le not contend with any that will plead for his uncharitable denyal It 's nothing to our Case William Iohnson Num. 104. You fall again into a plain Fallacy proceeding à parte ad totum The doubt which is among some of our Divines is only about part of their Heresie and you would make your Reader believe it were about the whole Some points of their Heresie are clearly agreed upon by all Catholick Authors as is that
universal proposition in it in place of the word those form required all those Secondly you put more in the medium of the major to wit in its parts then you do in the medium of your minor and so make it consist of 4. terms Thirdly you make the predicate of the minor the subject of the conclusion This is a hopeful beginning put your sylogism first in form and then I 'le answer it suppose all adjusted I deny your minor Protestants are no part of that Church on earth whereof Christ is head Non-proof 2. 6. Pag. 204. the second sylogism is likewise out of form having no universal proposition in it Adde all to your major to set it in form and I first deny it It is not true that all who profess true Christian Religion in all its essentials are members of Christs Church for to these essentials they may add some error or non-essential as an essential to them and thereby destroy faith as you your self cite Durandus pag. 211. and put a N. B. not a bene upon it I deny also your minor but first prove your major which you have not done Protestants professe not the true Christian Religion in all its essentials you prove that in this manner Non-proof 3. 7. Your third sylogism p. 295. is also out of form for want of an universal proposition add All to your major I grant that and deny your minor Protestants profess not so much as God hath promised salvation upon the Covenant of Grace Non-proof 4. Your fourth sylogism is also out of form not assuming the whole proposition to be proved for in that proposition was this term in the Covenant of Grace which is not to be found in this fourth sylogism To your fourth sylogism therefore page 205. supposing it were in form I deny that part of your major that Protestants have willingness and diligence to know the true meaning of all the law of nature and holy Scripture for if they were willing and diligent they would take the expositions of the universal Church and not follow their novel interpretations and private judgements I deny also that they believe with a saving divine faith any of the mysteries here named or that their profession general and particular affirm this Non-proof 5. 8. Your 5. sylogism p. 206. nu 2. is likewise out of form for want of an universal proposition make it universal and I deny your major they profess not so much as Catecumens and Competentes for those profess to believe implicitly all that was taught as matter of faith by the Catholique Church in that article I believe the Catholique Church which Protestants do not nor can they do it truly since their profest disbelief of many points evinces the contrary Non-proof 6. 9. Your 6. sylogism p. 206. nu 3. is also out of form for the same reasons add all to the major I deny your major their general profession is contradicted by their particular denial of such points as are sufficiently propounded to them as articles of faith Secondly you distinguish not betwixt being implicitly contained in general principles and being expresly contain'd in the Creeds and Scriptures Thirdly Creeds and Scriptures are not enough traditions and decrees of general Councils in matters of faith must be believed Fourthly I deny those Protestants who are such wittingly and willingly and not excused with invincible ignorance believe any article of faith at all with a supernal saving faith Thus in six sylogisms you have not so much as one in form So mighty strong is your first argument Non-proof 7. 10. Pag. 206. sect ad hominem infra p. 207. you cite Bellar. and Costerus to no purpose for our question is not of what is to be believed expresly only but of what is to be believed both expresly and implicitly respectively by all Christians 11. Your second Argument is p. 207. lit b I grant your major and deny your minor Protestants are not members of the true Church as intrinsecally informed 12. Pag. 208. you prove say you your antecedent or minor which is a Syntax in Logick and deserves a ferula for no minor can be an antecedent Pag. 208. The antecedent I deny your minor Protestants formally such have not enough to be brought to the unfeigned love of God above all things and special love to his servants and unfeigned willingness to obey him for had they this they would never have disobeyed and disbelieved all the visible Churches in the world anno 1517. as their first broachers did and they follow that disbelief to this day Pag. 208. I deny your minor what I deny in the former sylogism is not in your profession both general and particular the second shews the contrary and contradicts the first as did the Arrians ut supra 13. Pag. 208. nu 2. I deny you have any certain knowledge or feeling that you love God or his servants or willingness to obey his precepts as you ought to love and obey him if you be a formal Protestant for if you be such your heart deceives you and your false feelings delude you please to peruse Ier. 17.9 Pravum est cor hominis inscrutabile quis cognoscit illud Ego Dominus scrutans cor probans renes qui do unicuique juxta viam suam juxta fructum ad inventionum suarum And Sapient 9.14 cogitationes mortalium timidae incertae providentiae nostrae ponder a while the strange delusion which bewitched the Angel or Pastor of Laodicea Apoc. 3.17 quia dicis quia dives sum locupletatus nullius egeo nescis quia tu es miser miserabilis pauper caecus nudus consider the Pharisee Luk. 18.13 how much he was deceiv'd in his own judgement of his own state and let not that saying of the Wise man pass without reflection Ecclesiastes 9.1 Nescit homo utrum odio an amore dignus sit sed omnia in futurum servantur incerta What would you answer to a new Arrian or Antitrinitarian c. nay to a Turk or Iew which you hold to be no Christian should they urge the like knowledge and feeling in themselves against you to prove they were members of Gods true Church what you would reply to them take as said to your self 14. Pag. 209. num 2. your sylogism is not in form making the predicate of the minor the subject of the conclusion for your conclusion in form should not be as you have it Ergo the Church of which the Protestants are members hath been visible ever since the dayes of Christ on earth which is your Thesis to be proved but it ought to have been this Ergo the Church which hath been alwayes visible since the dayes of Christ on earth is that whereof the Protestants are members which is not your Thesis nor the thing you are immediately to prove but supposing it right I distinguish your major if you mean contained in volutely as in general principles I grant
it if expresly containing all things necessary to salvation I deny it Again I distinguish all things necessary to salvation either you mean all things necessary to be distinctly known and expresly believed by all to obtain salvation and so I grant it or all things also to be believed implicitly and to be distinctly known to all and so I deny it These distinctions suppos'd I deny your consequence viz. That the Church whereof Protestants are members hath been visible ever since the dayes of Christ on earth 15. Pag. 210. your authorities prove nothing the aforesaid distinctions applied Bellar. and Costerus speaks of things necessary to be expresly believed by all Ragusa of the Scripture well understood which include the interpretation of the Church Gerson not of articles of Faith but of Theological conclusions drawn by private and fallible authority Durandus treats of private conclusions drawn from Scripture by himself as you cite him pag. 212. of delivering nothing contrary to Scripture and of using the interpretation of the Roman Church St. Thomas speaks not a word of Scripture nor so much as names it in those words cited by you and in his summe de veritate addes the interpretation of the Church to Scripture as you cite his words pag. 213. Scotus cited p. 213. is quite against you he sayes add you that many needful things are not expressed in Scripture but virtually contained which is not protestant but sound catholick doctrine Gregor Ariminensis p. 14. speaks not of points of faith but of Theological conclusions drawn by private discourse which is not as you add next more then to intend the sufficiency of express Scripture to matters of faith for the seusteine of faith is infallible and divine Theological discourse only fallible and humane now he sayes diametrically against your tenet that all truths are not in themselves formally contain'd in holy Scripture but of necessity following these that are contained in them c. but here 's the difficulty we say that every point we teach is contain'd as in general principles at least in Scripture and necessarily deduced from it but you adde they must be contained formally for what seems a necessary consequence of Scripture to us seems not so to you and the like is of what seems necessary to you seems neither necessary nor propable to us so that neither of us can be convinced that our respective deductions are points of faith and both you must confess yours are not because you have not infallibly authority deducing them and we do acknowledge that conclusions drawn from Scripture abstracting from the Churches authority oblige us not to receive them as matters of faith 16. Pag. 216. Gulielmus Parisiensis sayes no more then say the former Authors and Bellar. nothing at all to your purpose draw if you can the sufficiency of sole Scripture held by you from words which so cleerly declare its insufficiency Pag. 217. Your whole discourse is a pure parorgon our question is not what is essential or necessary necessitate medii or praecepti to be known and expresly believed by all per se and absolutely but whether one believing all that is essential and necessary in that manner and withal disbelieving any other point of faith whatsoever after it is hic nunc sufficiently propounded as such to any particular person can either be saved or be a true real part of the visible Church of Christ. Now we answer negatively to this question because such a disbelief excludes an implicite belief of that point so disbelieved and consequently a belief of all that God hath revealed and therby all supernatural saving faith To illustrate the truth of this assertion let us instance in a Pelagian who believed all that which you account essential that is the common Articles necessary for all to salvation the Creeds the Scriptures c. And had sufficiently propounded to him the belief of Original sin as a point of Christian faith which he refuses to believe and accounts an errour the question will not be in this case whether that Pelagian believe all these essentials in the account but whether that supposed he be not excluded out of the Church and dismembred from it by that wilful disbelief of Original sin This is our present case controverted betwixt us so that though it were admitted that you believe all that material object of faith which you esteem essential and necessary for all to be expresly believed yet because we accuse and judge you to disbelieve many points of as much concern as is that of Original sin and as sufficiently propounded to you as such as that was to the Pelagians we have as much reason to judge you to be excluded out of the Catholique Church and dismembred from it as we have to judge them either therefore you acknowledge the point disbelieved by you and propounded as matter of faith by us to you to be as sufficiently propounded as was that of Original sin to the Pelagians or you deny it if you acknowledge it you must acknowledge you are as much dismembred from the Church by your disbelief as they were if you deny it then we will put our selves upon the proof of it so that till our proofs be heard and fully answer'd you cannot secure your selves of being parts of the Catholique Church no more then could the Pelagians 17. If you affirm as your principles lead you that even the disbelief of Original sin hinder'd not the Pelagians from remaining parts of the Catholique Church you contradict St. Augustine and St. Epiphanius In Catalogis Haereticorum the Council of Nice all antiquity nay all modern authors even your own and I provoke you to produce so much as one Author who affirms Pelagians to be parts of the Catholique Church CHAP. II. Mr. Baxters authorities NUm 18. Whether Mr. Baxters doctrine about sole scripture agree with Tertullians in his prescriptions Num. 21. Mr. Baxter would send all his adversaries packing if he knew how he supposes his Readers to be very simple Num. 19. Whether St. Augustin taught that common people were to reade-Scipture in the place cited by Mr. Baxter whereas St. Augustine taught there that all things belonging to Christian Faith and manners are expressed in Scripture his two other Collections from St. Augustine examined Num. 22. He knowes not where his Church was An. 1500. Num. 25. He cites two texts of S. Augustine distructive to his own doctrine Num. 25.26 How much Optatus makes for Mr. Baxter Num. 26.27 What Optatus meanes by being within or in communion with the seven Churches of Asia Mr. Baxter cites two texts in Optatus which quite overthrow him Num. 28. Divers of his Effugiums examined and confuted concerning Tertullians prescriptions Num. 29.30 Many texts of Tertullian not Englished by Mr. Baxter make directly against him 18. Hence falls to nothing all you alledge from Bell. Costerus Gulielmus Parisiensis Aquinas Bannes Espenseus c. p. 216.217.218 For they speak of
the Church but whether you held any at all to be of it of what sort soever they were was all one to me should any one demand this question of you whether any who exercised the work of the ministrie since the year 1640 were favourers of the late Rebels against his Majestie and you in answer should distinguish as you do here that some of them were Episcopal other Presbyterial some who were first Presbiters turned Independents and others Anabaptists some Seâ—â—kers and others Ranters some Millinaries and others Quakers some studied in the Universities and others went no further then the Country schools some were tradesmen and others souldiers some Trumpeters and others Drummers some fancied the Rebeâ—â—s by preaching Rebellion in Pulpits others by framing the Covenants these by puting on buff coats and turning Collonels or Captaines and fighting valiantly in the field those by instituting associations of Counties others by writing seditious books and pamphlets comparing old Noll to David and young Dick to Solomon c. and those distinctions premised you should draw twelve conclusions which of those were or were not partakers with the Rebeâ—â—s could not you have saved all this labour and said in a word yes some who exercised the work of the Ministrie favoured the Rebels seeing no more then this was demanded of you but yet farther in your distinctions of Heretiques you interlace such as are expresly excluded in my question I demand whether Heretiques properly so called are true members of the Church page 293. you answer p. 296 Prop. 1. That Schismatiques that is Heretiques improperly so called are no parts of it what 's that to my question I demand whether any professed Heretiques are parts of the Catholique Church page 297. That some Heretiques if latent that is not professed Heretiques may be parts of it nay you are not content to answer thus farr from the question but contradict one answer by another you say page 293 that your answer was plain in your paper sent me videlicet that some Heretiques properly so called are parts of the Catholique Church page 229. prop. 7. you say that some softer Heresie excludes no man from the Church of it selfe unless they are legally convict of wicked impenitency and obstinacy in defending it and then it seemes to exclude them that is all Heresie excludes them for no man is guilty of Heresie unless he defend it obstinately and impenitently nor is to be held for an Heretique till he be convicted of that obstinacy and thus much you acknowledge your self page 298. n. 7. where you constitute formal Heresie inobstinacy saying 7. They are either judged to be materially as to the qualitie of their Error Heretiques or also formally as obstinate impenitent and habitually stated Heretiques So then by your own confession all obstinate that is all formal that is Heretiques properly so called are excluded from being true members of the Church Thus you answer page 193. Some Heretiques properly so called are excluded from being of the Church this I call a contradiction what call you't Nay farther in this answer you th'wart what you answered in your book against me there without any exception you affirm page 11. Schismatiques to be true parts of the Church and here you exclude some Schismatiques from being true parts of the Church there you say whosoever held all the Essentials as do all Schismatiques as contradistinct from Heretiques properly so call'd are true parts of Christs visible Church because they are constituted Christians by believing all the Essentials of Christianity And here you say that some schismaticks who are contra-distinct from hereticks and consequently believe all the essentials are not parts of the Church nor yet is this all you contradict your self in one and the same sentence p. 297. you say thus but should any schismaticks for you speak of those only here renounce the body of Christ as such and separate not from this or that Church but from the whole or from the universal Church as such this man would not be a member of the Church Now to separate from the body of Christ or from the universal Church as such is to separate from it as it is the universal Church of Christ and as it is the body of Christ quatenus talis but that is to renounce Christ and Christianity and consequently to lose the Christian faith and thereby to become an Apostata that is neither heretick nor schismatick so that according to you a schismatick which is no schismatick is no part of the Church of Christ for never was there yet any schismatick which separated from the body of Christ as such that is as it was the body of Christ but by some false pretence or other perswaded himself that not the visible company of Christians which he left but his separate party was Christs Church as may be seen in the Donatists Luciferians and others Now all those who believe all essentials of Christian faith as you understand essentials are you say true parts of Christs visible Church because they are univocal Christians consequently all those who believe no essential of Christian faith can be no Christians so no parts of the Christian Church if therefore you mean such only as separate from the whole Church as such that is as it is Christs universal Church you make them not erroneous in faith but rejecters and contemners of Christ and Christianity and thereby Apostataes from the faith 73. Pag. 300. you cite again Alphonsus of Castro whose opinion I have already evidenced not to prove your intent nor second your opinion then you cite Bell. de Ecclesia libro 3. c. 4. saying thus Haeretici pertinent ad Ecclesiam ut oves ad ovile unde confugerunt And then you add this inference so they are oves still would you have similitudes to go upon all four is it not sufficient to Bellar. purpose that it agrees in this that both are out of the fold 't is true a natural sheep is a sheep whether it be in the fold or no but so is not a sheep of Christ which is his sheep actually no longer then it is in his fold the Church though both he and his Church have power over it to reduce it into the fold or medicinally to shut the gate against it and keep it out till it give satisfaction Might you not as well have carp'd at our Saviours words as you do at Bellarmines when he said alias oves habeo quae non sunt ex hoc ovile and I have other sheep which are not of this fold Ioan. 10. so that they are oves sheep still though our Saviour say they be not of his fold know you not that those were by him call'd sheep which though they were not actually his yet were in time to be of his fold and when he had reduced them to his fold would be his sheep actually This done you add and if it be but ovile particulare veluti Romanum that they
neither known nor believed distinctly or expresly yet they are known or believed in confuso confusedly and implicitly by the knowledge or belief of their general proposition 8. Why misconceive you the notion of implicite faith it is not as you conceit therefore no faith at all of all the particulars in Scripture because he who has it understands not distinctly many truths contained in Scripture for a Christian has implicite faith because such determinate truths being de facto contained in Scripture by believing all that is contained therein he believes confusedly or implicitly every one of the said truths though he have not distinct knowledge of many of them 9. But most of all I wonder why you take my second answer in a quite other sense then I intended it for your second question being this whether I mean by faith the belief of all that God hath revealed to be believed or of part c. My Answer is this of all either Explicitly or Implicitly that is that those of the Catholick Church must believe all the very same Articles and points of faith by an Explicite faith in order at least to some of them and by an Implicite faith in order to the rest so an explicite faith of some Articles is necessary to all who actually believe with a Divine faith now you would make me say as appears by your Reply that implicite faith is sufficient in relation to all points of faith whatsoever as if I held it not necessary to believe any thing at all explicitly for you press me thus they must live in unity of the faith that is either with faith or without it with a belief of what God hath revealed or without it which inference you could never urge against me if you had supposed me to hold that some explicite faith is alwayes necessary to salvation in such as are capable of actual belief for whilst they have explicite faith of some Articles they can never be thought to be without faith nor could you with reason draw any such consequence from my speaking in this distributive sense both because it is the ordinary sense of the Schools where an explicite faith of some Articles is held necessary to salvation and because my Answer connaturally admits of that sense And lastly because though the words precisely in themselves were capable of your affixed sense yet when words are of a doubtful meaning no man with reason can bind his words to one determinate sense but must leave the determination to him who framed the proposition 10. But now let us try a while what will follow from your Doctrine of Implicite Faith as that term is ordinarily understood by us To believe any point in our ordinary sense say you is not to believe it now our ordinary sense as I have declared is so to believe that point that we have no distinct or expresse knowledge of it but onely a confused understanding because it is contained in confuso under this Proposition I believe all that God has revealed or I believe all that is delivered to be believed in Canonical Scripture Let us therefore settle this Assertion out of your Doctrine whosoever believes all that God has revealed or all that is in canonical Scripture believes no one particular point contained confusedly in those Propositions which he understands not with an actual understanding in particular to be revealed farther then as contained in those Propositions this is your Doctrine now I subsume But no man knoweth all that God hath revealed to wit with that actual understanding of every particular required by you immediately before as is above explicated this minor is yours Ergo say I no man believes all that God hath revealed now I proceed if no man believe all that God has revealed then you believe not all that God has revealed this is evident then further whosoever believs not all that God has revealed is no good Christian nor in state of Salvation But you believe not all that God has revealed Ergo you are no good Christian nor in state of Salvation See you not how fair a thred you have spun against your self or will you say that he who believes not all which God hath revealed is a good Christian if you will you may but sure if you doe so no good Christian will believe you and that you may see how far you are out in asserting this that one cannot truly believe what he understands not actually and in particular or no farther then as the particulars are contained in that universal proposition I believe all that God has revealed or that is in Scripture when you recite the Nicene Creed wherein you professe to believe that God is creator of all things visible and invisible I demand do you truly believe as you professe to believe when you say those words if you do not you make a profession against your own Conscience if you do then you may believe with an actual Belief that he is Creator of many particular things both visible and invisible whereof you have no actual understanding or which are wholly unknown in particular or distinctly to you or by any other knowledge then as confusedly contained in the word all you recite the Athanasian Creed and there professe to believe that all men shall rise at the last coming of Christ and give an account of their works and yet you have no actual knowledge of many thousands and millions of them The like is of St. Paul when he tells us all men are to stand before the Tribunal of Christ c. shall we say that St. Paul believed not as he professed to believe Acts 24.5 14. Credens omnibus quae in Lege Prophetis scripta sunt yet cannot we suppose that he had then an actual understanding of every particular contained in them II. And that you may see by instances how untrue your Assertion is a Christian I suppose has by vincible or culpable oblivion forgot some grievous Sinne of his Life past he comes to the point of Death he is heartily sorrowfull even for the pure love of God for all his sinnes committed against the Law of God without any actual remembrance or understanding of that forgotten sin and so dyes must not one say in your Principle that such a Penitent had no actual sorrow for that forgotten sin implicitly because he had no actual understanding of it what horrid Doctrine would this be the like is of one who forgives from his heart all Injuries done against him but has no actual Remembrance of some of them does he not therefore actually forgive even those which he has forgotten a thousand like Examples might be brought which I leave to your learned consideration having been something with the longest in this Point because I know it imports much to make a true understanding betwixt us 12. why are you so wavering and inconstant in your Propositions first you say that few or none have an actual understanding or belief
of all that ever God revealed to them and within three or four lines you say absolutely and without all exception no man knoweth all that God hath revealed first you say all men or most at least have been sinfully negligent in searching after and receiving truth and within a Line or two you leave out your Restriction and say no man knoweth all that God hath revealed or that he ought to know 13. I would know the reason why you first suppose your principle that no man can believe all unlesse he actually knows all and thence inferre against me that in my Principles who deny that of yours I cannot know who is who is not of my Church because I cannot know what Reasons any particular have had to know more or fewer divine Truths or whether they have concurred with those Reasons or no and so must make my Church invisible now I make my Church visible though by comprehending in it all those who professe an Explicite Faith in several Articles which they understand distinctly and an implicite Belief of the rest whereof they have not distinct understanding by professing that they believe all that God hath revealed to be believed by them whatsoever they be in particular now so long as they persevere in this behalf though they should happen through culpable negligence not arrive to the knowledge of many things which they ought to know necessitati praecepti yet they remain members though corrupt and wicked of the Church whereby you see how easily I avoid that difficulty which you thought I could not Mr. Baxter The second sort of implicite belief is no belief of the particulars at all an Animal may live and yet it followeth not that you are alive or an Animal William Iohnson How impossibly dispute you here your instance is from the matter for when you say omne Animal vivit every sensible creature lives it must have this sense that it lives onely so long as it is and as it continues Animal or a sensible Creature for otherwise you would have it to be when it is not and to live when it is dead now understanding the proposition thus whosoever believes omne Animal vivit believes me to be a sensible creature so long as I am in being and to live before my Death nay you seem not to reflect upon the sense of such propositions for they relate not to the proposition by chance in relation to particular individua but to the Essence of the subject whereof they predicate for when Philosophers say omne Animal vivit they mean it is of the Essence or notion of Animal to be a living thing and this is true of me and all particulars whether we be in actual existency or no nay you bring an instance of a particular to confirm an universal your Question was of omne Animal all sensible creatours as appears above and of all that God has revealed and to confirm your assertion in this you being a particular an individuum vagum saying an Animal may live c. that is some particular Animal nor stay you here but to amend the matter you bring an instance of changeable things to confirm a proof of things unchangeable I who now am may cease to be in actual existencie but whatsoever is once revealed from God can never cease to be revealed or become a thing unrevealed though therefore it follows not that because omne Animal vivit therefore I live actually yet it follows that whatsoever is once revealed of God remains alwaies actually revealed Mr. Baxter If this were your meaning then either you mean that it is enough if all be believed implicitly besides that general proposition or you mean that some things must be believed explicitly that is actually and some implicitly that is not at all Rejoinder I have told you something more must be believed explicitely how much or what is a dispute amongst Divines not necessary to be determined here yet I will speak something to that presently Reply If the former be your sense then Infidels or heathens may be of your Church for a man may believe in general that the Bible is the word of God and true and yet not know a word that is in it and so not know that Christ is the Messias or that ever there was such a Person Rejoynder Your instance is morally impossible for either such a person believes the Bible rashly and imprudently and then according to all Divines his faith cannot be supernatural and Divine or sufficient to constitute him a Christian or he believes it prudently and then he must be moved by prudential motives of credibility which must draw him to afford credit to that Authority as derived from God which commends to him the Bible as the written word of God now that can be no other then the Authority of the Catholick Church which he cannot be ignorant to profess the faith of Christ there being no other save that though therefore he knows not by experience that Christ is mentioned in the Bible yet he cannot but know that he is professed to be the Son of God and Saviour of the world by those of the Catholick Church who delivered the Bible to him as the word of God and that such a faith in him is necessary to salvation Reply But if somewhat be explicitly that is actually believed the question that you would have answered was what is it for till that be known no man can know a member of your Church by your discriptions Rejoynder There was no necessity to tell you that for when you so often distinguish betwixt points of faith Essential and accidental seeing you ought to understand the terms of your own distinction as I could not but suppose you did you had no need to be informed what points were to be believed by explicite faith all Essentials in your opinion are such Reply If you take implicite in the third sense then implicite faith is either Divine or humane Divine when the Divine veracity is the formal object humane when mans veracity is the formal object which may be conjunct where the Testimonies are so conjunct as that we are sure that it is God that speaks by man who is therefore credible because God infallibly guideth or inspireth him that is at once to believe a humane and Divine veracity If any of this be your meaning that last question remains still to be resolved by you A man may believe that God is true and that his Prophets and inspired messengers are true and yet not understand a word of the message so that still if this will serve a man may be of your Church that knoweth not that ever there was such a person as Iesus Christ or that ever he died for our sins or rose again or that we shall rise William Iohnson Your third member I have rejected before as a stranger to implicite faith but I think you speak not true Divinity when you say that to believe God to be true
and his inspired Prophets to speak truth is to believe a humane and Divine veracity for what Divine ever said before you that Christian faith which is to believe God speaking by the Prophets c. is to believe so much as partially a humain veracity for that would make Christian faith partly humaine which no Christian can affirm it being a pure Theological virtue and having no other formal object save Divine veracity revealing for though the Prophet be a humaine person yet he speakes when he is inspired by God not with humain but with Divine authority God speaking by his mouth Mr. Baxter And are all Infidels of your Church while you are arguing us out but if there be some trueths besides the veracity of God and his messengers that must be believed you must shew what it is or your Church members cannot be known tell me Ergo without tergiversation what are the revealed truths that must be actually believed or what is the Faith material in unity whereof all members of the Catholique Church do live William Iohnson Tell me what points of Faith you account Essential to make a Christian precisely which is part of your own distinction and you will save me the labour of telling you what points are to be believed explicitely if you know not that you delivered a distinction which you understood not Mr. Baxter I pray fly not but plainly tell me and if again you fly to uncertain points because of the diversity of means of informations and say it must be so much every man as he had means to know I again answer you First If a man had no means to know that there is a Christ it seemes then he is one of your Church Secondly you still damn all your own there being not a man that knoweth all that he hath meanes to know because all have culpably neglected meanes and so you have no Church Thirdly still you make your Church invisible if you had any for no man can tell as I said who knoweth in full proportion to his helps and meanes do you not see now whether your Implicite Faith hath brought you William Iohnson Truly Sir your demand is not so great a Bug-bear to make me fly from it for fear it devour me you cannot but know in your perusal of our Divines that your question has bin answered by them an hundred times over have you not heard them deliver in materia de fide that trite distinction that some points of faith are necessary to be believed explicitely necessitate medii and others necessitate praecepti and those of the first classe are absolutely necessary for all men to be so beleived to obtein salvation and to become parts at least in voto if they be not baptized of the Catholique Church and know you not that Divines are devided what are the points necessary to be believed explicitely necessitate medii some and those the more ancient hold that the expliâ—â—tte belief of God of the whole Trinity of Christ his passion resurrection c. are necessary necessitate medii others amongst the recentiors that no more then the belief of the Deity and that he is rewarder of our workes is absolutely necessary with that necessity to be explicitely believed now to answer your question what it is whereby our Church members are known I answer that First all those who are baptised and believe all the points of our faith explicitely if any such persons be to be found are undoubted members of our Church Secondly all those who believe explicitely all the Articles and whatsoever belongs to them in particular by reason of their respective offices in the Church Thirdly those who so believe all things necessary necessitate medii or necessitate praecepti extended to all adulti Fourthly all those who believe in that manner all things held necessary necessitate medii according to the first oppinion of the more ancient Doctors Fifthly It is probable though not altogether so certain as the former that such as believe explicitely the Diety and that he is a rewarder of our works and the rest implicitely as conteined in confuso in that Baptisme supposed are parts of the Catholique Church now seeing all those who are conteined in my four first numbers which comprehend almost all Christians are certainly parts of the Catholique Church we have a sufficient certainty of a determinate Church consisting at least of these by reason whereof our Church has a visible consistency these of the fift rank though not so certain as the former take not away the certainty of the former but that consistency supposed Divines found a question amongst themselves those of the first oppinion will answer that such as believe not the aforesaid Christian mysteries expresly are not parts of the Catholick Christian Church though they believe the Deity remunerating and the rest implicitely see you not by this discourse that we answer sufficiently to your questions by telling which are undoubted members of our Church and thereby give a sufficient description of it and rendering it visible by assigning those which are undoubted members of it though in some others without which it hath consistency be controverted amongst us in this discourse I suppose that such as only believe the Diety or some few of our misteries are excused by invisible ignorance from the obligation of knowing the rest for if their ignorance be vincible culpable and willfull it will indanger at least their implicite faith would not a Philosopher give a sufficient discription of a humane living body by defining it to consist undoubtfully of head shoulders armes c. which are the known parts of it though there be a doubt amongst Philosophers whether the nailes humors c. be animated and parts of it here therefore you may consider that we all agree in these parts which give a real visible constitution to our Church though some question be amongst us about the Exclusion or Admittance of some few which whether they be admitted or no our Church remains by reason of the former in a real visible Existency and by this are Answered your three ensuing Numbers Mr Baxter Quaest. Is it any Lawfull Pastours or all that must necessarily be depended on by every member and who are those Pastours William Iohnson Ans. Of all respectively to each subject that is that the Authority of none of them mediate or immediate be rejected or contemned Mr. Baxter Here still you tell me that your descriptions signified nothing you told me that the members must live in dependance on their lawfull Pastours and now you tell me that their Authority must not be Rejected or contemned and indeed is dependance and non-Rejection all one The millions of heathens that never heard of the Pope or any of your Pastours reject them not nor contemn them are they therefore fit matter for your Church 2. If you say that you mean it of such onely as have a sufficient Revelation of the Authority of these Pastours Rejoynder You
to be sworn that they would fain know the truth William Iohnson We enter not into the heart of any particular person that we leave to God onely the Church presumes such to be Hereticks as have Catholick truths sufficiently propounded to them and that notwithstanding contradict and oppose them and let such be ready to swear what they please she has more reason to think that proceeds out of a blind zeal to their own opinion then that they are not to be presumed Hereticks by their open profession of heretical opinions Qu. 2. Must it needs be against the formal object of faith is he no Heretick that denieth the matter revealed without opposing obstinately the Authority revealing William Iohnson Answ. Yes nor is he a formal but onely a material Heretick who opposes a revealed truth which is not sufficiently propounded to him to be a Divine Revelation Mr. Baxter Every man that believeth there is a God indeed believeth that he is true for if he be not true he is not God if therefore no man be formally an Heretick that doth not obstinately oppose the veracity of God which is in the formal object then as there are I hope but few Hereticks in the world so those few cannot by ordinary means be known to you unless they will say that they take God to be a lyer so that you make none Hereticks indeed but Atheists William Iohnson There is a twofold denying of God the one formal and direct the other virtual and indirect Atheists are guilty of the first and Hereticks of the second which solves your dâ—â—fficulty This I oblige my self to prove when occasion shall require it in our Larger Controversie For the present it is sufficient to tell you that whosoever obstinately contradicts any truth revealed from God as all Hereticks do some or other of them they sinfully and wilfully affirm that what God has revealed is not true and consequently that God is a lyer and by that destroy as much as in them lies the very essence of God though their obstinacy and pride will not suffer them to acknowledge it now since you confesse here that what the Hereticks deny is the thing revealed and the revelation is from God you cannot deny that Hereticks make God a lyer and thereby take away the veracity or truth of God Mr. Baxter What if a man deny that there is a Christ a Heaven a Hell a Resurrection and also deny the Revelation it self by which he should discern these truths and yet deny not that veracity of God no nor the Church is this no Heretick I would your party that have murdered so many Hereticks if a falshood may be wished as a thing permitted to have prevented such a mischief it is not Godâ—â—s veracity that is commonly denied by Hereticks but the thing revealed and the Revelation of that thing William Iohnson If they be not sufficiently propounded to him as revealed from God he will be onely a material Heretick if propounded sufficiently as such the case is implicatory for that proposition must be made by the Church so long therefore as he believes the infallible veracity of the Church propounding he cannot disbelieve what it propounds sufficiently to him to be believed as revealed from God Mr. Baxter And your Turnbal against Barronus hath told you that the revelation is no part of the formal object of faith but as it were the copula or a condition sive qua non If he that obstinately refuseth to believe that the Godhead of Christ or the holy Ghost is any where by God revealed and so denieth it be no Heretick unlesse he also obstinately deny or resist the veracity of God then there are few that you can prove Hereticks for forma dat nomen and he that is not an Heretick formally but materially onely is no Heretick at all William Iohnson Turnballs saying touches not me nor the present difficulty an Heretick as we now treat denies not onely the thing to be revealed but the thing or Mystery it self to be true now supposing that it be sufficiently propounded to him that God reveals it he denying the thing it self to be true denies that to be true which he hath sufficient reason to judge by that proposition made to him to be revealed of God but whosoever denieâ—â— that denies virtually Gods veracity by denying the truth of that which God has revealed and which he hath obligation to believe to be revealed from God Ergo. Mr. Baxter Lastly many a truth is sinfully neglected by the members of the Church that have a proposal sufficient and yet not effectual through their own fault and yet they are no Heretiticks millions in your Church are ignorant of truths sufficiently proposed and their ignorance is their sin but it followeth not that it is their Heresie but if it be then Hereticks constitute your Church and then your Church is a thing unknown because the Hereticks cannot be known the sufficiency of each mans revelation being much unknown to others William Iohnson Whatsoever their neglect be to know what is propounded yet so long as they believe explicitly what is necessary to be so believed necessitate medii ut supra and implicitly the rest they can be no Hereticks For it is not the ignorance though culpable but the contradiction of what is sufficiently propounded to them and known to them to be propounded by those who have power to oblige them as being their lawfull Superiours which makes an Heretick Mr. Baxter Qu. 2. What mean you by sufficient proposal William Iohnson Answ. Such a proposition as is sufficient in humanis amongst men to oblige one to take notice that a King or Magistrate have enacted such and such Laws c. that is a Publick Testimony that such things are revealed by the infallible Authority of those who are the highest Tribunal of Gods Church or by notorious and universal Tradition Mr. Baxter In humanis there lieth not so much at stake as a mans salvation and man is not able as used to make a truly sufficient revelation of his will to all and therefore the proportion holds not William Iohnson Imports it not often to salvation to know some Laws of the Commonwealth wherein you live would you have God declare by revelation who are the ordinary Governours of his Church is not this to have constituted a visible Government imprudently whose Governours cannot be sufficiently known but by revelation therefore the proportion holds Mr. Baxter 2. But if it did either you think the sufficiency varieth according to the variety of advantages opportunities and capacities of the persons or else that it consisteth onely in the act of common publication and so is the same to all the subjects if the first be your sense as I suppose it is then still you are uncertain who are Hereticks as being uncertain of mens various capacities and so of the sufficiency in question unlesse you will conclude with me that thus you make all Hereticks as aforesaid
to an Argument not precise I therefore expect accordingly that the unlearned be not made the Iudges of a Dispute which they are not fit to judge of seeing you desire us to avoid their road William Iohnson Num. 2. When I press you to as much brevity as my first Adversary prest me I shall require no more and shall easily bear with penetrations of Syllogisms and mediate consequences when they are proveable in lawfull form My chief care was to obstruct all excursions amplifications and irregularities quite out of form and all Sophisms and Fallacies which I have avoided When the learned are sufficiently informed I hope they will have so watchful a care of conscience and Christian charity that they will impart what they finde to be truth to the ignorant And this I expected signally from you in whom I discovered a fervent desire to publish what you thought truth to every one Baxter Num. 3. And by a Congregation of Christians you may mean Christians politically related to one Head whether Christ or the Pope But the word Assemblies expresseth their actual Assembling together and so excludeth all Christians that are or were members of no particular Assemblies from having relation to Christ our Head or the Pope your Head and so from being of the Congregation as you call the Church universal Iohnson Num. 3. Assembly implies no more an actual assembling then Congregation an actual congregating prove it does They are both taken in the same sense in Scripture and approved Authors and comprised in the word caetus and the one as capable to include a head and members subject to it as the other Baxter Num. 4. I had great reason to avoid the snare of an Equivocation or ambiguity of which you gave me cause of jealousie by your whatsoever as I told you as seeming to intimate a false supposition To your like I answer it is unlike and still more intimates the false supposition Whatsoever Congregation of men is the Common-wealth of England is a phrase that importeth that there is a Congregation of men which is not the â—â—ommon-wealth of England which is true there being more men in the world so Whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church doth seem to import that you suppose there is a Congregation of Christians univocally so called that are not the true Church which you would distinguish from the other which I only let you know at the entrance that I deny that you may not think it granted Iohnson Num. 4. My Simile is alike in what I prest it Viz. That no man can rightly understand me as you do to mean by Congregation a part of the Church when I say it is the whole Church The disparity mentioned by you shall hereafter be examined when I come to confute your Novelty in that point In the interim you may please to take notice that there are as well Congregations of Christians univocally so called which are not the Church as there are of men which are not the Common-wealth of England Such are the Senate of Venice the Common-Council of London the Parliament of Paris c. Baxter Num. 5. Yet I must tell you that nothing is more ordinary then for the body to be said to do that which a part of it only doth as that the Church administreth Sacraments Discipline Teacheth c. The Church is assembled in such a Council c. when yet it is but a small part of the Church that doth these things And when Bellarmine Gretser c. say the Church is the infallible Judge of controversies they mean not the whole Church which containeth every Christian when they tell you that it is the Pope they mean And therefore I had reason to inquire into your sense unless I would willfully be over-reacht Iohnson Num. 5. This is a meer Parergon for I declare in my Thesis that I speak only of that Church out of which no man can be saved as appears in your Edition p. 2. which is not cannot be the Church representative in a Council for then none could be saved who are out of that Council Baxter Num. 6. You now satisfie me that you mean it universally viz. All that Congregation or Church of Christians which is now the true Church of Christ doth acknowledge c. which I told you I deny Iohnson Num. 6. By this appears how inappositely you propounded the question Whether I meant by Congregation in my Proposition the whole Church or only some part of it seeing it was manifest I could not mean any part of it by that word Baxter To my following distinction you say That all the world knows that whatsoever is acknowledged to have been ever in the Church by Christs Institution cannot be meant of any accidentall thing but of a necessary unchangeable and essential thing in Christs true Church To which I reply either you see the grosse fallacy of this defence or you do not If you do not then never more call for an exact Disputant nor look to be delivered from your Errors by Argumentation though never so convincing If you do then you are not faithful to the Truth In your Major Proposition the words being many as you say you penetrated divers Arguments together ambiguities were the easier hidden in the heap That which I told you is accidental to the Church and that but to a corrupted part was the acknowledging of the Papacy Fallacy 1. as of Christs Institution and therefore if it were granted that a thing of Christs Institution could not be accidental yet the acknowledgment that is the opinion or asserting of it may If the Church by mistake should think that to be essential to it which is not though it will not thence follow that its essence is but an accident yet it will follow that both the false opinion and the thing it self so false conceited to be essential are but accidents or not essential You say it cannot be meant of any accidental thing But 1. That meaning it self of theirs may be an accident 2. And the question is not what they mean that is imagine or affirm it to be but what it is in deed and truth That may be an accident which they think to be none Iohnson Num. 7. Sir The fallacy is not in my Proposition but in your understanding You assert that the Soveraignty of the Pope is as accidental to the Church as will hereafter appear as pride and cruelty is to the Spanish Nation and therefore the Acknowledgement of it is Accidental for if the acknowledgement be in a matter Essential it self must also be Essential either to the constitution or destruction of the Catholick Faith For the Essence of Faith requires that all Essentials be believed And it must be destructive of Faith to believe any thing to be Essential and absolutely necessary to Christian Faith which is a meer Accident and non-Essential For such an Errour constitutes a false Christian and teaches that to be Essentially
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
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
man in those times You would say I suppose Pulcheria the Empress But you should have dealt more fairly if you had declared in what manner Pulcheria mentions the Confession of Faith sent by Leo. Really Sir the cunning which you use here is unsufferable First you say that Confession of Faith from Leo was sent to Anatolius Which is manifestlie untrue for the Empress Pulcheria saith it was sent to Flavianus his Predecessor This may pass as an error in Historie onlie Secondlie you say that Anatolius consented to that Faith which is true but you express not in what manner he consented to it for equals may consent in Faith one with another but the Empresse saith that Anatolius subscribed to the confession of Faith sent to Flavianus from Pope Leo and that without the least difficulty or demurr which argue that Leo's confession was sent to this end that the Pope required the Bishops of Constantinople to subscribe to what he wrote there to shew that they believed the Catholick Faith Et Epistolae similiter Catholicae fidei quam ad sanctae memoriae Flavianum Episcopum tua Beatitudo decrevit sine ulla dilatione subscripsit Anatolius The Empresse writes thus And he Anatolius without any delay subscribed to the Epistle of Faith which thy blessedness directed to Flavianus Thirdly whereas this Epistle or Confession of Faith was sent as from a superiour to be subscribed by those Patriarcks that he might know whether they held the right Faith or no and thereby judge whether he were to admit them into his communion as was then the ordinary custome you would make it to be a confession sent as from an equal to give them to whom he sent it an account of his Eaith Fourthly whereas I speak of a confession ordered by the Bishop of Rome to be sent from the Bishop of Constantinople to him that the Pope might thereby judge of his Faith you in answer return a confession of Faith as freely sent from the Bishop of Rome to the Bishop of Constantinople as though the Pope had given an account of his Faith to that Bishop now all know it to be a rule of Faith sent Vide verba Pulcheriae by Leo to which was required the in ep ad Leonem Bishop of Constantinople should subscribe to shew that he held the same Faith with the Bishop of Rome and thereby deserved to be received as a Catholick into his communion And lastly you make that to be a confession of Pope Leo's faith made to Anatolius when it was only a summe of the Catholick Faith Epistola fidei Catholicae in general that those Bishops were to subscribe by the Popes order For this very same Epistle in a Council held by the Popes legates in Constantinople Council Chalced in gracis was sent by their order to all the codicibus post Act â—â— tam. Metropolitans in those parts as Pope Leo had given them order to be subscribed by them CHAP. VI. Council of Chalcedon ARGUMENT NUm 219. Mr. Baxters imposition upon his adversary ibid. The legates precedency how it proves the Popes Supremacy Num. 221. Dioscorus not sitting as a Father in the Council shews the Bishop of Romes authority over the Council Num. 222. Mr. Baxter put to desperate shifts read these words Caput omnium Ecclesiarum that Rome is the head of all the Churches Num. 223. The Councils not contradicting what the legates said an undoubted sign of their assent Num. 224. His weak answer to the Councils calling the Pope their Father and themselves his children Num. 226. Mr. Baxter denyes most confidently the Council of Chalcedon to say what it sayes most manifestly Num. 227. Mr. Baxter dissembles his adversaries answer Num. 231. Of what authority was the 28 canon of Chalcedon in St. Leo's time and after Num. 132. General Councils never writ to exhort Bishops and Patriarchs to confirm their decrees in that manner as did the council of Chalcedon to the Pope ibid. two sleights of Mr. Baxters discovered Mr. Baxter Num. 219 You say the Popes Legates sate first in Council Reply what then therefore the Pope was Governour of the Christirn world though not a man out of the Empire were of the Council corruption William Iohnson Num. 219. Your petty slights are grown so numerous that they become intolerable An unskilful Reader would easily perswade himself this consequence is mine which you so confidently impose upon me here viz that I deduce or ought to deduce from the Popes legates sitting first in the Council that the Pope was Governour of the Christian world though not a man out of the Empire were of that Council as If I had granted and were agreed with you in this that there was not a man out of the Empire in that Council and supposing that as a truth with you yet that not withstanding I draw the Popes universal supremacy from the precedency of the Legates in that Council Now I pray you where have I in my whole paper supposed or delivered that there was not a man out of the Empire in that Council name the place and cite the words where I say so or acknowledge that you have imposed a most fals injurious calumnie upon me For you are not content to father your own error and so much your own that you are the first and sole inventor of it upon me but upon that imposition you aske me in a bitter Sarcasmus whether I be still in jest that is you put a consequence as you esteem it ridiculous of your own forging upon me and then aske me are you still in jest is not this handsome yet I Sr give me leave to tell you thus much that though I had granted which I constantly deny that not a man out of the Empire had been in the Council of Chalcedon yet it would have been no jest but a solid truth that from the precedency of the Roman Legates in the Council follows that the Pope was governour of the Christian world for it is necessary to the making of a Council truly and absolutely general and powerful over the Christian world that any Bishop out of the Empire should be actually present in it it is sufficient that they be legitimately and Canonically called to it as much as morally all circumstances considered can be done their actual sitting in it may be obstructed by a hundred accidents dangers impossibilities which hinders not those who can and do present themselves to compose a Council absolutely oecumenical as a sufficient representative of the Church no more then a Parliament legally summoned ceases to be a representative of the kingdome though the Knights of some Counties or Burgesses of some Cities be accidentally absent prove therefore in your next that for this reason that not a man out of the Empire was in that Council the Popes universal government over the Christian world followes not from his legates sitting first in it Mr. Baxter Num. 220. But if it must be so then I can prove that others
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
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
themselves to Christs manner of Government they virtually subject themselves to a chief Pastour Mr. Baxter If it be necessary that a particular Church must be assigned for such members by the supream Pastours then they are yet little the better that never have any Assignation from him as few have Rejoynder Who sayes it is necessary ad esse to be a part of the Catholick Church that all Assemblies of Christians should be actual members of some particular visible Church prove I say so from my words nor is it necessary the chief Pastour should assign any it suffices that those Christians be resolved to conform when it is assigned Mr. Baxter Qu. 2. What is that faith in unity where all members of the Catholick Church do live Is it the belief of all that God hath revealed to be believed or of part and what part William Iohnson Answ. Of all either explicitely or implicitely Mr. Baxter Your second Answer further proves that your Definitions signifie just nothing they must live in the unity of the faith that is either with faith or without it with a belief of what God hath revealed to be be believed or without it for to believe any point implicitly in your ordinary sense is not to believe it but onely to believe one of the premises whence the conclusion must be inferr'd But why do you not tell me what you mean by an implicite faith faith is called implicite in several senses 1. When several truths are actually understood and believed in confuso or in grosse in some one proposition which containeth the substance of them all but not with accurate distinct conceptions nor such as are ripe for any fit expression This indistinct immature imperfect kind of apprehension may be called implicite 2. When a general proposition is believed as the matter of our faith but the particulars are not understood or not believed As to believe that omne Animal vivit not knowing whether you be Animal or Cadaver or to believe all that is in Scripture is the word of God and true but not to know what is in the Scripture 3. What is onely the formal object of faith that is believed without understanding the Material object The first sort of these I confess is actual though indistinct but I suppose you mean not this 1. Because it is not the ordinary sense of your party 2. Because else you damn either all the world or most of your own professed party at least as no members of the Church for few or none have an actual understanding and belief of all that God ever revealed to them because all men or most at least have been sinfully negligent in searching after and receiving truth and so are sinfully ignorant no man knoweth all that God hath revealed or that he ought to know 3. Because by this rule it is impossible for you or any man to know who is indeed a member of your Church for you cannot know mens confused knowledge or know that it extendeth to all revealed for if you speak of all revealed in general or in Scripture you still damn all or most in your own sense for none as I said understand it all to a word but if you speak of all which that particular man hath had sufficient means to know It is then impossible for you to make a judgement of any mans faith by this for you can never discern all the means internal or external that ever he had much less can you discern whether his faith be commensurate to the truth so farre revealed so that by this course you make your Church invisible I pray tell me how you can avoid it William Iohnson Your discourse about implicite faith seems strange I require a proof from you that in your ordinary sense it is no belief at all 2. That it is onely to believe one of the premises whence the conclusion must be inferr'd 3. Tell me why you require that I should have declared to you what I meant by implicite faith when you suppose that I speak in the ordinary sense of our schoolmen and I could not but suppose you understood their doctrine 4. Why do you put the belief of the formal object without the belief of the material object of faith a third member of implicite belief or who did ever so before you 5. Why do you confound the two first members of your Distinction both of them being knowledge or belief in confuso your first is when several truths are actually understood and believed in confuso or in gross in some one proposition which containeth the substance of them all c. thus you Your second is to believe that omne animal vivit not knowing whether you be Animal or Cadaver or to believe that all that is in Scripture is the word of God and true but not to know what is in the Scripture thus you Now tell me does not this proposition omne Animal vivit contain the substance of these truths Equus vivit Leo vivit Aquila vivit c. so that by believing or knowing this proposition distinctly omne Animal vivit I believe or know in confuso those other propositions contained as species under their genus in it and the like is of your second proposition for believing all that is in Scripture is the word of God and true expresly I believe in confuso all that is in Genesis Exodus Leviticus c. to be the word of God and true though I neither believe or know expresly and distinctly all that is contained in those books can you deny this If you proceed in Philosophical principles is not the express knowledge of the genus a confused knowledge of species under it and an express knowledge of the species a confused knowledge of the individua under it and a knowledge or belief when they are known or believed in confuso Thus you give distinctions without differences and examples to illustrate your distinctions which quite destroy them 6. Why put you a contradictory proposition you say thus not knowing whether you that is such a man be Animal or Cadaver now this is a plain implicancy in adjecto for it is as impossible that you or any man should be a Cadaver as that a man should be a barn door the one being as truely disparate from a true man as the other and disparates you know cannot predicate the one of the other every one therefore knows who knows what a man is that no man is or can be Cadaver a dead caâ—â—kass so that no man can be ignorant whether you be Animal or Cadaver A little more heed to what you write would do well when you dispute 7. Why say you you suppose I mean nor your first manner of implicite faith when I and all who understand themselves must either mean that or nothing The object of implicite faith delivered in the Schools being nothing else save particular truths contained in substance under some general proposition so that though they be
mistake me I speak of a Rejection and contempt of a subject as appears by my words and your Reply mentions the independance without Rejection of such as are no subjects now the Rejection or contempt of Superiouâ—â—s Authority in a Subject takes away this dependance of that Superiour and his very working independently of them cannot be done without Rejection and contempt of their Authority so long as he remains a subject I pray minde a little better to what you Reply Reply I further Reply 1. It seems then it is not onely the Pope but every Priest respectively that is an essential member of your Church or to whom each member must be subject necessarily ad esse If so then in every man that by falling out or prejudice doth culpably Reject the Authority of any one Pastour or Priest among a swarm is damned or none of the Church though he believe in the Pope and twenty thousand Priests besides 2. And then have we not cause to pray God to blesse us from the company of your Priests or at least that we may not have too many among a multitude we may be in danger of Rejecting some one and then we are cast out of that Church what if a Gentleman should find some such as Watson or Montaltus described in bed with his wife or a Prince finde a Garnet a Campian or a Parsons in Treason and by such temptation should be so weak as to contemn or reject the Authority of that single Priest while he obeyeth all the rest It is certain that such a man is none of the Catholique Church for that how hard it is in France Italy then to be a Catholick where Priests are so numerous that it 's ten to one but among that croud the Authority of some one may be Rejected 3. But is it all the Priests that we never knew or knew not to be Priests that we must depend on or is it onely those whose Authority is manifested to us by sufficient Evidence doubtless if you will confine our dependanâ—â—e to these onely or else no man could be a Christian. And if so be you know we are never the nearer a Resolution for your Answer till you yet tell us how we must know our Pastours to have Authority indeed William Iohnson Sir you mistake again I speak onely of all Respectively to each subject that is of such as are properly the Pastours of such soules mediate or immediate and you wave the consideration of the word Respectively and thereby would extend my words to all Priests in the whole Church know you not the difference betwixt Pastours and Priests are there not millions of Priests amongst us and a number of Ministers amongst you which are no Pastours that is have no care or cure of souls committed to them my Assertion therefore is that a private christian rejecting the authority of his Parish-Priest Bishop Arch-bishop Metrapolitane Primate Patriarch or supream Bishop who are in some cases at least his Pastour becomes a Schismatick casts himself out of the Church now for all the rest who are not his proper Pastours though they may be Pastours to others his rejecting or contemning them will be a grevious fin of pride but not sufficient alone to cast men out of the Church because he remaines still dependent of his own Pastours and here falls to ground all your ensuing discourse of the multitude of Priests c. Where I will not take notice of an accusation made without proof and relishing too little of Christian charity against some particuler persons humbly beseeching God to forgive you for it and hoping so to temper my expressions that they still run peaceably on within the bank of Charity Mr. Baxter What if they shew me the Bishops orders and I know that many have had forged orders am I bound to believe in this authority William Iohnson As much as you can be assured of any being Pastour of such a Church or Bishop of such a Diocesse or Justice of peace or Earle or Baron by his Majesties Patents or publick orders Reply What if I be utterly ignorant whether he that ordained were himself ordained per intentionem ordinandi how shall I then be sure of his authority that he is ordained Rejoynder As sure as you can be that you were the lawful child of your Father and Mother who could not be truly married without intention of being Husband and Wife one to the other how know you that they had such an intention solve this and you solve your own argument Mr Baxter And how can the People be acquainted with the passages in Election and ordination that are necessary to the knowledge of their authority especially of the Popes and Prelates and what if you tell me your own opinion of the â—â—ufficient meanes by which I must be convicted of the Popes and the Priests authority William Iohnson When it is publickly allowed in the Church witnessed to be performed according to the Canonical prescription by such as were present and derived to the people without contradiction by publick fame Mr Baxter How shall I know that you are not deceived and that these are the sufficient meanes indeed unless a general Council have defined them to be sufficient and if they have If it were not as an Article of Faith you will say I am not bound of necessity to believe their definition William Iohnson The orders prescrihed in the canon law and universally received are sufficient for this without decrees of General Councils for these are no points of faith but of order and discipline whereof a moral certainty and ecclesiastical authority is sufficient Mr. Baxter And what if I have sufficient meanes to know the Authority of a thousand Bishops but am culpably ignorant of some few through my neglect doth it follow that I am out of the Church Is my obedience to each Priest as necessary as my belief of every Article or multyplying Priests doth fill Hell faster If men must be judged by your laws Rejoynder This is grounded in your former mistake and solved above it is not all Priests but all Pastours in relation to their flocks that I speak of Mr. Baxter But is it our allegiance to our Soveraign that is the character of a subject in the common wealth and not our allegiance or duty to every inferiour Magistrate the rejection of one of them may stand with subjection though not with innocency It is not reason to reject a Constable why then should it more be necessary to our Church membership and Salvation But still you make your Church invisible for as no man can know that liveth in the remote parts of the world whether your Popes themselves are truely Popes as being duly qualified and elected now which is that true Pope when you have often more then one at once so you can never know concerning your members whether their dependance on their Pastors be extensively proportionate to the meanes that discovers their Authority
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