had the Description from your self then have been thus bobb'd off to Blondel so laxely cited without Page Paragraph Number Chapter or Book as you cite him here so that I must be enforced if I will find it to turn over his whole Treatise a Book in Folio of 1268 Pages Whatsoever therefore is of him with whom I have nothing to do for the present for if I would answer every particular Author of yours whom you cite as wildly as you do this Blondell I might have work enough it is evident that some Extra-Imperial Provinces were under the Ancient Patriarchs And in the first place concerning the Bishop of Rome the 39 Canon of the Nicene Council in the Arabick Edition published by Pisanus which I shall cite more particularly hereafter and prove the Authenticalness of those Canons affirms expresly that the Roman Bishop as being Christ's Vicar has power over all Christian Princes and their people subject to them Tom. 1. Conc. p. 416. and that he as being the Vicar of Christ is over all people and all Christian Churches and Can. 36. declares that the Bishop of Alexandria has Jurisdiction over the Ethiopick Churches And Can. 35. orders that the Bishop of Antioch should have Authority over the Church of Persia which was Extra-Imperial And the Council of Chalcedon Ibid. pag. 4â—â—5 Can. 28 th so much extolled by you gives to the Bishop of Constantinople Authority over the Barbarous Nations near those parts that is such as were Extra-Imperial as that of Russia and Muscovia Baxter Num. 65. The Emperors themselves did sometime giving power to the Councils Acts make Rome the chief and sometime as the Councils did also give Constantinople equal priviledge and sometime set Constantinople highest as I have shewed in my Key pag. 174 175. But the Emperours had no power to do thus with respect to those without the Empire Iohnson Num. 65. I will here give my Reader an assay of the solidity of your proofs heaped confusedly one upon another in your Key You cite in pag. 174 175. Now pag. 174. you translate Pontifex Pope and summus Pontifex chief Pope Sure you never had this Translation from any Grammarian new or old Who ever before you said that Pontifex signifies Pope or what similitude is there betwixt Pontifex and Pope save onely that they both begin with the same Letter When S. Paul saith speaking of our Saviour Habemus Pontificem magnum Hâ—â—b 4.14 would you translate it We have a great Pope Or when he affirms that he is Pontifex secundum ordinem Melchisedec would you English it Hâ—â—b 6.20 He is a Pope according to the order of Melchisedec I alwayes thought that Pontifex or summus Pontifex signified the highest sort of Priests both in the Old Testament and the New but never heard that it signified Pope before But you have some drift in this Baronius say you in Martyrolog Roman April 9. affirms that all Bishops were stiled anciently not onely Pontifices but summi Pontifices that is say you Popes and chief Popes to infringe thereby what some gather as you say viz the Supremacy of the Roman Bishop from this Title of being stiled Summi Pontifices chief Popes say you pag. 173. You should have done well to have told us who those some were and would have done so had you writ like a Scholar But I 'le help you out for once Bellarmin is one of that some you speak of Lib. 2. de Pontif. Roman cap. 31. sect Quartum But Barenius say you affirms that Title to have been attributed anciently to all Bishops that 's true too if you take the Latin words but not in that sense wherein Bellarmin takes Summus Pontifex For Baronius takes it for a chief Priest and Bellarmin for the chiefest or highest Priest not onely in respect of simple Priests who are in a rank below Bishops and in relation to whom Bishops were anciently stiled summi Pontifices such as were in the highest order of Priests but absolutely in respect of all other Bishops in the Church For Bellarmin in proof of this Title cites an Epistle of Pope Stephen where the Bishop of Rome is stiled Summus omnium praesulum Pontifex the highest Bishop of all Prelates or Bishops In the same sense he cites S. Gregory and S. Bernard And lastly the sixth Synod which intitles him Act. 18. in Sermon Acclamatorio Sanctissimum Patrem nostrum summum Papam their most holy Father and most high Pope that is the highest of all Bishops even over the Bishops of that Council And though Baronius cited by you grant the bare words of summus Pontifex as they signifie onely a chief Priest were anciently given to all Bishops yet in his Annals Anno 215 216. num 3. from the Title of Pontifex maximus the greatest or highest Bishop that is summus Pontifex in Bellarmins sense he proves the eminent Authority of the Roman Bishop Now this is worth the noting also that you first take summus Pontifex for the chief Pope in Bellarmins sense and then prove that summus Pontifex as it signifies not the chief Pope but a chief Priest as Baronius takes it is no proof of his universal Authority In your second Paragraph you shew that the Titles Papa Dominus Pater Sanctissimus Beatissimus Dei amantissimus c. were commonly given to all Bishops Who confute you here who ever said these Titles prove his Supremacy The like is of the Church of Rome being called the mother of all Churches Paraph. 3. for the term mother may be understood either in relation to the first origin or fountain of Christanity and in this sense Hierusalem is the mother Church or in regard of authority and government which a mother hath over her children And in this sense the title of mother is attributed to the Roman Church and proves evidently her aâ—â—thority over all Christian Churches But is it not very handsome for you first to affix the title of mother absolutely to the Roman Church and then to infringe that title by saying the Church of Cesarea out of S. Basil is the mother of all Churches in a manner Would you think it a rational answer if one should prove your mother had authority to correct you by vertue of the title of mother Fallacy 10. you should answer that the tiof mother proves nothing for your elder sister was as a mother to you in a manner though she had no authority over you Is not not this a plain Fallacy from simpliciter to secundum quid In your fourth Paragraph you say If the words be consulted where the Roman Church is stiled mater Ecclesiarum mother of all Churches for that 's her title they signifie only priority of dignity that is without authority and jurisdiction over all Churches joyned to that dignity And this you never go about to prove so irrefragable is your authority that your bare word must passe for a proof I wonder you have
Apostoloâ—â—um Capuâ—â— Petrus unde Cephas appellatus est In qua una Cathedra unitâ—â—s ab omnibus servaretur ne caeteri Apostoli singuli sibi quisque defenderent Ut jam Schismaticus peccator esset qui contra singularem Cathedram alteram collocaret Ergo Cathedra unica quae est prima de dotibus sedit prior Petrus cui successit Linus c. Therefore sayes Optatus thou canst not deny that thou knowest in the City of Rome the Episcopal chaire was first given to Peter wherein sate the head of all the Apostles Peter whence he is called Cephas In which one chaire unity should be kept by all least every one of the rest of the Apostles should defend another chair to himselfe That now he should be a Schismatick and a sinner who should erect another chaire against this that is single or one only therefore in this only chair which is one of the dowries of the Church first sate Peter to whom Linus succeeded c. Thus farr Optatus and then he reckons up seven and thirtie Popes succeeding one another to Ciricius who sate in his time then adds Cum quo nobis totus orbis commercio formarum in una communionis societate concordat Literarum supplendum videtur with whom Ciricius the whole world accords with us by the correspondence of formed Letters This done he relates that this truth of unity in faith and communion was then a thing so notoriously known throughout the whole Christian world for a mark of a true Christian that the Donatists themselves to have some pretence to it even from their first beginning sent one of their partie to be Bishop of the African Donatists in Rome and still continued the succession of those Donatists Bishops there to the number of four whose names he mentions so ambitious were they of having at least a shadow of communicating with a Bishop at Rome seeing they could never have it with the true Bishop of Rome as Optatus notes here St. Chrysostome (t) Orat. Encom in Petrum Paulum orat 5. contr Iudeos hom 83 in Math. hom 87. in Ioan. hom 80. ad po Anteoch stiles St. Peter Doctour or Teacher of the Apostles and that he was the first of the Apostles brought under his subjection the whole world and that Christ built his Church upon him The top of the Apostolical Colledge that he was President of the Church throughout the whole world St. Augustine (u) In questi novi test q. 75 in fine That all titles of Authority next after Christ were in St. Peter that he was the head to be Pastor of Christs flock that our Saviour praying for St. Peter pray'd for all the Apostles (x) Serm. 15. de Sanctis Serm. 16. because what is done for a Superiour or Governour is done for all those who are under his charge that he was the foundation of the Church by virtue of our Saviours words upon this rock I will build my Church he calls the Roman Sea the Sea Apostolick absolutely (y) Lit. 2. contr lit petil c. 51. (z) Himno cont partem Donati in initio That the succession of the Roman Bishops is the rock which the gates of Hell do not overcome I omit for brevity sake many other holy Fathers of those ages hoping these will be a sufficient testimony of St. Peters and the Roman Bishops authority not within the Empire only but through the whole Christian world 44. To your fift Argument p. 251. I deny your Antecedent you prove it by an outfacing confidence in five particulars to the first and second I answer it is not necessary he should either have chosen or ordain'd them nor authorize any other to the validitie of ordaining them nor that they should receive their Episcopal power of ordaining from him but their Patriarchal power was from him as I have proved above in that he both restored and deposed those Patriarchs as occasion requir'd To your third the lawes and canons of the Church they receiv'd and those were confirm'd by his authority To your fourth I have evidenced they were commanded and judged by him To your fift I deny the Patriarch of Constantinople to be equal with him in all things nor can you prove it No nor so much as essay to prove it without contradicting your self who grant him a precedency of place before the Bishop of Constantinople which is one priviledge CHAP. IV. St. Gregories doctrine about universal Bishop Num. 45. In what sence St. Gregory condemn'd the title of universal Bishop how cleerly he attributes to St. Peter the Soveraign authority over the whole Church by Christs authority and consequently to his lawful Succâ—â—ssors after his death the Bishops of Rome Num. 47 Whether the title of universal were offered St. Leo by the Council of Chalcedon why St. Gregory refus'd and condemn'd that title Num. 52. Mr. Baxter contradicts St. Gregory and himself and brings all he hath objected in 8. or 10. pages to nothing Num. 53 54 55. how various he is in his accounts Num. 57. into what difficulties Mr. Baxter casts himself 45. Pag. 253. You trifle about the title of universal Bishop or Patriarch this St. Gregory took to be full of pride and insolency and injurious to all Patriarchs and Bishops in the Church because it was capable of this signification that he was the universal Bishop of the whole Church so that there were no other true and effectual Bishops in the whole Church save himself and the rest were not Christs but his officers nor receiving their power from Christ but from him this he insinuates in the words you cite here and after sayes Iam vos Episcopi non estis if once an universal Bishop were admitted in the Church then all the rest were no longer Bishops for this reason this holy Pope refused and condemn'd this title but as for the thing it self which is in controversie betwixt us that the Pope hath power and jurisdiction over the whole Church we have above proved St. Gregory to be most positive in it in several passages of his works See St. Gregories Epistles throughout nor was there every any Pope exercised more acts of jurisdiction through the whole Church as occasion required then he did And in his Epistles themselves even in those he writ in time of this controversie with Iohn of Constantinople he gives most evident proofs of it Ep. lib. 1. ep 24. he sayes thus Hinc namque est quod Petrus authore Deo principatum tenens a bene urgente Cornelio sese ei humiliter prosternanti immoderatius venerari recusavit Hence it is that Peter holding the principality by Gods authority or God being the author refused to be immoderately venerated by good Cornelius who prostrated himself unto him where he attributes St. Peters principality to the institution of God that is of our Saviour but then presently St. Gregory addes that when St. Peter dealt with Ananias
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
jejune gloss upon the title of universalis Ecclesiae Episcopus for in effect it comprehends all the authority which we ascribe to the Roman Bishop over the Church and as much nay much more then you would have signified by the title of the universal Bishop conformable to this title in its genuine signification are others of the like nature given to the Popes by the ancient Fathers Thus writes St. Ambrose ep 81. Ad Cyricium Papam Recognovimus literis sanctitatis tuae boni pastoris excubias quam fideliter tibi commissam januam serves pia solicitudine Christi ovile custodias we discover by your Holiness letters the watchfulness of a good Pastor how faithfully you keep the door committed to you and with how holy a care you preserve the fold of Christ. And again in 1. ad Tim. 3. Domus Dei est Ecclesia cujus hodie Rector est Damasus the house of God is the Church the Governor whereof is Damasus who was then the Bishop of Rome The Council of Chalcedon as we have already seen â—â—p ad Leonem sayes thus in super contra ipsum â—â—ui vineae custodia a Salvatore commissa est id est contra tuam Apostolicam sanctitatem extendit insaniam Moreover Dioscorus extends his madness against him to whom the care of the Vineyard was committed by our Saviour that is against this Apostolical sanctity An. Ed. Binnii p. 141. The Popes Legates in the Council of Chalcedon intitle Leo Caput universalis Ecclesiae head of the universal Church Now to imbroyle the controversie and cast a slurre upon Bellar. you put St. Greg. at odds with him and then ask which of those two is the wiser whereas Bell. promises first a distinction of two different significations of universalis Episcopus universal Bishops In the one he accords with St Gregory that the said title is prophane sacrilegious and Anti-christian and proves that St. Greg. took the words in that sence when he inveighed so highly against them and never asserts that Episcopus universalis taken in that prophane sence and Episcopus universalis Ecclesiae are of the same force Then he accommodates as you your self do though another way another signification to those words universal Bishop wherein they were taken in the bills directed to St. Leo in the Council of Chalcedon for neither would the Council have permitted nor those Catholiques and Clericks have ascribed a prophane sacrilegious and Anti-christian title to Pope Leo and it appears that as they took the word universal it had no more of the prophane c. in it as applyed to St. Leo then it had as apply'd to the Council of Chalcedon for to both of them they attribute universal as therefore the Council was truly universal in a most Catholique sence without any prejudice to other Bishops or the Hierarchy of the Church in the like sence did they understand Pope Leo to be universal Archbishop his universal jurisdiction suiting as well with the compleat authority of all other Bishops as did that of the Council for though the Council was truly universal in jurisdiction over the whole Church as I have proved yet that notwithstanding the Patholick Bishops became no substitutes Vicars or Officers to those of the Council but still remain'd absolute Officers of Christ and true Pastours Bishops Governors in place of Christ in their respective districts c. In like manner the Popes being universal in jurisdiction took not away any part of the full power and authority of other Bishops but consisted together with it as did the universal jurisdiction of the Council Now in this second and Catholick sense only Bellar. affirms that universal Bishop and Bishop of universal Church are the same in sense wherein there is no debate between him and St. Gregory Thus you cunningly delude your Readers by casting such confused mists as these before their eyes 59. By this the weakness of what you say next p. 264. is clearly discover'd where you vent rather your passion then speak reason against Bellar. for who can doubt but St. Gregory had ground enough to execrate as he did that title when it was so obnoxious in it self to prophaness c. And pretended by a person of so ambitious a spirit as was that Iohn of Constantinople that he was in danger to make the worse use of it for his own advantage Thus though Christotocos be capable of a true and Catholick sense yet because it is also capable and obnoxius since Nestorius his heresie to be taken in an heretical signification the Church forbade it as sacrilegious and prophane and much more as it was then used by Nestorius 60. In your answer to Bellar. second reason p. 264. you abuse both him and St. Gregory Bell. sayes the title of universal was not due to Iohn of Constantinople in neither of the two senses now delivered which you conceal and therefore was absolutely prophane and sacrilegious as applied to him in any sense whatsoever and yet even St. Gregory himself refus'd it as prophane c. Though in some sense it might be due to him to beat down the pride of Iohn you abuse St. Gregory in saying p. 265. That he approv'd that title for himself or that Bell. affirms he approved of it as for himself neither of them say any such matter prove they do Know you not that Malum ex quocunque defectu that every defect makes a thing evil seeing therefore there was a defect of a prophane signification and scandal in the title of universal for that defect he accounted it evil and absolutely disallowed of it nor could the capacity of that word to be taken in a more moderate sense prevail with him to approve of it quia malum ex quocunque defectu the other defect had corrupted it nor sayes Bellarmine that he approved it even for himself but that in some sence it agreed with him yet the danger of scandal in accepting a title so subject to bear a prophane sense deterr'd him from approving of it even for himself as knowing the curse which lyes upon those which give scandal to their weak brethren and that Christians are to avoy'd all appearance of evil 61. In your last clause of this paragraph you fall again into your old fallacie proceeding a notione secunda ad primam from the titles which hath two significations to the thing controverted which corresponds but to one of those significations I have proved though St. Greg. disallowed of that scandalous title yet both he and his predecessors allwaies admitted of an universal Soveraignty as it was explicated above most untrue therefore is your illation that it sprung up since St. Greg. dayes your next citation out of St. Gregory confirmes what I have now said he thought the title of universal by reason of the scandal comprized in it absolutely to be refus'd by all good Prelats And so does the rest that followes out of St. Gregory page 266. only in these words sed
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
accused to shew that he did not play the part of a judge but of a friend as Chrysostome did by some that fled to him I pray answer his reasons William Iohnson Num. 183. Had I written as you print my words I had indeed deserved a sharper reprehension then you gave me Now whether I writ so or no I leave it to your judgement Here you cite my words thus in your margent say you you add that concerning St. Athanasius being judged and rightly Chamier acknowledgeth the matter of fact to be so but against all antiquity pretends that judgement to have been unjust In which words you make me first wrong Chamier by affirming he sayes Athanasius was judged rightly by Iulius and then you make me wrong my self by delivering a manifest contradiction in two lines for first in your citation I say that Chamier affirms that judgement to have been rightly done and then presently that I affirm Chamier to have said that judgement to have been unjust that is not rightly done Now whether I affirm Chamier to have said the matter of fact to have been so that is to have been rightly done your own printing of my words will put the matter out of question therefore pag. 52. in the margin you cite my words thus concerning St. Athanasius being judged and righted by Pope Iulius Chamier cit acknowledges the matter of fact to be so Now one may be judged and righted that is set again into his right by one who hath no power to judge him and consequently judges not rightly that is duly juridically and Canonically now by changing righted into rightly you change the whole tenure and meaning of my words and then grate on me upon the Conscience with what not I but you or your printer was guilty of and truly I should have been most willing to have cast it upon him had your written copy shewed the contrary so here you have not righted but rightly neither do I finde these words to be so in my marginal copy but only thus Chamier confesses the matter of fact without to be so though I will not contend with you in this as not having seen the copy which was sent you True it is Chamier would have this judgement to have passed as from a freind but to prove this he contends that it could not be from a competent and canonical Judge because it was under the notion of a judgement unjust seeing both parties were not present to be heard in judgement so that he holds this to have been an unjust judgement if taken in a rigorous sense which is all that I said But in the mean time you answer not my arguments whereby I prove it just nor could you answer them without impeaching St. Athanasius of concurring with Iulius to an unjust judgement for though Iulius had past this judgement as a freind yet to proceed to execution before the adverse party was heard or things made so evident that there was no place for defence would have been an unjust proceeding and if matters were so undeniably clear it was not unjust for want of that formality so that if it were unjust in a freind according to equity or justice can justify a person accused without hearing what his accusers are able to make good against him much lesse can those accusors be condemned as manifest detractors and lyars when they are not permitted to speak for themselves and produce their evidences in quality of a judgement for want of the defendants being heard it would have been unjust in quality of freind-ship for the same reason for now to say that St. Athanasius concurred with Iulius either as an unjust Judge or as an unjust freind would to wrong that blessed Saint and your self too but I would gladly be satisfyed in this how one who had no judicatory authority above another Court could reverse the Sentence of that Court and restore the person injured by it to his right as Iulius here did by the Sentence given in a Council against St. Athanasius or what man in his right wits would address himself to a friend for relief in that which he knows is above his power should a Citizen of York injured in the Mayors Court frame an appeal to the Lord Mayor of London because he is his friend and the prime Mayor in England being the chief Officer of the Imperial City to reverse the sentence given at York against him would he not become a laughing-stock both to York and London Mr. Baxter 184. And for what you say again in your Margin of Theodoret I say again that he appealeth to the Bishop of Rome for help as a person who with the Western Bishops might sway much against his Adversaries but not as to an universal Governour or Iudge no not as to the universal Iudge of the Church Imperial much less of all the Catholick Churches William Iohnson Num. 184. Here you say nothing at all to Chamiers granting it to be an appeal as to a Judge that was so plain belike that you could not answer it nor yet would you expresly grant it neither that had been too flat against you So you thought it best to huddle it up in silence and say nothing of it and thought it may be your adversaries would have past it over too but I hope all wise men will see your failing in this Baxter p. 51. in Margin The question in my Margin there is not what you say to it but what Chamier said Now lest it should appear that you and Chamier clash in this you give me only your opinion but dissemble his and yet sure his was as much the better as it was the â—â—iuer Nor yet do you deny this appeal to have been as to a Iudge which was the only question in the Margin p. 51. Baxter but not to have been as to an universal Governour or Iudge no not within the Empire say you But by your good leave if this were not a forcible Instance supposing it were as to a Iudge which Chamier grants and you deny not to prove à paritate rationis that every Bishop both within the Empire and Church might have as well appealed to the Roman Bishop as to a Iudge as Theodoret did had he been injured as he was If I say this was not of force shew in your next some particular reason why the Bishop of Rome had power to judge the case of Theodoret rather then of any other Bishop in the Church which till you do See more of this supra your effugium that this appeal was not made as to an universal Governour or Judge speaks nothing for if he as in our sense be an universal Judge or Governour to whom every Bishop of the Church may appeal as to his Judge then seeing Theodoret's appeal to him as such proves every Bishop had as much right in the like circumstances which Theodoret then had it proves also that he appealed to him as to an universal Governour or Judge
that he is segregated or divided from the peace of St. Peter that is from the communion of the Catholique Church What follows for six leaves together is nothing but a farago of equivocations misconceits contradictions p. 154. after you your self had cited St. Greg. words that this title was offer'd him per Concilium Chalcedonense by the Council of Chalcedon you say it was but a brag of his and that it was offer'd only by two Deacons in the Council 47. Thus you first cite authors against us and then accuse them of vanities and falsity when those very citations which you cite for your self make against you the question is not what is or is not now extant in the Council of Chalcedon or wherein St. Gregory grounded his sayings but whether St. Gregory affirms that this title was offer'd him in that Council as you confess by citing his words he does and is it fit for so mean a worm as you are to make this most honourable and holy Pope the Apostle of our Nation to be a bragger when he relates what pass'd in general Councils But now let us see a piece of your skill in History first you say the title was writ by two Now Blundel p. 452. acknowledges there was four and Barron ad an 451. num 32. sayes they were varii clerici alii Alexandrini then say you these two were Deacons Blundel sayes no such matter but that they were particular persons and Barronius that they were clerici and others Next you add they had no votes in the Council what wonder 's that when they did not so much as sit in it You say the names of those who compos'd those bills libellos against Dioscorus were Theodorus and Ischirion who as they were only those who offer'd them to the Council in the names of their Authors the bills being compos'd by others as well as by them after his you call those writings libels on purpose to disgrace them as it may seem for though they be called libelli that is little writings in Latin yet the word libels in English is alwayes taken in a bad sence and signifies a a false seditious infamous pamphlet but this you thought a fitter name for them because they had a superscription containing the title of universal Patriarch given to Pope Leo never considering what a disgrace you put upon that holy Council by making it a favourer and receiver of libels but suppose St. Greg. had had no other ground of his so constant affirmation that the title of universal Patriarch offer'd him by those Clerks of Alexandria in the Council of Chalcedon read publickly and no way disallowed by any one in the Council when it concern'd them so much ut supra yet this very thing convinces that he thought such a â—â—acite approbation was sufficient to affirm it was offer'd him not only in the Council but per consilium by the Council of Chalcedon Next page 254. You shew your skill in Grammar and argue that if the thing were due signified by the title of universal the name was also due never reflecting that one word may be taken in divers senses whereof one may agree with one particular thing signified and not the other Thus Tyrannus signified a King in the ancient signification but now a Tyrant only thus Minister in Latin signifies both a Minister and a servant c. Nay you your self confess and that is one of your contradictions that the Council offered it not to him in that sense wherein it signifies an vniversal governour of the Church but in an other now because this word beside the moderate signification in which the Council offer'd it is capable of another most pernicious and ante-Christian sense as I have declared St. Gregory thought it undue and unfit to be accepted because he esteemed himself oblig'd to avoid all appearance of evil and never accept of any title which was apt to breed publick scandal in the Church 48. Your next work is pag. 255. to confound those two significations of this word or the thing it self for that which is to be debated betwixt us is not what St. Gregory judged to be the thing signified by this word for that was most wicked and unchristian but the being the supream visible governour of Christs Militant Church yet so that inferiour Bishops and Pastours are true governours also each of his portion and immediate officers and Vice-gerents of Christ receiving their original power from him and not from the Pope which may also be signified by the word universal Now you shift cunningly from this second to the first and thereby work a confusion in your whole discourse and deceive your reader you take it in the first bad signification or the unchristian thing signified by it as St. Greg. understood it pag. 254. then say it is plain that it is the thing as well as the name that St. Gregory wrote against but that is not the thing now debated betwixt us but that which St. Greg. took to be signifyed by that word which we disallow asmuch as he did or you can do 49. Page 255. num 2. You equivocate againe about the taking away Episcopacie by that title for we affirm not that St. Gregory thought or Iohn of Constantinople either to expel all Bishops directly crudely out of the Church as you and your zealous brethren lately did out of the English Hierarchy But that although they remain'd still in the possession of their former titles and office of Bishops yet in effect according to the malignancie of this proud title St. Gregory thought the virtue and proper force of Episcopacie to be ennervated that is that whosoever made himself universal Bishop made himself Bishop of every particular Diocess in the Church in capite and thereby the rest who were possest of those Diocesses held their titles as from him as his vicars a moveable at pleasure by him as it were his servants or officers And though happily Iohn of Constantinople penetrated not so deep into the malignancy of this title Yet St. Gregory might suppose he did or fear he would do therefore would not permit so dangerous a title in the Church by force whereof one might lay a claim so obnoxius to and destructive of Ecclesiastial Hierarchy and this is that which St. Gregory signifies that Iohn by force of that title would subjugate all Christs members to himself that is make them his officers and vicars holding their Original powers from him and not immediatly from Christ. Now to say as you adjoyn that this is the very form of Popery is nothing but either your calumnie or want of true understanding of our doctrine wherewith you ought to have bin furnished before you had taken to write so bitterly against us We subject no Bishop according to his Episcopal power of ordination or original power of jurisdiction in his Diocess to the Pope no more then are the Collonels or Captaines of an Army who recieve their
first sense I grant your conclusion if really you are part of the Church There is no Salvation to be had out of Christs Universal Church of which you are a small corrupted part In the second sense I told you we deny the supposition in the subject In the third sense I deny the sequel non sequitur because your Major Proposition being false de Ecclesia universali the conclusion must be false de parte ista as excluding the rest But to the unskilful or unwary Reader your conclusion seemeth to import that the being in such a Church which acknowledgeth the Popes Soveraignty as it is such a Church is necessary to Salvation and so that the persons acknowledgement is neccesary But it is a fallacia accidentis cunningly lapt up that is the life of your imported cause That part of the Universal Church doth hold to the Popes Soveraignty is per accidens and could you prove that the whole Church doth so which you are unlike to do I would say the like And that your fallacy may the beter appear I give you some examples of such like Sophismes Whatsoever Nation is the true Kingdom of Spain is proud and cruel against Protestants But there is no protection there due to any that are not of that Kingdome therefore there is no protection due to any that are not proud and cruel Or whatsoever Nation is the true Kingdome of France acknowledgeth the Pope but no protection is due from the Governours to any that are not of that Kingdom therefore no protection is due to any that acknowledge not the Pope Or what ever Nation is the Kingdome of Ireland in the days of Queen Elizabeth was for the Earl of Tyrone but there was no right of Inheritance for any that were not of that Nation therefore there was no right of Inheritance for any that was not for the Earl of Tyrone Or suppose that you could have proved it of all the Church If you had lived four hundred years after Christ you might as well have argued thus Whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ is against kneeling in adoration on the Lords days But there is no salvation to be had out of that Congregation of Christians which is now the true Church of Christ therefore there is no salvation to be had out of that Congregation which is against kneeling on the Lords day c. But yet 1. There was Salvation to be had in that Congregation without being of that opinion 2. And there is now Salvation to be had in a Congregation that is not of that opinion as you will confess Or whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ doth hold the Canticles and the Epistle to Philemon to be Canonical Scripture and so have done c. But there is no Salvation to be had out of the true Church therefore there is no Salvation to be had out of that Congregation which holdeth the Canticles and Epistle to Philemon to be Canonical Scripture But yet 1. Salvation is to be had in that Church without holding it 2. And its possible hereafter a Church may deny those two books and yet you will think Salvation not thereby overthrown This is but to shew your fallacy from a corrupt accident and indeed but of a part of the Church and a small part Now to your proof of the Major Resp. ad Major The present matter of the Church was not visible in the last Generation for we were not then born but the same form of the Church was then existent in a visible Matter and their Profession was visible or audible though their faith it self was invisible I will do more then you shall do in maintaining the constant visibility of the Church Ad minorem 1. If you mean that no Congregation hath been alwayes visible but that Vniversal Church whose lesser corrupt part acknowledges the Popes Soveraignty I grant it For besides the whole containing all Christians as the parts there can be no other If you mean save that part which acknowledgeth you contradict your self because a part implyeth other parts If you mean save that Universal Church all whose members or the most acknowledg it there is no such subject existent 2. I distinguish of Visibility It s one thing to be a visible Church that is visible in its essentials and another thing to be visible quoad hoc as to some separable accident The Universal Church was ever visible because their Profession of Christianity was so and the persons professing But the acknowledgment of the Vice-christ was not alwayes visible no not in any parts much less in the whole And if it had it was but a separable accident if your disease be not incurable that was visible and therefore 1. It was not necessary to Salvation nor a proper mark of the Church 2. Nor can it be so for the time to come I need to say no more to your conclusion Your Argument is no better then this whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ hath been alwayes visible since the time of Christ But no congregation of Christians hath been so visible save onely that which condemneth the Greeks which hath a Colledge of Cardinals to chose the Popes which denieth the cup to the laity which forbiddeth the reading of Scripture in a known tongue without license c. Therefore whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ hath all these 1. In a corrupt part it hath 2. But it had not alwayes 3. And may be cured hereafter To your proof of the Major 1. I grant your Major 2. Ad minorem 1. Either you mean Vniversal Pastors each one or some one having charge and Government of the whole Church or you mean unfixed Pastors having an indefinite charge of Preaching and Guiding when they come and have particular calls and opportunities or you mean the fixed Pastors of particular Churches In the first sense your Minor is false the Catholike Church was never so united to any Universal Head but Christ no one of the Apostles governed the rest and the whole Church much less any since their time In the second sense I grant that the Church hath ever had Pastors since the Ascension In the third sense I grant that some parts or other of the Catholick Church have ever had fixed Pastors of Congregations since the first setling of such Pastors But any one particular Congregation may cease to have such Pastors and may cease it self And Rome hath been long without any true Pastors and therefore was then no such visible Church 2. If by Congregation you mean not the Universal Church but a part or if you mean it of all the parts of the Universal Church I deny your Minor Communities of Christians and particular persons have been and may be without any Pastors to whom they are united or subject The Indians that died in the faith while Frumentius and Edesius were
such only to whom they are sufficiently propounded Baxter Num. 10. Where you say Your Major should have been granted or denied without these distinctions I reply 1. If you mean fairly and not to abuse the truth by confusion such distinctions as your self call learned and substantial can do you no wrong they do but secure our true understanding of one another And a few lines in the beginning by way of distinction are not vain that may prevent much vain altercation afterward When I once understand you I have done and I beseech you take it not for an injury to be understood Iohnson Num. 10. If they have done no wrong to you 't is well for my part I finde my self nothing injur'd by them But unnecessary and frivolous distinctions as yours were in this occasion can be no great advantage to him who gives them Baxter Num. 11. As to your Conclusion that you used no fallacy ex accidente and that my instances are not apposite I reply that 's the very life of the controversie between us and our main question is not so to be begged Fallacy 4. (a) Make sense of this On the grounds I have shewed you I still aver That the holding the Papacy as accidental to the universal Church as a canker in the breast is to a woman And though you say it is essential and of â—â—hrists Institution that maketh it neither essential nor of Christs Institution nor doth it make all his institutions to be essentials Iohnson Num. 11. You fall here again upon your former mistake I say not that the Papacy is therefore precisely not Accidental because it is of Christs Institution but because Christ hath instituted it should be ever in the Church which ever you still omit My saying I confess makes it not to be of Christs Institution but I hope to evince that my Argument hath proved it by a cleer confutation of your Answer Nor would I have any one give credit to my sayings further then I prove them to be true by solid reason Baxter Num. 12. Now of your second Syllogism 1. I shall never question the successive visibility of the Church whereas I told you out of Francisc. à Sanctâ Clarâ that many or most of your own Schoolmen agree not to that which you say Corruption 2. All Christians agree to you make no reply to it Iohnson Num. 12. I had not then seen that Author for want of time and so omitted the Answer And when I came to the sight of him your citation is so vastly large for you say only in articulis Anglicanis that I was forced to turn over the whole Book and all I have found where he treats this subject is A Sancta Clara in Artic. Anglic problem 15. p. 109 110 c. that one may be saved through invincible ignorance though he have no express but onely an implicite Faith in Christ. But I find no mention of Infidels in that place much less that he affirms most of our Doctors teach they may be saved nor that he affirms any can be saved who are out of the Church Your friends will be sorry to see you so defective in your citations You might have cited either his words or the place where they are found in particular and thereby have saved my labour and your own credit This I hope will be done in your next Baxter Num. 13. As to your Minor I have given you the Reasons of the necessity and harmlesness of my distinctions we need say no more to that A Congregation of Christians and a Church are synonyma Iohnson Num. 13. I wonder to hear you say a Congregation of Christians and a Church are synonyma Suppose a Montanist a Luciferian an Origenist an Arrian an Eutychian a Pelagian an Iconoclast a Wickliffian a Waldensian a Donatist an Aerian a Hussite and with these one of each Heresie and Schisme since Christ which in your opinion are or have been univocally Christians and that without any to reconcile and agree them were congregated together to oppose the Roman Church though you hold they are a Congregation of Christians would you venture to affirm they are a Church Or should a company of Murtherers Thieves Adulterers Robbers Bandits meet in rebellion together without Priest or Pastor though all Christians they would be a Congregation of Christians but would you therefore call them a Church Or when in Christian Armies the Souldiers and Commanders stand in Battalia to fight their Enemies or Countrey-people congregate in a Fair or to choose the Knight of the Shire or at my Lord Mayors Feast in London or at Bartholomew-Fair to see a Puppet-play will you term each of the Congregations of Christians Churches Will you term the Common-Council of London or the Sessions of Mayor Aldermen and Justices sitting in the Old-Baily or the Kings most Honorable Privy Councel or the High Court of Parliament a Church yet all the world knows they are each of them Congregations of Christians S. Paul tells you 1 Cor. 12. that the Church is composed of different Heterogenial members as our bodies are one subject orderly to another by way of Pastor and People which is not found in every Congregation of Christians as I have made it manifest Baxter Num. 14. But the word True was not added to your first term by you or me and therefore your instance here is delusory Iohnson Num. 14. I wonder to hear you discourse in this manner I contend the word True could not be added to the first term without manifest absurdity and therefore I neither added it nor was to be understood to include it Baxt. p. 13. Your Syllogisme runs thus Whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ c. and is not my Major cited thus by you Baxt. p. 13. Whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ. Now you say the word True was not added to your first term nor to mine that 's true but you say withal that I must intend to signifie in that first term by whatsoever Congregation the universal that is the true Church of Christ that 's not true for I speak abstractly in that term nor could I do otherwise unless I would have made an absurd or identical Proposition Baxter Num. 15. But to say Whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the True Church of Christ is all one as to say Whatsoever Church of Christians is now the true Church when I know your meaning I have my end Iohnson Num. 15. I have proved this to be manifestly untrue for the East-India Company in Holland is a Congregation of Christians and yet is not a Church Baxter Num. 16. Though my Syllogisme say not that the Church of Rome acknowledgeth those things alwayes done and that by Christs Institution it nevertheless explicates the weakness of yours as to the fallacy Accidentis Iohnson Num. 16. The question is not here whether this acknowledgement of the Roman
Church you have imposed an obligation upon me of answering the reasons and allegations whereby you labour to prove it to have been perpetually visible Baxter Num. 39. You complain of a deficiency in quality though you confess that I abound in number But where is the deseâ—â—t You say I must assert both that these were one Congregation and ever visible since Christs time Reply If by one Congregation you meant one Assembly met for personal Communion which is the first sense of the word Congregation it were ridiculous to feign the universal Church to be such Iohnson Num. 39. You know I mean not that why lose you time in putting an if upon it Baxter Num. 40. If you mean one as united in one visible humane Head that 's it that we deny and therefore may not be required to prove Iohnson Num. 40. I abstract from that also be it but truly and properly one whencesoever that unity is drawn 't is all alike to the Solution of my Argument Baxter Num. 41. But that these Churches are one as united in Christ the Head we easily prove in that from him the whole Family is named the Body is Christs Body 1 Cor. 12.12 13. and one in him Ephes. 4.4 5 6. c. Iohnson Num. 41. These Churches which these mean you all that you seem to point at in your Catalogue All sure or you prove nothing but which are those all You name only those of the present age Greeks Armenians Ethiopians Protestants After these for eleven hundred years you name none at all How shall we then know determinately what you mean here by these Churches when you give no light to know your meaning Let us therefore first know which are these Churches you here relate to by some particular designation and denomination of them or how can you either prove or we know whether they were united in Christ or no and then and not till then can it be discerned whether these Churches be or be not parts of Christs family or body according to the places you here cite Baxter Num. 42. All that are true Christians are one Kingdome or Church of Christ but these of whom I speak are true Christians therefore they are one Kingdom or Church of Christ. Iohnson Num. 42. I grant your Major and deny your Minor if they were independent of the Roman Bishop Baxter Num. 43. And that they have been visible since Christs time till now all History even your own affirm as in Judea and from the Apostles times in Ethiopia Egypt and other parts Rome was no Church in the time of Christs being on earth Iohnson Num. 43. Let them have been as visible as you please that 's nothing to me so were the Arrians Sabellians Montanists c. as much as many of these prove they were no more then one visible Congregation of Christians amongst themselves and with Orthodox Christians that 's the present controversie Baxter Num. 44. And to what purpose talk you of determinate Congregations Do you mean individual Assemblies those cease when the persons die Or do you mean Assemblies meeting in the same place So they have not done still at Rome Iohnson Num. 44. Why do you still ask me if I mean what you know I mean not Baxter Num. 45. I told you and tell you still that we hold not that God hath secured the perpetual visibility of his Church in any one City or Country but if it cease in one place it is still in others It may cease at Ephesus at Phillippi Colosse c. in Tenduc Nubia c. and yet remain in other parts I never said that the Church must needs be visible still in one Town or Country Iohnson Num 45. I assent to you in this why lose you labour in asserting that which no man questions Baxter Num. 46. And yet it hath been so de facto as in Asia Ethiopia c. But you say I nominate none Are you serious must I nominate Christians of these Nations to prove that there were such You reqâ—â—ire not this of the Church-Historians It sufficâ—â—th that they tell you that Ethiopia Egypt Armenia Syria c. had Christians without naming them When all History tells you that these Countreys were Christians or had Churches I must tell you what and who they were Must you have their Names Sirnames and Genealogies I cannot name you one of a thousand in this small Nation in the Age I live in how then should I name you the people of Armenia Abassia c. so long ago You can name but few of the Roman Church in each Age and had they wanted Learning and Records as much as Abassins and Indians and others you might have been as much to seek for names as they Iohnson Num. 46. You trifle away time exceedingly I require as you have seen above the nomination of the determinate Opinions or Societies as Hussites Waldenses Nestorians Eutychians c. not of their persons And therefore I say you nominate none See Baxt. p. 41. much less prosecute you those with whom you begun Now these were Greeks Armenians Ethiopians Protestants so that I speak undeniably of the nomination of Sects and Societies not of Names Sirnames and Genealogies of persons There were different Sects and Professions in different Countreys as Armenia Abassia c. I require the nomination of which of those Sects or parties you mean in those times and Nations not what were their names and sirnames Nor is it sufficient that you say there were Christians that is Christians univocally so called or true Christians in all Ages in Armenia Ethiopia Egypt c. who denied the Popes Supremacy for unless you nominate of what party sect opinion or profession they were how shall any man judge whether they held not some Opinion contrary to the Essentials of Christianity and by that became no Christians even in your opinion You must therefore either have nominated and designed what sort of professions you mean or acknowledge you have spoken in the air and produc'd a pure non-proof in the nomination of those Countreys since no man can know by that what sort of profession you mean amongst all those different professions which have inhabited the said Nations for Arrians Sabellians Manichees Menandrians c. whom you hold to be no Christians and to erre in Essentials denied the Popes Supremacy in those Nations CHAP. III. ARGUMENT Num. 47. No Congregations of Christians can be united in Christ which are not united in the profession of one and the same Faith and in the Unity of external Communion n. 50 51 c. Assertors of the Popes Supremacy within the first 400. years after Christ. Extra Imperial Nations subject to the Roman Bishop n. 51. India and outer Armenians not alwayes Extra-Imperial n. 51. An Universal prov'd from a Particular by Mr. Baxter His word a proof n. 55. A bold Assertion of his contrary both to Ancient and Modern Writers n. 54. The Ethiopians subject to the Three
Diocess though the person sentenced lived out of their Diocess yet they might renounce all Communion with him Churches that have no power over one another may have Communion with one another and that Communion they may hold and renounce as there is cause Now if a neighbour Patriarch with so many Bishops of the West had renounced Communion with Chrysostome's Enemies and also written their letters on his behalf and taken him still as in their communion this he hoped would much further his restauration which yet he doubted as he had cause For in his second Epistle he thanks him for doing his part though it do no good or did not availe William Iohnson Num. 191. St. Chrysostomes words now cited evince there was more then bare avoiding of anothers communion Nay it is evident the aâ—â—oresaid authorties that Pope Innocent kept communion with both parties till a further trial of the cause was heard vide S. Chrysostome Ep. 5. ad innoc papam supra citatam Mr. Baxter Num. 191. And it is to be noted that your author Nicephorus tels you lib. 13. cap. 31. that Chrysostomes letters and his fellow-Bishops also and the Clergies of Constantinople were all written both to the Emperour Honorius and to Innocent and therefore you may see by that on what account it was and what help they did expect The Emperour was not to excomnicate but his letters might do much William Iohnson Num. 192. But sayes Nicephorus the same letters which were writ to Pope Innocent were writ to the Emperour prove that Mr. Baxter Num. 193. Well but to alleadge Niceph. lib. 13. cap. 34. to prove 1 Chrysostomes appeal But you have better or worse eyes then I for I can finde no such thing but a seeking for help as aforesaid 2 You say Innocentius nuls his condemnation and declares him innocent Ans. So might another Bishop have declared him But how far it should be regarded was not in his power William Iohnson Num. 193. Now at last you confess there was more then a bare avoiding the communion with others Doe you really think that any Bishop whatsoever could null the sentence of a Council both out of his Diocess and his Patriarchate as Innocent did that of Constantinople that is to say validly and lawfully I cannot perswade my self you doe now had it been unlawful St. Chrysostome would never have intreated Innocent to do it If you mean any Bishop can do it invalidly and unlawfully you say nothing to the purpose it was not indeed in his power how far it was regarded nor is it the power of a King how far his commands are regarded by powerful Rebels but what of that he had power to command and censure to annul and restore and so it was in his power to oblige others and procured that it ought to have been regarded that they sinned grievously in disobeying his command which is enough for my purpose But whilst you thus measure out the power of others by the rejection of their commands made by unjust oppressors you shew what spirit you had when you writ this in matter of Monarchial government it imports little what may be said of excommunication in general it is sufficient that this now treated included jurisdiction Mr. Baxter Num. 194.3 You say he excommunicated Atticus and Theophilus and 4. Arcadius the Emperour also and Eudoxia Reply 1. If he did so and did well another Bishop might aswel have done it William Iohnson Num. 194. Now let you and me try whether the sentence of Innocent against these persons were nothing save a bare excomunication in your sense that is a declaration of avoiding them Niceph l. 13. c. 34. Glicas Ann par 4. extant Tom 1. Epist Rom Pontif. Ep. Innoc 17. Georgius Patri Alex citatus a S. Io. Damasc orat de Imagin a Photio in Biblioth in Greg Alexandr extatque Graece editus in Angl. unà cum Oper. S. Chrysost. or that they were unworthy of Christian coÌ„munion or not communicating with them utsupra The words are these Itaque ego minimus peccator cui thronus magni Petri Apostoli creditus est segrego rejicio te illam i. e. Arcadium Eudoxiam a perceptione immaculatorum mysteriorum Christi Dei nostri Episcopum etiam omnem clericum ordinis Sanctae Dei Ecclesiae qui administrare aut exhibere ea vobis ausus fuerit ab ea hora qua praesentes vinculi mei legeritis literas dignitate sua excidisse decerno Quod si ut homines potentes quenquam ad id vi adegeritis Canones nobis a Salvatore per Sanctos Apostolos traditos transgressi fueritis scitote id vobis non parvum peccatum fore in horrenda illa judicii die cum neminem hujus vitae honor dignitas adjuvare poterit arcana autem abdita cordium sub occulos omnium effundentur atque exhibebuntur Arsacium quem pro magno Joanne in thronum Episcopalem produxistis etiam post obitum exauthoramus unà cum omnibus qui consultò cum eo communicarunt Episcopi cujus etiam nomen Sacro Episcoporum albo non inscribatur Indignus eo honore est quum Episcopatum quasi adulterio polluerit Omnis siquidem planta quae a Patre nostro in coelis plantata non est eradicabitur Ad Theophili anathematismum addimus abrogationem absolutam a Christianismo absolutionem I the least of all and a Sinner to whom the throne of the great Apostle Peter is committed segregate and reject thee and her that is Arcadius the Emperour and Eudoxia the Empresse from the receiving of the immaculate misteries of Christ our God and I decree that every Bishop and Clerk of the order of the holy Church to be fallen from his dignity who shall dare to give them to you from that hour wherin you shall have read these obligatory letters of mine But if you as being powerful shall force any of them to exhibite them to you and shall transgress the rules delivered to us from Christ by the holy Apostles it will be no smal sin upon your Conscienâ—â—s at the terrible day of judgement when the Honor and Dignity of this world can help no man but the secrets of hearts shall be powred out manifested before the whole world Arsacius whom you have intruded into the Episcopal throne in place of that worthy and great John Chrysostome we accurse even after his death together with all the Bishops who wittingly communicated with him whose name is not to be written in the Catologue of the holy Bishops He is unworthy of that Honor who hath polluted his Bishopprick as it were with adultery For every plant which is not planted by our Father which is in heaven shall be pluckt up by the roots To Theophilus his curse we add an abrogation or deposition and an absolute rejection from Christianity Whatsoever Blondel presses against the creditableness of this Author yet in matter of this consequence
disparity those whom you instance were condemned by such as were contemporary with them for having proceeded unjustly in those excommunications c. And this you and all who have learning know to be true But where can you find any classick Author or credible Record about those times which condemned this act of Agapet against Anthymus as unjust nay they are so far from having condemned it that they highly praise him and extol him for it Thus Iustinian Novel 42. saies it was done by the most holy Bishop of old Rome Agapet of most holy and glorious memory and the Council gathered presently after by Agapets appointment say they follow the injunctions of that most holy Pope in depriving Anthymus not Arithymus as you miscal him of his Bishoprick of Trebisonde and of all Offices and Dignities Ecclesiastical hence all your instances appear so many disparities to our present case yet would I insist upon them you have no small number of flaws in them v. g. where have you read that Mennas excommunicated Vigilius I wonder to see you cite Nicephorus for it whose authority you your self rejected p. 151. what actions mean you of Cyril against Iohn of Antioch were they depositions deprivations excommunications c. such as those of Agapet were against Anthymus if so why prove you them not if not why make you mention of them Beside was not St. Cyril as I have proved made Legate in the East by Pope Celestine Mr. Baxter Num. 235. Still you suppose one Empire to be all the Christian world we must grant you that in all your instances William Iohnson Num. 245. Still you are so short sighted that you cannot reach to the force of an argument grounded in paritate rationis I suppose no such matter as that one Empire is the whole Christian world 't is your imposition but I argue thus the Bishop of Rome exercised and that justly spiritual jurisdiction over all the Provinces and Patriarchates within the Empire and that before any general Council was assembled to confer such a power upon him alwayes alleading both by himself and other holy Bishops of antient times that this power issued primarily from his being successor to St. Peter to whom Christ gave the keyes of his Church absolutely as well without as within the Empire consequently it was in no mans power to restrain it to the sole Empire ergo he had as much power to excommunicate depose or deprive any Bishop without the Empire when occasions were given to exercise that power as he had through the whole Empire Now you only trifle in telling me so often that I make the Empire the whole Christian world I do not that but draw this consequence the Bishop of Rome exercised jurisdiction through the whole Empire as my instances demonstrate and there is no sufficient reason to restrain that power within the precincts of the Empire ergo à paritaete rationis for the same reason that power extends it self to all Christian Churches out of the Empire It is therefore your part to shew such a reason for restraining his power within the Verge of the Empire otherwise you suppose without reason it is limited to the Empire not I that it exceeds the Empire Mr. Baxter Num. 236. For what you alleadge from Gregory I shall give you enough of him anon for your satisfaction if you will be indifferent As to your citation what can I say A years times were little enough to search after your citations if you should thus write but many more sheets if a man had so much time and so little wit as to attend you You turn me to Gregory c. 7. ep 63. but what book or what indiction you tell me not but whatever it be false it must needs be there being no one book of his Epistles according to all the Editions that I have seen where c. 7. and ep 63. do agree or meet together but at last I found the words in lib. 7. c. 63. ep 63. William Iohnson Num. 236. The error is in the Copist for in a draught of mine I have it twice lib. 7. ep 63. as you found it and you might easily have discovered it to be the error of an Amanuensis for sure that 7. chap. must have been of some book or other Mr. Baxter Num. 237. To which I say that either your great Gregory by subject meant that the Bishop of Constantinople was of an Inferiour order as the Patriarch of Alexandria and Antioch were to Constantinople that yet had no government of them or else he could say and unsay but I doubt not but this was all his sense William Iohnson Num. 237. I see you were sore prest with this authority when it puts you upon so desperate glosses Are you really in earnest did you ever read that the word subjectus subject related to that which is above can properly signifie no more then of an inferiour order the Lord Mayor of York is of an inferiour order or ranke to the Lord Mayor of London is he therefore subject to him I see you would again preach pleasing things to your good wife of Kiddermunster for when they read in St. Peter 1 Pet. 3.5 that wives should be subject to their husbands they will have learnt from this book of yours that subject signifies only one of an inferiour ranke not that their husbands should have any government over them But for all this it signifies here say you no more then one of an inferiour order who has no government over the other and why so why you your self doubt not but this was all his sense nay if you doubt not of it I have done that must needs be enough to make it certain are you serious when you trifle thus yet at all adventures if haply you misse in this congruous construction you have another turne to save your self for if St Gregory truly meant subject as all the world meanes it for being under the power and government of an other then you say that Gregory sayes and unsayes it seems you have some particuler picquâ—â— against him because he converted our Nation from heathenisme to popery as you terme the Roman religion are not you the first that ever accused the great St. Gregory to say and unsay but as to the word it self subject subjectus being derived from sub under and jaceo to ly down it cannot signifie only not to be so high as is another or to be of an inferiour ranke quality order or place but to ly under him or at his feet which signifies that the other hath power over him for subjectus alteri subject to another is jactus sub altero cast under another or under the power or command of another and I would gladly know what one latin word signifies more cleerly that any one is under the government of another then does the word subjectus subject a good subject to his sacred Majestie should mean no more then you say is here meant by subject that
you are of an inferiour order to his Majesty and content he shall take place of you but withal deny he has any power over you were not he likely to be well serv'd by such subjects but sure you might have discovered had you read his words attentively that St. Gregory could not mean a subjection only of inferiority in order and not in government for he sayes in another place if there be any fault committed by Bishops l. 7. ep 64. secundum Blondel ep 65. Iâ—â—dictione 2. I know no Bishop which is not subject to the Apostolical Sea but if the fault require it not according to the reason of humility wee are all equal See you not the subjection which he asserts here is grounded in the delicts or faults of Bishops and is not that in order to correction reprehension and punishment for those faults and must not that proceed from power of government and authority over them is not this evident nor can he speak in the first part of this sentence of a subjection of order only for he affirms that supposing there be no fault the Bishop of Rome is the first Patriarch in order through the whole Church and consequently the rest unequal in ranke and place that is subject to him in your sense he must therefore mean another subjection besides that when he saith they are subject by reason of their faults would it not be ridiculous if the Mayor of London shoul write thus because all other Mayors are inferiour to him in order if any fault be committed by the Mayors of this Kingdome I know none of them all who is not subject to the Mayor of London but if no fault require it in humility we are all equal I hope by this time you will have cause to doubt whether your sense be the sense of St. Gregory here or no Mr. Baxter Num. 238. But if it had been otherwise Constantinople and the Empire was not all the Christian world William Iohnson Num. 238. This seemes to be the burthen of your song but I have shewed you just now that it s quite out of the tune Mr. Baxter Num. 239. Your next citation is lib. 7. epist. 37. but its falsly cited there is no such word and you are in so much haste for an answer that I will not read over all Gregories epistles William Iohnson Num. 239. There is an errour in the figures it should be lib. 7. ep 64. where you 'l finde what I cite And that very reason which you alleadge for not reading over St. Gregories epistles viz. hasting for an answer pleads the excuse of my friends in sending my answer away to you before I could return to town and read it over to wit your importunity for a speedy answer Mr. Baxter Num. 240. You say that Cyril would not breake of communion with Nestorius till Celestine had condemned him of this you gixe us no proof William Iohnson Num. 240. Doe I not looke in the Margin p. 56. in your edit lit o. you 'l finde the proof of it cited there I see you use not to read the places cited by your adversary otherwise you could not but have seen the proof of what I say in Cyrils epistle to Celestine Mr. Baxter Num. 241. But what if it be true did you think to prove the Pope to be the vice-Christ prudence might well make Cyril cautelous in excommunicating a Patriarch And we still grant you that the order of the Empire had given the Roman Bishop the Primacy therein and therefore no wonder if his consent were expected William Iohnson Num. 241. Yes indeed I really thought so if you understand by vice-Christ no more then what we ascribe to the Pope otherwise I would never have prest that instance to prove it And as really tooke I the writing of two and those as you would have it the cheif Patriarchs of the Eastern Church to the Pope of Rome the one to have his doctrine censured that is either allowed or condemned by the Pope the other to have the Popes authority for himself and the rest of the Eastern Bishops whether Nestorius his doctrine were formal heresie and they oblig'd to avoid communion with him this I tooke to be a forcible argument to prove the Pope to be a vice-Christ if you mean as we doe no more then this by it that he is the supream visible governour of the whole Christian militant Church in the place of Christ and truly I am in the same minde still for all you have brought against it Is it think you probable that Nestorius would have written to Celestine and required his authority for the approbation of his doctine had he esteemed him to have no more power over him then the Mayor of London hath over the Mayor of York nor was the question propounded by St. Cyril about a positive excommunication of Nestorius as you misconceiv'd but onlie a non-communion with him as you presently acknowledge Mr. Baxter Num. 242. But that Nestorius was comdemned by a Council needs no proof and what if Celestine began and first condemned him Is he therefore the universal Bishop William Iohnson Num. 242. Yes he is so as universal Bishop may be understood For if the condemnation of him in the Ephesine Council in conformity to the Popes precedent censure argu'd an universal authority in that council over the whole Church as all both Catholicks and Protestants you only excepted acknowledg much more the primacy and original condemnation of his doctrine argu'd an universal authority in Celestine Mr. Baxter Num. 243. But it was not Celestine alone but a Synod of the Western Bishops William Iohnson Num. 243. This is answered above where you put the same reply No national or patriarchal Council can upon their sole authority oblidge the rest of the Patriarchs as this did Mr. Baxter Num. 244. And yet Cyril did not hereupon reject him without further warning William Iohnson Num. 244. But that warning was ordered by Celestine as I have proved p. 56. in your edit Mr. Baxter Num. 245. And what was it that he threatned but to hold no communion with him William Iohnson Num. 245. And was that in your account a matter of smal moment you may please to take notice that the Bishop of Rome's denial to receive any one into his communion or the substracting himself from communicating with them was in those dayes an undoubted marke of their being cast out of the Church and that no Catholick Bishop was to excommunicate or to permit any under his charge to communicate with them as is proved at large in Schisme unmaskt or the conference with Dr. Gunning For the rule to know with whom every one was or was not to communicate was their Câ—â—mmunion or non-communion with the Roman Bishop Mr. Baxter Num. 246. And though pride made excommunication an Engine to advance one Bishop above others I can easily prove that if I had then lived it had been my duty to avoid
have no lesse then a bakers dozen of non proofs I have noted them by figures in your text let them be prov'd and then they shall be answered till then they deserve no answer To what has any seeming ground or proof I answer First it imports little whether Theodosius had any hand in this Epistle or no I say nothing of him in my text p. 59.60.61 Secondly Your proof from Iustinian is already answered in my observation made upon p. 174. of your key only I see you have mended your citation and put lib. in place of lege 3. Must it needs follow that it is my fiction because it is not the words of Valentinian that the succession from St. Peter is the foundation of Romes primacy May not a medium be given betwixt those two extremes what if it were the true sense of Valentinians words it was then neither his words nor my fiction but a true interpretation of his words and that it is so is manifest for there must be some reason sure why the merit of St. Peter conferr'd a primacy rather upon the Bishop of Rome then upon any other Bishop but none can be imagined save this that the Bishops of Rome succeeded St. Peter in the sea of Rome ergo it must be that succession or nothing You seem to say that because St. Peter last preached and was martired and buried and his relicks lay there he should be most honoured and by honoured you must mean as Hosius cited by you here and Valentinian doe in the power acknowledged in the Bishops of Rome But this cannot subsist for St. Paul preached last at Rome also was martyred and buried and his relicks lay there yet no authors say the primacy of the Roman Bishops was founded in St. Pauls merits now no reason can be given of this save that which I gave viz that the Roman Bishops succeed not to St. Paul as they doe to St. Peter because St. Paul was never Bishop of Rome as St. Peter was What you say of the succession from St. Peter in Antioch availes nothing for he having deserted the Bishopprick of Antioch in his life time and transferr'd his seate to Rome were he dyed Bishop of the Roman see was to have his proper successour there for by tranferring his see to Rome he transferr'd the dignity of Primacy of the Episcopal crown as Valentinian sayes there appropriated to him and took it from Antioch and by dying Bishop of Rome left it there to his successours whence appears that the Bishop of Antioch was a successor to St. Peter as were other Bishops but no successor to his supereminent dignity and primacy over the Church because so long as St. Peter lived it could not descend upon any other Fourthly I deny not that he ascribes the establishment of Romes primacy to those three St. Peter the city and the Synod yet he makes the first foundation of it the dignity of St. Peter and therefore prefixes it before the other two and that it may appear he makes this the first and fundamental reason and not the Synod he addes these words haec cum fuerint hactenus inviolabiter custodita since these things i. e. that nothing of great concern should be done without the authority of the Roman see have been hitherto inviolably observ'd for if the Synod had conferr'd that dignity to the Bishop of Rome he could not have said with truth that those things had been alwayes observ'd for before the Synod which gave it which was three hundred years and more after the re-Surrection of our Saviour they were observed seeing therefore they were alwayes observed that power authority must have been in the Bishop of Rome long in being before those Synods were celebrated Now how the dignity of the Roman city concurr'd to this primacy I have above declared whence appears the loud untruth which you pronounce n. 4. Here is not the least intimation that this primacy was but by the appointment of the Synod nor that it had continued so from St. Peters dayes Since you use not to read over the texts which are brought against you I pray you what signifie these words haec cum fuerint hactenus inviolabiliter observata these things have been hitherto inviolably observed what signifies hitherto but from St. Peters time to his Your guess at the Synod of Sardica as aimed at by Valentinian though say you it was of little credit in those dayes which I have numbred amongst your non-proofs is a pure mistake for the Synod he alludes to is that of Nice which in the 6 canon as it is recited in the Council of Chalcedon sayes thus Ecclesia Romana semper habuit primatum the Church of Rome hath allwaies had the primacy where that holy council gives it not as you surmise but declares it to have been alwaies due to that see since the Apostles time whence also appears the falshood of what you say next that Leo durst not pretend divine right and institution nor to a succession of Primacy from the Apostle for this very Synod to which Leo alludes warrants both For if it were alwayes due to it or that it had alwayes possession of it semper habuit it must have come not only from the time of the Apostles but from Christ himself otherwise it had been semper for in the time of the Apostles it had not been due to it When you say next I translate the word universitas the whole visible Church you wrong me for I translate it universality see pag. 59. and when I name the whole visible Church p. 60. I make no translation of his words but deliver that which I think to be the sense of them To what you say there was a Roman universality If you mean that those who were under the sole Roman Empire with exclusion of all extra-imperial Churches communicating with them were called anciently the universal Church or the universality of Christians you are much deceived where prove you that if as united with them and giving the denomination to the whole 't is true and confirms what I say Now to shew that Valentinian meanes by universalities not those of the Roman Empire exclusively to all others he joynes to universalitie ubique for then sayes he the peace of the Church will be kept every where when the whole universality acknowledges their governour but certainly Valentinian was not so ignorant as not to know there were then many Churches out of the Roman Empire For about the year 414. that is above 20 years before Valentinian enacted this law Spain was possest by the Goths and divided from the Roman Empire and was Valentinian think you ignorant of that so that I am not ashamed to confesse my ignorance that I really know not any Roman universality Ecclesiastical in your precisive and exclusive sense nor know I any Council anciently stiled oecumenical or universal where no Bishops out of that one the Roman common-wealth were present and you have not yet
metaphorical children and he a metaphorical Father but will you scruple at the Pater noster because we call God our Father and consequently our selves his children because we are not the proper and natural but his metaphorical children when you next talk of governing them in love for their good and affirm that Kings must do the like why leave you out the word eternal which is my epithite and wherein the force of my words consists and then tell me I have exprest no difference at all is this fair will not every one who hath but half an eye discover such petty slights as these Mr. Baxter Num. 390. But our question is not new nor in universal terms what Soveraignty you claim you know or should know Are you ignorant that Bellarmine Boverius and ordinarily your Writers labour to prove that the Government of the Church is Monarchical and that the Pope is the Monarch the supream head and Ruler which in English is Soveraign Are you ashamed of the very cause or Title of it which you will have necessary to our salvation William Iohnson 390. 'T is one thing to say the Government is Monarchical and another to affirm the Pope to be the Monarch as you do and Bell. cited by you does not of the whole Church without ever explicating what kind of Monarch you mean A government may be termed Monarchical which hath a great part of Monarchy in it though it be not strict and perfect Monarchy as a man may be called Angelical though he be no Angel thus our Authors and particularly Bellarmine put the Church-government to have something of the mixt in it Bell. l. 1. de Rom. pont c. 5. sect ultimo though he esteems it to incline more to Monarchy then to Aristocracy Whence appears that your inference drawn from a government thus imperfectly Monarchical to intitle the chief Governour in it the Monarch of it without all restriction as you do is of no force And of as little force is your other inference grounded in your former mistake that I am ashamed of any title which I hold necessary to salvation first prove we call the Pope Monarch and then say I am ashamed of it CHAP. IX Num. 391. Whether the title of the Vice-Christ be accounted either due or given by sufficient authority amongst Roman Catholiques to the Pope or accepted by them Num. 392. Mr. Baxter confounds Vice-Christi in place of Christ and Vice-Christus the Vice-Christ Num. 393. How far the Pope is understood to be in the place of Christ. Num. 394. He miscites his Adversaries words Num. 395. How the Vice-Christ and the Vicar of Christ differ Num. 396. Why a Deputy for a King may be called the Vice-King but a Deputy of Christ cannot be called the Vice-Christ Num. 397. Mr. Baxter makes Vice God to be a a higher title then Vice-Christ Num. 398. Mr. Baxter in place of alleadging a sufficient that is a publique authority cites Oratours Poets Encomiasticks c. and yet mistake most of those Mr. Baxter Num. 391. Next you say that you very much dislike the title of Vice-Christ as proved and insolent and utterly disclaim from it neither was it ever given by any sufficient authority to your Popes or did they ever accept of it Reply Now blessed be God that makes sin a shame to it self that the Patrons of it dare scarce own it without some paint or vizard William Iohnson Num. 391. Had you first confuted this answer and then broke out into this exclamation it had been much more seasonable but as it stands it relishes more of passion then of reason and will appear so to any who shall consider the weakness of your proofs against it whereof most consist in a pure digression by a fallacy usual to you proceeding à notione secunda ad primam from the second notion to the first or from the title to the thing it self as we shall now see Mr. Baxter Num. 392. Is not the very life of the cause between you and us whether the Pope be the universal head of the Church Vice-Christi Vicarius Christi Are not these the most common titles that Papists give them and that they take unto themselves William Iohnson Num. 392. Here you begin your fallacie Vicarius Christi is indeed a title but Vice-Christi is none the one signifies the Vicar of Christ but the other signifies in the place or stead of Christ which having no substantive or demonstrative annext to it cannot possibly be a title for of it self it signifies no determinate substance Now if you will joyn to it a substantive and say Papa est Vice-Christi the Pope is in place of Christ you may make some kind of title to it but you can never make it that about which we controvert for that is Vice-Christus the Vice-Christ so that all those who are Vice-Christi in the genitive case that is the place of Christ are not Vice-Christi in the nominative that is Vice-Christi which title onlie is in question betwixt us you were as some of your Parishioners esteemed you to govern those of Kidderminster Vice-Christi in the place of Christ were you therefore the Vice-Christ of Kiddermunster Nor is the title of universal head of the Church set down in your illimited terms here either a title acknowledged by us as due to the Pope or given to him by us For that Christ being the sole universal head of the Church which comprehends the Church militant and triumphant the term universal head signifies that which is due to Christ onlie we therefore acknowledge there is none but Christ himself according to your expression universal head of the Church nor is there any universal Vice-head nor Vice-Christ corresponding to that universal head to be found in the whole Church Nay even speaking of the sole militant Church we never say without some restriction the Pope is universal head of the Church for universal head comprises as well the internal and invisible as the visible Governour of the militant Church now we all deny that the Pope is head in the invisible government of the visible Church for that manner of government Christ only is the universal head nor say we that there is any Vice-christ or Vice-head constituted in the place of Christ in this invisible direction of the Church We therefore restrain the term universal head by this restrictive visible nor intend we to say any more then this that the Bishop of Rome is the visible head of the universal visible Church so far as it is capable of a visible government together with other Bishops who are as truely Christs officers and vice-gerents in their respective governments though subject to the Pope as he is in his government And in this sense only can he be termed a vice-Christ or vice-God that is holding the place of Christ in the visible government of his Militant Church But he cannot be stiled the vice-Christ which is the sole title about which we now contend
and the Apostles successors yea Peters successours were Titles given to others as well as him and more then these It being therefore the point in controversie between us whether the Bishop of Rome be in the place of Christ or as his Vicar the Head Monarch or Governour of the Church universal and the termes Vice-Christi Vicarius Christi being those that Popes and Papists choose to signifie their claim what other shoâ—â—lâ—â— I use William Iohnson Num. 414. This discourse of yours is defective many wayes First it is fallacious ex insufficiente enumeratione partium For amongst all the titles you have reckoned you have not that of Pontifex maximus and the like may be said of many others which is peculiar to the Bishop of Rome and was never attributed to any other nor was any other ever intituled Vicarius-Christi the Vicar of Christ nor Episcopus universalis Ecclesiae Bishop of the universal Church nor Caput omnium sacerdotum Dei the head of all Priests of God save the Pope see how much you are out in the accounts Secondly it is corrupt for you fall againe as you did in your key ut supra to translate Pontifex Pope and summus Pontifex Chief Pope Thirdly you assert the same things without proof as that Head of the Church was given to Constantinople that the Popes made an agreement with Constantinople that their Patriarch should keep the title of universal Patriarch and the Bishop of Rome be called the universal Pope Fourthly you speak equivocally for though summus Pontifex as Baronius notes was given anciently to all Bishops yet that was in relation to inferiour Clarks not to all even Bishops Metropolitanes and Patriarchs as it is given to the Bishop of Rome So that Summus Pontifex in Baronius his sense signifies no more then a chief or highest Priest but ascribed to the Pope it signifies the chief and the highest Bishop and is consignificant with Pontifex Maximus which Baronius affirms to be peculiar to the Pope as I have already noted you equivocate also in the title of Saint Peters successours as I have declared above for though other Bishops may be said to be his successours secundum quid in some part of his Ecclesiastical power viz as he was a Bishop yet none can be said to be his successour simpliciter absolutely and intirely that is in the fulnesse of his power as he was Prince of the Apostles and chief Bishop of Gods visible Church as it is visible save the Bishop of Rome for the reason above alleadged by me and thus much your self must grant according to your own principles for though you assert other Bishops to be his successours in his Episcopal dignity yet seeing you grant him a precedency of place before all other Bishops and Patriarchs as Saint Peter had precedency before all the rest of the Apostles for otherwise he could not have been as the Ancient Fathers familiarly call him Princeps Apostolorum the Prince and chief amongst the Apostles for that must at least signifie a principallity in place and rank seeing I say you yield him this precedency none can have been successour to Saint Peter in the full extent of his dignity save the Bishop of Rome As to the particular Authours you cite here you have very ill luck in your citations you first produce these words qui totum dicit nihil excludit as spoken by Stephanus Patracensis when they are St. Bernards words and cited by this Stephanus out of his book de consideratione to Eugenius the Pope and to which words of St. Bernard Stephanus Alcides in this place So that you cannot condemn him unlesse you condemn Saint Bernard for using that allusion out of Scripture to the Pope The meaning of this Author is no more then this that he having before termed the Church Coelum Heaven he prosecutes that metaphor and by Heaven meanes nothing but Ecclesiastical persons and by earth those of the laity for he speakes first of Bishops and Prelates and then of Christian Kings and Princes saying to the Pope Et vera reformatio fiat tam in spiritualibus quam in temporalibus ubicunque terrarum tuo decreto diffusa fuerit after which he adds immediately Accipe ergo gladium divinae potestatis c. Quia tibi data est omnis potestas in caelo in terra Antoninus whom you very leardnedly call Antonius in that place of his History if you mean that has not one word of what you cite here Paulius Emilius Augustin Triumphus Zabarella and Bertrandus I have not yet seen but these are only particular Authors not of sufficient authority which I required to conferre the title of the Vice-Christ upon Popes nor yet do they so much as mention any such title Now these authorities were either alleadged by you to confute my position denying the title of Vice-Christ was given him by sufficient authority or they so many pure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and proofs in the air you pretend by these allegations to prove against my assertion that the title of the Vice-Christ is given by authority to our Popes and accepted by them and to prove this you cite five particular Authors whereof not so much as one names the title of the Vice-Christ Is not this as much as to say they give him not the title of Vice-Christ ergo they give him the title of Vice-Christ Sure you dream'd of logick when you writ this yet farther if these five authorities prove any thing against us tis that they make the Pope not the Vice-Christ but Christ himself or of equal power with him and one of them that the Pope is of greater power then God himself which is directly contrary to your pretence for no Vice-King is the King nor of equal power with the King If you reply in proving they make him equal to God and Christ c. They prove more then was undertaken to be proved and that they make him higher then the Vice-Christ And secondly you may please to remember you had two things to prove the first that the Popes were held by sufficient authority amongst us to be the Vice-Christ and secondly that the Popes accepted of that title Now though you had prov'd that some have given them eulogiums sounding something more then the Vice-Christ yet that will neither prove it was done by sufficient authority nor unlesse you prove the Popes have accepted them which you never so much as essay to doe your intent in these prooss for the authorities you alledge are not sufficient to ground a publick solemn title so that your Thesis is left bare and naked yet without proof You say here the ancient Councils though câ—â—ld General yet were but of one principallity that is as you have often affirmed their authority extended no farther then the Empire so that in effect they were not truly general but national or provincial Now I have already produced many reasons to represse this your grand novelty and prov'd
because all men living are culpably ignorant of some truths which they had a revelation of that was thus farre sufficient if the second be your sense then the same unhappy consequence will follow that all are Hereticks and moreover by that sense of obscure education are unavoidable Hereticks because they had no opportunity to know those things which as to that Majority are of publick Testimony and universal Tradition William Iohnson I tell you I judge of no mens conscience it is sufficient 1. That such as acknowledge themselves they know such points of faith to be propounded by the Roman Church which I infallibly believe to be the true Church and that notwithstanding reject them as errours give me ground to presume them to be Hereticks 2. Such as oppose what all visible Churches have most notoriously practised and believed as Divine truths whilst they were so universarily taught and practised I may safely presume to be Hereticks because things so notorious cannot morally be presumed to be unknown to any one for other particulars I may and do suspend my judgement for what obligation have I to know all the Hereticks in the world these Rules being a sufficient judge of the greatest part of them See you not your fallacy how you passe ab abstracto in concretum Our question was onely what Heresie is and you divert it to inquire which particular persons are Hereticks cannot definitions stand though we know not all the individualls which are reducible to them Mr. Baxter Is not the Bible a publick Testimony and record and being universally received is an universal Tradition and yet abundance of truths in the holy Bible are unknown and therefore not actually believed by millions that are in your Church and are not taken by your self for Hereticks your befriending ignorance would else make very many Hereticks Rejoynder What if the Bible be a publick Tradition it is onely a Tradition that whatsoever is there delivered is the word of God but it is no Tradition that such a determinate sense and no other is the word of God in every sentence contained in it when according to the Analogie of faith the words are capable of many senses all therefore that is an universal Tradition concerning the Bible is sufficiently propounded but what is not Tradition left to the several Discourses and Expositions of Doctours will it hence follow think you that because what is not an universal Tradition is not sufficiently propounded to be known Ergo what is universal Tradition also is not Pope By Pope I mean S. Peter or any of his lawfull Successours in the Sea of Rome having authority by the institution of Christ to govern all particular Churches next under Christ. Of the Pope Mr. Baxter I am never the nearer knowing the Pope by this till I know how Peters Successours may be known to me Qu. 1. What personal qualification is necessary ad esse William Iohnson Answ. Such as are necessary ad esse of other Bishops which I suppose you know Mr. Baxter If so then all these were no Popes that were Heretques or denyed Essential points of Faith William Iohnson 'T is true they were no Popes whilst formal Heretiques if any such were Baxter As Iohn 24. Iohnson prove that Baxter And so were no Christians Iohnson Prove that Baxter All those that wanted the necessary abilities to the Essentials of their work Iohnson Prove there were such Popes Mr. Baxter And so your Church hath often bin headless and your succession interrupted Councils having censured many Popes to be thus qualified William Iohnson When you have proved the precedents prove that Mr. Baxter And the dispositio materiae being of it self necessary to the reception of that form it must needs follow that such were no Popes even before the Councils charged them with incapacity or Heresie because they had it before they were accused of it and Simony then made many uncapable William Iohnson Prove they were lawfull Councils which so censured any Popes which we admit as true and lawfull Mr. Baxter Qu. 2. Where and how must the Institution of Christ be found William Iohnson Answ. In the revealed Word of God written or unwritten Mr. Baxter You never gave the World assurance how they may truly know the measure of your unwritten Word nor where to finde it so as to know what it is William Iohnson We say we have Mr. Baxter 2. 'Till you prove Christ's Institution which you have never done William Iohnson That is to be done in our Controversie Mr. Baxter You free us from believing in the Pope William Iohnson All are free from believing in the Pope we believe in God but not in the Pope who of us ever obliged you you to do so Mr. Baxter Qu. 3. Will any ones Election prove him to be Pope or who must Elect him ad esse William Iohnson Answ. Such as by approved custome are esteemed by those by to whom it belongs fit for that Charge and with whose Election the Church is satisfied Reply Here you are fain to hide your self instead of Answering and shew indeed that a Pope that 's made an Essential part of the Church subjection to whom is made of necessity to salvation is indeed but a meer name or a thing unknown and so can certainly be believed or acknowledged by none For either Election in him by somebody is necessary or not If not then you or another man unchosen may be Pope for ought I know or any man else if yea then it is either any bodies Election of him that will serve turn or not if it will then you may be Popes if your Schollars chuse you and then you have had three Popes at once for many were Elected but if it be not then it must be known who hath the Power of Election before it can be known who is indeed the Pope but you are forced here by your Answer to intimate to us that the Power of Election cannot be known therefore the Pope cannot be known for 1. Here are no Determinate Electours mentioned and therefore it seems none known to you and no wonder for if you confine it to the People or to the Cardinals or to the Emperours or to the Councils you cut off all your Popes that were Chosen by the other wayes 2. Nor do you Determine of any particular discernable note by which the Electours and power of Election may be known to that Church but all these patches make up your description 1. it must be those that are esteemed fit for the Charge 2. that by those to whom it belongs 3. and that by Custome 4. and that approved 5. and the Church must be satisfied with the Election a miserable body then that hath been so often headlesse as Rome hath been 1. well esteeming them fit to serve turn though they be unfit then it is not the fitnesse that is necessary but the Estimation true or false 2. but why did you not tell us to whom it is