beleeved to be implicitely by them when they subject themselves to all their lawful pastors he being one and the chief of them Baxter Num. 21. To your Confirmation I reply You mis-read my words I talk not of invisible I say it is true that the universal Church is united to Christ as their universal Head Iohnson Num. 21. Nor say I you have writ there the word invisible but that the pastor or Head which you there name Viz. Christ is an invisible pastor nor say I as you mis-conceive that Christ is an invisible person that toucht not the controversie but that he was an invisible Pastor and that most certainly he is both in heaven and earth for though his person may be seen there yet the exercise of his pastorship consisting only in spiritual influxions and internal graces cannot be seen by any corporal eye whatsoever therefore as pastor of the Militant Church he is wholly invisible whence it is evident that you put a visible body the universal Militant Church for we treat no other here save that without a visible Head for Christ as head that is as supream pastor of this Church is invisible all that is visible in the pastoral Function being performed by visible pastors and all that is invisible by our Saviour Thus whilest you by a strange piece of Novelty constitute a visible Body without a visible Head you destroy the visible Church and frame a Monster Baxter Num. 22. And is visible 1. In the members 2. In the profession 3. Christ himself is visible in the heavens and as much seen of most of the Church as the Pope is that is not at all As the Pope is not invisible though one of a million see him not no more is Christ who is seen by most of the Church and by the best part even by the glorified You know my meaning whether you will call Christ visible or not I leave to you I think he is visible But that which I affirm is that the universal Church hath no other visible universal Head or Pastor But particular Churches have their particular Pastors all under Christ. Iohnson Num. 22. If Christ be no otherwise visible as Head of the Church then in his members and their profession of his Faith you may as well affirm that God the Father is visible in his creatures and make him also visible which were absonous and contrary to Christian Faith It seems you regard not much what follows from your doctrine so you may at present oppose your Adversary The question in treatie is seeing we both confess the members and profession of the Universal Militant Church to be visible whether Christ in the exercise of his Headship or chief-Pastorship over the Church renders himself visible to our corporal eyes or performs immediatly any visible action in relation to his Church To constitute therefore Christ to be a visible Head of the Church when he performs nothing visible as Head of the Church or to make a visible Body without a visible Head is another of your grand Novelties fit to be represt and stifled in the cradle And all men will expect that in your Rejoynder to this you shew that Christ not in his person but in the exercise of his pastoral Headship works visibly by himself One thing is worth observation in this Paragraph that you affirm Christ is seen by most of the Church and by the best part even by the glorified whereby you must either affirm that the glorified are now conjoyned to their bodies and thereby evacuate the general resurrection of Saints bodies at the day of judgement or that the souls of Saints in heaven have corporal eyes for we speak only of corporal sight Baxter Of Ephes. 4. I easily grant that the whole Church may be said to have Pastors in that all the particular Churches have Pastors But I deny that the whole have any one Universal Pastor but Christ. Of that which is the point in controversie you bring no proof If you mean no more then I grant Fallacy 7. That the whole Church hath Pastors both in that each particular Church hath Pastors and in that unfixed Pastors are to preach to all as they have opportunity then your Minor hath no denial from me Iohnson Num. 23. All I intend from Ephes. 4. is to prove my Minor the perpetual Succession of visible Pastors whatsoever those be you grant here it proves thus much Why then presse you me to know whether I would prove from it one supream visible Pastor on earth when I alledge it not to prove that It is strange Logick to ask an Opponent whether he intend to prove more by his Syllogism then what he was obliged to prove in Form when the Respondent grants he has proved that and by proving the Proposition which was to be proved has evinced the Thesis to be true which he first undertook to prove by his Argument Viz. the Popes Supremacy CHAP. II. The ARGUMENT No Negative fram'd in Positive Historical matters to be proved num 24. but the Instances alledged against it to be disproved by the Opponent num 25. The Pope obeyed in England not only as Patriarch of the West but as Supream visible Pastor of the whole Militant Church See Stow and Spâ—â—ed with the Statutes of Parliaments and decrees of our English Councils in and before the beginning of King Hâ—â—nry the eighths Râ—â—ign of this matter was in quiet possession of the spiritual government of the English Church when Protestancy first appeared in it Mr. Baxter forced n. 27. to deny two common principles n. 28. His unfair dealing with his adversary n. 33 34. Visible Pastors though Christs Officers Essential to his visible Church and if they why not the Supream amongst them n. 35 36. Some under Officers are Essential to Monarchies p. 38. No new work to be attempted till the old be finish'd n. 39 40 41 42 c. Mr. Baxter puts many questions and doubts where there is no need and n. 46. mistakes grosly his Adversaries words and meaning Baxter Num. 24. In stead of prosecuting your Argument when you had cast the work of an Opponent upon me you here appeal to any true Logician or expert Lawyer Content I admit your Appeal But why then did you at all put on the face of an Opponent Could you not without this lost labour at first have called me to prove the successive visibility of our Church But to your Appeal Ho all you true Logicians this Learned man and I refer it to your Tribunal whether it be the part of an Opponent to contrive his Argument so as that the Negative shall be his and then change places and become Respondent and make his Adversary Opponent at his pleasure We leave this Cause at your Bar and expect your Sentence But before we come to the Lawyers Bar I mâ—â—st have leave more plainly to state our Case Iohnson Num. 24. I am still content to refer my case as I state
visible body without a visible head Num. 5 6 7. His 6. first syllogismes are out of form and thereby are 6 Non-proofs Num. 11. Mr. Baxter 's skill in logical terms Num. 13. Whether Mr. Baxter or any formal Protestant be infallibly certain they love God and their neighbour as they ought to do Num. 15. c. 13. authorities 13. Non-proofs to shew the sufficiency of sole Scripture This question Mr. Baxter resolves affirmatively pag. 197. 1. You first prefix an explication of termes from p 197. to p. 204. which is of no concern to my argument nor of much to your answer I note only obiter these particulars p. 198. you define the universal visible Church thus It is the whole company of believers or true Christians upon earth subject to Iesus Christ their head where you first make believers and true Christians Synonimaes whereas one not baptized may be a believer but no Christian for he is made a Christian by baptism being before a Catechumen and then you assert the visible Church to consist as well of Catechumens as of baptiz'd Christians which is absonous for by baptism they are made Church-members 2. You use the word subject to Christ in your definition which according to you ut supra is equivocal and thereby unfit to be part of a definition and may signifie no more according to you then one of an inferiour rank and order who is not under the government of another so that when you say subject to Christ c. you may express no more by the word subject then that they are inferiour to Christ and that Christ is to take place of all Christians nor can you distinguish your self from this difficultie by alleadging you say they are subject to Christ their head for you speak equivocally in the word head too according to the former principles where you were forc'd to say head signifies no more then a principal member proceeding but not governing the rest In the same page you define Protestants thus Protestants are Christians protesting against or disallowing Poperie which is worse then the former for you cannot be ignorant that the first Origin of the word Protestant proceeded from the Elector of Saxony Landgrave of Hassia and some few other Prinees of their faction protesting against the imperial Edict decreed at Wormes an 1526 the observance whereof was established in the diet at Spire 1529 about the not changing any thing in the Churches practise publickly and commonly used before their times till a general Council was assembled and made decrees about it Now it is evident these Princes protested against Popery and disowned it some years before this and yet were not termed Protestants for that reason Take you your self to be a man of so uncontroulable authority as to make new impositions and give new significations to words as your fancie leades you what Call you the Greeks for some hundred of yeares Protestants because they protested against that which they esteem Popery the Popes supremacy the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son c. I am sure they execrate that appellation as much nay more then they do Popery nor were they ever termed Protestants till you call'd them so Are the new Arians in Polonia Antitrinitarians in Sylesia Socinians in Holland Hassiâ—â— â—â—n Bohemia Anabaptists Familists Montanists Millenaries Quakers in England all Protestants Protest not all these against Poperie If they be Protestants Protestants be they much good do it you with them you 'l say Arians and Antetrinitarians are no Christians but you shall see presently your arguments will prove them as true Christians as you can prove your self to be for an Arian or Antetrinitarian will say as you do here page 199. and 200. We profess our selves to be of no other Church and before men a man is to be taken of that Religion and Church of which he professeth himself to be till he be proved false in that profession pag. 199. You say Protestants in relation to our religion are as a man purged healed freed from Leprosie Plague Consumption c. then sure you make that which you call Popery to be infected with Leprocie Dr. Ferne Dr. Bramhall Plague Consumption as some of your Bretheren have done of late if so then tell me I pray in your next either that you hold the Catholick-Church in those imediately proceeding your beginnings to be spotted with Leprocy infected with the Plague and worn almost to nothing with a mortal Consumption and consequently teaching dangerous errors and therefore no man with a false conscience could remain in her external communion but must have forsaken the communion of all particular Churches in the world which is abominable in the eares of a Christian or you make it free from those foul disasters and then tell me where and which that holy visible Catholick Church was pure and unspotted from such diseases in the year 1500 neer to the time of your first Protestants beginning pag. 200. you say your profession shews you as much to be a true Christian as he doth the profession of a Papist shew him to be a Papist see you not the difference thousands and millions deny you to be true Christians and those not only friends but enemies also of the Pope as all the Greeks are notwithstanding all your profession to be so but not so much as one denies those to be Papists who profess themselves to be so 3. Pag. 200. Parag. Note you speak not say you of internal belief but of external profession but there you 'r out for whatsoever your internal sincerity be or be not your very external profession in the particulars of your belief or rather disbelief against the Roman Church shews your general profession of true christianity to be false so that the one convinces the other of falsity as in your principles an Arrian who as you presently say p. 203. is no Christian though he sincerely profess the belief of Christianity yet because that notwithstanding his particular profession of disbelief of the consubstantiality of the Son of God with his Father shews his general profession to be false 4. Page 201. 202. You renew first your error of making a visible body without a visible head for I have shew'd though Christs person be now visible yet as he is head of the millitant Church he is invisible that is he exercises immediately no visible office or action in governing his Church but all are purely internal spiritual and invisible Secondly you say he is visus seen to the triumphant Church but where finde you in your doctrine any corporal eye amongst the triumphant to see him pag. 202. num 2. you say the true Christians were very few to the Arrians in their prevalencie which you neither prove nor can prove for it is manifestly false I omit many such over-reaches as these that I may come to your proof Non-proof 1. 5. Pag. 204. Your first sylogism is out of form first having never an
and whether their disobedience unchurch them or not Rejoynder But if you reject the Constable and with him all superiour Magistrates who maintain his Authoritie and come at last so far that you reject the Authority of the supreme or Soveraign power rather then depend on the Constable you will become a Rebel this is my case for the Church being visible is governed in this world by visible governours if therefore one Reject the Authority first of a parish Priest and then of the Bishop of the Diocesse and after of all those who are Superiour to that Bishop even to the highest authority whether this be in one single person or in the assembly of these Pastours in general Council imports little for the present question he becomes a Rebell to the visible Church and casts himself out of it and by consequence because our Saviour hath said he who heareth you heareth me and he who contemneth you contemneth me rejects also Christ's Authority by rejecting them and thereby casts himself from being any longer whilst he remains in that contempt of the Flock and Kingdome of Christ which is his Church For this contempt must be the same kind in respect of Christ that it is in regard of all the aforesaid visible Governours and therefore must reject the Authority of Christ because it rejects their Authority but none of those who reject Christ's Authority over them can be parts of his Flock or Kingdome Ergo note the fallacie of your Assertion in making many Hereticks and Schismaticks properly so called Real parts of the Catholick Church Reply I earnestly crave your Answer to the uncertainties which I have mentioned in my Safe Religion pag. 9 3. to 104. and tell us how all our Pastours may be known and whether every particular sin un-un-Church men and if not why the contempt and rejection of a drunken Priest doth it while all the rest are perhaps too much honoured Rejoynder Really Sir I am too full of employments either to Answer or peruse your Books I never oblig'd my self to answer them You make a visible Body with an invisible Head that is you admit no other head or supreme Ecclesiastical Magistrate over the visible Church save Christ who is invisible to the Church as he is head of it and whose government is internal and invisible if you abstract from all visible supreme Authority and hence you assert that though all the Respective visible governours in spiritual things be rejected by a subject yet he may be a part of the visible Church because he is still subject to Christ who is invisible to to him in his Head-ship I suppose I have said enough above to what you demand here and take those Arguments in your safe Religion to be much of the same nature with these Mr. Baxter Qu. 4. Why exclude you the chief Pastours that depend on none William Iohnson Ans. I exclude them not but include them as those of whom all the rest depend as St. Ierome does in his definition Ecclesia est plebs Episcopo unita Mr. Baxter How inconstant are you among your selves in the use of Terms how frequent is it with you to appropriate the name of the Church to the Clergie but remember hereafter when you tell us of the Determinations Traditions of the Church that it is the people that you mean and not onely the Pastours in Council much lesse the Pope alone Rejoynder This Requires no Answer as opposing nothing against what I say to that Question who knowes not that Termes have different acceptions both amongst you and us both in Scripture Ecclesiastical and Civil Authors Of HERESIE Heresie is an obstinate intellectual Opposition against Divine Authority revealed when it is sufficiently propounded Mr. Baxter Qu. 1. Is the obstinacie that makes Heresie in that Intellectual Will William Iohnson Answ. In the will by an imperate act restraining the understanding to that Mr. Baxter Still your descriptions signifie just nothing you describe it to be an Intellectual obstinate opposition and yet say that this is in the will William Iohnson You still Reply lesse then nothing to what I say yes it is an intellectual obstinate opposition but I say not that the intellectualtie is in the will or do you demand that Read I pray my description and your question and you will find no such matter I say the obstinacy is in the will directly to your question but the heresie is in the understanding and therefore comes it to be an intellectual obstinate opposition because that obstinacie in the will imperates a kind of immobility in the understanding whereby it adheres firmly to it's Errour Intellectual therefore it is from the understanding and obstinate from the will Mr. Baxter And yet again you contradict your self by saying that it is an Imperate act William Iohnson Where say I that imperate act is in the will prove from my words I say so I say indeed that obstinacy is in the will by an imperate restraining the understanding to that Errour but I never said that imperate act was in the will nay I insinuate sufficiently that it is in the understanding by affirming that it restrains the understanding for the imperate act is a kind of immoveable judgement imperated in the understanding by the obstinacy of the will all therefore that I say is this that there is an obstinacy in the will shewing it self to be there by that immobility which it imperates in the understanding and adheres to that errour when therefore I say by that imperate act I mean not formally by that but causally Reply No imperate act is in the will though it be from the will it is voluntary but not in volunte an imperate act may be in the will but not an imperate all imperate acts are in and immediately by the commanded faculties The Intelligere which is the imperate act is in the intellect though the velle intelligere which is an elicite act be in the will Rejoynder You seem to discourse very strangely and inconsequently of imperate acts what Philosopher before you ever said no imperate act is in the will though it be from the will shew your Authours for this is not the quite contrary the common assertion of the schools does not the will by an imperant act of charity e. g. imperate within it self an act of obedience contrition patience c. Nay do not many Philosophers from hence argue that the will and the understanding must be one and the same soul and not two powers really distinct because the will imperates acts in the understanding not by way of production or proper efficiency but by a certain Sympathetical emanation of an act imperated from the act imperating Mr. Baxter 2. From hence it is plain that you cannot prove me or any man to be an Heretick that is unfeignedly willing to know the truth and is not obstinately willing in opposing it which are things you cannot ordinarily discern and prove by others that are ready
semper in suis successoribus vivit judicium exercet Hujus itaque secundum ordinem successor locum-tenens sanctus beatissimusque Papa noster Celestinus nos ipsius praesentiam supplentes huc misit And Arcadius another of the Popes Legats inveighing against the Heretick Nestorius accuses him though he was Patriarch of Constantinople which this Council requires to be next in dignity after Rome as of a great crime that he contemned the command of the Apostolick See that is of Pope Celestine Now had Pope Celestine had no power to command him and by the like reason to command all other Bishops he had committed no fault in transgressing and contemning his command By these testimonies it will appear that what you are pleased to say That the most part of the Catholick Church hath been against us to this day and all for many hundred of years is far from truth seeing in the time of the holy Oecumenical Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon the universal consent of the whole Catholick Church was for us in this point For the age 600 see S. Gregory Pope l. 10. ep 30 where Hereticks and Schismaticks repenting were received then into the Church upon solemn promise and publick protestation that they would never any more separate from but always remain in the unity of the Catholick Church and communion in all things with the Bishop of Rome As to what you say of Congregation of Christians in the beginning I answer I took the word of Christians in a large sense comprehending in it all those as it is vulgarly taken who are baptized and profess to beleive in Christ and are distinguished from Jews Mahumetans and Heathens under the denomination of Christians What you often say of an universal Monarch c. if you take Monarch for an Imperious sole Commander as temporal Kings are we acknowledge no such Monarch in the Church if onely for one who hath received power from Christ in meekness charity and humility to govern all the rest for their own eternal good as brethren or children we grant it What also you often repeat of a Vice-christ we much dislike that title as proud and insolent and utterly disclaim from it neither was it ever given by any sufficient Authority to our Popes or did they ever accept of it As to the Council of Constance they never questioned the Supremacy of the Pope as ordinary chief Governour of all Bishops and people in the whole Church nay they expresly give it to Martinus Quintus when he was chosen But in extraordinary cases especially when it is doubtful who is true Pope as it was in the beginning of this Council till Martinus Quintus was chosen whether any extraordinary power be in a general Council above that ordinary power of the Pope which is a question disputed by some amongst our selves but touches not the matter in hand which proceeds only of the ordinary and constant Supream Pastor of all Christians abstracting from extraordinary tribunals and powers which are seldome found in the Church and collected only occasionally and upon extraordinary accidents Thus honoured Sir I have as much as my occasions would permit me hastened a Reply to your Answer and if more be requisite it shall not be denied Only please to give me leave to tell you that I cannot conceive my Argument yet answer'd by all you have said to it Feb. 3. 1658. William Iohnson Novelty Represt In a Rejoynder to Mr. Baxters Reply to William Iohnson The First Part. CHAP. I. ARGUMENT Num. 1. Exordium n. 3. Assembly and Congregation not different n. 5. Acknowledgment or Denial of what is Essential to the Church is it self Essential to the constitution or destruction of the Church my words mis-cited by omitting the word ever n. 7. Three Fallacies discovered Franciscus à S ta Clarâ mis-alledged n. 12. Congregations of Christians and Church not Synonyma's n. 16 17. Nothing instituted by Christ to be ever in his Church can be accidentall to his Church n. 19. Though universals exist not yet particulars which exist may be exprest in universal or abstractive terms n. 20. Many things necessary to the whole Church which are not necessary for every particular Christian. num 21 22. Christ now no visible Pastor of the Church militant though his person in heaven be visible n. 22. A visible Body without a visible Head is a Monster Such is Mr. Baxters Church Mr. Baxter SIR Num. 1. THe multitude and urgency of my employments gave me not leave till this day May 2. so much as to read over all your Papers but I shall be as loath to break off our disputation as you can be though perhaps necessity may sometime cause some weeks delay And again I profess my indignation against the hypocritical jugling of this age doth provoke me to welcome so Ingenuous and Candid a Disputant as your self with great content But I must confess also that I was the lesse hastie in sending you this Reply because I desired you might have leasure to peruse a Book which I published since your last a Key for Catholicks seeing that I have there answered you already and that more largely then I am like to doe in this Reply For the sharpness of that I must crave your patience the persons and cause I thought required it William Iohnson Num. 1. Sir Your Plea is my Defence I had my imployments and those of great concern as much as you which have hitherto detained me from accomplishing this Reply I have my Adversaries as well as you and no lesse then three at once in Print against me yet the esteem I have of your worth hath exacted from me to desist a while from what I had begun in Answer to the chief of them that I might bestow the whole time on you which notwithstanding was lately interrupted even when I was drawing towards an end by an unexpected and unrefusable occasion which hath already taken from me many weeks and is like to deprive me of many more Some small time an interstitium through the absence of my Adversary hath afforded me and that hath drawn the work almost to a period I have not hitherto had any leisure to peruse your Key and indeed what you here acknowledge of it Sharpness deterrs me from medling any further with it then what may be occasioned in this your Answer I finde even this in several passages of a relish tart enough but I can bear with that and I hope observe a moderacy where passion speaks against my cause or me For I tell you truly I had rather shew my self a patient Christian then a passionate Controvertist What reason utters will have power with rational men Passion never begins to speak but when reason is struck dumb and so cannot speak according to reason Mr. Baxter Num. 2. If you will not be precise in arguing you had little reason to expect much lesse so strictly to exact a precise Answer which cannot be made as you prescribed
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
say to so many poor souls that are ready to enter into another World Either sin against your Consciences and so damn your souls or else let us burn and murder you or else you do not love us you are uncharitable if you deny us leave to kill you and you separate from the Communion of the Church We appeal from the Pope and all unreasonable men to the great God of heaven and earth to judge righteously between you and us concerning this dealing As for possessing our selves of your Bishopricks and Cures if any particular person had personal injury in the change being cast out without cause they must answer for it that did it not I though I never heard any thing to make me beleeve it But must the Prince and the people let alone Delinquent Pastors for fear of being blamed for taking their Bishopricks Ministers of the same Religion with us may be cast out for their crimes Princes have power over Pastors as well as David Solomon and other Kings of Israel had Guil. Barclay and some few of your own knew this The Popes treasonable exemption of the Clergie from the Soveraigns judgement will not warrant those Princes before God that neglect to punish offending Pastors And I beseech you tell us when our Consciences after the use of all means that we can use to be informed cannot renounce all our senses nor our reason nor the judgement of the most of the Church or of Antiquity or the Word of God and yet we must do so or be no members of your Church what wrong is it to you if we chuse us Pastors of our own in the order that God hath appointed Had not the people in all former ages the choice of their Pastors We and our late Fore-fathers here were never under your over-sight but we know not why we may not now choose our Pastors as well as formerly we do it not by Tumults We kill not men and tread not in their blood while we chuse our Pastors as Pope Damasus was chosen The Tythes and other Temporal maintenance we take from none but the Magistrate disposeth of it as he seeth meet for the Churches good And the maintenancâ—â— is for the cure or work and therefore that are justly cast out of the cure are justly deprived of the maintenance And surely when they are dead none of you can with any shew of reason stand up and say These Bishopricks are yours or These Parsonages are yours It is the Incumbent personally that only can claim the Title saving the super-eminent title of Christ to whom they are devoted But the successive Popes cannot have title to all the Tythes and Temples in the World nor any of his Clergy that never were called to the charges If this be dis-union it is you that are the Separatists and cause of all If you will needs tell all the Christian World that except they will be ruled by the Pope of Rome and be burned if they beleeve not as he bids them in spight of their senses he will call them Separatists Schismaticks and say they dis-unite and are uncharitable again we appeal to God and all wise men that are impartial whether it be he or we that is the divider Iohnson Num. 98. By what is now answered this your long Rhetorical Exclamation from page 108. to page 112. is also solved For all that the Church of Rome demands of you even to the denying of your senses and subjecting of your judgement was in the year 1500. required of you by all Visible Ancient Churches in the World and you are not able to nominate any one where it was not Change therefore the term Pope or Church of Rome into that of the Catholick Church of Christ that is all Orthodox particular Churches existent at that time which are comprised in the number of all visible ancient particular Churches then existing and address your exclamations to it and then you will see how little of a Christian complaint there is in that whole digression To this therefore I presse you once again to produce some Visible Church in the year 1500. from whose visible Communion you were not separated in your first beginning Anno 1517. as much as were the Pelagians or Donatists from all Visible Churches in their times And to render a sufficient reason why your dis-obeying or substracting your selves from the dependance and obedience of all the Visible Pastors in all Churches Anno 1500. was not as much deserving to be termed and held a criminal Schism and spiritual Rebellion as any former separation from all Visible Churches Mr. Baxter Num. 99. You ask me Is not Charity Subordination and obedience to the same State and Government required as well to make one Congregation of Christians as it is required to make a Congregation of Commonwealth's-men Answ. yes it is But as all the world is one kingdome under God the universal King but yet hath no universal vice-king but every Commonwealth only hath it's own Sovereign even so all the Christian world is one Church under Christ the universal king of the Church but hath not one vice-Christ but every Church hath it's own Pastours as every School hath it's own School-master But all the Anger is because we are loth to be ruled by a cruel usurper therefore we are uncharitable William Iohnson Num. 99. You commit the Fallacy of ignoratio Elenchi and pass à genere in genus I speak of a visible Kingdome or Commonwealth as it is regulated by a visible Government and you take it as it is invisibly govern'd by an invisible Providence In this sense only are all the kindomes of the earth one kingdome under the invisible Government of the Invisible God but cannot be truly called one visible kingdome but more Now it is evident through the whole discourse that our present Controversie is of the visible Church as it is visible and in this sense it is and must be one and consequently must be under some visible Government which must make it one That cannot be Christ for he governs not his Church now visibly Ergo there must be some other and that must either be some Assembly of chief Governours as would be a General Council or some one person who has Authority to govern the whole body of the Church A general Council it cannot be for that was never held to be the ordinary but only the extraordinary Church-Government when emergent occasions require it and even when that is convened there must be some one person to avoid Schisme and quiet Controversies which may possibly arise in the Council with Authority above all the rest It is therefore manifest the Church cannot be perfectly one visible politick Body unless there be one visible head to govern it visibly as the ordinary Governour of it I beseech you Sir reflect often upon this distinction and you will see the chief ground of your discourse answered by it For to say as you do here that the Church
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
were the universal governours because at Nice and other Councils they sate before the legates of the Pope and in many his legates had no place Is this argument good think you O unfaithfull partiality in the matters of salvation non proof William Iohnson Num. 220. O you can do wonders but I would gladly see you doe what you say you can do You have not yet done it and I cannot believe you can do 't till I see you have don 't there is a great difference betwixt saying and doing Your groundless exclamation I regard not it is not partiality what you call so nor what you say you can prove to be so prove it in your next to be partiality Mr. Baxter Num. 221. You say they prohibited Dioscorus to sit by his order Reply 1. What then therefore he was universal governour of the Church All alike Any accuser in a Parliament or Synod may require that the accused may not sit as Iudge till he be tried fallacy 12. William Iohnson Num. 221. Your reply is fallacious procâ—â—ding ex falso supposito p. 150. See the place cited in my p. 54. Con Chal. act 3. Leo's order that Dioscorus should not sit in Council was not because he was accused but because he was condemned nor was it a bare requiring but a strickt command and injunction that he should not sit there as a Bishop of that Council Mr. Baxter Num 222.2 But did you not know that Leo's legates were not obeyed but that the Gloriosissimi judices amplissimus senatus required that the cause should be first made known and that it was not done tiâ—â— Eusebius Episcop Dorylaei had read his bill of complaint Binius Act. 1. pag. 5. Fallacy 13. William Iohnson Num. 222. No really I know it not nor I thinke you neither You commit an other fallacy by an ignoratio elenchi the Iudices Gloriosissimi c and the complaint read against him by Eusebius Epis. Dorylaei was not put as a remora to Dioscorus not sitting in the Council with the rest of the Fathers but in order to his and others publick condemnation which with great applause of the whole Council was performed in the end of the first action So skilful are you in Church history if you make not your self seem more unskilful then you are to say something which may make a noise in the ears of the unlearned It being therefore clear that Dioscorus was prohibited upon St. Leo's order to sit in Council It followes that he was universal Governour of the Church a paritate rationis ut supra for if he had power to remove the cheif Patriarch of the Church next after himself from having an Episcopal vote in a general Council which was an act of absolute jurisdiction over him much more had he power upon like grounds to remove any other inferiour Patriarck or Prelate through the whole Church there having been no proof alleadged by you that this his power was limited to the sole Empire and I having now produced many reasons that there could be no such limitation Mr. Baxter Num. 223. You say the Popes legates pronounced the Church of Rome to be Caput omnium Ecclesiarum Reply 1. What then therefore he was Governour of all the Christian world I deny the consequence You do nothing but beg not a word of proof Caput was but membrum principale the Patriarch primae sedis and that but in the Empire William Iohnson Num. 223. This consequence is made strong by the weakenes of your reply Is Caput omnium Ecclesiarum the head of all Churches no more with you then the principal member of all Churhes in the Empire that is in your new theologie one who was to take of all other Churches without any true and proper authority over them see you not in what straits you are put should some new Sabellian or Câ—â—rinthian rise up and deny that our Saviour were any more then the cheif person in the Church that is to take place before all others but without any jurisdiction or authority over the whole Church and a Catholick should labour to prove he hath authority from that place of St. Paul Coloss. 1.18 Ipse est Caput Corporis Ecclesiae he is the head of his body the Church And the Sabellian having read this book of yours Should reply as you do here to me what then therefore Christ is governour of the Christian world I deny this consequence Caput is but membrum principale head is no more then the principal part c. Would you not make pretty work with Scripture and open a gap to every novellist to elude no less yours then our proofs for Christs supream government over his Church but I see you care not whom you hurt so you can but avoide the present stroak Nay you have delivered here a precious doctrine no lesse for your she citizens at London then your good wives of Kidderminster for when their husbond teach them obedience and subjection to them from St. Paul 1 Cor. 11.3 Where he sayes that the husband is head of the wife they will have an answer ready at their fingers ends from your doctrine here that that head is no more then the principal part of the family in place but not in authority over their wives nay you have spun a fair thred also for the independency of the Protestant English Church of its head in giving ground to take away all Authority from his sacred Majestie and his royal predecessors over it in quality of heads of the English Church and making them to have no more then a bare precedency in the Church as no more then the principal members in the Church in order and dignity but not in authority But had you a little attended to those words of the Popes Legates you might have discovered they were spoke by them to prove not the bare precedency in place but soveraignty in authority for they alleadge them to corroborate the power of the Roman Church as sufficient to prohibite the sitting of Dioscorus in the Council by vertue of Pope Leo's order And you were prest as hard to finde an answer for omnium Ecclesiarum all Churches that is to say non omnium not all but only those within the Empire thus you can make all some and the whole a sole part when you have nothing else to say see you not how you give advantage to the Manichees and Menandrians c. who when one should have prest them Iohn 1.2 That our Saviour is creatour of all things they should have replyed as you do thar is not of all but only of some things not of bodies but of spirit only Are you a person fit to dispute in matters concerning conscience and salvation when rather then not reply to what cannot in reason be answered you will quite destroy the words opposed to you by your glosse upon them are not these desperate Intregues But t is very strange that the ancient Councils and Fathers
when they call the Roman Church Caput omnium Ecclesiarum head of all Churches as they doe very familiarly should allwayes according to you mean no more then the Churches within the Empire and yet should never signifie they mean no more then those if they ever doe signifie it name the place and words in any one of them and you shall be answered As to the word Caput head applied here to an original body As St. Paul declares the Church to be 1 Cor. 12.12 c. it must not only have the propriety of being the highest part in the body but also of having a power and capacity of governing and directing all the other parts as the head hath in natural bodies whereby it is evident that the legates in stiling the Roman Church the head of all Churches must be properly understood to mean that the Roman Church hath not only the cheif place but the cheif visible government and direction also over all other particular Churches Now St. Paul 1 Cor. 12.21 Composing the Church of different organical parts affirms that one amongst them is the head and by head he cannot mean our Saviour for he speaks of such a head as cannot say to the feet they are not necessary for it which cannot be true of Christ he must therefore mean a visible created head which hath need of the inferiour members as they have of it Mr. Baxter Num. 224. The Popes legates were not the Council nor judges in their own cause and not opposing signifies not alwaies a consent William Iohnson Num. 224. What if they were not the whole Council at least they spoke those words to the whole Council and I pretend no more Why should they be Iudges in their own cause seeing it was in a matter which no man then in the whole Council call'd in question or required that any new judgement should be given about it what if not opposing signifie not alwaies consent do I or need I pretend that it alwaies doth so it is sufficient for me that it argues consent here for certainly considering the matter they propose touches deeply upon the priviledges of the Fathers there assembled had they not spoken a known and unquestionable truth all the Fathers had been obliged to defend their liberties given them by our Saviour and represse this injury done them by the legates in that expression which seeing none of them did and yet every one had his full freedome to speak his minde for the Emperour had then no particular affection to the Sea of Rome it is an evident signe then all held it for a received truth so that it was the unanimous opinion and doctrine of the whole Council All therefore which I affirm is this that when any thing is publickly pronounced tending as this did in your opinion to the manifest and great disadvantage of all those who hear it some of them would contradict it if therefore noe one amongst many hundreds present offer to contradict it it is a manifest signe they conceived it no way injurious or disadvantageous to them and therefore assented to it as a most known and undeniable truth in those dayes Mr. Baxter Num. 225. This Council doe as I said expresly define the point both what your Primacy is and of how long standing and of what institution and that Constantinople on the same grounds had equal priviledges William Iohnson Num. 225. This is already toucht and shall be more fully answered in its place Mr. Baxter Num. 226. You say all the Fathers acknowledged themselves Leo's children and wrote to him as their Father Reply Of this you give me not any proof but leave me to read a 190 pages in folio to see whether you say true or not and what if you do as I believe you doe can a man of any reading be ignorant how ordinarily other Bishops were stiled Fathers even by their fellow Bishops as well as the Bishop of Rome William Iohnson Num. 226. You are deeply plunged in difficulties that you have no way to make a seeming escape but by throwing your self out of one fallacy into another See Blondel p. 997. acknowledging these words my argument is grounded in this that the Chalcedon Fathers call'd Pope Leo their Father and themselves his children and you might as you did by printing it in a different character easily perceive that the whole force of my argument was grounded in those termes their Father his children Now you wholly dissemble the answer to this and tell me that ordinarily other Bishops were stiled Fathers even by their fellow Bishops as well as the Bishop of Rome which is a pure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to my argument for one may stile another Father because he is Father to those who are his spiritual children in the Church as all Bishops are in relation to their diocesans Thouhg their equals who writ to them neither stile them their Fathers nor themselves their children as the Fathers of this Council did here style Leo and themselves Whereas you should have given an instance of some number or assembly of Bishops stiling any one their Father and themselves his children to whom they were equal and had no subjection to them nor dependance in government of them this you have not done because you could not do it whereby my argument hath received no solution from you but remaines in its full force against you As concerning your pains of reading a 190 pages in folio to finde out my citation I take so much pains to have been needless for I cite in my text the precise Epistle of that Council to Pope Leo saying in their Letter to Pope Leo which is not above two or three pages at most nor was I obliged to cite it more punctually then I did Mr. Baxter Num. 227. You adde that they humbly begged of him that the Patriarch of Constantinople might have the first place next Rome which notwithstanding the Council had consented to as had also the third general Council at Ephesus before yet they esteemed their grants of no sufficient force till they were confirmed by the Pope Reply So farre were the Council from what you fastely say of them that they put it into their canons that Constantinople should have the second place yea and equal priviledges with Rome and that they had this on the same grounds as Rome had its Primacy even because it was the Imperial â—â—eate vid. Bin. pag 133.134 col 2. William Iohnson Num. 227. I am sorry to see you in passion and that so deeply as to accuse my words of falsity either without duely examining whether they were true or false or if you did examine the place I cite quite against your conscience for these expresse words stand in the Councils Epistle to Pope Leo cited by me where speaking of their canon about the priviledges of Constantinople they say See Blondel p. 997. acknowledging these words rogamus igitur tuis decretis nostrum honor a
metaphorical children and he a metaphorical Father but will you scruple at the Pater noster because we call God our Father and consequently our selves his children because we are not the proper and natural but his metaphorical children when you next talk of governing them in love for their good and affirm that Kings must do the like why leave you out the word eternal which is my epithite and wherein the force of my words consists and then tell me I have exprest no difference at all is this fair will not every one who hath but half an eye discover such petty slights as these Mr. Baxter Num. 390. But our question is not new nor in universal terms what Soveraignty you claim you know or should know Are you ignorant that Bellarmine Boverius and ordinarily your Writers labour to prove that the Government of the Church is Monarchical and that the Pope is the Monarch the supream head and Ruler which in English is Soveraign Are you ashamed of the very cause or Title of it which you will have necessary to our salvation William Iohnson 390. 'T is one thing to say the Government is Monarchical and another to affirm the Pope to be the Monarch as you do and Bell. cited by you does not of the whole Church without ever explicating what kind of Monarch you mean A government may be termed Monarchical which hath a great part of Monarchy in it though it be not strict and perfect Monarchy as a man may be called Angelical though he be no Angel thus our Authors and particularly Bellarmine put the Church-government to have something of the mixt in it Bell. l. 1. de Rom. pont c. 5. sect ultimo though he esteems it to incline more to Monarchy then to Aristocracy Whence appears that your inference drawn from a government thus imperfectly Monarchical to intitle the chief Governour in it the Monarch of it without all restriction as you do is of no force And of as little force is your other inference grounded in your former mistake that I am ashamed of any title which I hold necessary to salvation first prove we call the Pope Monarch and then say I am ashamed of it CHAP. IX Num. 391. Whether the title of the Vice-Christ be accounted either due or given by sufficient authority amongst Roman Catholiques to the Pope or accepted by them Num. 392. Mr. Baxter confounds Vice-Christi in place of Christ and Vice-Christus the Vice-Christ Num. 393. How far the Pope is understood to be in the place of Christ. Num. 394. He miscites his Adversaries words Num. 395. How the Vice-Christ and the Vicar of Christ differ Num. 396. Why a Deputy for a King may be called the Vice-King but a Deputy of Christ cannot be called the Vice-Christ Num. 397. Mr. Baxter makes Vice God to be a a higher title then Vice-Christ Num. 398. Mr. Baxter in place of alleadging a sufficient that is a publique authority cites Oratours Poets Encomiasticks c. and yet mistake most of those Mr. Baxter Num. 391. Next you say that you very much dislike the title of Vice-Christ as proved and insolent and utterly disclaim from it neither was it ever given by any sufficient authority to your Popes or did they ever accept of it Reply Now blessed be God that makes sin a shame to it self that the Patrons of it dare scarce own it without some paint or vizard William Iohnson Num. 391. Had you first confuted this answer and then broke out into this exclamation it had been much more seasonable but as it stands it relishes more of passion then of reason and will appear so to any who shall consider the weakness of your proofs against it whereof most consist in a pure digression by a fallacy usual to you proceeding à notione secunda ad primam from the second notion to the first or from the title to the thing it self as we shall now see Mr. Baxter Num. 392. Is not the very life of the cause between you and us whether the Pope be the universal head of the Church Vice-Christi Vicarius Christi Are not these the most common titles that Papists give them and that they take unto themselves William Iohnson Num. 392. Here you begin your fallacie Vicarius Christi is indeed a title but Vice-Christi is none the one signifies the Vicar of Christ but the other signifies in the place or stead of Christ which having no substantive or demonstrative annext to it cannot possibly be a title for of it self it signifies no determinate substance Now if you will joyn to it a substantive and say Papa est Vice-Christi the Pope is in place of Christ you may make some kind of title to it but you can never make it that about which we controvert for that is Vice-Christus the Vice-Christ so that all those who are Vice-Christi in the genitive case that is the place of Christ are not Vice-Christi in the nominative that is Vice-Christi which title onlie is in question betwixt us you were as some of your Parishioners esteemed you to govern those of Kidderminster Vice-Christi in the place of Christ were you therefore the Vice-Christ of Kiddermunster Nor is the title of universal head of the Church set down in your illimited terms here either a title acknowledged by us as due to the Pope or given to him by us For that Christ being the sole universal head of the Church which comprehends the Church militant and triumphant the term universal head signifies that which is due to Christ onlie we therefore acknowledge there is none but Christ himself according to your expression universal head of the Church nor is there any universal vice-Vice-head nor Vice-Christ corresponding to that universal head to be found in the whole Church Nay even speaking of the sole militant Church we never say without some restriction the Pope is universal head of the Church for universal head comprises as well the internal and invisible as the visible Governour of the militant Church now we all deny that the Pope is head in the invisible government of the visible Church for that manner of government Christ only is the universal head nor say we that there is any Vice-christ or vice-Vice-head constituted in the place of Christ in this invisible direction of the Church We therefore restrain the term universal head by this restrictive visible nor intend we to say any more then this that the Bishop of Rome is the visible head of the universal visible Church so far as it is capable of a visible government together with other Bishops who are as truely Christs officers and vice-gerents in their respective governments though subject to the Pope as he is in his government And in this sense only can he be termed a vice-Christ or vice-God that is holding the place of Christ in the visible government of his Militant Church But he cannot be stiled the vice-Christ which is the sole title about which we now contend
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
from a particular Church unlesse from the whole William Iohnson Answ. No it is no Schism as Schism is taken in the holy Fathers for that great and capital crime so severely censured by them in which sense onely I take it here Mr. Baxter Though I take Schisme more comprehensibly and I think aptly my self yet hence I observe your justification of the Protestants from the Schisme seeing they separate and not from the Catholique Church for they separate not from the Armenian Ethiopian Greek William Iohnson Here you allow of my definition at least you disclaim not from it but use your objections how it makes against my party this I have told often is not now our work but belongs to our dispute in taking your best advantages of my explications Did not your first Protestants in Germany separate as much from the Armenians Ethiopians Greeks as they did from uhe Romans if they did not shew the communion they had with them did you first Ministers either take mission or jurisdiction to preach from any of their Bishops or Patriarks did they take the prescription of their Liturgie Discipline or Hirearchie from them did they upon occasion joyn in Prayer Sacraments or Sacrifice with them and did they profess the same faith in all points of faith and those the very same wherein they dissented from the Church of Rome and all this notwithstanding were they in external communion with them If so they may as well be said not to have separated from the external communion of the Roman Church and if they separate from that they also separated from the other for the very same reasons Mr. Baxter Nor from you as Christians William Iohnson Nor from us say you as Christians no sure for if you did you must be Jewes Turks or Infidels Mr. Baxter But as scandalous offenders when we are commanded to avoide we separate not from any but as they separate from Christ. William Iohnson Was there no more in 't did not the Primitive Persons who begun your breach and party ow subjection to their respective Ecclesiastical Superiours Diocesans and Pastors immediately before they revolted from them and is it lawful for a subject to subtract himself from the obedience of his lawful Pastour because that Pastour is a scandalous offender remaines he not in his former power notwithstanding those scandelous offences till he be legally deposed if you say he does not you contradict our Saviour commanding obedience to be given to the scandalous Pharises who sate in Moyses his chaire you destroy all Ecclesiastical Government and open a way to tread underfoot all temporal authority also in desisting to acknowledge their authority by reason of Scandelous offences if you hold these offences deprive him ipso facto from all Ecclesiastical power why shall not another say they deprive Kings and Magistrates nay even Fathers and Mothers of their authority over those whom they Govern and then you would have spun a fair thred and laid a more open passage to rebellion then any you can finde or shew amongst those whom you term Papists and will make this good against your self that a man cannot be a good subject unless he cease to be of your party such I suppose you esteem those to be who follow your doctrine nor yet did you only refuse obedience to them in what you thought to be scandelous and against God but you absolutely rejected their Ecclesiastical authority and refused to have any dependance at all of them as your lawful Pastour neither acknowledging those under whose immediate jurisdiction you then were nor any of the Ecclesiastical authority in that time Mr. Baxter Qu. 2. Or no Schism unless willfull W. Iohnson Noe. Mr. Baxter Again your further justifie us from Schism if it be wilful it must be against knowledge but we are farr from separating willfully or knowingly from the whole Church that we abhor the very thought of such a thing as Impious and Damnable William Iohnson Abhorr it as much as you please for your own particular I know not what excuse may be pleaded for you I am certain that your first beginners did it and that knowingly and willfully and you still maintaining what they begun must by all considering Christians be judged guilty of the same crime for still you remain separate from all those Churches from which they departed that is from all the visibe Churches existant immediately before they sprung up and in their time and still continue through the whole world Mr. Baxter Qu. 3. Is it none if you make it a division in the Church and not from the Church William Iohnson Answ. Not as we are here to understand it and as the Fathers treat it for the Church of Christ being perfectly one cannot admit of any proper Schism within it self for that would divide it into two which it cannot be Mr. Baxter Though I am sure Paul calls it Schism when men makes divisions in the Church though not from it not making it two Churches but dislocating some members and abating Charity and causing contentions where there should be peace yet I accept your continued justification of us who if we should be tempted to be dividers in the Church should yet hate to be dividers from it as believing that he that is sepâ—â—ate from the whole body is also separate from the head William Iohnson I am glad to see you accept of some thing at the last upshot If it be for your advantage God give you good on 't See Dr. Ham. in his Book of schism c. 1 2 3 I speak not of Schism taken in a large sense but of that onely which is treated by the Fathers and reckoned up amongst the most horrid sinnes which a Christian can commit and that separates from the whole Church Sir urgent and unavoidable businesse constrained me to delay my return to your Solutions or Explications of your Definitions till this Iune 29. 1660. Mr. Baxter When you desire me to Answer any such Questions or Explain any doubtfull passages of mine I shall willingly doe it In the mean time you may see while your Termes are Explained and your Explications or Definitions so insignificant how unfit we are to proceed any further in dispute till we better understand each other as to our Termes and Subject which when you have done your part to I shall gladly if God enable me go on with you till we come if it may be to our desired Issue But still I crave your performance of the double task you are ingaged in RICHARD BAXTER William Iohnson Sir I have thus far endeavoured to satisfie your expectation and to acquit my self of all my obligations wherein I have sought as I strongly hope first God's eternal glory and in the next place your eternal good with his for whom I undertake this labour and of all those who attentively and unpartially peruse this Treatise WILLIAM IOHNSON ERRATA Page 75. line 13. ad neither p. 78. l. 6 dele my answering
Pope of Rome had the government of all the Church without the verge of the Roman Empire but only that he was to the Roman Church as the arch-bishop of Canterbury to the English Church and as between Canterbury and York so between Rome and Constantinople there have been contentions for preheminency but if you can prove Canterbury to be before York or Rome before Constantinople that will prove neither of them to be Ruler of the antipodes or of all the Christian world William Iohnson Num. 278. But if you can prove Canterbury to be not only in place and precedency but in authority and jurisdiction above York and withall above all the Metropolitans Primates and Patriarchs which were anciently within the Roman Empire because they acknowledged his authority to be above all the Prelates of God to have Christs vineyard committed to his care from Christ to be the Father to all the Bishops met in general Councils and they his professed children acknowledged by them to be their head and they as parts subject to him c. And never to have been acknowledged as supream in spirituals by these in the Empire because his authority reached as I have prov'd the Bishops of Rome to have been acknowledged by them no farther then the Empire When I say you shall have prov'd the Bishop of Canterbury to have been over all the Metropolitans Primates and Patriarchs within the Empire in this manner as I have proved the Bishop of Rome to be you will have proved Canterbury to have had all the preheminences given him by antiquity to be the Supream spiritual governour of the whole Church But seeing neither you nor any one in his right wits would ever undertake so great a peice of nonsence I should have wondered you dazle the eyes of your readers with such empty shewes as these had it not been so ordinary with you This very argument hath proved that not only one man but as you cannot deny all the Churches in the Empire acknowledge it and yet you say I have not proved one man to hold it whether this be to be termed confidence or impudence I leave to judgement Mr. Baxter Num. 279. Much less have you proved that ever any Church was of this opinion that the Pope was by divine Right the Governour of the world when you cannot prove one man of that opinion 3. much less have you proved a succession of such a Church from the Apostles having said as much as nothing to the first 300 yeares William Iohnson Num. 279. You forget and have proceeded in that act of oblivion through your whole reply that I undertook in these instances noe more then to prove against your bold assertion that within the first 600. 500. and 400 yeares there were some at least who testified the Supremacy of the Roman Bishop over the whole Church by Christs institution though therefore my proofs had not been taken out of those who flourished within the first 300 years seeing they were within the first 400 they had been of force against you But you may remember also that I cited St. Cyprian who was within the first 300 and Vincentius Lyrinensis who witnesses the same of Pope Stephen contemporary with St. Cyprian and very many of my cheif instances prove V. G. in the councils of Nice Ephesus and Chalcedon that it descended from our Saviour and had been in all ages since the Apostles and was to be in all future ages Mr. Baxter Num 380. And much less have you proved that the whole Catholique Church was of this opinion William Iohnson Num. 380. Whether I have or no let others judge Mr. Baxter Num. 381. And yet least of all have you proved that the whole Church took this Primacy of Rome to be of necessity to the very being of the Church to our salvation and not only ad melius esse as a point of order William Iohnson Num. 381. I have proved it to have been a matter ever necessary in the Church by Christs institution and therefore necessary ad esse to the being and not only ad bene esse to the perfection of the Church For seeing some Governours are essential to the Church as appears Ephes. 4. v. 11 12 13. in the order and Hierarchy of those Governours there must be some who are to be over all the rest in visible government otherwise neither could schism be avoided and unity preserved as Optatus cited hereafter affirms l. 2. contra Parmen nor would a visible body have a visible head which would be monstrous Mr. Baxter Num. 382. So that you have left your cause in shameful nakedness as if you had confessed that you can prove nothing William Iohnson N. 382. If you mean to such eyes as yours which I have demonstrated either discovered not or mis-saw the face of my arguments I grant it but all open and right sighted eyes I hope will have seen my cause so invested with grace and truth by what I have here replyed that it will have no shame to appear before heaven and earth before men and angels for its justification Mr. Baxter Num. 383. In the end you return to terms To what you say about the word Christians I only say that it s but equivocally applied to any that profess not all the essentials of Christianity of which Popery is none any more then pride is William Iohnson Num. 383. I leave it to judgement whether this answer related to my explication as of Christianity pag. 64. your edit have any sense in it For what though Popery as you conceit were no more essential to Christianity then pride is yet if a Papist hold all the essentials of Christianity as you hold he does he may be univocally a Christian. Will you say that because pride is none of the essentials of Christianity therefore no proud man holds all the essentialls of Christianity to what purpose then have you added this clause of Pride and Popery when I speak in general and abstractive terms not medling at all with particulars Now you give no satisfaction to your Reader about the clear notion of an univocal Christian you tell him here that an univocal Christian is he who believes all the essentials of Christianity but through this whole answer you never give him either a distinct catalogue of essentials or prescribe any direct rule or means to know which they are as we shall see hereafter Mr. Baxter Num. 384. About the word Monarch in good sadness do you deny the Pope to be an imperious sole Commander Which of these is it you do deny not that he is a Commander not that he is imperious not that he is sole in his Soveraignty I would either you or we knew what you hold or deny But perhaps the next words shew the difference as temporal Kings But this saith not a word wherein they differ from temporal Kings William Iohnson 384. You are really a strange man to deal withal Can any one speak more
who decreed that there should be one every ten years Here 's a nominative case the way c. without a verb. Mr. Baxter Num. 417. The Councils that continue so many years as that at Trent did are then become an ordinary Government William Iohnson Num. 417. Here you fall into a scond Equivocation about the word ordinary that which lasts about twenty years in the Church with a soveraign power must be for the time they so continue the ordinary governour of the Church where you take ordinary for that which continues a considerable space of time See you not how handsomly you insinuate here that the late long Parliament which continued about as long as did the Council of Trent was for that time become with you and your abettors the ordinary Soveraign governour of the Kingdome and thereby his Majesty was excluded from being ordinary Sovereign over it I hope this will be noted too Mr. Baxter Num. 418. Fourthly what is given to the Church representative is by many of you given to the Church real or essential as you call it which is ordinarily existent only not capable of exerting the power it hath the singulis major ut universis minor is no rare doctrine with you William Iohnson Num. 418. Here you fumble in the dark I pray unriddle this in your next for I cannot what is that wee give to the Church real and representative wherein is the Church real not able to exert its power what mean you by singulis major and universis minor to whom apply you this or to what purpose Mr. Baxter Num. 419. Fiftly but let it be as extraordinary as you please if while these Councils sit the Pope lose his headship your Church is then two Churches specifically distinct and the form of it changeth when a Council siteth not like the Spouse of Iesus Christ. William Iohnson Num. 419. You should have done well to have prest this argument against those who hold Councils to be above the Pope it touches not me at all who am of the contrary opinion yet even those of that opinion will answer you with a wet finger that the Church hath neither then two heads nor loses the Pope his headship for he remaines chief ordinary governour of the Church in all ordinary causes and cases as well when there is as when there is not a Council and he being as ordinary head of the Church the chief president in the Council the Council is not its chief governour with exclusion of the Pope because it cannot be a true general Council but by including him in it So that he with the rest of the Bishops assembled make up the Council you cannot therefore divide the Council from him unlesse you divide him from himself so that he and a general Council are not two things adequately distant but involve him in it as a humane body involves the head or a Parliament the King Mr. Baxter Num. 420. Sixtly As your Popes are said to live in their constitutions and laws when the person dieth and your Church is not thought by you to die with them so why may not Councils do The lawes of Councils live when they sit not and the French think that these lawes are above the Pope though I shewed you even now that Julius 2. in Con. Lateran concluded otherwise of Decrees and the Council of the Popes power William Iohnson Num. 420. Let them remain in their decrees as much as you please but that will never make them the ordinary chief governours of the Church they remain no more in their degrees then did our ancient Parliaments in their Statutes yet no man dare say who is a good subject that those Parliaments were therefore the ordinary soveraign governours of the Kingdome taken exclusively without the King Mr. Baxter Num. 421. Seventhly If a Nation be governed by Triennial and so Decennial Parliaments as the highest power and Councils of State in the intervals who shall be accountable to Parliaments will you say these Parliaments are extraordinary and not the ordinary Soveraign no doubt they are And the Council of State is the Soveraign but the chief Officer or Magistrate for execution of the intervals William Iohnson Num. 421. Hitherto you have discoursed warily and covertly but now you discover openly your opinion of State government 'T is well you put an if to it and make it a conditional that will save you at a dead lift but yet every one sees by it how great an approver you were of the soveraignty of irregular Parliaments and authority of Councils of State for you speak not of what might be but what then was when you writ this but I wonder you were so bold as to let this see light as you did before something like it even since the most happy returne of his Sacred Majestie Let others judge of such passages as these Thus farre Mr. Baxter produces his answer to my argument and instances the last four pages are spent in confident repetition of what is now answered a prescription of what he would impose upon me to be Sylogistocally proved a prophesie of Christs speedy coming to judgement a wholesome admonition to take help from others to be able to encounter him scilicet a whole Army of such Pigmees as I is not able to incounter him he is so great a Giant but let the Reader judge whether something like that hath not hapned unto him which hapned to such an other whilst he exprobated and outfaced the hosts of the living God 1. Reg. 17.49.50 And it may be thought of also whether the 16 Chap. v. 6. of Esay may not be appliable to him audivimus Superbiam Moab Superbus est valde superbia ejus arrogantia ejus indignatio ejus plus quam fortitudo ejus Finally which is only worth observance he adds an earnest request to make a favorable exposition of what he feares may be thought too confident and earnest in his expressions which I freely pardon and beg a free pardon of God for him This as it is no part of his answer so can it not challenge any part of my reply I leave the whole processe to the impartial Reader and expect Mr. Baxters rejoynder Novelty Represt The third Part. In a brief Answer to Mr. Baxters second part Quest. Whether the Churches of which Protestants are Members have been visible ever since the dayes of Christ on earth CHAP. I. Mr. Baxters definitions and divisions Num. 1. He defines the Church Num. 2. His former solutions have rendred his difinition of the Church insignificant he defines Protestants the nullity of that difinition he speaks irreverently and unchristianly of the Catholique Church Whether the profession of a Protestant shew him to be as much an univocal Christian as the profession of a Papist shews him to be a Papist Num. 3. The reason why Protestants general profefsion of Christianity makes them no univocal Christians Num. 4. Mr. Baxter frames again a monster having a
Patents and Commissions immediately from the King subject to the general in order to their respective commands but are as truly Officers of the King as the general is nor can the General displace any of them at his pleasure as the King can do though he has power to command them upon the Kings service or to correct punish or displace them when they give sufficient cause for that is also belonging to the Kings service Now you had not consideration enough to see this difference t' was not some will say for want of ignorance Now if we take the word universal in the malignant signification it will follow that if such an universal Bishop fall the Church falls with him because there will be no other true Pastour to maintain her in the truth through the whole Church the rest being not absolute pastours but his Officers 50. Page 257. Is spent in reciting St. Gregories execrations against the title of universal which touch'd not our controversie 51. Page 258. Whether your reply or Bellar. answer be more miserable I leave to the Reader he speaks of a Vicar to sinful man and you answer t is no indignity to a Bishop to be a Vicar of Christ the eternal God next you equivocate again num 2. the question is not what Iohn thought or pretended by that title who can prove or disprove evidently what were his secret thoughts but what St. Gregory expresses himself to judge of his pretences either what he did think or probably speaking might be judged to think by assuming that title Now that St. Gregory thought such to be Iohns pretensions by that title is out of question 52. Page 258.259 num 3. You make Pope Gregory his exceed in censure of Iohns pretensions in assuming that title and thereby take away all force from those very citations which you cite against us so strong a disputant are you against your self why should you think groundless discourses should be of any force against your adversarie nay you are so favourable to St. Iohn and so froward to St. Gregory that you make the one pretend no farther then to a precedency of place before all other Bishops which he had before in relation to all save only the Bishop of Rome so that it was not in reallity a subjection of all the members of Christ to him which he sought by that title supposing that it included no more then a primacy of order or precedency but that he sought only by that title having before precedency before all the rest to obtain precedencie before one more then he had that is the Bishop of Rome And for St. Gregory you make him an arrand lyer for he sayes neither himself nor any of his predecessours ever accepted of that proud title and yet if it were no more but a supremacy of place before all not an universal government as you say here it was not you your felf acknowledge that he and all his predecessors at least since the Council of Nice accepted of it nay you will make St. Gregory speak absurdly and ridiculously in inveighing so earnestly against Iohn of Constantinople as a forerunner of Anti-Christ a prophane person a destroyer of Episcopal dignitie c. For having pretended no more then to take place of the Pope whereas you say here the Pope had then no rite to nor possession in that precedency of place but only striv'd for it and why then might not Iohn strive also for't against him without blasphemy or Anti-Christanism What say you of the Greeks refusing to have the universal government of the Church I have above confuted out of Hieremius against the Lutherans 53. Page 259. The text you urge proves no more then the former and shews the truth of my answer the like is of page 260. That title as subjecting all Christs members to one as their universal Bishop as though they had no other Bishop nor true Pastour but him is as manifestly against Christ as if a General should subject all the souldiers and Officers under him as if he were their sole commander by immediate commission from the King and the rest by commission from him would be against the King 54. Page 261. The words you urge do manifestly illustrate my interpretation of St. Gregory when he sayes Et solus omnibus praeesse videretur for in our opinion it is not true that the Pope solus omnibus praeest is alone above all for all Christians have some other above them then the Pope as he is supream governour of the Church videlicet their respective Bishops and Pastours but in the sense St. Gregory speakes of the universal Bishop only is above all there being no others but such as have their authority from him and govern as his Officers in his place and by his authority 55. Page 261. Your first reply to Bellarm. is now answer'd t' was but two Deacons three leaves of and now t is two or three they 'l increase in time like Falstafs blades in buckerome The Fathers of the Council cal'd him not only head or head-Bishop as London is cal'd the head City but they cal'd him their head and themselves the members of that body whereof he was head and said that he governed them as the head governs the members Tu sicut caput Membris prae eras ut supra To number the third p. 262. t' was first two then on the other side of the leaf it increased to two or three Deacons who offer'd St. Leo this title and without the Councils approbation and on this side it is the whole Council according to St. Gregory whose words you cite against us and therefore must esteem them true which consisted of thrice 200 Bishops Falstafs bounce buckerome was nothing to this increase Next you fall into a fallacie ex insufficiente enumeratione partium It was neither in the sense now explicated he thought it was offered by the Council nor as he was Episcopus primae sedis Bishop of the first sea in your sense i. e. The first in place order or precedency only but as it signified the supream Bishop who governed all other Bishops though they were as true and proper governours of their respective flocks as he was of his which immediate power and commission from our Saviour as Colonels and Captaines are govern'd by their General To num 3. Nor have to this day any Roman Bishop incerted this name of universal into their titles as the Bishops of Constantinople doe But contrary wise ever since this proud title was assumed by the Bishops of Constantinople the Bishops of Rome have inserted this humble title into theirs of Servi servorum Dei Servant of the servants of God as may be seen in St. Gregories Epistles written after that time to which is prefixed by him that humble title Gregorius servus servorum Dei But if it signified no more then that the Roman Bishop is the first in place before all others why might he not use it seeing you
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