Novelty represt, in a reply to Mr. Baxter's answer to William Johnson wherein the oecumenical power of the four first General Councils is vindicated, the authority of bishops asserted, the compleat hierarcy of church government established, his novel succession evacuated, and professed hereticks demonstrated to be no true parts of the visible Church of Christ / by William Johnson.

Novelty Represt: In a Rejoynder to Mr. Baxters Reply to William Iohnson. (Book 1)

The First Part. (Book 1)

CHAP. I.

ARGUMENT:

Num. 1. Exordium. n. 3. Assembly and Congre∣gation 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 disco∣vered. 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 acciden∣tall 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 vi∣sible 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 hypo∣critical 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 sharp∣ness 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 accomplish∣ing 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 unex∣pected and unrefusable occasion; which hath already ta∣ken 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, de∣terrs 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 be∣gins 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, to an Argument not precise. I therefore expect accord∣ingly, that the unlearned be not made the Iudges of a Dispute, which they are not fit to judge of; seeing you desire us to avoid their road.

William Iohnson.

Num. 2. When I press you to as much brevity, as my first Adversary prest me, I shall require no more; and shall easily bear with penetrations of Syllogisms, and me∣diate consequences, when they are proveable in lawfull form. My chief care was to obstruct all excursions, am∣plifications, and irregularities quite out of form, and all Sophisms and Fallacies; which I have avoided. When the learned are sufficiently informed, I hope they will have so watchful a care of conscience, and Christian cha∣rity, that they will impart, what they finde to be truth, to the ignorant. And this I expected signally from you, in whom I discovered a fervent desire to publish what you thought truth to every one.

Baxter.

Num. 3. And by a Congregation of Christians you may mean Christians politically related to one Head, whether Christ, or the Pope. But the word Assemblies expresseth their actual Assembling together, and so exclu∣deth all Christians that are, or were members of no parti∣cular Assemblies, from having relation to Christ (our Head,) or the Pope (your Head) and so from being of the Congregation, as you call, the Church universal.

Iohnson.

Num. 3. Assembly implies no more an actual as∣sembling, then Congregation an actual congregating: prove it does. They are both taken in the same sense, in Scripture and approved Authors, and comprised in the word caetus; and the one as capable to include a head and members subject to it, as the other.

Baxter.

Num. 4. I had great reason to avoid the snare of an E∣quivocation, or ambiguity, of which you gave me cause of jealousie by your whatsoever, as I told you, as seeming to intimate a false supposition. To your like, I answer, it is unlike, and still more intimates the false supposition. What∣soever Congregation of men is the Common-wealth of England, is a phrase that importeth, that there is a Con∣gregation of men, which is not the ••••ommon-wealth of England; which is true, there being more men in the world; so, Whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church, doth seem to import that you suppose, there is a Congregation of Christians, univocally so called▪ that are not the true Church, which you would distinguish from the other; which I only let you know at the entrance, that I deny, that you may not think it granted.

Iohnson.

Num. 4. My Simile is alike in what I prest it, Viz. That no man can rightly understand me (as you do) to mean by Congregation a part of the Church, when I say it is the whole Church. The disparity mentioned by you shall hereafter be examined, when I come to confute your Novelty in that point. In the interim, you may please to take notice, that there are as well Congregations of Christians univocally so called, which are not the Church, as there are of men, which are not the Common-wealth of England. Such are the Senate of Venice, the Common-Council of London, the Parliament of Pa∣ris, &c.

Baxter.

Num. 5. Yet I must tell you, that nothing is more ordi∣nary, then for the body to be said to do that, which a part

of it only doth; as that the Church administreth Sacra∣ments, Discipline, Teacheth, &c. The Church is as∣sembled in such a Council, &c. when yet it is but a small part of the Church that doth these things: And when Bellarmine, Gretser, &c. say, the Church is the infal∣lible Judge of controversies, they mean not the whole Church, which containeth every Christian, when they tell you that it is the Pope they mean. And therefore I had reason to inquire into your sense, unless I would willfully be over-reacht.

Iohnson.

Num. 5. This is a meer Parergon, for I declare in my Thesis, that I speak only of that Church, out of which no man can be saved, (as appears in your Edition p. 2.) which is not, cannot be the Church representative in a Coun∣cil; for then none could be saved, who are out of that Council.

Baxter.

Num. 6. You now satisfie me that you mean it univer∣sally, viz. All that Congregation (or Church) of Christi∣ans, which is now the true Church of Christ, doth ac∣knowledge, &c. which I told you, I deny.

Iohnson.

Num. 6. By this appears how inappositely, you pro∣pounded the question, Whether I meant by Congregation in my Proposition the whole Church, or only some part of it, seeing it was manifest I could not mean any part of it by that word.

Baxter.

To my following distinction you say, That all the world knows that whatsoever is acknowledged to have been

ever in the Church by Christs Institution, cannot be meant of any accidentall thing, but of a necessary, un∣changeable and essential thing in Christs true Church; To which I reply, either you see the grosse fallacy of this defence, or you do not: If you do not, then never more call for an exact Disputant, nor look to be delivered from your Errors by Argumentation, though never so convincing: If you do, then you are not faithful to the Truth. In your Major Proposition the words being many, (as you say, you penetrated divers Arguments together) ambiguities were the easier hidden in the heap. That which I told you is accidental to the Church, (and that but to a corrupted part) was the acknowledging of the Papacy,* 1.1 as of Christs Institution: and therefore if it were granted, that a thing of Christs Institution could not be accidental, yet the acknowledgment, that is, the opini∣on or asserting of it, may. If the Church by mistake should think that to be essential to it, which is not, though it will not thence follow, that its essence is but an accident, yet it will follow that both the false opinion, and the thing it self so false conceited to be essential, are but accidents, or not essential. You say it cannot be meant of any accidental thing. But 1. That meaning it self of theirs may be an accident. 2. And the question is not what they mean, that is, imagine, or affirm it to be, but what it is in deed and truth. That may be an accident, which they think to be none.

Iohnson.

Num. 7. Sir, The fallacy is not in my Proposition, but in your understanding. You assert, that the Soveraignty of the Pope, is as accidental to the Church, (as will hereaf∣ter appear) as pride and cruelty is to the Spanish Na∣tion;

and therefore the Acknowledgement of it is Ac∣cidental: for if the acknowledgement be in a matter Es∣sential, it self must also be Essential, either to the consti∣tution, or destruction of the Catholick Faith. For the Essence of Faith requires, that all Essentials be believed, And it must be destructive of Faith, to believe any thing to be Essential, and absolutely necessary to Christian Faith, which is a meer Accident, and non-Essential. For such an Errour constitutes a false Christian, and teaches that to be Essentially Christian Religion, which is a Fal∣sity in Christian Religion. If therefore the whole Church (as I affirm) hold the Popes Supremacy to be by Christs Institution, that is, to be essential to the Church, (as you admit for the present) and it be not by his Institution, the Church errs in an Essential matter; which errour is not Accidental to the Church, that is, such an errour, that the Church can subsist as truly with it, as without it, but essentially destructive of the Church. If the Popes Su∣premacy be by Christs Institution and thereby Essential, (as you now suppose) the Churches acknowledgement that it is so, is not accidental, but necessary and essential to the subsistence of the Church. So that to admit (as you do here) the thing it self, that whatsoever is of Christs Institution is Essential, and yet to make the ac∣knowledgement of its Essentiality by the whole Church, to be Accidental to the Church, is strange Divinity, and one of your grand Novelties. I intreat you therefore to tell me in your next, what makes the Arrian Heresie (as you hold) destructive of Christianity, and an essential Errour, save this onely, that it is against a point essential to Christian Faith? And I think, I have as much rea∣son to hold the Errour, either contradicting that which is Essential to Christianity, or asserting that, as Essential, which is onely Accidental, to be an Essential

Errour against Christian Faith, as was that of the Arri∣ans. For it had been doubtless, an essential Errour in Faith, and destructive of Christianity, not onely to de∣ny the Consubstantiality of the Father and the Son, but also to deny, that consubstantially and the belief of it to be essential to the Christian Faith, and necessary to the constitution of Christianity. Your Fallacy therefore consists in this, that you suppose, all that Christ hath in∣stituted to be Essential to the Church, and yet in that very supposition, make the acknowledgement of the whole Church, that such a thing is instituted by Christ, to be accidental to the Church: Of which more hereafter.

Baxter.

Num. 8. But that which you say all the world knows, is a thing, that all the world of Christians except your selves, that ever I heard of, do know, or acknowledge to be false. What! doth all the world know, that Christ hath instituted in his Church nothing, but what is Essential to it?* 1.2 I should hope, that few in the Christi∣an world be so ignorant, as ever to have such a thought, if they had the means of knowledg that Protestants would have them have. There is no na∣tural Body, but hath natural Accidents, as well as Es∣sence: Nor is there any other Society under Heaven (Community, or Policy) that hath not its Accidents, as well as Essence. And yet hath Christ instituted a Church, that hath nothing but Essence, without Acci∣dents? Do you build upon such Foundations? what! up∣on the denial of Common Principles and Sense? But if you did, you should not have feigned all the world to do so too. Were your Assertion true, then every soul were cut off from the Church, and so from Salvation, that wanted any thing of Christs Institution, yea for a moment. And then what

would become of you? You give me an Instance in the Eu∣charist. But 1. will it follow, that if the Eucharist be not Accidental, or Integral, but Essential, that therefore Every thing instituted by Christ is Essential?

Iohnson.

Num. 8. Sir, Your Answer proceeds fallaciously, à particulari ad universale. I say, that is Essential which hath been ever in the Church by Christs Institution, and you accuse me to say, whatsoever is of Christs Institution is Essential, leaving out which hath been ever in the Church by his Institution. Shew me therefore something which hath been ever, that i, in all ages, in the Church by Christs Institution, which is Accidental to the Church. Till that be done, you have answered your own Fallacy, not my Proposition. Whence appears the vanity of your instancing in a P••••litick Body without Accidents. For those things which Christ instituted to be as Things Tem∣porary, or for a time, not for ever, were Accidents, as some Ceremonies in his last Supper, the washing of Feet, and other matters belonging to the order and decency, as different circumstances require, in the Church; which by Christs Institution were left to the direction of the Church, are Accidents to the Church. So that I say not, nor ever said, that Christ hath instituted a Politick Body without Accidents (as you misconceivingly accuse me) but that whatsoever he instituted to be ever in his Church, is none of those Accidents. You should do well to reflect more punctually upon your Adversaries words, and not to leave out such terms as give the whole force and Energie to his Proposition: For if this be not done, an Answer may be prolong'd till Dooms-day, by multiplying mistakes one upon another to no end.

Baxter.

Numb. 9. The question being not, whether the Being of the Eucharist in the Church be Essential to the universal Church; but whether the Belief, or Acknowledgement of it by all and every one of the members be Essential to the members? I would crave your Answer but to this Questi∣on, (though it be nothing to my cause) Was not a Baptized person,* 1.3 in the Primitive and Ancient Churches, a true Church-member, presently up∣on Baptism? And then tell me also, Did not the Ancient Fathers and Churches unanimously hide from their Cate∣chumens (even purposely hide) the Mystery of the Eu∣charist, as proper to the Church to understand? and ne∣ver opened it to the Auditors, till they were Baptized? This is most undeniable in the concurrent vote of the An∣cients. I think therefore, that it follows, that in the judgement of the Ancient Churches, the Eucharist was but of the Integrity, and not the Essence of a Member of the Church: and the acknowledgement of it by all the members, a thing that never was existent.

Iohnson.

Num. 9. Here you commit another Fallacy, proceed∣ing à sensu conjuncto ad sensum divisum. I affirm no more, then that the Assembly, or Congregation, which is the Church,* 1.4 hath this acknowledgement; and you argue against me, as if I said, Eve∣ry particular member of the Church is obli∣ged to have that actual express acknowledgment. Know you not, that many things are necessary to the whole Po∣litick Body conjunctively, which are not necessary to every part of it separate. Whence your instance of the Eucharist is answered. For though that be not necessa∣ry

to be expresly beleeved by every Christian necessitate nudii, yet it is essentially necessary to the whole Church. You misconceive therefore very much in saying the que∣stion is not, whether the belief (if you mean explicite belief) of the Eucharist is essentially necessary to all, and every one of the members of the Church, for I neither propounded that the express belief either of the Eucha∣rist, or the Popes Supremacy, is essentially necessary to every Christian, but to 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 confu∣sion, such distinctions as your self call learned and substan∣tial, can do you no wrong; they do but secure our true under∣standing 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 in∣jury to be understood.

Iohnson.

Num. 10. If they have done no wrong to you, 'tis 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 fal∣lacy ex accidente, and that my instances are not apposite; I reply, thats the very life of the controversie between us;

and our main question is not so to be begged.* 1.5 (a) 1.6 [On the grounds I have shewed you I still aver, That the holding the Papacy as acci∣dental to the universal Church, as a canker in the breast is to a woman.] And though you say it is essential, and of ••••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 Ac∣cidental, 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 ne∣ver question the successive visibility of the Church; where∣as I told you out of Francisc. à Sanctâ Clarâ, that many or most of your own Schoolmen agree not to that which you say,* 1.7 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,* 1.8 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 de∣fective in your citations. You might have cited either his words, or the place where they are found in particu∣lar; 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 Christi∣ans 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-Bai∣ly, 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 Christi∣ans. 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 Congre∣gation 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 man∣ner. 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.* 1.9 Your Syllogisme runs thus, Whatso∣ever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ, &c. and is not my Major cited thus by you,* 1.10 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 what∣soever 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 Congrega∣tion 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 ex∣plicates the weakness of yours as to the fallacy Accidentis.

Iohnson.

Num. 16. The question is not here, whether this ac∣knowledgement of the Roman Church be true or false; that's stated in the Argument: but whether it be in a matter Accidental, or Essential. Now I affirm, that nothing which Christ hath Instituted to be ever in the Church, is Accidental to the Church; for every Acci∣dent is separable from the Subject, without destroying the Subject, whose Accident it is. But what Christ ha's

Instituted to be ever in his Church, is inseparable from it:* 1.11 for Quae Deus conjunxit, homo non se∣paret, Those things which God hath con∣joyned, man must not separate. In the mean time, you fairly acknowledge your instances were not home to the present purpose, because not in matters Instituted to be perpetual by one of that Authority, whose Institution no man can change; and consequently not necessary to be ever in those Nations, or Commonwealths, to whom you ascribe them.

Baxter.

Num. 17. For 1. The holding it alwayes done, and that of Christs Institution, may be either an Accident, or but of the Integrity, and ad bene esse; yea possibly an errour.

Iohnson.

Num. 17. If of the Integrity, then not Accidental; for no Integral part is an Accident to the whole: So you yield up your cause, and acknowledge your errour••••; and 'tis laudable in you. The question is not, what you might have done, but what you did: your instances gi∣ven fell short, and were plainly fallacious. I have al∣ready shew'd, that nothing can be an Accident to the Church, which Christ hath instituted to be ever, that is perpetually in the Church, and consequently the Church∣es holding any thing to be so, if true, is Essential to the Subsistance of the Church; if false, is essentially de∣structive of the Church; so that whether true, or false, it will never be accidental to the Church.

Baxter.

Num. 18. And I might as easily have given you in∣stances of that kind.

Iohnson.

Num. 18. Had you more fully reflected upon your Adversaries words, you might have done many things more pertinently then you have done them; but here a∣gain you acknowledge your error, in alledging instances which were not to the purpose. But your Readers and I should have been much more satisfied, had you amend∣ed what you acknowledge to be a fault; and brought at least in this your last Reply, those instances, which you say here, you might have given then. Be sure therefore in your next to produce instances of Accidentals in such things as Christ hath instituted to be ever in his Church; whereby it may appear that this Roman acknowledgment, whether true or false, is accidental to the true Church: So that the acknowledgment of it, by all those to whom it is sufficiently propounded, is necessary to make them parts of the true Church; and the denial of it, when so propounded, hinders them from being parts of it.

Baxter.

Num. 19. To your third Syllogism, I reply, 1. When you say your Church had Pastors,* 1.12 as you must speak of what existed (and universals exist not of themselves) so it is necessary that I tell you, how far I grant your Minor, and how far I deny it.

Iohnson.

Num. 19. What though universalls exist not of them∣selves? may not therefore a Logician expresse things

which have existed in an abstract or universal term? Is not this a true Logical Proposition, Ever since Adam there have been parents and children in the world, though the terms abstract from lawful, and unlawful, from male or female children? would you carp at this Proposition (as you do here at mine) because universalls exist not of themselves? or go about to distinguish different sorts of children or parents, (as you do Pastors here) to find out the true meaning of that Proposition? No man sayes, or need to say in such Enunciations, that univer∣salls exist, but expresses particulars which have existed, by abstract and universall terms.

Baxter.

Num. 20. My Argument from the Indians and others is not solved by you. For 1. You can never prove, that the Pope was preached to the Iberians by the captive maid;* 1.13 nor to the Indians by Fru∣mentius. 2. Thousands were made Christi∣ans and Baptized by the Apostles,* 1.14 without any preaching or profession of a Papacie, Acts 2. & pas∣••••im. 3. The Indians now converted in America by the English and Dutch, hear nothing of the Pope, nor thou∣sands in Ethiopia. 3. Your own doe, or may baptize many without their owning the Pope, who yet would be Christians: And a Pastor not known, or beleeved, or ow∣ned, is actually no Pastor to them.

Iohnson.

Num. 20. To all these Instances I answer, They con∣clude nothing against my Assertion; for I never said, that all particular persons, or communities, are obliged to have an express belief or acknowledgment, of the Roman-Bishops Supremacy; that being necessary to all

neither necessitate medii, nor praecepti. It is sufficient that they beleeve it implicitely, in subjecting themselves to all those whom Christ hath instituted to be their law∣full Pastors: and when the Bishop of Rome is sufficient∣ly proposed to them to be the supream visible Pastor of of those Pastors upon earth, that then they obstinately reject not his authority.

To your first instance of the Captive maid and Saint Frumentius, I answer, we can prove as much at least that to have been preacht to them, as you can prove, either Justification by Faith only, or any other particular point of your doctrine, to have been preacht to them. And both of us must say, that all important Christian Truths, both for particular persons and Churches, were deliver∣ed to those people; and till you have evinced this of Su∣premacy to have been none of those, it is to be supposed, it was sufficiently declared to those Nations: At least in explicating the Article of the Catholike Church to them, they must be supposed to have told them, it consisted of Pastors and people united, and that the people were to obey all their lawful Pastors, in which doctrine, the Pope is implicitely included.

To your second from Acts 2. The Scripture relates not there all that S. Peter said, but affirmeth (vers. 40.) that he gave testimony to them in many other words. And who can tell whether amongst the rest, that of his Supre∣macy, might not have been sufficiently intimated to them? However it appears by the Text (vers. 37.) that the people addrest themselves first, and in particular to S. Peter, before all the rest of the Apostles, as the prime amongst them, and he who first preacht the Gospel to them. Prove the English and Dutch Convertites con∣verted by Protestants (if you mean those, as you must do, if your argument have any force) to be instructed in the

true Faith, and then your Instance will have some force; prove those of Ethiopia to be Orthodox and Catholick Christians. To what purpose produce you instances, which are assoon denied, as they are proposed? Your last touches only particular persons, which I have shew∣ed, are not obliged to know this expresly, to be of the Church; the Pope is their true pastor, and so beleeved to be implicitely by them, when they subject themselves to all their lawful pastors, he being one and the chief of them.

Baxter.

Num. 21. To your Confirmation, I reply; You mis-read my words: I talk not of invisible. I say it is true, that the universal Church is united to Christ, as their univer∣sal Head.

Iohnson.

Num. 21. Nor say I, you have writ there the word invisible, but that the pastor or Head which you there name, Viz. Christ is an invisible pastor; nor say I (as you mis-conceive) that Christ is an invisible person (that toucht not the controversie) but that he was an invisible Pastor; and that most certainly he is both in heaven and earth; for though his person may be seen there, yet the exercise of his pastorship, consisting only in spiri∣tual influxions, and internal graces, cannot be seen by any corporal eye whatsoever; therefore as pastor of the Militant Church he is wholly invisible: whence it is e∣vident, that you put a visible body, the universal Mili∣tant Church (for we treat no other here save that) with∣out a visible Head: for Christ as head, that is, as supream pastor of this Church is invisible; all that is visible in the pastoral Function, being performed by visible pastors;

and all that is invisible by our Saviour. Thus whilest you by a strange piece of Novelty, constitute a visible Body without a visible Head, you destroy the visible Church, and frame a Monster.

Baxter.

Num. 22. And is visible, 1. In the members. 2. In the profession. 3. Christ himself is visible in the heavens, and as much seen of most of the Church, as the Pope is, that is, not at all. As the Pope is not invisible, though one of a million see him not; no more is Christ, who is seen by most of the Church, and by the best part, even by the glorified. You know my meaning: whether you will call Christ visible or not, I leave to you; I think he is visi∣ble: But that which I affirm is, that the universal Church hath no other visible universal Head or Pastor: But parti∣cular Churches have their particular Pastors, all under Christ.

Iohnson.

Num. 22. If Christ be no otherwise visible as Head of the Church, then in his members, and their profession of his Faith, you may as well affirm, that God the Fa∣ther is visible in his creatures, and make him also visible, which were absonous, and contrary to Christian Faith: It seems you regard not much what follows from your doctrine, so you may at present oppose your Adversary. The question in treatie is (seeing we both confess the members and profession of the Universal Militant Church to be visible) whether Christ in the exercise of his Head∣ship, or chief-Pastorship over the Church, renders him∣self visible to our corporal eyes, or performs immediat∣ly any visible action in relation to his Church. To con∣stitute therefore Christ to be a visible Head of the Church

when he performs nothing visible as Head of the Church, or to make a visible Body without a visible Head, is ano∣ther of your grand Novelties, fit to be represt, and sti∣fled in the cradle. And all men will expect that in your Rejoynder to this, you shew that Christ, not in his per∣son, but in the exercise of his pastoral Headship, works vi∣sibly by himself. One thing is worth observation in this Paragraph, that you affirm, Christ is seen by most of the Church, and by the best part, even by the glorified; where∣by you must either affirm, that the glorified are now con∣joyned to their bodies, and thereby evacuate the general resurrection of Saints bodies at the day of judgement, or that the souls of Saints in heaven have corporal eyes for we speak only of corporal sight.

Baxter.

Of Ephes. 4. I easily grant, that the whole Church may be said to have Pastors, in that all the particular Churches have Pastors. But I deny, that the whole have any one Universal Pastor, but Christ. Of that which is the point in controversie you bring no proof. If you mean no more then I grant,* 1.15 That the whole Church hath Pastors, both in that each particular Church hath Pastors, and in that unfixed Pastors are to preach to all, as they have opportunity, then your Minor hath no denial from me.

Iohnson.

Num. 23. All I intend from Ephes. 4. is to prove my Minor, the perpetual Succession of visible Pastors, what∣soever those be; you grant here it proves thus much: Why then presse you me to know whether I would prove from it one supream visible Pastor on earth, when I al∣ledge it not to prove that. It is strange Logick to ask

an Opponent, whether he intend to prove more by his Syllogism, then what he was obliged to prove in Form, when the Respondent grants he has proved that, and by proving the Proposition which was to be proved, has e∣vinced the Thesis to be true, which he first undertook to prove by his Argument, Viz. the Popes Supremacy.

CHAP. II.

The ARGUMENT:

No Negative fram'd in Positive, Historical matters to be proved, num. 24. but the Instances al∣ledged against it, to be disproved by the Oppo∣nent. num. 25. The Pope obeyed in England, not only as Patriarch of the West, but as Su∣pream visible Pastor of the whole Militant Church,* 1.16 was in quiet possession of the spiritual government of the English Church when Protestancy first appear∣ed in it. Mr. Baxter forced n. 27. to deny two common principles, n. 28. His unfair dealing with his adversa∣ry. n. 33, 34. Visible Pastors, though Christs Officers Essential to his visi∣ble Church; and if they, why not the Supream amongst them? n. 35, 36. Some under Officers are Essential to Monarchies. p. 38. No new work to be attempted till the old

be finish'd. n. 39, 40, 41, 42, &c. Mr. Baxter puts many questions and doubts where there is no need; and n. 46. mistakes grosly his Adversa∣ries words and meaning.

Baxter.

Num. 24. In stead of prosecuting your Argument, when you had cast the work of an Opponent upon me, you here appeal to any true Logician, or expert Lawyer. Content, I admit your Appeal. But why then did you at all put on the face of an Opponent? Could you not without this lost labour, at first have called me to prove the suc∣cessive visibility of our Church? But to your Appeal. Ho all you true Logicians, this Learned man and I re∣fer it to your Tribunal, whether it be the part of an Op∣ponent to contrive his Argument so, as that the Nega∣tive shall be his, and then change places, and become Respondent, and make his Adversary Opponent at his pleasure We leave this Cause at your Bar, and expect your Sentence. But before we come to the Lawyers Bar, I m••••st have leave more plainly to state our Case.

Iohnson.

Num. 24. I am still content to refer my case, as I state it in your Edition, p. 35. But why do you refer what I admit not? I say not, that every Opponent may come to a Negative at his pleasure, (as you make me say) but when that Negative is deduced by force of Syllogistical form, and denied by the Respondent in a matter proveable by instances, as this is, I affirm, and desire it should be sent to both our Learned Univer∣sities, that he, who denies the universal Negative, is

obliged, in Logical process, to give some instance to the contrary: and that there is no other means to prove that Negative, but by infringing the instances, which the Respondent produces against it. For if the Oppo∣nent go to prove his universal negative by Induction, viz. in my present Minor, But no Congregation of Chri∣stians hath been alwayes visible, save those which acknow∣ledge St. Peter, &c. he must come at last to this, Such a Congregation is neither that of the Arrians, nor of the Eutychians, nor of Nestorians, nor any other Congre∣gation that can be named. Then, if the Respondent deny that Proposition, and affirm there is some name∣able, he is obliged to tell which it is, otherwise it is impossible to make progress in the Argument: which way of arguing notwithstanding is most Logical, and usually practised amongst Learned Disputants.

Baxter.

Num. 25. We are all agreed, that Christianity is the true Religion, and Christ the Churches universal Head, and the Holy Scriptures the Word of God. Papists tell us of another Head and Rule; the Pope and Tradition, and Iudgement of the Church. Protestants deny these Additionals, and hold to Christianity and Scripture one∣ly: our Religion being nothing but Christianity, we have no controversie about: their Papal Religion, superadded, is that which is controverted. They affirm 1. the Right, 2. the Antiquity of it: We deny both. The Right we disprove from Scripture, though it belongs to them to prove it. The Antiquity is it, that is now to be refer∣red. Protestancy being the denial of Popery, it is we that really have the Negative, and the Papists, that have the Affirmative. The Essence of our Church

(which is Christian) is confessed to have been successive∣ly visible: But we deny that theirs, as Papal, hath been so: and now they tell us, that it is Essential to ours, to deny the Succession of theirs; and therefore require us to prove a Succession of ours, as one that still hath denied theirs. Now we leave our Case to the Lawyers, seeing to them you make your Appeal, 1. Whether the Substance of all our Cause lie not in this question, Whether the Pa∣pacy, or universal Government by the Pope, be of Hea∣ven or of Men?* 1.17 and so, Whether it hath been from the beginning? which we de∣ny, and therefore are called Protestants; and they af∣firm, and are therefore called Papists. 2. If they can∣not first prove a Successive visibility of their Papacy and Papal Church, then what Law can bind us to prove that it was denied before it did arise in the world, or ever any pleaded for it? 3. And as to the point of Possession, I know not what can be pretended on your side 1. The possession of this, or that particular Parish Church, or Tythes, is not the thing in question; but the universal Headship is the thing. But if it were, yet it is I that am yet here in Possession; and Protestants before me for many Ages Successively. And when possessed you the Head-ship of the Ethiopian, Indian, and other Extra-Imperial Churches? never to this day. No, nor of the Eastern Churches, though you had Communion with them. 2. If the question be, who hath possession of the universal Church, we pretend not to it; but onely to a part, and the soundest, safest part 3. The Case of Pos∣session therefore is, Whether we have not been longer in Possession of our Religion, which is bare Christianity, then you of your super-added Popery. Our Possession is not denied of Christianity: yours of Popery we deny: (and our denial makes us called Protestants) Let therefore

the reason of Logicians, Lawyers, or any rational sober man determine the case, whether it do not first and prin∣cipally belong to you, to prove the visible Succession of a Vice-Christ over the universal Church.

Iohnson.

Num. 25. Fair and softly, Sir, you are run quite out of the field, and have lost your self I know not where. The present question is not, who is to prove the univer∣sal and perpetual Supremacy of the Roman-Bishop? See you not, that I have already undertaken the proof of that in this present Argument? The question at pre∣sent is nothing but this, when I have brought the Argu∣ment to this Head; that no other Congregation of Chri∣stians can be named perpetually visible, save that which acknowledges the Roman Supremacy, and you deny that negative Proposition of mine, whether you be not obliged upon that denial, to name some Congregation, which has been perpetually visible beside it. This, and this onely, is that which I referr'd, and still refer to the the judgement of the Learned: as to your Case, when it comes in season; it shall be resolved. This onely ex abundanti for the present: whatsoever may be, or not be, of the Indians and Ethiopians, &c. (which shall hereafter be examined.) You, who confess the Pope to have been constituted,* 1.18 at least by the Churches grant, Patriarch of the West, and thereby to have acquired a lawfull Supremacy over the Western Churches, (and consequently over that of Eng∣land) and was in full and quiet possession of that Right, when your first Protestants began to reject it; you, I say, cannot deny, those first Protestants at least to have been obliged, by reason of that possession, to bring convin∣cing

proofs that it was unlawfull: which notwithstand∣ing you must hold impossible to be done, because you hold that Patriarchal power over them to have been law∣full. Now what obligation falls upon you, as maintain∣ing successively so wrongfull a cause, I leave to your consciences to determine. Nay, it is most evident, in time of the first breach with the Roman Bishop, he was in as quiet possession of Supremacy over the English Church, in quality of Supreme visible Pastor over the whole Church, as he was in quality of the Western Pa∣triarch; for the English obeyed him as Supreme over all, and not as Patriarch of the West onely, as appears by thousands of testimonies extant in our National Coun∣cils, Doctors, Bishops, Historians, Records, De∣crees, &c. Therefore those, who dispossest him of that possession, were bound either to have demonstrated it undeniably to be unlawfull, or to have procured a de∣finitive Sentence against him by such as had full Au∣thority to judge him, that his possession was unjust: neither of which either hath been done, nor can ever be done.

Baxter.

Num. 26 As to your contradictory impositions, I re∣ply, 1. Your exception was not exprest, and your impo∣sition was peremptory.

Iohnson.

Num. 26. But I supposed my Adversaries to be Lo∣gicians, and stood not in need to be instructed in usual Logical processes, belonging to Syllogisti∣cal Form.* 1.19 Do what I can, you will mis∣take me. I speak of a Church denying that the Pope hath alwayes had it, that is, of a Church

which now, or of late times denies it; and you make me speak of a Church, which hath alwayes denied it, contrary to my express words immediately following. as you presently acknowledge. All I pretend is this; Prove that any Church, which now denies it, hath been alwayes visible, and I am satisfied, whether that Church alwayes denied it, or no.

Baxter.

Num. 27. I told you, I would be a Papist, if you prove, That the whole visible Church in all Ages held the Popes universal Head-ship. You say that you have proved it by this Argument, that either he hath that▪ Su∣premacy, or some other Church, denying that he hath alwayes had it, hath been alwayes visible: and that Church you require should be named. I reply, 1. Had not you despaired of making good your Cause, you should have gone on by Argumentation▪ till you had forced me to contradict some common Principle. 2. If you should shew these Papers to the world, and tell them, that you have no better proof of the Succession of your Papacy, then that we prove not, that it hath alwayes been denied by the visible Church, you would sure turn thousands from Po∣pery, if there be so many rational considering impartial men, that would peruse them, and believe you. For any man may know, that it could not be expected, that the Churches should deny a Vice-Christ, before he was sprung up. Why did not all the precedent Roman Bishops disclaim the title of universal Bishop, or Patriarch, till Pelagius and Gregory? but because there was none in the world that gave occasion for it. How should any Heresie be op∣posed, or condemned, before it doth arise?

Iohnson.

Num. 27. I have manifestly forced you to contradict a common Principle; and not one, but Two of them. First, you are forced to contradict that Principle in Lo∣gick, That he, who denies an universal Negative Pro∣position, framed in a positive Historical matter, as mine is, is not obliged to give an instance, when it is de∣manded, to infringe the universality of it: and this I have, and do refer. The second is a Theological, or ra∣ther Christian Principle, That no professed Heretick, nor Schismatick properly so called, is a true part of the universal visible Church of Christ. That this is such a Principle, shall appear hereafter; where I shall make it evident, that a professed Heretick, properly so called, had, or could have, true Christian Faith, or the profes∣sion of it, without which no man can be a true member of the Catholick Church, that is, united to Christ as his Head, as you explicate your meaning. Your other dif∣ficulties, about the Title of Universal Bishop, &c. shall be answered in their place.

Baxter.

Num. 28. But you fairly yield me somewhat here, and say, that you oblige me not to prove a continued visible Church, formally and expresly denying it; but that it was of such a Constitution as was inconsistent with any such Supremacy, or could and did subsist without it. Reply. I confess, your first part is very ingenious and fair. Remember it hereafter, that you have discharged me from proving a Church that denied the Papacy formally and expresly.

Iohnson.

Num. 28. But have you dealt as fairly with me; when after I had so clearly explicated my self, in my former Answer, not to exact a perpetual visible Church, for∣mally and expresly denying that Supremacy, you make me frame an Argument, in the precedent Paragraph, exacting the formal and express denial of it in all Ages: is this fair? You corrupt again my Proposition, I say not that I freed you from proving a Church that denied the Papacy formally and expresly, but (as you acknow∣ledge in this Paragraph) that I obliged you not to prove a continued visible Church formally and expresly denying it, that is, such a Church, as denied it so, all the time that it was visible; yet I quitted you not of the obliga∣tion, of instancing in a Church which at some time or other denied it formally and expresly, as your infe∣rence seems to affirm I do. For seeing it has for many hundred years been publickly acknowledged, as due to the Bishop of Rome, it was deniable by those who lived in the said Ages.

Baxter.

Num. 29. But as to what you yet demand, 1. I have here given it you, because you shall not say I••••le fail you: I have answered your desire. But, 2. It is not as a thing necessary, but ex abundanti, as an overplus. For you may now see plainly, that to prove that the Church was without an universal Pastor (which you require) is to prove the Negative, viz. that then there was none such; whereas it's you that must prove, that there was such. I prove our Religion; do you prove yours: though I say

to pleasure you, Ile disprove it, and have done it in two Books already.

Iohnson.

Num. 29. I had no farther Obligation in the Process of this Argument, then to inforce you to produce an in∣stance of some Church perpetually visible, which either denied, or was inconsistent with, and Independent of that Supremacy. And this I say, you were obliged to do ac∣cording to Logical Form; say as much as you please, that it was ex abundanti, no good Logician will be∣leeve you. I mention not the Churches being without a Supream visible Pastor, which you term universal, nor oblige I you precisely to prove that, but to prove a perpetual visible Church whose government was incon∣sistent with one supream visible Pastor over all, which is an Affirmative Proposition. Why mistake you perpetu∣ally? prove this, and I am satisfied: Nor yet have you in what you have done performed what you undertake, as shall appear in my following Rejoynder to your Argu∣ments.

Baxter.

Num. 29. My reason from the stress of necessity, which you lay on your Affirmative and Additions, was but sub∣servient to the foregoing Reasons, not first to prove you bound, but to prove you the more bound to the proof of your Affirmative. And therefore your instance of Mahumetans is impertinent. He that saith, you shall be damned if you beleeve not this or that, is more obliged to prove it, then he that affirmeth a point as of no such moment.

Iohnson.

Num. 30. Sure if you prove me more bound, you prove me bound, à fortiori; For every comparative supposes its positive. The instance I bring is pertinent; and all who read it attentively, will see it is so. Your last sen∣tence is a repetition of what I denied, without answer∣ing my answering my Argument against it. Then, say I, a Christian is bound to prove his Religion to a Mahume∣tan, but a Mahumetan is not bound to prove his to a Chri∣stian; or if you will have it so, is more bound of the two; this you answer not, because the same reason holding in both, you saw you could not answer it.

Baxter.

Num. 31. To what I say of an Accident, and a corrupt part, you say you have answered, and do but say so, having said nothing to it that is considerable.

Iohnson.

Num. 31. Let the Reader judge that, by what hath been said on both parts.

Baxter.

Num. 32▪ Me thinks you that make Christ to be cor∣porally present in every Church in the Eu∣charist, should not say,* 1.20 That the King of the Church is absent.

Iohnson.

Num. 32. Why dally you thus, to amuse your Rea∣der? you know we we dispute now of a proper visible presence, Such as is not that in the Eucharist.

Baxter.

Num. 33. But when you have proved, 1. That Christ is so absent from his Church, that there's need of a Depu∣ty to Essentiate his Kingdom; and 2. That the Pope is so deputed, you will have done more, then is yet done for your cause.

Iohnson.

Num. 33. I have proved that Christ instituted S. Pe∣ter and his Successors to govern visibly his whole Uni∣versal Church on earth in all ages, and that nothing so in∣stituted is accidental to his Church; and you have not yet given any instance to infringe it; so that my proof stands in full force against you, till it be answered. I presse you therefore once more to give an instance of something which has been ever in the visible Church by Christs Institution, and yet is accidental to his Church.

Baxter.

Num. 34. And yet let me tell you, that in the absence of a King, it is only the King and Subjects, that are Essential to the Kingdome: the Deputy is but an Officer, and not essential.

Iohnson.

Num. 34. 'Tis so indeed de facto, but suppose (as I do) that a Vice-King be by full Authority made an Ingredient into the Essence of the Kingdome;* 1.21 then sure he must be essential; this is evident in our present subject: For though all the Pastors in Christs Church be only his Of∣ficers and Deputies, yet you cannot deny, such Officers are now Essential to his visible Church. I wonder you

look no deeper then to the Superficies; nor consider what inconveniences follow against your self by your replies, for what true Christian ever yet denied, that either Bi∣shops, or Presbyters, or both, though they are all Christs Officers and Deputies are essential to Christs visible Church?

Baxter.

* 1.22 Num. 35. Your naked Assertion, That whatsoever Government Christ institu∣teth of his Church, must be essential to his Church, is no proof; nor like the task of an Opponent.

Iohnson.

Num. 35. My Assertion is of force, till you produce some instance of perpetual Church Government insti∣tuted by our Saviour, which is not Essential to his Church: which you neither have done, nor can you do it. And certainly, when any Common-wealth is instituted in such a determinate kind of perpetual Go∣vernment, by one of so eminent Authority, that no o∣ther hath power to change that Institution (as it passes in our case) the government, which he instituted is not acci∣dental to that Common-wealth; so far, that it will be no longer the Common-wealth instituted by him when the Government is changed.

Baxter.

Num. 36. The Government of Inferiour Officers is not Essential to the Vniversal Church, no more then Iudges and Iustices to a Kingdom.

Iohnson.

Num. 36. Your Assertion is not true; for Iudges

and Iustices may be changed into other Officers, by the Supream authority: whereas none have power to change the Officers which Christ hath instituted to be perpetu∣al in his Church. Again even in Common-wealths and Kingdoms, though these determinate Officers are not essential to them, yet it is essential to have some inferi∣our Officers; seeing it is impossible, that the Supream Magist••••ate should govern the whole Common-wealth immediatly by himself.

Baxter.

Num. 37. And yet we must wait long, before you will prove, that Peter and the Pope of Rome are in Christs place, as Governours of the Universal Church.

Iohnson.

Num. 37. I have proved it; and my proof is good, till it be convinced, that you have answered my Argu∣ment: Governours they are, but under Christ, and no farther then to a visible government of the universal Mi∣litant Church.

Baxter.

Num. 38. Sir, I desire open dealing, as between men that beleeve these matters are of eternal consequence. I watch not for any advantage against you. Though it be your part to prove the Affirmative, yet I have begun the proof of our Negative, but it was on supposition, that you will equally now prove your Affirmative, better then you have here done. I proved a visible Church successively, that held not the Popes Vniversal Government? Do you now prove, That the Universal Church in all ages did hold the Popes Universal Government, which is your part; or I must say again, I shall think you do but run away, and

give up your cause, as unable to defend it: I have not failed you, do not you fail me.

Iohnson.

Num. 38. Sir, All that I contend is, that my Argu∣ment sent to you, and the Answer to it promised and as∣sayed by you, be respectively accomplished by us both: when that is done, I shall refuse no reasonable Proposi∣tions, and shall endeavour to give you all possible satis∣faction. But give me leave to tell you, till that be done, I shall take it for an Effugium from you, and (and so I think will all rational men) to set upon a new work before the old be finisht: For by this means we shall bring nothing to an Issue, but still flit superficially from one difficulty to another, without bringing any thing to a period; and thereby both lose our time and credit. Let us first follow this close, and when we are come to an end, we shall be ready to begin another. It is not for the present the proof of the perpetual visibility of your Protestant Church in particular, which is aimed at for answer to my Argument: Be it that, or any other In∣dependent of the Bishop of Romes authority, 'tis all one for solution of the Argument: The force of my dis∣course consists in this, No Congregation of Christians has been perpetually visible, save that which acknowledges the Popes Supremacy; Ergo, No Congregation of Chri∣stians is Christs true Church, save that. Now this Argu∣ment presses all Congregations of Christians, whether Ancient or Modern, not acknowledging that Supremacy, as much as Protestants; and if any of them can be proved to be perpetually visible, the Argument is solv'd: So that the Argument is not directed particularly against Protestants, but as well against Grecian Schismaticks, Eu∣tychians, Nestorians, Montanists, &c. as against them;

and had it fallen into their hands, as it did into yours, the proving their visibility (though yours had not been pro∣ved) would have given satisfaction: nay if you had shew∣ed the perpetual visibility of any others, as you have as∣sayed to do of yours, you had given an equal satisfaction to the Argument. But seeing you have pitcht upon the visibility of your Protestant Church you have imposed an obligation upon me of answering the reasons and alle∣gations, whereby you labour to prove it to have been per∣petually visible.

Baxter.

Num. 39. You complain of a deficiency in quality, though you confess, that I abound in number. But where is the dese••••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 Assem∣bly 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, thats 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, 'tis 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 denomina∣tion 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, accord∣ing to the places you here cite.

Baxter.

Num. 42. All that are true Christians are one King∣dome, 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; thats 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 Chri∣stians amongst themselves, and with Orthodox Christi∣ans; thats the present controversie.

Baxter.

Num. 44. And to what purpose talk you of deter∣minate Congregations? Do you mean individual Assem∣blies? 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 la∣bour 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 req••••ire not this of the Church-Historians. It suffic••••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 re∣quire (as you have seen above) the nomination of the determinate Opinions, or Societies, as Hussites, Wal∣denses, Nestorians, Eutychians, &c. not of their per∣sons. And therefore I say you nominate none,* 1.23 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 dif∣ferent 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 Christi∣ans, 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 design∣ed 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 inha∣bited the said Nations; for Arrians, Sabellians, Mani∣chees, Menandrians, &c. whom you hold to be no Chri∣stians, and to erre in Essentials, denied the Popes Su∣premacy in those Nations.

CHAP. III.

ARGUMENT.

Num. 47. No Congregations of Christians can be united in Christ, which are not united in the pro∣fession 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. In∣dia 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 Ethi∣opians subject to the Three First General Coun∣cils. An obscure Authority, obscurely cited from Bishop Usher. n. 5••••, 58. He draws an Argument for no-subjection due to the Pope, from the dis∣obedient Acts of Schismaticks and Hereticks against him. n. 60. The 28. Canon of Chalce∣don, though admitted, proves not Mr. Baxter's Assertion. ibidem. What is meant by the Me∣rits of S. Peter, when they are alledged by An∣cient Fathers, as the prime Ground of the Popes Supremacy.

Baxter.

Num. 47. You ask, were they different Congregati∣ons? Answ. As united in Christ, they were one Church; but as assembling at one time, or in one place, or under the same guide, so they were not one, but divers Congregations.

Iohnson.

Num. 47. You answer not the question; for they might be in different places and times, and under seve∣ral guides, and yet be one and the same Congregation; as appears in the succession and extension of the Catho∣lick

Church. The question I demanded is this; were they all united in the profession of one and the same Faith, and unity of External Communion? without these two it is im∣possible to be united in Christ, as I shall prove hereafter.

Baxter.

Num. 48. That there were any Papists of 400. years after Christ, do yo prove, if you are able. My Conclusi∣on, that all have been against you for many hundred years, must stand good, till on prove, that some were for you. Yet I have herewith proved, that there were none, at least that could deserve the name of the Church.

Iohnson.

Num. 48. I have proved there were some, in citing the Orat on of the Legates from Pope Celestine, in the first Ephesine Council, who, you grant, were for us: and if they were for us, then all were not against us, for so ma∣ny hundred years;* 1.24 for you speak there of the first 400. years. Now though that Council was celebrated in the year 430. yet both that, in a moral consideration, passes for 400. and those Le∣gates witnessing what they said, to have alwayes been known to every one (notum omnibus, &c.) give an Au∣thentical Testimony, that it was alwayes acknowledged as a Christian Truth, in and through the Church; and consequently within the first 400. years. No, nor was the Council of Ephesus, nor any part of it, then against us. For if they had, they would have, at least some of them, contradicted that, which they had (in your sup∣position) esteemed so manifest an untruth, and contra∣ry to the liberty and jurisdiction of all other Bishops and Churches; as imposing upon them a Superiour, and Judge, who had no lawfull Authority over them.

Baxter.

Num. 49. Do you think to satisfie any reasonable man, by calling for positive proof from Authors, of such Nega∣tives?

Iohnson.

Num. 49. I demand no proof of a Negative: prove, I demand it. My demand is to shew any one Congregati∣on of Christians always visible, since Christ till now,* 1.25 be••••de that, which acknowledged the Popes Supremacy: which is an Affirmative.

Baxter.

Num. 50. Yet proof you shall not want, such as the na∣ture of the point requireth, viz. That the said Churches of Ethiopia, India, the outer Armenia, and other Extra-Imperial Nations, were not under the Iurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome.

Iohnson.

Num. 50. I suppose you mean by were not under, &c. were never under the Bishop of Rome: otherwise your instance proves nothing; for if they were under him in any age, and for any time since Christ, you can never make them to be an instance, of those who were perpe∣tually in all Ages a visible Congregation of Christians, not acknowledging the Popes Supremacy; for in that Age wherein they were subject to him, they did ac∣knowledge it.

Baxter.

Num. 51. You find all these Churches, or most of them at this day (that remain) from under your Iurisdiction: and you cannot tell, when or how they turned from you. If you could, it had been done.

Iohnson.

Num. 51. I neither find it, nor can find it, till you tell me, which were these Extra-Imperial Churches you mean, when you say other Extra-Imperial Nations. Mean you all other, or some other? If all, I find the quite contrary. For the Goths, successively inhabitants of Spain, never acknowledged themselves Subjects to the Empire; who notwithstanding are now subject to the Roman Bishop; and consequently were and are, for some time, under him. And the Suedes and Danes, which pretend to proceed from the Goths, Vandals, &c. though now they reject all obedience to him, yet in the year 1500. they all acknowledged themselves to be his Subjects in Spirituals, and that for many hundred of years together. Well then; I find not all Extra-Im∣perial Churches from under the Popes Jurisdiction; and some who are, I can and do find, when and how they turned from him. It was about the year 1520. by occa∣sion of the Lutheran Heresie, as all the world knows. If you mean onely some of those other Extra-Imperial Churches, when you have told me, which are those some, you shall have an Answer. In the interim give me leave to tell you, that to maintain your Novelty, you must shew all Extra-Imperial to have been exempt: for if any one were not, all might have been subject, nay were to have been so, à paritate rationis.

As to the Indians, they were not alwayes Extra-Im∣perial. For in the year 163. they subject∣ed themselves to the Roman Emperour Antoninus Pius.* 1.26 The Armenians, that were Christians, were not alwayes Extra-Imperial. For in the year 572. being grievously persecuted for the Christian Faith by the

Persians, they rendred themselves Subjects to the Ro∣man Emperour. Nor were they always a separate Con∣gregation from those, who acknowledged the Spiritual Soveraignty of the Roman Bi∣shop.* 1.27 For, in the year 1145. they and the Indian Christians subjected themselves to him: and again Anno 1439. and so re∣main for the present. Nor were the Ethi∣opians, in all ages, a different Congrega∣tion from the Romane. For Anno 1524. the Emperour and High Priest, David, pro∣mised obedience to the Sea Apostolick. And Claudius, his Successor, did the like, Anno 1557. Now let us review the force of your instances. You undertook to shew, in Answer to my Minor, some visible Con∣gregation, beside that which acknowledges the Popes Supreme power, in all Ages since Christ. To prove this, you nominate onely the Indians, Ethiopians, Armeni∣ans. Now no one of these Three have been in all Ages, a visible Congregation beside that of Rome: for each of them, at one time or other, became the same Congre∣gation to that, by subjecting and conforming themselves to and with the Bishop of Rome, as I have proved. You assert, that these Three are, and ever were, Extra-Im∣perial Nations; and upon that score (in your princi∣ples) independent of the Roman Bishop: and yet Two of these made themselves subjects to the Roman Empe∣rour, as I have now proved. You undertook to prove, that those three forenamed Nations, and other Extra-Im∣perial Churches were never under the Bishop of Rome: and in proof thereof you say in your first reason, that all, or most of them, (that is, not all) at this day are from under his Jurisdiction: so that your Argument runs thus.

None of them were ever under him, because all or most of them were never under him. Take you this to be Lo∣gick? You tell me, we cannot tell, when or how they turned from us; and I tell you, and have prov'd it, that the Goths in Spain are not from under us at this day: and that the Suedes and Danes, being their off-spring, de∣parted not from us, till about the year 1520. by occasion of Luther's Heresie. This is your first proof: and no marvel you put it, as your Achilles, in the front, it is so mighty strong. Now let us hear your second.

Baxter.

Num. 52.2. These Nations profess it to be their Tradi∣tion, that the Pope was never their Governour.

Iohnson.

Num. 52. You are pleas'd to say so; and I am ready to believe you, when you prove what you say. This is your second proof.

Baxter.

Num. 53.3. No History, or Authority, of the least regard, is brought by your own Writers, to prove these Churches under your Iurisdiction: no not by Baronius himself, that is so copious and so skilfull in making much of nothing.

Iohnson.

Num. 53. Those Histories, and Authors, which say All Churches, and the whole Church of Christ, was and ought to be subject to him, prove sufficiently, that these Churches were subject to him: for these were contain∣ed in the number of All. But many Anci∣ent Authors,* 1.28 and Fathers say, That All Churches, and the whole Church was, and ought to be subject to him: Ergo, they say, that these Churches were subject to him. The

Major is evident: The Minor shall be amply proved, and is sufficiently already in my subsequent Allegations; as I shall make good, when I come to the defence of them against your Answers and Exceptions.

Baxter.

Num. 54. No credible witnesses mention your Acts of Iurisdiction over them, or their Acts of subjection; which Church History must needs have contained, if it had been true, that they were your Subjects.

Iohnson.

Num. 54. What none? that were very strange. Is not Genebrard a witness, that Pope Eugenius wrote to the Emperour of Ethiopia, anno 1437. to send Legates to the Council of Ferrara, as the Greek Emperour had decreed to do: to whose Letters and Legates David, their Emperour, returned a respectfull Answer, and ac∣cordingly sent some of his Church to that Council, as appears by the Acts of the Council it self, where the E∣thiopians are recorded to have been present: and that in the year 1524. the said David, and Helena his Empress, promised Obedience to the Bishop of Rome, Pope Cle∣ment the 7th. And witnesses not, both Platina, Nau∣clerus, Volaterranus, Chalcondylas, Emylius, Onuphri∣us, Genebrard, and also the Acts of the Florentine Coun∣cil, that the Armenians and Indians acknowledged the Spiritual Soveraignty of the Roman Bishop through the whole world? Are these no credible witnesses? And as to more Ancient times, gives not the Arabick Transla∣tion of the first Nicene Council a clear witness (as we shall see presently) that the Ethiopians were to be un∣der the Jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Alexandria, and he under that of Rome, as is witnessed and decreed in

the Ephesin Council, and others? Are these no credible witnesses neither? Witness not the whole Kingdome of Spain at this day, and all the Historians of Sueden, Den∣mark, and other Northern Countreys, issuing from the Extra-Imperial Goths, and never subject to the Roman Empire, that from their first Conversions, till after the year 1500. they were all subject to the Roman Bishop? and are none of these, credible witnesses? That's hard. But more of this hereafter.

Baxter.

Num. 55. Their absence from General Councils, and no in∣vitation of them thereunto, (that was ever pro∣ved, or is shewed by you) is sufficient evidence.* 1.29

Iohnson.

Num. 55 I intend to make a particular Tract to prove this, and to evidence the falsity of your Allegation, from the undeniable testimonies, of Classie Authors, and from the ancient subscriptions of the Councils themselves.

Baxter.

Num. 56. Their Liturgies, even the most Ancient, bear no footsteps of any subjection to you: though your forgeries have corrupted them, as I shall here (digres∣sively) give one instance of. The Ethiopick Liturgie, be∣cause of a Hoc est corpus meum, which we also use, is urged to prove, that they are for the Corporal Presence, or Transubstantiation. But, saith Vsher, de Success. Ec∣cles. In Ethiopicarum Ecclesiarum universali Canone descriptum habebatur Hic panis est corpus meum. In La∣tinâ Translatione, contra fidem Ethiopic. Exemplarium (ut in primâ operis editione confirmat Pontificius ipse Scholiastes) expunctum est nomen panis.

Iohnson.

Num. 56. No more does the Roman Missal it self, nor those of France or Spain, witness their subjection to the Roman Bishop: Must every Book witness every thing? Must those Books which contain nothing but the service of the Church, determine points of Controver∣sie, no way pertaining to that subject? What rule have you for that? Yet I finde in their very Liturgie, both a plain acknowledgment of St. Peters primacy, and of the reverence they bear to the three first general Coun∣cils; in making a particular Commemoration of the Fa∣thers which were in them, in the Cannon of their Mass: whereby they profess to receive the Decrees of those three Councils, and thereby their subjection to them; and name not the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon, (the fourth general) because they follow the Heresie of Eutiches who was condemned in it.

Your digression, I confesse, is something large▪ from the Popes Supremacy to Transubstantiation: Yet had you grounded it upon a more firm Authority, then that of a professed Adversary, it would I suppose have had more weight with your Readers. What if Usher say so? that moves not me a jot: though I marvel not a little also, why you who stand upon such Niceties in citations, should fall into the same defect which you blame in me, of putting me to the labour of reading over that whole Book, by not citing the place where those words are found. But I should have taken no no∣tice of such small omissions, had not you given me a President for it. At last I found them, cap. 2. p. 54. Edit. 2. but then I was at a loss again. For having ex∣amined three different Editions of the Bibliotheca, (which is all are extant) and the Scholia's in the Margin,

I could finde no such matter; nor could I know, what other Scholiastes, or Edition he meant; and should be more satisfied, if in your next you please to cite the Edition more exactly, and the precise words of the Scho∣liastes, and where they are to be found. For the matter it self it seems, I must needs tell you, very improbable, both because the Scripture it self hath hoc, and not hic panis, and were it not a great boldness in a whole Church to consent to the changing of Christs words of Instituti∣on in this divine Sacrament, and foisting in others in place of them? nor see I any reason why the Ethiopique Church in particular should do it, when in the very same Liturgie, it delivers cleerly the change of bread into Christ Body, effected in the consecration of the divine Mysteries?* 1.30

Baxter.

Num 57. Constantines letters of request to the King of Persia, for the Churches there, (which Eusebius in vitâ Constantini mentioneth) do intimate, that then the Roman Bishop ruled not there.

Iohnson.

Num. 57. Why so? Might not the Roman Bishop

rule there, though the Emperour did not? The King of Persia, as not Subject to the Emperour, was not to be commanded, but entreated by him; but might not that stand with the Authority of the Roman Bishop over that Church? May not the King of France intreat the King of Spain to send his Bishops to a general Coun∣cil, though both of them acknowledge the Popes Autho∣rity over them, and the Churches in their respective Kingdomes? Call you this an Argument?

Baxter.

Num. 58. Even at home, the Scots and Brittains obey∣ed not the Pope, nor conformed about Easter-Observation, even in the dayes of Gregory, but resisted his changes, and refused Communion with his Ministers.

Iohnson.

Num. 58. No more do you conform to him now: fol∣lows it thence, that he never exercised authority over the Church in this Nation? Will you draw a conse∣quence from the disobedience of a Subject to the want of power in a Superiour? Was not this very er∣ror ascrib'd to them by Venerable Bede,* 1.31 and here acknowledged by you, condemned as an Heresie in the Council of Nice? and may you not as well argue thus (even against your own principles) Those Brittains and Scots confor∣med not about the Easter-Observation prescribed in the Council of Nice; therefore they acknowledged no sub∣jection to the authority of that Council: Ergo, That Council never had authority over them: And as to Com∣munion with his Ministers,* 1.32 Bede tells you, they refused also to communicate with the English, who were then converted, or to

help towards their conversion; were they also justifi∣able in this? Or had they any right in Christian charity to refuse it?

Baxter.

Num. 59. I have already elsewhere given you the testi∣mony of some of your own Writers: as, Reynerius contra Waldenses, Catal. in Bibliothecâ patr. Tom. 4. pag. 773. saying, The Churches of the Armenians, and Ethiopi∣ans, and Indians, and the rest which the Apostles con∣verted are not under the Church of Rome.

Iohnson.

Num. 59. No more are you, what then? our question is not of what is done de facto for the present, but what de jure, ought to be done, or has been done at one time or other. This Author says not, these Nations were never under the Church of Rome, (even as you cite him) but are not now for the present under him. Know you not that many things have been heretofore, which are not now? Thus I have shewed you (and doubt not but you see it) the weakness of the first eight points of your Reasons. I come now to the ninth, which re∣quires a deeper and larger discussion, as being a main point in your Novel Divinity.

Baxter.

Num. 60. I have proved from the Council of Chalce∣don, that it was the Fathers, that is, the Councils, that gave Rome its preheminence.

Iohnson.

Num. 60. Sir, I take the boldness to tell you, that you have proved nothing, nothing at all of that matter: what

you say in your second part of the 28 Canon of the Coun∣cil of Chalcedon, proves not what you say here, though that Canon were admitted; of which more hereafter. For the Greek word is not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (gave to, or con∣ferred upon Rome) those priviledges, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (exhibited or deferred to them) to Rome, as ever before due unto it, by right of the Apostolick Sea of S. Peter established there. And though the Canon alledge for the reason of this, the Imperial power of that Citie, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (because it was the Im∣perial City) yet it neither says, (as you would infer from it) that this was the sole and compleat reason, no nor the chief neither of Romes preheminence, but one a∣mongst some others. Nor can it be understood to be the sole reason, without imputing a contradiction to the Council. For those Holy Fathers in their Epistle to St. Leo Pope affirm,* 1.33 That Dioscorus had extended his Felony against him to whom our Saviour had committed the charge and care of his vineyard, that is, the whole Catholique Church, when that wicked Heretick presu∣med to excommunicate St. Leo. Now the true reason why this Canon mentions rather the Imperial Authority of that City, then the right from St. Peter was, because it suited better with the pretensions of Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople, and his complices, for the elevation of that Sea, then any other; because Constantinople had no other prevalent plea for its preheminence, save the Im∣periality of Constantinople. Now that this reason of the Imperial seat at Rome, is no way exclusive of the right from S. Peter is evident from the conjoyning them together by the Emperors Theodosius and Va∣lentinian in their Laws, made six years before the Council of Chalcedon, (whereof the Fathers of that

Council cannot be supposed ignorant) where they say thus.* 1.34 Three things have established the Primacy of the Sea Apostolick the Merit of S. Pe∣ter, who is the Prince of the Episcopal Society, the Dig∣nity of the City, and Synodical Authority. Where the original and prime ground is the Merit of S. Peter; the other two are subsequent and subservient. For therefore the Imperial Throne is given as a reason, because St. Peter thought it convenient, that the Highest Spiritual Authority should be placed in that City, which had highest Temporal Power: as also Alexandria was anci∣ently declared the second Patriarchate, by the Decree of the Nicene Council, because it was the second Seat in the Empire: and Antioch, which was the third, was likewise appointed to be the third Patriarchate; and other eminent Cities, according to their greatness and precedency in the Empire, had the dignity of Primacy and Metropolitane Seas: for by this means Church-go∣vernment was more sweetly and peaceably instituted and maintained, both to the satisfaction of the Cities themselves, of the temporal Governours, and of spiri∣tual Pastors.

It was (say you) not the Dignity and Authority of St. Peter,* 1.35 but the Merits of Vertue and Sanctity, which was alledged in h••••se and ••••h•••• like Texts, as ground of the Supereminency of his Sea a•••• Rome; for still they press meritis Beati Petri (by the merits of St. Peter. I am glad to hear you, against your own Tenets, acknowledge merits of Saints to ha••••e been delivered by the Authority of so great a stream of Anti∣quity in these purer Ages: but it seems withal, you were sore press'd for an Answer, when you could find no other, but what is so disadvantageous to your Cause. And that which is yet worse, it cannot serve your turn neither.

For if those Ancients mean't by merita B. Petri, the me∣rits of his Sanctity, and grounded the Primacy of his Sea in them, it must have been undoubtedly known to them, that St. Peter was a greater Saint, and of a life more me∣ritorious, then either S. Paul, or S. Iohn Evangelist, or S. Andrew, or any of the other Apostles; of which none of these had any certainty at all, much less was it a thing received in the Church, that S. Peter had a higher de∣gree of Sanctity, then any of his fellow-Apostles: prove there was any such perswasion. Nay it would probably have been esteemed a temerity, a very great curiosity, to have preferr'd the sanctity of any one amongst them be∣fore all the rest. But I wonder much, you observed not the manner of speaking of those holy Fathers and grave Authors, who give it clearly enough to be understood, what Merits they meant. For had they been of your opinion, they should have added by way of explication, Meritis Beati Petri, qui sanctissimus erat inter omnes Apostolos, (by the Merits of S. Peter, who was the holi∣est amongst all the Apostles.) But to shew they un∣derstood not that, but the Merits of Dignity and Authority, they usually add this clause, Meritis Be∣ati Petri, qui Princeps est omnium Apostolorum, (by the Merits of S. Peter, who is the Prince of all the Apostles,) which speaks manifestly a merit, or worth, of Authori∣ty. And it were very strange to regulate the Authority of Episcopal Seas by the personal merits of their first In∣stitutors; both because that is (without an express re∣velation) a thing known to God onely, and would oc∣casion a thousand contentions about the precedency of Bishops; every one being desirous to esteem the Apo∣stle of his City, or Nation, the greater Saint; and be∣cause there never was, in Ancient times, any such rea∣son given for the precedency of Episcopal, or Apostoli∣cal

Seas; (if there were, shew it) nor was any of the other Apostles successors preferred before the rest, upon pretence that his merits and sanctity was esteemed great∣er then that of others.

Baxter.

Num. 61. But those Councils gave the Pope no prehe∣minence over the Extra-Imperial Nations.

Iohnson.

Num. 61. If he had it before, what needed they to give it him? or how could they give him what was due to him by Christs Institution? But supposing, Argu∣mentandi gratiâ, not granting, that they had had power to confer these priviledges upon S. Peters Sea, how do you prove they did not de facto give them to him, and there∣by gave him power over those Extra-Imperial Nations? You prove it thus.

Baxter.

Num. 62. For 1. Those Nations, being not called to the Council, could not be bound by it.

Iohnson.

Num. 62. Were they not called? sure then they came without calling; for there they were. For had they not been there, how came the Bishops of Persia, of both the Armenia's, and Gothia (which were all out of the Empire) to subscribe to the first Council of Nice?* 1.36 How came Phoebamnon, Bishop of the Copti, to subscribe to the first Council of Ephesus? How came that Circular Letter, writ by Eusebius, Bishop of Caesaria in Palestine, in the name of the Council, to be directed to all Bishops, and in parti∣cular to the Churches through all Persia, and the great In∣dia,

if the Bishops of those Churches were not called, or the Council had no Authority over them?* 1.37 Lastly, if those Bishops were not called to the Council, why do Theodoret, Marianus, Victor, Eusebius, Socrates, all of them, affirm, that to the Council of Nice were called Bishops from all the Churches of Europe, Africa, and Asia? You will not forget to answer these questions in your next.

CHAP. IV.

ARGUMENT.

Num. 63. Emperors alone called no General Coun∣cils: so that Extra-Imperial Bishops must have been called by the Pope. Extra-Imperial Church∣es, under the Patriarchs. num. 65, &c. One page and a half of Mr. Baxters Key for Catholicks, occasionally examined; and what defects are found in them. n. 67. Had the Extra-Imperial Churches not acknowledg'd the Popes Iurisdiction over them, they had not been of the same kind of Government with those within the Empire. n. 68. S. Prosper's, and S. Leo's Texts for the Popes Su∣premacy without the Roman Empire. num. 69. S. Leo highly injur'd by Mr. Baxter. num. 71. No full express nomination of all the particular Provinces under Alexandria, in the sixth Canon of the Nicene Council, n. 71. By Egypt may be

understood Ethiopia, and other adjacent Coun∣treys. num. 72. Dr. Heylen and Ross, Pro∣testant Authors, against Mr. Baxter. n. 37. The first of these acknowledges the Arabick Transla∣tion of the Nicene Council to be Authentick.

Baxter.

Num. 63. The Emperours called, and en∣forced the Councils,* 1.38 who had no power out of their Empire.

Iohnson.

Num. 63. Called they them alone? had they not the Authority of the Roman Bishop joyn'd with them, or rather presuppos'd to theirs. Prove that the Emperours onely called them. What if they had no coercive power out of the Empire? had they not power to signifie to those Extra-Imperials, that a Council was to be celebra∣ted; and to invite them at least to it? Or if they did not, could not the Bishop of Rome, or the other Patri∣archs, under whose Jurisdiction they were respectively, notifie to them the celebration of those Councils, and require their presence in them? You cannot but see this.

Baxter.

Num. 64. The Dioceses are described, and expresly con∣fined within the verge of the Empire; See both the descrip∣tion and full proof in Blondel de Primatu in Ecclesiâ. Gall.

Iohnson.

Num. 64. I should much rather have had the De∣scription from your self, then have been thus bobb'd off to Blondel, so laxely cited, without Page, Para∣graph,

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 no∣thing 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 un∣der the Ancient Patriarchs. And in the first place, con∣cerning the Bishop of Rome, the 39 Canon of the Ni∣cene Council, in the Arabick Edition published by Pi∣sanus, (which I shall cite more particularly hereafter, and prove the Authenticalness of those Canons) affirms expresly, that the Roman Bishop, as being Christ's Vi∣car, has power over all Christian Princes, and their people subject to them;* 1.39 and that he, as being the Vicar of Christ, is over all people, and all Christian Churches: and Can. 36. de∣clares, 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,* 1.40 Can. 28th. so much extolled by you, gives to the Bi∣shop of Constantinople Authority over the Barbarous Na∣tions near those parts, that is, such as were Extra-Im∣perial, as that of Russia, and Muscovia.

Baxter.

Num. 65. The Emperors themselves did sometime (gi∣ving power to the Councils Acts) make Rome the chief; and sometime (as the Councils did also) give Constan∣tinople equal priviledge; and sometime set Constanti∣nople 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 an∣other 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 Transla∣tion 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 one∣ly, that they both begin with the same Letter. When S. Paul saith, speaking of our Saviour, Ha∣bemus Pontificem magnum,* 1.41 would you tran∣slate it, We have a great Pope? Or when he affirms, that he is Pontifex secundum ordinem Mel∣chisedec, would you English it,* 1.42 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 be∣fore. 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 Bare∣nius, 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 Baroni∣us, cited by you, grant the bare words of summus Pon∣tifex, as they signifie onely a chief Priest, were anci∣ently 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 Ponti∣fex 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 aman∣tissimus, &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 a••••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 au∣thority to correct you by vertue of the title of mother;* 1.43 you should answer, that the ti∣of 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 simplici∣ter to secundum quid?

In your fourth Paragraph you say, If the words be consulted where the Roman Church is stiled mater Ec∣clesiarum, (mother of all Churches) for thats her title, they signifie only priority of dignity, that is, without au∣thority and jurisdiction over all Churches joyned to that dignity. And this you never go about to prove, so irre∣fragable is your authority, that your bare word must passe for a proof. I wonder you have the heart to spend paper in such groundless Parergons.

In your fifth, you first call those marks of flattery, for giving the title of Vniversal Bishop to Pope Leo, which the whole Council of Chalcedon approved, and read publikely; and therefore must all have concurred with flatterers, and yet in the next line you affirm, that by the

title of universal, they meant no more then the Bishop, which in order of dignity is above the rest; and that you confess, belongs as due to the Roman Bishop: how then account you them flatterers, when they give the Pope no more then his due? Either therefore they were no flat∣terers; and then you injure them in branding those ho∣ly venerable persons with so black a note; or they meant more then you would have them mean by universal Bi∣shop; and then you speak untruly, in putting a false gloss upon their words; chuse which you please, you contradict your self.

And you are as consonant to your self in instancing, that many particular Churches are oft called Catholick; What then? Ergo, the Title of Archbishop of the Catholick Church, or the Vniversal Bishop, proves not the Popes Supremacy: Draw these two toge∣ther if you can. Yes, there is a difference, say you next, between a Catholick Church, and the Catholick Church. There is so, but what of that? Then will you say, if you say any thing, there must be a difference betwixt an Archbishop of a Catholick Church, and the Archbishop of the Catholick Church: Thats true too. But see you not that this discourse quite overthrows yours; for you say not that the title, whose sequel you infringe is, that the Pope is called an Archbishop of a Catholick Church, for so is every Orthodox Archbishop as well as the Pope, but that he is called the Archbishop of the Catholick Church: These are your precise words. No•••• say you, that we stile him an universal, or Catholick Bishop, for so are all lawfull Bishops, but that we stile him the universal Bishop. It seems you have two hands, and those so contrary one to the other that what the one builds, the other pulls down. Then you say, the Bishop of Constantinople had that title given him in a Council

at Constantinople, Anno 518. But was that Council re∣ceived as publickly without contradiction in the Church, as this Epistle was received without contradiction in the Council of Chalcedon? Was not that Constantinopolitan Council condemned both by S. Gregory and his Prede∣cessor, as S. Gregory witnesses in his Epistle against Iohn of Constantinople? and can you name any who in the Council of Chalcedon condemned the title given to Leo in that Epistle, read in the Council of Chalcedon? The truth is, you care not much what you write, so you make a noise.

This done you alledge Iustin. Codex. de Episcopis l. 1. lege 24. that is, the First Law, the four and twentieth Law: a learned citation, if yours, and not the Printers oversight in printing L. for T. for it should be Tit. 2. (not 1.) lege 24. You cite him thus, Constantinopolitana Ecclesia omnium aliarum caput (the Church of Constan∣tinople is the Head of all other Churches) whence you prove, that Iustinian prefers the Church of Constanti∣nople before the Church of Rome: Surely you never read this Law of Iustinian: for had you read it, you would have found, by his mentioning there certain Ecclesiasti∣cal Officers called Chartularii, belonging to the Cathe∣dral Church, that he speaks there only of the great Pa∣triarchal Church of St. Sophia in Constantinople, and makes it the Head of all other Cathedral Churches in that Patriarchate, and not of the politick body of the Constantinopolitan Church, in regard of all other Chri∣stian Churches in the world: And your very Concession here concludes, that he prefers not the Constantinopoli∣tan in your sense, before that of Rome; for you acknow∣ledge he prefers Rome before it: For all know that Iu∣stinians Laws were so prudently couched and ordered, that such palpable contradictions as these were never no∣ted

by any Classick Authors to be inserted into them. But whilst you thus take Authors upon trust, hand over head, no marvel, if you make more haste then good speed, in posting out one Book after another.

Presently upon this you fall upon a Story concerning Vigilius and Iustinian, and by that you prove nothing. For Iustinian might both hold the Bishop of Rome was Head of all the holy Prelates of God, as he intitles him, C. l. 1. tit. 2. l. 7. and yet persecute him, and abuse him, to draw him to subscribe to what he desired, as ma∣ny Emperors since Iustinian have done, who notwith∣standing beleeved and professed constantly the universal Supremacy of the Roman Bishop: For when they are injurious to particular Popes, their spleen is not against the Sea or dignity of the Roman Bishop, but against this or that person, who is actually in possession of it. Thus Iustinianus junior endeavoured all he could, even by force and violence, to draw Pope Sergius to sub∣scribe to the Trullane Cannons, though he could not effect it: Nay, had you drawn a natural sequel from such proceedings, it should rather have been, That Iustinia∣nus senior therefore proceeded so violently against Vi∣gilius, to induce him to subscribe to the condemnation of the Tria capitula, decreed in the fifth Council, be∣cause he esteemed him to be of so eminent power, that it would never have been universally received as a lawful General Council without his Subscription to it, and con∣firmation of it; which was the reason that moved Iusti∣nianus junior to press Sergius so forcibly to subscribe to that in Trullo.

Thus I have given a brief Survey of what you cite p. 174, 175. in your Key, whence may be collected what your manner of writing is in that loose Treatise; since in little more then in one sole page, occasionally

light upon, I have discovered no lesse then two Equivo¦cations, three Fallacies, four false Translations, three In∣consequences, one Mistake, and two Contradictions. Yet were such defects now and then only to be met with in your Book, it were something tolerable; but such as read it attentively finde it swarmes all over with them, and is indeed nothing but a Farrago of Fallacies and Falsities, heap'd one upon another throughout the whole Tract: Pardon me, if I have been more bold with you in answering this passage of your Key, then in what you have writ against me: for I neither find you so mainly defective in that, as in this other; and where you are so, I labour to smother what I can, that I may not seem to be too severe with you in my own concern.

What you say in this Paragraph by way of Parenthe∣sis, That the Emperors gave power to the Councils Acts, if you mean, they gave any spiritual Authority, by force of Vote or Suffrage to them, you neither have prov'd it, nor can prove it: if you mean, they gave only a coer∣cive power, for the external Observation of those de∣crees, which by vertue of the Councils Authority, ob∣liged all Christians to assent to them, you say true, but nothing against us.

Baxter.

Num. 66. But what say you now to the contrary? Why 1. You ask, Were those Primitive Christians of another kinde of Church Order and Government, then were those under the Roman Empire? Answ. When the whole body of Church-History satisfieth us, that they were not subject to the Pope,* 1.44 which is the thing in que∣stion, is it any weakning of such evidence, in a matter of such publick fact, to put such a question

as this, Whether they were under another kinde of Go∣vernment?

Iohnson.

Num. 66. I have now shewed that Church-Histo∣ry is so far from proving what you say, that it proves the quite contrary; and had it been otherwise, why ci∣ted you not here some one Ecclesiastical Historian (see∣ing I prest you to it in my second Paper in confirmati∣on of your Assertion? My question therefore is of force, and stands unsatisfied, till you prove what you say here.

Baxter.

Num. 67. We know they were under Bishops or Pastors of their own, and so far their government was of the same kind.

Iohnson.

Num. 67. It could not be of the same kinde; for those under the Empire acknowledged themselves sub∣ject to the Roman Sea, as they were parts of the Ca∣tholick Church; which whole Catholick Church they profest to be subject to that Sea; and consequently all the true parts of it, as shall appear, when I come to the justification of my proofs; whereby all this whole Pa∣ragraph of yours will be enervated.

Baxter.

Num. 68. You say that, how far from truth this is, appeareth from S. Leo, in his Sermons, De Natali Suo, where he sayes, Sedes Roma Petri quicquid non possidet armis, religione tenet. Reply, If you take your religion on trust, as you do your Authorities, that are made your ground for it, and bring others to it,

when you are deceived your selves, how will you look Christ in the face, when you must answer for such temerity? Leo hath no Sermons de natali suo, but only one Sermon affixed to his Sermons, lately found in an old Book of Nicol▪ Fabers. And in that Sermon there is no such words as you alledge. Neither doth he Poetize in his Sermons; nor there hath any such words, as might occasion your mistake; and therefore doubtless you beleeved some body for this that told you an untruth, and yet ventured to make it the ground of charging my words with untruth.

Iohnson.

Num. 68. How this citation came under the name of S. Leo, I really know not: My Authentical Copie writ∣ten in my own hand (which I have shewed to some of credit, and am ready to shew it you, or any one, who shall desire to be satisfied) hath no such citation; nor can I learn how it crept into the Paper which was sent you, if it were not by the addition of a confident friend who writ out part of my Reply, in whose hand-writing I find it: and I my self being out of Town when my Reply was sent, out of a desire to comply with your request for a speedy Answer, it was sent away in my ab∣sence, so that it could not be perused by me, which is in∣sinuated sufficiently in the end of my paper, where I desire you to excuse what errors you finde in the Copie which I sent.* 1.45 But however, there is only a nominal error, in citing St. Leo for St. Prosper, who is something ancienter then St. Leo, and lesse to be excepted against by you, then he; as being wholly dis∣interessed in that matter of the Popes Supremacy. Now this Text of St. Prosper is so notoriously known amongst Scholars, and so usually cited Authors, that I

wonder you perceived not, that it was a mistake in the name only, and that the Text it self was true and reall, nay much more forcible against your new invention, then as it stands cited in my Paper. For whereas it is imperfectly quoted there, and much more weakly, as you printed it (I suppose by an error of the Printer, though I find it not amongst the Errata) where it hath neither force nor sense (for you print almis for armis) whereas I say it is there cited thus, Sedes Roma Petri, quicquid non possidet armis religione tenet. (Rome the Sea of Peter, whatsoever it possesses not by force of Arms, it possesses by means of religion) the Text of St. Prosper hath it thus, Sedes Roma Petri, quae Pasto∣ralis honoris facta caput mundo,* 1.46 qu••••cquid non possidet armis religione tenet. (Rome, the Seat of Peter, being made Head of Pa∣storal honour to the world, possesses by means of Religi∣on, whatsoever it possesses not by force of arms. Thus St. Prosper. And to the same effect in another place, he affirms,* 1.47 That the principality of the A∣postolick Priesthood hath made Rome great∣er through the Tribunal of Religion, then through that of the Empire. * 1.48 But that you may see the whole force of this Text of S. Prosper, is emphatically also delivered by S. Leo, though not in Verse, yet (as it seems) alluding to these Verses of St. Prosper, (for he uses the same expressions, which I won∣der you marked not, in perusing his Sermons) in these words, making ••••n Apostrophe to the City of Rome, and relating to St. Peter and St. Paul. Isti sunt qui te ad hanc gloriam provexerunt, ut gens sancta, populus electus,* 1.49 civitas sacerdotalis & regia, per sa∣cram beati Petri sedem caput orbis effecta, latius praesideres religione divina, quam do∣minatione

terrenâ. Quamvis enim multis aucta victori∣is jus imperii tui terrâ mari{que} protuleris, minus tamen est, quod tibi bellicus labor subdidit, quam quod pax Christiana subjecit. (These, viz. S. Peter and S. Paul, are they, who have elevated thee to this heighth of glo∣ry, that thou shouldst be a holy Nation, an elect Peo∣ple, a Priestly and Kingly City, that being made Head of the World, by the Seat of Blessed Peter, thou shouldst have a larger command by means of Divine Religion, then terrene Domination. For though▪ being a••••gmented by many victories, thou h••••st extended thy Empire through Sea and Land, yet it is less, which warlike la∣bour brought under thy command, then what Christian peace hath subjected to thee.) And to the same effect the same S. Leo writes to Anastasius Bishop of Thessa∣lonica, telling him, That the great order of the Church instituted some one in eve∣ry Province,* 1.50 to have power over the rest, and that such as were seated in the more ample and noble Cities, should have power over such, as were in particular Provinces; by means whereof the care of the Vniversal Church (n. b.) might flow to the Sea of Peter. Mark well, he says not the care of the Churches within the Empire, as you do; but the care of the Universal Church.

Baxter.

Num. 69. Yet let me tell you, that I will take Pope Leo for no competent Iudge, or Witness though you call him a Saint: as long as we know what passed between him and the Council of Chalcedon,* 1.51 and that he was one of the first tumified Bishops of Rome, he shall not be Iudge in his own Cause.

Iohnson.

Num. 69. Sir, I am really mov'd to compassionate you, when I see you write in this manner. Had it not been enough for you to extenuate the Authority of the Holy Council, as you here do, but that you must, as the Chalcedonian Council sayes of Dioscorus, extend your spite against him (that is S. Leo) to whom our Saviour hath committed the care of the Vineyard, to wit, his whole Church? Who ever before you, and those No∣vellists of your spirit, since the time of S. Leo, branded him with the black note of a Tumified Pope? Was it not this great S. Leo, of whom the Council of Chalce∣don pronounced, that the care of Christ's Vineyard was committed to him by our Saviour?* 1.52 Was it not he, who was stiled by the Ecclesiasticks of those times, The Oecumenical Bishop? Did not that holy Council call him, their Head? their Father? their Directour? and you fear not to call him a Tumified Pope. I beseech God to forgive you. And what, I pray, past betwixt him and the Council of Chalcedon, which might occasion this rash censure? Read his Epistles to the Council, and to Anastas••••us Bishop of Thessalonica, and you will see, it was nothing but the zeal of conserving the Au∣thority of the Nicene Council, in the Order and Digni∣ty of Patriarch••••, which moved him to withstand that surreptitious Canon for the preferring Constantinople be∣fore Alexandria, and Antioch; to which the Nicene Council had decreed the two first Patriarchates, after Rome. The Primacy of his Sea was not questioned at all in that Canon: for it is there expresly ordained, that Constantinople should be the second after Rome. Now for you to call him a Tumified Bishop, for no other rea∣son,

given here, then for seeking to maintain the Anci∣ent Decrees of Nice, against all innovations of subse∣quent Councils, will seem very strange, I suppose, to all Christian Readers.

Baxter.

Num. 70. But you add, that the Abassines of Ethio∣pia were under the Patriarch of Alexandria anciently, and he under the Authority of the Roman Bishop. Reply. 1. Your bare word without proof shall not perswade us, that the Abassines were under the Patriarch of Alex∣andria, for above three hundred, if not four hundred years after Christ. Prove it, and then your words are regardable.

Iohnson.

Num. 70. Why say you, I speak without proof, when I direct you (pag. 42.) by saying as we shall see present∣ly, to my proof of it; which is pag. 45. where I prove it from one of your own Historians.

Baxter.

Num. 71.2. At the Council of Nice the contrary is manifest by the sixth Canon. Mos antiquus perdurat in Egypto, vel Lybia, vel Pentapoli, ut Alexandrinus E∣piscopus horum omnium habeat potestatem, &c.

Iohnson.

Num. 71. Your argument is fallacious, and proceeds a parte ad totum. The Canon sayes no more, then that, according to the ancient custome, Egypt, Lybia,* 1.53 and Pentapolis were subject to him: which may be most true, though more Provinces were under his Jurisdiction then these. Should one say, that England and Scotland is now subject to our most

gracious Soveraign, Charles the Second, durst you con∣clude thence, that Ireland was not part of his King∣dome. Nor was it here the intention of the Council, to nominate expresly all the Provinces under Alexandria; nor to make a new Constitution, but a Decree of Con∣firming the Ancient Custome about the Jurisdiction of Patriarchs. Now seeing Meletius and his Complices, had schismatically exercised Jurisdiction in those Pro∣vinces, the Council, to abrogate that intrusion and usur∣pation, had a particular occasion of nominating these three, thereby to restore the Ancient Right to the Sea of Alexandria, leaving the other parts of that Patriarchate (about which there was no controversie) to the anci∣ent custome, without nomination of par∣ticulars; as it did in relation to Anti∣och,* 1.54 where none at all are nominated in that Canon, because there was no such occasion given of nominating any, but leaving that Patriarch to that extent of Jurisdiction over those Provinces and Churches, which he was known in those times, to have possessed anciently. Moreover some of the Learned are of opinion, that under the name of Egypt, Ethiopia is included. And it seems probable, that Egypt was a denomination including many other particular Countreys and Provinces in those parts; for the Constantinopolitane Council, c. 2. citing this 6th. Ca∣non of Nice, says that it was decreed in that Canon, that the Patriarch of Alexandria should govern onely the af∣fairs of Egypt, neither naming Lybia, nor Pentapolis, which are specified in that Nicene Canon, so that Egypt included all the adjacent Countreys in those parts, and consequently Ethiopia.

Baxter.

Num. 72. And the common descriptions of the Alex∣andrian Patriarchate, in those times, confine it to the Em∣pire, and leave out Ethiopia.

Iohnson.

Num. 72. You should have done well, to have cited some Authors, one at least, in proof of this, seeing I had cited one, and he of your own, who says the contrary.* 1.55 When you produce those Descriptions, they shall be answer∣ed. In the Interim I stand to my Assertion, as not yet disproved.

Baxter.

Num. 73. Pisanus new inventions we regard not.

Iohnson.

Num. 73. The question is not what you regard, or regard not; but what you ought to regard according to right Reason. I doubt not, but Dr. Heylin hath the esteem of a person as much indued with Learning and Reason, as your self; who hath so much regard to Pisa∣nus his Edition of the Arabick Canons of the Nicene Council,* 1.56 that he cites them as Authenti∣cal, and thereon grounds the subjection of Ethiopia to the Patriarch of Alexan∣dria, to have been confirmed in the Council of Nice, and continued so ever since. Behold Ross and Heylin, (both your own) are against you.

CHAP. V.

The ARGUMENT:

Num. 74. Proofs from Antiquity, that the Bishops of Alexandria were more subject to the Bishops of Rome, then are the rest of the Earls of England to the Earl of Arundel or the younger Iustices of the Peace to him, who in a Sessions is the El∣dest amongst them. ibid. Bishops of Rome ex∣ercising Spiritual Iurisdiction and Authority over the three first Patriarchs of the East. n. 75. No limitatiun to the Roman Empire mentioned in Antiquity, in relation to the Popes Authority. num. 76. If any one Extra-Imperial Church be granted subject to Romes Authority all others must be so a paritate rationis, unless some reason be alledged, why that was subject, rather then others? n. 79. No Emperor could give Authority to Rome over Extra-Imperial Churches. n. 80. Primacy and Primate put absolutely in the Eccle∣siastical signification, argues alwayes Iurisdicti∣on over others. No Ancient Authority alledged, or alledgeable, that the Bishops within the Em∣pire made the Pope chief Bishop, even in place, or meer precedency, before Constantine's time, or that the Bishops of the West constituted him by unanimous consent, to have Power, and Iurisdi∣ction over all the Western Bishops.

Baxter.

Num. 74. I deny, that the Patriarch of Alexandria was under the Government of the Bishop of Rome, any more then the Iury are under the Foreman; or the Iunior Iustices on the Bench under the Senior; or York under London; or the other Earls of England, under the Earl of Arundel.

Iohnson.

Num. 74. I perceive you are very free in your deni∣als; but it had been well done, to have considered twice, before you deny once, a thing so evidently true as this is. Was the Patriarch of Alexandria no more under the Bishop of Rome, then those, which you here nominate, one under the other? Are you serious? Why then did the Christians of Pentapolis write their ac∣cusations to Dionysius Bishop of Rome against Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria?* 1.57 Why did the same Pope, calling a Coun∣cil in Italy for that end, sit in solemn Judgement upon his Cause, and write Monitory Letters to him, to send him the Confession and Declaration of his Faith; which he did accordingly, and justified himself to the Bishop of Rome? How came Peter Bishop of Alexandria,* 1.58 by ver∣tue of Pope Damasus his Letters, to be re∣stored to his Bishoprick? Why writ The∣ophilus Bishop of Alexandria,* 1.59 to prevent the writing of S. Chrysostome, to Pope In∣nocentius, in his own defence, that he might escape the sentence and punishment of the Churches censure, which S. Chrysostome required the

Pope to inflict upon him, and his complices? Why did Innocentius the First, together with the other Occidental Bishops,* 1.60 excommuni∣cate Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria? How came Dioscorus, Patriarch of Alex∣andria, to be deprived from sitting in the Council of Chalcedon, and to be presented before the Council, as a guilty person, by vertue of a Sentence to that effect, from S. Leo, Bishop of Rome? Concil. Chalced. Act. 1. Evagr. lib. 2. cap. 4. What was the reason, why Timotheus Solopaciolus craved pardon of Pope Simplicius, for reciting the name of Dioscorus at the holy Altar, compelled to it, as he affirms, by the Eutychians? What reason had Pope Simplicius to write objurgatory Letters to Acacius, because in a matter of so great moment, as was the restitution of Petrus Mogus, the Eutychian, to the Sea of Alexandria, and the exclu∣sion of Ioannes Talaida a Catholick,* 1.61 Ca∣nonically elected to that Sea? Or why writ those of Alexandria to Pope Simplicius,* 1.62 to intreat him to confirm the election and instalment of Ioannes Talaida? What moved Ioannes Talaida to procure Commendatory Letters to Simplici∣us from Calendion Bishop of Antioch, to favour his Ap∣peal against Petrus Mogus, and Acacius? and why did Felix, Successor to Simplicius, with a Western Council, wherein he presided, send a Writ, by way of Citation, to Acacius, to answer in the Judicature of Rome, to the Objections made against him by the said Iohn? And why writ Felix to Zeno, the Emperour, to compel Acacius to appear,* 1.63 and answer to his Adversaries at Rome? And why was Petrus Fullonis condemn'd for having

been intruded,* 1.64 with exclusion of the law∣full Bishop Calendion, into the Sea of An∣tioch? And why writ Acacius himself to Felix, Bishop of Rome, to confirm his condemnation of Petrus Gnapheus, and Ioannes Bishop of Apamea?

Nor will your usual Solution to my subsequent Ob∣jections serve your turn. For it appears evidently in the form used in Excommunications and Condemnati∣ons from Rome, they were, not onely Declarations that the Bishop of Rome, and his Bishops, substracted them∣selves from communicating with them (which, say you, any Christian may do) but a positive ejection of them out of the Church, and from the Communion of all faithfull Christians. Thus runs the Excommunication and Condemnation of Acacius, Bishop of Christantino∣ple, and his adherents, the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch, given out against them by Pope Felix. Habe ergo cum his quos libenter amplecteris, portionem ex sen∣tentiâ praesenti. Sacerdotali honore & Communione Catho∣licâ, necnon etiam à fidelium numero segregatus, sublatum tibi munus Ministerii Sacerdotalis agnosce, Sancti Spiritus judicio & Apostolicâ authoritate damnatus, nunquam{que} Anathematis vinculis exuendus. (Receive therefore thy portion, with those, whom thou so willingly embra∣cest, by vertue of this sentence. Thou art separated from Priestly Honour, from Catholick Communion, and from the number of the Faithfull. Know that thou art depri∣ved of Name and Ministery of a Priest, being condemn∣ed by the judgement of the Holy Ghost, and by Aposto∣lical Authority, never to be loosed from the bonds of this Anathema.) See here, 1. A positive exclusion from the number and communion of the Faithfull. 2. A deposition from Priesthood, or being Bishop. 3. That this is done,

not by way of counsel, but of authority, authoritate A∣postolicâ, it was done by the Popes Apostolical Autho∣rity. 4. That this judgement of the Apostolick Sea is attributed to the Holy Ghost. And lastly, That the Pope exercises this high authority over the three chiefest and highest Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Constan∣tinople, at the same time. From which it will hereafter sufficiently appear, how groundlesse your Answers are to my Objections. But to proceed.

Nor yet can you alledge (as you do to some of my proofs) that these were unlawful, and unjust proceedings. For first, The matter of the sentence was not unjust, those being Hereticks, Schismaticks, Intruders and Usurpers, against whom the sentence was decreed: and that it was not unjust, as proceeding from one who had no authori∣ty to inflict such a punishment, is clear: For neither did the Catholick, nor Orthodox Christians, no nor those very Schismaticks, who were thus censur'd by Felix, pretend any thing against the power of his Authority o∣ver them; and if any such plea were used by them, let it be evidenced out of authentical Authors in or about those times. Now to your discourse, if either the Fore∣man of a Jury, or the Senior Justice upon the Bench, or the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of London, or the first Earl of England should pronounce a penal sentence against those, who respectively are inferiour only in place and precedency to themselves, would it not be judged profoundly ridiculous?

Baxter.

Num. 75. But if both these were proved, that Ethiopia was under Alexandria, and Alexandria under Rome, I deny the consequence, that Ethiopia was under Rome: for Alexandria was under Rome, but secundum quid,

and so far as it was within the Empire; and therefore those without the Empire,* 1.65 that were under Alexandria, were not therefore under Rome.

Iohnson.

Num. 75. Your ground is untrue, for I have proved Alexandria to have been absolutely and totally under Rome, in the example of Dionysius, Anno 263. which was before the conversion of Constantine, and before any Council through the whole Empire could be assem∣bled: and that in the Nicene Council, there was no restriction of that Patriarchal Sea to the Precincts of the Empire;* 1.66 nor of the Roman Sea to Alexandria, as comprehending only the Imperial Provinces; prove any such limitation was made there. Now if before the Council of Nice, and before the Church was under Christian Emperors, Rome had such power over Alexandria, &c. and that proceeded not from the Institution of Christ, shew (as you are obli∣ged) when, how, and by whom that power was given to it in those times.

Baxter.

Num. 76. And if it could (as it never can) be pro∣ved of Abassia, what is that to all the other Churches in India, Persia, and the re rest of the World?

Iohnson.

Num. 76. Yes, 'tis very much; for it sounds an Ar∣gument à paritate rationis, that seeing no considerable reason can be given, why one Extra-Imperial Province should be subject to Rome more then all the rest, if one be proved subject, all others must be supposed to be so, unless some particular reason can be alledged why this

was subject more then the rest. For till that be done, there can no reason be given, why any of the Extra-Im∣perial Churches were subject to the Roman Bishops, save this, that he was Governour over all the Churches and Bishops in the world, and consequently as much over all Extra-Imperial, as over all Imperial Churches.

Baxter.

Num. 77. Sir, If you have impartially read the An∣cient Church-History, and yet can beleeve, that all these Churches were then under the Pope, despair not of bring∣ing your self to beleeve any thing imaginable, that you would have to be true.

Iohnson.

Num. 77. 'Tis your pleasure to say so. I shall be mo∣ved to beleeve you, when you convince 'me by reason: but your bare word without reason,* 1.67 has no poise at all with me, nor I think with any one, who is led by reason.

Baxter.

Num. 78. Your next Question is, When the Roman Emperors were yet Heathens, had not the Bishops of Rome Supremacy over all other Bishops through the whole Church? Answ. No, they had not; nor in the Em∣pire neither. Prove it, I beseech you better then by que∣stioning. If you askt, Whether men rule not Angels? Your Question proves not the Affirmative.

Iohnson.

Num. 78. I do not nakedly ask the Question, but prove what I say by an Instance, as you presently ac∣knowledge.

Baxter.

Num. 79. But you ask again, Did those Heathen Em∣perours give it him? Answ. 1. Power, over all the Churches none ever gave him, till titularly his own Pa∣rasites of late. 2. Primacy of meer degree in the Empire, for the dignity and many advantages of the Imperial seat, the Bishops of the Empire gave him by consent (Blondel de Primatu, gives you the proof and reason at large) yet so, as that small regard was had to the Church of Rome, before the Nicen Council, as saith your Aeneas Silvius, Pope Pius the second.

Iohnson.

Num 79. But I have now proved the power and Au∣thority of the Roman Bishop to be over all Nations, that were Christian, in the instances given above. If therefore the power he had were given him by the Em∣perors, they must have given him power over all Churches; which no Emperor could do, as having no Authority over Extra-Imperial Churches. Whence follows evidently, the power he had could not have been given him by the Emperours. And as little could that of precedency even over the Empire, have been given him before the Nicene Council by the Bishops within the Empire, for there is no step in antiquity of any such gift, and if there be, shew when, and by whom it was first given him. Nor, were that admitted, would it satisfie the difficulty, for the Bishop of Rome had pre∣cedency not only over all the Bishops within the Em∣pire, but through the whole Christian world, for so is Blondel forced to acknowledge, page 14. and page 528. I would gladly have some evident proof from Antiquity, that the word Primacy, put absolutely or

alone, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Primate, in the Ecclesiastical signi∣fication, signified a precedencie, only of meer degree, or place, and not a true Authority and Jurisdiction over those, in relation to whom one is said to have primacy, or ••••o be Primate. Run over all those who had the dig∣nity of Primate in ancient times, and name any one, who in vertue of that Primacy had not true Ecclesiasti∣cal Authority over others, in relation to whom he had that Primacy. Do not both yours and ours, think they defend and oppose sufficiently the Roman Bishops Au∣thority, asserted by Catholicks, when they call it in La∣tine Primatus Romani Pontificis, the Primacy of the Roman Bishop? Has not Bellarmine and Stapleton of ours, Whitaker, Chamler, and Blondel of yours, with ma∣ny others, disputed that question largely, under the name of Primatus or Primacy? Blondel, p. 527. acknowledges this to be the common and ordinary signification, and produces one only instance, where primacie is taken for precedency of place onely, and there it is not put ab∣solutely, but with this Adjunct, Primacy of honour by age, Primance d'honeur par l'age. Should you affirm, that the Bishop of Canterbury in quality of Primate, had only a meer primacy of degree, or locall precedency, and no authority conferred upon him by force of his primacy, had he not reason to be highly offended with you? See∣ing therefore in the Council of Chalcedon, reciting the forenamed Canon of Nice, it is affirmed, that the Sea of Rome had ever the Primacy,* 1.68 and seeing no adjunct or limitation is gi∣ven there, that the word Primacy is not ta∣ken in the usual Ecclesiastical signification, to wit, for a primacy in authority and jurisdiction, it must be un∣derstood in the usual signification. There was indeed anciently a precedency of place, amongst the other Pa∣triarchs,

Primates, and Metropolitans, but were any of them, for that reason termed their Primates, or said to have Primacy, in relation to those before whom they sate in the Councils, or before whom they took place in all publick Assemblies? You will not fail, I hope to bring such clear Instances in your next Reply, as are here demanded of you. You cite me here Blondel, and Aeneas Silvius so confusedly, without Book, Chapter, Page or Column, that I think it not worth my pains to spend time in seeking them: if they have any thing worth your citing, or satisfactory to what here I say, either set it clearly down in your next, or give me some clear means to know what you stand upon in those two Authors.

Baxter.

Num 80. Whether the Bishop of Rome had power over the Bishop of Arles,* 1.69 by the Heathen Emperors, is a frivolous question. Arles was in the Roman Patriarchate, and not out of the Empire. The Churches in the Empire might by consent dispose themselves into the Patriarchal Orders,* 1.70 with∣out the Emperors, and yet not meddle out of the Empire.

Iohnson.

Num. 80. You proceed Sophistically, à possibili ad actum. The Question is not, What the Bishops might have done, but what they did. Now you affirm, they did form themselves into Patriarchates by free consent, make it appear to have been so, by Authentical Testimo∣nies from Antiquity. I bring you proofs that their subjection to him, was out of that most publick Tradi∣tion, that he was successor to S. Peter.* 1.71 Bring me as many that he was made Patriarch of the

West, before Constantines time, by force of free con∣sent of the Western Bishops under the Empire. Is it not a plain Paradox to affirm, that a thing should be done by publick consent of a thousand Bishops, through the whole Western Church, and yet there should be no one step of proof, no word of any Historian for it in all Antiquity?

Baxter.

Num. 81. Yet indeed Cyprians words intimate no power Rome had over Arles, more then Arles had over Rome: that is to reject Communion with each other upon dissent.

Iohnson.

Num. 81. S. Cyprians words shall be examined here∣after in their proper place.

CHAP. VI.

ARGUMENT:

Num. 82. The four first General Councils proved by many Reasons and Authorities to be truly and properly Oecumenical, having Authority over all Christian Churches, as well without as with∣in the Roman Empire. num. 84, 85. Whom Mr. Baxt••••r accounts univocal Christians, and pro∣per parts of the Catholick Church. num. 86. Whether he have made a good choice for himself. num. 88. No Heretick properly so called, can have true Christian Faith in any Article what∣soever,

and consequently can be no part of the Catholick Church. num. 90, 91. Christ the sole Head of the whole Church, Triumphant and Mi∣litant. The Bishop of Rome, no more then Head of the visible Church on earth; and not abso∣lutely, but secundum quid; that is according to the external and visible Government onely; and even that not as having all other Bishops under him, as his Officers, but as Christs Officers to∣gether with him; they of their respective Districts and he of them, to direct and correct them, when need requires it.

Baxter

Num. 82. Nay, it more confuteth you, that even under Heathen Emperours, when Church-associations were by voluntary consent of Pastors only; and so if they had thought it necessary,* 1.72 they might have extend∣ed them to other Principalities yet de fa∣cto they did not do it, as all History of the Church de∣clareth, mentioning their Councils and Associations, with∣out these taken in.

Iohnson.

Num. 82. Where are your proofs? I deny any such consent to be extant in Antiquity; nor could those Pro∣vincial, or Nationall Councils call the Extra-Imperials to sit with them; because they were only of the Pro∣vinces, which were within the Empire; and had no Autho∣rity without the precincts of their respective Churches. Now you will give me leave to discover the weakness and inconsistency of your Novelty, about the first four

General Councils having had no power without the Empire. First, the very a 1.73 Titles of the Councils them∣selves confute you; where they are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, universal, or General. Nor can you say, that is meant onely through the Empire; for you hotly con∣tend, that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (universal) is extend∣ed to all Christians through the whole world. Part. 2. Secondly, b 1.74 they call themselves General. Thirdly, the Canons, Decrees, Definitions are General, without any limitation more to the Empire, then to any other part of the world, as is clear out of all the Canons and De∣crees themselves. Fourthly, Historians of all Ages call them Oecumenical, or General, and never intimate any Imperial limitation; if they do, produce the Historian, that calls them National, or Imperial Councils. Fifth∣ly, the whole Christian world, ever since their times, have esteemed them General, and to have had an obli∣gatory power and authority over all Christians. Sixthly, the holy Fathers, c 1.75 who speak of them, stile them Ge∣neral Oecumenical, plenary, yea plenissima, &c. d 1.76 Se∣venthly, Protestant Authors (so far as I can see) before

you esteemed them General, without any limitation; and if you can cite any, who say the contrary, I pray do it. e 1.77 Eighthly, the very Statute-Books of England, since Protestant times, call them General. f 1.78 Ninthly, your 39 Articles call them General; and the Fa∣thers, g 1.79 when they call them General, they distinguish them also from Provincial, or National Councils, Tenthly, h 1.80 Orthodox Writers commonly affirm, that what they define is the Definition of the Catholick Church. i 1.81 All who resist their Definitions in matter of Faith, have ever since been universally branded with the note of Hereticks, whether they were within, or without the Empire. k 1.82 Extra-Imperial Provinces and Churches have anciently, and do yet subscribe to them. Lastly,

not onely all kind of Authority, but plain reason, over∣throws this your Novelty.

For first, the end, why these Councils were gathered, was to procure peace amongst Christians, not in the Em∣pire onely, but through the whole Catholick Church, and to put a final period to the controversies defined in them, as appears from the Authorities now cited out of S. Austin. Now if the Extra-Imperial Nations had not been obliged by those Definitions, the controversies had still continued among them, as much as if no such Defi∣nition had been made. Secondly, if any desired to em∣brace still the Heresies condemned in them, it was but conferring themselves to the Extra-Imperial Churches, and they had freedome in conscience from their former obligation, as not being bound there to subscribe to the Councils Decrees. So that every obstinate Heretick might shake off these Decrees at his pleasure. Third∣ly, if any Nation, or Province, should have been by force of Arms won from the Empire, which was under it in time of these Councils, they would ipso facto have been freed from obeying the Decrees, and beleeving the Doctrine of these Councils. Fourthly, if on the con∣trary any Extra-Imperial Nation had been reduced un∣der the Empire, eo ipso, it would have contracted an ob∣ligation to conform to the Decrees of the said Councils; so that Christian belief should have depended on the for∣tune of War. Fifthly, if your assertion were true, it would follow, that now de facto neither Spain, France, Italy, England, Denmark, Swethland, Poland, nor any of the Eastern Churches are obliged to subscribe to the Nicene Council, (and the same is of the rest) other∣wise then of their free choice, ever since they were from under the command of the Empire. Nay hence will follow, that even those of Germany, by reason that

is another Empire, instituted independently of that in those ancient times; and consequently, that no Christian Churches in the world, have any obligation successively descending down to them, of obeying and following the Decrees of the four First General Councils. My last rea∣son is, that those Extra-Imperial Christians, who embra∣ced the Heresies condemned in any one of those Coun∣cils, never alledged this reason of yours, that those Coun∣cils had no power to oblige them, because they were not under the Empire: and I pray you, in your next, pro∣duce any such reason, authentically testified, to have been alledged by them.

Baxter.

Num. 83. See now, how little your objections are worth; and how groundlesly you bid me, See now how little my Allegations are to the purpose.

Iohnson.

Num. 83. Now you will have seen, which proofs (your or mine) have been more to the purpose.

Baxter.

Num 84. As for the rabble of Hereticks, which you reckon up, (as you esteem them) some of them are no Christians univocally so called, and those cannot be of the Christian Church.

Iohnson.

Num. 84. You would have given better satisfaction to your Reader, if amongst all the Sectaries particula∣ris'd by me (pag. 43. in your Book) which were to the number of eighteen, you had determined, which of them you had esteemed Christians univocally so called, and which not: but whilest you leave him thus in obscurity, telling him onely, that some of them were not univocal

Christians, and not telling him which some you mean, I believe he will have little satisfaction. Yet by justify∣ing the latter part, that is, almost one half of them, in your next ensuing words, and excusing some of the rest,* 1.83 he may gather, that you account Montanists, Donatists, Nestorians, Eutychians, Iconoclasts, Berengarians, Waldensians, Albigenses, Wickliffists, and Hussites, Univocal Christians; and consequently true parts of the Catholick Church, in your Principles.

Baxter.

Num. 85. Others of them were better Christians, then the Romanists, and so were of the same Church with us: And it is not many reproachfull names put on them by ma∣lice, that makes them no Christians, or of many Church∣es, or Religions. If an arrogant Usurper will put Nick∣names on all, that will not bow to him as Vice-Christ, and call them Iconoclasts, Berengarians, Waldensians, Al∣bigenses, Wickliffists, Hussites, Lutherans, Calvinists, (you may as well give a thousand more names) this makes them not of various Religions, nor blots out their Names from the Book of Life.

Iohnson.

Num. 85. I have not Baptis'd any of them; they were publickly known by these names many a fair year, before you or I was born: and since I desired to be under∣stood, I was to express them in such names, as they com∣monly are known by: whether they deserve the names I give them, or no, is not our dispute now. I think they did, when I called them so; and that they deserve it as much as either Arrians, or Donatists, or Pelagians, &c. deserved to be branded with the names of those several

Arch-Hereticks that broached them. Nor can I yet find that the Roman B. whom you rudely call a Tyrant, was more the imposer of those names upon the fore-named Sectaries, then upon Arrians, Donatists, or Pelagians, &c.

Baxter.

Num. 86. I have in my most retired thoughts perused the History of those mens Lives, and of the Lives of many of your Popes, together with their several Doctrines; and with Death and Iudgement in my eyes, as before the great God of Heaven, I humbly beg of him, that I may rather have my everlasting portion with those holy men, whom you burned, as Waldenses, Arbigenses, Hussites, &c. then with the Popes that burned them, or those that follow them in that cruelty, unless reconciling Grace hath given them repentance unto life.

Iohnson.

Num. 86. I humbly beg of God, that he deliver you from ever coming to that place, where any of those, which I mentioned as condemned Hereticks, are in the other world: I hope, he has prepar'd a much better for you. But tell me seriously, would you indeed be con∣tent, rather to be with the Albigenses, who held Two Gods,* 1.84 the one Good, and the other Evil, with the Manichees; who denied 1. the Old Testament; 2. that Baptism profited Infants to Salvation; 3. that an unworthy Minister could consecrate the holy Sa∣crament; 4. that wicked Prelates had any Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, or were to be obey∣ed; 5. that it is lawfull to swear in any occasion whatso∣ever, &c. then with Alexander the Third, whom no Christian in those times ever accused of Heresie, or Er∣rour

in Faith, who was elected against his will, and af∣ter a Schisme made by Octavianus the Anti-Pope and Frederick the Emperour, was received both by the Western and Eastern Churches, excepting onely the party of Frederick; who notwithstanding after acknow∣ledged him, and relinquisht Octavianus the Anti-Pope. And whatsoever latter Historians relate by Hear-say,* 1.85 of the insulting of this Pope over that Emperour, yet those, who recorded what past before their eyes in the time of Alexander, record nothing but what became a modest and Christian Prelate of his eminency.

Baxter.

Num. 87 The Religion of all these men was one, and they were all of one Vniversal Church.

Iohnson.

Num. 87. This is your grand Novelty, at which I chiefly aim in this Answer. It is not easie to conjecture, what you mean by all these men, whether the Icono∣clasts, Berengarians, Waldensians, Albigenses, Wick∣liffists, Hussites, Lutherans, Calvinists, which you na∣med in the end of pag. 105. and again pag. 106. in your Edit. or those whom I named pag. 43. of your Book, that is, all at least amongst them, whom you account Univocal Christians: amongst which are Donatists, Ne∣storians, Eutychians, Pelagians. And can you, or did yet ever any Christian before you account these men to have had one Religion? Is the Religion of those, who say there are Two Gods, the same with that, which teaches there is no more but one onely God? if so, then Hea∣thens and Christians may be as well of one Religion. If

not, then could not at least the Albigenses, be of one Religion with the rest;* 1.86 whom I have proved to have held two gods; Of the rest more hereafter.

Baxte.

Num. 88. Where you again call for one Congre∣gation, I tell you again, that we know no unity Essen∣tial, from whence the Church can be called one, but either Christ, or the Vice-Christ: the former only is asserted by us, and the latter also by you; which we deny. And therefore we cannot call the Universal Church, one, in any other formal respects, but as it is Christian, and so one in Christ.

Iohnson.

Num. 88. We acknowledge the Church to be one in Christ, as much as you, but we acknowledge him as Head, not to be the Formal, but the Causal unity, that is, work∣ing the formal unity, to wit, Faith and Charity in his Church. It is not enough to make one living organical body, that there be one head and parts, but those parts must be united to their Head, and amongst themselves, and to that Head: Nor is it enough, that there be several parts in the Church, and one head of it, but those parts must also be united to their Head, and a∣mongst themselves; otherwise they are not one. Now that which is the formall cause of this Unity, is true Christian Faith and Charity, which do both unite Christi∣ans amongst themselves, and to Christ their Head. I mean that necessary and prime charity, which preserves exter∣nal Communion, and society amongst Christians, so much celebrated by the Fathers and Schoolmen, which is ta∣ken away by nothing but Schism, or that which includes

Schism: Whence appears, that to whomsoever the name of Christian is vulgarly given, unless there be found true Faith and this Christian charity amongst all the other members, they cannot be actual parts of the one true Catholick Church: When therefore you say, the Church universal cannot be called one, in any other formal respect, but as it is Christian, if you mean by Christian, all such as have true Christian faith and cha∣rity, (ut supra) you say true; and you say nothing, but what all good Christians say. But then here comes the difficulty, how any Heretick or Schismatick can be a Christian, more then nomine tenus, in denominati∣on only, or in a laxe acception of the word, for such as make a bare profession to beleeve in Christ, and are thereby distinguished from Jewes Mahumetans and Hea∣thens, and so pass under the notion of Christians.

For if to be a Christian in our present strict sense, be required a true Christian Faith, then all that are true Chri∣stians have true faith; but no Heretick hath true faith; Ergo, No Heretick is in this strict acception a Christi∣an. The Major is evident: I prove the Minor. Who∣soever hath true faith, beleeveth the material object of faith (or the thing beleeved) for the Divine Authority of God revealing it: But no Heretick beleeves the ma∣terial object of faith (or the thing beleeved) for the Di∣vine Authority of God revealing it; Ergo, no Heretick hath true faith. The Major is granted by all Divines, yours and ours. For Christian faith must rest upon Gods revelation, as its formal object. I prove the Mi∣nor. Whosoever beleeves the material object of faith, (or thing beleeved) for the Divine Authority of God re∣vealing it, must beleeve all things, which are as suffi••••i∣ently propounded to him to be revealed by God, as are the rest of the Articles which he beleeveth, protesteth to▪

and beleeve nothing as revealed, which is as sufficient∣ly declared to him to be erroneous, or not revealed by Divine Authority, as are the Articles of Faith propoun∣ded to be revealed by God. But every Heretick either refuses to beleeve something, which is so sufficiently propounded to him to be revealed from ••••od, or beleeves something as revealed, which is so sufficiently de∣clared to him to be erroneous, or not revealed from God; Ergo, no Heretick hath true faith. The Major I prove thus, as to the first part: Whosoever refuses to beleeve what is so sufficiently propounded to be revealed by God, either beleeves all that is so propounded, or be∣leeves some things, and refuses to beleeve others, as sufficiently propounded as those which he beleeves. But if he refuses all, he can have no true faith; for he be∣leeves nothing, and consequently is no Christian. If he beleeves some, and refuses others equally propounded, he beleeves them not for the Divine Authority reveal∣ing, (for when that is equally propounded to his under∣standing, it ought to work equally upon it) but upon his own willful choice, or private judgement refuses one, and assents to the other.

To illustrate this, Let this sentence of Scripture, Ter∣tiâ die refurget, (he shall rise again the third day) be so sufficienly propounded to be Gods revelation, that whosoever refuses to beleeve the substance of our Savi∣ours Resurrection delivered in it, is justly condemned for not beleeving Gods revelation. Now suppose some new Heretick (as I have heard of one such lately) should beleeve, that Christ did rise again from the dead, yet dis-believes that he rose the third day, and perswades himself, that his Resurrection happened some time after the third day: Let such an Heretick be asked why he beleeves, that Christ rose from death, if

he tell you because God hath revealed it in the fore∣named sentence, then ask him what moves him to be∣leeve that God has revealed it: if he tells you, because he finds it clearly expressed in this sentence of Scripture, which he beleeves to be Gods revealed word, demand further, why he beleeves it to be his word? he will tell you, because it is sufficiently propounded to him as such, so that he is satisfied that it is the Word of God. Then presse him thus: But certainly, you beleeve not that place of Scripture to be the Word of God; for if you did, you would beleeve all that it contained in it, which you do not; for it is as clearly exprest in that sentence, That Christ rose again the third day, as that he rose at all: but you beleeve not that he rose the third day; Ergo, You beleeve not that Sentence to be the Word of God; Ergo, You cannot beleeve that Christ rose again, for the authority of Gods word in that sentence; Ergo, You beleeve it not because God has revealed it; Ergo, You have no divine Faith at all of the mystery of the Resurrection, but a meer humane perswasion, grounded upon your own particular phansie or reason that it is so. Thus you see it is impossible to beleeve any thing, which God has revealed, for the Authority of Divine revela∣tion, unless he who beleeves gives the like assent to eve∣ry other truth, (be it of what importance, great or small, in it self, makes nothing to our present difficulty) which is as plainly proposed to him to be revealed from God, as that which he beleeves.

To make this yet more facile to the unlearned, I will declare it by a Vulgar instance. Suppose there were some honourable and worthy Person in a Common∣wealth, of so great credit, that what he saves is belee∣ved by every one as an undoubted truth. Some other of credible Authority tells his friend, this Honourable per∣son

has told him two things, and affirmed both of them to be true of his own knowledge; his friend tells him he beleeves the one, but will not by any means assent to the other. He asks his friend, Why beleeve you the first? He answers, because such a person affirmes it to be true. He demands further, why beleeve you he said so? the friend answers upon your relation. Then sayes the other you hold my relation to be a sufficient indu∣ctive to make you beleeve he said the first. Yes, says his friend, I do; not so, replies the relator; for if you did, you would beleeve he said the second, as well as the first; for I assure you as much that he said the one as the other. Now what can his Friend answer? he must either say, that he beleeves not the Honourable per∣son said so, upon the sole authority of the others relati∣on, and consequently, that neither of those truths were sufficiently propounded to him by that relator, and so could beleeve neither the first not the second, contrary to his former acknowledgment, and our present supposi∣tion; or he must deny that he beleeves the second of those relations, though the Honourable Personage said both the one and the other; and then it is evident, he beleeved not the first upon the sole credit of his saying, but for som other reason of his own. For if he had beleeved the first upon his sole word, he must have beleeved the second also; seeing he had as much reason to beleeve he said the second as the first.

Thus I have endeavoured to prove the first part of my Major. Now I prove the second, Viz. That no man can have true Christian faith, who beleeves any thing as revealed from God, which is as sufficiently pro∣pounded to him to be erroneous, or not revealed from God, as are the Articles of Faith, to be Gods revela∣tions;

the very same Authority which affirms the one, denying the other. Let us suppose some rigid Calvi∣nist, beleeving the Pope to be that great Antichrist, foretold in the Revelation; and that the very same au∣thority, which (as he acknowledges) sufficiently pro∣pounded to him the Articles of Christian Faith, as revealed from God, assured him, that no such matter as the Popes being that great Antichrist, was ever revealed, and that it was a manifest error in Faith. In this case ei∣ther that Calvinist must dis-beleeve that propounding Authority, and thereby loose his Faith in the former Articles, and have no true Faith at all in the first, or be∣leeve it in the second, because it is still the very same Authority in both. For that very Authority which pro∣pounds the Articles of Faith as revealed from God, pro∣pounds this as not revealed, and as contrary to Gods revelation.

Baxter.

Num. 89. Yet I have herewith satisfied your demand, but shewed you the unreasonableness, of it beyond all reasonable contradiction.* 1.87

Iohnson.

Num. 89. You are very prone to assert without proof: Where have you shewed the unreasonableness of my demand? Tell me, I pray, in your next; for you have not yet done it.

Baxter.

Num. 90. You next inquire, Whether we account Rome and us one Congregation of Christians? I an∣swer, the Roman Church hath two heads, and ours but one; and that's the difference.

Iohnson.

Num. 90. Who ever accounted a King and a Vice∣roy, a Bishop and a Vicar, a Captain, and a Lieutenant, a Master and a Steward, two Heads respectively to their Territories and Jurisdictions? Can you call the head and the neck two heads, because both of them with sub∣ordination the one to the other, are placed above the rest of the body? The head is the highest part of an Or∣ganical body, and whatsoever is subordinate to that, is no head absolutely, though it be next the head, and higher then all the other parts. Christ is only the Head of his whole Church, comprising the Militant and Tri∣umphant; and of this whole Church the Pope is a part, but no Head. The Holy Councils and Fathers indeed stile him sometimes Head of the visible Militant Church (as we shall see hereafter) but that is only in regard of the visible government of the Church, not absolut∣ly and soveraignly: for the only soveraign head of the Militant Church works in it, and governs it invisibly, by his holy lights and inspirations, and particularly him who is its visible Head according to its visible govern∣ment. There is therefore amongst us one only absolute head of the Church; the other hath no absolute Inde∣pendent

power over it, but is as truly a part of the Church, depending as much on the absolute head, as any other p••••r•••• doth: There is but one King and Master of the Militant Church, all the rest, even the highest, are no more then his Officers, with a limited and restrained power, that is, in order to the sole sole external and vi∣sible government of it, not having other Bishops under him, as his Officers, but as Officers of Christ, and subject to him, as hereafter shall be further declared. Nor yet have you given here any direct answer to my Questi∣on I demand, whether you account Rome and Protestants one Congregation? To which you answer, the Roman Church hath two heads, and the Protestant but one, and that's the difference. Now this gives no satisfaction to my demand, for the Question inquires not, Whether there be any difference betwixt us and you? that was out of Question, but whether that difference assigned by you be so great, that it hinders them from being one Congregation, and that you resolve not, and thereby leave the difficulty unanswered.

Baxter.

Num. 91. They are Christians, and so one Church as united in Chrst, with us and all other true Christians. If any so hold their Papacy and other Errors, as effe∣ctively and practically to destroy their Christianity, those are not Christians, and so not of the same Church as we. But those that do not so, but are so Papists, as yet to be truly and practically Christians, are and shall be of the same Church with us, whether they will, or not.

Iohnson.

Num. 91. You tell us what would follow, if such things as you fancy were done; but you tell us not whe∣ther it is possible to do them or no. Can a Papist, think you, remaining still a Papist, so hold his Papacy and o∣ther pretended errors, as to destroy Christianity? If he cannot, why trifle you away time in printing such Chy∣merical conditionals? if he can, tell us how and by what means? which you have not done, nor indeed can you do it. For how is it possible for two persons to be both Papists, that is of the same Faith in all things (for otherwise they will not be both Papists) and the one of them only to be a Christian, and the other none, but practically and effectually destroying Christianity?

Baxter.

Num. 92. And your modest stile makes me hope, that you and I are of one Church, though you never so much renounce it.

Iohnson.

Num. 92. I never saw a man labor so confidently to per∣swade one out of his Religion, upon so weak grounds, as you do: And truly something might be done in time, to make you and me of one Church, if I knew what Church you are of. For you contradict so loudly the Tenets of all those who pretend either to be the Church, or parts of the Church before you, that I cannot finde but you are of a Church by your self (which no man knows

but your self) and then I'me sure, you neither are, nor can be of one Church with me, so long as you remain in the state you are in, yet it is the height of my desires, that we may both be joyned in one Catholick Church, which I shall most earnestly and unfainedly beg of God, still hoping that your zeal and ardency in what you pro∣fess, may (as it did S. Paul) bring you to see, and im∣brace his true Church.

Baxter.

Num. 93. As Papal, we are not of your Church; that's a new Church-form.

Iohnson.

Num. 93. Prove it is new; you know well enough, we hold it to be ancient.

Baxter.

Num. 94. But as Christian, we are and will be of it, even when you are condemning, torturing, and burning us, (if such persecution can stand with your Christianity.)

Iohnson.

Num. 94. I have shewed you are not as Christian, (speaking univocally) of one Church with us: For true Christianity requires true faith, which I cannot beleeve you have; nor have you proved it, as shall appear here∣after. I am unwilling to revive the memory of those

severities you mention, and you also might have pleased to have buried them in Oblivion; for in objecting them to us, you refresh the remembrance of yours towards us; nor yet see I why such severities can better stand with your Christianity, then with ours.

CHAP. VII.

ARGUMENT:

Num. 95. Roman Catholicks and Protestants can∣not be of one and the same Church. num. 96- Length of time, or continuance, excuses not the succeeding Hereticks, or Schismaticks, from the crimes of their first beginners. num. 97. When Protestants deserted external Communion with Rome, they deserted together with it the exter∣nal Communion of all other particular visible Churches, and that upon the same grounds. n. 98. Mr. Baxters exclamation against Rome is in∣jurious to all other ancient particular Churches existent immediatly before the first beginners of

Protestancy. n. 99. All the Kingdoms in the world, not one visible, but only invisible King∣dome, under Gods invisible providence and pow∣er which governs them: and in that regard an unfit instance to prove different particular Churches, without one visible governour of them all, to be one visible Church num. 100. His opinion of actual Hereticks and Schismaticks properly so called, contrary to all Authors, ours or his own, and to Christianity it self. num. 101. How Alphonsus à Castro held them to be mem∣bers of the Church. num. 102. Every Heretick properly so called, denies some essentials of Chri∣stianity, num. 103. Pelagians undoubted and manifest Hereticks and Schismaticks. The Ca∣tholick Church so perfectly one, that its not ca∣pable to be divided.

Baxter.

Num. 95. But you ask, Why did you then separate your selves, and remain still separate from the Commu∣nion of the Roman Church. Answ. 1. We never sepa∣rated from you, as you are Christians, we still remain of that Church as Christian, and we know (or will know) no other form, because that Scripture and Primitive Churches knew no other.: Either you have by Popery

separated from the Church, as Christian or not. If you have, its you that are the (damnable) Separatists▪ If you have not, then we are not separated from you, in re∣spect of the form of the Christian Church.

Iohnson.

Num. 95. You separated as much from us as did ei∣ther Novatians or Pelagians or Donatists, or Acacians, or Luciferians, or Nestorians, Eutychians, &c. did from the Catholick Church of their respective times: which is enough for us to deny you to be of one Church with us, or to be any true parts of the Catholick Church. If it be not so, shew what you can say for your selves, which any of those Hereticks might not as well have alledged in their own defence; for neither did any of them separate from the Church as it was Christian, nor did either the Pelagians, Donatists, Acacians, Luci∣ferians, Novatians, dis-beleeve any essential point of Christian faith, if Protestants dis-beleeve no essential; what you say of not separating from us as we are Chri∣stians, is a precision never used by Catholick, or Here∣tick in ancient times; nor indeed did ever any Here∣tick, who esteemed himself a Christian, affirm he sepa∣rated from the Church as it was Christian; for that had been to deny himself to be a Christian, which no He∣tick ever did; so that if this excuse save you from Schis∣matical separation, every Heretick in the world may be excused as well as you. Actual separation and refusal of external Communion with all the Churches in the world of their time (as your first beginners did) was ever

esteemed, and will ever be esteemed by Orthodox Chri∣stians, a destruction of true union with the visible Church of Christ, under what notion or precission so∣ever it be done, because as Dr. Hamm••••nd affirms, lib. de schismate, there can be no sufficient cause given for any such separation.

Baxter.

Num. 96. And for your other form, (the Papacy) 1. Neither I, nor my Grand-father, or great Grand-fa∣ther, did separate from it, because they never entertain∣ed it.

Iohnson.

Num. 96. This is strange doctrine, and would help out an Arrian, or a Donatist, at a dead lift, after a hun∣dred or two hundred years continuance of those Heresies, no lesse then your self. Is not the maintaining of a Se∣paration, or Schisme, ever termed amongst Christians, a Schism, or separation, even many generations after it begun? Were not the succeeding Donatists, after some ages, as truly esteemed Schismaticks, as the first beginners of their Schisme? S. Austin called them Schismaticks, and said they had left the Church above a hundred years after their first parting from it.

Baxter.

Num. 97. Those that did so, did but repent of their sin, and thats no sin: We still remain separated from you as Papists, even as we are separated from such, as

we are commanded to avoid, for impenitency in some cor∣rupting Doctrine, or scandalous sin: Whether such mens sins, or their professed Christianity be most predominant at the heart, we know not; but till they shew repentance we must avoid them; yet admonishing them as brethren, and not taking them as men of another Church, but as finding them unfit for our Communion.

Iohnson.

Num. 97. This is one of the handsomest passages of your whole Reply, and shews a fecundity of in∣vention to maintain a Novelty: But give me leave to tell you, it will not, it cannot acquit you of separa∣ting from the true ••••hurch of Christ. Had you indeed deserted the sole Communion of the Papacy, as you term it, it might have born some shew of defence, though no more then a shew; but seeing when you sepa∣rated from that, you remained also separate as much from all particular visible Churches in the world, as from that there can be neither shew nor shadow of excuse in it. For you must either say, that all the particular Churches in the world existent immediatly before you, Anno 1500. were guilty of impenitency in some corrupt∣ing Doctrine, or scandalous sin, for which you were commanded to avoid them; which were both to con∣tradict Tertullian, cited by your self, page 235. E••••∣quid verisimile est, &c. to prove the contrary, and thereby to condemn your selves of manifest Schisme, which is nothing but a separation of ones self from the whole Visible Church; or you must say, there were some particular Churches then existent, not guilty of that impenitency in some corrupting Doctrine, or scan∣dalous sin, to which Churches you adhered, when you

first separated from the Roman, and with which you lived in external Communion; and then you are ob∣liged to shew, design, and nominate, which that Church, o•••• those Churches were; which neither you, nor any of your professors ever yet did, or could doe.

Nor will it excuse you to alledge, you communicate with all Churches as Christian: for whilest you pro∣fess your selves Christians, you cannot affirm, that you left all Churches, as they are Christian; and by this means never yet any Heretick, no neither Arrian, nor Sabellian, could be convinced to have separated from all Churches; for never would any of them ac∣knowledge, that they left them as Christian, seeing they all not only protested, but really beleeved them∣selves to be Christians. Now if you will acquit your selves of separation from Christs Church, shew in your Rejoynder some visible Churches, pre-existent immedi∣atly before you, and co-existent with you in your first beginning, which did not pray for the dead, desire the assistance and Prayers of Saints for themselves, use and reverence Images in their Churches; which had not Altars, Priests, Masses, reall and proper Sacri∣fice; which held not Bread and Wine to be really changed, by vertue of consecration into Christs true Body and Blood, before they received them; which held not S. Peter, and him whom they esteemed his lawfull Successor, to be the Supream visible Governour, next under Christ, of the whole Militant Church, as is declared above: Or which held not some other points as points of Faith which you deny, or held not, or denied some points which you hold to be points of Christian faith, by reason wherof you had sufficient reason to leave their external Communion, if you had reason to forsake

that of Rome. For till this be shewed, all the world will see, that as you separated from all other particular Churches, as much as from those who adhere to the Church of Rome, so had you the very same, or equi∣valent Reasons to separate from them: So that in ac∣cusing the Church of Rome of impenitency in some corrupting Doctrine, and scandalous sin, you accuse in like manner all other Christian Churches then existent in the World together with her.

Baxter.

Num. 98. But O Sir, what manner of dealing have we from you! must we be imprisoned, rackt, harg'd, and burned, if we will not beleeve that Bread and Wine are not Bread and Wine, contrary to our own and all mens senses; and if we will not worship them with di∣vine Worship, and will not obey the Pope of Rome in all such matters, contrary to our Consciences; and then must we be chidden for separating from you, if we can but a while escape the Strappado and the flames? What! will you blame us for not beleeving, that all mens senses are deceived, and the greater part of Christians and their Traditions (against you) are false, when we read, studie, and suspect our selves, and pray for light, and are willing to hear any of your reasons, but cannot force our own un∣derstandings ti beleeve all such things that you beleeve, and meerly because the Pope commands it: and when we cannot thus force our own understandings, must we be burned, or else called Separatists? Would you have the Communion of our Ashes, or else say, We forsake your Communion? In your Churches we cannot have

leave to come, without lying against God and our Consci∣ences, and saying, We beleeve, what our senses contra∣dict; and without committing that, which our Conscien∣ces tell us are most hainous sins. We solemnly protest, that we would do as you do, and say as we say, were it not for the love of truth and holiness, and for fear of the wrath of God and the flames of Hell: but we cannot, we dare not rush upon those Errors, and sell our souls to please the Pope. And must we then either be mur∣thered, or taken for uncharitable? Will you say to so many poor souls, that are ready to enter into another World; Either sin against your Consciences, and so damn your souls, or else let us burn and murder you, or else you do not love us; you are uncharitable, if you deny us leave to kill you, and you separate from the Communion of the Church. We appeal from the Pope and all unreasonable men, to the great God of heaven and earth, to judge righteously between you and us concerning this dealing.

As for possessing our selves of your Bishopricks and Cures, if any particular person had personal injury in the change, being cast out without cause, they must answer for it that did it, not I; though I never heard any thing to make me beleeve it. But must the Prince and the people let alone Delinquent Pastors, for fear of being blamed for taking their Bishopricks? Mi∣nisters of the same Religion with us may be cast out for their crimes: Princes have power over Pastors as well as David, Solomon, and other Kings of Israel had. Guil. Barclay, and some few of your own knew this. The Popes treasonable exemption of the Clergie, from the Soveraigns judgement, will not warrant those Princes before God, that neglect to punish offending Pa∣stors.

And I beseech you tell us, when our Consciences (after the use of all means that we can use to be infor∣med) cannot renounce all our senses, nor our reason, nor the judgement of the most of the Church, or of Antiquity, or the Word of God, and yet we must do so, or be no members of your Church, what wrong is it to you; if we chuse us Pastors of our own, in the order that God hath appointed? Had not the people in all former ages the choice of their Pastors? We and our late Fore-fathers here were never under your over-sight: but we know not why we may not now choose our Pa∣stors, as well as formerly, we do it not by Tumults: We kill not men, and tread not in their blood, while we chuse our Pastors as Pope Damasus was chosen: The Tythes, and other Temporal maintenance we take from none; but the Magistrate disposeth of it as he seeth meet for the Churches good: And the maintenanc•••• is for the cure or work; and therefore that are justly cast out of the cure, are justly deprived of the maintenance. And surely when they are dead, none of you can with any shew of reason stand up and say, These Bishopricks are yours, or, These Parsonages are yours: It is the Incumbent personally that only can claim the Title; saving the super-eminent title of Christ, to whom they are devoted. But the successive Popes cannot have ti∣tle to all the Tythes and Temples in the World, nor any of his Clergy, that never were called to the charges. If this be dis-union, it is you that are the Separatists, and cause of all. If you will needs tell all the Chri∣stian World, that except they will be ruled by the Pope of Rome, and be burned if they beleeve not as he bids them, in spight of their senses, he will call them Sepa∣ratists, Schismaticks, and say they dis-unite, and are un∣charitable;

again we appeal to God, and all wise men that are impartial, whether it be he or we, that is the di∣vider.

Iohnson.

Num. 98. By what is now answered, this your long Rhetorical Exclamation, from page 108. to page 112. is also solved: For all that the Church of Rome de∣mands of you, even to the denying of your senses, and subjecting of your judgement, was in the year 1500. required of you by all Visible Ancient Churches in the World, and you are not able to nominate any one, where it was not. Change therefore the term Pope, or Church of Rome, into that of the Catholick Church of Christ, that is, all Orthodox particular Churches existent at that time, which are comprised in the number of all visible ancient particular Churches then existing, and address your exclamations to it, and then you will see how lit∣tle of a Christian complaint there is in that whole digression. To this therefore I presse you once again, to produce some Visible Church in the year 1500. from whose visible Communion you were not separated in your first beginning Anno 1517. as much as were the Pelagians or Donatists from all Visible Churches in their times? And to render a sufficient reason, why your dis-obeying, or substracting your selves from the de∣pendance and obedience of all the Visible Pastors in all Churches, Anno 1500. was not as much deserving to be termed and held a criminal Schism, and spiritual Rebellion, as any former separation from all Visible Churches.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 99. You ask me, Is not Charity, Subor∣dination, and obedience to the same State and Go∣vernment, required as well to make one Congre∣gation of Christians, as it is required to make a Con∣gregation of Commonwealth's-men? Answ. yes it is. But as all the world is one kingdome under God, the universal King, but yet hath no universal vice-king, but every Commonwealth only hath it's own Sovereign: even so all the Christian world is one Church under Christ, the universal king of the Church; but hath not one vice-Christ, but every Church hath it's own Pastours, as every School hath it's own School-master. But all the Anger is, because we are loth to be ruled by a cruel usurper; therefore we are uncharitable.

William Iohnson.

Num. 99. You commit the Fallacy of ignoratio Elen∣chi, and pass à genere in genus. I speak of a visible Kingdome, or Commonwealth, as it is regulated by a visible Government; and you take it, as it is invisibly govern'd by an invisible Providence. In this sense only are all the kindomes of the earth one kingdome, under the invisible Government of the Invisible God; but can∣not be truly called one visible kingdome, but more. Now it is evident through the whole discourse, that our pre∣sent Controversie is of the visible Church, as it is vi∣sible; and in this sense it is, and must be one; and consequently must be under some visible Government, which must make it one. That cannot be Christ, for he governs not his Church now visibly; Ergo there must

be some other: and that must either be some Assembly of chief Governours; as would be a General Council: or some one person, who has Authority to govern the whole body of the Church. A general Council it can∣not be: for, that was never held to be the ordinary, but only the extraordinary Church-Government, when e∣mergent occasions require it: and even when that is con∣vened, there must be some one person, to avoid Schisme, and quiet Controversies, which may possibly arise in the Council, with Authority above all the rest. It is there∣fore manifest, the Church cannot be perfectly one, visi∣ble, politick Body, unless there be one visible head to go∣vern it visibly, as the ordinary Governour of it. I be∣seech you, Sir, reflect often upon this distinction; and you will see the chief ground of your discourse answered by it. For to say, (as you do here) that the Church is one visible Kingdome, & yet to make it no more one visibly, then the School of Christ-Church, or Westminster, is one visible School, is in my Logick to speak-contraries.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 100. Your next reason against me is, because They cannot be parts of the Church, unless Arians and Pelagians, and Donatists be parts; and so Hereticks and Schismaticks be parts. Reply. 1. You know sure, that your own Divines are not agreed, whether Hereticks and Schismaticks are parts of the Church.

William Iohnson.

Num. 100. You cannot but see, I speak of parts of the Church, as you understand parts: and therefore I say (pag. 48. in yours) Secondly, your position is not true.

Now your position is to hold, that some Hereticks pro∣perly so called, are parts of the Church of Christ, and united to him as their Head; by reason, that they believe with a true Christian Faith the Essentials of Christia∣nity, whereby they are Christians, though they erre in some Accidentals, as appears by that distinction so often used by you. In this sense then, I say, you hold Here∣ticks to be true and real parts of the Church. And this I affirm to be contrary to all Christianity, and a novelty, never held before by any Christian.

Though therefore, taking the word parts in another more lax and improper sense, and the Church as it is a visible body and government, one only Catholick Au∣thour (* 1.88 Alphonsus à Castro) thinks, Hereticks may be called parts of the politick Body of the Church, (as She hath power over them to inflict punishment upon them,) by reason of the character of Baptisme, which makes them ever remain subjects of the Church, and ly∣able to her censures: yet he holds expresly, that they have no true Christian Faith at all, (quite against you) whereby they can be made parts of Christ's Church, united to Christ as their Head, as you hold, they are. And the like is of Schismaticks. For though some Ca∣tholick Author's, doubt, whether they may be termed, by reason of the profession of Christian Faith, parts of the Church, in a large sense, yet none ever held, as you doe, that they were united to Christ as their Head (and thereby compose one Christian Church)

with other Catholick Christians, because they want that principal Christian Charity required as necessary to a compleat union to Christ. Your opinion therefore is contrary to all those of the Roman Church; and shall (God assisting me) be * 1.89 proved contrary to all Christi∣ans and Christianity, and of most dangerous and damn∣able consequence. But you must know, that à Castro's opinion is censured by all other Doctours; and thereby improbable: nor yet makes the ground of his opinion, Hereticks and Scismaticks more of the Catholick Church, then are those Christians, who are damned in hell; for even they have the Character of Baptism, and yet he says, that so long as that Character remains they are Church-members: quo durante, semper erit membrum illius.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 101. And if they were, yet it is not de Fide with you, as not determined by the Pope.

William Iohnson.

Num. 101. 'Tis determined contrary to your sense, a hundred times over, by all the Anathemas and Ex∣communications, thundred out against them, in so many General Councils.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 102. If it be, then all yours are Hereticks, that are for the affirmative; (Bellarmine nameth you some of them.) If they be not, then how can you be sure it's true, and so impose it on me, that they are no parts?

William Iohnson.

Num. 102. I have now told you. None of ours ever held them parts, as you doe; that is united to Christ their Head, as the rest of the parts are, by Faith and Charity.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 103. Arians are no Christians, as denying that which is Essential to Christ; and so to Christianity.

William Iohnson.

Num. 103. 'Tis very true; they are no real univo∣cal Christians: and your reason is good, because they deny that, which is Essential to Christ, and so to Christi∣anity. But hence will follow, that no proper Heretick whatsoever, is a real, univocal Christian: for all of them deny something Essential to Christ, and so to Christi∣anity: which I prove thus;

Whosoever denies Christ's most Infallible veracity, & Divine Authority, denies Something which is Essential unto Christ.

But every Heretick, properly so called, denies Christ's most infallible veracity, and divine Authority:

Ergo, Every Heretick, properly so called, denies some∣thing which is Essential to Christ, and so to Christianity.

The Major is evident: I prove the Minor.

Whosoever denies that to be true, which is sufficiently propounded to him to be revealed from Christ, denyes Christ's most infallible veracity and divine authority.

But every Heretick, properly so called, denies that to

be true, which is sufficiently propounded to him to be re∣vealed from Christ.

Ergo Every Heretick, properly so called, denyes Christs most infallible veracity, and divine Authority.

The Minor is clear. For that is properly to be an Heretick. The Major is also clear. For how is it possi∣ble to deny that to be true, which is sufficiently pro∣pounded to me to be revealed from Christ, without af∣firming, that Christ said something which is not true: which is manifestly to give Christ the lye; and to doe that, is to deny openly his divine veracity. This Argu∣ment, I hope, you will please to think of seriously; and either give an Answer in form to it, or relinquish your Noveltie.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 104. Pelagianisme is a thing, that you are not agreed among your selves of the true na••••ure of Ma∣ny of the Dominicans and Jansenists think the Jesuites Pelagianize, or Semi-Pelagianize at least. I hope you will not shut them out. Donatists were Schismaticks, be∣cause they divided in the Catholick Church, and not ab∣solutely from it: and because they divided from the particular Churches about them, that held the most u∣niversal external Communion. I think, they were still members of the universal Church; but I'le not contend with any, that will plead for his uncharitable denyal. It's nothing to our Case.

William Iohnson.

Num. 104. You fall again into a plain Fallacy, pro∣ceeding à parte ad totum. The doubt which is among

some of our Divines is only about part of their Heresie, and you would make your Reader believe, it were about the whole. Some points of their Heresie are clearly a∣greed upon by all Catholick Authors; as is that of the denyal of original Sin, That Infants which dye with∣out Baptisme, are not in the state of Salvation, &c. Now these are enough to make them Hereticks, and out of the Church, whatsoever is of the rest of their Here∣sie: which howsoever some dispute now, wherein it con∣sisteth, yet when they were first condemned, there was no dispute about it. But here's another grand No∣veltie of yours to be considered. Who ever yet, before you, said, that Catholick Church could be divided in it self, when it is a most perfect unity. See, what the Fathers say of this point: why is it called una Ecclesia Catholica (one Catholick Church) in the Nicene Creed, if it can be divided: and then you adde another No∣velty, as the former. For who, but you, ever said, the Donatists were not divided absolutely from the Church? does not S. Aug. lib. de Baptismo, contra Donatistas, say, they separated and divided from the Church, a hun∣dred times over? But more of this hereafter.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 105. I know that Heresie is a personal Crime, and cannot be charged on Nations, unlesse you have Evi∣dence, that the Nations consent to it, which here you have none.

William Iohnson.

Num. 105. I have your own Author for it, an approved Historian amongst you, there is no Authority alledged

by you, which contradicts his Testimony, or clears them from Eutychianisme, why therefore seek you evidence against what you are not able to disprove? But for your farther satisfaction; first, it is certain in the year One thousand, one hundred, seventy and seven, the Abyssines or Ethiopians under Prester Iohn desired Do∣ctours to be sent to them from Pope Alexander the third to Instruct them in the Roman Faith, from which they differed at that time. The Pope write to their King and high Bishop, that he desired nothing more then to gratifie them in their Request; intreating them to send their doubts, and requests in particular to Rome: Now that these differences from the Roman Church, in part at least, were the Heresie of Eutyches, is Evident from the Canon of their Mass, wherein they commemorate three or four times the Fathers of the three first general Councils, but never make mention of those in the fourth, that is, the Council of Chalcedon; whereof no other probable reason can be given, save their adhering to the Heresie of Eutyches, which was condemned in that Council; so that there needs no farther Testimony a∣gainst them, seeing they condemn themselves of Euty∣chianisme.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 106. Some are Hereticks for denying Points essential to Christianity; these are not Christians, and so not in the Church: but many also are called Hereticks by you, and by the Fathers for lesser Errours consistent with Christianity; and these may be in the Church. Abyssines and all the rest have not been yet tryed, and convicted before any competent Iudge, and Slanderers we regard not.

William Iohnson.

Num. 106. This is already answered, all Hereticks deny the veracity of Christ, which is Essential to Christ and Christianity, whatsoever their Heresies be, the A∣byssines confess themselves to follow (as I have proved) Eutyches and Dioscorus, and therefore need neither tryal, nor conviction.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 107. Many of your own Writers acquit them of Heresie, and say, † 1.90 the difference is now found to be but in words, or little more.

William Iohnson.

Num. 107. Name those Writers, and you shall be answered; think you that any rational man will be con∣vinced by your bare affirmation?

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 108. What you say of their disclaiming us, unless we take the Patriarch of Constantinople for the vice-Christ; you many wayes mistake, 1. if this were true that they rejected us; it were not proof that we are not of one universal Church.

William Iohnson.

Num. 108. But sure I mistake not in saying they disclaim you, if it be supposed true (as you suppose now)

they doe disclaim you; and I think, impartial men will take it to be a proof, for if both the whole Westerne Church with the Bishop of Rome, and the Easterne with the Bishop of Constantinople, each claiming the Sove∣raignty of visible Government over the whole Church of Christ, reject you as Hereticks: and no other Church existent in the world, anno Dom. 1500. (Immediately before your first visible opposition against the Roman Church) own you (as you have not proved, nor can you ever prove, they doe) but upon the same, or for some o∣ther reasons Reject you, for which the Easterne and Westerne Churches have disclaimed you; you cannot but confess, you are rejected by the whole Catholick Church of Christ, seeing you were Rejected by all the visible Churches of that time. Now whosoever is rejected as an Heretick by the whole Catholick visible Church, either must be no part of it, or the Catholick Church, must not be able to know, which are, which are not, her true parts, and be fallen into so desperate an Errour, as to reject as out-casts and enemies those who are her true Children. Or what phrenzie would it be in a No∣vellist, vainly and presumptuously to give himself out for a Member of the Church, when the whole Catho∣lick Church disclaims, and Anathematises him as an A∣lien. Now reduce your selves, as Tertullian sayes, to your first origine, in the year 1500, even in your Prin∣ciples the visible Catholick Church, was all the Congrega∣tions of Christians through the whole world, but all these Congregations disowned you as Aliens, and Separatists from them, when you first begun, an. 1517. ergo the whole Catholick Church disowned you, as Aliens, and Separa∣tists; Ergo you were then either such as the Church e∣steemed you to be, or the whole Catholick Church was deceived; but all good Christians will rather believe,

that you, who were then but a handfull of new-hatched Novellists, were deceived in fancying your selves to be parts of the Church, against the censure and judgement of the whole Christian world: then that the whole Christian world should be deceived, and you only in the Right. Nay, that you may have no shadow to shroud your self under, not only the whole Christian world, when you begun, rejected you, as not belonging to their Body; but you your selves, never so much as pretended then to be parts of any of these Churches, but hated, and abominated them as much as they did you, and con∣demned them all of Errour, and Superstition, of Baby∣lonish captivity, and utter darknesse, of Antichrianisme, and Idolatry, &c. Read your first Writers and you will find it so; for seeing all the visible Christian Congre∣gations held many of those Points, which your first be∣ginners held to be Idolatrous, and Superstitious in the Roman Church, in condemning the Roman, and sepa∣rating from it, upon those pretended Superstitions and Errours, you separated from, and condemned the whole Catholick Church; nor can you free your self from this, unless you nominate some Church, in those times spread all the Christian world over, which resisted those said Errours, as you did, and joined with you against the Roman Church in this opposition.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 109. They do not claim to be vice Christi, the universal Governours of the Church:* 1.91 the Title of universal Patriarch they extended, but to the then Roman Empire; and that not to an univer∣sal government, but Primacy.

William Iohnson.

Num. 109. I wonder to hear you say here, the Greeks intended the Title of universal Patriarch only to

the Empire, and that not of Government, but of Prima∣cie; that is, as you mistake that word, precedencie in place; when you labour mightily to prove, Pag. 154. 155.156. &c. from St. Gregorie's Epistles, that the Ti∣tle the Greeks then pretended to, and S. Gregory ex∣claimed against, was to be Bishop, and to have spiri∣tual Jurisdiction over all Churches, and Christians in the world; either therefore you must grant, that your Argument drawn there from St. Gregorie's words is fal∣lacious, and of no force; or if it be of force, and well grounded, That then Iohn of Constantinople, and with and after him the Patriarchs of that City, pretended to be universal Governours of the whole Church, both extra- and intra-Imperial, And as to the later Patri∣archs of Constantinople; seeing there is now no Christ∣ian Empire amongst them, and they still retain that for∣mer Title of Vniversal Patriarchs, you cannot pretend, they inclose their Authorities within the Verge of the Christian Empire. And that you may see what Autho∣ritie the Constantinopolitan Patriarch assumes to himself, and how plaguely he stiles himself a vice-Christ (quite contrary to your groundlesse Assertion here) Hieremias in his Epistle to the Lutherans of Germany, prefixed be∣fore his censure of their Doctrine, saies thus,

Si enim volueritis (inquit Scriptura) & audieritis me, bona terrae comedetis; quibus sane verbis, mediocritas item nostra, quae & ipsa, Christi Domini miseratione, suc∣cessione quadam, hic in terris, ejus locum tenet ad amabilem concordiam & consensum cum ea, quae apud nos est Jesu Christi Ecclesia, charitatem vestram co∣hortatur.

If you be willing, and shall hear me, saith the Scripture, you shall eat the good things of the Land; in which words, our mediocrity likewise, which by the mer∣cy of Christ our Lord, by a certain succession, here

upon earth, holds his (Christ's) place, Exhorts you to an amiable concord and charity with that which is with us, the Church of Iesus Christ; where this Patriarch of Constantinople Hieremias, affirmes expresly of himself, that he holds Christ's place upon earth, which is to be a vice-Christ (as you term it) as much as the Pope esteems himself one; yet sure Hieremias knew what Authoritie he had in Christ's Church; now that you may know undoubtedly, he speaks not of a Church of Christ, which may be affirmed of every particular true Church, but of the Church of Christ, that is, the whole Catholick visible Church, he exhorts those Ger∣man Lutherans, to an amiable concord with that Church of Christ which is with him, that is, in the Government whereof he holds the place of Christ, and that this is no other then the whole visible Catholick Church, he de∣clared in the last Paragraph of the eight chapter, say∣ing, Et, ut con••••idimus, ubi ei, qu•••• apud nos est, sanctae & Catholicae Iesu Christi Ecclesiae vos subji••••ietis, &c. And as we confide, when you shall subject your selves to that holy and Catholick Church of Christ which is with us, or belongs to us, which can be meant of no o∣ther save the whole visible Church, for he accounts none to be in communion with that Church which is with him, save those, who believe and observe all the Aposto∣lical and Synodical traditions, and all, who believe and observe them; to be of his communion, that is, all ortho∣dox Christians, which is the whole Catholick Church; nor can these words, quae apud nos est, be so understood, as if they denominated only some part of the Catholick Church to be with him, and some other not with him, or against him; for the Greek hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as if he had said, the holy Catholick Church existing amongst us, or with us.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 110. And for Hieremias his Predecessor, whom you mention, though they disputed with him by letters, (Stephanus Gerlochius, and Martinus Crusius) did not a∣gree in all things with him, yet he still professed his de∣sire of unity and concord with us; and in the beginning of his second Answer, rejoiceth that we agreed with them in so many things.

William Iohnson.

Num. 110. So do we to, and labour to procure that unity with all our forces, but why cast you a mist upon the point in question, by saying he agreed not with them in all things, what mean you by all things, I had said, the Greeks and others, profess generally all those points of Faith with us against you, wherein you differ from us, and prove this out of Hieremias his Epistle, you an∣swer, that the Lutherans did not agree in all things with Hieremias; what all things mean you? those, wherein you and we differ, why then have you not designed some at least of those points in difference be∣twixt us, wherein they agree with you against us? if you mean, they agreed not in all things, that is, in some wherein we and you agree, they agreed also with you, & us, that's true, but is no Answer at all to my Assertion; for I meddle not with those: but disagreed they with you in the points controverted betwixt us? that's true too, but it is a confirmation of my Assertion. But you artificially, to dissemble what you could not answer, serve your self only of a general terme, whereby the Reader may remain still unsatisfied, whether they agree with you

or us, in the Points under controversie betwixt us. Tell us therefore, (and I beseech you fail not to do it) whe∣ther my Assertion be true or no in this point, when you Reply to it, and whether my Allegations prove it not; that is, whether the modern Greeks agree with the Ro∣man Church in all points now controverted betwixt us and you, (except that of the Popes supremacie,) and whe∣ther Hieremias the Patriarch, assume not to himself, as true a supreme authority over the whole Church, as does the Pope.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. III. Iohannes Zygomalas in his letters to Crusius, 1576. May 15. saith, Perspienum tibi & o∣mnibus futurum est, quod in continuis & causam fidei praecipue continentibus articulis consentiamus: quae au∣tem videntur consensum inter vos & nos Impedire, ta∣lia sunt, si velit quis, ut facile ea corrigere possit— Gaudium in coelo & super terram erit, si coibit in uni∣tatem utraque Ecclesia, & Idem sentiemus, & simul vi∣vemus in omni concordia & pace secundum Deum, & in sincerae Charitatis vinculo.

William Iohnson.

Num. III. To what purpose are these words cited, cannot any of the Roman Church write the very same now to Lutherans? But does not Zygomalas suppose, that the Protestants and they, are two Churches, that they were not then united into one; saies he not? that he hopes for such a Future Unity, Gaudium in coelo, & supra terram erit, si coibit in unitatem utraque Eccle∣sia, &c. Ergo that unity was not then actually made,

and that unity depended on the correction of those dif∣ferences in Faith which were betwixt them, which whilst they remained, obstructed it; now this is wholly de∣structive of your Novelty; nay this Agreement, and becoming one and the same Church as Synonimaes, (co∣ibit in unitatem utraque Ecclesia, et Idem sentiemus; both Churches, the Greeks and Lutherans shall join in unitie, and we shall hold, that is believe, the same thing) evinces that their disagreement, was inconsistent with their being one Church: nay besides Faith he requires a future charity and concord, which argues, it was then wanting, Et simul vivemus in omni concordia & pace secundum Deum, & in sincerae charitatis vinculo;

and (sayes he) we shall live together in all concord & peace in God, and in the bond of sincere Charity:

so that this very Text which you quote, to prove the unity be∣twixt Greeks and Lutherans, proves the quite contrary, so choice are you in your Citations!

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 112. But as it is not the Patriarch, that is the whole Greek Church: so it is not their Errours, in some lesser or tolerable points, that prove us of two Churches or Religions.

William Iohnson.

Num. 112. Who saies, he is the whole Church? yet sure when the Patriarch writes concernings his own Ju∣risdiction, he is supposed to understand the extent of it; and when those of his Church shew no kind of con∣tradiction against it, neither when he writ this, nor ever since (and thereby give a tacite consent to it) what

he writes is to be esteemed as the tenet of his Church▪ I am much joyed to hear you terme the differences in Faith betwixt you and the Grecians, some lesser or tole∣rable points; for they being in substance the very same with those betwixt you and us (as the Authors confesse cited by me, pag. 46. of your Edition) you must conse∣quently acknowledge the differences betwixt you and us, to be some lesser or tolerable points: but give me leave then to tell you, that as you judge those points tolerable, so must you also judge your separation from the external communion of the Greek, and Roman Church intolera∣ble; for if those parts in difference be tolerable, they were to have been tolerated by you, without proceeding to an open and scandalous Schisme by reason of them; nor will it excuse you to alledge, you were forc't to se∣parate, in detestation of those things which you judged Errours; otherwise you would have compell'd us by pu∣nishments to have assented to them: for you were ra∣ther to have suffered patiently that force, though it had been to death it self, then to have made so notorious a Schisme, for tolerable Errours or fear of persecution. I have already shewed that every Errour in Faith, a∣gainst a divine truth sufficiently proposed, separates the erring partie from the true visible Church of Christ.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 113. Whereas you say, it is against all anti∣quity and Christianity, to admit condemned Hereticks into the Church: I Reply. 1. I hate their condemnation rather then reverence it, that (even being non Judices) dare condemn whole Nations, without hearing one man of them speak for himself, or hearing one witnesse that ever heard them defend Heresie, and this merely because

some few Bishops have in the dayes of all maintained Heresie, and perhaps some may doe so still, or rather differ from you in words, while you misunderstand each other. I see, you have a sharp tooth against Bishops, why name you them onely as maintainers of Heresies? how many Bishops found you broaching or spreading heresie in the 2. first hundred yeares, was either Simon Magus, or Nicolaus, or Cerinthus, or Menander, or Valenti∣nian, or Manes, or Montanus, Bishops? and in the third Age, was there not Arius, and Eutyches, neither of them Bishops, broachers of two most pernicious Heresies, as well, as Nestorius, and Dioscorus, who were Bishops.

William Iohnson.

Num. 113. You mistake the manner of the Churches condemnation of Hereticks, it is neither personal nor National (save in some notorious Arch-Hereticks, who either by their words, or writings, evidently professe or teach Heresie) but general or abstractive, viz. whosoever holds such, or such Errours let him be accursed, or we excommunicate all such as hold them, &c. where there can be no wrong done to any; for those, who de facto held them not, are not cast out of the Church; now when this sentence comes to Execution, those who either acknowledge themselves to hold those Heresies, or com∣municate with them who professe it, are esteemed as He∣reticks; because they join with an heretical party, a∣gainst the Church; and in case they profess to disbe∣lieve their heresie, and yet live in communion with them, and subjection to them, they become open Schisma∣ticks, separating themselves from the whole visible Church by communicating with Hereticks.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 114. Did I find such Errours with them as with you, yet first I durst charge them on no one man that I had not reason to hold guilty of them; I dare not accuse whole Nations of your Errours; but of all these things (and of sundry words which you cite) I have spoken al∣ready in two books, and in the latter fully proved that you differ in many points of Faith, and greater things then you call Heresies in others, among your selves, even your Pope's Saints and Councils; and yet neither part is judged by you to be out of the Church: see my Key, pag. 124, 125, 127, 128, 129. and pag. 52. ad 62.

William Iohnson.

Num. 114. You or any Christian, may safely judge those Hereticks, who publickly communicate, and side with those, who professe, and teach open heresie; for the very siding with them, Argues a consent to their Do∣ctrine, and is a sufficient profession of it, unlesse they professe publickly a difference from their heresie; your recrimination, is unseasonable; the question is not for the present, wherein or how We differ; but whether You be guiltie of heresie or no, our innocencie or guiltiness clears not you; clear your Selves first, and then you will have gained credit to accuse us: 'till that be done, you do nothing but divert the Question, ••••y removing it from your selves to us. In your Key, pag. 128. you trifle in using the words, Material point, Equivocally, and pro∣ceeding à specie, ad genus fallociously. Mr. Turberville, speaks of material Points, against your 39. Articles, say∣ing, for if they differ from them in any material

point, &c. and you make him speak of all kinds of ma∣terial points in Religion, whether contrary to any Ar∣ticle, or Ecclesiastical decree of Faith, or no.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 115. When you say so much to prove the Greeks guiltie of manifest heresy, and pretend that it is but some novel Writers of ours that deny it, as forced by your Ar∣guments, I must say, that you prove but your own un∣charitablenesse instead of their heresie; and you shew your self a stranger to your own Writers, who frequently excuse the Greeks from heresie, and say the difference at the Council of Florence was found to be more about Words, then Faith; Thomas à Jesu, de Convers••••omn. Gentium, lib. 6. cap. 8. pag. 281. saith,

His tamen non obstantibus alii opinantur Graecos tantum esse Schismaticos: Ita exjunioribus docet Pater Azorius, 1. primae Institut. moral. lib. 8. cap. 20. quaest. 10. Quare merito ab Ecclesia Catholica non haeretici, sed Schismatici censentur & appellantur; it a aperte insi∣nuat D. Bernardus (no novel Protestant) in Epist. ad Eugenium, lib. 3. (ego addo, inquit) de pertinacia Graecorum qui nobiscum sunt & non sunt; Iuncti fi∣de, pace divisi; quanquam & in fide ipsa claudicave∣rint à rectis semitis. Idem aperte tenet D. Thom. Opusc. 2. ubi docet Patres Graecos in Catholico sensu esse ex∣ponendos; Ratio hujus opinionis est, quoniam ut praedi∣ctus Author docet, in praedictis Fidei Articulis, de qui∣bus Graeci accusantur ab aliquibus ut haeretici, potius nomine quamre ab Ecclesia Romana dissident; Imprimis inficiantur illi Spiritum Sanctum à Patre Filioque procedere, ut in Bulla unionis Eugenii 4. dicitur, Existimantes, Latinos sentir•••• à Patre Filioque pro∣cedere

tanquam à duobus principiis, cum tamen Latina doceat Eclesia procedere à duabus personis tanquā ab u∣no principio & spiratore, quare Graeci ut unum principiū significent, dicunt Spiritū sanctū à Patre per Filiū proce∣cedere ab omni aeternitate:

Your Paulus Veridicus (Paul Harris) Dean of your Academy lately in Dublin, in his confutation of Bishop Usher's Sermon, saith, that the Greeks Doctrine about the procession of the holy Ghost à Patre per Filium, and not à Patre, Filioque, was such that (when they had explicated it, they were found to believe very Orthodoxly and Catholickly in the same matter, and for such were admitted) and that (he find∣eth not any substantial Point that they differ from you in; but the Primacy:) so the Armenians were received in the same Council of Florence) many more I have read, of your own Writers, that all vindicate the Greeks, (and others that disown you) from heresie, I think more then I have read of Protestants that do it: And do you think now that it is not a disgrace to your cause, that a man of your Learning, and one that I hear that hath the confidence to draw others to your opinions, should yet be so unacquainted with the opinions of your own Di∣vines, and upon this mistake so confidently feign, that it is our novel Writers forced to it by your Arguments, that have been so charitable to these Churches against Anti∣quity that knew better.

William Iohnson.

Num. 115. I should have reason to take it something ill from you, to accuse me at once both of uncharitable∣nesse, and ignorance, and that upon a more mistake of your own; but I am resolved, not to take any thing you say against Me in ill part, but rather to pity and com∣miserate you, as I really do; you could not but see I speak of that Errour in the holy Ghost's procession, which

of late yeares has been pertinaciously defended by the Schismatical Greeks, not of the expressions of the more ancient Fathers and Doctours amongst them, you need not have told me, for I was not so ignorant, that those which S. Bernard and S. Thomas speaks of differ'd ra∣ther in Expressions, then in the thing it self; the Que∣stion is, whether the modern Greeks, and those who have held with them, and particularly since the Council of Florence, concerning the point of the holy Ghost's pro∣ceeding from the Father and not from the Son, differ not in the thing it self; I speak of these onely, for my words clearly design what is now done, pag. 47. in your Edit. I say, they must be thought to maintain mani∣fest heresie, and p. 4. Desertours of the Faith, as they continue still to this day; now I marvel to see this di∣stinction of times unknown to you, when our Authors, and particularly, S. Bonaventure took notice of it in his time; and as there it is, that S. Bernard distingui∣shes betwixt them in his time, for he sayes expresly, in Fide claudicaverint, which signifies, that at least some of them were even then deficient in Faith; & S. Tho∣mas writes expresly of the ancient Greek Fathers, Patres Graecos in Catholico sensu esse exponendos; Harris al∣so (as you call him) speaks of the same ancienter Gre∣cians; if therefore you will convince me either of un∣charitablenesse, or ignorance, shew that our Authours affirme, the modern Greeks, and all those who held as they now do, erre not in Faith, or in the thing believed about the procession of the holy Ghost (but differ onely in words, or terms) as you held they do not: & I said, and still maintain, they do: and not the ancient Fathers amongst the Greeks, of whome I speak not one word, because I knew very well our Authours have ever taught and still do affirm, that those Fathers say the same thing

in re with us. But you shall see more of this in some other work, which expects the Press, and wherein this point, was throughly examined, long before I writ that reply to you.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 116. If the Greeks and Latines tear the Church of Christ by their condemnations of each other, they may be both Schismatical, as guilty of making di∣visions in the Church, though not as dividing from the Church; and if they pretend the denyal of the Christian Faith against each other, as the cause, you shall not draw us into the guilt of the uncharitablenesse, by tel∣ling us that they know better then we. If wise men fall out and fight, I will not justifie either side, because they are wise, and therefore likelier then I to know the cause.

William Iohnson.

Num. 116. I told you before, the Church of Christ cannot be divided, it is so perfectly one; It were well, if you medled not at all with the difference betwixt them, but you do meddle; and contrary to both their judgements, you and yours affirm, they differ not now in matter of Faith concerning this Mysterie, and there∣by prefer you Novel Judgements before that of so large, ancient, and Learned Churches, whom you confess here have more reason to know the true difference betwixt them, then your self. Do you not intermeddle deep∣ly in it, when in the next ensuing words, you labour mainly to prove they differ onely in worlds.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 117. But what need we more to open your strange mistake, and unjust dealing, then the Autho∣rity of your so much approved Council of Florence, that

received both Greeks and Armeni••••ns; and the very words of the Popes Bull of the Union, which declare that the Greeks and Latines were found to mean Ortho∣doxly both; the words are these, Convenientes Latini & Graeci in hac sacrosancta oecumenica Synodo, magno studio invicem nisi sunt, ut inter alia, articulus etiam ille de divina Spiritus sancti processione, summa cum diligentia, & affidua inquisitione discuteretur; Prolatis vero testimoniis ex divinis Scripturis, plurimisque au∣thoritatibus sanctorum doctorum orientalium & occi∣dentalium, aliquibus quidem ex Patre & Filio; qui∣busdam vero ex Patre per Filium procedere dicentibus, Spiritum sanctum, & ad eandom Intelligentiam aspicientibus omnibus sub diversis vocabulis; Graeci quidem asseruerunt, quod id, quod dicunt Spiritum sanctum ex Patre procedere, non hac mente proferrent ut excludant Filium, sed quia eis videbatur, ut aiunt, Latinos asserere Spiritum sanctum ex Patre Filioque procedere, tanquam ex duobus principiis, & duabus spirationibus; ideo abstinuerunt à dicendo quod Spiri∣tus sanctus ex Patre procedat & Filio; Latini vero af∣firmaverunt non se hac mente dicere Spiritum sanctum ex Filioque procedere, ut excludant Patrem quin sit fons ac principium totius Deitatis, Filii scilicet & Spiritus san∣cti: aut quo did, quod Spiritus sanctus procedat ex Filio, Filius à Patre non habeat, sive quod duo ponant esse prin∣cipiae, seu duas spirationes, sed ut unum tantum asse∣runt esse principium unicamque spirationem Spiritus sancti prout ha••••enus asseruerunt, & tum ex his omni∣bus unus & idem eliciatur veritatis sensus, tandem &c.

I pray you now tell it to no more, That it is some No∣vel Writers of ours, prest by force of Arguments, that have been the Authours of this Extenuation. My heart even trembleth to think, that there should be a

thing called Religion amongst you that can so far ex∣tinguish both Charity and Humanity, as to cause you to pass so direfull a doome (without authority or tryal) on so great a part of the Christian world, for such a word as this about so exceeding high a Mysterie, when your Pope & Council have pronounced an union of meanings.

William Iohnson.

Num. 117. It is a pretty kind of art you have, of Triumphing before the Victory, and collecting a Con∣clusion without Premisses: 'Tis true, the Greeks did not intend to exclude the Son from the procession of the holy Ghost; for they admitted him as a medium, through which he proceeds from the Father, as water issues from the fountain through the Conduit-pipe; but yet they wholly denied, he proceeded from the Son, as from a principle of his procession, and their reason was, because then (said they) there would be a double procession of the holy Ghost, as from two principles, the Father and the Son; and this they thought so evident, that it could not be denied, and thereupon supposed the Latines put a double procession, and a double principle; now when it was made manifest to them by the Authorities of the ancient Fathers (as the Council here affirmes) that he proceeded from the Father and the Son as from one principle: so that those Fathers who affirm that he pro∣ceeds from the Father by or through the Son, say the very same thing with the others, who say, he proceeds from the Father and the Son; they were content, to re∣call their former Errour, and to hold with the Latines, that he proceeded from both as from one Principle, by one indivisible procession, or spiration; whence fol∣lowed the union betwixt those two Churches. Now that

the Greeks before and after the Council, when they were returned home, thought it impossible they should proceed from both as from one Principle, is evident both from the long craggy disputes betwixt them in the Council, and from Mark Bishop of Ephesus, who ob∣stinately defended the common Opinion of the Greeks, and would never yield to the union in this point; and it appears also from the Grecians themselves, who after their Return relapsed into their former Errour; and from Hieremias his Censure, C. 1. who excludes the Son in expresse terms, Spiritum sanctum ex solo Patre procedere, that the holy Ghost proceeds from the Fa∣ther alone; and from all the other Greeks who reject at this day the Union made in the Florentine Council, and maintaine their former errour against it. Now your Argument has this force with it: the Grecians who re∣canted their Errour in the Council of Florence, convinc't by the Authoritie of the holy Fathers, agreed with the Roman Church, that the holy Ghost proceeded from the Father and the Son, or from the Father through the Son, as from one Principle of Procession; Ergo Mar∣cus Ephesius, who refused that Agreement, and the mo∣dern Greeks ever since that Council who reject it, and the others before the Council, who contradicted it, held the very same Doctrine with the Latines, that he pro∣ceeded from the Father and the Son as from one Prin∣ciple; whereas they most manifestly denied, that he could so proceed, and all of them deny it to this day: see you not your fallacie, how it proceeds à parte ad totum, and à particulari ad universale? that is, from that partie of the Grecians who consented to the Florentine Council, to the whole bodie of them ever since; and with that, I hope you will see, how illogically you extend the Union in this and other points, to the whole com∣munity

of the Greek Church at this present time, be∣cause some few of them assented to it in the Florentine Council, whose consent with the Latines is now re∣jected and condemned by the present Greeks; and how undeservedly you accuse me of extinguishing both Cha∣ritie and Humanitie, for which I heartily beseech God to forgive you; and desire only, you will please to note, that seeing I speak of the Grecians as they are at pre∣sent, and of those who held as they now do, your testi∣monies of what they held many hundred yeares before our times hurt me not, nor so much as approach to con∣tradict what I say; and please to consider this also, that the Greeks holding the holy Ghost's proceeding from the Father and the Son, argu'd a double principle, and a double spiration; as it was a real difference be∣twixt them and the Latines before the Union, so is it yet a real difference betwixt the Latines & those Greeks who reject that Union, and that of so great concern, that the present Grecians chuse rather to denie he pro∣ceeds from the Son, as from a Principle, then grant, that he can proceed from both, as from one principle, or by one spiration from them both.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 118. And what mean you in your Margent to refer me to Nilus, as if he asserted, that the Greeks left the Communion of the Roman Church upon that difference alone; verily (Sir) in the high matters of God this dealing is scarce faire (pardon this plainness;) consider of it your self, The substance of Nilus book, is about the Primacie of the Pope; the very Contents pre∣fixed to the first book are these, Oratio demonstrans non aliam, &c. an Oration demonstrating that there is no

other cause of dissention between the Latine and the Greek Churches, then that the Pope refuseth to defer the Cognisance and Iudgement of that which is Contro∣verted, to a General Council, but he will sit the sole Master, and Iudge of the Controversie, and will have the rest as Disciples to be hearers of (or obey) his word, which is a thing aliene from the Lawes and Actions of the Apostles and Fathers; and he begins his Book (af∣ter a few words) thus,

Causa itaque hujus dissidii, &c. The Cause therefore of this difference, as I judge, is not the sublimity of the point exceeding man's capaci∣tie; for other matters that have divers times troubled the Church, have been of the same kind; this there∣fore is not the cause of the dissention, much lesse is the speech of the Scripture it self; which as being concise, doth pronounce nothing openly of that which is Con∣troverted; for to accuse the Scripture, is as much as to accuse God himself. But God is without all fault; but who the fault is in, any one may easily tell, that is well in his wits.

He next shews, that it is not for want of learned men on both sides; nor is it because the Greeks do claim the Primacy, and then concludeth it as before, he maintaineth that your Pope succeedeth Peter onely as a Bishop ordained by him, as many other Bishops that originally were ordained by him in like manner to suc∣ceed him, and that his Primacy is no governing power, nor given him by Peter, but by Princes and Councils for order sake; and this he proves at large, and makes this the main difference. Bellarmine's answering his so many Arguments, might have told you this, if you had never read Nilus himself; and if you say that this point was the Cause, I deny it; but if it were true, yet was it not the onely or chief Cause afterwards; The manner of bringing in the (Filioque) by Papal Authority without a

general Council, was it, that greatly offended the Greeks from the beginning.

William Iohnson.

Num. 118. This is a strange manner of Arguing; what if his chief subject be about the Popes Primacy, may he not ex incidente and occasionaliter, treat other matters? Is not your chief matter in this Treatise to prove the succession of your Church, and oppose ours; and yet treat you not in this very place incidentally the procession of the holy Ghost? I say then that Nilus declaring the cause why the Bishop of Rome hath lost all that Primacy, and Authority which he had ancient∣ly, by reason he is fallen from the Faith, in adding Fi∣lioque to the Creed, and teaching that the holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son; the words you cite out of Nilus, proves nothing, he pretends indeed that the cause of the present dissention is the Popes chal∣lenging so high a Primacy, which they are unwilling (as all schismaticks ever were) to grant him, but that may well stand with what I affirm him to say, that the first original cause of the breach betwixt the Greeks and Latines, was the adding of Filioque, and holding the holy Ghost's procession from the Father and the Son: But see you not how fair a thread you have spun, by pressing those words, as you do, against me? is there in∣deed no other cause of dissention betwixt the Greek and Latine Church; nor ground of their breach, save the Popes supremacy? then sure there is a full agreement in all other things; if so, there is a main disagreeing be∣twixt you and the Greeks, in all other points of Faith controverted betwixt you and us; for if they agree with us, they disagree from you in every one of them; nay

you press Nilus his words (in that sense you must take them to frame an Argument against me) quite against the very words themselves; for you alledge them to shew, that he touches not the procession of the holy Ghost in that Book, as the first ground of their differ∣ence; to prove this you must proceed thus, he treats no∣thing there save the Pope's Supremacie, ergo he touches not the holy Ghost's procession; you prove the Ante∣cedent by the words of the Title of his first book here cited, because he affirmes in them, there is no other cause of dissention, then that the Pope refuses to stand to the judgement of a general Council; as if that onely were controverted betwixt them, for otherwise you prove no∣thing: Now it is most evident that Nilus supposes many other Controversies betwixt them and the La∣tines; for he saies (even as you cite him) thus, then that the Pope refuseth to defer the Cognisance and Iudge∣ment of that which is Controverted to a general Coun∣cil; Ergo you must acknowledge, that according to Nilus, there was something controverted betwixt the Greeks and the Latines, besides the Pope's Supremacie; and after you bring him in pag. 124. mentioning this very point of the procession, when you alledge him thus, the cause therefore of this difference, as I judge, is not the sublimity of the point exceeding man's capa∣citie, where he speaks of the holy Ghost's procession, as I affirm him to doe; thus you play fast and loose, say and unsay at your pleasure; thus you confound times, and by not distinguishing the past, (as before you did not the future) from the present, make that, which is now onely pretended by Nilus, to be the chief cause of their not coming to Agreement, to have been many hundred yeares agoe, the original cause of their breach, and opposition against the Latines; whereby you con∣found

the first occasion of the breach, and the present obstacle to the making it up, and reconciling them to∣gether, as if they were one, and the same thing; Now it is most manifest that the first occasion of the breach made by the Greeks from the Latine Church, was the Exception they took against the Latines, for adding the word Filioque, and from the Son, to the Nicene Creed; for Michael Patriarch of Constantinople, anno 1054. in time of Leo the 9. Pope, and Constantine the 10. Em∣perour, styled Monomachos, aspiring not onely in name and Title, as many of his predecessours had done before him, but in reality and effect to be universal Patriarch, proclaimed Leo, and all the Latines who ad∣hered to him to be Excommunicated, because contrary to the decree of the Ephesine Council, they had made an Addition to the Creed; so that the Roman Bishop being pretended by the Greeks to be thereby deposed from his Sea, The Primacie of the Church fell by Course, and right upon him, as being the next Patriarch, after the Bishop of Rome, which gave occasion to Nilus of acknowledging that Controversie about the procession of the holy Ghost, to have been the first occasion of the breach.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 119. But you say that when I have made the best of those Greeks, Armenians, Ethiopians, Protest∣ants; I cannot deduce them successively in all Ages till Christ, as a different Congregation of Christians from that which holds the Pope's Supremacie, which was your Proposition. Reply, I have oft told you we owne no universal Informing Head, but Christ, in Respect to him I have proved to you, that it is not my Interest or designe

to prove us or them, (a different Congregation from you as you are Christians) nor shall you tempt me to be so uncharitable, as to damn, or unchristen all Papists, as far as you do others, incomparably safer and better then your selves.

William Iohnson.

Num. 119. This is answered above, no Heretick e∣ver professed to separate from the Church, as it is Christian; for in so doing he must professe himself to be no Christian, which no Heretick ever did yet; for by professing himself no Christian, he falls into the sin of Apostacie, and becomes not an Heretick, but an A∣postate.

Mr. Baxter.

But as you are Papal, and set up a new informing Head. I have proved that you differ from all the an∣cient Churches, but yet that my Cause requireth me not to make this proof, but to call you to prove your own u∣niversal succession.

William Iohnson.

I have shewed above there must be alwayes some who Exercise visible Government, as ordinary Go∣vernours of the whole Church, and seeing a general Council is not the ordinary way of Governing the Church, there must be some one who is supreme in visi∣ble Government over the whole Church, this I affirm to be the Bishop of Rome, and seeing there must be some one, and you confesse the Roman Bishop to be

the highest in place, and honour, me thinks, even in your principles, he has a stronger claim to be supream in authority also, then any one singular person through the Church; now if we set up the Pope as a new in∣forming head over the whole Church (as you say we do) I should be much obliged, if you would please to nominate the first Pope whom we set up as such a head, who they were that set him up, and who withstood it as a noveltie; you cannot in your principles alleadge Bo∣niface the third, for the having his title, as you pre∣tend from Phocas, and Phocas having no power out of the Empire, could not give him any authority over the extra-imperial Pormies (no not so much as prece∣dency in place over all the extra-imperial Bishops, for what reasons had they to conform themselves to the Emperours orders, who had no authority over them) and consequently not over the whole Church, nor was the Emperour so foolish, to give more then he had power to give; now that Popes before Boniface's time had ju∣risdiction over the whole Empire, you are forc't to ac∣knowledge divers times in your reply, not being able o∣therwise to resolve my arguments: Phocas therefore neither made nor could make Boniface head over the whole Church, nor was he the first who set him up over all the Churches within the Empire. oblidge me there∣fore in nominating to me the first head so set up in your rejoynder to this: I have no obligation to prove my succession, my argument presses you to the proof, who though you made a bold essay to produce one Congregation of Christians perpetually visible, either denying and opposing the Popes universal supremacy or at least of such a nature in Church government as ren∣dered it inconsistent with it, and in this your present reply p. 92. you undertake the proof of such a visible

Congregation distinct in all ages from that which hold the said supremacy, yet being told by your adversa∣ry that none of the particular Congregations instanced and nominated by you in your former answer were per∣petually visible as distinct from that which held the Popes supremacy, in those two paragraphes you recoile and manifestly give up your cause, as not being able to perform, what you first undertooke.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 120. You adde your reason, because these before named were at first involved in your Congregati∣ons, and then fell off as dead branches. Reply, this is but an untruth in a most publique matter of fact.

William Iohnson.

Num. 120. This is your bare affirmation without proof, you nominate p. 23 your edit. the Armenians Greeks, Ethiopians, Indians, Protestants and no more. Now it is evident, by what I have said above, that the first Protestants, before their change were of that Con∣gregation which held the Popes supremacy, the Arme∣nians, and Greeks consented to it in the council of Florence, the Ethiopians and Indians I have proved to have reconciled themselves to the Bishop of Rome, since he publickely exercised, and claimed the said supremacy, ergo no one of those nominated by you, no nor all to∣gether have been a perpetually visible Congregation, distinct from that which held the Popes supremacy.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 121. All the truth is this, 1. those Indians Ethiopians Persians &c. without the Empire, never fell from you, as to subjection, as never being your subjects, prove that they were and you have done a greater won∣der then Baronius in all his annals.

William Iohnson.

Num. 121. I have proved it, out of the Arabick edition of the nicene canons, and from that very text of the council of Calcedon cap. 28 &c. which you use against us.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 122. The Greeks and all the rest within the Empire, without the Roman Patriarchate, are fallen from your communion (if renouncing it be a fall) but not from your subjection having given you but a pri∣macy, as Nilus shews, and not a governing power over them.

William Iohnson.

Num. 122. You your self in the insueing replyes, acknowledg a governing power over the Churches through the whole Empire, and consequently over Con∣stantinople, nay, you cannot deny the fact of Agape•••• o∣ver Anthymus Bishop of Constantinople, nor of Ce∣lestin over Nestorius &c. you are therefore as much ob∣liged to answer Nilus his argument, as I am: and Bell

hath saved us both a labour of answering him. 'tis true according to what you say of being subject, the Greeks hold now a subjection to the Pope; and sure if they professe subjection to him, they must professe themselves to be his subjects, now according to you, subjection may signifie no more then to be inferiour to another in place, and every subject has a superiour to whom he is subject, ergo they professe the Pope to be their superi∣our; which gives him even in your principles at least a precedency before them but Nilus, never granted they were in any proper sense subject to the Pope, but only inferiour in place to him, seeing therefore S. Gregory (as we shall see hereafter) declares the Bishops of Con∣stantinople and all other Bishops in the Church to be subject to him, and his sea, and the Greeks now ac∣knowledge no subjection to him, it is manifest, they are not only fallen from communion with him, but also from their subjection to him, for no man in proper speech can say that the Mayor of York professes sub∣jection to the Mayor of London, because he acknow∣ledges he is to take place of him in a publique meeting, nay by this meanes your Church of England, and Bishop of Canterbury giv••••ing primacy to the Pope, as much as the Greeks do, that is in precedency of place only, may & must be said according to you, not to have fallen from the subjection to the Roman Church which I believe will sound harsh in their ears.

Mr. Baxter.

Num. 123. The withering therefore was in the Roman branches if the corruptions of either part may be called a withering, you that are a lesser part of the Church may easily call your selves the tree, and the

greater part (two to one) the branches, but these beggings do but proclaime your necessities.

William Iohnson.

Num. 123. If the Roman Church have withered in this point, shew me when it begun to wither, in set∣ting up the Pope as supream, and (as I now told you) you will really oblige me; Is it not strange to hear you term my argument a begging the question, when you in the very same sentence, beg the question your self, for without any proof at all, you suppose there, (what is universally deny'd by us) that your selves, and al∣most all the rest of Hereticks, and Schismaticks now in the world, are parts of the Catholicke Church; for without inclusion of them, you could not affirm with a∣ny appearance of probability, those who oppose the Roman Church, to be twice as great as part of the Ca∣tholick Church, as are those that adhere to the Roman.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Fallacy 1.
• * 1.2

  Fallacy 2. Corruption 1.
• * 1.3

  Fallacy 3.
• * 1.4

  See p. 30. Bax. Ed••••tion.
• * 1.5

  Fallacy 4.
• (a) 1.6

  Make sense of this.
• * 1.7

  Corruption 2.
• * 1.8

  A Sancta Cla∣ra in Artic. An∣glic. problem. 15. p. 109, 110, &c.
• * 1.9

  Baxt. p. 13.
• * 1.10

  Baxt. p. 13.
• * 1.11

  Mat. 19.6.
• * 1.12

  Fallacy 5.
• * 1.13

  Fallacy 6.
• * 1.14

  Three non-proofs.
• * 1.15

  Fallacy 7.
• * 1.16

  See Stow and Sp••••ed, with the Statutes of Parliaments, and decrees of our English Councils, in and before the beginning of King H••••nry the eighths R••••ign of this matter.
• * 1.17

  Fallacy 8.
• * 1.18

  Part 2.
• * 1.19

  p. 37. Baxt. Edit.
• * 1.20

  Fallacy 8.
• * 1.21

  See my words Baxter, p. 38.
• * 1.22

  Fallacy 6. The word ever left out the thi••••d time.
• * 1.23

  See Baxt. p. 41.
• * 1.24

  See Baxt. p. 23.
• * 1.25

  See Baxt. p. 5.
• * 1.26

  Euseb. in Chro∣nic. Anno 22. Anton. Eutrop. lib. 8. Evagr. Id. c. 7.
• * 1.27

  ••••n. Flor. in li∣teris unionis, & de Armenorum concordia. Vide Plat. Naucler. Vola∣terranum, Chal∣cond. Emilium, Onuphrium, Genebrard. de Concilio Flor. See Iovius, Gen. Maseus I••••rri••••. in anno 1524.
• * 1.28

  S. Prosper, S. Leo, &c. infra citandi.
• * 1.29

  Non-proof.
• * 1.30

  Canon universalis Aethiop. Hoc est corpus sanctum honora∣tum, Vitale, domini & salvatoris nostri Iesu Christi, quod datum est in remissionem peccatorum vere sumentibus ipsum. Hic est san∣guis Domini & salvatoris nostri Iesu Christi sanctus, honoratus, ac vivificus, qui datus est in remissionem peccatorum & advitum consequendam, voce sumentibus eum. Dicit intra, divinum sacra∣mentum esse corpus quod assumpsit ex Maria Virgine. E•••• supra, dicit Sacerdos, hoc est corpus meum: Respondet populus, Amen, Amen, Amen, hoc est vere corpus tuum. Dein dicit sacerdos, Hic est calix sanguinis mei qui pro nobis effundetur pro redemptione multorum, &c.
• * 1.31

  Beda Histor. Ang. lib. 2. cap. 2.
• * 1.32

  See V. Bede Hist. Angl. l. 2. cap. 2.
• * 1.33

  Conc. Calced. in relat. ad Le∣onem.
• * 1.34

  V••••de infra.
• * 1.35

  N••••w S••••ct.
• * 1.36

  Vide Act. Conc. Nicen. et Ephes.
• * 1.37

  Theod. l. 1. c. 7. Mar. Victor. lib. 1. adv. Ari∣um. Euseb. l. 3. de vit•••• Con∣stannin. c. 7. Socrat. l. 1. c. 5.
• * 1.38

  Non-proof 5.
• * 1.39

  Tom. 1. Conc. p. 416.
• * 1.40

  Ibid. pag. 4••••5.
• * 1.41

  H••••b. 4.14.
• * 1.42

  H••••b. 6.20.
• * 1.43

  Fallacy 10.
• * 1.44

  Non-proof. 6.
• * 1.45

  Baxter p. 100.
• * 1.46

  D. Pro••••er. Carm. de I•••• g••••atis.
• * 1.47

  D•••• vocat. Gent. lib. 2. c. 6.
• * 1.48

  New Sect.
• * 1.49

  S. Le••••, Serm. 1. de Natal. Apo∣stol. Petr. & Paul.
• * 1.50

  S Leo. epist 82. ad A••••st••••sium Epis••••. ••••hess••••.
• * 1.51

  Non-proo•••• ••••.
• * 1.52

  V••••de Concil••••um Calced. in lite∣ris ad Leonem.
• * 1.53

  Can. Nicen. ••••. 6.
• * 1.54

  Socrat. l. 1. c. 6. Theodor. l. 1. c. 9.

  Conc. Nicen. Can. 6.
• * 1.55

  Ross. p. 99. in∣fra cita••••.
• * 1.56

  Canon 36. A∣rab. Edit.

  Dr. Heylin. Cos∣mograph. lib. 4. pag. 977. Edit. ultim.
• * 1.57

  Anno 263. S. Anthanas. de Sentent. Dionys. Idem in Com. de Synod.
• * 1.58

  Anno 337. Socrat. l. 4. c. 30.
• * 1.59

  Anno 404. Apud Pallad•••• Dialog.
• * 1.60

  Anno 407. D. Chrysost. e∣pist. ex Septem. Tom. 5. operum ejus. Extat eti∣am Tom. 1. epist. Rom. Pont. post Innoc••••nt. ep. 16. Anno 451.
• * 1.61

  Simplic••••us e∣pist. 17.
• * 1.62

  Anno 483.
• * 1.63

  Liberat. cap 18. Evagr. l. 3. c. 18 & s••••q.
• * 1.64

  Cod. Cresc••••ni, and Collect. re∣cusa. apud Ba∣ronium. Tom. 61 Liberat. c. 1••••.
• * 1.65

  Non-proof 8.
• * 1.66

  Con. Nicen. cap. 6.
• * 1.67

  Non-proof 9.
• * 1.68

  Ecclesia Roma∣na s••••mper ha∣buit primatum.
• * 1.69

  Fallacy 11.
• * 1.70

  Non-proof. 10
• * 1.71

  Vide infra.
• * 1.72

  Non-proof 11.
• a 1.73

  Vide titulum Conc. Nicen.
• b 1.74

  Conc. Chalcedon. Act. 16. ap. Bi∣nium. p. 464.
• c 1.75

  D. Aug. tom. 7. contra Denatist. lib. 2. cap. 13. — ut diu Concil. in suis quibusque regionibus diversa Statuta nuta∣••••rint, donec plenario totius orbis Concilio, quod saluberrimè sentie∣••••atur, etiam remo••••is dubitationibus ••••irmaretur — Hoc enim jam in ipsa totius orbis unitate discussum, consideratum, perfectum etque firmatum est. —loquitur de Concil. Niceno. Now it is evident, that S. Aug. by his totius orbis means totius orbis Chri∣stians, the whole Christian world, that is, the whole Church of Christ, as appears by a hundred places of his against the Do∣natiffs; when he sayes, they have separated themselves from the whole world, that is, from the whole visible Church: and this you confess to be true, pag. 229, 230, &c. of your Book.
• d 1.76

  Pro∣duce any one of them, who limits these Councils to the Em∣pires or denies them to have had power to oblige all Christians.
• e 1.77

  Anno 1 Elizabeth. cap. 1. Versus finem capitis.
• f 1.78

  Artic. 21. where by saying Some General Councils have erred, they suppose there have been General Councils in the Church, which had Authority out of the Empire: For those, as you confess, were onely National, or Imperial Councils.
• g 1.79

  D. Aug. tom. 7. de Ba∣ptism. cont. Donatist. lib. 2. cap. 3.
• h 1.80

  D. Aug. ibid. cap. 1. & cap. 4. & cap. 9. Sic ait, si autem Concilium ejus (Cypriani) attenditur, huic universae Ecclesiae posterius Concilium (Nicenum intelligit) praeponendum, cujus se membrum ostendebat, & ut se in totius corporis compage retinendâ caeteri imitarentur, saepiùs admon••••bat. Nam ut Concilia posteriora prioribus apud posteros praeponebat, & universum partibus semper jure optimo praeponitur.
• i 1.81

  Thus were the Arrians, Quartodecimans, Rebaptisers, Macedonians, Ne∣storians, Eutychians, even in Ethiopia and Armenia, &c. esteem∣ed ever since Hereticks, for resisting the Definitions of those Councils.
• k 1.82

  Canon universalis Ethiopum prays for the Fathers of the three First General Councils, and affirms they were gather∣ed for the defence of the right Faith: and not for those of the Fourth Council, because the Eutychian Heresie, which they hold, was condemned in the Council of Chalcedon. Epist. Ar∣men. primae ad Leon. Imperat. ubi se subjiciunt 4 primis Conciliis▪ & in aliâ Epist. ad cundem, idem faciunt Episcopi Armeniae Se∣cundae. apud Binium. pag. 535. Conc. Tom.
• * 1.83

  Baxt. p. 48.
• * 1.84

  Bernard. Lut∣semburg. de Al∣bigens. Vide e∣tiam S. Anton. 4 parte summae. Tit. 11 c. 7.
• * 1.85

  Acta Alex••••nd. 3. ap. Romuald. Episcop. Salern. in suo Chronico. & ap. Rogeri∣um in Epist. A∣lexand. & in Histor. suâ.
• * 1.86

  Vide supra.
• * 1.87

  Non-proof. 12.
• * 1.88

  Lib. 2. de Haeret. punit. c. 24. Haereticus etsi per Haeresim perdat fi∣dem, non tamen eo ipso est prorsus ab Ecclesiâ separatus, sed adhuc est par•••• illius corporis, & membrum ejus, &c. Et infra, Fa••••eor quidem, & meo quidem judicio negari non potest, Haereticum, esse partem Ecclesiae, & membrum illius, & non esse omnino ab illâ separatum, quia etsi fidem non habeat, habet tamen Characterem Baptismalem, per quem primum fa∣ctum est membrum Ecclesiae: qu•••• durante semper erit membrum illius.
• * 1.89

  See my second Part.
• † 1.90

  Non-proof 13.
• * 1.91

  Contra∣diction.