NOVELTY REPRESSED, In a Reply to Mr. BAXTER'S Answer to WILLIAM JOHNSON. WHEREIN The ecumenical Power of the four first General Councils is Vindicated, the Authority of Bishops asserted, the complete Hierarcy of Church Government established, his novel succession evacuated, and professed Heretics demonstrated to be no true parts of the visible Church of Christ.  
By WILLIAM JOHNSON.  
Prophanas vocum, i. e. dogmatum novitates devita, quas recipere, atque sectari numquam Catholicorum, semper vero Haereticorum fuit.  Lirinensis contra Haereses, c. 23, 24. etc. 
Retenta est Antiquitas, explosa Novitas.  Idem c. 10. 
PARISH, Printed for E. C. Anno 1661.   

The Preface.  
MEdusa sister to Euryale and Sthemione, and daughter of a sea-monster, ensnared by her beauty and golden tresses Neptune god of the Ocean, and with him polluted the Temple of Minerva, and had for issue Pegasus the winged Courser; Minerva that learned and Virgin Goddess in revenge of so foul an injury, metamorphosed each hair of Medusa's head into a serpent, and laid so heavy a Curse upon her, that every one whose eyes were so curious as fixedly to behold her, changed into stones: whereupon the Beldame Medusa took her flight into the Dorcades, islands in the Aethhiopic sea, and there raging like a hellish fury, made herself Queen and Generaless of a female army, her two sisters being the chief Commanders under her, wasting and depopulating all where they marched, with unheard of cruelty; The noble and valiant Captain Perseus covering his breast with a brazen shield of Minerva, marched undauntedly towards this hideous Monster, and discovering by the reflection she made in the brightness of his shield, while she and her brood of serpents were all asleep, at one blow cut off her head, and those of the serpents with it, and took it upon the point of his falchion with him into Africa; but such was the venom and pestilence of that enchanted head, that every drop of blood which fell from it turned into a serpent, whereby the whole coast of Africa was filled with snakes and vipers.  
This, though a fiction, seems to be a fit Emblem of Heresy. 
S. Greg. in job. lib. 35. cap. 34.  The sea whale or Monster, mother of Medusa, by reason of her immense bulk, and strength of body toweing herself over all other creatures in the Ocean; is Pride and Ambition, styled by Saint Austin the mother of heretics; 
Lib. 2. c. 3. contra lit. Parmen.  Medusa seducing the heart of inconstant Neptune with her youth and beauty, is a luxuriant wit priding itself in the invention of novelties in Religion: The violation of Minerva's Temple, the staining of the holy Church, with sordid tenets and practices; Pegasus the high flying thoughts of heretical spirits; Those snakes and serpents crawling from Medusa's head, and twisting themselves about her neck, gnawing and consuming not only one another, but the head which bore them; are wicked Heresies hatched in the brain, and nourished in the head of Arch-heretics, condemning and thwarting one another, by perpetual contrarieties, and still gnawing upon the Conscience which brought them forth. The Petrifying Metamorphosis wrought upon the curious spectators of Medusa, is the obdurateness of those hearts who open too broad an eye to the speculations of Heretics: The wasting and destroying what ever opposed that female army, the horrible rebellions, civil wars, distractions, desolations caused by Heretics, both in ancient, and in our present ages: The undaunted Perseus, the supreme Bishop of the Catholic Church, guarded with the shield of Faith, and armed with the sword of Saint Peter, cuts off the serpentine head of Medusa, errors and heresies with his definitions, decrees, censures, and anathemas; the drops of blood distilling from Medusa's head, even after it was struck dead and divided from her shoulders, turning into so many snakes and adders, the pullulation of new divisions, and subdivisions of Heresies, spreading themselves all o-over, and infesting the countries where they fall with implacable dissensions and tumults each against other; This is the sad story of Medusa, Emblemised. And yet happy had been our Nation, and many others with it, had it rested in the nature of an Emblem, and been no more than a bare speculation: But as it hath fallen heavy upon several Countries in all precedent ages, so in this and the former has it almost crushed ours, and many adjacent to us: the histories are too too fresh in our memories, and the late pressures too broad before our eyes, to need recital; and yet we might hope to obliterate their foul Characters in time; were there not new drops distilling from Medusa's ghastly head, and perpetuating that generation of vipers, which took their first birth from it.  
Force of Reason and Authority had devested our adversaries of both, and so enervated their Principles that they had no consistency; when behold a new brood of unheard of Novelties, dropping from Medusa's brain, rise-up to re-establish their dying cause; Sects and Schisms are united, as parts to the Catholic Church, Ecumenical Councils are despoiled of their ancient Authority, Ecclesiastical Decrees pined up within the Circuit of the Roman Empire, true Christian and Divine Faith made consistent in the same soul with Heresy, ancient Theological Definitions questioned and reversed, etc. And those Principles once advanced, (which both Parties condemned and execrated as Diabolical) our Arguments are frustrated, and we put upon a necessity to prove what we and all Christians supposed hitherto as undeniable Truths.  
This is the task which Mr. Richard Baxter, inventor of the said Novelties, hath put upon me; a man, who had his fecundity of invention, been equallized with a solidity in Learning, might have proved as offensive, as he is now invective against the Roman Church.  
My present work therefore, is not so much a defence of mine own, as of the common cause of Christians; against those young Meducean Serpents, new bred Novelties hissing against it; so that it may be equally entitled CHISTIANITY MAINTAINED, and NOVELTY REPRESED. Yet I have made choice of the latter, as not daring to assume a Title to any writing of mine, which a Person so far excelling me in all respects has prefixed to his own, in answer to another bold oppugner of Christian Principles: Whosoever therefore shall please to peruse this present Tract, shall, I hope, find the whole controversy laid open so plain before his eyes, that he needs no more than to parallel each answer to its respective objection in their several Paragraphs; for to this end I have inserted the whole first part of Mr. baxter's last Answer, by Sections verbatim, and to each applied my rejoinder; that neither the Reader may be put to the cost or trouble of perusing Mr. baxter's Book, nor he himself have any occasion to complain that I accuse him, to say any thing which he expresses not in his own Treatise: For the same end also, I have reprinted here the whole precesse of the argument, with all our precedent respective Answers and Replies, that the Reader may have all ready at hand, for a more facile understanding of the whole matter. Yet in my Answer to his second part, in proof of the perpetual visibility of the Protestant Church, I have not inserted his Text, both by reason it would have●● rendered the tome improportionable, and that he often spends many Leaves in proving Propositions, which I deny not, so that it had been to no purpose at all to insert them; what I found material in that part, I have recited and answered, and remit the judgement and censure of the whole work to any impartial Reader. If Mr. Baxter will venture upon an Answer, I expect as fair a proceeding from him, as he has here from me; to insert by Sections as I have done my Text, and apply a particular Answer to each Section; for otherwise all impartial eyes will see that he flies the light, and seeks corners to hid himself, and takes a new occasion both to pervert my words, distort my sense, and make me say what he pleases, when he cannot answer what I say, as he has done more than once in this his Answer.  
The whole issue of the work, is not only a discovery of the weakness and d●●ssatisfaction of this his Answer, but withal, an enervating of the main Principles, Arguments, and Instances against the Roman Church in his other Works, and particularly in his KEY, this against Johnson being a Receul, or Epitome of what he has more largely treated in his former Invectives: so that the Author hopes, the serious perusal of this will so far rectify the judgement of his Readers, that they will be enabled to see the vanity and fallacy, of all he has with so much labour and bitterness given out against us. All we have to say or do in relation to his Person, is earnestly to beg of the God of mercy, pardon and forgiveness for him for what is past, and a new beam of light from heaven to guide and direct him for the future, and bring him into that saving way, wherein he may attain unto a never ending felicity.   

A Brief Advertisement to the READER.  
THat the Reader may be sufficiently informed, how this controversy took its rise and progress, he may please to take notice, That Mr. Jonson's Argument was first sent to Mr. Baxter concerning the necessity of being a member of the Roman Church to obtain salvation; next Mr. Baxter sent back an Answer to the said Argument, and thereupon Mr. Johnson sent a Reply to Mr. Baxters' Answer. Thus far the whole Process is comprised in Mr. Baxters' Edition, from page 1. to page 66. which I have here reprinted Word for Word, that the Reader may have a full view of the whole Controversy, and have at hand the matter to which Mr. Baxter framed his last Answer, to the end that this rejoinder to it may be the better understood, and the force of it more fully examined, and weighed by the judicious Peruser of this Tract: Mr. Baxter therefore sets down Mr. Jonson's Argument, Mr. Baxters Answer, and Jonson's Reply in this manner following.   

Mr. johnsons' first PAPER.  
THe Church of Christ, wherein only Salvation is to be had, never was nor is any other than those Assemblies of Christians, who were united in Communion and obedience to S. Peter in the beginning since the Ascension of Christ. And ever since to his lawful Successors, the Bishops of Rome, as to their chief Pastor.  

Proof.  
Whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ, acknowledges S. Peter and his lawful Successors the Bishops of Rome, ever since the Ascension of Christ, to have been, and now to be by the Institution of Christ, their chief Head and Governor on earth in matters belonging to the soul, next under Christ.  
But there is no salvation to be had out of that Congregation of Christians, which is now the true Church of Christ.  
Ergo, There is no salvation to be had out of that Congregation of Christians which acknowledges S. Peter and his lawful Successors the Bishops of Rome ever to have been since the Ascension of Christ; and now to be by the Institution of Christ their chief Head and Governor on earth in matters belonging to the soul next under Christ.  
The Minor is clear; For all Christians agree in this, that to be saved, it is necessary to be in the true Church of Christ; that only being his mystical Body, Spouse and Mother of the faithful, to which must belong all those who ever have been, are, or shall be saved.  
The Major I prove thus.  
Whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ, hath been always visible since the time of Christ, either under persecution, or in peace and flourishing.  
But no Congregation of Christians hath been always visible since the time of Christ, either under persecution or in peace and flourishing, save that only which acknowledges S. Peter and his lawful successors, the Bishops of Rome, ever to have been since the Ascension of Christ; and now to be by Christ's Institution their chief Head and Governor on earth, in matters belonging to the soul, next under Christ.  
Ergo, Whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ, acknowledges S. Peter, and his lawful successors the Bishops of Rome ever to have been since the Ascension of Christ; and now to be by Christ's Institution their chief Head and Governor on earth, in matters belonging to the soul, next under Christ.  
The Major is proved thus:  
Whatsoever Congregation of Christians hath always had visible Pastors and people united, hath always been visible either under persecution, or in peace and flourishing.  
But whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the the true Church of Christ, hath always had visible Pastors and People united.  
Ergo, Whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ hath always been visible, either under persecution, or in peace and flourishing.  
The Major of this last Syllogism is evident, for seeing a visible Church is nothing but a visible Pastor and people united: where there have always been visible Pastors and people united, there hath always been a visible Church.  
The Minor I prove from Ephesians, cap. 4. ver. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, etc.  
Where S. Paul says, that Christ had instituted, that there should be Pastors and Teachers in the Church for the work of the Ministry, and preserving the people under their respective charges from being carried away with every wind of doctrine, etc. which evidently shows those Pastors must be visible, seeing the work of the Ministry, which is Preaching, and Administration of Sacraments, and governing their flocks, are all external and visible actions. And this shows likewise, that those Pastors and People must be always visible, because they are to continue from Christ's Ascension, until we all meet together in the unity of faith, etc. which cannot be before the day of judgement.  
Neither can it be said (as some say) that this promise of Christ is only conditional, since to put it to be so without evident Reason, giveth scope to every one at his pleasure to make every other promise of Christ to be conditional. And so we shall be certain of nothing that Christ hath promised, neither that there shall always be a visible or invisible Church, nor any Church at all; no nor of Judgement, nor of Eternal life, or of the Resurrection of the dead, etc. for one may say with as much ground as this is said, that some conditions were included in all those promises, which being not fulfilled, hinders the execution of them.  
There remains only, to prove the Minor of the second Syllogism, viz. That no Congregation of Christians hath been always visible, etc. save that which acknowledges S. Peter and his lawful successors, etc. to be their chief Head and Governor, etc. next under Christ.  
This Minor I prove, by obliging the answerers to nominate any Congregation of Christians, which always till this present time, since Christ, hath been visible, either under persecution, or in peace and flourishing, save that only which acknowledges S. Peter, etc. ut supra.  
Sir,  
To comply with your desires of brevity, and of confining myself to half a sheet of paper; I send you at present only one Argument, which being fully discussed, shall be followed by others, God willing. To this as to all the rest of my Arguments, which may hereafter be urged: I require a Categorical and strict Syllogistical Answer in Form, by Concedo, Nego, Distinguo, Omitto, Transeat. And the particular Propositions specified, to which the Respondents apply any of them; and no more then precisely thus, neither adding Amplifications, Reasons, Proofs, etc. of their own out of form, and that this may be done with all convenient speed. To the place of Scripture, Ephes. 4. etc. is also required a Categorical answer to what is precisely pressed in it, without directing the Discourse to other things: And what is answered otherwise, I shall not esteem an Answer, but an Effugium, or declining of the difficulty: By this method exactly observed, Truth will easily and speedily be made manifest; and your desires of Brevity will be punctually complied with. I also desire, that the Respondent or Respondents will (as I do to this) subscribe his or their name or names to their answers, so often as any are by him or them returned, with the day of the month when returned:  
Decemb. 9 1658. William johnson.    

The Answer to the first PAPER.  
I received yours, and writ this Answer, jan. 4. 1658. Sir,  
WHoever you are, a serious debate with so sober a Disputant, is to me an exceeding acceptable employment: I shall not, I hope, give you any cause to say, that I decline any difficulties, or balk your strength, or transgress the part of a Respondent. But because, 1. You have not (as you ought to have done) explained the terms of your Thesis. 2. And have made your Propositions so long. 3. And have so cunningly lapped up your fallacies; your Respondent is necessitated to be the larger in distinction and explication. And seeing you are so instant with me for strictness, you thereby oblige yourself, if you will be ingenuous, to make only the learned, and not any ignorant men the judges of our dispute: because you know that to the unlearned a bare Nego signifieth nothing: but when such have read your Arguments at length, they will expect as plain and large a confutation, or judge you to be in the right for speaking most.  
TO your Argument. 1. Your conclusion containeth not your Thesis, or Question. And so you give up your cause the first step, and make a new one. It should have contained your Question in terms, and it doth not so much as contain it in the plain sense; so much difference is there between [Assemblies of Christians united, etc.] and [Congregation of Christians] and between [Salvation or the Church, never was in any other than those Assemblies] and [no Salvation out of that Congregation;] as I shall show you: besides other differences which you may see.  
Ad Majorem Resp. 1. By [Congregation] you mean, either the whole Catholic Church united in Christ, or some particular Congregation, which is but part of that whole. In the latter sense, your Subject hath a false supposition, viz. that a part is the whole; and your Minor will be false. And your [whatsoever Congregation of Christians] seems to distinguish that from some other excluded Congregation of Christians that is no part of the Catholic Church, which is a supposing the chief part of the Question granted you, which we deny. We know no universal Congregation of Christians but one, which containeth all particular Congregations and Christians, that univocally deserve that name.  
2. Either you mean that [this whole Congregation or true Church acknowledgeth] the Popes Sovereignty, or else [that some part of it doth acknowledge it.] The former I deny, and challenge any man living to prove: If it be [part only] that you mean, then either [the greater part] or [the lesser]: that it is the greater, I as confidently almost deny: for it is against the common knowledge of men acquainted with the world, etc. If you mean [the lesser part] you shall see anon that it destroys your cause.  
3. Either you speak de Ecclesia quae talis, or de Ecclesia qua talis: and mean that this [acknowledgement] is essential to it, or at least an inseparable property, or else that it is a separable accident. The latter will do you no good: the former I deny. In sum: I grant that a small corrupt part of the Catholic Church doth now acknowledge the Pope to be Christ's Vicar, (or the Vice-christ;) but I deny, 1. That the whole doth so (which is your great cause.) 2. Or the Major part. 3. Or any Congregation through all ages, (though if they had, it would do you no good.) 4. Or that it is done by any upon just ground, but is their corruption.  
Ad Minorem, Resp. 1. If you mean any [part] of the Universal Church by [that Congregation which is now the true Church] I deny your Minor: If [the whole] I grant it. 2. You say [all Christians agree] in it, etc. Resp. I think all Protestants or near all, do: but Franciscus à sancta Clara hath copiously told us (in Artic. Anglic.) that most of your own Doctors are for the salvation of Infidels; and then either you take Infidels for your Church membrs, or your Doctors for no Christians, or you play not fair play to tell us so gross an untruth, that all Christians are agreed in it.  
To your Conclusion. Resp. 1. Either you mean that [there is no Salvation to be had out of that Universal Church, whose part (a minor corrupt part) acknowledgeth the Pope's Sovereignty] or else [that there is no Salvation to be had out of that Universal Church which wholly acknowledgeth it.] or else [that there is no Salvation to be had out of that part of the Universal Church which acknowledgeth it.] In the first sense I grant your conclusion (if really you are part of the Church.) There is no Salvation to be had out of Christ's Universal Church, of which you are a small corrupted part. In the second sense I told you we deny the supposition in the subject. In the third sense; I deny the sequel; non sequitur, because your Major Proposition being false de Ecclesia universali, the conclusion must be false de parte ista, as excluding the rest.  
But to the unskilful or unwary Reader your conclusion seemeth to import, that [the being in such a Church which acknowledgeth the Pope's Sovereignty, as it is such a Church, is necessary to Salvation] and so [that the persons acknowledgement is neccesary.] But it is a fallacia accidentis cunningly leapt up, that is the life of your imported cause. That part of the Universal Church doth hold to the Pope's Sovereignty, is per accidens; and could you prove that the whole Church doth so (which you are unlike to do) I would say the like. And that your fallacy may the better appear; I give you some examples of such like Sophisms.  
[Whatsoever Nation is the true Kingdom of Spain, is proud and cruel against Protestants: But there is no protection there due to any that are not of that Kingdom: therefore there is no protection due to any that are not proud and cruel.] Or [whatsoever Nation is the true Kingdom of France acknowledgeth the Pope: but no protection is due from the Governors to any that are not of that Kingdom: therefore no protection is due to any that acknowledge not the Pope.] Or [what ever Nation is the Kingdom of Ireland in the days of Queen Elizabeth, was for the Earl of Tyrone: but there was no right of Inheritance for any that were not of that Nation: therefore there was no right of Inheritance for any that was not for the Earl of Tyrone.] Or suppose that you could have proved it of all the Church. If you had lived four hundred years after Christ, you might as well have argued thus. [Whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ, is against kneeling in adoration on the Lords days. But there is no salvation to be had out of that Congregation of Christians, which is now the true Church of Christ: therefore there is no salvation to be had out of that Congregation which is against kneeling on the Lord's day, etc.] But yet, 1. There was Salvation to be had in that Congregation without being of that opinion. 2. And there is now Salvation to be had in a Congregation that is not of that opinion, as you will confess.  
Or [whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ, doth hold the Canticles and the Epistle to Philemon to be Canonical Scripture, (and so have done, etc.) But there is no Salvation to be had out of the true Church: therefore there is no Salvation to be had out of that Congregation which holdeth the Canticles and Epistle to Philemon to be Canonical Scripture.] But yet, 1. Salvation is to be had in that Church without holding it. 2. And its possible hereafter a Church may deny those two books, and yet you will think Salvation not thereby overthrown. This is but to show your fallacy from a corrupt accident, and indeed but of a part of the Church, and a small part.  
Now to your proof of the Major. Resp. ad Major. The present matter of the Church was not visible in the last Generation, for we were not then born: but the same form of the Church was then existent in a visible Matter, and their Profession was visible or audible, though their faith itself was invisible. I will do more than you shall do, in maintaining the constant visibility of the Church.  
Ad minorem. 1. If you mean that no Congregation hath been always visible [but that Universal Church whose lesser corrupt part acknowledges] the Popes Sovereignty, I grant it. For besides [the whole containing all Christians as the parts] there can be no other. If you mean [save that part which acknowledgeth] you contradict yourself, because a part implieth other parts. If you mean [save that Universal Church, all whose members (or the most) acknowledge it], there is no such subject existent. 2. I distinguish of Visibility: It's one thing to be a visible Church, that is, visible in its essentials; and another thing to be visible quoad hoc, as to some separable accident. [The Universal Church] was ever visible; because their Profession of Christianity was so, and the persons professing: But [the acknowledgement of the Vice-christ] was not always visible, no not in any parts, much less in the whole. And if it had, it was but a separable accident, (if your disease be not incurable) that was visible: and therefore, 1. It was not necessary to Salvation, nor a proper mark of the Church. 2. Nor can it be so for the time to come.  
I need to say no more to your conclusion. Your Argument is no better than this, [whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ, hath been always visible since the time of Christ: But no congregation of Christians hath been so visible, save only that which condemneth the Greeks, which hath a College of Cardinals to choose the Popes, which denieth the cup to the laity, which forbiddeth the reading of Scripture in a known tongue without licence, etc. Therefore whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ, hath all these]; 1. In a corrupt part it hath. 2. But it had not always. 3. And may be cured hereafter.  
To your proof of the Major: 1. I grant your Major.  
2. Ad minorem. 1. Either you mean [Universal Pastors] each one, or some one having charge and Government of the [whole Church,] or you mean, [unfixed Pastors having an indefinite charge of Preaching and Guiding when they come and have particular calls and opportunities] or you mean [the fixed Pastors of particular Churches] In the first sense your Minor is false, the Catholic Church was never so united to any Universal Head but Christ: no one of the Apostles governed the rest, and the whole Church, much less any since their time. In the second sense, I grant that the Church hath ever had Pastors since the Ascension. In the third sense, I grant that some parts, or other of the Catholic Church, have ever had fixed Pastors of Congregations since the first settling of such Pastors. But any one particular Congregation may cease to have such Pastors, and may cease itself: And Rome hath been long without any true Pastors; and therefore was then no such visible Church.  
2. If by [Congregation] you mean not the Universal Church but [a part], or if you mean it of [all the parts of the Universal Church] I deny your Minor: Communities of Christians, and particular persons have been and may be without any Pastors, to whom they are united or subject. The Indians that died in the faith while Frumentius and Edesius were there preaching, before they had any Pastor, were yet Christians and saved: If a Lay man convert one, or a thousand, (and you will say that he may baptise them) and they die before they can have a Pastor, or ever hear of any to whom they own subjection, they are nevertheless saved, as members of the Church; And if all the Pastors in a Nation were murdered or banished, the people would not cease to be Christians and members of the Church. Much less if the Pope were dead or deposed, or a vacancy befell his seat, would all the Catholic Church be annihilated, or cease.  
To your Confirmation of the Major [that a visible Church is nothing but a Visible Pastor, and people united] I answer: 1. It's true of the Universal Church, as united in Christ, the great Pastor, but not as united in a Vice-Christ or humane head. 2. It is true of a particular Political or organised Church, as united to their proper Pastors. 3. But it is not true of every Community of Christians who are a part of the Universal Church. A company converted to Christ, are members of the Universal Church, (though they never heard of a Pope at Rome) before they are united to Pastors of their own.  
The Proof of the Minor from Ephes. 4. I grant as aforesaid: The Text proveth that Pastors the Church shall have: I disclaim the vain Objection [of Conditionality in the Promise] which you mention. But it proves not, 1. That the Church shall have an Universal Monarch or Vice-Christ, under Christ. 2. Nor that every Member of the Universal Church, shall certainly be a member of a particular Church, or ever see the face of Pastor, or be subject to him.  
You say next [There remains only to prove the Minor of the second Syllogism, Viz. That no Congregation of Christians hath been always visible but that which acknowledges, etc.] This is the great point which all lieth on: The rest hath been all nothing, but a cunning shooing horn to this. Prove this, and prove all: Prove not this, and you have lost your time.  
You say [The Minor I prove, by obliging the answerers to nominate any Congregation of Christians which always till this present time since Christ hath been visible— save that only which acknowledges, etc.] And have I waited all this while for this? You prove it by obliging me to prove the contrary. Ridiculous! sed quo jure? 1. Your undertaken form of arguing obligeth you to prove your Minor: You cannot cast your Respondent upon proving and so arguing, and doing the Opponents part. 2. And in your Postscript you presently forbidden it me; You require me to hold to a Concedo, Nego, Distinguo, Omitto, Transeat; threatening that else you will take it for an Effugium. And I pray you tell me in your next, to which of these doth the nomination or proof of such a Church as you describe belong? Plainly, you first slip away when you should prove your Minor, and then oblige me to prove ehe contrary, and then tell me, if I attempt it, you'll take it for an Effugium. A good cause needs not such dealing as this: which me thinks you should be loath a learned man should hear of. 3. Your interest also in the Matter (as well as your office as Opponent) doth oblige you to the proof For though you make a Negative of it, you may put it in other terms at your pleasure. It is your main work to prove [that all the members of the Universal Church have in all ages held the Pope's Sovereignty or Universal Headship.] Or [the whole Visible Church hath held it] Prove this, and I will be a Papist; you have my promise: You affirm, and you must prove. Prove a Catholic Church, at least that in the Major part was of that mind: (though that would be nothing to prove the condemnation of the rest.) If you are an impartial enquirer after truth, fly not when you come to the setting too. I give you this further evident reason why you cannot oblige me to what you here impose; 1. Because you require me to prove the Visibility of a Church which held not your point of Papacy; and so put an unreasonable task upon me about a Negative: Or else I must prove that they held the contrary, before your opinion was started: And it is the Catholic Church that we are disputing about; so that I must prove this Negative of the Catholic Church. 2. It is you that lay the great stress of Necessity on your Affirmative, more than we do on the Negative; you say that no man can be saved without your Affirmative [that the Pope is the universal Head and Governor] But we say not that no man can be saved that holdeth not our Negative, [that he is not the Vice-Christ] For one that hath the plague or leprosy may live. Therefore it is you that must prove that all the Catholic Church was still of your mind. 3. And it is an Accident, and but an Accident of a smaller corrupted part of the Catholic Church that you would oblige me to prove the Negation of; and therefore it is utterly needless to my proof of a visible Catholic Church. I will without it prove to you a successive Visibility of the Catholic Church, from the Visibility of its Essential or Constitutive parts (of which your Pope is none.) I will prove a successive visible Church that hath still professed faith in God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and been united to the Universal Head, and had particular Pastors, some fixed, some unfixed, and held all essential to a Christian. And proving this, I have proved the Church of which I am a member. To prove that England hath been so long a Kingdom, requireth no more but to prove the two Essential parts, King and Subjects, to have so long continued united. It requireth not that I prove that it either had or opposed a Vice-King. This is our plain case; if a man have a botch on one of his hands, it is not needful in order to my proving him a man heretofore, that I prove he was born and bred without it: so be it I prove that he was born a man, it sufficeth. Nor is it needful that I prove the other hand always to have been free, in order to prove it a member of the body: It sufficeth that I prove it to have been still a hand.  
I do therefore desire you to perform your work, and prove that [no Congregation hath been still visible, but such as yours] or that [the whole Catholic Church hath ever since the ascension held a Humane Universal Governor under Christ,] or else I shall take it as a giving up your cause as indefensible. And observe, if you shall prove only that a part of the Catholic Church still held this (which you can never do) then, 1. You will make the contrary opinion as Consistent with salvation as yours. For the rest of the Catholic Church is savable. 2. And then you well allow me to turn your Argument against yourself as much as it is against us (and so cast it away.) e. g [what ever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ, hath been always Visible: But no Congregation of Christians hath been always Visible, but that which quoad partem denieth the Pope's universal Headship; therefore whatever Congregation of Christians is the true Church, denieth the Pope's universal Headship.  
Well! but for all this (supposing you will do your part) I will fail you in nothing that's reasonable, which I can perform. A Catholic Church in all ages that was against the Pope, in every member of it, I hope I cannot show you; because I hope that you are members, though corrupt. But you shall have more than a particular Congregation, or a hundred.  
1. At this present, two or three parts of the Catholic Church is known to be against your Universal Monarchy. The Greeks, Armenians, Etheopians, etc. besides the Protestants. 2. In the last age there were as many or more. 3. I the former ages till An. D. 1000 there were near as many, or rather many more. For more be fallen off in Tenduè, Nubia, and other parts then the Protestants that came in. 4. About the year 600. there were many more, incomparably; and I think then, but at least of 400. years after Christ I never yet saw valid proof of one Papist in all the world, that is, one that was for the Pope's Universal Monarchy or Vice-Christ-ship. So that most of the Catholic Church (about three parts to one) hath been against you to this day; and all against you for many hundred years. Can I name but a Nation against you, I should think I had done nothing; much less if I cited a few men in an age. 5. And of all those of Ethiopia, India, etc. that are without the verge and awe of the Ancient Roman Empire, never so much as gave the Pope that Primacy of dignity, which those within the Empire gave him, when he was chief, as the Earl of Arundel is of the Earls of England that governeth none of them, and as the Lord Chancellor may be the chief judge, that hath no power in alieno foro, or as the eldest justice is chief in the County, and on the Bench, that ruleth not the rest. Mistake not this Primacy for Monarchy, nor the Roman Empire for the world▪ and you can say nothing.  
At present, ad hominem, I give you sufficient proof of this succession. As you use to say that the present Church best knew the judgement of the former age, and so on to the head, and so Tradition beareth you out: I turn this unresistibly against you. The far greatest part of Christians in the world that now are in possession of the doctrine contrary to your Monarchy, tell us that they had it from their Fathers, and so on. And as in Councils so with the Church Real, the Major part (three to one) is more to be credited then the Minor part; especially when it is a visible self-advancement that the Minor part insisteth on. And were not this enough, I might add, That your Western Church itself in its Representative Body at Constance and Basil, hath determined that not the Pope, but a General Council is the chief Governor under Christ; and that this hath been still the judgement of the Church, and that its Heresy in whoever that hold the contrary. 7. And no man can prove that one half or tenth part of your people called Papists are of your opinion: For they are not called to profess it by words: and their obedience is partly forced, and partly upon their principles; some obeying the Pope as their Western Patriarch of chief dignity; and some and most doing all for their safety and peace: Their outward acts will prove no more.  
And now Sir, I have told you what Church of which we are members, hath been visible; yea and what part of it hath opposed the Vice-christ of Rome. This I delayed not an hour after I received yours, because you desired speed. Accordingly I crave your speedy return; and entreat you to advise with the most learned men (whether jesuites or others) of your party in London that think it worth their thoughts and time: not that I have any thoughts of being their equal in learning, but partly because the case seemeth to me so exceeding palpable, that I think it will suffice me to supply all my defects against the ablest men on earth, or all of them together of your way; and principally, because I would see your strength, and know the most that can be said, that I may be rectified if I err (which I suspect not) or confirmed the more if you cannot evince it, and so may be true to God's Truth, and my own soul.  
Rich. Baxter.   

Mr. johnsons' second PAPER.  
SIR,  
IT was my happiness to have this Argument transmitted into your learned and quiet hands; which gratefully returns as fair a measure as it received from you; that Anim●●sities on both sides reposed, Truth may appear in its full splendour, and seat itself in the Centre of both our hearts.  
To your first Exception.  
My Thesis was sufficiently made clear to my friend, who was concerned in it; and needed no explication in its address to the learned.  
To your second Exception.  
My Propositions were long, that my Argument (as was required) might be very short, and not exceed the quantity of half a sheet; which enforced me to penetrate many Syllogisms into one; and by that means in the first not to be so precise in form, as otherwise I should have been.  
To your third Exception.  
Seeing I required nothing but Logical form in answering, I conceive that regard was more to be had amongst the learned to that, then to the errors of the vulgar: that whilst ignorance attends to most words, learning might attend to most reason.  
To your fourth Exception.  
My Argument contains not precisely the terms of my Thesis: because, when I was called upon to hasten my Argument, I had not then at hand my Thesis. Had I put more in my Thesis, than I prove in my Argument, I had been faulty; but proving more than my Thesis contained (as I clearly do) no body hath reason to find fault with me, save myself. The real difference betwixt Assemblies of Christians, and Congregations of Christians, and betwixt Salvation is only to be had in those Assemblies, and Salvation is not to be had out of that Congregation, I understand not: seeing all particular Assemblies of true Christians, must make one Congregation.  
To your Answer to my first Syllogism.  
He who distinguishes Logically the terms of any proposition, must not apply his distinction to some one part of the term only, but to the whole term, as it stands in the proposition distinguished. Now in my proposition I affirm, that the Congregation of Christians I speak of there, is such a Congregation, that it is the true Church of Christ, that is, (as all know) the whole Catholic Church: and you distinguish thus, That I either mean by Congregation the whole Catholic Church, or only some part of it: as if one should say, Whatsoever Congregation of men is the Commonwealth of England, and another in answer to it should distinguish, either by Congregation of men you mean the whole Common— wealth, or some part of it, when all men know, that by the Commonwealth of England, must be meant the whole Commonwealth: for no part of it is the Commonwealth of England.  
Again, you distinguish, that some things are Essentials, or Necessaries, and others accidents, which are acknowledged or practised in the Church. Now to apply this distinction to my Proposition, you must distinguish that which I say is acknowledged to have been ever in the Church by the Institution of Christ, either to be meant of an Essential, or an Accident; when all the world knows that whatsoever is acknowledged to have been ever in the Church by Christ's Institution, cannot be meant of any Accidental thing, but of a necessary, unchangeable, and essential thing, in Christ's true Church. If one should advance this proposition, Whatsoever Congregation is the true Church of Christ, acknowledges the Eucharist ever to have been by Christ's Institution, a proper Sacrament of the new Law: and another should distinguish (as you do my proposition) This may be meant either of an Essential or Accidental thing to Christ's true Church: Seeing whatsoever is acknowledged to have been always in Christ's Church and instituted by Christ, cannot be acknowledged but as necessary and essential to his Church. If therefore my Major, as the terms lie expressed in it, be true, it should have been granted, if false, it should have been denied. But no Logic allows that it should be distinguished into such different members, whereof one is expressly excluded in the very terms of the Proposition. These distinctions therefore, though learned and substantial in themselves, yet were they here unseasonable, and too illogical to ground an answer in form (as you ground yours) still insisting upon them in your address almost to every proposition. Hence appears first, that I used no fallacy at all ex Accident; seeing my proposition could not be verified of an accident. Secondly, that all your instances of Spain, France, etc. which include Accidents, are not apposite; because your propositions as they lie, have no term which excludes Accidental Adjuncts, as mine hath.  
To the proof of my Major. Syl. 2.  
You seem to grant the Major of my second Syllogism; not excepting any thing material against it.  
To my Minor.  
You fall again into the former distinctions, now disproved and excluded, of the meaning of Congregation, etc. in my Proposition, and would have me to understand determinately either the whole Catholic Church, or some part of it, (and so make four terms in my Syllogism:) whereas in my Minor, Congregation of Christians is taken generically, and abstracts, as an universal from all particulars. I say no Congregation, which is an universal negative; and when I say, none, Save that Congregation which acknowledges Saint Peter, etc. the term Congregation supposes for the same whole Catholic Church mentioned in my former Syllogism, but expresses it under a general term of Congregation in confuso; as I express Homo, when I say he is Animal, a man, when I say he is a living creature, but only generically, or in confuso. Now should I have intended determinately either the whole Catholic Church, or any part of it, I should have made an inept Syllogism, which would have run thus. Whatsoever true Church of Christ is now the true Church of Christ, hath been always visible, &c But no true Church of Christ hath been always visible, save the true Church of Christ, which acknowledges Saint Peter, etc. Ergo, whatsoever true Church of Christ, is now the true Church acknowledges Saint Peter, etc. which would have been idem per idem; for every one knows that the true Church of Christ, is now the true Church of Christ. But speaking, as I do in abstractive and generical terms, I avoid this absurdity, and frame a true Syllogism.  
Now my meaning in this Minor could be no other than this, which my words express; That the Congregation, that is, the whole Congregation acknowledges Saint Peter, etc. and is visible, etc. and not any part, great or small of it. For when I say, the Parliament of these Nations doth, or hath enacted a Statute, who would demand of me, whether I meant the whole Parliament, or some determinate part of it? You should therefore have denied, not thus distinguished my Minor, quite against the express words of it. What you say again of Essentials and Accidents, is already refuted; and by that also your Syllogism, brought by way of instance. For your Proposition doth not say, that the Church of Rome acknowledges those things were always done, and that by Christ's Institution, as my Proposition says she acknowledges Saint Peter and his Successors.  
To my third Syllogism.  
Granting my Major, you distinguish the term Pastors in my Minor, into particular and universal, fixed and unfixed, etc. I answer, that the term Pastors (as before Congregation) signifies determinately not one of these but generically and in confuso all; and so abstracts from each of them in particular, as the word Animal abstracts from homo and brutum. Neither can I mean some parts of the Church only had Pastors; for I say, whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ, hath always had visible Pastors and People united. Now the Church is not a part but the whole Church, that is both the whole body of the Church, and all particular Churches the parts of it. And hence is solved your argument of the Indians, of people converted by lay-men, when particular Pastors are dead, etc. For those were subjects of the chief Bishop alone, till some inferior Pastors were sent to them. For when they were taught the Christian Doctrine, in the explication of that Article, I believe the holy Catholic Church, they were also taught, that they being people of Christ's Church, must subject themselves to their lawful Pastors, this being a part of the Christian doctrine, Heb. 13. who though absent in body, may yet be present in spirit with them, as Saint Paul saith of himself, 1 Cor. 5.3.  
Your Answer to the confirmation of my Major seems strange. For I speak of visible Pastors, and you say 'tis true of an invisible Pastor, that is, Christ our Saviour, who is now in heaven, invisible to men on earth. The rest is a repetition of what is immediately before answered.  
Ephes. 4. proves not only that some particular Churches, or part of the whole Church, must always have Pastors, but that the whole Church itself must have Pastors, and every particular Church in it; for it speaks of that Church which is the Body of Christ; which can be no less than the whole Church. For no particular Church alone is his mystical Body, but only a part of it.  
Ephes. 4. is not directly alleged to prove an universal Monarch, (as you say) but to prove an uninterrupted continuance of visible Pastors; that being only affirmed in the proposition, which I prove by it. 2. This is already answered.  
I stand to the judgement of any true Logician, nay or expert Lawyer, or rational person, whether a Negative proposition be to be proved otherwise then by obliging him who denies it, to give an instance to infringe it. Should you say, no man hath right to my Benefice and Function in my Parish, save myself▪ and another should deny what you said; would not you, or any rational man in your case answer him, that by denying your proposition he affirmed that some other had right to them, and to make good that affirmation was obliged to produce who that was: which till he did, you still remained the sole just possessor of your Benefice as before; and every one will judge that he had no reason to deny your assertion, when he brought no proof against it. This is our case.  
The Contradiction which you would draw from this, against my Nego, Concedo, etc. exacted from the Respondent, and nothing else, follows not. For that prescription is to be understood, that the Respondent of himself, without scope given him by the opponent, was not to use any other forms in answering; but if the opponent should require that the respondent give reasons or instances, or proofs, of what he denies, that then the Respondent is to proceed to them. And this is most ordinary in all Logical Disputations, where strict form is observed, and known to every young Logician. Instances therefore demanded by the opponent, were not excluded, but only such excursions out of form, as should proceed from the respondent, without being exacted by the opponent.  
You say, though I make a Negative of it, I may put it in other terms at my pleasure. But the question is not what I may do, but what I did. I required not an Answer to an Argument, which I may frame, but to that which I had then framed, which was expressed in a negative proposition.  
You tell me, if I prove the Pope's universal Supremacy, you will be a Papist: And I tell you, I have proved it by this very Argument, That either He hath that supremacy, or some other Church; denying that he hath always had it, hath been always visible; and that Church I require should be named, if any such be, and whilst you refuse to name that Church (as here you do) you neither answer the Argument, nor become a Papist.  
You say I affirm, and I must prove. I say in the Proposition, about which we now speak, I affirm not, & so must not prove; and you by denying it, must affirm, & so must prove.  
You prove it is not your part here to prove, because the Pope's Supremacy could not be denied, before it was affirmed; and you must be obliged to prove that denial. I oblige you not to prove a continued visible Church formally and expressly denying it, but that it was of such a constitution as was inconsistent with any such supremacy, or could and did subsist without it; which is an Affirmative.  
You affirm, that because I say you cannot be saved if you deny that Supremacy, and you say that I may be saved though I hold it, therefore you are not bound to prove what I reprove, but I to prove my negative proposition. But this would prove as well, that a Mahometan is not bound to prove his religion to you, but you to prove yours to him, because you say he cannot be saved being a Mahometan; and he says, that you may be saved being a Christian. See you not, that the obligation of proof in Logical form depends not of the first Position, or Thesis, but must be drawn from the immediate proposition, affirmative or negative, which is or aught to be proposed?  
To what you say of an Accident and a corrupt part, I have already answered.  
To what you say of a Vice-king, not being necessary to the constitution of a kingdom, but a king and subjects only, is true, if a vice-king be not instituted by the Full power of an absolute Authority over that kingdom, to be an Ingredient into the essence of the Kingdom, in the King's absence: But if so constituted, it will be essential; now my proposition saith, and my Argument proves, that by the Absolute Authority of Christ, Saint Peter and his Successors were instituted Governors in Christ's place of his whole visible Church; and whatsoever Government Christ institutes of his Church must be essential to his Church. You see now the Disparity.  
You insist to have me prove a Negative; and I insist to have you prove that Affirmative, which you fall into by denying my Negative, and leave it to judgement, whose exaction is the more conform to reason, and Logical form.  
But if I prove not here, say you, the whole Catholic, Churches holding ever the Pope's Supremacy, you shall take it as a giving up my cause. I tell you again, that I have proved it by this very Argument, by force of Syllogistical form: and it is not reasonable to judge that I have given up my cause, if I prove not again, what I have already proved.  
Your taking upon you the part of an Opponent now, is, you know, out of Season; when that is yours, mine shall be the Respondent.  
AT length you give a fair attempt to satisfy your Obligation, and to return such an Instance as I demanded of you. But you are too free by much in your offer. I demand one Congregation, and you promise to produce more than an hundred. But as they abound in the number, so are they deficient in the quality which I require. I demand, that the Answerer nominate any Congregation of Christians, which always till this present time since Christ hath been visible, etc. and you tell me of more than an hundred Congregations, besides that which acknowledges Saint Peter, etc. whereof not any one hath been all that designed time visible: which is, as if I had demanded an Answerer to nominate any Family of Gentry, which hath successively continued ever since William the Conqueror till this present time; and he who undertakes to satisfy my demand, should nominate more than a hundred Families, whereof not so much as one continued half that time. You nominate first all these present, the Greeks, Armenians, Ethiopians, besides the Protestants. These you begin with. Now to satisfy my demand you must assert, that these, whom you first name, are both one Congregation, and have been visible ever since Christ's time. This you do not in the pursuit of your Allegations. For Numb. 2. you nominate none at all, but tell me, that in the last age there were as many or more. What were these as many, or more? were they the same you nominated first, or others? I required some determinate Congregation to be nominated all the while, and you tell me or as many or more, but say not of what determinate congregation they were. In your Num. 3. you tell me, in the former ages, till one thousand, there were near as many, or rather many more. A fair account! But in the mean time you nominate none, much less prosecute you those with whom you begun. Num. 4. You say, in the year six hundred there were many more incomparably. What many? what more? were they the same which you nominated in the beginning, and made one Congregation with them? or were they quite different Congregations? what am I the wiser by your saying many more incomparably, when you tell me: not what, or who they were? Then you say, But at least ●●or four hundred years after Christ, I never yet saw valid proof of one Papist in all the world, that is, one that was for the Pope's universal Monarchy, or vice-Christ-ship. What then? are there no proofs in the world, but what you have seen? or may not many of those proofs be valid which you have seen, though you esteem them not so? and can you think it reasonable, upon your single not-seeing, or not-judging only, to conclude absolutely, as you here do, that all have been against us for many hundred years? In your. Num. 5. You name Ethiopia and India, as having been without the limits of the Roman Empire, whom you deny to have acknowledged any Supremacy of power and authority above all other Bishops. You might have done well to have cited at least one ancient Author for this Assertion. Were those primitive Christians of another kind of Church-order and Government, than were those under the Roman Empire 
* But how far from truth this is, appears from St. Leo, in his Sermons de natali suo, where he says, Sedes Roma Petri, quicquid non possidet armis, Rel●●gione tenet; and by this, That the Abyssines of Ethiopia were under the Patriarch of Alexandria anciently, which Patriarch was under the Authority of the Roman Bishop, as we shall presently see. ? When the Roman Emperors were yet Heathens, had not the Bishop of Rome the Supremacy over all other Bishops through the whole Church? and did those Heathen Emperors give it him? How came St Cyprian, in time of the Heathen Empire to request Stephen the Pope to punish and depose the Bishop of Arles, as we shall see hereafter? Had he that authority (think you) from an Heathen Emperor? See now how little your Allegations are to the purpose, where you nominate any determinate Congregations to satisfy my demand.  
I had no reason to demand of you different Congregations, of all sorts and Sects opposing the Supremacy, to have been shown visible in all ages. I was not so ignorant, as not to know, that the Nicolaitans, Valentinians, Gnostics, Manichees, Montanists, Arians, Donatists, Nestorians, Eutychians, Pelagians, Iconoclasts, Berengarians, Waldensians, Albigenses, Wicleffists, Hussits, Lutherans, Calvinists, etc. each following others, had some kind of visibility, divided and distracted each to his own respective age, from our time to the Apostles, in joining their heads and hands together against the Pope's Supremacy. But because these could not be called one successive Congregation of Christians, being all together by the ears amongst themselves; I should not have thought it a demand beseeming a Scholar, to have required such a visibility as this. Seeing therefore all you determinately nominate, are as much different as these; pardon me, if I take it not for any satisfaction at all to my demand, or acquittance of your obligation. Bring me a visible succession of any one Congregation of Christians, of the same belief, profession, and communion, for the designed time, opposing that Supremacy, and you will have satisfied: but till that be done, I leave it to any equal judgement, whether my demand be satisfied or no. You answer to this, That all those who are nominated by you, are parts of the Catholic Church, and so one Congregation. But Sir, give me leave to tell you, that in your principles, you put both the Church of Rome, and yourselves, to be parts of the Catholic Church: and yet sure you account them not one Congregation of Christians, seeing by separation one from another they are made two: or if you account them one, why did you separate yourselves, and still remain separate from communion with the Roman Church? Why possessed you yourselves of the Bishoprics and Cures of your own Prelates and Pastors, they yet living in Queen Elizabeth's time? and drew both yourselves and their other subjects from all subjection to them, and communion with them? Is this dis-union, think you, fit to make one and the same Congregation of you and them? Is not charity, subordination and obedience to the same state and government required, as well to make one Congregation of Christians, as it is required to make one Congregation of Commonwealth's men? Though therefore you do account them all parts of the Catholic Church, yet you cannot make them in your principles one Congregation of Christians. Secondly, your position is not true; the particulars named by you neither are, nor can be parts of the Catholic Church, unless you make Arrians, and Pelagians, and Donatists, parts of the Catholic Church: which were either to deny them to be Heretics and Schismatics; or to affirm, that Heretics and Schismatics separating themselves from the communion of the Catholic Church, notwithstanding that separation, do continue parts of the Catholic Church. For who knows not that the Ethiopians to this day are 
* See Rosse his view of Religions, p 99, 489, 492▪ etc. Where he says that they circumcise their children the eighth day, they use Mosaical Ceremonies. They mention not the Council of Chalcedon, because (says he) they are Eutychians & Jacobites, and confesses that their Patriarch is in subjection to the Patriarch of Alexandria, etc. See more of the Chofti, Jacobites, Maronites, etc. p. 493, 494. where he confesses that many of them are now subject to the Pope, and have renounced their old errors.  Eutychian Heretics. And a great part of those Greeks and Armenians, who deny the Pope's Supremacy, are infected with the Heresy of Nestorius, and all of them profess generally all those points of faith with us against you, wherein you differ from us; and deny to communicate with you, or to esteem you other than Heretics and Schismatics, unless you both agree with them in those differences of Faith, and subject yourselves to the obedience of the Patriarch of Constantinople, as to the chief Head and Governor of all Christian Churches next under Christ; and consequently as much a Vice-Christ, in your account, as the Pope can be conceived to be. See, if you please, Hieremias Patriarch of Constantinople, his Answer to the Lutherans, especially in the beginning and end of the Book; Acta Theologorum Wittebergensium, etc. and Sir Edwin Sands, of this Subject, in his Survey, p. 232, 233, 242, etc.  
Either therefore you must make the Eutychians and Nestorians no Heretics, and so contradict the Ecumenical Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, which condemned them as such; and the consent of all Orthodox Christians, who ever since esteemed them no other; or you must make condemned Heretics parts of the Catholic Church, against all antiquity and Christianity. And for those Greeks near Constantinople, who are not infected with Nestorianism and Eutychianism, yet in the Procession of the Holy Ghost, against both us and you, they must be thought to maintain manifest Heresy; it being a point in a fundamental matter of faith, the Trinity: and the difference betwixt those Greeks and the Western Church, now for many hundred of years, and in many General Councils esteemed and defined to be real and great; yea so great, that the Greeks left the Communion of the Roman Church upon that difference alone, and ever esteemed the Bishop of 
* See Nilus on this Subject.  Rome and his party to have fallen from the true faith, and lost his ancient Authority by that sole pretended error, and the Latins always esteemed the Greeks to be in a damnable error, in maintaining the contrary to the doctrine of the Western or Roman Church in that particular. And yet sure they understood what they held, and how far they differed one from another, much better than some Novel Writers of yours, who pressed by force of Argument, have no other way left them to maintain a perpetual visibility then by extenuating that difference of Procession betwixt the Greek and Latin Church, which so many ages before Protestancy sprung up, was esteemed a main fundamental error by both parts, caused the Greeks to abandon all subjection and Communion to the Bishops of Rome, made them so divided the one from the other, that they held each other Heretics, Schismatics, and desertors of the true Faith, as they continue still to do to this day, and yet you will have them both parts of the Catholic Church.  
But when you have made the best you can of these Greeks, Armenians, Ethiopians, Protestants, whom you first name, you neither have deduced, nor can deduce them successively in all ages till Christ, as a different Congregation of Christians, from that which holds the Pope's Supremacy; which was my Proposition. For in the year 1500. those who became the first Protestants, were not a Congregation different from those who held that supremacy; nor in the year 500 were the Greeks a visible Congregation different from it; nor in the year 300. were the Nestorians; nor in the year 200. the Eutychians a different Congregation from those who held the said Supremacy: But in those respective years, those who first begun those Heresies, were involved within that Congregation, which held it, as a part of it, and assenting therein with it▪ who after in their several ages and beginnings fell off from it, as dead branches from the tree; that, still remaining what it ever was, and only continuing in a perpetual visibility of succession.  
Though therefore you profess never to have seen convincing proof of this in the first 400 years, and labour to infringe it in the next ages, yet I will make an Essay to give you a taste of those innumerable proofs of this visible consent in the Bishop of Rome's Supremacy, not of Order only, but of Power, Authority and jurisdiction over all other Bishops, in the ensuing instances, which happened within the first 400, or 500, or 600 years.  

(a) Liberatus in Brev. c. 16.  john Bishop of Antioch makes an Appeal to Pope Simplicius. And Flavianus 
(b) Epist. praeambula. Concil. Chalcedon.  Bishop of Constantinople, being deposed in the false Council of Ephesus, immediately appeals to the Pope, as to his judge. 
(c) Concil. Chalcedon. Act. 1.  Theodoret was by Pope Leo restored, and that by an 
(d) Concil. Chalcedon. Act. 8.  appeal unto a just judgement. 
(e) S. Cyprian. Epist. 67.  Saint Cyprian desires Pope Stephen to depose Marcian Bishop of Arles, that another might be substituted in his place. And to evince the supreme Authority of the Bishops of Rome, it is determined in the 
(f) Concil. Sard. cap. 4 cited by S. Athan. Apol. 2. page 753.  Council of Sardis, That no Bishop deposed by other neighbouring Bishops, pretending to be heard again, was to have any successor appointed, until the case were defined by the Pope. Eustathius 
(g) St. Basil. Epist. 74.  Bishop of Sebast in Armenia was restored by Pope Liberius his Letters read and received in the Council of Tyana; and 
(h) St. Chrysost. Epist. 2. ad Innocent.  Saint chrysostom expressly desires Pope Innocent not to punish his Adversaries, if they do repent: Which evinces that Saint chrysostom thought that the Pope had power to punish them. And the like is written to the Pope by the 
(i) Concil. Ephes. p. 2. Act. 5.  Council of Ephesus, in the case of john Bishop of Antioch.  

(k) St. Athanas. ad Solit. Epist. julius in lit. ad Arian ap. Athan. Apol. 1. pag. 753. Theodoret lib. 2. cap. 4. Athanas. Apol. 2. Zozom. lib. 3. cap. 7.  The Bishops of the Greek, or Eastern Church, who sided with Arius, before they declared themselves to be Arians, sent their Legates to julius' Bishop of Rome, to have their cause heard before him against S. Athanasius; the same did S. Athanasius to defend himself against them: which Arian Bishops having understood from julius, that their Accusations against S. Athanasius, upon due examination of both parties, were found groundless and false, required (rather fraudulently, then seriously) to have a fuller Trial before a General Council at Rome: which (to take away all show of excuse from them) Pope julius assembled. Saint Athanasius was summoned by the Pope to appear before him and the 
* 
The Appeal of Theodoret from that Council as to his judge, is so undeniable that Chamier is forced to acknowledge it. Tom. 2. l. 13. ●●. 9 p. 498▪ and the whole Council of Chalcedon, acknowledged the right of that Appeal, restoring Theodoret to his Bishopric, by force of an Order given upon that Appeal by Leo Pope to restore him.  
Concerning Saint Athanasius being judged and righted by julius' Pope, Chamier cit. p. 497. acknowledges the matter of fact to be so, but against all antiquity, pretends that judgement to have been unjust. Which, had it been so, yet it shows a true power of judging in the Pope, though then unduly executed; otherwise Saint Athanasius, would never have made use of it, neither can it be condemned of injustice, unless Saint Athanasius be also condemned as unjust, in consenting to it.  
Nic●●ph. lib. 13. cap. 34. Chamier. cit. p. 498. says, other Bishops restored those who were wrongfully deposed, as well as the Pope. Which though it were so, yet never was there any single Bishop s●●ve the Pope, who restored any who were out of their respective Diocese, or Patriarchates, but always collected together in a Synod, by common voice, and that in regard only of their neighbouring Bishops, whereas the Bishop of Rome by his sole and single authority, restored Bishops wrongfully deposed all the Church ever.   Council in Judgement: which he presently did, (and many other Eastern Bishops unjustly accused by the Arians aforesaid, had recourse to Rome with him,) and expected there a year and half: All which time his Accusers (though also summoned) appeared not, fearing they should be condemned by the Pope and his Council. Yet they pretended not (as Protestants have done in these last ages of the Kings of England) That Constantius, the Arian Emperor of the East, was Head, or chief Governor over their Church in all Causes Ecclesiastical; and consequently that the Pope had nothing to do with them, but only pretended certain frivolous excuses to delay their apearance from one time to another. Where it is worth the noting, that julius, reprehending the said Arian Bishops (before they published their Heresy, and so taking them to be Catholics) for condemning S. Athanasius in an Eastern Council, gathered by them before they had acquainted the Bishop of Rome with so important a cause, useth these words, An ignari estis hanc consuetudinem esse, ut primum nobis scribatur; ut hinc quod justum est, definiri possit, etc. Are you ignorant, saith he, that this is the custom, to write to us first, That hence that which is just may be defined, etc. where most clearly it appears, that it belonged particularly to the Bishop of Rome to pass a definitive sentence even against the Bishops of the Eastern, or Greek Church; which yet is more confirmed by the proceed of Pope Innocent the first, about 12. hundred years since in the case of S. chrysostom: Where first Saint chrysostom appeals to Innocentius from the Council assembled at Constantinople, wherein he was condemned. Secondly, Innocentius annuls his condemnation, and declares him innocent. Thirdly, he Excommunicates Atticus Bishop of Constantinople, and Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria for persecuting S. chrysostom. Fourthly, after S. chrysostom was dead in Banishment, Pope Innocentius Excommunicates Arcadius the Emperor of the East, and Eudoxia his wife. Fifthly, the Emperor and Empress humble themselves, crave pardon of him, and were absolved by him. The same is evident in those matters which passed about the year 450. where Theodosius the Emperor of the East having too much favoured the Eutychian Heretics by the instigation of Chrysaphius the Eunuch, and Pulcheria his Empress, and so intermeddled too far in Ecclesiastical causes, yet he ever bore that respect to the See of Rome, (which doubtless in those circumstances he would not have done, had he not believed it an Obligation) that he would not permit the Eutychian Council at Ephesus to be assembled without the knowledge and authority of the Roman Bishop Leo the first; and so wrote to him to have his presence in it, who sent his Legates unto them. And though both Leo's letters were dissembled, and his Legate affronted, and himself excommunicated by wicked Dioscorus, Patriarch of Alexandria, and precedent of that Conventicle, who also was the chief upholder of the Eutychians, yet Theodosius repent before his death, banished his wife Pulcheria and Chrysaphius the Eunuch, the chief favourers of the Eutychians, and reconciled himself to the Church with great evidences of sorrow and penance.  

(m) Concil. Chalced. Act. 1.  Presently after, An. 451. follows the fourth General Council of Chalcedon: concerning which these particulars occur to our present purpose. First, Martianus the Eastern Emperor wrote to Pope Leo, That by the Pope's Authority a General Council might be gathered in what City of the Eastern Church he should please to choose. Secondly, both Anatolius Patriarch of Constantinople, and the rest of the Eastern Bishops, sent to the Legates of Pope Leo, by his order, the profession of their faith. Thirdly, the Pope's Legates sat in the first place of the Council before all the Patriarches. 
(n) Concil. Chalced. Act 3.  Fourthly, they prohibited (by his order given them) That Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria, and chief upholder of the Eutychians, should sit in the Council; but be presented as a guilty person to be judged: because he had celebrated a Council in the Eastern Church without the consent of the Bishop of Rome; which (said the Legates) never was done before, nor could be done lawfully. This order of Pope Leo was presently put in execution by consent of the whole Council, and Dioscorus was judged and condemned; his condemnation and deposition being pronounced by the Pope's Legates, and after subscribed by the Council.  
Fifthly, the Pope's Legates pronounced the Church of Rome to be 
* 
Which could not be by reason of the Sanctity and truth which was then in it; for the Church of Milan, and many others in France, Africa, and Greece were also then pure and holy, and yet none have this title, save the Church of Rome.  
In the time of justinian the Emperor, Agapet Pope, even in Constantinople, against the will both of the Emperor and Empress, deposed Anthymus, and ordained Mennas in his place. Liberat. in Breviario. cap. 21. Marcellinus. Comes in Chronico. Concil. Constantin. sub Menna. act. 4. And the same S Greg. c. 7. ep. 63. declares that both the Emperor and Bishop of Constantinople acknowledged that the Church of Constantinople was subject to the See of Rome. And l. 7. Ep. 37. Et alibi pronounceth, that in case of falling into offences, he knew no Bishop which was not subject to the Bishop of Rome.   Caput omnium Ecclesiarum, the Head of all Churches, before the whole Council, and none contradicted them. Sixtly, all the Fathers assembled in that Holy Council, in their Letter to Pope Leo, acknowledged themselves to be his children, and wrote to him as to their Father. Seventhly, they humbly begged of him, that he would grant, that the Patriarch of Constantinople might have the first place among the Patriarches, after that of Rome: which notwithstanding that the Council had consented to (as had also the third General Council of Ephesus done before) yet they esteemed their grants to be of no sufficient force, until they were confirmed by the Pope. And Leo thought not fit to yield to their petition, against the express ordination of the first Council of Nice; where Alexandria had the pre-eminence, as also Antioch and Jerusalem, before that of Constantinople.  
Saint Cyril of Alexandria, though he wholly disallowed Nestorius his doctrine, yet he would not break off Communion with him till Celestinus the Pope had condemned him; whose censure he required and expected. Nestorius also wrote to Celestine acknowledging his Authority, and expecting from him the censure of his doctrine. Celestinus condemned Nestorius, and gave him the space of ten days to repent, after he had received his condemnation. All which had effect in the Eastern Church, where Nestorius was Patriarch of Constantinople. 
(o) S. August. Tom. 1. Epist. Rom. Pontif. post Epist. 2. ad Celestinum.  After this Saint Cyrill having received Pope Leo's Letters, wherein he gave power to Saint Cyril to execute his condemnation against Nestorius, and to send his condemnatory letters to him, gathered a Council of his next Bishops, and sent Letters and Articles to be subscribed, with the Letters of Celestine to Nestorius; which when Nestorius had received he was so far from repentance, that he accused St. Cyril in those Articles, to be guilty of the Heresy of Apollinaris: so that St. Cyril being also accused of Heresy, was barred from pronouncing sentence against Nestorius, so long as he stood charged with that Accusation. Theodosius the Emperor, seeing the Eastern Church embroiled in these difficulties, writes to Pope Celestine about the assembling of a general Council at Ephesus by Petronius afterwards Bishop of Bononia (as is manifest in his life written by Sigonius) Pope in his Letters to Theodosius, not only professeth his consent to the calling of that Council, but also prescribeth in what form it was to be celebrated; as Firmus Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia testified in the Council of Ephesus. Hereupon Theodosius sent his Letters to assemble the Bishops both of the East and West to that Council. And Celestine sent his Legates thither, with order not to examine again in the Council the cause of Nestorius, but rather to put Celestines condemnation of him, given the year before, into execution. S. Cyril Bishop of Alexandria, being constituted by Celestine his chief Legate ordinary in the East, by reason of that preeminency, and primacy of his See after that of Rome, presided in the Council: yet so, that Philip, who was only a Priest and no Bishop, by reason that he was sent Legatus à Latere, from Celestine, and so supplied his place, as he was chief Bishop of the Church, subscribed the first, even before S. Cyril, and all the other Legates and Patriarches. In the sixth Action of this holy Council, juvenalis patriarch of Jerusalem, having understood the contempt, which john patriarch of Antioch, who was cited before the Council, showed of the Bishops and the Pope's Legates there assembled, expressed himself against him in these words, Quod Apostolica ordinatione & Antiqua Traditione (which were no way opposed by the Fathers there present) Antiochena sedes perpetuo à Romana diregeretur judicareturque, That by Apostolical ordination and ancient Tradition the See of Antioch was perpetually directed and judged by the See of Rome: which words not only evidence the precedency of place as Dr. Hammond would have it, but of power and judicature in the Bishop of Rome over a Patriarch of the Eastern Church; and that derived from the time and ordination of the Apostles. The Council therefore sent their decrees, with their condemnation of Nestorius, to Pope Clestize, who presently ratified and confirmed them.  
Not long after this, in the year 445. Valentinian the Emperor makes this manifesto of the most high Ecclesiastical authority of the See of Rome, in these words: Seeing that the merit of S. Peter, who is the Prince of the Episcopal Crown, and the Dignity of the City of Rome, and no less the authority of the holy Synod, hath established the primacy of the Apostolical See, lest presumption should attempt any unlawful thing against the authority of that 
* See this at length in Baronius, in the year 445.  See, (for then finally will the peace of the Churches be preserved every where, if the whole universality acknowledge their Governor) when these things had been hitherto inviolably observed, etc. Where he makes the succession from S. Peter to be the first foundation of the Roman Churches primacy; and his authority to be, not only in place, but in power and government over the whole visible Church: And adds presently, that the definitive sentence of the Bishop of Rome, given against any French Bishop, was to be of force through France, even without the Emperor's Letters Patents. For what shall not be lawful for the authority of so great a Bishop to exercise upon the Churches? and than adds his Imperial precept in these words. But this occasion hath provoked also our command, that hereafter it shall not be lawful neither for Hilarius (whom to be still entitled a Bishop, the sole humanity of the meek Prelate (i. e. the Bishop of Rome) permits) neither for any other to mingle arms with Ecclesiastical matters, or to resist the commands of the Bishop of Rome, etc. We define by this our perpetual decree, that it shall neither be lawful for the French Bishops, nor for those of other Provinces, against the ancient custom, to attempt any thing without the authority of the venerable Pope of the eternal City: But let it be for a law to them and to all, whatsoever the authority of the Apostolic See hath determined, or shall determine. So that what Bishop soever being called to the Tribunal of the Roman Bishop, shall neglect to come, is to be compelled by the Governor of the same Province, to present himself before him. Which evidently proves, that the highest, Universal, Ecclesiastical Judge and Governor was, and ever is to be the Bishop of Rome, which the Council of Chalcedon before mentioned, plainly owned, when writing to Pope Leo they say, 
* Epist. Concil. ad Leon. Pap. Act. 1. & sequ.  Thou governest us, as the head doth the members, contributing thy good will by those which hold thy place. Behold a Primacy, not only of Precedency, but of Government and Authority; which Lerinensis confirms, contr. Haeres. cap. 9 where speaking of Stephen Pope, he says, Dignum, ●●t opinor, existimans, si reliquos omnes tantum fidei devotione, quantum loci authoritate; superabat: esteeming it (as I think) a thing worthy of himself, if he overcame all others as much in the devotion of faith, as he did in the Authority of his place. And to confirm what this universal Authority was; he affirms, that he sent a Law, Decree, or Command into Africa, (Sanxit,) That in matter of rebaptisation of Heretics nothing should be innovated; which was a manifest argument of his Spiritual Authority over those of Africa; and à paritate rationis, over all others. I will shut up all with that which was publicly pronounced, and no way contradicted, and consequently assented to in the Council of Ephesus, (one of the four first general Councils) in this matter, Tom. 2. Concil. p. 327. Act. 1. where Philip Priest and Legate of Pope Celestine, says thus, Gratias agimus sanctae venerandaeque synodo, quod literis sancti beatique Papae nostri vobis recitatis, sanctas chartas, sanctis vestris vocibus, sancto capiti vestro, sanctis vestris exclamationibus, exhibueritis. Non enim ignorat vestra beatitudo, totius fidei, vel etiam Apostolorum, caput esse beatum Apostolum Petrum. And the same Philip, Act. 3. p. 330. proceeds in this manner, Nulli dubium, imo saeculis omnibus notum est, quod sanctus beatissimusque Petrus, Apostolorum Princeps & caput, Fideique columna, Ecclesiae Catholicae Fundamentum, à Domino nostro Jesu Christo, Salvatore generis humani ac redemptore nostro claves regni accepit, solvendique ac ligandi peccata potestas ipsi data est; qui ad hoc usque tempus ac semper in suis successoribus vivit & judicium exercet:— Hujus itaque secundum ordinem successor & locumtenens, sanctus beatissimusque Papa noster Celestinus, nos ipsius praesentiam supplentes huc misit. And Arcadius another of the Pope's Legates inveighing against the Heretic Nestorius, accuses him, (though he was Patriarch of Constantinople, which this Council requires to be next in dignity after Rome) as of a great crime, that he contemned the command of the Apostolic See, that is, of Pope Celestine. Now had Pope Celestine had no power to command him (and by the like reason to command all other Bishops) he had committed no fault in transgressing and contemning his command. By these testimonies it will appear, that what you are pleased to say, That the most part of the Catholic Church hath been against us to this day, and all for many hundred of years, is far from truth: seeing in the time of the holy Ecumenical Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, the universal consent of the whole Catholic Church was for us in this point. 
For the age 600 see S. Gregory Pope, l. 10. ep. 30 where Heretics and Schismatics repenting, were received then into the Church, upon solemn promise, and public protestation, that they would never any more separate from, but always remain in the unity of the Catholic Church, and communion in all things with the Bishop of Rome.   
As to what you say of Congregation of Christians, in the beginning, I answer, I took the word of Christians in a large sense, comprehending in it all those (as it is vulgarly taken) who are baptised and profess to believe in Christ, and are distinguished from Jews, Mahometans and Heathens, under the denomination of Christians.  
What you often say of an universal Monarch, etc. if you take Monarch for an Imperious sole Commander, as temporal Kings are, we acknowledge no such Monarch in the Church: if only for one who hath received power from Christ in meekness, charity, and humility, to govern all the rest, for their own eternal good, as brethren or children, we grant it.  
What also you often repeat of a Vice-christ, we much dislike that title, as proud and insolent, and utterly disclaim from it; neither was it ever given by any sufficient Authority to our Popes, or did they ever accept of it.  
As to the Council of Constance, they never questioned the Supremacy of the Pope, as ordinary chief Governor of all Bishops and people in the whole Church: nay they expressly give it to Martinus Quintus, when he was chosen.  
But in extraordinary cases, especially when it is doubtful who is true Pope, as it was in the beginning of this Council, till Martinus Quintus was chosen: whether any extraordinary power be in a general Council, above that ordinary power of the Pope: which is a question disputed by some amongst ourselves, but touches not the matter in hand; which proceeds only of the ordinary and constant Supreme Pastor of all Christians, abstracting from extraordinary tribunals and powers, which are seldom found in the Church, and collected only occasionally, and upon extraordinary accidents.  
Thus honoured Sir, I have as much as my occasions would permit me, hastened a Reply to your Answer; and if more be requisite, it shall not be denied. Only please to give me leave to tell you, that I cannot conceive my Argument yet answered by all you have said to it.  
Feb. 3. 1658. William johnson.   

Novelty Repressed: In a rejoinder to Mr. Baxters' Reply to William johnson.  
The First Part.  

CHAP. I.  
ARGUMENT:  
Num. 1. Exordium. n. 3. Assembly and Congregation not different. n. 5. Acknowledgement or Denial, of what is Essential to the Church is itself Essential to the constitution or destruction of the Church; my words mis-cited, by omitting the word ever. n. 7. Three Fallacies discovered. Franciscus à Sta Clarâ misalleged. 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 accidental to his Church. n. 19 Though universals exist not, yet particulars which exist, may be expressed in universal, or abstractive terms. n. 20. Many things necessary to the whole Church, which are not necessary for every particular Christian. num. 21, 22. Christ now no visible Pastor of the Church militant, though his person in heaven be visible. n. 22. A visible Body, without a visible Head, is a Monster: Such is Mr. Baxters' Church.  Mr. Baxter. 
SIR, Num. 1. THe multitude and urgency of my employments gave me not leave till this day (May 2.) so much as to read over all your Papers; but I shall be as loath to break off our disputation as you can be, though perhaps necessity may sometime cause some week's delay. And again, I profess my indignation against the hypocritical juggling of this age doth provoke me to welcome so Ingenuous and Candid a Disputant as yourself, with great content. But I must confess also, that I was the less hasty in sending you this Reply, because I desired you might have leisure to peruse a Book, which I published since your last, (a Key for Catholics) seeing that I have there answered you already, and that more largely, than I am like to do in this Reply. For the sharpness of that I must crave your patience, the persons and cause I thought required it.  William johnson. 
Num. 1. Sir, Your Plea is my Defence; I had my employments, and those of great concern, as much as you; which have hitherto detained me from accomplishing this Reply. I have my Adversaries as well as you; and no less than three at once in Print against me, yet the esteem I have of your worth, hath exacted from me to desist a while, from what I had begun in Answer to the chief of them, that I might bestow the whole time on you; which notwithstanding was lately interrupted (even when I was drawing towards an end) by an unexpected and unrefusable occasion; which hath already taken from me many weeks, and is like to deprive me of many more. Some small time (an interstitium) (through the absence of my Adversary) hath afforded me; and that hath drawn the work almost to a period. I have not hitherto had any leisure to peruse your Key; and indeed what you here acknowledge of it, Sharpness, deterrs me from meddling any further with it, then what may be occasioned in this your Answer. I find 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 show myself a patiented Christian, than a passionate Controvertist: What reason utters, will have power with rational men: Passion never 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 less so strictly to exact) a precise Answer; which cannot be made, as you prescribed, to an Argument not precise. I therefore expect accordingly, that the unlearned be not made the judges of a Dispute, which they are not fit to judge of; seeing you desire us to avoid their road.  William johnson. 
Num. 2. When I press you to as much brevity, as my first Adversary pressed me, I shall require no more; and shall easily bear with penetrations of Syllogisms, and mediate consequences, when they are provable in lawful form. My chief care was to obstruct all excursions, amplifications, and irregularities quite out of form, and all Sophisms and Fallacies; which I have avoided. When the learned are sufficiently informed, I hope they will have so watchful a care of conscience, and Christian charity, that they will impart, what they find to be truth, to the ignorant. And this I expected signally from you, in whom I discovered a fervent desire to publish what you thought truth to every one.  Baxter. 
Num. 3. And by a Congregation of Christians you may mean Christians politically related to one Head, whether Christ, or the Pope. But the word Assemblies expresseth their actual Assembling together, and so excludeth all Christians that are, or were members of no particular Assemblies, from having relation to Christ (our Head,) or the Pope (your Head) and so from being of the Congregation, as you call, the Church universal.  johnson. 
Num. 3. Assembly implies no more an actual assembling, than Congregation an actual congregating: prove it does. They are both taken in the same sense, in Scripture and approved Authors, and comprised in the word caetus; and the one as capable to include a head and members subject to it, as the other.  Baxter. 
Num. 4. I had great reason to avoid the snare of an Equivocation, or ambiguity, of which you gave me cause of jealousy by your whatsoever, as I told you, as seeming to intimate a false supposition. To your like, I answer, it is unlike, and still more intimates the false supposition. Whatsoever Congregation of men is the Commonwealth of England, is a phrase that importeth, that there is a Congregation 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.  johnson. 
Num. 4. My Simile is alike in what I pressed 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 Commonwealth of England. Such are the Senate of Venice, the Common-Council of London, the Parliament of Paris, etc.  Baxter. 
Num. 5. Yet I must tell you, that nothing is more ordinary, then for the body to be said to do that, which a part of it only doth; as that the Church administereth Sacraments, Discipline, Teacheth, etc. The Church is assembled in such a Council, etc. when yet it is but a small part of the Church that doth these things: And when Bellarmine, Gretser, etc. say, the Church is the infallible Judge of controversies, they mean not the whole Church, which containeth every Christian, when they tell you that it is the Pope they mean. And therefore I had reason to inquire into your sense, unless I would wilfully be overreached.  johnson. 
Num. 5. This is a mere Parergon, for I declare in my Thesis, that I speak only of that Church, out of which no man can be saved, (as appears in your Edition p. 2.) which is not, cannot be the Church representative in a Council; for than none could be saved, who are out of that Council.  Baxter. 
Num. 6. You now satisfy me that you mean it universally, viz. All that Congregation (or Church) of christian's, which is now the true Church of Christ, doth acknowledge, etc. which I told you, I deny.  johnson. 
Num. 6. By this appears how inappositely, you propounded the question, Whether I meant by Congregation in my Proposition the whole Church, or only some part of it, seeing it was manifest I could not mean any part of it by that word.  Baxter. 
To my following distinction you say, That all the world knows that whatsoever is acknowledged to have been ever in the Church by Christ's Institution, cannot be meant of any accidental thing, but of a necessary, unchangeable and essential thing in Christ's true Church; To which I reply, either you see the gross fallacy of this defence, or you do not: If you do not, than never more call for an exact Disputant, nor look to be delivered from your Errors by Argumentation, though never so convincing: If you do, than you are not faithful to the Truth. In your Major Proposition the words being many, (as you say, you penetrated divers Arguments together) ambiguities were the easier hidden in the heap. That which I told you is accidental to the Church, (and that but to a corrupted part) was the acknowledging of the Papacy, 
Fallacy 1.  as of Christ's Institution: and therefore if it were granted, that a thing of Christ's Institution could not be accidental, yet the acknowledgement, that is, the opinion or asserting of it, may. If the Church by mistake should think that to be essential to it, which is not, though it will not thence follow, that its essence is but an accident, yet it will follow that both the false opinion, and the thing itself 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 itself 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.  johnson. 
Num. 7. Sir, The fallacy is not in my Proposition, but in your understanding. You assert, that the Sovereignty of the Pope, is as accidental to the Church, (as will hereafter appear) as pride and cruelty is to the Spanish Nation; and therefore the Acknowledgement of it is Accidental: for if the acknowledgement be in a matter Essential, itself must also be Essential, either to the constitution, or destruction of the Catholic 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 mere Accident, and non-Essential. For such an Error constitutes a false Christian, and teaches that to be Essentially Christian Religion, which is a Falsity in Christian Religion. If therefore the whole Church (as I affirm) hold the Pope's Supremacy to be by Christ's 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 error is not Accidental to the Church, that is, such an error, that the Church can subsist as truly with it, as without it, but essentially destructive of the Church. If the Pope's Supremacy be by Christ's Institution and thereby Essential, (as you now suppose) the Church's 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 itself, that whatsoever is of Christ's Institution is Essential, and yet to make the acknowledgement of its Essentiality by the whole Church, to be Accidental to the Church, is strange Divinity, and one of your grand Novelties. I entreat you therefore to tell me in your next, what makes the Arrian Heresy (as you hold) destructive of Christianity, and an essential Error, save this only, that it is against a point essential to Christian Faith? And I think, I have as much reason to hold the Error, either contradicting that which is Essential to Christianity, or asserting that, as Essential, which is only Accidental, to be an Essential Error against Christian Faith, as was that of the Arrians. For it had been doubtless, an essential Error in Faith, and destructive of Christianity, not only to deny 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 instituted 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 yourselves, 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? 
Fallacy 2. Corruption 1.  I should hope, that few in the Christian world be so ignorant, as ever to have such a thought, if they had the means of knowledge that Protestants would have them have. There is no natural Body, but hath natural Accidents, as well as Essence: 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 Accidents? Do you build upon such Foundations? what! upon 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, than every soul were cut off from the Church, and so from Salvation, that wanted any thing of Christ's Institution, yea for a moment. And then what would become of you? You give me an Instance in the Eucharist. 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?  johnson. 
Num. 8. Sir, Your Answer proceeds fallaciously, à particulari ad universale. I say, that is Essential which hath been ever in the Church by Christ's Institution, and you accuse me to say, whatsoever is of Christ's Institution is Essential, leaving out which hath been ever in the Church by his Institution. Show me therefore something which hath been ever, that i, in all ages, in the Church by Christ's 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 Politic Body without Accidents. For those things which Christ instituted to be as Things Temporary, 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 Christ's 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 Politic 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 Energy to his Proposition: For if this be not done, an Answer may be prolonged till Doomsday, 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 Question, (though it be nothing to my cause) Was not a Baptised person, 
Fallacy 3.  in the Primitive and Ancient Churches, a true Church-member, presently upon Baptism? And then tell me also, Did not the Ancient Fathers and Churches unanimously hid from their Catechumen (even purposely hid) the Mystery of the Eucharist, as proper to the Church to understand? and never opened it to the Auditors, till they were Baptised? This is most undeniable in the concurrent vote of the Ancients. 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.  johnson. 
Num. 9 Here you commit another Fallacy, proceeding à sensu conjuncto ad sensum divisum. I affirm no more, then that the Assembly, or Congregation, which is the Church, 
See p. 30. Bax. Ed●●tion.  hath this acknowledgement; and you argue against me, as if I said, Every particular member of the Church is obliged to have that actual express acknowledgement. Know you not, that many things are necessary to the whole Politic 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 necessary to be expressly believed by every Christian necessitate nudii, yet it is essentially necessary to the whole Church. You misconceive therefore very much in saying the question is not, whether the belief (if you mean explicit 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 Eucharist, or the Pope's 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 confusion, such distinctions as yourself call learned and substantial, can do you no wrong; they do but secure our true understanding of one another. And a few lines in the beginning, by way of distinction, are not vain, that may prevent much vain altercation afterward: When I once understand you I have done; and I beseech you take it not for an injury to be understood.  johnson. 
Num. 10. If they have done no wrong to you, 'tis well: for my part I find myself nothing injured by them. But unnecessary and frivolous distinctions (as yours were in this occasion) can be no great advantage to him who gives them.  Baxter. 
Num. 11. As to your Conclusion, that you used no fallacy ex accident, and that my instances are not apposite; I reply, that's the very life of the controversy between us; and our main question is not so to be begged. 
Fallacy 4.  
(a) Make sense of this.  [On the grounds I have showed you I still aver, That the holding the Papacy as accidental to the universal Church, as a canker in the breast is to a woman.] And though you say it is essential, and of ●●hrists Institution, that maketh it neither essential, nor of Christ's Institution, nor doth it make all his institutions to be essentials.  johnson. 
Num. 11. You fall here again upon your former mistake: I say not, that the Papacy is therefore precisely not Accidental, because it is of Christ's 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 Christ's Institution; but I hope to evince, that my Argument hath proved it, by a clear confutation of your Answer: Nor would I have any one give credit to my say, further than I prove them to be true by solid reason.  Baxter. 
Num. 12. Now of your second Syllogism▪ 1. I shall never question the successive visibility of the Church; whereas I told you out of Francisc. à Sanctâ Clarâ, that many or most of your own Schoolmen agree not to that which you say, 
Corruption 2.  All Christians agree to, you make no reply to it.  johnson. 
Num. 12. I had not then seen that Author for want of time, and so omitted the Answer: And when I came to the sight of him, your citation is so vastly large, (for you say only in articulis Anglicanis) that I was forced to turn over the whole Book; and all I have found (where he treats this subject) is, 
A Sancta Clara in Artic. Anglic. problem. 15. p. 109, 110, etc.  that one may be saved through invincible ignorance, though he have no express, but only an implicit Faith in Christ. But I find no mention of Infidels in that place; much less, that he affirms most of our Doctors teach, they may be saved; nor that he affirms any can be saved who are out of the Church. Your friends will be sorry to see you so defective in your citations. You might have cited either his words, or the place where they are found in particular; and thereby have saved my labour and your own credit. This I hope will be done in your next.  Baxter. 
Num. 13. As to your Minor, I have given you the Reasons of the necessity and harmlesness of my distinctions: we need say no more to that A Congregation of Christians and a Church are synonyma.  johnson. 
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 Heresy and Schism 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 Murderers, Thiefs, 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 Soldiers and Commanders stand in Battalia to fight their Enemies; or Countrypeople congregate in a Fair, or to choose the Knight of the Shire, or at my Lord Mayor's 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, aldermans, and Justices, sitting in the Old-Baily, or the Kings most Honourable Privy Council, or the High Court of Parliament, a Church? yet all the world knows, they are each of them Congregations of Christians. S. Paul tells you (1 Cor. 12.) that the Church is composed of different Heterogenial members, (as our bodies are) one subject orderly to another, by way of Pastor and People; which is not found in every Congregation of Christians, as I have made it manifest.  Baxter. 
Num. 14. But the word True was not added to your first term, by you or me: and therefore your instance here is delusory.  johnson. 
Num. 14. I wonder to hear you discourse in this manner. I contend the word True could not be added to the first term without manifest absurdity; and therefore I neither added it, nor was to be understood to include it. 
Baxt. p. 13.  Your Syllogism runs thus, Whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ, etc. and is not my Major cited thus by you, 
Baxt. p. 13.  Whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ Now you say, the word True was not added to your first term, nor to mine; that's true: but you say withal, that I must intent to signify in that first term by whatsoever Congregation, the universal, that is the true Church of Christ; that's not true: for I speak abstractly in that term; nor could I do otherwise, unless I would have made an absurd or identical Proposition.  Baxter. 
Num. 15. But to say Whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the True Church of Christ, is all one as to say, Whatsoever Church of Christians is now the true Church; when I know your meaning I have my end.  johnson. 
Num. 15. I have proved this to be manifestly untrue: for the East-India Company in Holland is a Congregation of Christians, and yet is not a Church.  Baxter. 
Num. 16. Though my Syllogism say not, that the Church of Rome acknowledgeth those things always done, and that by Christ's Institution, it nevertheless explicates the weakness of yours as to the fallacy Accidentis.  johnson. 
Num. 16. The question is not here, whether this acknowledgement 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 Accident is separable from the Subject, without destroying the Subject, whose Accident it is. But what Christ has Instituted to be ever in his Church, is inseparable from it: 
Mat. 19.6.  for Quae Deus conjunxit, homo non separet, Those things which God hath conjoined, 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 always done, and that of Christ's Institution, may be either an Accident, or but of the Integrity, and ad bene esse; yea possibly an error.  johnson. 
Num. 17. If of the Integrity, than 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 given fell short, and were plainly fallacious. I have already showed, that nothing can be an Accident to the Church, which Christ hath instituted to be ever, that is perpetually in the Church, and consequently the Churches holding any thing to be so, if true, is Essential to the Subsistance of the Church; if false, is essentially destructive of the Church; so that whether true, or false, it will never be accidental to the Church.  Baxter. 
Num. 18. And I might as easily have given you instances of that kind.  johnson. 
Num. 18. Had you more fully reflected upon your Adversaries words, you might have done many things more pertinently than you have done them; but here again you acknowledge your error, in alleging instances which were not to the purpose. But your Readers and I should have been much more satisfied, had you amended what you acknowledge to be a fault; and brought at least in this your last Reply, those instances, which you say here, you might have given then. Be sure therefore in your next to produce instances of Accidentals in such things as Christ hath instituted to be ever in his Church; whereby it may appear that this Roman acknowledgement, whether true or false, is accidental to the true Church: So that the acknowledgement of it, by all those to whom it is sufficiently propounded, is necessary to make them parts of the true Church; and the denial of it, when so propounded, hinders them from being parts of it.  Baxter. 
Num. 19 To your third Syllogism, I reply, 1. When you say your Church had Pastors, 
Fallacy 5.  as you must speak of what existed (and universals exist not of themselves) so it is necessary that I tell you, how far I grant your Minor, and how far I deny it.  johnson. 
Num. 19 What though universals exist not of themselves? may not therefore a Logician express 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 universals 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 says, or need to say in such Enunciations, that universals exist, but expresses particulars which have existed, by abstract and universal terms.  Baxter. 
Num. 20. My Argument from the Indians and others is not solved by you. For 1. You can never prove, that the Pope was preached to the Iberians by the captive maid; 
Fallacy 6.  nor to the Indians by Frumentius. 2. Thousands were made Christians and Baptised by the Apostles, 
Three non-proofs.  without any preaching or profession of a Papacy, Acts 2. & pas●●im. 3. The Indians now converted in America by the English and Dutch, hear nothing of the Pope, nor thousands in Ethiopia. 3. Your own do, or may baptise many without their owning the Pope, who yet would be Christians: And a Pastor not known, or believed, or owned, is actually no Pastor to them.  johnson. 
Num. 20. To all these Instances I answer, They conclude nothing against my Assertion; for I never said, that all particular persons, or communities, are obliged to have an express belief or acknowledgement, of the Roman-Bishops Supremacy; that being necessary to all neither necessitate medii, nor praecepti. It is sufficient that they believe it implicitly, in subjecting themselves to all those whom Christ hath instituted to be their lawful Pastors: and when the Bishop of Rome is sufficiently proposed to them to be the supreme 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 preached to them, as you can prove, either Justification by Faith only, or any other particular point of your doctrine, to have been preached to them. And both of us must say, that all important Christian Truths, both for particular persons and Churches, were delivered to those people; and till you have evinced this of Supremacy to have been none of those, it is to be supposed, it was sufficiently declared to those Nations: At least in explicating the Article of the Catholic 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 implicitly included.  
To your second from Acts 2. The Scripture relates not there all that S. Peter said, but affirmeth (vers. 40.) that he gave testimony to them in many other words. And who can tell whether amongst the rest, that of his Supremacy, might not have been sufficiently intimated to them? However it appears by the Text (vers. 37.) that the people addressed themselves first, and in particular to S. Peter, before all the rest of the Apostles, as the prime amongst them, and he who first preached the Gospel to them. Prove the English and Dutch Convertites converted by Protestants (if you mean those, as you must do, if your argument have any force) to be instructed in the true Faith, and then your Instance will have some force; prove those of Ethiopia to be Orthodox and Catholic Christians. To what purpose produce you instances, which are assoon denied, as they are proposed? Your last touches only particular persons, which I have showed, are not obliged to know this expressly, to be of the Church; the Pope is their true pastor, and so believed to be implicitly by them, when they subject themselves to all their lawful pastors, he being one and the chief of them.  Baxter. 
Num. 21. To your Confirmation, I reply; You mis-read my words: I talk not of invisible. I say it is true, that the universal Church is united to Christ, as their universal Head.  johnson. 
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 touched not the controversy) but that he was an invisible Pastor; and that most certainly he is both in heaven and earth; for though his person may be seen there, yet the exercise of his pastorship, consisting only in spiritual influxions, and internal graces, cannot be seen by any corporal eye whatsoever; therefore as pastor of the Militant Church he is wholly invisible: whence it is evident, that you put a visible body, the universal Militant Church (for we treat no other here save that) without a visible Head: for Christ as head, that is, as supreme 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 whilst you by a strange piece of Novelty, constitute a visible Body without a visible Head, you destroy the visible Church, and frame a Monster.  Baxter. 
Num. 22. And is visible, 1. In the members. 2. In the profession. 3. Christ himself is visible in the heavens, and as much seen of most of the Church, as the Pope is, that is, not at all. As the Pope is not invisible, though one of a million see him not; no more is Christ, who is seen by most of the Church, and by the best part, even by the glorified. You know my meaning: whether you will call Christ visible or not, I leave to you; I think he is visible: But that which I affirm is, that the universal Church hath no other visible universal Head or Pastor: But particular Churches have their particular Pastors, all under Christ.  johnson. 
Num. 22. If Christ be no otherwise visible as Head of the Church, then in his members, and their profession of his Faith, you may as well affirm, that God the Father is visible in his creatures, and make him also visible, which were absonous, and contrary to Christian Faith: It seems you regard not much what follows from your doctrine, so you may at present oppose your Adversary. The question in treaty is (seeing we both confess the members and profession of the Universal Militant Church to be visible) whether Christ in the exercise of his Headship, or chief-Pastorship over the Church, renders himself visible to our corporal eyes, or performs immediately any visible action in relation to his Church. To constitute therefore Christ to be a visible Head of the Church when he performs nothing visible as Head of the Church, or to make a visible Body without a visible Head, is another of your grand Novelties, fit to be repressed, and stifled in the cradle. And all men will expect that in your rejoinder to this, you show that Christ, not in his person, but in the exercise of his pastoral Headship, works visibly by himself. One thing is worth observation in this Paragraph, that you affirm, Christ is seen by most of the Church, and by the best part, even by the glorified; whereby you must either affirm, that the glorified are now conjoined 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 controversy you bring no proof. If you mean no more than I grant, 
Fallacy 7.  That the whole Church hath Pastors, both in that each particular Church hath Pastors, and in that unfixed Pastors are to preach to all, as they have opportunity, than your Minor hath no denial from me.  johnson. 
Num. 23. All I intent from Ephes. 4. is to prove my Minor, the perpetual Succession of visible Pastors, whatsoever those be; you grant here it proves thus much: Why then press you me to know whether I would prove from it one supreme visible Pastor on earth, when I allege it not to prove that. It is strange Logic to ask an Opponent, whether he intent to prove more by his Syllogism, than what he was obliged to prove in Form, when the Respondent grants he has proved that, and by proving the Proposition which was to be proved, has evinced the Thesis to be true, which he first undertook to prove by his Argument, Viz. the Pope's Supremacy.   

CHAP. II.  
The ARGUMENT:  
No Negative framed in Positive, Historical matters to be proved, num. 24. but the Instances alleged against it, to be disproved by the Opponent. num. 25. The Pope obeyed in England, not only as Patriarch of the West, but as Supreme visible Pastor of the whole Militant Church, 
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 Resign of this matter.  was in quiet possession of the spiritual government of the English Church when Protestancy first appeared in it. Mr. Baxter forced n. 27. to deny two common principles, n. 28. His unfair dealing with his adversary. n. 33, 34. Visible Pastors, though Christ's Officers Essential to his visible Church; and if they, why not the Supreme amongst them? n. 35, 36. Some under Officers are Essential to Monarchies. p. 38. No new work to be attempted till the old be finished. n. 39, 40, 41, 42, etc. Mr. Baxter puts many questions and doubts where there is no need; and n. 46. mistakes grossly his Adversaries words and meaning.  Baxter. 
Num. 24. In stead of prosecuting your Argument, when you had cast the work of an Opponent upon me, you here appeal to any true Logician, or expert Lawyer. Content, I admit your Appeal. But why then did you at all put on the face of an Opponent? Can you not without this lost labour, at first have called me to prove the successive visibility of our Church? But to your Appeal. Ho all you true Logicians, this Learned man and I refer it to your Tribunal, whether it be the part of an Opponent to contrive his Argument so, as that the Negative shall be his, and then change places, and become Respondent, and make his Adversary Opponent at his pleasure We leave this Cause at your Bar, and expect your Sentence. But before we come to the Lawyer's Bar, I m●●st have leave more plainly to state our Case.  johnson. 
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 provable by instances, as this is, I affirm, and desire it should be sent to both our Learned Universities, 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 Opponent go to prove his universal negative by Induction, viz. in my present Minor, But no Congregation of Christians hath been always visible, save those which acknowledge St. Peter, etc. 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 Congregation that can be named. Then, if the Respondent deny that Proposition, and affirm there is some nameable, 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 Church's universal Head, and the Holy Scriptures the Word of God. Papists tell us of another Head and Rule; the Pope and Tradition, and judgement of the Church. Protestants deny these Additionals, and hold to Christianity and Scripture only: our Religion being nothing but Christianity, we have no controversy 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 referred. 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 successively 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 Papacy, or universal Government by the Pope, be of Heaven or of Men? 
Fallacy 8.  and so, Whether it hath been from the beginning? which we deny, and therefore are called Protestants; and they affirm, and are therefore called Papists. 2. If they cannot first prove a Successive visibility of their Papacy and Papal Church, than 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 Tithes, 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 only to a part, and the soundest, safest part 3. The Case of Possession therefore is, Whether we have not been longer in Possession of our Religion, which is bare Christianity, than you of your superadded 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 principally belong to you, to prove the visible Succession of a Vice-Christ over the universal Church.  johnson. 
Num. 25. Fair and softly, Sir, you are run quite out of the field, and have lost yourself I know not where. The present question is not, who is to prove the universal 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 present is nothing but this, when I have brought the Argument to this Head; that no other Congregation of Christians 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 only, is that which I referred, and still refer to the the judgement of the Learned: as to your Case, when it comes in season; it shall be resolved. This only ex abundanti for the present: whatsoever may be, or not be, of the Indians and Ethiopians, etc. (which shall hereafter be examined.) You, who confess the Pope to have been constituted, 
Part 2.  at least by the Churches grant, Patriarch of the West, and thereby to have acquired a lawful Supremacy over the Western Churches, (and consequently over that of England) and was in full and quiet possession of that Right, when your first Protestant's began to reject it; you, I say, cannot deny, those first Protestant's at least to have been obliged, by reason of that possession, to bring convincing proofs that it was unlawful: which notwithstanding you must hold impossible to be done, because you hold that Patriarchal power over them to have been lawful. Now what obligation falls upon you, as maintaining successively so wrongful 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 Patriarch; for the English obeyed him as Supreme over all, and not as Patriarch of the West only, as appears by thousands of testimonies extant in our National Councils, Doctors, Bishops, Historians, Records, Decrees, etc. Therefore those, who dispossessed him of that possession, were bound either to have demonstrated it undeniably to be unlawful, or to have procured a definitive Sentence against him by such as had full Authority 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 reply, 1. Your exception was not expressed, and your imposition was peremptory.  johnson. 
Num. 26. But I supposed my Adversaries to be Logicians, and stood not in need to be instructed in usual Logical processes, belonging to Syllogistical Form. 
p. 37. Baxt. Edit.  Do what I can, you will mistake me. I speak of a Church denying that the Pope hath always 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 always 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 always visible, and I am satisfied, whether that Church always 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 Pope's universal Head-ship. You say that you have proved it by this Argument, that either he hath that▪ Supremacy, or some other Church, denying that he hath always had it, hath been always 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 show 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 always been denied by the visible Church, you would sure turn thousands from Popery, 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 Heresy be opposed, or condemned, before it doth arise?  johnson. 
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 Logic, That he, who denies an universal Negative Proposition, framed in a positive Historical matter, as mine is, is not obliged to give an instance, when it is demanded, to infringe the universality of it: and this I have, and do refer. The second is a Theological, or rather Christian Principle, That no professed Heretic, nor Schismatic 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 Heretic, properly so called, had, or could have, true Christian Faith, or the profession of it, without which no man can be a true member of the Catholic Church, that is, united to Christ as his Head, as you explicate your meaning. Your other difficulties, about the Title of Universal Bishop, etc. 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 expressly 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 expressly.  johnson. 
Num. 28. But have you dealt as fairly with me; when after I had so clearly explicated myself, in my former Answer, not to exact a perpetual visible Church, formally and expressly 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 expressly, but (as you acknowledge in this Paragraph) that I obliged you not to prove a continued visible Church formally and expressly 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 obligation, of instancing in a Church which at some time or other denied it formally and expressly, as your inference seems to affirm I do. For seeing it has for many hundred years been publicly 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 its you that must prove, that there was such. I prove our Religion; do you prove yours: though I say to pleasure you, I'll disprove it, and have done it in two Books already.  johnson. 
Num. 29. I had no farther Obligation in the Process of this Argument, then to enforce you to produce an instance 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 according to Logical Form; say as much as you please, that it was ex abundanti, no good Logician will believe you. I mention not the Churches being without a Supreme visible Pastor, which you term universal, nor oblige I you precisely to prove that, but to prove a perpetual visible Church whose government was inconsistent with one supreme visible Pastor over all, which is an Affirmative Proposition. Why mistake you perpetually? 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 rejoinder to your Arguments.  Baxter. 
Num. 29. My reason from the stress of necessity, which you lay on your Affirmative and Additions, was but subservient 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 believe not this or that, is more obliged to prove it, than he that affirmeth a point as of no such moment.  johnson. 
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 sentence is a repetition of what I denied, without answering my answering my Argument against it. Then, say I, a Christian is bound to prove his Religion to a Mahometan, but a Mahometan is not bound to prove his to a Christian; 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.  johnson. 
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 corporally present in every Church in the Eucharist, should not say, 
Fallacy 8.  That the King of the Church is absent.  johnson. 
Num. 32. Why dally you thus, to amuse your Reader? 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 Deputy to Essentiate his Kingdom; and 2. That the Pope is so deputed, you will have done more, then is yet done for your cause.  johnson. 
Num. 33. I have proved that Christ instituted S. Peter and his Successors to govern visibly his whole Universal Church on earth in all ages, and that nothing so instituted 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 press you therefore once more to give an instance of something which has been ever in the visible Church by Christ's 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 Kingdom: the Deputy is but an Officer, and not essential.  johnson. 
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 Kingdom; 
See my words Baxter, p. 38.  then sure he must be essential; this is evident in our present subject: For though all the Pastors in Christ's Church be only his Officers 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 yourself by your replies, for what true Christian ever yet denied, that either Bishops, or Presbyters, or both, though they are all Christ's Officers and Deputies are essential to Christ's visible Church?  Baxter. 

Fallacy 6. The word ever left out the thi●●d time.  Num. 35. Your naked Assertion, That whatsoever Government Christ instituteth of his Church, must be essential to his Church, is no proof; nor like the task of an Opponent.  johnson. 
Num. 35. My Assertion is of force, till you produce some instance of perpetual Church Government instituted by our Saviour, which is not Essential to his Church: which you neither have done, nor can you do it. And certainly, when any Commonwealth is instituted in such a determinate kind of perpetual Government, by one of so eminent Authority, that no other hath power to change that Institution (as it passes in our case) the government, which he instituted is not accidental to that Commonwealth; so far, that it will be no longer the Commonwealth instituted by him when the Government is changed.  Baxter. 
Num. 36. The Government of Inferior Officers is not Essential to the Universal Church, no more than judges and justices to a Kingdom.  johnson. 
Num. 36. Your Assertion is not true; for judges and justices may be changed into other Officers, by the Supreme authority: whereas none have power to change the Officers which Christ hath instituted to be perpetual in his Church. Again even in Commonwealths and Kingdoms, though these determinate Officers are not essential to them, yet it is essential to have some inferior Officers; seeing it is impossible, that the Supreme Magist●●ate should govern the whole Commonwealth immediately by himself.  Baxter. 
Num. 37. And yet we must wait long, before you will prove, that Peter and the Pope of Rome are in Christ's place, as Governors of the Universal Church.  johnson. 
Num. 37. I have proved it; and my proof is good, till it be convinced, that you have answered my Argument: Governors they are, but under Christ, and no farther than to a visible government of the universal Militant Church.  Baxter. 
Num. 38. Sir, I desire open dealing, as between men that believe 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 than you have here done. I proved a visible Church successively, that held not the Pope's Universal Government? Do you now prove, That the Universal Church in all ages did hold the Pope's 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.  johnson. 
Num. 38. Sir, All that I contend is, that my Argument sent to you, and the Answer to it promised and assayed by you, be respectively accomplished by us both: when that is done, I shall refuse no reasonable Propositions, and shall endeavour to give you all possible satisfaction. 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 finished: 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 Independent of the Bishop of Rome's authority, 'tis all one for solution of the Argument: The force of my discourse consists in this, No Congregation of Christians has been perpetually visible, save that which acknowledges the Pope's Supremacy; Ergo, No Congregation of Christians is Christ's true Church, save that. Now this Argument 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 solved: So that the Argument is not directed particularly against Protestants, but as well against Grecian Schismatics, Eutychians, Nestorians, Montanists, etc. as against them; and had it fallen into their hands, as it did into yours, the proving their visibility (though yours had not been proved) would have given satisfaction: nay if you had showed the perpetual visibility of any others, as you have assayed to do of yours, you had given an equal satisfaction to the Argument. But seeing you have pitched upon the visibility of your Protestant Church you have imposed an obligation upon me of answering the reasons and allegations, whereby you labour to prove it to have been perpetually visible.  Baxter. 
Num. 39 You complain of a deficiency in quality, though you confess, that I abound in number. But where is the desert! You say I must assert both, that these were one Congregation, and ever visible since Christ's time. Reply. If by one Congregation you meant one Assembly met for personal Communion, which is the first sense of the word Congregation, it were ridiculous to feign the universal Church to be such.  johnson. 
Num. 39 You know, I mean not that; why lose you time in putting an if upon it.  Baxter. 
Num. 40. If you mean one as united in one visible humane Head, that's it that we deny; and therefore may not be required to prove.  johnson. 
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 Christ's Body, 1 Cor. 12.12, 13. and one in him, Ephes. 4.4, 5, 6. etc.  johnson. 
Num. 41. These Churches; which these? mean you all that you seem to point at in your Catalogue? All sure, or you prove nothing; but which are those all? You name only those of the present age, Greeks, Armenians, Ethiopians, Protestants: After these, for eleven hundred years, you name none at all: How shall we then know determinately, what you mean here by these Churches, when you give no light to know your meaning. Let us therefore first know, which are these Churches you here relate to by some particular designation, and denomination of them; or how can you either prove, or we know, whether they were united in Christ, or no? and then, and not till then, can it be discerned whether these Churches be, or be not, parts of Christ's family, or body, according to the places you here cite.  Baxter. 
Num. 42. All that are true Christians are one Kingdom, or Church of Christ; but these of whom I speak are true Christians; therefore they are one Kingdom, or Church of Christ.  johnson. 
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 Christ's 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 Christ's being on earth.  johnson. 
Num. 43. Let them have been as visible as you please; that's nothing to me, so were the Arrians, Sabellians, Montanists, etc. as much as many of these: prove they were no more than one visible Congregation of Christians amongst themselves, and with Orthodox Christians; that's the present controversy.  Baxter. 
Num. 44. And to what purpose talk you of determinate Congregations? Do you mean individual Assemblies? those cease, when the persons die: Or do you mean Assemblies meeting in the same place? So they have not done still at Rome.  johnson. 
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, etc. in Tenduc, Nubia, etc. and yet remain in other parts. I never said that the Church must needs be visible still in one Town or Country.  johnson. 
Num 45. I assent to you in this: why lose you labour in asserting that which no man questions.  Baxter. 
Num. 46. And yet it hath been so de facto, as in Asia, Ethiopia, etc. 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, etc. had Christians, without naming them. When all History tells you, that these countries' were Christians, or had Churches, I must tell you what and who they were! Must you have their Names, Surnames, 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, etc. 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.  johnson. 
Num. 46. You trifle away time exceedingly; I require (as you have seen above) the nomination of the determinate Opinions, or Societies, as Hussites, Waldenses, Nestorians, Eutychians, etc. not of their persons. And therefore I say you nominate none, 
See Baxt. p. 41.  much less prosecute you those with whom you begun. Now these were Greeks, Armenians, Ethiopians, Protestants; so that I speak undeniably of the nomination of Sects, and Societies, not of Names, Surnames, and Genealogies of persons. There were different Sects and Professions in different Countries, as Armenia, Abassia, etc. I require the nomination of which of those Sects, or parties, you mean in those times and Nations, not what were their names and surnames. Nor is it sufficient, that you say there were Christians, that is, Christians univocally so called, or true Christians, in all Ages in Armenia, Ethiopia, Egypt, etc. who denied the Pope's Supremacy; for unless you nominate of what party, sect, opinion, or profession they were, how shall any man judge, whether they held not some Opinion contrary to the Essentials of Christianity, and by that became no Christians, even in your opinion? You must therefore, either have nominated, and designed what sort of professions you mean, or acknowledge you have spoken in the air, and produced a pure non-proof, in the nomination of those countries', since no man can know by that, what sort of profession you mean, amongst all those different professions which have inhabited the said Nations; for Arrians, Sabellians, Manichees, Menandrians, etc. whom you hold to be no Christians, and to err in Essentials, denied the Pope's Supremacy in those Nations.   

CHAP. III.  
ARGUMENT.  
Num. 47. No Congregations of Christians can be united in Christ, which are not united in the profession of one and the same Faith; and in the Unity of external Communion. n. 50, 51, etc. Assertors of the Pope's Supremacy within the first 400. years after Christ. Extra Imperial Nations subject to the Roman Bishop. n. 51. India and outer- Armenians, not always Extra-Imperial. n. 51. An Universal proved from a Particular by Mr. Baxter. His word a proof. n. 55. A bold Assertion of his, contrary both to Ancient and Modern Writers. n. 54. The Ethiopians subject to the Three First General Councils. An obscure Authority, obscurely cited from Bishop Usher. n. 5●●, 58. He draws an Argument for no-subjection due to the Pope, from the disobedient Acts of Schismatics and Heretics against him. n. 60. The 28. Canon of Chalcedon, though admitted, proves not Mr. Baxter's Assertion. ibidem. What is meant by the Merits of S. Peter, when they are alleged by Ancient Fathers, as the prime Ground of the Pope's Supremacy.  Baxter. 
Num. 47. You ask, were they different Congregations? 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.  johnson. 
Num. 47. You answer not the question; for they might be in different places and times, and under several guides, and yet be one and the same Congregation; as appears in the succession and extension of the Catholic 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 impossible to be united in Christ, as I shall prove hereafter.  Baxter. 
Num. 48. That there were any Papists of 400. years after Christ, do you prove, if you are able. My Conclusion, 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.  johnson. 
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, than all were not against us, for so many hundred years; 
See Baxt. p. 23.  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 Legates witnessing what they said, to have always been known to every one (notum omnibus, etc.) give an Authentical Testimony, that it was always 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 supposition) esteemed so manifest an untruth, and contrary to the liberty and jurisdiction of all other Bishops and Churches; as imposing upon them a Superior, and Judge, who had no lawful Authority over them.  Baxter. 
Num. 49. Do you think to satisfy any reasonable man, by calling for positive proof from Authors, of such Negatives?  johnson. 
Num. 49. I demand no proof of a Negative: prove, I demand it. My demand is to show any one Congregation of Christians always visible, since Christ till now, 
See Baxt. p. 5.  be●●de that, which acknowledged the Pope's Supremacy: which is an Affirmative.  Baxter. 
Num. 50. Yet proof you shall not want, such as the nature of the point requireth, viz. That the said Churches of Ethiopia, India, the outer Armenia, and other Extra-Imperial Nations, were not under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome.  johnson. 
Num. 50. I suppose you mean by were not under, etc. 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 perpetually in all Ages a visible Congregation of Christians, not acknowledging the Pope's Supremacy; for in that Age wherein they were subject to him, they did acknowledge it.  Baxter. 
Num. 51. You find all these Churches, or most of them at this day (that remain) from under your jurisdiction: and you cannot tell, when or how they turned from you. If you could, it had been done.  johnson. 
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, etc. 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-Imperial Churches from under the Pope's Jurisdiction; and some who are, I can and do find, when and how they turned from him. It was about the year 1520. by occasion of the Lutheran Heresy, as all the world knows. If you mean only 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 show 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 always Extra-Imperial. For in the year 163. they subjected themselves to the Roman Emperor Antoninus Pius. 
Euseb. in Chronic. Anno 22. Anton. Eutrop. lib. 8. Evagr. Id. c. 7.  The Armenians, that were Christians, were not always Extra-Imperial. For in the year 572. being grievously persecuted for the Christian Faith by the Persians, they rendered themselves Subjects to the Roman Emperor. Nor were they always a separate Congregation from those, who acknowledged the Spiritual Sovereignty of the Roman Bishop. 
●●n. Flor. in literis unionis, & de Armenorum concordia. Vide Plat. Naucler. Volaterranum, Chalcond. Emilium, Onuphrium, Genebrard. de Concilio Flor. See jovius, Gen. Maseus Inerring. in anno 1524.  For, in the year 1145. they and the Indian Christians subjected themselves to him: and again Anno 1439. and so remain for the present. Nor were the Ethiopians, in all ages, a different Congregation from the Roman. For Anno 1524. the Emperor and High Priest, David, promised obedience to the Sea Apostolic. And Claudius, his Successor, did the like, Anno 1557. Now let us review the force of your instances. You undertook to show, in Answer to my Minor, some visible Congregation, beside that which acknowledges the Pope's Supreme power, in all Ages since Christ. To prove this, you nominate only the Indians, Ethiopians, Armenians. 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 Congregation 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-Imperial Nations; and upon that score (in your principles) independent of the Roman Bishop: and yet Two of these made themselves subjects to the Roman Emperor, as I have now proved. You undertook to prove, that those three forenamed Nations, and other Extra-Imperial 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 Logic? You tell me, we cannot tell, when or how they turned from us; and I tell you, and have proved it, that the Goths in Spain are not from under us at this day: and that the Suedes and Danes, being their offspring, departed not from us, till about the year 1520. by occasion of Luther's Heresy. 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 Tradition, that the Pope was never their Governor.  johnson. 
Num. 52. You are pleased 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 jurisdiction: no not by Baronius himself, that is so copious and so skilful in making much of nothing.  johnson. 
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 contained in the number of All. But many Ancient Authors, 
S. Prosper, S. Leo, etc. infra citandi.  and Fathers say, That All Churches, and the whole Church was, and aught 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 jurisdiction over them, or their Acts of subjection; which Church History must needs have contained, if it had been true, that they were your Subjects.  johnson. 
Num. 54. What none? that were very strange. Is not Genebrard a witness, that Pope Eugenius wrote to the Emperor of Ethiopia, anno 1437. to send Legates to the Council of Ferrara, as the Greek Emperor had decreed to do: to whose Letters and Legates David, their Emperor, returned a respectful Answer, and accordingly sent some of his Church to that Council, as appears by the Acts of the Council itself, where the Ethiopians 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 Clement the 7 th'. And witnesss not, both Platina, Nauclerus, Volaterranus, Chalcondylas, Emylius, Onuphrius, Genebrard, and also the Acts of the Florentine Council, that the Armenians and Indians acknowledged the Spiritual Sovereignty of the Roman Bishop through the whole world? Are these no credible witnesses? And as to more Ancient times, gives not the Arabic Translation of the first Nicene Council a clear witness (as we shall see presently) that the Ethiopians were to be under 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 Kingdom of Spain at this day, and all the Historians of Sueden, Denmark, and other Northern Countries, 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 invitation of them thereunto, (that was ever proved, or is showed by you) is sufficient evidence. 
Non-proof.   johnson. 
Num. 55 I intent 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 (digressively) give one instance of. The Ethiopic Liturgy, because 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 Usher, de Success. Eccles. In Ethiopicarum Ecclesiarum universali Canone descriptum habebatur Hic panis est corpus meum. In Latinâ Translatione, contra fidem Ethiopic. Exemplarium (ut in primâ operis editione confirmat Pontificius ipse Scholiastes) expunctum est nomen panis.  johnson. 
Num. 56. No more does the Roman Missal itself, 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 Controversy, no way pertaining to that subject? What rule have you for that? Yet I find in their very Liturgy, both a plain acknowledgement of St. Peter's primacy, and of the reverence they bear to the three first general Councils; in making a particular Commemoration of the Fathers 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 Heresy of Eutiches who was condemned in it.  
Your digression, I confess, is something large▪ from the Pope's 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 notice of such small omissions, had not you given me a Precedent for it. At last I found them, cap. 2. p. 54. Edit. 2. but then I was at a loss again. For having examined three different Editions of the Bibliotheca, (which is all are extant) and the Scholia's in the Margin, I could find 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 Scholiastes, and where they are to be found. For the matter itself it seems, I must needs tell you, very improbable, both because the Scripture itself hath hoc, and not hic panis, and were it not a great boldness in a whole Church to consent to the changing of Christ's words of Institution 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 Liturgy, it delivers clearly the change of bread into Christ Body, effected in the consecration of the divine Mysteries? 
Canon universalis Aethiop. Hoc est corpus sanctum honoratum, Vitale, domini & salvatoris nostri jesu Christi, quod datum est in remissionem peccatorum vere sumentibus ipsum. Hic est sanguis Domini & salvatoris nostri jesu Christi sanctus, honoratus, ac vivificus, qui datus est in remissionem peccatorum & advitum consequendam, voce sumentibus eum. Dicit intra, divinum sacramentum esse corpus quod assumpsit ex Maria Virgin. 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, etc.   Baxter. 
Num 57 Constantine's 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.  johnson. 
Num. 57 Why so? Might not the Roman Bishop rule there, though the Emperor did not? The King of Persia, as not Subject to the Emperor, 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 entreat the King of Spain to send his Bishops to a general Council, though both of them acknowledge the Pope's Authority over them, and the Churches in their respective Kingdoms? Call you this an Argument?  Baxter. 
Num. 58. Even at home, the Scots and Britain's obeyed not the Pope, nor conformed about Easter-Observation, even in the days of Gregory, but resisted his changes, and refused Communion with his Ministers.  johnson. 
Num. 58. No more do you conform to him now: follows it thence, that he never exercised authority over the Church in this Nation? Will you draw a consequence from the disobedience of a Subject to the want of power in a Superior? Was not this very error ascribed to them by Venerable Bede, 
Beda Histor. Ang. lib. 2. cap. 2.  and here acknowledged by you, condemned as an Heresy in the Council of Nice? and may you not as well argue thus (even against your own principles) Those Britain's and Scots conformed not about the Easter-Observation prescribed in the Council of Nice; therefore they acknowledged no subjection to the authority of that Council: Ergo, That Council never had authority over them: And as to Communion with his Ministers, 
See V Bede Hist. Angl. l. 2. cap. 2.  Bede tells you, they refused also to communicate with the English, who were then converted, or to help towards their conversion; were they also justifiable in this? Or had they any right in Christian charity to refuse it?  Baxter. 
Num. 59 I have already elsewhere given you the testimony 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 Ethiopians, and Indians, and the rest which the Apostles converted are not under the Church of Rome.  johnson. 
Num. 59 No more are you, what then? our question is not of what is done de facto for the present, but what the jure, aught 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 showed 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 requires a deeper and larger discussion, as being a main point in your Novel Divinity.  Baxter. 
Num. 60. I have proved from the Council of Chalcedon, that it was the Fathers, that is, the Councils, that gave Rome its pre-eminence.  johnson. 
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 Council of Chalcedon, proves not what you say here, though that Canon were admitted; of which more hereafter. For the Greek word is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (gave to, or conferred upon Rome) those privileges, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (exhibited or deferred to them) to Rome, as ever before due unto it, by right of the Apostolic Sea of S. Peter established there. And though the Canon allege for the reason of this, the Imperial power of that City, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (because it was the Imperial City) yet it neither says, (as you would infer from it) that this was the sole and complete reason, no nor the chief neither of Rome's pre-eminence, but one amongst 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, 
Conc. Calced. in relat. ad Leonem.  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 Catholic Church, when that wicked Heretic presumed to excommunicate St. Leo. Now the true reason why this Canon mentions rather the Imperial Authority of that City, than 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, than any other; because Constantinople had no other prevalent plea for its pre-eminence, save the Imperiality 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 conjoining them together by the Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian 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. 
V●●de infra.  Three things have established the Primacy of the Sea Apostolic the Merit of S. Peter, who is the Prince of the Episcopal Society, the Dignity 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 anciently 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 Metropolitan Seas: for by this means Church-government was more sweetly and peaceably instituted and maintained, both to the satisfaction of the Cities themselves, of the temporal Governors, and of spiritual Pastors.  
It was (say you) not the Dignity and Authority of St. Peter, 
N●●w S●●ct.  but the Merits of Virtue and Sanctity, which was alleged 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 Antiquity in these purer Ages: but it seems withal, you were sore pressed 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 meant by merita B. Petri, the merits 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 meritorious, then either S. Paul, or S. john 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 degree of Sanctity, than any of his fellow-Apostles: prove there was any such persuasion. Nay it would probably have been esteemed a temerity, a very great curiosity, to have preferred the sanctity of any one amongst them before 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 holiest amongst all the Apostles.) But to show they understood not that, but the Merits of Dignity and Authority, they usually add this clause, Meritis Beati 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 Authority. And it were very strange to regulate the Authority of Episcopal Seas by the personal merits of their first Institutors; both because that is (without an express revelation) a thing known to God only, and would occasion a thousand contentions about the precedency of Bishops; every one being desirous to esteem the Apostle of his City, or Nation, the greater Saint; and because there never was, in Ancient times, any such reason given for the precedency of Episcopal, or Apostolical Seas; (if there were, show it) nor was any of the other Apostles successors preferred before the rest, upon pretence that his merits and sanctity was esteemed greater than that of others.  Baxter. 
Num. 61. But those Councils gave the Pope no pre-eminence over the Extra-Imperial Nations.  johnson. 
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 Christ's Institution? But supposing, Argumentandi gratiâ, not granting, that they had had power to confer these privileges upon S. Peter's Sea, how do you prove they did not the facto give them to him, and thereby 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.  johnson. 
Num. 62. Were they not called? sure than 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? 
Vide Act. Conc. Nicen. et Ephes.  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 particular to the Churches through all Persia, and the great India, if the Bishops of those Churches were not called, or the Council had no Authority over them? 
Theod. l. 1. c. 7. Mar. Victor. lib. 1. adv. Arium. Euseb. l. 3. the vit●● Constannin. c. 7. Socrat. l. 1. c. 5.  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. IU.  
ARGUMENT.  
Num. 63. Emperors alone called no General Councils: so that Extra-Imperial Bishops must have been called by the Pope. Extra-Imperial Churches, under the Patriarches. num. 65, etc. One page and a half of Mr. Baxters' Key for Catholics, occasionally examined; and what defects are found in them. n. 67. Had the Extra-Imperial Churches not acknowledged the Pope's jurisdiction 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 Pope's Supremacy without the Roman Empire. num. 69. S. Leo highly injured 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 Countries. num. 72. Dr. Heylen and Ross, Protestant Authors, against Mr. Baxter. n. 37. The first of these acknowledges the Arabic Translation of the Nicene Council to be Authentic.  Baxter. 
Num. 63. The Emperors called, and enforced the Councils, 
Non-proof 5.  who had no power out of their Empire.  johnson. 
Num. 63. Called they them alone? had they not the Authority of the Roman Bishop joined with them, or rather presupposed to theirs. Prove that the Emperors only called them. What if they had no coercive power out of the Empire? had they not power to signify to those Extra-Imperials, that a Council was to be celebrated; and to invite them at least to it? Or if they did not, could not the Bishop of Rome, or the other Patriarches, under whose Jurisdiction they were respectively, notify 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 expressly confined within the verge of the Empire; See both the description and full proof in Blondel de Primatu in Ecclesiâ. Gall.  johnson. 
Num. 64. I should much rather have had the Description from yourself, then have been thus bobbed off to Blondel, so laxely cited, without Page, Paragraph, Number, Chapter, or Book, as you cite him here; so that I must be enforced, if I will find it, to turn over his whole Treatise, a Book in Folio of 1268 Pages. Whatsoever therefore is of him (with whom I have nothing to do for the present; for if I would answer every particular Author of yours, whom you cite as wildly as you do this blondel, I might have work enough,) it is evident, that some Extra-Imperial Provinces were under the Ancient Patriarches. And in the first place, concerning the Bishop of Rome, the 39 Canon of the Nicene Council, in the Arabic Edition published by Pisanus, (which I shall cite more particularly hereafter, and prove the Authenticalness of those Canons) affirms expressly, that the Roman Bishop, as being Christ's Vicar, has power over all Christian Princes, and their people subject to them; 
Tom. 1. Conc. p. 416.  and that he, as being the Vicar of Christ, is over all people, and all Christian Churches: and Can. 36. declares, that the Bishop of Alexandria has Jurisdiction over the Ethiopic Churches. And Can. 35. orders, that the Bishop of Antioch should have Authority over the Church of Persia, which was Extra-Imperial. And the Council of Chalcedon, 
Ibid. pag. 4●●5.  Can. 28 th'. so much extolled by you, gives to the Bishop of Constantinople Authority over the Barbarous Nations near those parts, that is, such as were Extra-Imperial, as that of Russia, and Muscovia.  Baxter. 
Num. 65. The Emperors themselves did sometime (giving power to the Councils Acts) make Rome the chief; and sometime (as the Councils did also) give Constantinople equal privilege; and sometime set Constantinople highest, as I have showed in my Key, pag. 174, 175. But the Emperors had no power to do thus, with respect to those without the Empire.  johnson. 
Num. 65. I will here give my Reader an assay of the solidity of your proofs, heaped confusedly one upon another in your Key: You cite in pag. 174, 175. Now pag. 174. you translate Pontifex, Pope, and summus Pontifex, chief Pope. Sure you never had this Translation from any Grammarian, new or old. Who ever, before you, said that Pontifex signifies Pope? or what similitude is there betwixt Pontifex and Pope, save only, that they both begin with the same Letter. When S. Paul saith, speaking of our Saviour, Habemus Pontificem magnum, 
H●●b. 4.14.  would you translate it, We have a great Pope? Or when he affirms, that he is Pontifex secundum ordinem Melchisedec, would you English it, 
H●●b. 6.20.  He is a Pope according to the order of Melchisedec. I always thought, that Pontifex, or summus Pontifex, signified the highest sort of Priests, both in the Old Testament and the New, but never heard that it signified Pope before. But you have some drift in this. Baronius, say you, in Martyrolog. Roman. April. 9 affirms, that all Bishops were styled anciently, not only 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 styled 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'll help you out for once. Bellarmin is one of that some you speak of, Lib. 2. de Pontif. Roman. cap. 31. sect. Quartum. But Barenius, say you, affirms that Title to have been attributed anciently to all Bishops; that's true too, if you take the Latin words; but not in that sense, wherein Bellarmin takes Summus Pontifex. For Baronius takes it for a chief Priest, and Bellarmin for the chiefest, or highest Priest, not only in respect of simple Priests, who are in a rank below Bishops, and in relation to whom Bishops were anciently styled 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, citys an Epistle of Pope Stephen, where the Bishop of Rome is styled Summus omnium praesulum Pontifex, the highest Bishop of all Prelates, or Bishops. In the same sense he citys S. Gregory, and S. Bernard. And lastly the sixth Synod, which entitles him, Act. 18. in Sermon. Acclamatorio, Sanctissimum Patrem nostrum, & summum Papam, (their most holy Father, and most high Pope) that is, the highest of all Bishops, even over the Bishops of that Council. And though Baronius, cited by you, grant the bare words of summus Pontifex, as they signify only a chief Priest, were anciently given to all Bishops, yet in his Annals, Anno 215, & 216. num. 3. from the Title of Pontifex maximus, (the greatest, or highest Bishop) that is summus Pontifex in Beauties' 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 Beauties' 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 show, that the Titles Papa, Dominus, Pater Sanctissimus, Beatissimus, Dei amantissimus, etc. 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 Jerusalem 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 authority 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 Caesarea, (out of S. Basil) is the mother of all Churches in a manner. Would you think it a rational answer, if one should prove your mother had authority to correct you by virtue of the title of mother; 
Fallacy 10.  you should answer, that the tiof mother proves nothing, for your elder sister was as a mother to you in a manner, though she had no authority over you: Is not not this a plain Fallacy, from simpliciter to secundum quid?  
In your fourth Paragraph you say, If the words be consulted where the Roman Church is styled mater Ecclesiarum, (mother of all Churches) for that's her title, they signify only priority of dignity, that is, without authority and jurisdiction over all Churches joined to that dignity. And this you never go about to prove, so irrefragable is your authority, that your bare word must pass 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 Universal Bishop to Pope Leo, which the whole Council of Chalcedon approved, and read publicly; 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 than 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 than his due? Either therefore they were no flatterers; and than you injure them in branding those holy venerable persons with so black a note; or they meant more than you would have them mean by universal Bishop; and than you speak untruly, in putting a false gloss upon their words; choose which you please, you contradict yourself.  
And you are as consonant to yourself in instancing, that many particular Churches are oft called Catholic; What then? Ergo, the Title of Archbishop of the Catholic Church, or the Universal Bishop, proves not the Pope's Supremacy: Draw these two together if you can. Yes, there is a difference, say you next, between a Catholic Church, and the Catholic 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 Catholic Church, and the Archbishop of the Catholic Church: That's 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 Catholic Church, for so is every Orthodox Archbishop as well as the Pope, but that he is called the Archbishop of the Catholic Church: These are your precise words. No●● say you, that we style him an universal, or Catholic Bishop, for so are all lawful Bishops, but that we style 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 received as publicly 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 Predecessor, as S. Gregory witnesses in his Epistle against john 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 writ, so you make a noise.  
This done you allege justin. 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 Constantinople is the Head of all other Churches) whence you prove, that justinian prefers the Church of Constantinople before the Church of Rome: Surely you never read this Law of justinian: for had you read it, you would have found, by his mentioning there certain Ecclesiastical Officers called Chartularii, belonging to the Cathedral Church, that he speaks there only of the great Patriarchal Church of St. Sophia in Constantinople, and makes it the Head of all other Cathedral Churches in that Patriarchate, and not of the politic body of the Constantinopolitan Church, in regard of all other Christian Churches in the world: And your very Concession here concludes, that he prefers not the Constantinopolitan in your sense, before that of Rome; for you acknowledge he prefers Rome before it: For all know that justinian's Laws were so prudently couched and ordered, that such palpable contradictions as these were never noted by any Classic 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 justinian, and by that you prove nothing. For justinian might both hold the Bishop of Rome was Head of all the holy Prelates of God, as he entitles 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 many Emperors since justinian have done, who notwithstanding believed 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 justinianus junior endeavoured all he could, even by force and violence, to draw Pope Sergius to subscribe to the Trullane Cannons, though he could not effect it: Nay, had you drawn a natural sequel from such proceed, it should rather have been, That justinianus signior therefore proceeded so violently against Vigilius, to induce him to subscribe to the condemnation of the Tria capitula, decreed in the fifth Council, because 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 confirmation of it; which was the reason that moved justinianus 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 lose Treatise; since in little more than in one sole page, occasionally light upon, I have discovered no less than two Equivocations, three Fallacies, four false Translations, three Inconsequences, 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 find it swarms all over with them, and is indeed nothing but a Farrago of Fallacies and Falsities, heaped 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 Parenthesis, 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 proved it, nor can prove it: if you mean, they gave only a coercive power, for the external Observation of those decrees, which by virtue of the Councils Authority, obliged 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 kind of Church Order and Government, than were those under the Roman Empire? Answ. When the whole body of Church-History satisfieth us, that they were not subject to the Pope, 
Non-proof. 6.  which is the thing in question, is it any weakening of such evidence, in a matter of such public fact, to put such a question as this, Whether they were under another kind of Government?  johnson. 
Num. 66. I have now shown that Church-History is so far from proving what you say, that it proves the quite contrary; and had it been otherwise, why cited you not here some one Ecclesiastical Historian (seeing I pressed you to it in my second Paper in confirmation 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.  johnson. 
Num. 67. It could not be of the same kind; for those under the Empire acknowledged themselves subject to the Roman Sea, as they were parts of the Catholic Church; which whole Catholic Church they professed 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 Paragraph 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 says, 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 yourselves, 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 allege. Neither doth he Poetize in his Sermons; nor there hath any such words, as might occasion your mistake; and therefore doubtless you believed some body for this that told you an untruth, and yet ventured to make it the ground of charging my words with untruth.  johnson. 
Num. 68 How this citation came under the name of S. Leo, I really know not: My Authentical Copy written in my own hand (which I have showed to some of credit, and am ready to show 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 myself 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 absence, so that it could not be perused by me, which is insinuated sufficiently in the end of my paper, where I desire you to excuse what errors you find in the Copy which I sent. 
Baxter p. 100  But however, there is only a nominal error, in citing St. Leo for St. Prosper, who is something ancienter than St. Leo, and less to be excepted against by you, than he; as being wholly disinteressed in that matter of the Pope's 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 itself was true and real, 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 Pastoralis honoris facta caput mundo, 
D. Pro●●er. Carm. de I●● g●●atis.  qu●●cquid non possidet armis religione tenet. (Rome, the Seat of Peter, being made Head of Pastoral honour to the world, possesses by means of Religion, whatsoever it possesses not by force of arms. Thus St. Prosper. And to the same effect in another place, he affirms, 
D●● vocat. Gent. lib. 2. c. 6.  That the principality of the Apostolic Priesthood hath made Rome greater through the Tribunal of Religion, then through that of the Empire. 
* New Sect.  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 wonder 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, 
S. Le●●, Serm. 1. de Natal. Apostol. Petr. & Paul.  civitas sacerdotalis & regia, per sacram beati Petri sedem caput orbis effecta, latius praesideres religione divina, quam dominatione terrenâ. Quamvis enim multis aucta victoriis jus imperii tui terrâ marique 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 height of glory, that thou shouldst be a holy Nation, an elect People, 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 labour 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 Thessalonica, telling him, That the great order of the Church instituted some one in every Province, 
S Leo. epist 82. add A●●st●●sium Epis●●. ●●hess●●.  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 Universal 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 judge, or Witness though you call him a Saint: as long as we know what passed between him and the Council of Chalcedon, 
Non-proo●●●●.  and that he was one of the first tumified Bishops of Rome, he shall not be judge in his own Cause.  johnson. 
Num. 69. Sir, I am really moved 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 says 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 novelists 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 Chalcedon pronounced, that the care of Christ's Vineyard was committed to him by our Saviour? 
V●●de Concil●●um Calced. in literis ad Leonem.  Was it not he, who was styled by the ecclesiastics of those times, The Ecumenical 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, passed 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 Authority of the Nicene Council, in the Order and Dignity of Patriarch●●, which moved him to withstand that surreptitious Canon for the preferring Constantinople before 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 expressly ordained, that Constantinople should be the second after Rome. Now for you to call him a Tumified Bishop, for no other reason, given here, then for seeking to maintain the Ancient Decrees of Nice, against all innovations of subsequent Councils, will seem very strange, I suppose, to all Christian Readers.  Baxter. 
Num. 70. But you add, that the Abassines of Ethiopia 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 persuade us, that the Abassines were under the Patriarch of Alexandria, for above three hundred, if not four hundred years after Christ. Prove it, and then your words are regardable.  johnson. 
Num. 70. Why say you, I speak without proof, when I direct you (pag. 42.) by saying as we shall see presently, 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 Episcopus horum omnium habeat potestatem, etc.  johnson. 
Num. 71. Your argument is fallacious, and proceeds a part ad totum. The Canon says no more, then that, according to the ancient custom, Egypt, Lybia, 
Can. Nicen. ●●. 6.  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 Sovereign, Charles the Second, durst you conclude thence, that Ireland was not part of his Kingdom. Nor was it here the intention of the Council, to nominate expressly all the Provinces under Alexandria; nor to make a new Constitution, but a Decree of Confirming the Ancient Custom about the Jurisdiction of Patriarches. Now seeing Meletius and his Complices, had schismatically exercised Jurisdiction in those Provinces, the Council, to abrogate that intrusion and usurpation, 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 controversy) to the ancient custom, without nomination of particulars; as it did in relation to Antioch, 

Socrat. l. 1. c. 6. Theodor. l. 1. c. 9  
Conc. Nicen. Can. 6.   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 Countries and Provinces in those parts; for the Constantinopolitan Council, c. 2. citing this 6 th'. Canon of Nice, says that it was decreed in that Canon, that the Patriarch of Alexandria should govern only the affairs of Egypt, neither naming Lybia, nor Pentapolis, which are specified in that Nicene Canon, so that Egypt included all the adjacent Countries in those parts, and consequently Ethiopia.  Baxter. 
Num. 72. And the common descriptions of the Alexandrian Patriarchate, in those times, confine it to the Empire, and leave out Ethiopia.  johnson. 
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. 
Ross. p. 99 infra cita●●.  When you produce those Descriptions, they shall be answered. In the Interim I stand to my Assertion, as not yet disproved.  Baxter. 
Num. 73. Pisanus new inventions we regard not.  johnson. 
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 endued with Learning and Reason, as yourself; who hath so much regard to Pisanus his Edition of the Arabic Canons of the Nicene Council, 

Canon 36. Arab. Edit.  
Dr. Heylin. Cosmograph. lib. 4. pag. 977. Edit. ultim.   that he citys them as Authentical, and thereon grounds the subjection of Ethiopia to the Patriarch of Alexandria, 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 justices of the Peace to him, who in a Sessions is the Eldest amongst them. ibid. Bishops of Rome exercising Spiritual jurisdiction and Authority over the three first Patriarches of the East. n. 75. No limitatiun to the Roman Empire mentioned in Antiquity, in relation to the Pope's Authority. num. 76. If any one Extra-Imperial Church be granted subject to Rome's Authority all others must be so a paritate rationis, unless some reason be alleged, why that was subject, rather than others? n. 79. No Emperor could give Authority to Rome over Extra-Imperial Churches. n. 80. Primacy and Primate put absolutely in the Ecclesiastical signification, argues always jurisdiction over others. No Ancient Authority alleged, or alledgeable, that the Bishops within the Empire made the Pope chief Bishop, even in place, or mere precedency, before Constantine's time, or that the Bishops of the West constituted him by unanimous consent, to have Power, and jurisdiction 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 than the jury are under the Foreman; or the junior justices on the Bench under the Senior; or York under London; or the other Earls of England, under the Earl of Arundel.  johnson. 
Num. 74. I perceive you are very free in your denials; 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, than those, which you here nominate, one under the other? Are you serious? Why then did the Christians of Pentapolis writ their accusations to Dionysius Bishop of Rome against Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria? 
Anno 263. S. Anthanas. de Sentent. Dionys. Idem in Com. de Synod.  Why did the same Pope, calling a Council 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, 
Anno 337. Socrat. l. 4. c. 30.  by virtue of Pope Damasus his Letters, to be restored to his Bishopric? Why writ Theophilus' Bishop of Alexandria, 
Anno 404. Apud Pallad●● Dialog.  to prevent the writing of S. chrysostom, to Pope Innocentius, in his own defence, that he might escape the sentence and punishment of the Church's censure, which S. chrysostom required the Pope to inflict upon him, and his complices? Why did Innocentius the First, together with the other Occidental Bishops, 
Anno 407. D. Chrysost. epist. ex Septem. Tom. 5. operum ejus. Extat etiam Tom. 1. epist. Rom. Pont. post Innoc●●nt. ep. 16. Anno 451.  excommunicate Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria? How came Dioscorus, Patriarch of Alexandria, to be deprived from sitting in the Council of Chalcedon, and to be presented before the Council, as a guilty person, by virtue 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 exclusion of joannes Talaida a Catholic, 
Simplic●●us epist. 17.  Canonically elected to that Sea? Or why writ those of Alexandria to Pope Simplicius, 
Anno 483.  to entreat him to confirm the election and instalment of joannes Talaida? What moved joannes Talaida to procure Commendatory Letters to Simplicius from Calendion Bishop of Antioch, to favour his Appeal 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 john? And why writ Felix to Zeno, the Emperor, to compel Acacius to appear, 
Liberat. cap 18. Evagr. l. 3. c. 18 & s●●q.  and answer to his Adversaries at Rome? And why was Petrus Fullonis condemned for having been intruded, 
Cod. Cresc●●ni, and Collect. recusa. apud Baronium. Tom. 61 Liberat. c. 1ST.  with exclusion of the lawful Bishop Calendion, into the Sea of Antioch? And why writ Acacius himself to Felix, Bishop of Rome, to confirm his condemnation of Petrus Gnapheus, and joannes Bishop of Apamea?  
Nor will your usual Solution to my subsequent Objections serve your turn. For it appears evidently in the form used in Excommunications and Condemnations from Rome, they were, not only Declarations that the Bishop of Rome, and his Bishops, substracted themselves 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 faithful Christians. Thus runs the Excommunication and Condemnation of Acacius, Bishop of Christantinople, 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 sententiâ praesenti. Sacerdotali honore & Communione Catholicâ, necnon etiam à fidelium numero segregatus, sublatum tibi munus Ministerii Sacerdotalis agnosce, Sancti Spiritus judicio & Apostolicâ authoritate damnatus, nunquamque Anathematis vinculis exuendus. (Receive therefore thy portion, with those, whom thou so willingly embracest, by virtue of this sentence. Thou art separated from Priestly Honour, from Catholic Communion, and from the number of the Faithful. Know that thou art deprived of Name and Ministry of a Priest, being condemned by the judgement of the Holy Ghost, and by Apostolical Authority, never to be loosed from the bonds of this Anathema.) See here, 1. A positive exclusion from the number and communion of the Faithful. 2. A deposition from Priesthood, or being Bishop. 3. That this is done, not by way of counsel, but of authority, authoritate Apostolicâ, it was done by the Pope's Apostolical Authority. 4. That this judgement of the Apostolic Sea is attributed to the Holy Ghost. And lastly, That the Pope exercises this high authority over the three chiefest and highest Patriarches of Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople, at the same time. From which it will hereafter sufficiently appear, how groundless your Answers are to my Objections. But to proceed.  
Nor yet can you allege (as you do to some of my proofs) that these were unlawful, and unjust proceed. For first, The matter of the sentence was not unjust, those being Heretics, Schismatics, Intruders and Usurpers, against whom the sentence was decreed: and that it was not unjust, as proceeding from one who had no authority to inflict such a punishment, is clear: For neither did the Catholic, nor Orthodox Christians, no nor those very Schismatics, who were thus censured by Felix, pretend any thing against the power of his Authority over 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 Foreman of a Jury, or the Signior 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 inferior 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, 
Non-proof 8.  that were under Alexandria, were not therefore under Rome.  johnson. 
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 assembled: and that in the Nicene Council, there was no restriction of that Patriarchal Sea to the Precincts of the Empire; 
Con. Nicen. cap. 6.  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, etc. and that proceeded not from the Institution of Christ, show (as you are obliged) 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 proved of Abassia, what is that to all the other Churches in India, Persia, and the re rest of the World?  johnson. 
Num. 76. Yes, 'tis very much; for it sounds an Argument à paritate rationis, that seeing no considerable reason can be given, why one Extra-Imperial Province should be subject to Rome more than all the rest, if one be proved subject, all others must be supposed to be so, unless some particular reason can be alleged why this was subject more than the rest. For till that be done, there can no reason be given, why any of the Extra-Imperial Churches were subject to the Roman Bishops, save this, that he was Governor 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 Ancient Church-History, and yet can believe, that all these Churches were then under the Pope, despair not of bringing yourself to believe any thing imaginable, that you would have to be true.  johnson. 
Num. 77. 'Tis your pleasure to say so. I shall be moved to believe you, when you convince ' me by reason: but your bare word without reason, 
Non-proof 9  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 Empire neither. Prove it, I beseech you better than by questioning. If you asked, Whether men rule not Angels? Your Question proves not the Affirmative.  johnson. 
Num. 78. I do not nakedly ask the Question, but prove what I say by an Instance, as you presently acknowledge.  Baxter. 
Num. 79. But you ask again, Did those Heathen Emperors give it him? Answ. 1. Power, over all the Churches none ever gave him, till titularly his own Parasites of late. 2. Primacy of mere 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.  johnson. 
Num 79. But I have now proved the power and Authority 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 Emperors, 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 Emperors. 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, show when, and by whom it was first given him. Nor, were that admitted, would it satisfy the difficulty, for the Bishop of Rome had precedency not only over all the Bishops within the Empire, 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, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Primate, in the Ecclesiastical signification, signified a precedency, only of mere 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 dignity of Primate in ancient times, and name any one, who in virtue of that Primacy had not true Ecclesiastical 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 Authority, asserted by Catholics, when they call it in Latin Primatus Romani Pontificis, the Primacy of the Roman Bishop? Has not Bellarmine and Stapleton of ours, Whitaker, Chamler, and Blondel of yours, with many 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 primacy is taken for precedency of place only, and there it is not put absolutely, 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 mere primacy of degree, or local precedency, and no authority conferred upon him by force of his primacy, had he not reason to be highly offended with you? Seeing therefore in the Council of Chalcedon, reciting the forenamed Canon of Nice, it is affirmed, that the Sea of Rome had ever the Primacy, 
Ecclesia Romana s●●mper habuit primatum.  and seeing no adjunct or limitation is given there, that the word Primacy is not taken in the usual Ecclesiastical signification, to wit, for a primacy in authority and jurisdiction, it must be understood in the usual signification. There was indeed anciently a precedency of place, amongst the other Patriarches, 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 sat in the Councils, or before whom they took place in all public 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, 
Fallacy 11.  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, 
Non-proof. 10  without the Emperors, and yet not meddle out of the Empire.  johnson. 
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 Testimonies from Antiquity. I bring you proofs that their subjection to him, was out of that most public Tradition, that he was successor to S. Peter. 
Vide infra.  Bring me as many that he was made Patriarch of the West, before Constantine's time, by force of free consent of the Western Bishops under the Empire. Is it not a plain Paradox to affirm, that a thing should be done by public 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 than Arles had over Rome: that is to reject Communion with each other upon dissent.  johnson. 
Num. 81. S. Cyprians words shall be examined hereafter 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 Ecumenical, having Authority over all Christian Churches, as well without as within the Roman Empire. num. 84, 85. Whom Mr. Baxt●●r accounts univocal Christians, and proper parts of the Catholic Church. num. 86. Whether he have made a good choice for himself. num. 88 No Heretic properly so called, can have true Christian Faith in any Article whatsoever, and consequently can be no part of the Catholic Church. num. 90, 91. Christ the sole Head of the whole Church, Triumphant and Militant. The Bishop of Rome, no more than Head of the visible Church on earth; and not absolutely, but secundum quid; that is according to the external and visible Government only; and even that not as having all other Bishops under him, as his Officers, but as Christ's Officers together 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 Emperors, when Church-associations were by voluntary consent of Pastors only; and so if they had thought it necessary, 
Non-proof 11.  they might have extended them to other Principalities yet de facto they did not do it, as all History of the Church declareth, mentioning their Councils and Associations, without these taken in.  johnson. 
Num. 82. Where are your proofs? I deny any such consent to be extant in Antiquity; nor could those Provincial, or Nationall Councils call the Extra-Imperials to sit with them; because they were only of the Provinces, which were within the Empire; and had no Authority 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 Vide titulum Conc. Nicen.  Titles of the Councils themselves confute you; where they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, universal, or General. Nor can you say, that is meant only through the Empire; for you hotly contend, that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (universal) is extended to all Christians through the whole world. Part. 2. Secondly, 
b Conc. Chalcedon. Act. 16. ap. Binium. p. 464.  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 Decrees themselves. Fourthly, Historians of all Ages call them Ecumenical, or General, and never intimate any Imperial limitation; if they do, produce the Historian, that calls them National, or Imperial Councils. Fifthly, the whole Christian world, ever since their times, have esteemed them General, and to have had an obligatory power and authority over all Christians. Sixthly, the holy Fathers, 
c 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 Christians, the whole Christian world, that is, the whole Church of Christ, as appears by a hundred places of his against the Donatiffs; when he says, 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, etc. of your Book.  who speak of them, style them General Ecumenical, plenary, yea plenissima, etc. 
d Produce any one of them, who limits these Councils to the Empires or denies them to have had power to oblige all Christians.  Seventhly, 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 Anno 1 Elizabeth. cap. 1. Versus finem capitis.  Eighthly, the very Statute-Books of England, since Protestant times, call them General. 
f 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 only National, or Imperial Councils.  Ninthly, your 39 Articles call them General; and the Fathers, 
g D. Aug. tom. 7. the Baptism. count. Donatist. lib. 2. cap. 3.  when they call them General, they distinguish them also from Provincial, or National Councils, Tenthly, 
h 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.  Orthodox Writers commonly affirm, that what they define is the Definition of the Catholic Church. 
i Thus were the Arrians, Quartodecimans, Rebaptisers, Macedonians, Nestorians, Eutychians, even in Ethiopia and Armenia, etc. esteemed ever since Heretics, for resisting the Definitions of those Councils.  All who resist their Definitions in matter of Faith, have ever since been universally branded with the note of Heretics, whether they were within, or without the Empire. 
k Canon universalis Ethiopum prays for the Fathers of the three First General Councils, and affirms they were gathered for the defence of the right Faith: and not for those of the Fourth Council, because the Eutychian Heresy, which they hold, was condemned in the Council of Chalcedon. Epist. Armen. primae ad Leon. Imperat. ubi se subjiciunt 4 primis Conciliis▪ & in aliâ Epist. ad cundem, idem faciunt Episcopi Armeniae Secundae. apud Binium. pag. 535. Conc. Tom.  Extra-Imperial Provinces and Churches have anciently, and do yet subscribe to them. Lastly, not only all kind of Authority, but plain reason, overthrows this your Novelty.  
For first, the end, why these Councils were gathered, was to procure peace amongst Christians, not in the Empire only, but through the whole Catholic 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 Definition had been made. Secondly, if any desired to embrace still the Heresies condemned in them, it was but conferring themselves to the Extra-Imperial Churches, and they had freedom in conscience from their former obligation, as not being bound there to subscribe to the Councils Decrees. So that every obstinate Heretic might shake off these Decrees at his pleasure. Thirdly, 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 believing the Doctrine of these Councils. Fourthly, if on the contrary any Extra-Imperial Nation had been reduced under the Empire, eo ipso, it would have contracted an obligation to conform to the Decrees of the said Councils; so that Christian belief should have depended on the fortune 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) otherwise 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 reason is, that those Extra-Imperial Christians, who embraced the Heresies condemned in any one of those Councils, never alleged this reason of yours, that those Councils had no power to oblige them, because they were not under the Empire: and I pray you, in your next, produce any such reason, authentically testified, to have been alleged by them.  Baxter. 
Num. 83. See now, how little your objections are worth; and how groundlessly you bid me, See now how little my Allegations are to the purpose.  johnson. 
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 Heretics, 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.  johnson. 
Num. 84. You would have given better satisfaction to your Reader, if amongst all the Sectaries particularised 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 whilst you leave him thus in obscurity, telling him only, 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 justifying the latter part, that is, almost one half of them, in your next ensuing words, and excusing some of the rest, 
Baxt. p. 48.  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 Catholic Church, in your Principles.  Baxter. 
Num. 85. Others of them were better Christians, than the Romanists, and so were of the same Church with us: And it is not many reproachful names put on them by malice, that makes them no Christians, or of many Churches, or Religions. If an arrogant Usurper will put Nicknames on all, that will not bow to him as Vice-Christ, and call them Iconoclasts, Berengarians, Waldensians, Albigenses, 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.  johnson. 
Num. 85. I have not Baptised any of them; they were publicly known by these names many a fair year, before you or I was born: and since I desired to be understood, I was to express them in such names, as they commonly 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, etc. deserved to be branded with the names of those several Arch-heretics 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 forenamed Sectaries, then upon Arrians, Donatists, or Pelagians, etc.  Baxter. 
Num. 86. I have in my most retired thoughts perused the History of those men's Lives, and of the Lives of many of your Popes, together with their several Doctrines; and with Death and judgement 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, etc. then with the Popes that burned them, or those that follow them in that cruelty, unless reconciling Grace hath given them repentance unto life.  johnson. 
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 Heretics, are in the other world: I hope, he has prepared a much better for you. But tell me seriously, would you indeed be content, rather to be with the Albigenses, who held Two Gods, 
Bernard. Lutsemburg. de Albigens. Vide etiam S. Anton. 4 parte summae. Tit. 11 c. 7.  the one Good, and the other Evil, with the Manichees; who denied 1. the Old Testament; 2. that Baptism profited Infants to Salvation; 3. that an unworthy Minister could consecrate the holy Sacrament; 4. that wicked Prelates had any Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, or were to be obeyed; 5. that it is lawful to swear in any occasion whatsoever, etc. then with Alexander the Third, whom no Christian in those times ever accused of Heresy, or Error in Faith, who was elected against his will, and after a Schism made by Octavianus the Antipope and Frederick the Emperor, was received both by the Western and Eastern Churches, excepting only the party of Frederick; who notwithstanding after acknowledged him, and relinquished Octavianus the Antipope. And whatsoever latter Historians relate by Hear-say, 
Acta Alex●●nd. 3. ap. Romuald. Episcop. Salern. in suo Chronico. & ap. Rogerium in Epist. Alexand. & in Histor. suâ.  of the insulting of this Pope over that Emperor, yet those, who recorded what passed 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 Universal Church.  johnson. 
Num. 87. This is your grand Novelty, at which I chief aim in this Answer. It is not easy to conjecture, what you mean by all these men, whether the Iconoclasts, Berengarians, Waldensians, Albigenses, Wickliffists, Hussites, Lutherans, Calvinists, which you named in the end of pag. 105. and again pag. 106. in your Edit. or those whom I named pag. 43. of your Book, that is, all at least amongst them, whom you account Univocal Christians: amongst which are Donatists, Nestorians, Eutychians, Pelagians. And can you, or did yet ever any Christian before you account these men to have had one Religion? Is the Religion of those, who say there are Two Gods, the same with that, which teaches there is no more but one only God? if so, than Heathens and Christians may be as well of one Religion. If not, then could not at least the Albigenses, be of one Religion with the rest; 
Vide supra.  whom I have proved to have held two gods; Of the rest more hereafter.  Baxte. 
Num. 88 Where you again call for one Congregation, I tell you again, that we know no unity Essential, from whence the Church can be called one, but either Christ, or the Vice-Christ: the former only is asserted by us, and the latter also by you; which we deny. And therefore we cannot call the Universal Church, one, in any other formal respects, but as it is Christian, and so one in Christ.  johnson. 
Num. 88 We acknowledge the Church to be one in Christ, as much as you, but we acknowledge him as Head, not to be the Formal, but the Causal unity, that is, working the formal unity, to wit, Faith and Charity in his Church. It is not enough to make one living organical body, that there be one head and parts, but those parts must be united to their Head, and amongst themselves, and to that Head: Nor is it enough, that there be several parts in the Church, and one head of it, but those parts must also be united to their Head, and amongst themselves; otherwise they are not one. Now that which is the formal cause of this Unity, is true Christian Faith and Charity, which do both unite Christians amongst themselves, and to Christ their Head. I mean that necessary and prime charity, which preserves external Communion, and society amongst Christians, so much celebrated by the Fathers and Schoolmen, which is taken away by nothing but Schism, or that which includes Schism: Whence appears, that to whomsoever the name of Christian is vulgarly given, unless there be found true Faith and this Christian charity amongst all the other members, they cannot be actual parts of the one true Catholic Church: When therefore you say, the Church universal cannot be called one, in any other formal respect, but as it is Christian, if you mean by Christian, all such as have true Christian faith and charity, (ut supra) you say true; and you say nothing, but what all good Christians say. But then here comes the difficulty, how any Heretic or Schismatic can be a Christian, more than nomine tenus, in denomination only, or in a lax acception of the word, for such as make a bare profession to believe in Christ, and are thereby distinguished from Jew's Mahumetans and Heathens, and so pass under the notion of Christians.  
For if to be a Christian in our present strict sense, be required a true Christian Faith, than all that are true Christians have true faith; but no Heretic hath true faith; Ergo, No Heretic is in this strict acception a Christian. The Major is evident: I prove the Minor. Whosoever hath true faith, believeth the material object of faith (or the thing believed) for the Divine Authority of God revealing it: But no Heretic believes the material object of faith (or the thing believed) for the Divine Authority of God revealing it; Ergo, no Heretic hath true faith. The Major is granted by all Divines, yours and ours. For Christian faith must rest upon God's revelation, as its formal object. I prove the Minor. Whosoever believes the material object of faith, (or thing believed) for the Divine Authority of God revealing it, must believe all things, which are as suffi●●iently propounded to him to be revealed by God, as are the rest of the Articles which he believeth, protesteth to▪ and believe nothing as revealed, which is as sufficiently declared to him to be erroneous, or not revealed by Divine Authority, as are the Articles of Faith propounded to be revealed by God. But every Heretic either refuses to believe something, which is so sufficiently propounded to him to be revealed from ●●od, or believes something as revealed, which is so sufficiently declared to him to be erroneous, or not revealed from God; Ergo, no Heretic hath true faith. The Major I prove thus, as to the first part: Whosoever refuses to believe what is so sufficiently propounded to be revealed by God, either believes all that is so propounded, or believes some things, and refuses to believe others, as sufficiently propounded as those which he believes. But if he refuses all, he can have no true faith; for he believes nothing, and consequently is no Christian. If he believes some, and refuses others equally propounded, he believes them not for the Divine Authority revealing, (for when that is equally propounded to his understanding, it ought to work equally upon it) but upon his own wilful choice, or private judgement refuses one, and assents to the other.  
To illustrate this, Let this sentence of Scripture, Tertiâ die refurget, (he shall rise again the third day) be so sufficiently propounded to be God's revelation, that whosoever refuses to believe the substance of our Saviour's Resurrection delivered in it, is justly condemned for not believing God's revelation. Now suppose some new Heretic (as I have heard of one such lately) should believe, that Christ did rise again from the dead, yet disbelieves that he risen the third day, and persuades himself, that his Resurrection happened some time after the third day: Let such an Heretic be asked why he believes, that Christ risen from death, if he tell you because God hath revealed it in the forenamed sentence, then ask him what moves him to believe that God has revealed it: if he tells you, because he finds it clearly expressed in this sentence of Scripture, which he believes to be Gods revealed word, demand further, why he believes 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 press him thus: But certainly, you believe not that place of Scripture to be the Word of God; for if you did, you would believe all that it contained in it, which you do not; for it is as clearly expressed in that sentence, That Christ risen again the third day, as that he risen at all: but you believe not that he risen the third day; Ergo, You believe not that Sentence to be the Word of God; Ergo, You cannot believe that Christ risen again, for the authority of God's word in that sentence; Ergo, You believe it not because God has revealed it; Ergo, You have no divine Faith at all of the mystery of the Resurrection, but a mere humane persuasion, grounded upon your own particular fancy or reason that it is so. Thus you see it is impossible to believe any thing, which God has revealed, for the Authority of Divine revelation, unless he who believes gives the like assent to every other truth, (be it of what importance, great or small, in itself, makes nothing to our present difficulty) which is as plainly proposed to him to be revealed from God, as that which he believes.  
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 Commonwealth, of so great credit, that what he saves is believed by every one as an undoubted truth. Some other of credible Authority tells his friend, this Honourable person has told him two things, and affirmed both of them to be true of his own knowledge; his friend tells him he believes the one, but will not by any means assent to the other. He asks his friend, Why believe you the first? He answers, because such a person affirms it to be true. He demands further, why believe you he said so? the friend answers upon your relation. Then says the other you hold my relation to be a sufficient inductive to make you believe he said the first. Yes, says his friend, I do; not so, replies the relator; for if you did, you would believe 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 believes not the Honourable person said so, upon the sole authority of the others relation, and consequently, that neither of those truths were sufficiently propounded to him by that relator, and so could believe neither the first not the second, contrary to his former acknowledgement, and our present supposition; or he must deny that he believes the second of those relations, though the Honourable Personage said both the one and the other; and than it is evident, he believed not the first upon the sole credit of his saying, but for some other reason of his own. For if he had believed the first upon his sole word, he must have believed the second also; seeing he had as much reason to believe 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 believes any thing as revealed from God, which is as sufficiently propounded to him to be erroneous, or not revealed from God, as are the Articles of Faith, to be God's revelations; the very same Authority which affirms the one, denying the other. Let us suppose some rigid Calvinist, believing the Pope to be that great Antichrist, foretold in the Revelation; and that the very same authority, which (as he acknowledges) sufficiently propounded to him the Articles of Christian Faith, as revealed from God, assured him, that no such matter as the Pope's being that great Antichrist, was ever revealed, and that it was a manifest error in Faith. In this case either that Calvinist must disbeleeve that propounding Authority, and thereby lose his Faith in the former Articles, and have no true Faith at all in the first, or believe it in the second, because it is still the very same Authority in both. For that very Authority which propounds the Articles of Faith as revealed from God, propounds this as not revealed, and as contrary to God's revelation.  Baxter. 
Num. 89. Yet I have herewith satisfied your demand, but shown you the unreasonableness, of it beyond all reasonable contradiction. 
Non-proof. 12.   johnson. 
Num. 89. You are very prone to assert without proof: Where have you shown the unreasonableness of my demand? Tell me, I pray, in your next; for you have not yet done it.  Baxter. 
Num. 90. You next inquire, Whether we account Rome and us one Congregation of Christians? I answer, the Roman Church hath two heads, and ours but one; and that's the difference.  johnson. 
Num. 90. Who ever accounted a King and a Viceroy, a Bishop and a Vicar, a Captain, and a Lieutenant, a Master and a Steward, two Heads respectively to their Territories and Jurisdictions? Can you call the head and the neck two heads, because both of them with subordination the one to the other, are placed above the rest of the body? The head is the highest part of an Organical body, and whatsoever is subordinate to that, is no head absolutely, though it be next the head, and higher than all the other parts. Christ is only the Head of his whole Church, comprising the Militant and Triumphant; and of this whole Church the Pope is a part, but no Head. The Holy Councils and Fathers indeed style 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 absolutely and sovereignly: for the only sovereign head of the Militant Church works in it, and governs it invisibly, by his holy lights and inspirations, and particularly him who is its visible Head according to its visible government. There is therefore amongst us one only absolute head of the Church; the other hath no absolute Independent power over it, but is as truly a part of the Church, depending as much on the absolute head, as any other p●●r●● doth: There is but one King and Master of the Militant Church, all the rest, even the highest, are no more than his Officers, with a limited and restrained power, that is, in order to the sole sole external and visible 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 Question 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 effectively 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.  johnson. 
Num. 91. You tell us what would follow, if such things as you fancy were done; but you tell us not whether it is possible to do them or no. Can a Papist, think you, remaining still a Papist, so hold his Papacy and other pretended errors, as to destroy Christianity? If he cannot, why trifle you away time in printing such Chimerical 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.  johnson. 
Num. 92. I never saw a man labour so confidently to persuade 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 find but you are of a Church by yourself (which no man knows but yourself) and then I'm 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 joined in one Catholic Church, which I shall most earnestly and unfeignedly beg of God, still hoping that your zeal and ardency in what you profess, may (as it did S. Paul) bring you to see, and embrace his true Church.  Baxter. 
Num. 93. As Papal, we are not of your Church; that's a new Church-form.  johnson. 
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.)  johnson. 
Num. 94. I have showed you are not as Christian, (speaking univocally) of one Church with us: For true Christianity requires true faith, which I cannot believe you have; nor have you proved it, as shall appear hereafter. 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 Catholics and Protestants cannot be of one and the same Church. num. 96- Length of time, or continuance, excuses not the succeeding Heretics, or Schismatics, from the crimes of their first beginners. num. 97. When Protestants deserted external Communion with Rome, they deserted together with it the external Communion of all other particular visible Churches, and that upon the same grounds. n. 98. Mr. Baxter's exclamation against Rome is injurious to all other ancient particular Church's existent immediately before the first beginners of Protestancy. n. 99 All the Kingdoms in the world, not one visible, but only invisible Kingdom, under God's invisible providence and power which governs them: and in that regard an unfit instance to prove different particular Churches, without one visible governor of them all, to be one visible Church num. 100 His opinion of actual Heretics and Schismatics properly so called, contrary to all Authors, ours or his own, and to Christianity itself. num. 101. How Alphonsus à Castro held them to be members of the Church. num. 102. Every Heretic properly so called, denies some essentials of Christianity, num. 103. Pelagians undoubted and manifest Heretics and Schismatics. The Catholic Church so perfectly one, that it's not capable to be divided.  Baxter. 
Num. 95. But you ask, Why did you then separate yourselves, and remain still separate from the Communion of the Roman Church. Answ. 1. We never separated 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, it's you that are the (damnable) Separatists▪ If you have not, than we are not separated from you, in respect of the form of the Christian Church.  johnson. 
Num. 95. You separated as much from us as did either Novatians or Pelagians or Donatists, or Acacians, or Luciferians, or Nestorians, Eutychians, etc. did from the Catholic 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 Catholic Church. If it be not so, show what you can say for yourselves, which any of those Heretics might not as well have alleged 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, Luciferians, Novatians, disbeleeve any essential point of Christian faith, if Protestants disbeleeve no essential; what you say of not separating from us as we are Christians, is a precision never used by Catholic, or Heretic in ancient times; nor indeed did ever any Heretic, who esteemed himself a Christian, affirm he separated from the Church as it was Christian; for that had been to deny himself to be a Christian, which no Hetick ever did; so that if this excuse save you from Schismatical separation, every Heretic 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 Christians, a destruction of true union with the visible Church of Christ, under what notion or precission soever 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 Grandfather, or great Grandfather, did separate from it, because they never entertained it.  johnson. 
Num. 96. This is strange doctrine, and would help out an Arrian, or a Donatist, at a dead lift, after a hundred or two hundred years' continuance of those Heresies, no less than yourself. Is not the maintaining of a Separation, or Schism, 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 Schismatics, as the first beginners of their Schism? S. Austin called them Schismatics, 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 that's 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 corrupting Doctrine, or scandalous sin: Whether such men's sins, or their professed Christianity be most predominant at the heart, we know not; but till they show 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.  johnson. 
Num. 97. This is one of the handsomest passages of your whole Reply, and shows a fecundity of invention to maintain a Novelty: But give me leave to tell you, it will not, it cannot acquit you of separating from the true achurch of Christ. Had you indeed deserted the sole Communion of the Papacy, as you term it, it might have born some show of defence, though no more than a show; but seeing when you separated from that, you remained also separate as much from all particular visible Churches in the world, as from that there can be neither show nor shadow of excuse in it. For you must either say, that all the particular Churches in the world existent immediately before you, Anno 1500. were guilty of impenitency in some corrupting Doctrine, or scandalous sin, for which you were commanded to avoid them; which were both to contradict Tertullian, cited by yourself, page 235. E●●quid verisimile est, etc. to prove the contrary, and thereby to condemn yourselves of manifest Schism, 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 scandalous sin, to which Churches you adhered, when you first separated from the Roman, and with which you lived in external Communion; and than you are obliged to show, design, and nominate, which that Church, o●● those Churches were; which neither you, nor any of your professors ever yet did, or could do.  
Nor will it excuse you to allege, you communicate with all Churches as Christian: for whilst you profess yourselves Christians, you cannot affirm, that you left all Churches, as they are Christian; and by this means never yet any Heretic, no neither Arrian, nor Sabellian, could be convinced to have separated from all Churches; for never would any of them acknowledge, that they left them as Christian, seeing they all not only protested, but really believed themselves to be Christians. Now if you will acquit yourselves of separation from Christ's Church, show in your rejoinder some visible Churches, pre-existent immediately 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, real and proper Sacrifice; which held not Bread and Wine to be really changed, by virtue of consecration into Christ's true Body and Blood, before they received them; which held not S. Peter, and him whom they esteemed his lawful Successor, to be the Supreme visible Governor, 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 whereof you had sufficient reason to leave their external Communion, if you had reason to forsake that of Rome. For till this be showed, 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 equivalent Reasons to separate from them: So that in accusing 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, racked, harged, and burned, if we will not believe that Bread and Wine are not Bread and Wine, contrary to our own and all men's senses; and if we will not worship them with divine 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 believing, that all men's senses are deceived, and the greater part of Christians and their Traditions (against you) are false, when we read, study, and suspect ourselves, and pray for light, and are willing to hear any of your reasons, but cannot force our own understandings ti believe all such things that you believe, and merely 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 Consciences, and saying, We believe, what our senses contradict; and without committing that, which our Consciences tell us are most heinous 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 murdered, 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 ourselves of your Bishoprics 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 believe it. But must the Prince and the people let alone Delinquent Pastors, for fear of being blamed for taking their Bishoprics? Ministers of the same Religion with us may be cast out for their crimes: Princes have power over Pastors as well as David, Solomon, and other Kings of Israel had. Guil. Barclay, and some few of your own knew this. The Pope's treasonable exemption of the Clergy, from the Sovereign's judgement, will not warrant those Princes before God, that neglect to punish offending Pastors. And I beseech you tell us, when our Consciences (after the use of all means that we can use to be informed) cannot renounce all our senses, nor our reason, nor the judgement of the most of the Church, or of Antiquity, or the Word of God, and yet we must do so, or be no members of your Church, what wrong is it to you; if we choose 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 Forefathers here were never under your oversight: but we know not why we may not now choose our Pastors, as well as formerly, we do it not by Tumults: We kill not men, and tread not in their blood, while we choose our Pastors as Pope Damasus was chosen: The Tithes, and other Temporal maintenance we take from none; but the Magistrate disposeth of it as he seethe 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 show of reason stand up and say, These Bishoprics are yours, or, These Parsonages are yours: It is the Incumbent personally that only can claim the Title; saving the supereminent title of Christ, to whom they are devoted. But the successive Popes cannot have title to all the Tithes and Temples in the World, nor any of his Clergy, that never were called to the charges. If this be dis-union, it is you that are the Separatists, and cause of all. If you will needs tell all the Christian World, that except they will be ruled by the Pope of Rome, and be burned if they believe not as he bids them, in spite of their senses, he will call them Separatists, Schismatics, and say they dis-unite, and are uncharitable; again we appeal to God, and all wise men that are impartial, whether it be he or we, that is the divider.  johnson. 
Num. 98. By what is now answered, this your long Rhetorical Exclamation, from page 108. to page 112. is also solved: For all that the Church of Rome demands of you, even to the denying of your senses, and subjecting of your judgement, was in the year 1500. required of you by all Visible Ancient Churches in the World, and you are not able to nominate any one, where it was not. Change therefore the term Pope, or Church of Rome, into that of the Catholic Church of Christ, that is, all Orthodox particular Churches existent at that time, which are comprised in the number of all visible ancient particular Churches then existing, and address your exclamations to it, and then you will see how little of a Christian complaint there is in that whole digression. To this therefore I press 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 yourselves from the dependence and obedience of all the Visible Pastors in all Churches, Anno 1500. was not as much deserving to be termed and held a criminal Schism, and spiritual Rebellion, as any former separation from all Visible Churches.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 99 You ask me, Is not Charity, Subordination, and obedience to the same State and Government, required as well to make one Congregation of Christians, as it is required to make a Congregation of Commonwealth's-men? Answ. yes it is. But as all the world is one kingdom under God, the universal King, but yet hath no universal vice-king, but every Commonwealth only hath its 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 its own Pastors, as every School hath its own Schoolmaster. But all the Anger is, because we are loath to be ruled by a cruel usurper; therefore we are uncharitable.  William johnson. 
Num. 99 You commit the Fallacy of ignoratio Elenchi, and pass à genere in genus. I speak of a visible Kingdom, or Commonwealth, as it is regulated by a visible Government; and you take it, as it is invisibly governed by an invisible Providence. In this sense only are all the kingdoms of the earth one kingdom, under the invisible Government of the Invisible God; but cannot be truly called one visible kingdom, but more. Now it is evident through the whole discourse, that our present Controversy is of the visible Church, as it is visible; and in this sense it is, and must be one; and consequently must be under some visible Government, which must make it one. That cannot be Christ, for he governs not his Church now visibly; Ergo there must be some other: and that must either be some Assembly of chief Governors; as would be a General Council: or some one person, who has Authority to govern the whole body of the Church. A general Council it cannot be: for, that was never held to be the ordinary, but only the extraordinary Church-Government, when emergent occasions require it: and even when that is convened, there must be some one person, to avoid Schism, and quiet Controversies, which may possibly arise in the Council, with Authority above all the rest. It is therefore manifest, the Church cannot be perfectly one, visible, politic Body, unless there be one visible head to govern it visibly, as the ordinary Governor of it. I beseech you, Sir, reflect often upon this distinction; and you will see the chief ground of your discourse answered by it. For to say, (as you do here) that the Church is one visible Kingdom, & yet to make it no more one visibly, than the School of Christ-Church, or Westminster, is one visible School, is in my Logic 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 Heretics and Schismatics be parts. Reply. 1. You know sure, that your own Divines are not agreed, whether Heretics and Schismatics are parts of the Church.  William johnson. 
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 Heretics properly so called, are parts of the Church of Christ, and united to him as their Head; by reason, that they believe with a true Christian Faith the Essentials of Christianity, whereby they are Christians, though they err in some Accidentals, as appears by that distinction so often used by you. In this sense then, I say, you hold Heretics 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 Catholic Author (
* Lib. 2. de Haeret. punit. c. 24. Haereticus etsi per Haeresim perdat fidem, non tamen eo ipso est prorsus ab Ecclesiâ separatus, sed adhuc est par●● illius corporis, & membrum ejus, etc. 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 factum est membrum Ecclesiae: qu●● durante semper erit membrum illius.  Alphonsus à Castro) thinks, Heretics may be called parts of the politic Body of the Church, (as She hath power over them to inflict punishment upon them,) by reason of the character of Baptism, which makes them ever remain subjects of the Church, and liable to her censures: yet he holds expressly, 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 Schismatics. For though some Catholic 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 do, that they were united to Christ as their Head (and thereby compose one Christian Church) with other Catholic Christians, because they want that principal Christian Charity required as necessary to a complete union to Christ. Your opinion therefore is contrary to all those of the Roman Church; and shall (God assisting me) be 
* See my second Part.  proved contrary to all Christians and Christianity, and of most dangerous and damnable consequence. But you must know, that à Castro's opinion is censured by all other Doctors; and thereby improbable: nor yet makes the ground of his opinion, Heretics and scismatics more of the Catholic 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 johnson. 
Num. 101. 'Tis determined contrary to your sense, a hundred times over, by all the Anathemas and Excommunications, thundered out against them, in so many General Councils.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 102. If it be, then all yours are Heretics, 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 johnson. 
Num. 102. I have now told you. None of ours ever held them parts, as you do; 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 johnson. 
Num. 103. 'Tis very true; they are no real univocal Christians: and your reason is good, because they deny that, which is Essential to Christ, and so to Christianity. But hence will follow, that no proper Heretic whatsoever, is a real, univocal Christian: for all of them deny something Essential to Christ, and so to Christianity: which I prove thus;  
Whosoever denies Christ's most Infallible veracity, & Divine Authority, denies Something which is Essential unto Christ.  
But every Heretic, properly so called, denies Christ's most infallible veracity, and divine Authority:  
Ergo, Every Heretic, properly so called, denies something which is Essential to Christ, and so to Christianity.  
The Major is evident: I prove the Minor.  
Whosoever denies that to be true, which is sufficiently propounded to him to be revealed from Christ, denies Christ's most infallible veracity and divine authority.  
But every Heretic, properly so called, denies that to be true, which is sufficiently propounded to him to be revealed from Christ.  
Ergo Every Heretic, properly so called, denies Christ's most infallible veracity, and divine Authority.  
The Minor is clear. For that is properly to be an Heretic. The Major is also clear. For how is it possible to deny that to be true, which is sufficiently propounded to me to be revealed from Christ, without affirming, that Christ said something which is not true: which is manifestly to give Christ the lie; and to do that, is to deny openly his divine veracity. This Argument, I hope, you will please to think of seriously; and either give an Answer in form to it, or relinquish your Novelty.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 104. Pelagianisme is a thing, that you are not agreed among yourselves of the true nature of Many of the Dominicans and Jansenists think the Jesuits Pelagianize, or Semi-Pelagianize at least. I hope you will not shut them out. Donatists were Schismatics, because they divided in the Catholic Church, and not absolutely from it: and because they divided from the particular Churches about them, that held the most universal external Communion. I think, they were still members of the universal Church; but I'll not contend with any, that will plead for his uncharitable denial. It's nothing to our Case.  William johnson. 
Num. 104. You fall again into a plain Fallacy, proceeding à part ad totum. The doubt which is among some of our Divines is only about part of their Heresy, and you would make your Reader believe, it were about the whole. Some points of their Heresy are clearly agreed upon by all Catholic Authors; as is that of the denial of original Sin, That Infants which die without Baptism, are not in the state of Salvation, etc. Now these are enough to make them Heretics, and out of the Church, whatsoever is of the rest of their Heresy: which howsoever some dispute now, wherein it consisteth, yet when they were first condemned, there was no dispute about it. But here's another grand Novelty of yours to be considered. Who ever yet, before you, said, that Catholic Church could be divided in itself, when it is a most perfect unity. See, what the Fathers say of this point: why is it called una Ecclesia Catholica (one Catholic Church) in the Nicene Creed, if it can be divided: and then you add another Novelty, 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 hundred times over? But more of this hereafter.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 105. I know that Heresy is a personal Crime, and cannot be charged on Nations, unless you have Evidence, that the Nations consent to it, which here you have none.  William johnson. 
Num. 105. I have your own Author for it, an approved Historian amongst you, there is no Authority alleged 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 john desired Doctors 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 than to gratify them in their Request; entreating 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 Heresy 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 Heresy of Eutyches, which was condemned in that Council; so that there needs no farther Testimony against them, seeing they condemn themselves of Eutychianisme.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 106. Some are Heretics for denying Points essential to Christianity; these are not Christians, and so not in the Church: but many also are called Heretics by you, and by the Fathers for lesser Errors consistent with Christianity; and these may be in the Church. Abyssines and all the rest have not been yet tried, and convicted before any competent judge, and Slanderers we regard not.  William johnson. 
Num. 106. This is already answered, all Heretics deny the veracity of Christ, which is Essential to Christ and Christianity, whatsoever their Heresies be, the Abyssines confess themselves to follow (as I have proved) Eutyches and Dioscorus, and therefore need neither trial, nor conviction.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 107. Many of your own Writers acquit them of Heresy, and say, 
† Non-proof 13.  the difference is now found to be but in words, or little more.  William johnson. 
Num. 107. Name those Writers, and you shall be answered; think you that any rational man will be convinced 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 ways mistake, 1. if this were true that they rejected us; it were not proof that we are not of one universal Church.  William johnson. 
Num. 108. But sure I mistake not in saying they disclaim you, if it be supposed true (as you suppose now) they do disclaim you; and I think, impartial men will take it to be a proof, for if both the whole Western Church with the Bishop of Rome, and the Eastern with the Bishop of Constantinople, each claiming the Sovereignty of visible Government over the whole Church of Christ, reject you as Heretics: 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 do) but upon the same, or for some other reasons Reject you, for which the Eastern and Western Churches have disclaimed you; you cannot but confess, you are rejected by the whole Catholic Church of Christ, seeing you were Rejected by all the visible Churches of that time. Now whosoever is rejected as an Heretic by the whole Catholic visible Church, either must be no part of it, or the Catholic Church, must not be able to know, which are, which are not, her true parts, and be fallen into so desperate an Error, as to reject as outcasts and enemies those who are her true Children. Or what frenzy would it be in a novelist, vainly and presumptuously to give himself out for a Member of the Church, when the whole Catholic Church disclaims, and Anathematises him as an Alien. Now reduce yourselves, as Tertullian says, to your first origine, in the year 1500, even in your Principles the visible Catholic Church, was all the Congregations 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 Catholic Church disowned you, as Aliens, and Separatists; Ergo you were then either such as the Church esteemed you to be, or the whole Catholic Church was deceived; but all good Christians will rather believe, that you, who were then but a handful of new-hatched novelists, were deceived in fancying yourselves 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 yourself under, not only the whole Christian world, when you begun, rejected you, as not belonging to their Body; but you yourselves, 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 condemned them all of Error, and Superstition, of Babylonish captivity, and utter darkness, of Antichrianisme, and Idolatry, etc. Read your first Writers and you will find it so; for seeing all the visible Christian Congregations held many of those Points, which your first beginners held to be Idolatrous, and Superstitious in the Roman Church, in condemning the Roman, and separating from it, upon those pretended Superstitions and Errors, you separated from, and condemned the whole Catholic Church; nor can you free yourself from this, unless you nominate some Church, in those times spread all the Christian world over, which resisted those said Errors, 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 Governors of the Church: 
Contradiction.  the Title of universal Patriarch they extended, but to the than Roman Empire; and that not to an universal government, but Primacy.  William johnson. 
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 Primacy; that is, as you mistake that word, precedency in place; when you labour mightily to prove, Pag. 154. 155.156. etc. from St. gregory's Epistles, that the Title the Greeks then pretended to, and S. Gregory exclaimed against, was to be Bishop, and to have spiritual Jurisdiction over all Churches, and Christians in the world; either therefore you must grant, that your Argument drawn there from St. gregory's words is fallacious, and of no force; or if it be of force, and well grounded, That then john of Constantinople, and with and after him the Patriarches of that City, pretended to be universal Governors of the whole Church, both extra- and intra-Imperial, And as to the later Patriarches of Constantinople; seeing there is now no Christian Empire amongst them, and they still retain that former Title of Universal Patriarches, you cannot pretend, they enclose their Authorities within the Verge of the Christian Empire. And that you may see what Authority the Constantinopolitan Patriarch assumes to himself, and how plaguely he styles himself a vice-Christ (quite contrary to your groundless Assertion here) Hieremias in his Epistle to the Lutherans of Germany, prefixed before his censure of their Doctrine, says thus, Si enim volueritis (inquit Scriptura) & audieritis me, bona terrae comedetis; quibus sane verbis, mediocritas item nostra, quae & ipsa, Christi Domini miseratione, successione quadam, hic in terris, ejus locum tenet ad amabilem concordiam & consensum cum ea, quae apud nos est Jesu Christi Ecclesia, charitatem vestram cohortatur. 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 mercy 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 jesus Christ; where this Patriarch of Constantinople Hieremias, affirms expressly 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 Authority 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 Catholic visible Church, he exhorts those Germane 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 than the whole visible Catholic Church, he declared in the last Paragraph of the eight chapter, saying, Et, ut con●●idimus, ubi ei, qu●● apud nos est, sanctae & Catholicae jesu Christi Ecclesiae vos subji●●ietis, etc. And as we confide, when you shall subject yourselves to that holy and Catholic Church of Christ which is with us, or belongs to us, which can be meant of no other 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 Apostolical and Synodical traditions, and all, who believe and observe them; to be of his communion, that is, all orthodox Christians, which is the whole Catholic Church; nor can these words, quae apud nos est, be so understood, as if they denominated only some part of the Catholic Church to be with him, and some other not with him, or against him; for the Greek hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as if he had said, the holy Catholic 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 agree in all things with him, yet he still professed his desire 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 johnson. 
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 answer, 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 betwixt 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 yourself only of a general term, whereby the Reader may remain still unsatisfied, whether they agree with you or us, in the Points under controversy betwixt us. Tell us therefore, (and I beseech you fail not to do it) whether 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 Roman Church in all points now controverted betwixt us and you, (except that of the Pope's supremacy,) and whether Hieremias the Patriarch, assume not to himself, as true a supreme authority over the whole Church, as does the Pope.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. III. johannes Zygomalas in his letters to Crusius, 1576. May 15. saith, Perspienum tibi & omnibus futurum est, quod in continuis & causam fidei praecipue continentibus articulis consentiamus: quae autem videntur consensum inter vos & nos Impedire, talia sunt, si velit quis, ut facile ea corrigere possit— Gaudium in coelo & super terram erit, si coibit in unitatem utraque Ecclesia, & Idem sentiemus, & simul vivemus in omni concordia & pace secundum Deum, & in sincerae Charitatis vinculo.  William johnson. 
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; says he not? that he hopes for such a Future Unity, Gaudium in coelo, & supra terram erit, si coibit in unitatem utraque Ecclesia, etc. Ergo that unity was not then actually made, and that unity depended on the correction of those differences in Faith which were betwixt them, which whilst they remained, obstructed it; now this is wholly destructive of your Novelty; nay this Agreement, and becoming one and the same Church as Synonimaes, (coibit in unitatem utraque Ecclesia, et Idem sentiemus; both Churches, the Greeks and Lutherans shall join in unity, 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 (says he) we shall live together in all concord & peace in God, and in the bond of sincere Charity: so that this very Text which you quote, to prove the unity betwixt Greeks and Lutherans, proves the quite contrary, so choice are you in your Citations!  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 112. But as it is not the Patriarch, that is the whole Greek Church: so it is not their Errors, in some lesser or tolerable points, that prove us of two Churches or Religions.  William johnson. 
Num. 112. Who says, he is the whole Church? yet sure when the Patriarch writes concern his own Jurisdiction, he is supposed to understand the extent of it; and when those of his Church show no kind of contradiction against it, neither when he writ this, nor ever since (and thereby give a tacit consent to it) what he writes is to be esteemed as the tenet of his Church▪ I am much joyed to hear you term the differences in Faith betwixt you and the Grecians, some lesser or tolerable points; for they being in substance the very same with those betwixt you and us (as the Authors confess cited by me, pag. 46. of your Edition) you must consequently acknowledge the differences betwixt you and us, to be some lesser or tolerable points: but give me leave then to tell you, that as you judge those points tolerable, so must you also judge your separation from the external communion of the Greek, and Roman Church intolerable; for if those parts in difference be tolerable, they were to have been tolerated by you, without proceeding to an open and scandalous Schism by reason of them; nor will it excuse you to allege, you were forced to separate, in detestation of those things which you judged Errors; otherwise you would have compelled us by punishments to have assented to them: for you were rather to have suffered patiently that force, though it had been to death itself, then to have made so notorious a Schism, for tolerable Errors or fear of persecution. I have already shown that every Error in Faith, against a divine truth sufficiently proposed, separates the erring party from the true visible Church of Christ.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 113. Whereas you say, it is against all antiquity and Christianity, to admit condemned Heretics into the Church: I Reply. 1. I hate their condemnation rather than reverence it, that (even being non Judices) dare condemn whole Nations, without hearing one man of them speak for himself, or hearing one witness that ever heard them defend Heresy, and this merely because some few Bishops have in the days of all maintained Heresy, and perhaps some may do 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 only as maintainers of Heresies? how many Bishops found you broaching or spreading heresy in the 2. first hundred years, was either Simon Magus, or Nicolaus, or Cerinthus, or Menander, or Valentinian, or Manes, or Montanus, Bishops? and in the third Age, was there not Arius, and Eutyches, neither of them Bishops, broachers of two most pernicious Heresies, as well, as Nestorius, and Dioscorus, who were Bishops.  William johnson. 
Num. 113. You mistake the manner of the Church's condemnation of Heretics, it is neither personal nor National (save in some notorious Arch-heretics, who either by their words, or writings, evidently profess or teach Heresy) but general or abstractive, viz. whosoever holds such, or such Errors let him be accursed, or we excommunicate all such as hold them, etc. where there can be no wrong done to any; for those, who de facto held them not, are not cast out of the Church; now when this sentence comes to Execution, those who either acknowledge themselves to hold those Heresies, or communicate with them who profess it, are esteemed as Heretics; because they join with an heretical party, against the Church; and in case they profess to disbelieve their heresy, and yet live in communion with them, and subjection to them, they become open Schismatics, separating themselves from the whole visible Church by communicating with Heretics.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 114. Did I find such Errors 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 Errors; but of all these things (and of sundry words which you cite) I have spoken already in two books, and in the latter fully proved that you differ in many points of Faith, and greater things than you call Heresies in others, among yourselves, 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 johnson. 
Num. 114. You or any Christian, may safely judge those Heretics, who publicly communicate, and side with those, who profess, and teach open heresy; for the very siding with them, Argues a consent to their Doctrine, and is a sufficient profession of it, unless they profess publicly a difference from their heresy; your recrimination, is unseasonable; the question is not for the present, wherein or how We differ; but whether You be guilty of heresy or no, our innocence or guiltiness clears not you; clear yourselves 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 yourselves to us. In your Key, pag. 128. you trifle in using the words, Material point, Equivocally, and proceeding à specie, ad genus fallociously. Mr. Turberville, speaks of material Points, against your 39 Articles, saying, for if they differ from them in any material point, etc. and you make him speak of all kinds of material points in Religion, whether contrary to any Article, or Ecclesiastical decree of Faith, or no.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 115. When you say so much to prove the Greeks guilty of manifest heresy, and pretend that it is but some novel Writers of ours that deny it, as forced by your Arguments, I must say, that you prove but your own uncharitableness instead of their heresy; and you show yourself a stranger to your own Writers, who frequently excuse the Greeks from heresy, and say the difference at the Council of Florence was found to be more about Words, than Faith; Thomas à Jesus, 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 insinuat D. Bernardus (no novel Protestant) in Epist. ad Eugenium, lib. 3. (ego addo, inquit) de pertinacia Graecorum qui nobiscum sunt & non sunt; juncti fide, pace divisi; quanquam & in fide ipsa claudicaverint à rectis semitis. Idem aperte tenet D. Thom. Opusc. 2. ubi docet Patres Graecos in Catholico sensu esse exponendos; Ratio hujus opinionis est, quoniam ut praedictus Author docet, in praedictis Fidei Articulis, de quibus 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, Latino's sentir●● à Patre Filioque procedere tanquam à duobus principiis, cum tamen Latina doceat Eclesia procedere à duabus personis tanquam ab uno principio & spiratore, quare Graeci ut unum principium significent, dicunt Spiritum sanctum à Patre per Filium procecedere ab omni aeternitate: Your Paulus Veridicus (Paul Harris) Dean of your Academy lately in Dublin, in his confutation of Bishop Ʋsher '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 findeth 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 heresy, I think more than 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 Divines, 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 Antiquity that knew better.  William johnson. 
Num. 115. I should have reason to take it something ill from you, to accuse me at once both of uncharitableness, 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 commiserate you, as I really do; you could not but see I speak of that Error in the holy Ghost's procession, which of late years has been pertinaciously defended by the Schismatical Greeks, not of the expressions of the more ancient Fathers and Doctors amongst them, you need not have told me, for I was not so ignorant, that those which S. Bernard and S. Thomas speaks of differed rather in Expressions, then in the thing itself; the Question 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 proceeding from the Father and not from the Son, differ not in the thing itself; I speak of these only, for my words clearly design what is now done, pag. 47. in your Edit. I say, they must be thought to maintain manifest heresy, and p. 4. Desertours of the Faith, as they continue still to this day; now I marvel to see this distinction 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 distinguishes betwixt them in his time, for he says expressly, in Fide claudicaverint, which signifies, that at least some of them were even then deficient in Faith; & S. Thomas writes expressly of the ancient Greek Fathers, Patres Graecos in Catholico sensu esse exponendos; Harris also (as you call him) speaks of the same ancienter Grecians; if therefore you will convince me either of uncharitableness, or ignorance, show that our Authors affirm, the modern Greeks, and all those who held as they now do, err not in Faith, or in the thing believed about the procession of the holy Ghost (but differ only 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 whom I speak not one word, because I knew very well our Authors 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 Latins tear the Church of Christ by their condemnations of each other, they may be both Schismatical, as guilty of making divisions in the Church, though not as dividing from the Church; and if they pretend the denial of the Christian Faith against each other, as the cause, you shall not draw us into the guilt of the uncharitableness, by telling us that they know better than we. If wise men fall out and fight, I will not justify either side, because they are wise, and therefore likelier than I to know the cause.  William johnson. 
Num. 116. I told you before, the Church of Christ cannot be divided, it is so perfectly one; It were well, if you meddled 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 Mystery, and thereby 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, than yourself. Do you not intermeddle deeply in it, when in the next ensuing words, you labour mainly to prove they differ only in worlds.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 117. But what need we more to open your strange mistake, and unjust dealing, than the Authority of your so much approved Council of Florence, that received both Greeks and Armeni●●ns; and the very words of the Pope's Bull of the Union, which declare that the Greeks and Latins were found to mean Orthodoxly 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 Scriptures, plurimisque authoritatibus sanctorum doctorum orientalium & occidentalium, aliquibus quidem ex Patre & Filio; quibusdam 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 ment proferrent ut excludant Filium, sed quia eis videbatur, ut aiunt, Latino's asserere Spiritum sanctum ex Patre Filioque procedere, tanquam ex duobus principiis, & duabus spirationibus; ideo abstinuerunt à dicendo quod Spiritus sanctus ex Patre procedat & Filio; Latini vero affirmaverunt non se hac ment dicere Spiritum sanctum ex Filioque procedere, ut excludant Patrem quin sit fons ac principium totius Deitatis, Filii scilicet & Spiritus sancti: aut quo did, quod Spiritus sanctus procedat ex Filio, Filius à Patre non habeat, sive quod duo ponant esse principiae, seu duas spirationes, sed ut unum tantum asserunt esse principium unicamque spirationem Spiritus sancti prout ha●●enus asseruerunt, & tum ex his omnibus unus & idem eliciatur veritatis sensus, tandem etc.  
I pray you now tell it to no more, That it is some Novel Writers of ours, pressed by force of Arguments, that have been the Authors of this Extenuation. My heart even trembleth to think, that there should be a thing called Religion amongst you that can so far extinguish both Charity and Humanity, as to cause you to pass so direful a doom (without authority or trial) on so great a part of the Christian world, for such a word as this about so exceeding high a Mystery, when your Pope & Council have pronounced an union of meanings.  William johnson. 
Num. 117. It is a pretty kind of art you have, of Triumphing before the Victory, and collecting a Conclusion without Premises: 'Tis true, the Greeks did not intent 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 Latins 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 affirms) that he proceeded from the Father and the Son as from one principle: so that those Fathers who affirm that he proceeds 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 recall their former Error, and to hold with the Latins, that he proceeded from both as from one Principle, by one indivisible procession, or spiration; whence followed 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 obstinately 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 Error; and from Hieremias his Censure, C. 1. who excludes the Son in express terms, Spiritum sanctum ex solo Patre procedere, that the holy Ghost proceeds from the Father alone; and from all the other Greeks who reject at this day the Union made in the Florentine Council, and maintain their former error against it. Now your Argument has this force with it: the Grecians who recanted their Error in the Council of Florence, convinced by the Authority 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 Marcus Ephesius, who refused that Agreement, and the modern Greeks ever since that Council who reject it, and the others before the Council, who contradicted it, held the very same Doctrine with the Latins, that he proceeded from the Father and the Son as from one Principle; whereas they most manifestly denied, that he could so proceed, and all of them deny it to this day: see you not your fallacy, how it proceeds à parte ad totum, and à particulari ad universale? that is, from that party of the Grecians who consented to the Florentine Council, to the whole body 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 community of the Greek Church at this present time, because some few of them assented to it in the Florentine Council, whose consent with the Latins is now rejected and condemned by the present Greeks; and how undeservedly you accuse me of extinguishing both Charity and Humanity, for which I hearty beseech God to forgive you; and desire only, you will please to note, that seeing I speak of the Grecians as they are at present, and of those who held as they now do, your testimonies of what they held many hundred years before our times hurt me not, nor so much as approach to contradict what I say; and please to consider this also, that the Greeks holding the holy Ghost's proceeding from the Father and the Son, argued a double principle, and a double spiration; as it was a real difference betwixt them and the Latins before the Union, so is it yet a real difference betwixt the Latins & those Greeks who reject that Union, and that of so great concern, that the present Grecians choose rather to deny he proceeds 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 Margin 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 fair (pardon this plainness;) consider of it yourself, The substance of Nilus' book, is about the Primacy of the Pope; the very Contents prefixed to the first book are these, Oratio demonstrans non aliam, etc. an Oration demonstrating that there is no other cause of dissension between the Latin and the Greek Churches, then that the Pope refuseth to defer the Cognisance and judgement of that which is Controverted, to a General Council, but he will sit the sole Master, and judge of the Controversy, and will have the rest as Disciples to be hearers of (or obey) his word, which is a thing alien from the Laws and Actions of the Apostles and Fathers; and he gins his Book (after a few words) thus, Causa itaque hujus dissidii, etc. The Cause therefore of this difference, as I judge, is not the sublimity of the point exceeding man's capacity; for other matters that have divers times troubled the Church, have been of the same kind; this therefore is not the cause of the dissension, much less is the speech of the Scripture itself; which as being concise, doth pronounce nothing openly of that which is Controverted; for to accuse the Scripture, is as much as to accuse God himself. But God is without all fault; but who the fault is in, any one may easily tell, that is well in his wits. He next shows, 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 only as a Bishop ordained by him, as many other Bishops that originally were ordained by him in like manner to succeed him, and that his Primacy is no governing power, nor given him by Peter, but by Princes and Councils for order sake; and this he proves at large, and makes this the main difference. Bellarmine 's answering his so many Arguments, might have told you this, if you had never read Nilus himself; and if you say that this point was the Cause, I deny it; but if it were true, yet was it not the only 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 johnson. 
Num. 118. This is a strange manner of Arguing; what if his chief subject be about the Pope's Primacy, may he not ex incidente and occasionaliter, treat other matters? Is not your chief matter in this Treatise to prove the succession of your Church, and oppose ours; and yet treat you not in this very place incidentally the procession of the holy Ghost? I say then that Nilus declaring the cause why the Bishop of Rome hath lost all that Primacy, and Authority which he had anciently, by reason he is fallen from the Faith, in adding Filioque to the Creed, and teaching that the holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son; the words you cite out of Nilus, proves nothing, he pretends indeed that the cause of the present dissension is the Pope's challenging so high a Primacy, which they are unwilling (as all schismatics 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 Latins, was the adding of Filioque, and holding the holy Ghost's procession from the Father and the Son: But see you not how fair a thread you have spun, by pressing those words, as you do, against me? is there indeed no other cause of dissension betwixt the Greek and Latin Church; nor ground of their breach, save the Pope's supremacy? then sure there is a full agreement in all other things; if so, there is a main disagreeing betwixt you and the Greeks, in all other points of Faith controverted betwixt you and us; for if they agree with us, they disagree from you in every one of them; nay you press Nilus his words (in that sense you must take them to frame an Argument against me) quite against the very words themselves; for you allege them to show, that he touches not the procession of the holy Ghost in that Book, as the first ground of their difference; to prove this you must proceed thus, he treats nothing there save the Pope's Supremacy, ergo he touches not the holy Ghost's procession; you prove the Antecedent by the words of the Title of his first book here cited, because he affirms in them, there is no other cause of dissension, then that the Pope refuses to stand to the judgement of a general Council; as if that only were controverted betwixt them, for otherwise you prove nothing: Now it is most evident that Nilus supposes many other Controversies betwixt them and the Latins; for he says (even as you cite him) thus, then that the Pope refuseth to defer the Cognisance and judgement of that which is Controverted to a general Council; Ergo you must acknowledge, that according to Nilus, there was something controverted betwixt the Greeks and the Latins, besides the Pope's Supremacy; and after you bring him in pag. 124. mentioning this very point of the procession, when you allege him thus, the cause therefore of this difference, as I judge, is not the sublimity of the point exceeding man's capacity, where he speaks of the holy Ghost's procession, as I affirm him to do; thus you play fast and lose, 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 only pretended by Nilus, to be the chief cause of their not coming to Agreement, to have been many hundred years ago, the original cause of their breach, and opposition against the Latins; whereby you confound the first occasion of the breach, and the present obstacle to the making it up, and reconciling them together, as if they were one, and the same thing; Now it is most manifest that the first occasion of the breach made by the Greeks from the Latin Church, was the Exception they took against the Latins, 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. Emperor, styled Monomachos, aspiring not only in name and Title, as many of his predecessors had done before him, but in reality and effect to be universal Patriarch, proclaimed Leo, and all the Latins who adhered to him to be Excommunicated, because contrary to the decree of the Ephesine Council, they had made an Addition to the Creed; so that the Roman Bishop being pretended by the Greeks to be thereby deposed from his Sea, The Primacy 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 Controversy 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, Protestants; I cannot deduce them successively in all Ages till Christ, as a different Congregation of Christians from that which holds the Pope's Supremacy, which was your Proposition. Reply, I have oft told you we own no universal Informing Head, but Christ, in Respect to him I have proved to you, that it is not my Interest or design 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 than yourselves.  William johnson. 
Num. 119. This is answered above, no Heretic ever professed to separate from the Church, as it is Christian; for in so doing he must profess himself to be no Christian, which no Heretic ever did yet; for by professing himself no Christian, he falls into the sin of Apostasy, and becomes not an Heretic, but an Apostate.  Mr. Baxter. 
But as you are Papal, and set up a new informing Head. I have proved that you differ from all the ancient Churches, but yet that my Cause requireth me not to make this proof, but to call you to prove your own universal succession.  William johnson. 
I have showed above there must be always some who Exercise visible Government, as ordinary Governors 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 visible Government over the whole Church, this I affirm to be the Bishop of Rome, and seeing there must be some one, and you confess the Roman Bishop to be the highest in place, and honour, me thinks, even in your principles, he has a stronger claim to be supreme in authority also, than any one singular person through the Church; now if we set up the Pope as a new informing 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 novelty; you cannot in your principles allege Boniface the third, for the having his title, as you pretend 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 precedency in place over all the extra-imperial Bishops, for what reasons had they to conform themselves to the Emperor's orders, who had no authority over them) and consequently not over the whole Church, nor was the Emperor so foolish, to give more than he had power to give; now that Popes before Boniface's time had jurisdiction over the whole Empire, you are forced to acknowledge divers times in your reply, not being able otherwise 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. oblige me therefore in nominating to me the first head so set up in your rejoinder 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 Pope's universal supremacy or at least of such a nature in Church government as rendered 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 adversary that none of the particular Congregations instanced and nominated by you in your former answer were perpetually visible as distinct from that which held the Pope's supremacy, in those two paragraphes you recoil and manifestly give up your cause, as not being able to perform, what you first undertook.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 120. You add your reason, because these before named were at first involved in your Congregations, and then fell off as dead branches. Reply, this is but an untruth in a most public matter of fact.  William johnson. 
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 Congregation which held the Pope's supremacy, the Armenians, 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 publicly exercised, and claimed the said supremacy, ergo no one of those nominated by you, no nor all together have been a perpetually visible Congregation, distinct from that which held the Pope's supremacy.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 121. All the truth is this, 1. those Indians Ethiopians Persians' etc. 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 wonder than Baronius in all his annals.  William johnson. 
Num. 121. I have proved it, out of the Arabic edition of the nicene canons, and from that very text of the council of Chalcedon cap. 28 etc. 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 primacy, as Nilus shows, and not a governing power over them.  William johnson. 
Num. 122. You yourself in the insueing replies, acknowledge a governing power over the Churches through the whole Empire, and consequently over Constantinople, nay, you cannot deny the fact of Agape●● over Anthymus Bishop of Constantinople, nor of Celestin over Nestorius etc. you are therefore as much obliged 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 profess subjection to him, they must profess themselves to be his subjects, now according to you, subjection may signify no more then to be inferior to another in place, and every subject has a superior to whom he is subject, ergo they profess the Pope to be their superior; 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 inferior in place to him, seeing therefore S. Gregory (as we shall see hereafter) declares the Bishops of Constantinople and all other Bishops in the Church to be subject to him, and his sea, and the Greeks now acknowledge 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 subjection to the Mayor of London, because he acknowledges he is to take place of him in a public meeting, nay by this means 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 yourselves the tree, and the greater part (two to one) the branches, but these beggings do but proclaim your necessities.  William johnson. 
Num. 123. If the Roman Church have withered in this point, show me when it begun to whither, in setting up the Pope as supreme, 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 yourself, for without any proof at all, you suppose there, (what is universally denied by us) that yourselves, and almost all the rest of Heretics, and Schismatics now in the world, are parts of the Catholic Church; for without inclusion of them, you could not affirm with any appearance of probability, those who oppose the Roman Church, to be twice as great as part of the Catholic Church, as are those that adhere to the Roman.    

The Second part.  

CHAP. I.  
ARGUMENT. johannes Thalaida and Flavianus.  
Numb 124. The interest of producing the ensuing instances misreported by Mr. Baxter, whereupon he imposes a false obligation upon his adversary almost in every page. the appeal of john Thalaida, patriarch of Alexandria, to Pope Felix, defended. Thalaidas age, according to Mr. Baxters' account. what kind of persons Zeno, Acacius, Petrus Mogas, Petrus Fullonis, Thalaida, and Calendion were. Num. 125. No Authors of those ages reprehend Simplicius, or Felix, in condemning Acacius, and justifying Thalaida. Num. 127. Thalaidas appeal, whether it were a strict & rigorous appeal or no, proves the Pope's supremacy. Num. 128. The Pope's power exercised over the three chief Patriarches of the East. Num. 129. The whole Church allowed Pope Felix his deprivation of Acacius etc. Num. 131. etc. It had been ridiculous, if Flavianus patriarch of Constantinople, had apealed from the second Council of Ephesus, which was then esteemed a general Council; the Pope and his provincial Council, (had not the Pope as Pope) had power to reverse the sentence of that Ephesine Council. Num. 137. How fare the second Council of Ephesus was a general Council.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 124. In good time you come to give me here at last some proof of an ancient Popery, as you think, But first you quite forget, (or worse) that it is not a man or two in the whole world in an Age, but the universal Church whose judgement (and form) we are now enquiring after; you are to prove, that all the Churches in every age were for the Papal universal Government, and so that none can be saved that is not.  William johnson. 
Num. 124. Sir, please I may tell you, that you would impose upon me, an obligation of proving that which cannot be inferred from the argument I sent you, (as I have showed above.) so would you now persuade your Reader, by the insueing instances that I undertook to prove what was never undertaken by me. I give indeed some proof of an ancient Popery, and I have proved by force of my argument, which you undertake to answer, that all the Church in every age was for the Papal universal Government. But I never undertook in my treating with you, to prove this by instances from age to age, for this I still denied (as I yet do) to be any obligation of mine, contracted by virtue of my arguments; which requirs your proof only, and meddles not with mine▪ such a proof as that, from age to age, may in its due time be effected, when you have given a satisfactory answer to my Argument▪ all therefore, that I undertake here, is occasionally fallen upon me, by reason of your bold Assertion, that within four hundred years, you never saw valid proof of one Papist in all the world, that is, one that was for the Pope's universal monarchy or vice-Christ-ship, thus you p. 23. whereupon I took occasion to give you some essays in ancienter times, as appears by my words, p. 49. in your edit, where I say thus; Though therefore you profess never to have some convincing proof of this in the first four hundred years, and labour to infringe it in the next ages, I will make an essay to give you a taste of those innumerable proofs, of the Bishops of Rome's supremacy, not in order only, but of Power, Authority, and jurisdiction over all other Bishops, in the ensuing instances within the first 400, 500, or 600 years, whence it is evident I intended no demonstration of our perpetual visibility, but only a confutation of what you pretended within, or about the first five hundred years, by showing some few instances to the contrary. And indeed had I undertaken to prove it in all ages since Christ, I had most grossly failed in my proof, since I produce none after the first six hundred years, whence appears, how palpably you impose upon your Reader, by proceeding upon this false supposition, which you repeat almost in every page, in your Answer to my instances, that I have not brought the consent of the whole Church in them; whereas it was sufficient for my intent in confutation of your Assertion, to produce any one solid instance for it, in those ages.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 125. Your first testimony is from Liberatus, c. 16. John Bishop of Antioch makes an appeal to Pope Simplicius. Reply, 1 I see you are deceived by going upon trust; But its pity to deceive others there was no such man as John Bishop of Antioch in Simplicius reign, John of Antioch was he that made the stirs and divisions for Nestorius against Cyril, and called the schismatical council at Ephesus, and died anno 436. having reigned thirteen years, as Baronius saith, and eighteen as Nicephorus, he died in Sixtus the fift's time. but, it's said indeed that John Bishop of Alexandria made some address to Simplicius; of which Baronius citeth Liberatus words, not, c. 16, but c, 18, ad Anno Dom. 483. that John being expelled by the Emperor Zenos command, went first to Calendion Bishop of Antioch, and so to Rome to Simplicius (if Baronius were to be believed as his judge) Liberatus saith that he took from Calendion Bishop of Antioch letters to Simplicius, to whom he appealed as Athanasius had done, and persuaded him to write for him to Acacius Bishop of Constantinople, which Simplicius did, but Acacius upon the receipt of Simplicius letters, writ flatly to him that he knew no John Bishop of Alexandria, but had taken Petrus Mogas as Bishop of Alexandria into his communion, and that without Simplicius, for the Church's unity at the Emperor's command.  William johnson. 
Num. 125. It was indeed joannes Thalaida, chosen Bishop of Alexandria, but presently disturbed by Zeno the Emperor, through Acacius his means, and Petrus Mogas settled in his place by the Emperor's authority, and by Acacius Bishop of Constantinople: this joannes Thalaida being a Catholic Bishop, appealed as Liberatus saith, and you acknowledge, to Simplicius; being dead before john arrived at Rome, Pope Felix, his successor received the appeal, and gathered a council upon it, sent Legates, and redargvitory letters, to Zeno and Acacius: where in his letter to Zeno, he exhorted him to send Acacius to Rome according to the Ecclesiastical laws and cited Acacius, a favourer of Heretics, to hasten thither, to defend himself against the depositions of joannes Thalaida, and to answer juridically to the objections made by his accuser, and then to have his cause tried in judgement, this is the history. By the way I wonder much to hear you say, that john Bishop of Antioch, died in Sixtus the fift's time, when as all the world knows this john of Antioch flourished in the year 1585. surely that john must have been a notable old man, of eleven hundred and odd years at least, Mathuselah was nothing to him, and which is yet a greater miracle, he must have lived above a thousand years, after he was dead, I should have taken no notice at all of this (for I know you would have said Sixtus the third) but only to let you reflect, how careful you ought to have been in your own accounts, Names, and Figures, when you are so punctual to note every small slip in the writings of your adversary: I might also have noted, your error in affirming this john of Antioch died, an. 436. citing Baronius for it, whereas Baronius as abreviated by spondanus, says expressly he died Anno 440. But I have no reason to pass in silence your not informing your Reader, what Zeno, Acacius, Petrus Mogas, Petrus Fullonis, john Thalaida, and Calendion were; you say, Zeno expelled john Thalaida, that Acacius disowned him, and acknowledged Petrus Mogas, as Bishop of Alexandria, and thence infer how little regard Acacius made of our Pope; by which obsurdity in writing, your ignorant Reader may well suppose, that Zeno was a good Christian Emperor, Acacius and Petrus Mogas found Catholic Bishops, john and Calendion turbulent intruders or Schismatics; whereas you could not but know (seeing you profess to read the Authors you quote) that Zeno, Acacius, Petrus Mogas, Petrus Fullonis, and their abbetters were either Heretics or first favourites secretly, and after publicly, of the Eutychian heresy, and the chief of them were after by a sentence given of Pope Felix, excommunicated and deprived of Episcopal dignity and jurisdiction, as I have proved above; whereas john Thalaida and Calendion were most Orthodox and Catholic Bishops, quietly and canonically elected, and installed the one in the sea of Alexandria, and the other in that of Antioch: which had it been declared, (as all open and fair dealing required) it had proved rather a credit then a disadvantage to the Roman sea, to have been opposed by such notorious Heretics and Schismatics as those were; and appealed to, by Thalaida, and Calendion, Catholic and lawful Bishops.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 126. Here you see how little regard Acacius made of your Pope; and that the appeal was but to procure his letters to Acacius which did him no good.  William johnson. 
Num. 126. I am glad to see how Heretics, and Favourers of heretics have still contemned the authority of that Sea, but I see not, that the appeal was only to procure the Pope's letters to Acacius, for it was also to summon Acacius to answer john's accusations against him at Rome, and there to try his cause in judgement with him; now that nothing was effected by this, was only Acacius his pertinacy, for which he is condemned by all the Catholic writers of his proceed in those times, and not one of them blame Simplicius or Felix as exceeding the limits of their authority, in sentencing and deposing Acacius and his adherents, as we have seen he did; produce in your next, those authors who speak against it in their times.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 127. But do you in good earnest think, that all such addresses or appeals are, ad superiorem judicem, what more common then to appeal or make such addresses to any that have advantages of interest, for the relief of the oppressed, young men appeal to the aged in controversies; and the less learned, to the more learned; and the poor to the rich, or to the favourites of such as can relieve them: john's going first to Antioch was no acknowledgement of Superiority.  William johnson. 
Num. 127. Yes I think so in very good earnest, and when you shall have fixed your second thoughts upon what past in this affair, I doubt not but your own ingenuity will induce you to think so too. 'tis not every appeal made from any tribunal or Judge to another, who hath power to summon the defendant and to pronounce sentence against him, in case of not appearance to defend his cause, a strict and juridical appeal to a higher Court or Tribunal? was not this appeal such? I know when you consider the letters and sentence given by Felix against Acacius; you neither will, nor can deny it; whence appears, how far your instances of improper, and nominal appeals are from the present matter. Should a poor Peasant of Northumberland being wronged by some inferior persons, having the Lord Mayor of London his friend, appeal to him, and require of him, that he cite those Judges to appear before him, and in case they did refuse to appear, pronounce sentence against them, and deprive them of their offices, lands, and possessions? would it not be highly ridiculous? seeing therefore such a proceeding as this, was held by virtue of this appeal of john Thalaida, and no Catholic of those times, ever condemned Felix for doing it, nor john for requiring it, as is most evident, it was an appeal or complaint (as Baronius affirms) to an higher Judge. Now seeing an appeal made from one Judge to another, as all solemn and proper appeals are made, and understood in law, must be from a lower to a higher Judge, and the word appeal (as all other words) must be taken in a proper sense, where nothing constrains us, to take it improperly: it is most manifest that this appeal must be understood to have been made to a higher Judge, than were those who deposed Thalaida.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 128. But of this I must refer you to a full answer of Blondel against Perron, de Primatu in Ecclesia, cap. 25. sect. 76. where you may be satisfied of the vanity of your instance.  William johnson. 
Num. 128. I could wish you had alleged Blondels reasons, for by thus giving me Authors at every turn, you will oblige me to peruse and answer whole libraries; if Blondel have any thing worth taking notice of, you may please to insert it into your rejoinder to this Reply, and it shall be answered. thus much only I am bold to tell you, aforehand, that Blondel trifles exceedingly, for whether Thalaida were cited by Acacius legally or no, which might make the wrong done him rather violence then juridical condemnation, yet seeing Blondel confesses injuries done him by Acacius, and his adherents, upon pretence of perjury, whereof he was though illegally, judged guilty, and solemnly deposed: it was an appeal properly so called to reverse that unjust judgement, by virtue of a sentence pronounced by an higher judge, otherwise if an innocent person, should be unjustly condemned in his absence, without either citation or hearing, he could not properly appeal from that sentence to an higher Court; that which Blondel alleadges in the second place, is yet more childish, for seeing Zeno, Acacius and their complices, never treated with Thalaida about a joint consent to choose Felix their Arbiter, nay seeing the appeal was made to Felix whether they would or no, they refuseing to appear in defence of themselves, and make good their accusations against Thalaida; it is most manifest that Felix was not made Arbiter of the cause by joint consent as all Arbiters must be, but had of himself the power of judging both parties. Now though it was admitted, not granted, that the recourse of Thalaida to Simplicius and Felix, was rather a complaint of violence & injury done him by force, then of an unjust juridical sentence pronounced against him, yet my intent will evidently follow from it: or it had been ridiculous in Thalaida, to have sought redress from that injury, and a condemnatory sentence against Acacius etc. from one who had no power or jurisdiction over them, and it had been a most insufferable injustice, and presumption in Felix to have deposed and deprived Acacius, had he had no jurisdiction over him, and the rest of his complices. Hence your fallacy consists in this, that you proceed from secundum quid to simpliciter, that is, from appeals improperly so called, or vulgar appeals, to juridical or proper appeals, whereas you should have given some instance, where an appeal, made from an unjust sentence, to another Judge, who hath power to cite, and condemn those from whom the appeal is made, is not always made to an higher judge: for such was the appeal of Thalaida to Simplicius, as I have proved.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 129. Whereas therefore you infer (or you say nothing) that because this John thus appealed to Rome, therefore he appealed thither, as to the universal Ruler of the Church.  William johnson. 
Num. 129. The story proves it most manifestly there were but three chief Patriarck's then in the Church, besides the Pope, viz. of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch, now if the Pope had authority to summon, sentence, condemn, excommunicate or deprive them of the communion of the faithful, depose, and dis-Bishop them, as Felix undeniably did in his sentence, against Acacius and his adherents, the intruded Patriarches of Alexandria and Antioch; he must have had power and jurisdiction over all the inferior Church governor's, for qui valet ad majus, valet ad minus; and to limit this papal power to the Empire, I have showed it groundless, for if the Bishop of Constantinople censured here by the Pope, had power over the barbarous, that is extra-imperial Provinces, as I have proved above, why should not the Pope, that had power over him, seeing there is not the least appearance in antiquity, that he had power over the Patriarches as they were subjects of the Roman Empire, and if there be, show it.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 130. The story derideth your consequence, much more, that therefore the universal Church held the Pope then to be the universal head or Governor.  William johnson. 
Num. 130. What story? wherein? how derides it my consequence? why, you say it does, and that's enough, this second consequence follows also undeniably for seeing these proceed were notorious to the whole Church, and no Catholic Prelate, or Church, disallowed of them, but all Authors of those times, approve them, that it was either then the unanimous consent of the Church, that the Pope had the power, or there is no means left to know by Authentical t●●stimonies what the Church held or held not in those Ages.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 131. Here is nothing of Government but, entreaty, and that but within the Empire, and that but upon the seeking of one distressed man that would be apt to go to those of most interest that might relieve him, and all this rejected by Acacius, and the Emperor; a fair proof.  William johnson. 
Num. 131. Here is nothing but a most supreme visible authority in Government, over the three chief Patriarches of the Church in repealing their sentence, excommunicating, depriving, and deposing them, and consequently, seeing some of them at least had authority over extra-imperial or barbarous provinces (as I have proved) the Pope had government over some who were out of the Empire; yet withal, I mind you, I undertook no more, then to prove against you, that some at least in those times, held the universal jurisdiction of the Pope. now whether my proof, or your answer be the fairer, I leave it to the impartial Reader.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 132. Your second Instance is that Flavianus appeals to the Pope as to his judge; Epist. praeambul. Council Chalced. Reply, I have perused all the Council of Chalcedon, as it is in Binius, purposely to find the words you mention of Flavianus appeal, and I find not any such words, in Flavianus own epistle to Leo, there are such words, nor any other that I can find but the 〈◊〉 (appeal,) once in one of the Emperor's Epistles as I Remember, but without mentioning any judge. I will not turn over volumes thus in vain for your Citations, while I see you take them on trust, and do not tell me in any narrow compass of cap. sect, or pag. where to find them.  William johnson. 
Num. 132. I am sorry you were put to so much pains, but I take it not to have been occasioned by me: I cite, Epist. praeambulat. Con. Chalced. and you confess you found it in one of the Epistles, whether the word, (Judge) be there or no imports nothing; for the nature of the appeal, and circumstances wherein it was made, show him to be a Judge, as we shall now see.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 133. But had you found such words, an appeal is oft made from a partial to an impartial judge thought of equal power.  William johnson. 
Num. 133. What a juridical appeal, made both viva voce, and per libellum, by a bill of appeal in and from a general Council, to another of no greater authority than that Council was, nay, in your principles of inferior Authority to a general Council, would not this have been ridiculous? should a Citizen of Newscastle injured in the Mayor's court, publicly appeal to the Mayor of Bristol and his court, as knowing him to be a more impartial Judge, and of equal authority with the other, would not all knowing men, nay the common people laugh at him?  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 134. He might appeal to the Bishop of Rome as one of his judges in the Council, where he was to be tried and not as alone.  William johnson. 
Num. 134. This is worse than the former, think you that Flavianus, was so great a fool, as to frame a Solemn appeal in writing in the presence of a general Council, from the authority of it, which is to be esteemed, and then esteemed itself the highest congregational tribunal in the Christian world, to a particular Council of some few Bishops in Italy, as to a higher Judge than was a general Council? this is just, as if one should appeal from the Parliament, to the common Council of London.  Mr Baxter. 
Num. 135. And it is evident in the history, that it was not the Pope but the Council that was his judge.  William johnson. 
Num. 135. But made that appeal, the Bishop of Rome or the Council either, an higher Judge than a general Council? that's the question here. if it did, than you must confess the Pope in a provincial Council at lest iure Ecclesiastico, above a general Council in Power and Authority. How will your Brethren like that?  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 136. The greatness of Rome and Primacy of order, (not of jurisdiction) made that Bishop of special interest in the Empire.  William johnson. 
Num. 136. But withal you must suppose them in their right wits, and of ordinary Learning and Prudence, as Flavianus surely was; and then they will find it absurd and foolish to appeal from a general Council to a particular, or to make one who has no more than Patriarchal authority (as you hold the Pope has no more) above a general Council.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 137. And distressed persecuted men will appeal to those that may any whit relieve them. But this proves no governing power nor so much as any interest without the Empire, to make the voices of Patriarches necessary in their general Councils, no wonder! if appellations be made from those Councils that wanted the Patriarches consent to other Councils where they consented.  William johnson. 
Num. 137. But here in the beginning of the Council, the patriarches were present, even he of Rome by his legates, so that it was not convened wholly against the Pope's will, and had things been carried justly and canonically, there might have been a perfect consent of all the Patriarches, at least there was the consent of three of them, and why a particular Council gathered by consent of one only patriarch (as was that in Italy) should be an higher tribunal than a general Council where three were present, I cannot see, nor I suppose you neither.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 138. In which as they gave Constantinople the second place, without any pretence of Divine Right, and frequent appeals were made to that Sea: so also they gave Rome the first Sea.  William johnson. 
Num. 138. But was there ever a solemn Canonical appeal, made in and from a general Council, to any Bishop of Constantinople with his provincial Council, as was made here, from this of Ephesus, to the Pope with his? that's the point: and I hope you will give some instance of it from antiquity in your next.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 139. Adding this only that as Flavian (in his necessity) seeking help from the Bishop of the prime Seat in the Empire, did acknowledge no more but his primacy of order by the laws of the Empire, and the Councils thereof: so the Empire was not all the world, nor Flavian all the Church nor any more than one man, & therefore if he had held (as you will never prove he did) the universal Government of the Pope, if you will thence argue, that it was held by all the Church, your consequence must needs be marvelled at, by them that believe that one man is not the Catholic Church, no more than seeking of help, was an acknowledging an universal headship or governing power.  William johnson. 
Num. 139. All this is answered in the former instance, though Flavian were not all the Church, nor half neither, (for where did I ever say he was, or needed to say so) yet he was one man at least, and a good Orthodox Christian, and that's enough, to confute your former assertion, that within the first four hundred years, you never saw any one who was for the Pope's universal monarchy or vice-Christs-ship▪ now this was all I undertook to make good in my instances, as I have demonstrated above▪ what you add, that this appeal having been addressed to Simplicius by Flavianus, argued no more than a primacy of order in Simplicius before all other Bishops, will seem as strange to considering persons, as if a malefactor condemned by a younger Judge at the assizes, should appeal to some other more ancient amongst the Judges, because he would take place of the other in Parliament.   

CHAP. II.  
ARGUMENT. Theodoret, the council of Sardica, St. Leo  
NUm. 140. Mr. Baxter crownes his arguments, before he gives them a being. Theodoret seeks in his appeal to be restored to his Bishopric of Cyre, as he was by the Pope's authority. Num. 143. The Council gave no new judgement of Leo. Num. 145. In virtue of the Pope's having authority over general Councils, it follows he had power also over extra-imperiall Churches. The Sardican council rightly cited; but not fully Englished me. Num. 150. Of what authority the Sardican council was. Num. 151. The Sardican council falsified, and sent into Africa by the Donatists. Num. 153. Canons of the council of perpetual force in the Church. Num. 164. St. Peter unsainted by Mr. Baxter, ibid. His disrespect to General Councils. Num. 165. ibid. The Sardican canons give not, but presuppose a Supr●●am power in the Pope.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 140. And it is undeniably evident that the Church of Constantinople, and all the Greek Churches, did believe the universal Primacy, which in the Empire was set up, to be of humane right, and now changeable, as I prove not only by the express testimonies of the council of Chalcedon, but by the slacking of the Primacy at last in Gregory's days on Constantinople itself, whose pretence, neither was nor could be any other than a humane late institution.  William johnson. 
Num. 140. These authorities shall be answered in your second part, where you urge them at large: to the Council of Chalcedon something is said already.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 141. And if the Greek Churches judged so of it in Gregory's days, and the Council of Chalcedon, in Leo's days, we have no reason to think that they ever judged otherwise; at least not in Flavianus days, that were the same as Leo's, and business done about 149. This argument I here set against all your instances at once, and it is unanswerable.  William johnson. 
Num. 141. It is really unanswerable, for I see nothing to be answered in it, you only say you prove it by the testimony of the Council of Chalcedon, and stating the primacy at least in St. Gregory's days in Constantinople, but neither produce here any authority of that Council nor of the Pope; than you come with an if it be so etc. when you have not proved it is so; and then say, your Argument is unanswerable: 'tis so indeed, for no man can answer an argument before it be made, considering men will think it had been soon enough to honour your own arguments with the illustrious title of unanswerable, when you have set them out in their full glory, but very unseasonable before you have given them a being: now how unanswerable your argument will prove, when it has a being, time will inform us.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 142. Your next instance is of Pope Leo's restoring Theodoret, upon an appeal to just judgement. Reply, every Bishop hath a power to discern who is fie for his own Communion; and so Leo and the Bishops of the West perceiving Theodoret to be Orthodox received him as a Catholic into their communion, and so might the Bishop of Constantinople have done.  William johnson. 
Num. 142. Was there no more in it, think you, men a bare receiving an Orthodox Bishop into communion? what need was there of that? for I read not, that Theodoret was excommunicated by the false Council of Ephesus, but deposed from his Bishopric; but having been accused of Nestorianisme, and as such, condemned in this Council, the Pope according to the usual custom declared him Orthodox, and received him into his communion; it was a restoration to his Episcopal Sea which he appealed for, and a reversing the unjust sentence (in his absence, and having no warning given him to plead his cause, and defence) which he sought for to Pope Leo, and he was accordingly restored in the first Session of the Council of Chalcedon, and consequently by the Authority of Pope Leo, and took his seat in the Council with the other Fathers: because the Bishop of Rome had judged him innocent, and restored him: nor is there any mention made of the Bishops of the West, but only of a restauration ordered by Leo's authority, nor could the Bishop of Constantinople have done any such sovereign act, as this was. (which you say but prove not.) show me if you can, ever nay appeal like this of Theodoret's made from the sentence of a general Council, to any patriarch in the world? save the Bishop of Rome. or any Bishop thus appealing restored to his sea after deposition by a general Council, save only by the Pope's authority.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 143. But when this was done: the Council did not thereupon receive him, and restore him to his Bishopric, no, nor would hear him read the passage between Pope Leo and him, no nor make a confession of his Faith, but cried out against him as a Nestorian till he had expressly Anathematised Nestorius and Eutiches before the Council, and then received and Restored him, so that the final judgement was not by Leo, but by the Council.  William johnson. 
Num. 143. Here are many untruths put up together, 1. First it is most certain the Council did receive him and he sat amongst them, as Bishop of Cyrus upon his Restitution by Leo; though the Bishops of Palestine, Egypt and Illyria, excepted and exclaimed against him. 2. It was not the Council but those Bishops which opposed him, 
Con. Chalced: ac. 1.  for whose satisfaction he Anathemised Nestorius, 3. The Council did not restore him otherwise, then by ratifying and approving Pope Leo's act of Restaurations which is not to have the final judgement of the cause, but to consent and approve by a public act, what was justly, and Canonically adjudged before, which may be, and is very frequently done by equal, or inferior judges: if indeed the judgement of Leo had been reversed in the Council, without the recourse had to him about it, you might have had some Colour to affirm, the final judgement was by the Council.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 244. But if in his distress he appealed as you say, to a just judgement, from an unjust: or sought to make Leo his friend no wonder! but this is no grant of an universal Sover●●ignty in Leo,  William johnson. 
Num. 144. It was an act of jurisdiction out of the Western Patriarches, therefore it could not proceed from Leo as he was Patriarch of the West; so that he must have done it, as having authority, and judicatory power over other Patriarchals; and seeing there is no reason alleadgeable, why he should have power in the Patriarchals where Theodoret was Bishop, more than in any other: à paritate rationis, it proves that he had juridical power over all the Patriarchals, ergo an universal power over the whole Church, at least within the Empire. if you will solve this argument, you must show a disparity, why Theodoret was more subject to the Sea of Rome then any other Bishop within the Empire, or the rest of the Patriarches.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 145. And if it had granted it in the Empire, that is nothing to the Churches in other Empires.  William johnson. 
Num. 145. It is manifest by this instance, that Leo had power to annul the sentence of a general Council, at lest which esteemed itself so; nor can I see why Protestants in their principles, should not account it as true a general Council, as others of those times, there having been present both the Emperor and the Patriarches, either by themselves or their Legates and as many or more Bishops, than were in ●●her general Councils; now seeing general Councils had power over the extra-imperial Provinces, as is manifest above, from the Cou●●cils of Nice, and Chalcedon, which subjected the barbarous Provinces, that is, Russia, and Muscovia, etc. to the Bishop of Constantinople and the two Arabia's to the Patriarch of Antioch, of which some were the extra-imperial; seeing, I say, that this instance evidences that the Bishop of Rome had power to judge of the sentence of a general Council, and reverse it too, he must have had power also over that which is subject to general Councils, that is, over the extra-imperial Provinces.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 146. Or, if he had granted it as to all the world; he was but one man of the world and not the Catholic Church.  William johnson. 
Num. 146. 'Tis true, Theodoret was but one man, but it was not Theodoret alone who thought this appeal lawful, but it was approved as such by the whole general Council of Chalcedon, which was the Church representative, having exercised power, as well without, as within the Empire; and after this the whole Catholic Church was satisfied with it, never having accepted against it, by any Orthodox writer in or about these times, nor any memory lost, that the Church or any true parts of it, excepted against it. in your next it will be expected, you either produce some exception, witnessed b●● Catholic antiquity, made against it, or grant, it was accepted by the whole Church, yet had it been Theodoret alone who approved that appeal, I had proved, there was at least one Orthodox christian, who held the Pope's supremacy in those ages, which was all I undertook to prove, to infringe your assertion. ut Supra  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 147. The Council expressly take on them the determination after Leo, and they slight the legates of the Pope, and pronounce him a Creature of the Fathers and give Constantinople equal privileges, though his legates refuse to consent: but of the frivolousness of this your instance, see D. Field of the Church lib. 5. cap. 35. pag. 537.538. and more fully, Blondel de primatu, ubi sup. cap. 25. sect. 63.65.  William johnson. 
Num. 147. Here is much said and nothing proved: part of what you say is just now satisfied, when in your rejoinder you allege the reasons of those two Doctors of yours, you shall have an answer,.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 148. Your next instance is, that the Council of Sardis determined, that no Bishop deposed by other neighouring Bishops, pretended to be heard again, was to have any successor appointed till the case were defined by the Pope Conc. Sard. cap. 4. cited by Anthanas. apol. 2. pag. 753. Reply, It seems you are well acquainted with the Council that know not of what place it was; It was the Council at Sardica, and not at Sardis that you would mean. Sardis was a City of Lydia apud Tmolum, olim Regio Coersi inter Thyatiram & Philadelphiam. But this Sardica was a●● City of Thrace in the confines of the higher Mysia, inter Naissum Mysiae & Phillippopolim Thraciae, as to the instance.  William johnson. 
Num. 148. Had you seen my citation in the margin, you might have saved this labour, for I find it cited in two different copies of mine. Concilium Sardicense, not Sardiense, and in a third, Con: Sardic. which haply was contracted in the copy sent to you, as you have printed it. Con. Sard: whereby it is manifest, I know what I cited, and all the defect was in Englishing the latin word Sardicense, wherein such as have lived most part of their lives beyond Sea, are not so well versed, as those who never stepped out of England; and indeed you might as well blame the common strain of our English writers, as me in this; who ordinarily translate Nicaea Nice, when it should be Nicee. for Nice and Nicaea are all as different Cities as Sardis and Sardica: yet the very name Sardis for Sardica was used long before me; for I am not the first who confounded the names of those two Cities as Baronius witnesses, an. 347.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 149. This Council is by Augustine rejected as Heretical, though I defend not his opinion.  William johnson. 
Num. 149. Why then lose you time in mentioning it? 
Zozom. l, 3. cap. 10. Epist. Synodalis Arianorum Extat inter Hilar. frag. l. 2.  but by your leave St. Augustine never rejected this Council of Sardica, for it is probable it was unknown to him to be different from that of Nice: But that of Philippopolis, not far from Sardica, where the Arian Bishops assembled a conventicle, and gave it out, under the name of the Arian Council.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 150 2. It was of so little note and authority, that it was not known to the Council of Carthage to have the next antecedent Canons (which you would have omitted if you had read them, its like) in which your writer's glory, as their chiefest strength; and which Bellarmine thinks Pope Zosimus called the Nicene.  William johnson. 
Num. 150 I can scarce think you were in earnest, when you writ this, was the Sardican Council of little note, when Socrates, Zozomen, Severus, Theodoret, Vigilius episc. Tadentinus, Hilarius, Epiphanius, and above all St. Athanasius, who was present in it, make most honourable mention of it, as of a famous general Council, wherein, as many of them say, were above 308 Bishops, all Catholics, wherein the Nicene Faith was confirmed against the Arians & which for its great and unblemished authority, so fully consonant with the Nicene doctrine, deserved to be accounted the same with it, and to pass under the name and notion of the Council of Nice. now this Council was celebrated by consent of both the Emperors of the East and West, and therein were Bishops (as St. Athanasius and Theodoret witness) from all the Provinces of Christendom, 
Athan. ad salit.  even from Arabia itself, though extra-imperial.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 151. Or rather is it not suspicious? that this Canon is forged, when those Carthage Fathers plainly say, in nullo patrum concilio invenimus, mentioning that antecedent Canon proposed by Hosius, to which this mentioned by you proposed by Gaudentius is but an addition or supplement. And it is not like that all these African Fathers could be ignorant of those canons of Sardica, when such abundance of African Bishops were at the Council, and that but about 50 years before. You may see in Binius how hard a strait he is put to, to give any tolerable reason of this, and only saith that its like, some of the Canons were lost. sure tradition was then grown untrusty.  William johnson. 
Num. 151. Had you but perused at leisure what the malice of the Donatists had wrought in Africa concerning the acts of the true Sardican Council in suppressing the canons of that Council, and obtruding those of the false council of Philippopolis, composed of Arians under the title and name of the Council of Sardica, you had had small reason to judge that the African Fathers could not be ignorant of those canons of Sardica. Now that the foresaid Arian Council was given out by the Donatists under the name of the Sardican Council; it was most evident from St. Aug. ep. 163. where he affirms that in a book containing the Council of Sardica, he found St. Athanasius and julius Bishop of Rome condemned, whence he collected, it was a Council of Arians and contra. l. 3. c. 24. He tells his adversary the Council of Sardica, was a conventicle of Arians, as was evident by the copies which in his time they had of it, amongst them, having been assembled principally against St. Athansius, whereas it is manifest (as the author's witness in the former paragraph) the true Council of Sardica was in favour and defence of St Athanasius and in confirmation of the Nicene Faith: 
Epist. con. Sard. apud Athan. Athan: Apol. & ad sol. vit.  that this fraud was practised by the Donatists, St. Aug. witnesseth Ep. 163. where he affirms that Spurious book was showed him by Fortunius the Donatist, and gives also there the reason of this perfidious dealing; because they found in that Arian Council a writing addressed to the African Bishops, of their communion with Donatus the first beginner and then Bishop of the Donatists. whence appears undeniably that in St. Aug's, and so in time of the African Council, there was no other copy of the Sardican Council, save that false one of the Arians, fraudently given out for the true one of Sardica. Now if St Augustine the light not only of Africa but of the whole Church, was ignorant of the true canons of the Sardican Council, the copies of it having been suppressed by the Donatists, what need you wonder that the rest of the African Bishops were ignorant of them? and this is the reason why the African Fathers writ, they found not the canons in any Council of the Fathers, because they had not the true copy of the Sardican, wherein they were: yet it is true that these very canons were acknowledged by the African Churches within very few years after this African Council, both by the practice of that Church, 
S. Leo. Ep. 8. ad Episc▪ African●●s.  where (as St. Leo witnesses) an African Bishop appealed to him who succeeded within eight years of Celestine, and his appeal was received: and by inserting these very canons of the Sardican Council into the canon law of Africa, for Fulgentius Ferrandus Deacon of Carthag. not long after St. August. and Contemporanean with St. Fulgentius, 
Fulg. Ferrand. in Breviar: Can: art 59 & 60.  hath registered them into his collection of the canons amongst the rest.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 152. It was made in a case of Athanasius and other Orthodox Oriental Bishops merely in that straight to save them, and the Churches from the Arians.  William johnson. 
Num. 152. But if it were only for this straight, why was it many years after put into the canon law of Africa, (as I have now proved) and practised to this very day ever since in the Church? Who ever before you said, it was only for that straight? name any one clasick author of antiquity, if you can, who said so? Canons of general Councils though occasioned by several accidents, are to be supposed as perpetual to the whole Church, till they be either repealed by some authority equal to a general Council, or some manifest action given in the institution of them, that they are only provisionary for a time: prove if you can by the words of this Council? that it intends them only to be obligatory only for that straight and not to be perpetual. This indeed were an excellent way to infringe the obligation of all or the most part of the Ecclesiastical canons by saying, they were in aid upon such a straight, (as all were made by some or other,) and therefore bind not, after that occasion is past. But what if in effect, either the same or the like occasion and straight, more or less, be still found in the Churches. For after the Arians the Nestorians, Eutychians, Monothelites, image breakers & others, persecuted Catholic Bishops as wrongfully as did the Arians; why then was this canon not to remain necessary after that straight of the Arian opposition? I see the strait was yours, being much pinched for an answer, when you fell upon such a straight as this.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 153. The Arians withdrew from the Council being the Minor part; and excommunicated Julius and Athanasius and other occidentals; and the occidental Bishops excommunicated the oriental. Athanasius himself was a chief man in the Council, and had before been rescued by the help of Julius, and therefore no wonder if they desired this safety to their Churches.  William johnson. 
Num. 153. But yet because it was morally certain, even after this strait was past that as before this Council was assembled, or the Council of Nice either; many Bishops were oppressed by their neighbour Bishops and stood in need of appeals: so in all future times more or less such occasions would happen as continual experience ever since hath taught, as they have happened▪ for these reasons I say it was necessary that these and the like canons should be of perpetual force or remedy against perpetual dangers, equal, or like to those of the Arians. This ground of yours, would have stood our late Republicans in good stead, who might have canceled most of the ancient laws of our Kingdoms upon the same pretence, with yours, that they were enacted first upon some straight or other, which being passed over many years ago, they are now no more necessary, nor any way obligatory. See you not, what foundations you lay, for the overthrow of the laws both of Church and Kingdom?  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 154. Note that this is a thing newly granted now, by this canon, and not any ancient thing.  William johnson. 
Num. 154. Prove it is a new thing: this decree was not before it was made, but the matter of the decree, that is, the power of the Bishops of Rome to judge all other prelates was before this Council, for otherwise St. Athanasius and the other Bishops could never have appealed to the Bishops of Rome as to their judges, or would their appeals have been accepted by those holy Bishops, or approved in general Councils, or had the effects of restauration etc. In the Church▪ which notwithstanding, you yourself confess here, was done before this Council.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 155. Note that therefore it was of humane Right, and not of Divine.  William johnson. 
Num. 155. Therefore, whence deduce you that to prove first your premises before you infer your conclusion? may not the Church order that divine Laws and institutons be observed, and are they therefore not of divine right, because the Church hath commanded the observance of them? did not the fourth Council of Lateran command all Christians to receive at Easter? Is therefore the reception of the Sacrament not of divine right? true it is, the circumstances of Executing divine commands may be determined by the Church, as they were in this Council: but the substance is still divine▪ show by any word in those canons that they give the power of judging the causes of all Bishops to the Pope, as if he had it not before?  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 156. Note that yet this canon was not received, or practised in the Church, but after this, the contrary maintained by Councils, and practised, as I shall anon prove.  William johnson. 
Num. 156. When you prove it, I hope, I shall answer it.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 157. That it is not any antecedent Governing power, that the Canon acknowledgeth in the Pope, but in honour of the memory of St. Peter, as they say; (yet more for their present security) they give thus much to Rome, it being the vulgar opinion that Peter had been their Bishop.  William johnson. 
Num. 157. I am hearty sorry to discover so bad a spirit in you, as these expressions demonstrate. why give you not the title of St. to him, to whom this holy ecumenical Council (as you here acknowledge) gave it they call him (say you) St. Peter and you unsaint him, & call him, as it were in derision of the Council, plain Peter. why call you that a vulgar opinion? which was embraced as an unquestioned certainty, by this reverend, Learned, and general assembly of the catholic Church. why impose you upon this holy Council? that they had preferred their own security before the memory of St. Peter. I am really struck with compassion to see so much of the Lucian in you.  
I have denied any power at all to be given to the Bishops of Rome by these canons; they only determine the use which was to be made of his presupposed power, by whom, and when. If an order be made in Parliaments, That such particular persons as have been oppressed by others in inferior courts, shall have recourse by appeal to one of the Lords chief Justices. Does that Parlianent by virtue of that order create or institute the Lord chief Justice? or rather, is it not evident it supposes him to have the power of chief Justice, precedently to that order, and only ordains that others have recourse to him: But yet the power they mention of redress and appeal to the Roman Bishops is to him only as Judge; for the canon says nothing of any Council joined to him, nor names any other Judge, save the Pope. when a Judge sits in judgement at the assizes, though the bench be filled with other justices who inform and assist, yet the sentence proceeds only from the Judge. Thus though the Bishops of Rome used in matters of great concernment to the whole Church, to call some neighbouring Bishops to sit in Council with him for his better information, and greater solemnity in the judgement: yet he alone had the power of pronouncing a definitive sentence in behalf of Bishops wrongfully deposed etc. It is manifest by this, that the restauration is ascribed as done by him, and not by him and his Council, and so having no authority in itself out of the Roman or Western Patriarchate, and serving only for an assistance to the Pope in framing his judgement of the case propounded, not in a decisive voice in pronouncing the sentence, or legal power in granting the restauration.  
How expect you to be spoke of after your death, when you slight so much the Fathers of the first general Council of Nice (for a great number of them were in this) and how can you live without fear, 
Socrat. eccls. histor. l. 2. c. 11. Zozom. l. 3. c. 11. & 12.  that you are led with the spirit of error (when you refuse to hear and believe those who were the lawful pastors in a full representative of Gods holy Church? but to show how far you fall from truth in saying those canons acknowledge no antecedent governing power in the Pope, please to reflect on what is said in the third of them, where they leave it to the Pope's prudence, to accept of what appeals he thinks fit, and entreat him to vouchsafe to write to the neighbouring Bishops, or to send legates of his own to examine the case, as he judges best: now had they conferred this power upon the Pope by virtue of those acts, they should not have proceeded by way of entreaty, but by way of precept, and injunction, nor left matters to his disposition, but ordered him by theirs, what he was to do.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 158. That it is not a power of judging alone, that they give, but of Causing the re-examination of causes by the Council, and adding his assistance in the the judgement, and so to have the putting of another into the place forborn, till it be done.  William johnson. 
Num. 158. But does not the first of these canons, give express order, that the Pope appoint the judges, and the second, that the Pope himself pronounce the last juridical sentence, & the third, that it is left to the Pope's free election either to refer the farther examination to the neighbour Bishops, or send judges of his own appointment. Can there be more evident marks of an absolute judge, than these are? If the Pope had power only to examine the causes: who had the power to judge them according to these Canons? or to what purpose where those examinations made, if none were empowered to pass judgement, after the causes were examined? Now seeing the canons attribute the power of judging to no other, save the Bishops of Rome: for they make no mention at all of any Council; then the Council supposed the power of judging to be in him alone, and not jointly in the provincial Council and him.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 159. And I hope still you will remember, that at this Council were no Bishops without the Empire, and that the Roman world was narrower, than the Christian world: and therefore if these Bishops in a part of the Empire had now given (not a ruling) but a saving power to the Pope so far as is there expressed; this had been far from proving, that he had a ruling power, as the vice-Christ over all the world, and that by divine right: Blame me not to call on you to prove this Consequence?  William johnson. 
Num. 159. I hope you will also remember what I have answered to these exceptions: and that I have proved that Bishops from the three Arabia's were present in this Council, all which were not under the Empire: and that the Roman world in order to spiritual Government was as large, as the Christian world univocally so called, as I have proved from St. Prosper, and St. Leo.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 160. There is as much for appeals to Constantinople, that never claimed as vice-Christ-ship, as jure divino.  William johnson. 
Num. 160. 'Tis your pleasure to say so, but your word with me is not arrived to the authority of an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. it is your proofs, not the bare say I expect here. non proof 17.   

CHAP. III.  
ARGUMENT. St. Basil.  
Numb 160. Mr. Baxter, in lieu of answering to his adversaries objection, treats other matters, to draw his Reader from considering the force of the argument. Num. 161. whether Mr. Baxter, or his adversary, say true, concerning the words of St. chrysostom, in his second epistle to Pope Innocent the first. Num. 162. what the first Council of Ephesus writ to pope Celestine, about john Bishop of Antioch. Mr. Baxters strange confidence in both these authorities. Num. 163. Mr. Baxter flies to Heretics to maintain his cause, by their wicked practices. ibid. what juvenal Bishop of Jerusalem, said of the Roman and Antiochian Church. ibid. Mr. Baxter eclipse off the chief part from juvenal's words. Num. 164. St. Cyril presided in the first Council of Ephesus, as being the Pope's legate. Num. 166. Mr. Baxter recurrs again to the criminal proceedings of Heretics, to maintain his cause. ibid. He minces the force of excommunication, to lessen the Pope's authority. Num. 168. Whether Blondel, Whitaker, and Field, give satisfaction to that, which Mr. Baxter calls a rancid instance. Num. 171. What St. Basil says about the Pope's authority. Num. 172.173.174. Many non proofs heaped up together by Mr. Baxter. Num. 179. He flies again, to patronise his cause by the crimes of Heretics.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 161. The sixth instance out of Basil's 74 Epistle, I imagine, you would have suppressed, if ever you had read that Epistle, and had thought that any others would be induced by your words to read it.  William johnson. 
Num. 161. This is a strange way of answering. I cite not St. Basil as it comprises those matters which treated in regard of himself, or of the Western Bishops: but only, as it contains his testimony of Eustathius having been restored to his Bishopric by force of the letters of Liberius, which he clearly witnesses. Now that this was done not by way of recommendation only, and testification of his profession of the Catholic Nicene faith, in consideration whereof he desired he might be restored to the Bishoprics, is manifest; seeing he actually restored him, by an absolute command. For you to allege other passages of a different nature, and nothing contrary to what I say, and unfit to show the thing I cite, to be untrue, is a mere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. why trifle you thus? answer the words of St. Basil relating to Eustathius and Liberius? It is not proofs from your key, that I expect here, but answers to my Arguments. non proof 18.  
Your branding Liberius with the note of an Arian, without proof, is as easily rejected by me, as said by you; what had such a parenthesis as that, to do in the argument? But I see it is hard to hid rancour, where it is excessive: For being universal authority drawn from these, and the like instances, is of force by an argument a paritate Rationis. What reason can be alleged, why Pope Liberius should command the restauration of Eustathius a Bishop of the Eastern Patriarch, save this? that he had power to restore any one wrongfully ejected through the whole Church. You assert, that all the pre-eminence he had given him over all the Bishops within the Empire, was no more than a Primacy of place and precedency, how then came he to have a Primacy of authority and jurisdiction over all the imperial Bishops, to judge, condemn, and restore them? show me who gave him that imperial power? this you never resolved in your whole book; and I know the reason, you could not resolve it into any other grant, then into that of Christ's institution; from the Council of Nice it could not be, both because that Council (according to your principles) rather restrains his power to the Western Churches then extends it into the will Empire, and the Popes exercised power through the will Empire long before the Council of Nice, so that neither that nor any other subsequent Council could give it him, nor could the Christian Emperors give him that power, for he exercised it long before the Emperors were Christians, both in the East, and West, nor did the the primitive Bishops through the whole Empire give it him, for there is no proof in antiquity of any such grant: ergo, there is no appearance, that any such authority was given to the Bishops of Rome from any, save Christ himself. Now Christ never restrained the power he gave him to the Empire, but rather intended it to the whole Church. and if he did restrain it, show where and how?  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 162. Your seventh proof is from chrysostom. who you say, expressly desireth Pope Innocent not to punish his adversaries, if they do repent. Chrys. Epist. 2. ad Innoc. Reply, you much wrong your soul in taking your religion thus on trust, some book hath told you this untruth, and you believe it; and its like you will persuade others of it as you would do me. There is no such word in the Epist. of chrysostom to Innocent, nor any thing like it.  William johnson. 
Num. 162. Either you or I must be in a mighty error; I affirm those very words are in: you accuse me of taking things on trust, and thereby deceive myself and others; and you flatly deny there is any such word in the Epistle of St. Chrys. to Innocent or any thing like it. in which Epist. 1 ad Innocentium I again affirm those words are, and refer myself to the inspection of the Greek and Latin copies where St. chrysostom entreats Pope Innocent, that in case his opposers would put a remedy to their crimes, and Illegalities they might not be punished.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 163 Your eight proof is this (the like is written to the Pope by the Council of Ephesus,) which no doubt you mean) is in Binius enough to make a considerable volume and divided it into six tomes and each of those into Chapters and not into acts: and if you expect, that I should read six Tomes in Folio, before I can answer your several sentences or shredds: you will put me on a twelve months to answer a few sheets of paper. If you mean by p. 2. Tom. 2. and by Act. 5. cap. 5. then I must tell you there is not a word of that you say, nor like it, only there is reference to Celestines and Cyrils Epistles; and Celestine in his Epistle recited Tom. 1. cap. 17. threatens Nestorius, that if he repent not, he will excommunicate him, and they will have no communion with him: which others did as well as he, but not a word of John Bishop of Antioch there, nor can I find any such time in the fourth ●●ome where John's cause is handled. Indeed the notes of your historians divide the Council into sessions, but in his fift session there is nothing of John, but of Nestorius: and in the fourth session John and his party excommunicate Cyril, Memnon, and others: and it was the Council that suspended first and after excommunicated John, and it is the Emperor to whom he appeals.  William johnson. 
Num. 163. Had I been sufficiently informed, before I writ this answer, you had no other edition of the Council than that of Binius, I should easily have framed my citations according to that, to save you the labour of turning volumes over, but how should I know that, before you told it me? I had reason to suppose, that you who are and have been for many years so famous a writer of controversies, had the Council ready in all sorts of Editions, so that none could fall amiss to you. If therefore you please to peruse in the Ed: of Paul. quintus, you shall find the words cited by me conc. Ephes. 1. p. 2. Act. 5. in relatione ad Celestinum, where writing of john Bishop of Antioch to Pope Celestine, the Father's reserve or remit him to the judgement of Celestine, & in the interim had provisionally declared him excommunicate & deprived him of sacerdotal power, whereby it appears how the Council excommunicated him, and not only that, but declared him also deprived of sacerdotal power. Now seeing they reserve this very sentence to the Pope's further censure, It is manifest they both prefer his sentence before their own, and that the sentence was not only negatively to avoid him, or not communicate with him, but positively to deprive him of the commuion of the faithful, which always argues superiority in power (as we have seen above in Acatius) and took the Priestly power from him by his disposition etc. your strange confidence in outfacing two so manifest authorities will neither credit your cause, nor yourself.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 164. Indeed your annotator, in sess. 6. mentions some words of juvenal's, that he should at least have regarded the Roman legates, it being the custom that his Church de directed by that, but I see no proof he brings of those words corruption.  William johnson. 
Num. 164. My citation mentions neither johns appeals, nor juvenal's denunciation but the Ephesine Councils letters to Pope Celestine, wherein they reserve the last judgement concerning john of Antioch to Celestine, yet sure john's appealing to the Emperors, prove no more, then that it is the Custom of Heretics to appeal from general Councils, to secular Princes: and juvenal's denunciation against john was not only, that the Church of Antioch was to be directed, but judged also (which you are pleased to omit) by the Church of Rome: and that was not only a Custom, as you barely term it, but an Apostolical ordination, ut Apostolica ordinatione, 
See the true meaning of this sentenc in Hierom. Alex▪ disput. 2. de Regione sub urbe c. 4.  & antiqua traditione (says Juvenal) Antiochena sedes perpetuo a Romana dirigeretur judicareturque. Whence appears that these words are not the words of any Historian, but are yet extant in the Council, and thereby proved to be true, and by them is clearly witnessed the perpetual power and authority of judging all other Seas, by an argument, a paritate rationis.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 165. And it is known that Cyril of Alexandria did preside and subscribed before the Roman Legates, even to the several letters of the Synod. As you may see in Tom. 2. cap, 23. & passim.  William johnson. 
Num. 165. It is known also he was Pope Celestine, 
Celest. Ep. 3. Theod. B●●alsoin Photius Tit. c. 1. Niceph. L. 14. c. 34.  legate in ordinary, & therefore sat as precedent in the Council, and subscribed first as being constituted by Celestine to supply his place in the examination and sentencing of Nestorius, in token of which, he wore the Pall in celebration of Mass (sent him from Celestine) in time of the Councils of Ephesus, which was the habit of the Roman Bishop.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 166. But if your words were there to be found, what are they to the purpose: the Pope can punish the Bishops of Antioch: but how? why by excommunicating him, true: If he deserve it, that is, by pronouncing him unfit for Christian communion, and requiring his flock, and exhorting all others to avoid him.  William johnson. 
Num. 166. I have before answered this in the example of Acatius punished by Felix, and this instance itself (ut supra) convinces, that it was not only a negative declaration of himself and others avoiding him, but of deposing him also from his Priestly office.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 167. And thus may another Bishop do: and thus did John by Cyril of Alexandria though he was himself of the inferior seat: and thus hath the Bishop of Constantinople done by the Bishops of Rome, & so may others.  William johnson. 
Num. 167. What Bishops were those? john of Antioch a ringleader of the Nestorians, and some Bishops of Constantinople, why name you them not? none but ejusdem farinae with john of Antioch, Heretics, or Schismatics: name any Bishop of Constantinople, who excommunicated the Bishop of Rome, and I undertake here to prove him to be either an Heretic or a Schismatic, and accounted such by the Catholics of his time. That was that great and Capital crime so much exclaimed against in the Impeachment of Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria, before the Fathers assembled at Chalcedon, was it not that he had extended his felonious hand against Pope Leo in pronouncing an excommunication against him? but show me also, that ever any inferior or equal prelate gave out a sentence of excommunication against another of higher or equal dignity, who in so doing, was not condemned by the Catholics of those times and then show who in those days condemned Pope Celestine for punishing, and sentencing Nestorius, or john of Antioch.  
You mince all you can, to depress the Pope's authority, the sentence of excommunication: who told you that the Pope only exhorted all others out of his proper Diocese, to avoid a person excommunicated by him? was not Constantinople out of the Pope's flock (in your opinion?) and did not the Pope command with threats of God's wrath that none should give the communion to those, whom he had deprived of it? so my instance above in the excommunication of Acatius. Or whence learned you that excommunication was no more than to pronounce one unfit for Christian communion, and no command to abstain from them? produce your authorities, or reject your Novelties.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 198. 
non proof 15. non proof 16.  Your ninth proof is from the applications that the Arians and Athanasius made to Julius. ex Athan: ad solit. Epist. Julius in Litt. ad Arian apud Athan: Apol. 1. p. 753. Theodoret lib. 2. c. 4. Athan. Apol. Zozom lib. 3. c. 7. Reply, I marvel you urge such rancid instances, to which you have been so fully and so often answered.  William johnson. 
Num. 168. But I marvel not to hear you speak so confidently, as you do, without giving reason for your confidence, it is so ordinary a thing with you. If you call an instance rancid, all the world must without scruple, believe it, because you call it so: if you say that has been often and fully answered, it must be accounted as certain, as if it proceed from an Oracle. Think you wise men will be moved to any thing but laughter, by such non proofs? will any rational person yield to you both the place of Judge and party?  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 169. I refer you to Blondel de primatu cap. 25. sect. 14.15. Whitaker de Roman. Pontif, p. 150 & passim. Dr. Field of the Ch. l. 5. c. 35. etc.  William johnson. 
Num. 169. 'Tis a shrewd sign you and no answer of your own worth the mentioning, when you send me to Blondel, Whitaker, and Field, for an answer.  
Truly Sir I have my hands too full to spend time in such needless messages, yet had I undertaken them, I perceive I had lost my labour: for Whitaker, in the place you cite de Roman. Pontifice p. 150. hath never a word of these instances, nor of the Bishops of Rome. And your other citation of passim is as much as if you had said, you know not where, and thereby send me you know not whither. Are such citations fit amongst Scholars, in controversies of Religion? Blondel first trifles in time, figures, words, translations, to amuse his Reader, and then hath no other shift, but to feign julius to have been freely chosen as an Arbitrator for that sole time and occasion, by the Arian Legates, as they might have chosen any other Bishop, not considering that Arbitrators must be equally chosen by both parties agreeing in the choice of them; so that no one party without the consent of the other, is sufficient to constitute an Arbitrator. Now it is evident, that upon this submission of the Arians, julius writ to St. Athan. to appear peremptorily by way of citation, never requiring whether he gave his free Election to have him Arbitrator in his cause, as appears from Theodoret Hist. Eccles. l. 2. c. 4. and St. Athan. Ap. 2. where he citys julius, affirming that St. Athanasius came not then to Rome of his own free Election, or of himself, but being called by the Letters of julius to Rome; nor hath Blondel any ground to say in the words he citys, Ep. 73. that the Arian Legates chose julius directly for their defence, nor only to have a Synod called, wherein a definitive Sentence might be given: nor had those Arrian Legates any reason to pitch upon julius for their Arbitrator, had the choice of a Judge been left to them: for they both knew he was a professed Adversary to their Heresy, and sufficiently informed against them. And for Field, he says nothing that can give any show of satisfaction to my Instances, if he do, cite his Answer in your next, and I here undertake to show it to be unsatisfactory.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 170. Briefly this may show the vanity of your proof; Zozomon in that place saith, that though he alone wrote for them, yet he wrote in the name, and by the consent of all the Bishops of the West.  William johnson. 
Num. 170. Why cite you not his words? there's something in't; for you spare no pains in that, where they serve your turn. Says Zozomen upon your honest word (for that's all we have for it) that julius writ that Epistle in the name, and by the consent of all the BB. of the West? What, of all? the Goths had then there BB. then you must acknowledge in your principles he writ an untruth: Had julius their consent, and writ he in the name of them? Then julius in this his Epistle, had as well an Extra-Imperial as an Imperial Authority, that is, had the Authority not only of the BB. within, but of those also who were without the Empire, which you expressly deny in the next leaf, page 149. num. 3. and it is strange that all those of the West consented when there were no more than 50. Bishops, as Baron. affirms, ad. an. 341. n. 13. in Epist. of spondani in that Council. Tradition.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 171. The advantages of Rome, by its reputation and greatness, and the number and quality of the Western Bishops, made their judgement and Communion valuable to others.  William johnson. 
Num. 171. But how far? What, even to cite and summon parties to appear before their Tribunal, and in case they refused, to pronounce Sentence against them, and acquit and restore their Adversaries? The Imperial City of London hath a proportionable pre-eminence with Rome, before all other Cities through the whole Kingdom; hath therefore my Lord Major, and the Common Council power to summon in this kind any other Magistrates of inferior Cities to appear before them, and in case of non-appearance to justify and re-establish their Adversaries?  Mr. Baxter. 
Num 172. Basil before cited, tells you on what grounds, when Churches disagree, those that are distant are supposed to be impartial, especially when numerous.  William johnson. 
Num. 172. Be it so: but says St. Basil there, that distance of place is enough to give power of summoning, condemning and acquitting parties legally? that's the question, where says St. Basil that? produce his words, or rather give a second reflection upon his words, cited by you p. 139. and you'll find no such matter.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 173. To which is added, which Basil intimates that some hope of help from the secular powers by the interposition of the Western Bishops, made them the more sought to.  William johnson. 
Num. 173. How sought to? As to friends and assistants? that's not our question now; as to Superiors and Judges? that's indeed the question, but sure the prime urgent and necessitating motive, why I have recourse to a Judge and Superior, is his coercive power over me, the others are secondary and by respects in the matter.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 174. And the Primacy of Rome (though it had no Sovereignty) made it seem irregular, that a Patriarch should be deposed without the knowledge and judgement of the Patriarches of the precedent Seats: This was the custom that Julius spoke of, and the Patriarches of Constantinople and Alexandria might have said as much, if the Patriarch of Jerusalem or Antioch had been deposed without them.  William johnson. 
Num. 174. If there had been no more than bare precedency, why should not the Metropolitans, who had the precedency of other Metropolitans, have had the like privilege? who told you, or where ever read you, that this novelty which you have newly hatched, to have recourse to the Bishop of Rome, and acquaint him with Ecclesiastical matters, by reason of his Primacy in sole precedency of place, was the custom whereof julius speaks? See you not that julius his words and proceed in this affair speak loudly, a supereminent power and jurisdiction over those Bishops, whose cause he then heard, and summoned them to appear before him, and not a naked precedency of place before all others? who told you, or where ever read you, that the Patriarches of Constantinople and Alexandria might have said as much, if the Patriarches of Antioch or jerusalem had been deposed without them? you are excellent at guessing what might be done, when you have no proof what was ever done; for shame bring proofs, or cease to play the part of a Disputant. Non-proof 17.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 175. Every Patriarch might absolve the Innocent and hold Communion with him in his own Patriarchate; and if any be against it (as the Arians here were, and sent false accusations against Athanasius to Julius) he may require them to prove their accusations, if they will have him more by them.  William johnson. 
Num. 175. Here are a couple more of non-proofs, I think we shall never come to an end of them. The question is not what one may require in courtesy and condescendency of another, nor whether the Arians were obliged only conditionally, (viz.) if they would have julius to be moved by the accusations they had sent him, as you surmise here; but how the Bishops of Rome came to summon them to appearance, and upon their defaillance to proceed juridically to Sentence against them, and to acquit and restore the persons they accused to the Dignities, from which they had deposed them, if he had no true and real jurisdiction over them; for had there been no more in the case, than what of their non-appearance, he should have surceased from any further proceeding, and neither helped nor hurt them. Should you send accusations to the Chancellor of Scotland, against some of your brethren here in England, that by reason of his eminent authority in that Kingdom he might do you some favour; and he upon the receipt of those accusations should summon those Brethren of yours to appear before him, and for not appearance condemn them, and acquit and restore you, would not all the World see that he exceeded his Commission? No Patriarch by virtue of his Patriarchal dignity, though preceding the other in place, had power to condemn any belonging to another Patriarchate (if the fact were not committed within his jurisdiction) without the consent of that Patriarch, under whose Authority he was, according to the Council of Nice.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 176. Our own Communion with men, is to be directed by the judgement of our own well informed consciences.  William johnson. 
Num. 176. But our consciences, if well regulated, must avoid all those whose Communion is prohibited by the lawful Governors of God's Church; nor are private persons to avoid any, whom the lawful Prelates of the Church retain in their Communion.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 177. Julius desired not any man then to be one with a Council that should decide the Case.  William johnson. 
Num. 177. There's another non-proof, make that appear. Non-proof 18.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 178. Councils than had the Rule, and the Patriarches were the most honourable members of those Councils, but no Rulers of them. Non-proof 19  William johnson. 
Num. 178. And that's another; let us see that proved.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 179. Yet Zozomen and others tell you that Julius, when he had done his best to befriend Athanasius and Paulus, could do no good, nor prevail with the Bishops of the East, till the Emperor's commands prevailed. Non-proof 20.  William johnson. 
Num. 179. And that's another; cite the place in Zozomen, who be those others?  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 180. Yea, the Eastern Bishops tell him that he should not meddle with their proceed, no more than they did with his, when he dealt with the Novatians: seeing the greatness of Cities maketh not the power of one Bishop greater than another. And so they took it ill that he interposed, though but to call the matter to a Synod, when a Patriarch was deposed.  William johnson. 
Num. 180. What then? Ergo the Pope had no Authority over them. So did the Pharisees resist our Saviour, the Jews Moses and Aaron, and the late Rebels our most gracious Sovereign; Ergo, will you deduce thence they had no Authority over them? But see you not how inconsequent you are to yourself? you said just now, p. 148. that it seemed irregular, that any Patriarch should be deposed without the knowledge of the Patriarch of the preceding Sea; Ergo, say you, the Eastern Bishops seem (I suppose you mean truly and with reason, or you urge that reason, p. 148. without reason) to have proceeded irregularly in opposing julius: If so, either this your first reason is against reason, or you against yourself. Tradition.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 181. Any Bishops might have attempted to relieve the oppressed as far as Julius did, especially if he had such advantages as aforesaid to encourage him.  William johnson. 
Num. 181. Another non proof, why give you neither instance, nor reason for what you say?  Mr Baxter. 
Num. 182. All your consequences here therefore are denied. It is denied that because Julius made this attempt, that therefore he was universal Ruler in the Empire. 2. It is denied that it will thence follow if he were so, that it had been by divine right, any more than Constantinople had equal previledges by divine right. 3 It is denied that it hence followeth that either by divine or humane right, he had any power to govern the rest of the world without the Empire. Had you all you would rack these testimonies to speak, it is but that he was mad by Councils and Emperors the chief Bishop or Patriarch in a National Church (I mean a Church in one Prince's Dominion,) as the archbishop of Canterbury was in England. But a national or imperial Church is not the universal, and withal oppressed men will seek relief from any that may help them,  William johnson. 
Num. 182. All those consequences are proved at large in other parts of this treatise. The first because this proceeding of julius having been approved in all ages by the whole Church, there can be no other reason given of his power over the Bishops of Alexandria and others of the East, save this, that he was head in Government over all the Churches through the whole Empire. The second that it was by divine right, for it was exercised by virtue of an ancient rule or canon received in the Church as julius affirms, which could not be, that of Nice, for that was instituted a very few years before. Hence follows the third, for Christ's institution was for the whole Church, not for the sole Empire.   

CHAP. IU.  
ARGUMENT. St. Athanasius, Theodoret, St. chrysostom, Innocentius  
Numb 182. Mr. Baxter, miscites his adversaries words, and then accuses him of want of Conscience, for writing what he never wrote. ibid. What sense Chamiers words can have, whether they be referred to a judge, or to a friend. ibid. etc. St. Athanasius his recourse to julius, and effectual proceeding in it; and that julius had authority to restore him. ibid. Theodoret's appeal as to a judge, acknowledged by Chamier: nor is it directly contradicted by Mr. Baxter. If the Pope were Theodoret's lawful judge, by way of appeal, than was he also judge of all the Bishops in the Church. Num. 184. St. Chrysostom's appeal convinces the Pope's sovereign power. Num. 185. & 186. His appealing first to a Council, hindered not his appeal afterward made to the Bishop of Rome. Num. 187. None but superiors to a Council can reverse the sentence given by that Council. Num. 187.188.189. How Mr. Baxter declines and Sophisticates the words of St. chrysostom. Num. 193. Whether Arcadius, and Eudoxia were excommunicated by Pope Innocentius. In what year Eudoxia died. Num. 194. Mr. Baxter involves, and Iames the words of his adversary. Num. 201. What authority St. Ambrose had to excommunicate Theodosius, which act is falliciously instanced by Mr. Baxter.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 183. In your margin you add (that concerning St. Athanasius being judged and rightly by Pope Juliu (s Chamier acknowledgeth the matter of fact to be so, but against all antiquity pretends that judgement to have been unjust. Corruption. Reply, Take it not ill Sir I beseech you, If I awake your conscience, to tell me how you dare to write so many untruths which you knew or might know, I could quickly manifest. Both parts of your saying of Chamier p. 497. are untrue 1 the matter of fact is it, that he denyeth. He proveth to you from Zozomen's words that Athanasius did make no appeal to a judge, but only fled for help to a friend; he shows you that Julius did not play the judge, but the helper of the spoiled, and that it was not an act of judgement. 2 He therefore accuseth him not of wrong judging, but only mentioneth his not hearing the accused, to show that he did not play the part of a judge, but of a friend, as chrysostom did by some that fled to him. I pray answer his reasons.  William johnson. 
Num. 183. Had I written, as you print my words, I had indeed deserved a sharper reprehension than you gave me. Now whether I writ so or no; I leave it to your judgement; Here you cite my words thus: in your margin (say you) you add, that concerning St. Athanasius being judged and rightly, Chamier acknowledgeth the matter of fact to be so, but against all antiquity pretends that judgement to have been unjust. In which words you make me first wrong Chamier by affirming he says Athanasius was judged rightly by julius, and then you make me wrong myself by delivering a manifest contradiction in two lines: for first in your citation I say, that Chamier affirms that judgement to have been rightly done, and then presently that I affirm Chamier to have said, that judgement to have been unjust, that is not rightly done. Now whether I affirm Chamier to have said the matter of fact, to have been so, that is, to have been rightly done, your own printing of my words will put the matter out of question: therefore pag. 52. in the margin you cite my words thus: concerning St. Athanasius being judged and righted by Pope julius, Chamier cit: acknowledges the matter of fact to be so. Now one may be judged and righted, that is set again into his right, by one who hath no power to judge him, and consequently judges not rightly, that is, duly, juridically and Canonically: now by changing righted into rightly you change the whole tenure and meaning of my words, and then grate on me upon the Conscience, with what not I, but you or your printer was guilty of, and truly I should have been most willing to have cast it upon him, had your written copy shown the contrary, so here you have not righted but rightly, neither do I find these words, to be so, in my marginal copy, but only thus, Chamier confesses the matter of fact, without to be so, though I will not contend with you in this; as not having seen the copy which was sent you. True it is, Chamier would have this judgement to have passed as from a friend, but to prove this he contends that it could not be from a competent and canonical Judge, because it was under the notion of a judgement unjust, seeing both parties were not present to be heard in judgement, so that he holds this to have been an unjust judgement, if taken in a rigorous sense, which is all that I said. But in the mean time you answer not my arguments whereby I prove it just, nor could you answer them without impeaching St. Athanasius of concurring with julius to an unjust judgement, for though julius had past this judgement as a friend, yet to proceed to execution, before the adverse party was heard, or things made so evident that there was no place for defence, would have been an unjust proceeding: and if matters were so undeniably clear, it was not unjust for want of that formality, so that if it were unjust in a friend, according to equity or justice, can justify a person accused without hearing what his accusers are able to make good against him: much less can those accusors be condemned as manifest detractors and liars, when they are not permitted to speak for themselves, and produce their evidences in quality of a judgement, for want of the defendants being heard, it would have been unjust in quality of friendship for the same reason, for now to say that St. Athanasius concurred with julius either as an unjust Judge, or as an unjust friend, would to wrong that blessed Saint and yourself too, but I would gladly be satisfied in this, how one who had no judicatory authority above another Court, could reverse the Sentence of that Court, and restore the person injured by it, to his right, as julius here did, by the Sentence given in a Council against St. Athanasius; or what man in his right wits, would address himself to a friend for relief, in that which he knows is above his power? should a Citizen of York, injured in the Mayor's Court, frame an appeal to the Lord Mayor of London, because he is his friend, and the prime Mayor in England, being the chief Officer of the Imperial City, to reverse the sentence given at York against him? would he not become a laughingstock both to York and London?  Mr. Baxter. 
184. And for what you say again in your Margin of Theodoret; I say again, that he appealeth to the Bishop of Rome for help, as a person who with the Western Bishops might sway much against his Adversaries, but not as to an universal Governor or judge; no, not as to the universal judge of the Church Imperial, much less of all the Catholic Churches.  William johnson. 
Num. 184. Here you say nothing at all to Chamiers granting it to be an appeal as to a Judge, that was so plain belike, that you could not answer it; nor yet would you expressly grant it neither, that had been too flat against you; So you thought it best to huddle it up in silence, and say nothing of it, and thought (it may be) your adversaries would have passed it over too, but I hope all wise men will see your failing in this. Baxter p. 51. in Margin. The question in my Margin, there is not what you say to it, but what Chamier said: Now lest it should appear that you and Chamier clash in this, you give me only your opinion, but dissemble his; and yet sure his was as much the better, as it was the ●●iuer. Nor yet do you deny this appeal to have been, as to a judge, which was the only question in the Margin, p. 51. Baxter, but not to have been, as to an universal Governor or judge; no, not within the Empire (say you.) But by your good leave, if this were not a forcible Instance, supposing it were as to a judge (which Chamier grants, and you deny not) to prove à paritate rationis, that every Bishop, both within the Empire and Church, might have as well appealed to the Roman Bishop as to a judge, as Theodoret did; had he been injured as he was? If I say this was not of force, show in your next some particular reason, why the Bishop of Rome had power to judge the case of Theodoret, rather than of any other Bishop in the Church? which till you do, 
See more of this supra.  your effugium that this appeal was not made as to an universal Governor or Judge, speaks nothing, for if he (as in our sense) be an universal Judge or Governor, to whom every Bishop of the Church may appeal, as to his Judge, then seeing Theodoret's appeal to him as such, proves every Bishop had as much right in the like circumstances, which Theodoret then had; it proves also, that he appealed to him as to an universal Governor or Judge, that is, to such a one to whom every Bishop might appeal in the like case.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 185. Your tenth proof is from Chrysostome's case, where you say some things untrue, and some impertinent. 1. That chrysostom appeals to Innocent from the Council of Constantinople, is untrue, if you mean it of an appeal to a superior Court or judge, much more if as to an universal judge: But indeed in his banishment, when all other help failed, he wrote to him to interpose and helps him as far as he could; I need no other proof of the Negative, then 1. That there is no proof of the Affirmative, that ever he made any such appeal.  William johnson. 
Num. 185. Every appeal from a juridical sentence to have it reversed, and the injured person restored to his former right, and the unjust Judges punished by the authority of him to whom the appeal is made, is to a superior Court or Judge: But St. Chrysostome's appeal was such: Ergo it was to a superior Court or Judge. the Minor is evident from the matter of fact, for St. chrysostom writes thus to Pope Innocent: Scribite, precor, & authoritate vestra discernite, 
St. Chrys. ep. ad Inocent. Papam, apud Palladium in Dialogo.  hujusmodi iniqua gesta nobis absentibus & judicium non declinantibus nullius esse roboris, sicut per suam naturam sunt profecto & irrita & nulla, porro qui talia gessere eos Ecclesiae censurae subjicite, nos autem insontes, neque convictos, neque deprensos, neque ullius criminis reos comprobate, Ecclesiis nostris jubete restitui, ut charitate frui & pace confratibus nostris consuetâ possimus. Writ I beseech you, and decree by your Authority, that the unjust proceed against us, who were absent, and not refusing judgement, are of no force, as indeed in their own nature they are void and null; moreover, make those to lie under the Church's censure, who have committed such injustices, but command that we who are innocent, unconvicted, and unguilty, be restored to our Churches, that we may re-enjoy our wanted charity and peace with our Brethren. Is not this a full proof of the Minor? The Major is also evident, for none have power when appealed to perform those acts of authority over those of any Court, unless they be a higher Court and Judge then the other from whom the appeal is made, as all Jurists know and confess.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 186. In his first Epistle to Innocent, he tells him over and over, that (he appealed to a Synod, and required judgement) and that he was cast into a Ship for banishment (because he appealed to a Synod, and a righteous judgement) never mentioning a word of any such appeal to the Pope.  William johnson. 
Num. 186. What then? Ergo he appealed not to Innocent as a superior judge; prove that consequence. Was it not the custom then of approved Prelates (as also in all well ordered Commonwealths) first to appeal to the next ordinary Court, and if Justice were done there, to acquiesce. and not to come to the highest Tribunal, till no Justice could be had in the inferior? Did not St. chrysostom all this? must he needs mention his appeal to the Pope before he made it? I think in earnest you were in jest here.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 187. Yea, he urgeth the Pope to befriend and help him by that Argument, that he was still ready to stand to uncorrupted judges; never mentioning the Pope as judge.  William johnson. 
Num. 187. And was it not his duty to do so, according to Canonical proceeding? what need had he in that Epistle, whilst he was in hopes of an inferior trial, to mention an appeal to the highest Court? must he upon all occasions mention every thing? was it not sufficient that he did it when necessity required it?  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 188. By all which it appears, it was but the assistance of his intercession that he requireth, and withal, perhaps the excommunicating of the wicked, which another Bishop might have done.  William johnson. 
Num. 188. But could any Bishop who was not a superior Judge, which make against you, annul the Sentence of a Council by his Authority, inflict Ecclesiastical censures upon those Judges, and command the injured persons to be restored to their Seas, as we have seen St. chrysostom beseeched Innocent to do?  
If you will undertake the writing of Controversies, answer like a Scholar to the proofs alleged against you, and be sure in your next you fall no more into this fault; for by dallying thus, you may write to the world's end to no purpose at all, whilst you neither answer, nor so much as mention the words, which make against you▪ pardon me; if I tell you my mind plainly, it is for your good.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 189. Yea, and it seems it was not to Innocent only, but to others with him, that he wrote; for he would scarce else have used the terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  William johnson. 
Num. 189. How familiar is it in writing, to persons of most eminent Authority, to use the plural number? how usual is this, both in Scripture and other Authors?  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 190. But what need we more than his own words to know his request: Saith he, (let those that are found to have done so wickedly, be subject to the penalty of the Ecclesiastical Laws; but as for us that are not convicted nor found guilty, grant us to enjoy your letters and your charity, and all others whose soc●●ety we did formerly enjoy.) Corruption.  William johnson. 
Num. 190. This is a strange Metamorphosis of St. Chrysostom's words; why leave you out the beginning of the Sentence, scribite precor, etc. I beseech you to write and decree that by your authority, those unjust acts are void and null: I see this was not for your purpose, nor could well admit of a handsome mistranslation. 2. Why cite you not the Latin or Greek words, that the equity of your Translation might appear: O that would have spoilt your market. Signifies then, subjicite, let them be subject; what Grammar hath taught you that? what word is there in the Latin Sentence, that signifies your letters, or your charity, and what English word is there here, which answers to jubete, command, or to restitui Ecclesiis vestris, to be restored to our Churches? 
See the Latin Text of St. Chrysostom cited above, num.  Sir, give me leave once more to be plain with you; it had been much better for you and thousands of your too credulous Readers, that you had never set pen to paper, then to delude your own soul and theirs, with such sophistications as these are; and I pray God you come not one day, with a great Patron of your Religion, to curse the time that you ever writ Controversies, which notwithstanding, were rather to be wished then feared, if the Grace of true Repentance accompany it.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 191. The Ecclesiastical Laws enabled each Patriarch and Bishop to Sentence in his own Diocese, though the person sentenced lived out of their Diocese, yet they might renounce all Communion with him. Churches that have no power over one another, may have Communion with one another; and that Communion they may hold and renounce as there is cause. Now if a neighbour Patriarch with so many Bishops of the West, had renounced Communion with Chrysostome's Enemies, and also written their letters on his behalf, and taken him still as in their communion, this he hoped would much further his restauration: which yet he doubted, as he had cause. For in his second Epistle he thanks him for doing his part, though it do no good, or did not avail.  William johnson. 
Num. 191. St. Chrysostom's words now cited evince, there was more than bare avoiding of another's communion. Nay it is evident the a●●oresaid authorties, that Pope Innocent kept communion with both parties, till a further trial of the cause was heard. vide S. chrysostom Ep. 5. ad innoc. papam supra citatam.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 191. And it is to be noted, that your author, Nicephorus, tells you, lib. 13. cap. 31. that Chrysostom's letters, and his fellow-Bishops also, and the Clergies of Constantinople, were all written both to the Emperor Honorius, and to Innocent: and therefore you may see by that on what account it was, and what help they did expect. The Emperor was not to excomnicate, but his letters might do much.  William johnson. 
Num. 192. But says Nicephorus, the same letters, which were writ to Pope Innocent, were writ to the Emperor? prove that.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 193. Well; but to allege Niceph. lib. 13. cap. 34. to prove 1 Chrysostom's appeal. But you have better, or worse eyes than I, for I can find no such thing, but a seeking for help, as aforesaid. 2 You say, Innocentius nuls his condemnation, and declares him innocent. Ans. So might another Bishop have declared him: But how far it should be regarded, was not in his power.  William johnson. 
Num. 193. Now at last you confess, there was more than a bare avoiding the communion with others. Do you really think, that any Bishop whatsoever could null the sentence of a Council, both out of his Diocese and his Patriarchate, as Innocent did that of Constantinople, that is to say, validly and lawfully? I cannot persuade myself you do; now had it been unlawful, St. chrysostom would never have entreated Innocent to do it. If you mean, any Bishop can do it invalidly and unlawfully, you say nothing to the purpose, it was not indeed in his power how far it was regarded, nor is it the power of a King how far his commands are regarded by powerful Rebels: but what of that? he had power to command and censure, to annul and restore, and so it was in his power to oblige others, and procured that it ought to have been regarded & that they sinned grievously in disobeying his command, which is enough for my purpose. But whilst you thus measure out the power of others by the rejection of their commands, made by unjust oppressors, you show what spirit you had when you writ this in matter of Monarchial government, it imports little what may be said of excommunication in general, it is sufficient that this now treated included jurisdiction.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 194.3. You say he excommunicated Atticus and Theophilus, and 4. Arcadius the Emperor also, and Eudoxia. Reply, 1. If he did so and did well, another Bishop might aswel have done it.  William johnson. 
Num. 194. Now let you and me try, whether the sentence of Innocent against these persons, were nothing save a bare excommunication in your sense, that is, a declaration of avoiding them, 
Niceph: l. 13. c. 34. Glicas'. Ann: par. 4. & extant Tom: 1. Epist: Rom: Pontif. Ep. Innoc: 17. Georgius Patri. Alex: citatus a S. Io. Damasc: orat de Imagine. & a Photio in Biblioth: in Greg: Alexandr. extatque Graece editus in Angl. unà cum Oper. S. Chrysost.  or that they were unworthy of Christian communion or not communicating with them (utsupra) The words are these, [Itaque ego minimus & peccator, cui thronus magni Petri Apostoli creditus est, segrego & rejicio te & illam (i. e. Arcadium & Eudoxiam) a perceptione immaculatorum mysteriorum Christi Dei nostri; Episcopum etiam omnem & clericum ordinis Sanctae Dei Ecclesiae, qui administrare aut exhibere ea vobis ausus fuerit, ab ea hora qua praesentes vinculi mei legeritis literas, dignitate sua excidisse decerno. Quod si ut homines potentes, quenquam ad id vi adegeritis, & Canon's nobis a Salvatore per Sanctos Apostolos traditos transgressi fueritis, scitote id vobis non parvum peccatum fore, in horrenda illa judicii die, cum neminem, hujus vitae honour & dignitas adjuvare poterit, arcana autem & abdita cordium sub occulos omnium effundentur atque exhibebuntur. Arsacium quem pro magno Joanne in thronum Episcopalem produxistis, etiam post obitum exauthoramus, unà cum omnibus qui consultò cum eo communicarunt Episcopi, cujus etiam nomen Sacro Episcoporum albo non inscribatur. Indignus eo honore est quum Episcopatum quasi adulterio polluerit. Omnis siquidem planta quae a Patre nostro in coelis plantata non est, eradicabitur. Ad Theophili anathematismum addimus abrogationem, & absolutam a Christianismo absolutionem. I the least of all, and a Sinner, to whom the throne of the great Apostle Peter is committed, segregate and reject thee and her (that is Arcadius the Emperor, and Eudoxia the Empress) from the receiving of the immaculate mysteries of Christ our God, and I decree that every Bishop and Clerk of the order of the holy Church, to be fallen from his dignity, who shall dare to give them to you, from that hour wherein you shall have read these obligatory letters of mine. But if you, as being powerful, shall force any of them to exhibit them to you; and shall transgress the rules delivered to us from Christ by the holy Apostles, it will be no small sin upon your Consciences at the terrible day of judgement when the Honour, and Dignity, of this world can help no man, but the secrets of hearts shall be poured out & manifested before the whole world. Arsacius whom you have intruded into the Episcopal throne in place of that worthy and great John (chrysostom,) we accurse even after his death, together with all the Bishops who wittingly communicated with him, whose name is not to be written in the Catalogue of the holy Bishops. He is unworthy of that Honour, who hath polluted his Bishopric as it were with adultery. For every plant which is not planted by our Father which is in heaven, shall be plucked up by the roots. To Theophilus his curse, we add an abrogation, (or deposition,) and an absolute rejection from Christianity. Whatsoever Blondel presses against the creditableness of this Author, yet in matter of this consequence, happening so near his time, citing the precise words of Pope Innocent's Bull then extant, he could not be morally supposed to err in this, though he fail in other matters: and if it be a good argument, such an Author often fails in history, therefore nothing which he saith can be believed; even Socrates himself, the only occasional Author of the contrary relation, would not be of credit in what he saith of Pulcheria: for he often, not only through ignorance but malice and spite also against Catholics, and particularly against St. chrysostom either reports falsities, or conceals truths. Blundel p. 275. glories much in the authority of Emapius, cited by Photius, who affirms he brought his history no farther then to the banishment of St. chrysostom, and intrusion of Arsacius into his place: and the death of Pulcheria, who died (saith Blondel,) according to Photius his relation from this Eunapius, immediately after she was delivered of a child. But neither saith Photius, nor citys he Eunapius, as relating, that Pulcheria died presently after the banishment of St. chrysostom, or intrusion of Arsacius: but only in the time of his banishment, and the others possessing the Sea of Constantinople which taking up three years' time, shows the account may be true, notwithstanding all that Photius saith of Eunapius.  
Here is much more than your minute excommunication, or bare avoiding to communicate with them, or I am much deceived.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 195. Mennas' excommunicated Vigilius of Rome. non proof. 22.  William johnson. 
Num. 195. Your assertion of this had been more vigorous, had you backed it with some authority. who, think you (save those who have sworn to your placet) will be moved by such bare affirmations of your own? But had he done that, did he also depose him: and forbidden any one to give him the Sacrament, as Innocentius did here? and had he done all this, was his authority acknowledged: either by the Roman Bishop, or by the common consent of Catholics approving his act, as was this of Innocent? see you not how far your instances fall short of the mark? Mennas' excommunicated Vigilius Bishop of Rome; who saith so? Mr. Baxter. what then?  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 196. Excommunicating is not always an act of jurisdiction, but a renouncing of Communion, with a ministerial binding, which any Pastor on a just occasion may exercise, even on those that are not of his Diocese: examples in Church-history are common. more non proofs.  William johnson. 
Num. 196. These proofless positions might have force in your own parish, they have none with me.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 197, 2. But I would have you answer Dr. Whitaker's reasons by which he proves, that Nicephorus is a fabler in his relation, and that, that Epistle is not Innocents' which cap. 34. he reciteth, lib. de Pont. Rom. Contr. 4. Qu. 4. pag. 454.455.  William johnson. 
Num. 196. This is the handsomest difficulty I find in your whole reply, and, as it deserves, so I hope it shall have an answer.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 198. Neither, Socrates Theodoret, or Zozomen, make any mention of this excommunication, who writ much of the case of chrysostom and Arcadius. And would these men that lived so near that time, have all silenced so great and rare a thing: as the excommunication of the Emperor and Empress, which would have made so great a noise and stir? that y●●t mention Ambrose his censure of Theodosius.  William johnson. 
Num. 198. One reason why those three Authors made no mention of this excommunication may be, 
Socrates & Zozomen produce their histories to the year 439.  because it was so present in memory: and concerning such imperial dignities, that it was not convenient, and might have been prejudicial to them, to have published it in those times. Another, that Zozomen and Socrates being novatian Heretics, would not give notice to all posterity of the most eminent authority of the Roman Bishop, over the Patriarches of Alexandria and Constantinople, & the Emperor himself. 3 That because Arcadius and Eudoxia presently repent, craved pardon, and were absolved: the matter made not so great a noise in the Church, that these authors had in their times full notice of it, it having been almost as soon recalled by their repentance, as it was inserted: as Baronius testifyes out of Arcadiu's responsory Epistle to Innocentius & Innocentius his answer to Arcadius, recited by Glicas', Annal. par. 4.4. Your argument is not only negative, but fallacious. For though those three historians mention it not: yet Leo Augustus, Metraphrastes, Cedrenus, Zonaras, Gennadius, Nicephorus, Glicas', Georgius Alexandrinus, whereof some are ancient Historians, record it; and the very Epistles which were written betwixt Innocentius and Arcadius (yet extant in an ancient codex in the Vatican, as Baronius witnesseth) give full testimony to the truth of it. Now had you produced a full negative argument against this excommunication, you should have proved, that neither any of the three authors you mention, nor any other creditable ancient author or records testify the truth of it. Nor concludes your parity from the recording of St. Ambrose his excommunication of Theodorus. For, first, I find not that Socrates hath mentioned it in his history: so that you suppose a falsehood in affirming it to be recorded by those three Authors. Secondly, that happened by a public notorious act in a great Church of Milan: this was only contained in a letter, and so soon recalled by penance, that it is not certain, whether it came to public execution or not. 3 That was a prohibition from entering into the Church, this was only from receiving the Sacrament, the first being much more to be taken notice of then the second, because many came to Church, who received not every time they came.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 199. 2 This Bull of Innocents' (as Nicephorus would have us believe it,) hath such falsehoods, contrary to more credible history, as bewray the forgery. For Socrates, lib. 6. c. 19 writeth, that Eudoxia died the same year that chrysostom was banished, and that Chrysostom died the third year of his banishment. And Zozomen saith l. 8. c. 28. That chrysostom was in banishment three years after the death of Eudoxia: but if Nichephorus were to be believed, Eudoxia was alive and excommunicated by Innocent, after Chrysostome's death. Nor can it be said, that Innocent knew not of her death: for his legates were sent to Constantinople in Atticus time, who succeeded Acacius, who outlived Eudoxia. This is the Sum of Dr. Whitakers confutation of Nicephorus. And withal who knows not how full of fictions Nicephorus is?  William johnson. 
Socrates might have been deceived by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which amongst the Grecians signifieth as ordinarily death as banishment, whereby he by mistake thought that to be spoken of his banishment, which the Author from whom he took that his story, spoke of his death; for it is evident, both from Zozymus a Heathen Historian, who lived in that very time, for lib. 5. he testifies that after the great fire at Constantinople, which happened after St. Chrysostome's banishment, Arbazachius was sent by the Emperor against the Isaurians, where after he had spent some time, depraving himself, and exercising so many corrupt proceed and oppressions as he was guilty of, etc. which would require the space of a year or two, and thereby extend to the year 407. or thereabouts, wherein St. chrysostom died; being accused, and cited to answer the accusations made against him, gave rich presents to the Empress, and thereby escaped punishment. Now these things could not happen but in a long tract of time; & it is not morally possible they should have been done in four days, as those say who follow Socrates; and Marcellinus Comes affirms, that the troubles of Isauria happened anno 405. under the Consulate of Stilico and Anthemius. So that Arbazachius must have had much more time before he was accused; and consequently the Empress must have lived some years after the banishment of St. chrysostom. Nor makes Palladius any mention of her prodigious death so suddenly after the banishment of St. chrysostom. And George Patriarch of Alexandria, who wrote 1000 years ago, and is cited by St. Io. Damasc. Orat. de Imagine. affirms that Arcadius and Eudoxia were excommunicated by Innocentius: and Zonaras affirms the same. Nor do the Authors you cite against this Bull, affirm what you say. Socrates, lib. 6. c. 19 hath not a word of Eudoxia's death, or that St. chrysostom died three years after his banishment; there's your two first errors. Zozomen seems to put the death of Eudoxia before that of St. chrysostom, but speaks not a word in that place here cited by you, that he was in banishment three years after the death of Eudoxia; there's your third error. Blondel p. 277. cannot deny this relation of Zozimus, but questions whether the Empress he mentions were Eudoxia. Now if it were not Eudoxia, he should have told us what other Empress there was living at that time in Constantinople, to whom those presents were given. For Arcadius lived six years after this, and Theodosius his Son, was not capable of marriage presently after his Father's death, being then a child of no more than seven years of age, having been born in the year 401. and Arcadius dying the year 408. Nor can it be thought that Arbazachius remained in Isauria till Theodosius junior was married, for the expedition in a short time was finished against the Isaurians. And presently upon that victory, Arbazachius fell upon oppressions, and complaints were not long after raised against him.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 200. In your, Margin you pretend to confute Chamier, p. 498. as saying, [That other Bishops restored those wrongfully deposed, as well as the Pope,] to which you say, that [never single Bishop restored any who were out of their respective Diocese, etc. whereas the Bishop of Rome, by his sole & single authority, restored Bishops wrongfully deposed, all the Church over.]  William johnson. 
Num. 200. I like not your writing my words by halves; they were not so many but you might have quoted them entirely as they lay, as you printed them, pag. 52. I add there, after Dioceses, these words, viz. [But always collected together in a Synod, by common voice, and that in regard only of their neighbouring Bishops,] which you mask under an (etc.) And then I add [whereas the Bishop of Rome, by his sole and single authority, restored Bishops wrongfully deposed] as you have it here; whereby the difference appeared more clearly betwixt the authority of the Roman and other Bishops, which you, by your (&c.) have rendered obscure, there being no express reason by way of opposition in their proceed, to add this, all the Church over, which is clearly opposed to this other, in regard only of their neighbouring Bishops, in my words, and by omitting those words, but always collected in a Synod by common voice, you hid from your Reader, that their convening was by order of their Archbishop, Metropolitan, Primate, or Patriarch respectively, who commonly had authority over those who were restored. For all Synods were to be Canonically convened, by consent and authority of Ecclesiastical Superiors, either granted or presumed. And this happily may be one reason, why you wish those to whom you recommend this book (as I am certainly informed from a person of great worth who heard you) to read your last answer only, and not to trouble themselves with perusing my Text, to which you pretend to answer.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 201. Reply 1. It seems you took Chamier's words on trust; peruse that page, and see his words.  William johnson. 
Num. 201. I took only upon trust of my own eyes, and I think they deceived me not.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 202. 2. Single Bishops have censured, and therefore might as well remit their own censures. Ambrose censured Theodosius, who was not fixed member of his charge, and he remitted the censure. Fallacy.  William johnson. 
Num. 202. You answer fallaciously, proceeding à toto ad partem. When I speak of persons out of their Dioceses, I mean clearly, such as are neither in them actually by way of habitation, nor habitually by birth and education; for my words are general. And you give an instance of one, who though not habitually, yet actually was within the Diocese of him who censured him, as then Theodosius was in the Diocese of Milan, where St. Ambrose was Bishop. You cannot sure be ignorant, that domicilium fixum, a settled habitation, makes one an inhabitant and part of that City where he lives, and that crimen commissum, a crime committed in that place, makes one subject to the Tribunal of that City. Besides, the Emperor could not be said, by reason of his universal dominion, to be fixed to any part of his Empire, for his Empire was his dwelling; so that wheresoever he was actually, and committing any thing deserving excommunication, there the Bishop of that City had power to excommunicate him. With such sophisms as these, you inveigle your credulous Readers: I beseech God to forgive you, and enlighten you.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 203. Epiphanius presumed even at Constantinople to excommunicate Dioscorus and his Brethren. Socrat. l. 6. c. 14.  William johnson. 
Num. 203. Socrates hath no such matter in that Chapter, nor any thing like it, nor indeed could he, for either you mean Epiphanius Bishop of Salamina, who was dead 42. years before Dioscorus was excommunicated, for that Epiphanius died anno 402. and Dioscorus was excommunicated anno 451. or (as I think you do) Epiphanius Bishop of Constantinople, and Dioscorus was dead 70. years before Epiphanius was installed in the See of Constantinople. Nor did Socrates produce his History farther than to the year 439. that is, 90. years before Epiphanius was Bishop of Constantinople. Who wrongs his soul now, by taking authorities upon trust?  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 204. And many instances may be brought, both of excommunicating and again receiving to Communion, by particular Bishops, even as to those that were not of their charge. Non-proof.  William johnson. 
Num. 204. I wonder you being a Scholar, should persuade yourself any prudent man will be moved by your may bees, upon no other ground than that you say them without proof. If you have such instances, allege them; if you allege them not say, nothing of them: 'tis not for your credit thus to trifle in serious matters.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 205. And if the fact were not proved, yet the forbearance proves not the want of power.  William johnson. 
Num. 205. But sure, if it can be proved, a man of your learning can prove it, and then why have you not done it? is it not a shrewd sign there was no such power, when there can be given no instance in so many hundred years, that it was ever brought into practice? you know, frustra datur potentia quae nunquam reducitur in actum: and if such a power, whereof you say many instances may be given, had ever been, sure it was either frustraneous, and thereby not from God: or foam steps of the exercise of it would have appeared in antiquity. We speak not here of what is or is not in itself unknown to us, but of what can be proved to have been: and that must appear by the acts and exercise of such a power, recorded in some ancient Authors or Records.   

CHAP. V.  
Theodosius, St. Leo. ARGUMENT.  
Numb 205. Many instances of Bishops restored out of the Empire, by the Bishop of Rome. Num. 206. St. Leo's affirming the Pope's power in calling General Councils, to come from divine Institution. Num. 116. Mr. Baxter misreports his Adversaries argument, and then esteems what he himself hath done, ridiculous. Num. 217. Pulchelius for pulcheria. ibidem. Her letter about Anatolius his sending the Confession of his Faith to Leo, miserably misconstrued by Mr. Baxter.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 206. 3. I deny your unproved assertion, that the Bishop of Rome singly restored all the Church over; it is a mere fiction. How many restored he out of the Empire? Or in the Empire, out of his Patriarchate? but swasorily or Synodically.  William johnson. 
Num. 206. Very many. Such were all those Bishops who about the year 400. in Spain, in France, anno 475. in England, anno 595. in Germany, anno 499. and other Western and Northern Kingdoms, which were taken either from under the command of the Roman Emperors, or were never under it, who were restored by the Bishop of Rome's authority, when wrongfully deposed from their Sees, addressing themselves to him, and requiring justice from him, whereof all Ecclesiastical Histories of those Nations are full of instances. And in more ancient times, whilst the Emperors were Heathens, the cause of the Pope's authority, out of the Western Patriarchate could not be the subjection those Bishops had to the Emperor of Rome, but must have been derived from a spiritual authority instituted by Christ himself. For neither had there been any General Council in those times to invest Rome in that authority, nor can it be ever proved from antiquity, that it was given him by the unanimous consent of all Bishops, otherwise then as supposing it still due to him before their respective times, by the power granted by our Saviour to St. Peter and his lawfully Successors, as I have already affirmed, the Bishop of Rome to have received all the Primacy you esteem him to have from a Council, as shall be proved hereafter: And I press you to produce any authority in those times, which witnesseth it was originally given him by consent. Now that the Bishop of Rome exercised jurisdiction over the Eastern Bishops in St. Victor's time, and over Firmilian and those of Cappadocia in Pope Stephen's time, is so evident that it cannot be denied. See St. Irenaeus. Nor will it avail to say, those instances of France and Spain, etc. were in latter times, 
And St. Cyp. in his Epistles to Pope Stephen.  where we dispute about the four first ages; for if in all those ages it had been a common known tradition, that the Pope had no jurisdiction of the Verge of the Roman Empire, that tradition would have been publicly and universally received in the years 500 and 600. even to the first erection of those new Kingdoms in the West and North, 
And Vincentius Lirinensis. infra citandus.  so that every one would have known, they were no longer bound to be under the Roman Bishop than whilst they were under the Roman Empire, because all knew (in your novel supposition) that the jurisdiction of the Pope extended no farther than the Roman Empire. Why then did those Kings, and all the Bishops and Churches in their Kingdoms, esteem themselves as much obliged to the obedience of the Bishop of Rome, after they were freed from the command of the Roman Emperor, as they were before; and never alleged any such reason, as you have invented, of the Pope's authority limited to the precincts of the Roman Empire, to plead thereupon his not having any longer jurisdiction over them, as being now no subject of that Empire? What I say therefore, is no fiction, but a solid and manifest truth; that he had authority of restoring Bishops wrongfully deposed, all the Church over, even out of the Empire: but yours is a pure fiction, to assert that as a public tenet and practice, which was manifestly unknown to those, either of the four first, or any subsequent ages, coined lately from your own brain, upon which, I pray God hearty, it lie not heavy one day, as novelties in Religion use to do upon the heads of their first Inventors. What you say of swasorily, and Synodically, I have above clearly confuted, by showing that the Councils of neighbouring Bishops in Italy, were only assistants to the Pope, but could have no juridical power over the whole Church, or in parts remote, and without the Western Patriarchate. Now to what you usually press of Ethiopia, Persia, outer Armenia, etc. that no instance can be given, of any Bishop of those Churches restored by the Pope's authority. I answer, that I can prove as effectually by instances their restoration by the Pope, as you can prove them to have been restored by their own Primates, Metropolitans, Provincial Councils, or Collections of Bishops, within their own Charters; nay, as you can show, that any of them were restored. The reason therefore, that no such instance is given in the primitive times, is not as you imagine, and would impose upon your Reader, that none of them were subject to the Pope, but because there is no Records, or mention in Ecclesiastical History, that any were restored, either by this or any other authority; and if there be, produce them. The reason whereof is, because the Roman Emperors than Heathens permitted no public correspondence of those who were out of the Empire, being their enemies, with those who were within it; and after the Christian Emperors being in war with those barbarous Nations, refused to admit (unless upon very urgent occasions) such correspondences; nor have we extant any authentic Authors of those Provinces, who have recorded the Histories, and transactions of the said Churches, so that 'tis unknown to us what either passed betwixt them and the Bishop of Rome, or amongst themselves,  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 207. Your next instance of Theodosius his not permitting the Council at Ephesus to be assembled, and his reconciling himself to the Church, is merely impertinent. We know, that he and other Princes usually wrote to Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria etc. Or spoke or sent to more than one of the Patriarcks, before they called a Council.  William johnson. 
Num. 207. You still seek diversions to avoid the difficulty. The question is not now whether Theodosius and other Emperors, did, or might write to other Patriarcks about the celebration of Councils, as well as the Roman: but it is this, whether they wrote in the same manner to them as they did to him; that is, as Pope Leo witnesses, epist. 15. that he (Theodosius) bore this respect to the divine institution, that he would use the authority of the Apostolic Sea for the effecting of his holy disposition. And this was celebrating that Council, the 2d of Ephesus, which as then appeared to the Pope to be good and holy. Find me such a sentence of his, writ by Theodosius or other Emperors, to any of the Patriarcks beside the Roman, that their authority was necessary, according to divine institution for the celebrating of a general Council? and you will have done something: without which you trifle.  Mr Baxter. 
Num. 208. You cannot but know, that Councils have been called without the Pope.  William johnson. 
Num. 208. Truly, if you speak of lawful general ●●ouncils, I am so unknowing that I know it not (supposing there were a known undoubted Pope in the Church, as there was in Theodosius' time:) and I fear I shall be so dull, that you will not be able to make me know it: I am sure, yet you have not gone about it, and I press you to nominate any such lawful general Councils called without the B. of Rome's consent, and authority.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 209. And that neither this, nor an Emperor's forsaking his error, is a sign of the Pope's universal Government.  William johnson. 
Num. 209. Take the context of my proofs along with you (which you conceal here) and you confess, this demanding the Pope's authority as necessary to the celebration of a general Council, and in that, giving respect to divine restitution, is a sign of his universal government, seeing general Councils (as I have proved) are representatives, not of the Empire, but of the whole visible Church. And Theodosius his penance, whereof one effect was that he required the confirmation of Anatolius in the Sea of Constantinople, from Pope Leo, and thereby attested his power over that Patriarch, and, a simili, over all the rest; he shown himself to believe, that the Roman Bishop was supreme governor of the universal Church.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 210. That Emperor gave sufficient testimony, and so did the Bishops that adhered to Dioscorus, that in those days the Pope was taken for fallible and controulable, when they excommunicated him.  William johnson. 
Num. 210. No more than the Clergy of Sweden would show it now, if they ventured so far as to excommunicate the Pope. Is, think you, authority overthrown, or rendered, or argued null, because it is opposed and contemned by Rebels? you show in this, what your spirit is, and how inconsistent with true Government, when you make the contempt of Rebels, an argument that all whom they reject have no lawful power over them: a thing seasonable enough when you wrote this, having then rebellious times, and persons well suiting with it, but yet demonstrative what you thought then, and may still be esteemed one of your principles. But I wonder much you were so venturous as to let it pass the print, and see light since the happy return of our most gracious Sovereign. For think you men are so blind as not to see this consequence, that if Heretics, outing and contemning the authority of a Catholic Bishop (as Dioscorus an Eutychian, and his party did that of Leo) be a good argument (as you make it) to prove he had no authority over the Church, nor over Dioscorus who excommunicated him: you must also hold, that a public Rebel's deposing a Sovereign, is a good argument to justify the fact, and to prove that Sovereign had no authority over him. Or if you yourself dare not go so far, you have laid a principle, emboldening all Rebels to do it.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 211. But when you cite out of any Author the words that you build on, I shall take more particular notice of them.  William johnson. 
Num. 211. I have cited them out of St. Leo, and expect your answer.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 212. Till then this is enough, with this addition, that the Emperor's subjection, if he had been subject (not to an Ambrose, or other Bishop, but) only to Rome, would have been no proof, that any without the Empire were his subjects; no more than the King of England's subjection to the Archbishop of Canterbury, would have proved that the King of France was subject to him.  William johnson. 
Num. 112. You fly again the difficulty. I make not this argument: the Emperor was subject to the Pope in spirituals, Ergo all those Christians who were Extra-Imperial, were also subject to him. This is no argument of mine, but your imposition. My argument is this: The Emperor and all Christians, within this Empire, were subject to the Pope, as to St. Peter's Successor and Supreme Pastor of the whole flock and Vineyard of Christ, by Christ's institution: Ergo all Extra-Imperial Churches were also subject to him. Now this to have been the reason of their subjection, is evident, both from St. Leo's Epistle lately cited concerning Theodosius, and from the Council of Chalcedon, treated by me hereafter; and from the command of Martian, and all the other declaratives of the Bishop of Rome's supereminent authority, delivered and received in antiquity: where not so much as any one of them hath chained it up within the circuit of the Roman Empire, or given that for a measure or reason of his power; and it still remained in full force in such Kingdoms as were taken by Christians from the Roman Emperors, who (as I have said) never affirmed their freedom from the Emperor's command, to have franchised them from the Bishop of Rome's authority. Whence is clearly answered your parity in the Kings of England's subjection to the Bishop of Canterbury: for the Kings of England never subjected themselves to the Bishop of Canterbury as to the Supreme visible Governor in spirituals of the whole Catholic Church, no not as to one who had any jurisdiction out of England at all.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 112. Your twelfth proof from the Council of Chalcedon, is from a witness alone sufficient to overthrow your cause, as I have proved to you. This Synod expressly determineth, that your Primacy is a novel humane invention; that it was given you by the Fathers, because Rome was the Imperial Seat. If you believe this Synod, the Controversy is at an end: if you do not, why do you cite it? and why pretend you to believe General Councils?  William johnson. 
Num. 213. You have a strange way of shifting off the force of an argument, and that quite out of form, and that illogical; and it is, to bring in some preface or other, to weaken the authority of those whence this proof is brought, before you give a Categorical answer. What have we now to do with your proof alleged many leaves after? Part. 2. Is there not time enough to answer it when it comes in treaty? Have you forgot that you are a Respondent, not an Opponent? are you so much enamoured with your own arguments, that you must show them at every turn, even when there is no just occasion to mention them? one would think it timely enough to boast of them, when you and all men see no satisfactory answer given to them. Have patience a while, and you shall see ere long, you authority from Chalcedon hurts us nothing. It is partly showed already, and when it shall be treated in its place, I hope you'll have no cause to brag of it.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 214. But what have you from this Council against this Council? Why, 1. you say, Martian wrote to Leo, that by the Pope's authority a General Council might be gathered, in what City of the Eastern Church he should please. Reply 1. Whereas for this you writ, Act. Concil. Chalced. 1. You tell me not what Author, Crab, Binius, Surius, Nicolinus, or where I must seek it. I have perused the Act. 1. in Binius, which is 74. pages in folio (such tasks your citations set me) and find no such thing: and therefore take it to be your mistake.  William johnson. 
Num. 214. I am sorry you have taken so much pains and lost your labour, but sure I gave you no occasion of it; for as I cited in the margin, Con. Chalced. Act. 1. so I quoted in the Text Martian's Epistle to Leo, when I said, Martian wrote to Leo; so that you had no more to do then to turn to the first Action of that Council, and seek Martian's Epistle to Pope Leo; which because it is in the full editions of Councils, I thought it needless to name any. Now this might have been done in a very short time; nor could it be more exactly cited than I cited it, giving both the Action, and the Epistle extant in that Action. Can you not as well have found the Epistle of Martian, as of Valentinian and Martian (if they be different Epistles?) Sure the one was as visible and legible as the other. I tell you, 'tis no mistake of mine, but your mishap, that you found it not. Please to look again, and you will find those very words which I cite, in that very Epistle which I quote.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 215. But in the Preambul. Epistle, I find, that Valentinian and Martian desire Leo's prayers, and contrary to your words, that they say, [hoc ipsum nobis propiis literis tua sanctitas manifestet, quatenus in omnem Orientem & in ipsam Thraciam & Illyricum sacrae nostrae literae dirigantur, ut ad quendam definitum locum qui nobis placuerit, omnes sanctissimi Episcopi debeant convenire.] It is not, qui vobis placuerit, but, qui nobis.  William johnson. 
Num. 215. Your words from the Epistle of Valentinian and Martian, infringe not those mentioned by me: for it may well be, that Pope Leo remitted the designation of the place to the Emperor, as judging it more belonging to them then to himself, as a thing wholly temporal, though the precise words, qui nobis placuerit, may be, in rigour, applied both to the Emperor and Pope. My first authority therefore from that Council, is not answered at all in this your paper.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 216. But what if you had spoke truth, doth it follow that Pope Leo was Christ's Vicar-general Governor of the world, because that the Sovereign of one Commonwealth did give him leave to choose the place of a Council? Serious things should not be thus jested with.  William johnson. 
Num. 216. I argue not so: you proceed fallaciously, a secundum quid ad simpliciter. The force of my argument consists not in the choosing of the place by the Pope, that's a pure circumstance: but the strength of my reason consists in this, that the Council was gathered by the Pope's authority. And to this you say nothing; which notwithstanding is an evident proof that the Pope had authority over the whole Church, as I shall prove hereafter. Serious things should be seriously answered, and not be thus jested at by fraudulent fallacies and disguises. Now in my words here cited, viz. Martian wrote to Leo, that by the Bishop's authority a General Council might be gathered in what City of the Eastern Church he should please to choose; the word, he, may as well be related to Martian as to the Pope. So that you cannot enforce from the precise words, that I say, the place was left to the Pope's choice.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 217.2. You say, Anatolius & the rest of the Eastern Bishops sent to Pope Leo, the professions of their Faith, by his Order. Reply 1. And what then? Therefore Pope Leo was both Governor of them and all the Christian world. You should not provoke men to laughter about serious things, I tell you. Can you prove this Consequence? Confessions were ordinarily sent in order to communion, or to satisfy the offended, without respect to superiority. Corruption.  William johnson. 
Num. 217. I see y'are merrily disposed, y'are so full of jesting and laughing; but truly see no other jest here, ●●hen your misreporting my argument, and then saying, it moves laughter. I spoke of confessions of Faith, exacted from others by command or order of the Pope: and this I allege to be a proof of the Pope's universal supremacy. And you answer, that Confessions were ordinarily sent in order to Communion, or to satisfy the offended, without respect to superiority. As if I made the bare sending a Confession of Faith to another, an argument, that he to whom it is sent, is superior to him that sends it. Whereas I say in express terms, that it is the ordering such a Confession to be sent to him who orders it, and not the bare sending, without order, which argues superiority in him who order the sending such professions. Might I not here deservedly retort your Sarcasmus, and tell you, you should not provoke men to laughter (by such gross perversions as these) in serious things. But I spare and pity you.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 218.2. But I see not the proof of your impertinent words: Pulcherius Epistle to Leo, expresseth that Leo had sent his Confession first to Anatolius, to which Anatolius consented. By your Rule then Leo was subject to Anatolius. Corruption.  William johnson. 
Num. 218. I find no Epistle of Pulcherius to Leo, nor so much as any such man in those times. You would say, I suppose, Pulcheria, the Empress: But you should have dealt more fairly, if you had declared in what manner Pulcheria mentions the Confession of Faith sent by Leo. Really Sir, the cunning which you use here, is unsufferable. First, you say, that Confession of Faith from Leo, was sent to Anatolius. Which is manifestly untrue; for the Empress Pulcheria saith, it was sent to Flavianus, his Predecessor: This may pass as an error, in History only. secondly, you say, that Anatolius consented to that Faith, which is true, but you express not in what manner he consented to it: for equals may consent in Faith one with another, but the Empress saith, that Anatolius subscribed to the confession of Faith sent to Flavianus from Pope Leo, and that without the least difficulty or demur, which argue that Leo's confession was sent to this end, that the Pope required the Bishops of Constantinople to subscribe to what he wrote there, to show that they believed the Catholic Faith. [Et Epistolae similiter Catholicae fidei quam ad sanctae memoriae Flavianum Episcopum tua Beatitudo decrevit, sine ulla dilatione subscripsit Anatolius] The Empress writes thus. [And he Anatolius, without any delay, subscribed to the Epistle of Faith, which thy blessedness directed to Flavianus] Thirdly, whereas this Epistle or Confession of Faith, was sent as from a superior, to be subscribed by those Patriarcks, that he might know whether they held the right Faith or no, and thereby judge whether he were to admit them into his communion (as was then the ordinary custom,) you would make it to be a confession sent as from an equal, to give them to whom he sent it, an account of his Eaith. Fourthly whereas I speak of a confession, ordered by the Bishop of Rome, to be sent from the Bishop of Constantinople to him, that the Pope might thereby judge of his Faith: you in answer, return a confession of Faith, as freely sent from the Bishop of Rome to the Bishop of Constantinople, as though the Pope had given an account of his Faith to that Bishop, now all know it to be a rule of Faith, sent Vide verba Pulcheriae, by Leo, to which was required the in ep. ad Leonem. Bishop of Constantinople should subscribe, to show that he held the same Faith with the Bishop of Rome, and thereby deserved to be received, as a Catholic into his communion. And lastly, you make that to be a confession of Pope Leo's faith made to Anatolius, when it was only a sum of the Catholic Faith. [Epistola fidei Catholicae] in general, that those Bishops were to subscribe by the Pope's order. For this very same Epistle, in a Council held by the Pope's legates in Constantinople, Council Chalced in graces was sent by their order, to all the codicibus, post Act, ●● tam. Metropolitans in those parts, (as Pope Leo had given them order) to be subscribed by them.   

CHAP. VI  
Council of Chalcedon. ARGUMENT.  
Numb 219. Mr. Baxter's imposition upon his adversary. ibid. The legates precedency how it proves the Pope's Supremacy. Num. 221. Dioscorus not sitting as a Father in the Council shows the Bishop of Rome's authority over the Council. Num. 222. Mr. Baxter put to desperate shifts, read these words, Caput omnium Ecclesiarum, that Rome is the head of all the Churches. Num. 223. The Councils not contradicting what the legates said, an undoubted sign of their assent. Num. 224. His weak answer, to the Councils calling the Pope their Father, and themselves his children. Num. 226. Mr. Baxter denies most confidently the Council of Chalcedon to say, what it says most manifestly. Num. 227. Mr. Baxter dissembles his adversaries answer. Num. 231. Of what authority was the 28 canon of Chalcedon, in St. Leo's time, and after. Num. 132. General Councils never writ to exhort Bishops, and Patriarches to confirm their decrees, in that manner as did the council of Chalcedon to the Pope. ibid. two sleights of Mr. Baxters. discovered.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 219 You say the Pope's Legates sat first in Council. Reply, what then? therefore the Pope was Governor of the Christirn world, though not a man out of the Empire were of the Council. corruption.  William johnson. 
Num. 219. Your petty slights are grown so numerous that they become intolerable. An unskilful Reader would easily persuade himself, this consequence is mine, which you so confidently impose upon me here, viz: that I deduce, or aught to deduce from the Pope's legates sitting first in the Council, that the Pope was Governor of the Christian world though not a man out of the Empire were of that Council, as If I had granted and were agreed with you in this, that there was not a man out of the Empire in that Council, and supposing that as a truth with you, yet, that not withstanding, I draw the Pope's universal supremacy from the precedency of the Legates in that Council. Now I pray you where have I in my whole paper, supposed, or delivered that there was not a man out of the Empire in that Council, name the place and cite the words where I say so, or acknowledge that you have imposed a most falls injurious calumny upon me. For you are not content to father your own error, (and so much your own, that you are the first and sole inventor of it) upon me, but upon that imposition you ask me in a bitter Sarcasmus, whether I be still in jest? that is, you put a consequence (as you esteem it ridiculous) of your own forging upon me, and then ask me: are you still in jest? is not this handsome? yet I Sir, give me leave to tell you thus much, that though I had granted, (which I constantly deny) that not a man out of the Empire had been in the Council of Chalcedon, yet it would have been no jest, but a solid truth, that from the precedency of the Roman Legates in the Council, follows, that the Pope was governor of the Christian world, for it is necessary to the making of a Council truly and absolutely general, and powerful over the Christian world, that any Bishop out of the Empire should be actually present in it, it is sufficient that they be legitimately and Canonically called to it, as much as morally, all circumstances considered can be done; their actual sitting in it, may be obstructed by a hundred accidents, dangers, impossibilities, which hinders not those who can, and do present themselves to compose a Council absolutely ecumenical, as a sufficient representative of the Church, no more than a Parliament legally summoned ceases to be a representative of the kingdom, though the Knights of some Counties, or Burgesses of some Cities be accidentally absent: prove therefore in your next, that for this reason, that not a man out of the Empire was in that Council, the Pope's universal government over the Christian world follows not from his legates sitting first in it.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 220. But if it must be so, than I can prove that others were the universal governor's, because at Nice and other Councils they sat before the legates of the Pope, and in many his legates had no place. Is this argument good think you? O unfaithful partiality in the matters of salvation. non proof.  William johnson. 
Num. 220. O, you can do wonders; but I would gladly see you do, what you say you can do. You have not yet done it, and I cannot believe you can do't, till I see you have done't: there is a great difference, betwixt saying and doing. Your groundless exclamation I regard not, it is not partiality, what you call so, nor what you say you can prove to be so, prove it in your next to be partiality.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 221. You say they prohibited Dioscorus to sit by his order. Reply, 1. What then? therefore he was universal governor of the Church. All alike. Any accuser in a Parliament or Synod may require that the accused may not sit as judge, till he be tried. fallacy 12.  William johnson. 
Num. 221. Your reply, is fallacious proc●●ding ex falso supposito, 
p. 150. See the place cited in my p. 54. Con Chal. act. 3.  Leo's order that Dioscorus should not sit in Council, was not because he was accused, but because he was condemned, nor was it a bare requiring, but a strict command, and injunction that he should not sit there, as a Bishop of that Council.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num 222.2. But did you not know that Leo's legates were not obeyed; but that the Gloriosissimi judices & amplissimus senatus required that the cause should be first made known: and that it was not done ti●● Eusebius Episcop. Dorylaei had read his bill of complaint? Binius Act. 1. pag. 5. Fallacy, 13.  William johnson. 
Num. 222. No really I know it not, nor I think you neither. You commit an other fallacy by an ignoratio elenchi, the judices Gloriosissimi &c, and the complaint read against him by Eusebius Epis. Dorylaei, was not put as a remora to Dioscorus not sitting in the Council with the rest of the Fathers, but in order to his, and others public condemnation, which with great applause of the whole Council, was performed in the end of the first action. So skilful are you in Church history, if you make not yourself seem more unskilful than you are: to say something which may make a noise in the ears of the unlearned. It being therefore clear, that Dioscorus was prohibited upon St. Leo's order to sit in Council, It follows that he was universal Governor of the Church, a paritate rationis (ut supra) for if he had power to remove the chief Patriarch of the Church, next after himself, from having an Episcopal vote in a general Council, (which was an act of absolute jurisdiction over him:) much more had he power upon like grounds, to remove any other inferior Patriarch or Prelate, through the whole Church, there having been, no proof alleged by you, that this his power was limited to the sole Empire, and I having now produced many reasons, that there could be no such limitation.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 223. You say the Pope's legates pronounced the Church of Rome to be Caput omnium Ecclesiarum, Reply, 1. What then? therefore he was Governor of all the Christian world? I deny the consequence. You do nothing but beg: not a word of proof, Caput was but membrum principale, the Patriarch primae sedis and that but in the Empire.  William johnson. 
Num. 223. This consequence is made strong by the weakness, of your reply. Is Caput omnium Ecclesiarum, the head of all Churches, no more with you, than the principal member of all Churhes, in the Empire? that is, in your new theology, one who was to take of all other Churches, without any true and proper authority over them? see you not in what straits you are put? should some new Sabellian or C●●rinthian rise up, and deny that our Saviour were any more than the chief person in the Church, that is, to take place before all others, but without any jurisdiction or authority over the whole Church; and a Catholic should labour to prove, he hath authority from that place of St. Paul, Coloss. 1.18. Ipse est Caput Corporis Ecclesiae, he is the head of his body the Church. And the Sabellian having read this book of yours Should reply, as you do here to me; what then? therefore Christ is governor of the Christian world? I deny this consequence Caput is but membrum principale, head is no more than the principal part etc. Would you not make pretty work with Scripture, and open a gap to every novelist to elude no less yours, than our proofs, for Christ's supreme government over his Church? but I see you care not whom you hurt, so you can but avoid the present stroke. Nay you have delivered here a precious doctrine, no less for your she citizens at London, than your good wives of Kidderminster, for when their husband teach them obedience and subjection to them from St. Paul 1 Cor. 11.3. Where he says that the husband is head of the wife, they will have an answer ready at their finger's ends, from your doctrine here: that, that head, is no more than the principal part of the family, in place, but not in authority over their wives; nay you have spun a fair thread also, for the independency of the Protestant English Church of its head, in giving ground to take away all Authority from his sacred Majesty, and his royal predecessors over it in quality of heads of the English Church, and making them to have no more than a bare precedency in the Church: as no more than the principal members in the Church in order and dignity, but not in authority. But had you a little attended to those words of the Pope's Legates, you might have discovered they were spoke by them to prove not the bare precedency in place, but sovereignty in authority, for they allege them, to corroborate the power of the Roman Church, as sufficient to prohibit the sitting of Dioscorus in the Council by virtue of Pope Leo's order. And you were pressed as hard to find an answer, for omnium Ecclesiarum, all Churches, that is to say, non omnium, not all, but only those within the Empire: thus you can make all, some, and the whole, a sole part, when you have nothing else to say: see you not how you give advantage to the Manichees, and Menandrians etc. who when, one should have pressed them john 1.2. That our Saviour is creator of all things, they should have replied as you do, that is not of all, but only of some things, not of bodies, but of spirit only. Are you a person fit to dispute in matters concerning conscience and salvation, when rather than not reply to what cannot in reason be answered, you will quite destroy the words opposed to you, by your gloss upon them, are not these desperate Intrigues? But 'tis very strange that the ancient Councils, and Fathers when they call the Roman Church Caput omnium Ecclesiarum, head of all Churches, as they do very familiarly, should always according to you, mean no more than the Churches within the Empire, and yet should never signify they mean no more than those: & if they ever do signify it, name the place and words in any one of them, and you shall be answered. As to the word, Caput, head, applied here to an original body. As St. Paul declares the Church to be, 1 Cor. 12.12. etc. it must not only have the propriety of being the highest part in the body, but also of having a power and capacity of governing and directing all the other parts, (as the head hath in natural bodies) whereby it is evident that the legates in styling the Roman Church the head of all Churches, must be properly understood to mean, that the Roman Church hath not only the chief place, but the chief visible government, and direction also over all other particular Churches. Now St. Paul 1 Cor. 12.21. Composing the Church of different organical parts, affirms that one amongst them is the head, and by head he cannot mean our Saviour, for he speaks of such a head, as cannot say to the feet, they are not necessary for it, which cannot be true of Christ; he must therefore mean a visible created head, which hath need of the inferior members, as they have of it.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 224. The Pope's legates were not the Council, nor judges in their own cause, and not opposing, signifies not always a consent.  William johnson. 
Num. 224. What if they were not the whole Council? at least they spoke those words to the whole Council, and I pretend no more. Why should they be judges in their own cause; seeing it was in a matter which no man then in the whole Council, called in question or required that any new judgement should be given about it? what if not opposing signify, not always consent? do I, or need I pretend that it always doth so? it is sufficient for me that it argues consent here, for certainly considering the matter they propose touches deeply upon the privileges of the Fathers there assembled, had they not spoken a known and unquestionable truth, all the Fathers had been obliged to defend their liberties given them by our Saviour, and repress this injury done them by the legates in that expression: which seeing none of them did, and yet every one had his full freedom to speak his mind, for the Emperor had then no particular affection to the Sea of Rome: it is an evident sign then, all held it for a received truth, so that it was the unanimous opinion and doctrine of the whole Council. All therefore which I affirm is this, that when any thing is publicly pronounced tending (as this did in your opinion) to the manifest and great disadvantage, of all those who hear it, some of them would contradict it; if therefore no one amongst many hundreds present, offer to contradict it, it is a manifest sign, they conceived it no way injurious, or disadvantageous to them and therefore assented to it, as a most known, and undeniable truth in those days.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 225. This Council do as I said, expressly define the point, both what your Primacy is, and of how long standing, and of what institution, and that Constantinople on the same grounds, had equal privileges.  William johnson. 
Num. 225. This is already touched and shall be more fully answered in its place.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 226. You say, all the Fathers acknowledged themselves Leo's children, and wrote to him as their Father. Reply, Of this you give me not any proof, but leave me to read a 190 pages in folio, to see whether you say true or not; and what if you do, (as I believe you do) can a man of any reading be ignorant how ordinarily other Bishops were styled Fathers, even by their fellow Bishops as well as the Bishop of Rome.  William johnson. 
Num. 226. You are deeply plunged in difficulties, that you have no way to make a seeming escape, but by throwing yourself out of one fallacy into another; 
See Blondel, p. 997. acknowledging these words.  my argument is grounded in this, that the Chalcedon Fathers, called Pope Leo their Father, and themselves his children, and you might (as you did by printing it in a different character) easily perceive that the whole force of my argument, was grounded in those terms their Father, his children. Now you wholly dissemble the answer to this, and tell me, that ordinarily other Bishops were styled Fathers, even by their fellow Bishops as well as the Bishop of Rome, which is a pure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to my argument for one may style another Father, because he is Father to those who are his spiritual children in the Church, as all Bishops are in relation to their diocesans, Thouhg their equals who writ to them, neither stile them, their Fathers, nor themselves their children, as the Fathers of this Council did here style Leo, and themselves. Whereas you should have given an instance of some number or assembly of Bishops, styling any one their Father, and themselves his children, to whom they were equal, and had no subjection to them, nor dependence in government of them: this you have not done, because you could not do it: whereby my argument hath received no solution from you, but remains in its full force against you. As concerning your pains of reading a 190 pages in folio, to find out my citation, I take so much pains to have been needless, for I cite in my text the precise Epistle of that Council to Pope Leo, saying in their Letter to Pope Leo, which is not above two or three pages at most, nor was I obliged to cite it more punctually than I did.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 227. You add that they humbly begged of him that the Patriarch of Constantinople might have the first place next Rome which notwithstanding the Council had consented to, as had also the third general Council at Ephesus before, yet they esteemed their grants of no sufficient force till they were confirmed by the Pope. Reply, So fare were the Council from what you fastly say of them, that they put it into their canons, that Constantinople should have the second place, yea and equal privileges with Rome, and that they had this on the same grounds as Rome had its Primacy, even because it was the Imperial ●●eate, vid. Bin. pag▪ 133.134. col. 2.  William johnson. 
Num. 227. I am sorry to see you in passion, and that so deeply, as to accuse my words of falsity, either without duly examining whether they were true or false, or (if you did examine the place I cite) quite against your conscience: for these express words stand in the Councils Epistle to Pope Leo, cited by me, where speaking of their canon about the privileges of Constantinople they say, 
See Blondel. p. 997. acknowledging these words.  rogamus igitur & tuis decretis nostrum honour a judicium. Therefore honour, we beseech you, our judgement also with your decree. Here therefore you wrong both yourself and me, in affirming what I say to be false. To what you say about that other canon, I shall answer in the ensuing paragraph.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 228. You see then (contrary to your fiction) that three general Councils (of the greatest, likened by Gregory to the four Evangelists) not only judged without the Pope, but by your own confession against him (for you say he consented not.) Yea so much did they slight the Pope's consent, that when his legates dissented, they were not heard: see Bin. p. 134.136. They persisted in the Council to maintain their Canon 38 notwithstanding the contradiction of Lucretius and and Paschasinus.  William johnson. 
Num. 228. That there was a canon composed in behalf of the Bishops of Constantinople etc. I have acknowledged, and you acknowledge, I have acknowledged it here, when you print those words of mine, which notwithstanding the Council had consented to &c, but you dissemble my answer; for I contend, that whatsoever they concluded amongst themselves, without the knowledge and against the protestations of the Pope's legates, they here submit to the Pope's judgement and decree, and tell him, they enacted that Canon at Constantinople, grounding themselves upon a confidence they had, that (notwithstanding whatsoever his legates press against it) he himself would yield to it, as being a thing conceived by them to be very reasonable, praesumentes dum noverimus quia quicquid rectitudinis a filiis fit, ad Patres recurrit, facientes hoc sibi proprium, presuming (say they) Seeing we know, that what is done justly by children recurrs to their Fathers, who make it to be their own act; seeing therefore this whole canon, was both decreed out of a confidence that Pope Leo would consent to it, and his consent desired by the Council, all you say here, either of those Fathers resisting the legates, or persisting in the persuance of that canon, is of no force to prove, that either they desired not that his consent, or the denial of it break not the legality of that canon. Moreover when you affirm this council decreed without and against the Pope, you fall into another fallacy, for seeing (as I have now proved) those Fathers proceeded to that decree, through confidence they should obtain Leo's consent, they cannot properly be said to have done it without, much less against his consent: for they conceived themselves to have a consent presumed, which is sufficient when no more can be had to regulate humane actions; and though Leo thought fit to deny his consent, yet that was after the canon was framed, for whilst they form it, they had hope he would consent. I omit you call it the 38 canon when it is the 28, I suppose 'twas an error in the print.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 229. And unanimously the whole Synod consented, never stopping at the Roman dissent. Pergaminus Bishop of Antioch saith, in omnibus sanctissimum Archiepiscopum Regiae civitatis novae Romae in honore & cura sicut Patrem praecipuum habere nos convenit. No man contradicted this: and is not this as much or more, than you allege as spoke to Leo?  William johnson. 
Num. 229. Will you not expose yourself to the deep censure of a considering reader, when you say here the whole Synod consented, viz, to this 28 canon, having said but just now, they persisted in the council in maintaining the the 38 (28.) canon, notwithstanding the contradiction of Lucretius, and Paschasinus, who were the Pope's legates; and were not they the two chief persons in the whole Council? how then could the whole Council consent to it, when these two contradicted it?  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 230. They call Leo (you say) Father: And the Bishop of Constantinople is pronounced the chief Father in all things in honour and cure.  William johnson. 
Num. 330. They call Leo, say I, their father and themselves his children, prove they have given such a title to the Bishop of Constantinople. vide supra. nor yet call they him the chief Father, for the words, pater praecipuus, may properly signify, a chief Father, that is one of the chief Fathers of the Church, no, nor do they style him absolutely a chief Father, but that he was to be honoured, sicut pater praecipuus, as a chief Father though he were not the chief above all.  Mr. Baxter. 
231. And Eusebius Bishop of Doryl. the chief adversary of Dioscorus witnessed that he himself, in the presence of the Clergy of Constantinople, did read this Canon to the Pope at Rome, and he received it; upon which your Historian hath no better an observation, then that either Eusebius lied, or else at that hour he deceived Leo.  William johnson. 
Num. 231. Why cite you not your Author for this story? sure there's some reason fo'rt best known to yourself, no wise man would be thought Author of so fond a Fable. First the thing itself is wholly improbable (unless you suppose Leo to have been of an unconstant brain) for he expressly rejects it in his answer to the Synodical Epistle; and secondly, to tell it as you do, that in the presence of the Clergy of Constantinople, Eusebius read this Canon to the Pope of Rome, will seem ridiculous, seeing that by the Clergy of Constantinople is properly to be understood, either all the Clergy, or almost all, for had you meant only a small part of it, you would have said, in presence of some of the Clergy, etc. of Constantinople; and not absolutely in presence of the Clergy of Constantinople, think you that almost the whole Clergy of Constantinople left their own Church without divine service or Government to go with Eusebius; an ordinary Bishop of Rome? But that which makes this story as you tell it, not only false, but impossible is this, that what Eusebius said, was either before, or whilst this Canon was decreeing, Eusebius being then present in the Council; so that he must have either read it at Rome to Leo before it was made, or in the time whilst it was decreeing, being then himself not at Rome, but at Chalcedon. All therefore that he could have said to Leo, was about the Canon of the 2. general Council at Constantinople, something like to this, which was not approved neither by two, nor by any of his Predecessors: So that Cardinal Peron had reason to affirm the relation of this Eusebius to be false, because Leo was so far from confirming either of these Canons, that he expressly rejects them in his answer to the Synodical Epistle from Chalcedon.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 232. It's true that the Synod writ to him for his Consent, but not as suspending any of their decrees on it; but telling him over and over, that the things were by them defined and confirmed already. pag. 140.  William johnson. 
Num. 232. What mean you, by not suspending any of their decrees? that they razed them not out of the records wherein they were writ, that's true, but not to our purpose, or mean you, they desisted not from proceeding practically in conformity to them, as esteeming them absolutely and completely obligatory, whether the Pope yielded consent to them or no; that's not true. For to what purpose used they so many reasons and persuasions, so earnest entreaties, Rogamus, dignare, we beseech thee vouchsafe most blessed Father to embrace them, etc. had they not thought his consent necessary to the confirmation of them? and that this very 28. had not the authority of a legitimate Canon of that Council (as having been secretly and illegally framed, neither the Judges nor Synod nor Pope's Legates being present at it, and very many Bishops, especially those of Alexandria, being departed, as Blundel acknowledges, pag. 966. and Leo refusing to confirm it) is witnessed by Theodoret who was present in the Council, by Dionysius exiguus, and Theodorus Lector, and the rest both Latins and Greeks who writ the Ecclesiastical History in that age, and it is your task to quote some of them who inserted it into the number of the Canons of Chalcedon; so that it was excluded (and thereby at least suspended) from being numbered with the other Canons of that Council, till many years after, which happily might have given occasion to St. Gregory, of saying, that the Council of Chalcedon in one place was falsified by the Church of Constantinople, nor can it be found to have been cited as a true Canon of Chalcedon before the Trullan Conventicle, mentioned it as one of them, which was assembled a hundred and forty years after the council of Chalcedon.   

CHAP. VII.  
Agapet, Anthymus, St. Cyril, Nestorius. ARGUMENT.  
Numb 233. Whether Pope Agapets' deprivation of Anthymus Bishop of Constantinople were unjust. Num. 236. Mr. Baxter is put to another desperate shift to avoid the force of Pope Gregory the great's words. Num. 140. St. Cyril, and Nestorius acknowledge the Pope's Supremacy. Num. 241. Celestines condemning Nestorius, proves his universal authority. Num. 242. No National, nor Patriarchal Synod, is of force to oblige any out of that Nation or Patriarchate, where it is celebrated. Num. 245. Whether St. Cyril Patriarch of Alexandria, and Precedent in the first Ephesine Council, or Mr. Richard Baxter, Minister of Kiddermunster be the wiser? Num. 246. A threefold corruption of his Adversaries words. Num. 247. Another corruption of his Adversaries argument. Num. 248. Mr. Baxters Prophesy. Num. 250. and Num. 252. His instances inapposite. Num. 254. He slights the Council of Chalcedon.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 233. That which they desired of him was, what Synods ordinarily did of Bishops of their Communion that were absent; haec sicut propria, & amica, & ad decorem convenientissima, dignare complecti, sanctissime & beatissime pater. Non-proof 23.  William johnson. 
Num. 233. Here's another of your Non-proofs, show if you can that Ecumenical Councils, such as this at Chalcedon was, did ordinarily beseech, rogamus, and entreat other Bishops to yield to what they had decreed, as did here this Council St. Leo, in this their Epistle to him. General Councils understood the extent of their authority too well to beg of any Patriarch, save him of Rome, to yield consent to their decrees, for they esteemed them all obliged to assent to them, when they were approved by the Roman Bishop, as appears both in this Council by the Emperor's writing to all Churches, to know whether they consented to it, and their punishing Dioscorus the first, 
In Epistolis ad diversas Ecclesias. in fine Conc. Chalced.  and john of Antioch the second Oriental Patriarch, and the like in that of Ephesus in condemning Nestorius. etc.  
But you use a petty sleight or two here; first, you say they write to Leo, for his consent in the former Paragraph, not specifying the manner of their writing, and thereby leaving your Reader an occasion to think, they might write by way of command or exaction, (for there are very different manners of writing one to another) whereas I have declared their writing to Leo, to have been by humble requests and entreaties: and then in this Paragraph, you say Councils ordinarily writ to Bishops in the same manner as this Council did to Leo, not expressing what Councils you mean. For if you speak of such Councils as were accounted in their respective times, only National or Provincial; 'tis true, they might entreat other Patriarches and Bishops to give their approbation of them, but that's a stranger to our present matter: if of general Councils which is only in question, you should not have supposed but proved it. Such minute undermine as these will gain you no great credit.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 233. In your Margin you tell me that Agapet in the time of Justinian deposed Arithymus in Constantinople against the will of the Emperor and the Empress. Reply. And doth it follow, that because he did it, therefore he did it justly, yea, and as the Governor of that Church? when Menna Bishop of Constantinople excommunicated Pope Vigilius, was he not even with him? and did that prove that Rome was subject unto Constantinople? Niceph. l. 17. c. 26. when Dioscorus excommunicated Leo, and an Eastern Synod excommunicated Julius (Zozom. l. 3. c. 11.) that proves not that they did it justly, or as his Governors. Honorius the Emperor deposed Boniface. Otho with a Synod deposed Johan. 13. Justinian deposed Sylverius and Vigilius: will you confess it therefore justly done, as to the History I refer you to the full answer of Blondel to Perron. cap. 25. sect. 84, 85. usurpation and deposing one another by rash sentences was then no rare thing. Eusebius of Nicomedia threatened the deposing of Alexander of Constantinople, who sure was not his subject. Socrat. lib. 1. c. 37. (vel 25.) Acacius of Caesarea and his party depose not only Eleusius, Basilius, and many other, but with them also Macedonius Bishop of Constantinople, Socrat. lib. 2. c. 33. (vel 42.) did this prove Acacius the Vice-Christ? what should I instance in Theophilus actions against chrysostom, or Cyrils against Johan. Antiochen. and many such like.  William johnson. 
Num. 234. What will not obstinacy do, rather than yield? hitherto you have laboured to evade all the Instances I brought against you, as insufficient to prove the Bishops of Rome did any act of true jurisdiction over the other Patriarches, 
Blond. p. 438. and 439. justifies this proceeding of Agapet.  and Bishops of the East Church. Now seeing this act cannot be pretended, not to show an exercise of power and jurisdiction over the Patriarch of Constantinople, you confess the fact to be an act of power and superiority, but allege it was unjust, that is, above the power of the Roman Bishops: and then to make your plea good, you demand this question of me, and doth it follow, that because he did it, therefore he did it justly? and that done, to prove that consequence null, you instance in many, who excommunicated both Popes and other Bishops unjustly. But see you not a wide disparity? those whom you instance, were condemned by such as were contemporary with them, for having proceeded unjustly in those excommunications, etc. And this you, and all who have learning know to be true. But where can you find any classic Author, or credible Record about those times, which condemned this act of Agapet against Anthymus as unjust; nay, they are so far from having condemned it, that they highly praise him and extol him for it. Thus justinian. Novel. 42. says, it was done by the most holy Bishop of old Rome, Agapet of most holy and glorious memory; and the Council gathered presently after by Agapets' appointment, say, they follow the injunctions of that most holy Pope in depriving Anthymus (not Arithymus as you miscall him) of his Bishopric of Trebisonde, and of all Offices and Dignities Ecclesiastical; hence all your instances appear so many disparities to our present case, yet would I insist upon them, you have no small number of flaws in them. v. g. where have you read that Mennas excommunicated Vigilius? I wonder to see you cite Nicephorus for it, whose authority you yourself rejected, p. 151. what actions mean you of Cyril against john of Antioch? were they depositions, deprivations, excommunications, etc. such as those of Agapet, were against Anthymus? if so, why prove you them not? if not, why make you mention of them? Beside, was not St. Cyril, as I have proved, made Legate in the East by Pope Celestine?  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 235. Still you suppose one Empire to be all the Christian world: we must grant you that in all your instances.  William johnson. 
Num. 245. Still you are so short sighted, that you cannot reach to the force of an argument grounded in paritate rationis. I suppose no such matter, as that one Empire is the whole Christian world, 'tis your imposition, but I argue thus, the Bishop of Rome exercised, and that justly, spiritual jurisdiction over all the Provinces and Patriarchates within the Empire, and that before any general Council was assembled, to confer such a power upon him, always alleading, both by himself, and other holy Bishops of ancient times, that this power issued primarily from his being successor to St. Peter, to whom Christ gave the keys of his Church absolutely, as well without as within the Empire, consequently it was in no man's power to restrain it to the sole Empire, ergo he had as much power to excommunicate, depose, or deprive any Bishop without the Empire (when occasions were given to exercise that power) as he had through the whole Empire. Now you only trifle, in telling me so often, that I make the Empire the whole Christian world; I do not that, but draw this consequence, the Bishop of Rome exercised jurisdiction through the whole Empire as my instances demonstrate, and there is no sufficient reason to restrain that power within the precincts of the Empire; ergo à paritaete rationis, for the same reason, that power extends itself to all Christian Churches out of the Empire. It is therefore your part, to show such a reason for restraining his power within the Verge of the Empire, otherwise you suppose without reason it is limited to the Empire, not I, that it exceeds the Empire.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 236. For what you allege from Gregory, I shall give you enough of him anon for your satisfaction, if you will be indifferent. As to your citation what can I say? A years' times were little enough to search after your citations, if you should thus write but many more sheets, (if a man had so much time and so little wit as to attend you). You turn me to Gregory, c. 7. ep. 63. but what book, or what indiction you tell me not: but whatever it be, false it must needs be, there being no one book of his Epistles (according to all the Editions that I have seen) where c. 7. and ep. 63. do agree or meet together; but at last I found the words in lib. 7. c. 63. ep. 63.  William johnson. 
Num. 236. The error is in the Copist, for in a draught of mine I have it twice, lib. 7. ep. 63. as you found it, and you might easily have discovered it to be the error of an Amanuensis, for sure that 7. chap. must have been of some book or other.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 237. To which I say, that either your great Gregory, by subject, meant that the Bishop of Constantinople was of an Inferior order, as the Patriarch of Alexandria and Antioch were to Constantinople, that yet had no government of them, or else he could say and unsay; but I doubt not but this was all his sense.  William johnson. 
Num. 237. I see you were sore pressed with this authority, when it puts you upon so desperate glosses. Are you really in earnest? did you ever read that the word (subjectus) subject, related to that which is above, can properly signify no more then of an inferior order? the Lord Mayor of York is of an inferior order, or rank to the Lord Mayor of London, is he therefore subject to him? I see you would again preach pleasing things to your good wife of Kiddermunster, for when they read in St. Peter 1 Pet. 3.5. that wives should be subject to their husbands, they will have learned from this book of yours, that subject signifies only one of an inferior rank, not that their husbands should have any government over them. But for all this it signifies here, say you, no more than one of an inferior order who has no government over the other: and why so? why: you yourself doubt not but this was all his sense. nay, if you doubt not of it, I have done; that must needs be enough to make it certain, are you serious when you trifle thus? yet at all adventures, if haply you miss in this congruous construction, you have another turn to save yourself, for if St Gregory truly meant, subject, (as all the world means it) for being under the power and government of an other, than you say that Gregory says, and unsayes? it seems you have some particular picquet against him, because he converted our Nation from heathenism to popery; (as you term the Roman religion:) are not you the first that ever accused the great St. Gregory, to say, and unsay? but as to the word itself subject, subjectus, being derived, from sub, under and jaceo, to lie down, it cannot signify only not to be so high as is another, or to be of an inferior rank, quality, order, or place, but to lie under him, or at his feet, which signifies that the other hath power over him, for subjectus alteri, subject to another, is jactus sub altero cast under another, or under the power or command of another, and I would gladly know, what one latin word signifies more clearly that any one is under the government of another, then does the word subjectus subject; a good subject to his sacred Majesty, should mean no more than you say is here meant by subject, that you are of an inferior order to his Majesty, and content he shall take place of you, but withal deny he has any power over you, were not he likely to be well served by such subjects? but sure, you might have discovered, had you read his words attentively that, St. Gregory could not mean a subjection only of inferiority in order, and not in government, for he says, in another place if there be any fault committed by Bishops, 
l. 7. ep. 64. secundum Blondel. ep. 65. I●●dictione. 2.  I know no Bishop, which is not subject to the Apostolical Sea, but if the fault require it not, according to the reason of humility we are all equal. See you not the subjection which he asserts here, is grounded in the delicts or faults of Bishops, and is not that, in order to correction, reprehension, and punishment for those faults? and must not that proceed from power of government, and authority over them? is not this evident? nor can he speak in the first part of this sentence of a subjection of order only, for he affirms, that supposing there be no fault, the Bishop of Rome is the first Patriarch in order through the whole Church, and consequently the rest unequal in rank and place, that is subject to him in your sense, he must therefore mean another subjection besides that, when he saith they are subject by reason of their faults; would it not be ridiculous if the Mayor of London shoul writ thus, because all other Mayors are inferior to him in order; if any fault be committed by the Mayors of this Kingdom, I know none of them all, who is not subject to the Mayor of London, but if no fault require it, in humility we are all equal. I hope by this time you will have cause to doubt whether your sense be the sense of St. Gregory here, or no?  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 238. But if it had been otherwise, Constantinople and the Empire was not all the Christian world.  William johnson. 
Num. 238. This seems to be the burden of your song, but I have showed you just now that it's quite out of the tune.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 239. Your next citation is lib. 7. epist. 37. but its falsely cited: there is no such word; and you are in so much haste for an answer, that I will not read over all Gregory's epistles.  William johnson. 
Num. 239. There is an error in the figures, it should be lib. 7. ep. 64. where you'll find what I cite. And that very reason which you allege, for not reading over St. Gregory's epistles, viz. hasting for an answer, pleads the excuse of my friends, in sending my answer away to you, before I could return to town, and read it over, to wit your importunity for a speedy answer.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 240. You say that Cyril would not break of communion with Nestorius till Celestine had condemned him; of this you gixe us no proof.  William johnson. 
Num. 240. Do I not? look in the Margin p. 56. in your edit. lit. o. you'll find the proof of it cited there. I see you use not to read the places cited by your adversary, otherwise you could not but have seen the proof of what I say in Cyrils' epistle to Celestine.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 241. But what if it be true? did you think to prove the Pope to be the vice-Christ? prudence might well make Cyril cautelous in excommunicating a Patriarch. And we still grant you, that the order of the Empire had given the Roman Bishop the Primacy therein: and therefore no wonder if his consent were expected.  William johnson. 
Num. 241. Yes indeed I really thought so (if you understand by vice-Christ, no more than what we ascribe to the Pope) otherwise I would never have pressed that instance to prove it. And as really took I the writing of two and those (as you would have it) the chief Patriarches of the Eastern Church, to the Pope of Rome, the one to have his doctrine censured, that is either allowed or condemned by the Pope, the other to have the Pope's authority for himself and the rest of the Eastern Bishops, whether Nestorius his doctrine were formal heresy, and they obliged to avoid communion with him; this I took to be a forcible argument to prove the Pope to be a vice-Christ, if you mean as we do, no more, than this by it, that he is the supreme visible governor of the whole Christian militant Church in the place of Christ: and truly I am in the same mind still, for all you have brought against it. Is it think you probable, that Nestorius would have written to Celestine, and required his authority for the approbation of his doctrine, had he esteemed him to have no more power over him, than the Mayor of London hath over the Mayor of York? nor was the question propounded by St. Cyril about a positive excommunication of Nestorius (as you misconceived) but only a non-communion with him as you presently acknowledge.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 242. But that Nestorius was condemned by a Council needs no proof: and what if Celestine began and first condemned him. Is he therefore the universal Bishop?  William johnson. 
Num. 242. Yes, he is so, (as universal Bishop may be understood.) For if the condemnation of him in the Ephesine Council in conformity to the Pope's precedent censure, argued an universal authority in that council over the whole Church, (as all both Catholics and Protestants, you only excepted acknowledge) much more the primacy, and original condemnation of his doctrine argued an universal authority in Celestine.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 243. But it was not Celestine alone, but a Synod of the Western Bishops.  William johnson. 
Num. 243. This is answered above, where you put the same reply. No national or patriarchal Council, can upon their sole authority, oblige the rest of the Patriarches, as this did.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 244. And yet Cyril did not hereupon reject him without further warning.  William johnson. 
Num. 244. But that warning was ordered by Celestine as I have proved p. 56. in your edit.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 245. And what was it that he threatened? but to hold no communion with him.  William johnson. 
Num. 245. And was that in your account a matter of small moment? you may please to take notice, that the Bishop of Rome's denial to receive any one into his communion, or the substracting himself from communicating with them, was in those days, an undoubted mark of their being cast out of the Church, and that no Catholic Bishop was to excommunicate, or to permit any under his charge to communicate with them, as is proved at large in Schism unmasked, or the conference with Dr. Gunning. For the rule to know with whom every one was, or was not to communicate, was their C●●mmunion or non-communion with the Roman Bishop.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 246. And though pride made excommunication an Engine to advance one Bishop above others, I can easily prove, that if I had then lived, it had been my duty to avoid Communion with a notorious Heretic, though he had been Pope.  William johnson 
Num. 246. We have had essays enough, of what you can do: I see you are much wiser and learneder than was St. Cyril, who presided in the Ephesine Council. He would be first informed from Pope Celestine, whether Nestorius his opinion were Heresy or no, before he avoided him; you, if you had lived in his time, would have taken a wiser course, and have had nothing to do with never a Celestine of them all, but upon your own judgement avoided him. And yet you thought just now, that prudence made St. Cyril so cautelous, as to proceed as he did, and if it were prudence in him, what was it think you that moved you to proceed otherwise? yet you, even in what you say here, mistake grossly the state of the question: which is not whether every one was then bound to avoid a notorious Heretic, for none are notorious Heretics but such as are sufficiently declared to be so by the Church, and the very same authority which declared them, obliged every one to avoid them, but what was here questioned was this, whether private men upon their particular judgement, when a novelty ariseth, not yet expressly condemned by the Church, are to avoid the maintainers of it as Heretics, before they be declared to be so by public authority of those who have power to judge them and their doctrine?  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 247. The long story that you next tell, is but to fill up paper, that Cyril received the Pope's letters, that Nestorius repent not that he accused Cyril, that Theodosius wrote to Celestine about a Council, and many such impertinent words. 2. Non-proofs. 3. Corruption of my words.  William johnson. 
Num. 247. Here are more of your non-proofs, all belike is impertinent, which you call so; had I indeed said no more than what you make me say here, I had been impertinent; look upon p. 56. your Edit. and you'll find another story; I say there, that Celestines letters to Cyril were to execute Nestorius his condemnation, and to send his condemnatory letters unto him; this you dissemble, which only makes the Epistle of Celestine to be a proof of his power over St. Cyril, the first of the three Patriarches; before I related there the irrepentance of Nestorius, I say p. 57 in your Edit. that Celestine had given order in his letters to Cyril, to send Celestines condemnatory letters to Nestorius; this also you dissemble, which is not withstanding a strong proof against you, and you make me say no more, then that Nestorius repent not, never mentioning the occasion given him to repent. Then you say, I writ that Theodosius writ to Celestine about a Council, neither declaring as I do, p. 57 that it was the general Council of Ephesus, nor mentioning Pope Celestines answer, both consenting to the assembling that general Council, and prescribing the manner how he would have it celebrated, which was my proof of Celestines Sovereign authority, nor say you any thing of Celestines order given to his Legates, that the Council should not again examine the cause of Nestorius, but without any farther examination, put his precedent condemnation of him, in execution: All this, that is all the force of my proofs you handsomely conceal, and foisting in non-proofs of your own making in place of my proofs; and all this done, you say my words are impertinent; in what School of conscience learned you these duplicities?  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 248. But the proof is, that Cyril was the Pope's chief Legate ordinary, forsooth, because in his absence he was the chief Patriarch, therefore he is said, Celestini locum tenere, which he desired. Corruption.  William johnson. 
Num. 248. No, that's neither my argument, nor the reason of his being Legate; my argument is this p. 58. your edit. Cyril being constituted by Celestine his chief Legate ordinary in the East, 
Con. Ephes. impres. Heidelberg. c. 16. ibid. c. 17. ibid. c. 18. ibid. c. 65. Concil. Ephes. c. 15. Marcel. comes in chron. Liberat. in brev. c. 5. Balsam. in nomo. can. Prosp. in chron. Id. contra collatorem  etc. and that before the Council of Ephesus was begun, or indicted; now his being constituted so by Celestine, you again dissemble, making me say only, that he was the Pope's chief Legate ordinary (that is, as you would have it) by virtue of his being the first Patriarch of the East, not by Pope Celestines institution; whence appears you have given no answer to my argument, but miserably mangled it, because you could not answer it. For sure Pope Celestine neither made Cyril in that letter Patriarch of Alexandria, for he was so before; nor that Patriarch the chief in the Eastern Church, for he was declared to be so long before the Council of Nice: but by virtue of a particular order, constituted Cyril his Legate ordinary, as he might have done any other Patriarch, had he pleased.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 249. Well, let your Pope sit highest, being he so troubles all the world for it. Christ will shortly bid him come down lower, when he humbleth them that exalt themselves.  William johnson. 
Num. 249. This is not replying, but prophesying, and would better become an exclamation in a Country Pulpit, than a reply in Controversy. It had been timely enough to use such Phanaticismes as these, after you had either proved unanswerably the Pope exalted himself too high: or answered fully and clearly, the arguments which prove he hath not.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 250. That Cyril subscribed before Philip, you may see, Tom. 2. cap. 23. but where I may find that Philip subscribed first, you tell me not.  William johnson. 
Num. 250. When I cited the sixth action immediately after those words, you might have gathered that subscription, (as it is) to have been in the fift.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 251. But what if the Archbishop of Canterbury sat highest, and subscribed first in England? doth it follow that he was Governor of all the world? no, nor of York itself neither.  William johnson. 
Num. 250. No. It follows not, because such a Council would be only National, not General as that of Ephesus was; but it would follow according to the ancient Canons, that the Archbishop of Canterbury presiding as Primate of the English Church, had power in Government over the Bishop of York in some cases, as all true Primates have over all the Bishops and Metrolitans within their Primacies.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 252. And here you tell us of juvenal, Act. 6. Reply. 1. The Council is not divided into Acts in Binius, but many Tomes and Chapters: but your words are in the Notes added by your Historian; but how to prove them juvenal's words I know not, nor find in him or you.  William johnson. 
Num. 252, I think you would infuse the spirit of Prophecy into me too, how should I know otherwise, you had the Councils in no other Edition save that of Binius? I cited the sixth action of the Council, which is an usual citation and full enough, look into that action, and you'll find it, in the Edition of Paulus Quintus.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 253. But why were not the antecedent words of the Bishop of Antioch and his Clergy, as valid to the contrary as juvenal's for this?  William johnson. 
Num. 253. Because juvenal was a known Catholic Bishop, 
Liberat. in brev. c. 4. act. Ephes. Tom. 1. c. 21. act. Ephes. Tom. 3. c. 1. Evag. c. 5. & alii.  and consented to the council, and john of Antioch, with his complices, were favourers of Nestorius, restorers of the Pelagian Heresy, and open Schismatics, celebrating a conventicle against the Ephesine council.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 254. If these words were spoken, they only import a judging in Council as a chief member of it, and not of himself. Non-proof 24.  William johnson. 
Num. 254. Yes sure, it must needs be so, because you say 'tis so, shall we never have an end of your non-proofs? what kind of Council mean you? a general Council? that was never thought necessary for the Roman Bishops censuring of others; a particular? that could have no juridical authority out of the Western Church, ergo the power of judging out of the Western Patriarchate, was only in the Pope.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 255. And his Apostolica ordinatione is expressly contrary to the forecited Canon of the Council of Chalcedon, and therefore not to be believed. Non-proof.  William johnson. 
Num. 255. Still more non-proofs, why is it expressly contrary? why? you say 'tis so; I deny it to be contrary, that's as good as your affirmation. I have explicated that Canon of Chalcedon above, and made it consonant to these words of juvenal. But what if it were contrary? I have also shown the uncanonicalness, and illegality of that Canon. But at least, you cannot deny that I have brought one instance here, that the Pope's authority over a Patriarch, was by Apostolical ordination. Is it not manifest, by this your answer? that you slight the Council of Chalcedon, in granting in one Session, to approve of juvenal's say, and in another to contradict them.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 256. Yet some called things done ordinatione Apostolica, which were ordained by the seats which were held Apostolic. Non-proof 25.  William johnson. 
Num. 256. Some? which some? why say you some, and name none? nor prove any: still more and more non-proofs.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 257. But still you resolve to forget that Antioch or the Empire, extended not to the Antipodes, nor contained all the Catholic Church.  William johnson. 
Num. 257. Your burden must still bear up the Song, we have had enough of that already. Show some solid reason, why the Pope had rather power over the Church and Patriarch of Antioch, then over all other Prelates and Churches, and you say something.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 258. You next tell me of Valentinians words, A.D. 445. Reply. It is the most plausible of all your testimonies, but worth nothing to your end; for 1. Though Theodosius ' s name pro forma, were at it, yet it was only Valentinians act, and done at Rome, where Leo prevailed with a raw unexperienced Prince to ¹ word the Epistle as he desired; so that it is rather ² Leo's then the Emperor's original: 13. Non-proofs more, noted in figures in the Text. ³ And Leo was the first that attempted the excessive advancement of his seat above the rest of the Patriarches. 2. It is known that the Emperors sometime gave the Primacy to Rome, and sometime to Constantinople, as they were pleased or displeased by each of them. So did Justinian, who A. D. 530. Lampadio & Oreste Coss. C. de Episcopis lib. 1. lege 24. saith, Constantinopolitana Ecclesia omnium aliarum est Caput: The Church of Constantinople is the head of all other. 3. It is your fiction, and not the words of Valentinian (or Leo) that the succession from Peter was the foundation of Rome's Primacy. It was then believed that Antioch and other Churches had a succession from Peter. It is the merit of Peter, and the dignity of the City of Rome, and the authority of the Synod jointly that he ascribeth it to. The ⁴ merit of Peter was nothing but the motive upon which Leo would have men believe the Synod gave the Primacy to Rome: And Hosius in the Council of Sardica, indeed useth that as his motive, Let us for the honour of Peter, etc. They had a conceit, that where Peter last preached, and was martyred and buried, and his relics lay, there he should be most honoured. 4. Here's is not the least intitation, that this Primacy was by God's appointment, or the Apostles, but the Synods: nor that it had continued so from Peter's days, but that jointly for Peter's merits (and honour) and the City's dignity, it was given by the Synod. 5. And it ⁶ was but Leo's fraud to persuade the raw Emperor of the authority of a Synod, which he would not name, because the Synod of Sardica ⁷ was in little or no authority in those days. The rest of the reasons were fraudulent also, which though they prevailed with this ⁸ Emperor, yet they took not in the East. And Leo himself it seems durst not pretend to a divine right and ⁹ institution, nor to a succession of Primacy from the Apostles. 6. But nothing is more false than your assertion, that he extendeth the power over the whole visible Church; The word universitas, is all that you translate in your Comment, the whole visible Church. As if you knew not that there was a Roman universality, and that Roman Councils were called universal, when no Bishops out of that one Commonwealth were present▪ and that the Church in the Empire is oft called the whole Church, yea, the Roman world was not an unusual. And I pray you tell me, what power Valentinian had out of the Empire? who yet interposeth his authority there, Neque praeter authoritatem sedis istius illicitum, etc. & ut pax ubique servetur. And in the end, it is all the Provinces, that is, the university that he extends his precepts to. 7. And for that annexed, that without the Emperor's letters, his authority was to be of force through France, (for what shall not be lawful, etc.) I answ. No wonder, for France was part of his Patriarchate, and the Laws of the Empire had confirmed his Patriarchal power, and those Laws might seem with the reverence of Synods, without new letters to do much: But yet it ¹¹ seems, that the rising power needed this extraordinary secular help: Hilary it seems with his Bishop's thought, that even to his Patriarch he owed no such obedience as Leo here by force exacteth. So that your highest witness (Leo by the mouth of Valentinian) is for no more than a Primacy, with a swollen power in the Roman universality: but they never 12 meddled with the rest of the Christian world: It seems by all their writings and ¹³ attempts, this never came into their thoughts.  William johnson. 
Num. 258. In this paragraph you have no less than a bakers dozen of non proofs, I have noted them by figures in your text, let them be proved, and then they shall be answered, till than they deserve no answer. To what has any seeming ground or proof, I answer. First it imports little whether Theodosius had any hand in this Epistle or no, I say nothing of him in my text, p. 59.60.61. Secondly Your proof from justinian is already answered in my observation made upon p. 174. of your key, only I see you have mended your citation, and put lib. in place of lege 3. Must it needs follow that it is my fiction? because it is not the words of Valentinian, that the succession from St. Peter is the foundation of Rome's primacy. May not a medium be given betwixt those two extremes, what if it were the true sense of Valentinians words? it was then neither his words, nor my fiction, but a true interpretation of his words; and that it is so, is manifest, for there must be some reason sure, why the merit of St. Peter, conferred a primacy rather upon the Bishop of Rome, then upon any other Bishop, but none can be imagined, save this, that the Bishops of Rome succeeded St. Peter in the sea of Rome, ergo it must be that succession, or nothing. You seem to say, that because St. Peter last preached, and was martyred, and buried, and his relics lay there he should be most honoured, and by, honoured, you must mean, as Hosius cited by you here, and Valentinian do, in the power acknowledged in the Bishops of Rome. But this cannot subsist, for St. Paul preached last at Rome also, was martyred, and buried, and his relics lay there, yet no authors say, the primacy of the Roman Bishops was founded in St. Paul's merits, now no reason can be given of this, save that which I gave, viz, that the Roman Bishops succeed not to St. Paul, as they do to St. Peter, because St. Paul was never Bishop of Rome, as St. Peter was. What you say of the succession from St. Peter in Antioch, avails nothing; for he, having deserted the Bishopric of Antioch in his life time, and transferred his seat to Rome, were he died Bishop of the Roman see, was to have his proper successor there; for by tranferring his see to Rome, he transferred the dignity of Primacy of the Episcopal crown, (as Valentinian says there) appropriated to him, and took it from Antioch, and by dying Bishop of Rome left it there to his successors; whence appears that the Bishop of Antioch was a successor to St. Peter, as were other Bishops, but no successor to his supereminent dignity and primacy over the Church, because so long as St. Peter lived, it could not descend upon any other. Fourthly, I deny not, that he ascribes the establishment of Rome's primacy to those three, St. Peter, the city and the Synod; yet he makes the first foundation of it, the dignity of St. Peter, and therefore prefixes it before the other two, and that it may appear he makes this the first and fundamental reason, and not the Synod, he adds these words, haec cum fuerint hactenus inviolabiter custodita, since these things (i. e. that nothing of great concern should be done without the authority of the Roman see) have been hitherto inviolably observed; for if the Synod had conferred that dignity to the Bishop of Rome, he could not have said with truth, that those things had been always observed, for before the Synod which gave it, which was three hundred years and more after the re-Surrection of our Saviour, they were observed: seeing therefore they were always observed, that power & authority must have been, in the Bishop of Rome long in being before those Synods were celebrated. Now how the dignity of the Roman city concurred to this primacy I have above declared, whence appears, the loud untruth which you pronounce, n. 4. Here is not the least intimation that this primacy was but by the appointment of the Synod, nor that it had continued so from St. Peter's days. Since you use not to read over the texts which are brought against you, I pray you what signify these words, haec cum fuerint hactenus inviolabiliter observata, these things have been hitherto inviolably observed, what signifies hitherto, but from St. Peter's time to his? Your guess at the Synod of Sardica, as aimed at by Valentinian, though say you it was of little credit in those days (which I have numbered amongst your non-proofs,) is a pure mistake; for the Synod he alludes to, is that of Nice, which in the 6 canon, as it is recited in the Council of Chalcedon, says thus. Ecclesia Romana semper habuit primatum, the Church of Rome hath always had the primacy, where that holy council gives it not as you surmise, but declares it to have been always due to that see since the Apostles time: whence also appears the falsehood of what you say next, that Leo durst not pretend divine right and institution, nor to a succession of Primacy from the Apostle, for this very Synod to which Leo alludes, warrants both. For if it were always due to it, or that it had always possession of it, semper habuit, it must have come not only from the time of the Apostles but from Christ himself, otherwise it had been semper, for in the time of the Apostles, it had not been due to it. When you say next, I translate the word universitas, the whole visible Church, you wrong me, for I translate it universality, see pag. 59 and when I name the whole visible Church, p. 60. I make no translation of his words, but deliver that which I think to be the sense of them. To what you say, there was a Roman universality. If you mean, that those who were under the sole Roman Empire with exclusion of all extra-imperial Churches communicating with them, were called anciently the universal Church, or the universality of Christians, you are much deceived, where prove you that? if as united with them, and giving the denomination to the whole, 'tis true and confirms what I say. Now to show that Valentinian means by universalities, not those of the Roman Empire exclusively to all others, he joins to universality, ubique; for than says he, the peace of the Church will be kept every where, when the whole universality acknowledges their governor: but certainly Valentinian was not so ignorant, as not to know, there were then many Churches out of the Roman Empire. For about the year 414. that is above 20 years before Valentinian enacted this law, Spain was possessed by the Goths, and divided from the Roman Empire: and was Valentinian think you ignorant of that? so that I am not ashamed to confess my ignorance, that I really know not any Roman universality Ecclesiastical in your precisive and exclusive sense, nor know I any Council anciently styled ecumenical, or universal, where no Bishops out of that one (the Roman) commonwealth, were present, and you have not yet instructed me to help my ignorance in this. I have no obligation at all to tell you, what power Valentinian had out of the Empire, for he might first declare (as he did) the power of the Roman Bishop to govern the whole Church in the beginning of this brief, and in the end, take care, that all those Provinces which were under his Empire should observe that his law, concerning so much as belonged unto him, that the universal power of the Pope should be observed: As may now the Emperor of Germany, or the King of France, or Spain first declare the universal power of the Roman Bishop over all Churches, and then command all their Provinces to obey him, which is all the Emperor does here. For Valentinian says not (as you falsify his words, omnium provinciarum of all the Provinces, but aliarum provinciarum, of other Provinces, nor (ut Pax ubique servetur,) as you corrupt him, but tunc ubique servabitur, then peace will be observed every where, if the whole universality acknowledge their governor; and that not in the law but in the declaration made of the Pope's authority, 
vide supra.  as an introduction to it. You answer to Valentinians affirming the Pope's authority and sentence was of force without any imperial law to back it, is much deficient. For seeing he had before declared that the Pope's commands had been always observed, they must have been of force, both before any Patriarchate was assigned to him by any general Council, (as you imagine it was) and before any Christian Emperors had enacted any laws concerning it, and the very law itself destroys your gloss, for Valentinian says presently, what shall not be lawful for the authority of so great a Bishop to exercise upon the Churches. Whereby he shows his power extends itself not only to his own, but to all other Patriarchates; nay your very restraining his words to the Empire and yet extending them to the whole Empire, show evidently, that the Pope's sentence had not been only of force independently of any imperial law within his own, but also in all other jurisdictions of the Patriarches within the imperial verge; and hence the consequence which you draw from this authority, whereas Valentinian says it needed not the imperial help, that it needed this extraordinary secular support, is as contrary as to draw darkness from light: and as inconsequent is it to argue from Hilaries repugning against the Pope sentence for a time, that the Pope had no such power over him (which notwithstanding you granted just now,) as to argue that a lawful Prince hath no power over rebellious subjects, because they resist it. So that it could never seem to any considering person, otherwise then that it came into the thoughts and words too of Valentinian here, that the Pope's supremacy exceeded the limits of the Roman Empire. But it is evident enough, through the vein that runs through this Paragraph, that you are sound nettled with this law of Valentinian, and yet because you are resolved, what ere comes on't to persist in your error, you fall foul upon Hosius, Leo, Valentinian, Bishops, Popes, rather than yield to a manifest truth; Hosius you make so shallow, that he took things away weakly and facilly upon the custom of the times, Leo you make proud and fraudulent, and Valentinian a young and raw Prince, subject to be persuaded to any thing. The most part of considering readers will smile to see Hosius the most honoured Bishop of his time through the whole Church, who presided in two general Councils, and legate of the holy Pope Silvester for the Western Church, Leo graced with the title of most blessed Father, 
Nicene Sardican  pronounced the head of the Catholic Church, and universal Bishop, styled the mouth of St. Peter in the Council of Chalcedon, and ever since honoured with the title of a Saint, and Valentinian a most renowned Emperor, both for fortitude and prudence, for he was twenty seven years of age when he composed this edict, so slighted, reviled, and debased by the Minister of Kiddermunster, and that upon your surmises and guesses without any proof at all. And others will pity and compassionate your misery (as I really do), to see you so deeply plunged in adhesion to your own opinion, that you will break all the bonds of Christian modesty and charity, rathen then acknowledge your error, or yield to a manifest truth.  Mr. Baxter. 
258. And it's no credit to your cause, that this Hilary was (by Baroniu's confession) a man of extraordiry holiness and knowledge, and is sainted among you, and hath his day in your Calendar.  William johnson. 
Num. 258. But does not Baronius, in the very same place, reprehend him at that time when he fell into those defaults, and tell you that after his condemnation, he came again to himself, craved most humbly pardon of the Pope, and shown manifest signs of repentance, and upon this his humiliation and perseverance in obedience to the See of Rome, became both a famous defender of the Catholic Faith, and a Saint. Was it any disadvantage to the Catholic Church, that Origen, Tertullian, or even St. Cyprian himself, men of equal understanding and learning with St. Hilary, opposed the doctrine of the Church, and raised troubles in it?  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 259. And yet Valentinian had great provocation to interpose (if Leo told him no untruth, for his own advantage): for it was no less than laying siege to Cities, to force Bishops on them without their consent. That he is accused of; which shows to what odious pride and usurpation, prosperity even then had raised the Clergy, fit to be lamented with floods of tears, then to be defended by any honest Christian: Leo himself may be the Principal Instance.  William johnson. 
Num. 259. He had so indeed, but must he therefore give more power to the Bishop of Rome then of right belonged to him. Who either defends, or is not ready to bewail these abuses? But I see where you are, you would cast a blot, if you could, upon Episcopal Government, and cry down the power and possessions wherewith God and good men had even in those times enriched them.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 260. You next return to the Council of Chalcedon, Act. 1. & seq. where 1. you refer me to that Act. 1. where is no such matter: but you add, (& seq.) that I may have a hundred and ninety pages in folio to peruse, and then you call for a speedy answer: but the Epistle to Leo is in the end of Act. 16. pag. (Bin.) 139. And there you do but falsely thrust in the word (thou governest us), and so you have made yourself a witness, because you could find none. The words are, Quibus tu quidem, sicut membris caput, praeeras, in his qui tuum tenebant ordinem benevolentiam praeferens: Imperatores vero ad ordinandum decentissime praefidebant. Now (to go before) with you must be (to govern); if so, then Aurelius at the Council of Carthage, and others in Councils that presided, did govern them.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 260. We must have new Grammars and Dictionaries, to understand your translations. Who ever said before you, that praeesse, signifies to go before? I was always taught, and I think you too, or you had a Sir john lack-Latin for your Master, that esse signifies to be, and not to go, and so praeesse is to be before, or above another, and not to go before them. A servant may go before his Lady to usher her, can it therefore be said, praeest Dominae? a horse goes before the Cart, can you therefore say praeest currui? We read Gen. 1. v. 16. that God made the Sun, ut praeesset di●●i, would you translate, that it might go before the day? and v. 26. he gave power to man, ut praeesset piscibus maris, & volucribus caeli, etc. will you translate, that he might go before the beasts of the Earth, and the birds of the Air? and the 1. Tim. 3.5. si quis quis autem Domui suae praeesse nescit, if any know not how to go before his family, etc. But to be more serious. I challenge you to give me any one instance, where praeesse signifies not to govern others as I translate it, either in Scripture or antiquity. Indeed Sir you are a worse Critic than you are a Controvertist: I say not therefore, 'tis you who mistake it; that to go before, must be to govern, but that praeesse aliis, to govern them, which all the world says with me. Whence also, that if Aurelius in quality of Primate in Africa, did praeesse conciliis, he also governed them, as did anciently the Primate of England the Councils in England.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 261. It was but (benevolentiam praetulisse) that they acknowledged: and that the Magistrates not only presided indeed, but did the work of judges and Governors, is express in the Acts, it's after wrote in that Epistle, Haec sunt, quae tecum qui spiritu praesens eras, & complacere tanquam fratribus deliberasti, & qui pene per tuorum vicariorum sapientiam videbaris, à nobis effecimus.  William johnson. 
Num. 261. Will you venture to Criticise again, after your late foil? know you not that the Greek language is full of courteous and friendly expressions? it was indeed Leo's good will to send his Legates with their instructions to them, but was it therefore no act of power and authority? is it not benevolentia Principis, to confer new honours upon his well deserving subjects? seems it not therefore to be an act of Royal power over them? who denies the Magistrates did the work of Judges? but still in their kind, and within their Sphere, to see good order, justice, and peace observed amongst the Bishops. But prove, if you can, they ever as Judges gave their suffrages and votes together with the Bishops in definitions of faith, or framing Ecclesiastical decrees?  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 262. And (haec à tua sanctitate fuerunt inthoata, and yet, qui enim locum vestrae sanctitatis obtinent, iis ita constitutis vehementer resistere tentaverunt) from all which it appeareth, that he only is acknowledged to lead the way, and to please them, as his brethren, and to help them by the wisdom of his substitutes, & yet that the Council would not yield to their vehement resistance of one particular.  William johnson. 
Num. 262. These consequences I understand as little as I do your translations: I beseech you in your next, draw something against my assertion, from them.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 263. But I have told you oft enough that the Council shall be judge, not in a complimental Epistle, but in Can. 28. where your Primacy is acknowledged, but 1. as a gift of the Fathers. 2. And therefore as new. 3. For the City's dignity. 4. And it can be of no farther extent than the Empire, the givers and this Council being but the members of that one Commonwealth: so that all is but a novel Imperial Primacy.  William johnson. 
Num. 263. This is already answered in part, and shall be more fully, when we come to it.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 264. And for the words of Vincentius Lyrinensis, c. 9 what are they to your purpose (quantum loci authoritate) signifieth no more than we confess, viz. that in those times the greatness of Rome, and humane ordination thereupon, had given them that precedency, by which their (loci authoritate) had the advantage of any other Seat: Or else they had never swelled to their impious usurpation.  William johnson. 
Num. 264. I see here you are as skilful in Chronologie, as you are in Criticisms: know you not that Vincentius speaks of St. Stephen Pope and Martyr, who sat in the year 258. till 260. in whose time, the temporal greatness of Rome served for nothing, but to render its Bishop's objects of tyranny, and subjects of torments; nor was there then any humane ordination at all, either from general Councils, or Christian Emperors, from whom only you derive it, for it was many years before them both, which notwithstanding, this ancient Catholic author says, that even then in those purest times, the Roman Bishop surpassed all other Bishops, loci authoritate not in precedency only, but in authority of his place. Now I hope you will tell us in your next, who, if not our Saviour, gave that Sovereign authority to the Bishop of Rome in those days. Should one say, the Lord Mayor of London, surpasses all those of the City, in the authority of his place, signifies no more, then that in public meetings he is to take place of all the other Aldermen, etc. without any governing power over them, would any rational man think he speaks sense?  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 264. I have plainly proved to you in the end of my (safe Religion) that Vincentius was no Papist.  William johnson. 
Num. 265. I am subject to believe your proofs there will be much like those which I lately examined in your Key. The question is not now of what Religion Vincentius was, but whether in this place, he gave an unanswerable testimony of the Pope's Supremacy. I am sure the answer you have given to it, is fallacious, not distinguishing the time wherein Vincentius writ, from the time whereof he writes in that Chapter, and it is no less untrue and inconsistent in itself, your constituting humane ordination for the Pope's authority, when there was none.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 266. But you draw an argument from the word (sanxit), as if you were ignorant that bigger words than that, are applied to them that have no governing power. (Quantum in se sanxit), he charged them that they should not innovate: And what? is it P. Stephen that is the Lawgiver of the Law against unjust innovation? did not Cyprian believe that this was a Law of Christ before Stephen meddled in that business? what Stephen's authority was in those days, we need no other witnesses then, Firmilian, Cyprian, and a Council of Carthage, who slighted the Pope as much as I do.  William johnson. 
Num. 266. You criticise again: Signifies sanxit, to charge one? I ever yet thought, that sanxit, signified, he made a decree, or a Law, look into the Dictionaries, and you'll find it so. A father charges his child to rise at six a clock in the morning, will you say? sanxit; show me in any approved ancient author, that (sanxit) is ever applied to any, who have not power to command, or to give Laws to others, in regard of whom they do sancire, establish any thing to be observed. The question is not now, what Stephen did, or Cyprian believed, but what Vincentius says of Stephen, he says, sanxit, he sent or framed a Law or decree, that in matter of baptism of those who had been baptised by heretics, nothing should be innovated: but what was delivered by tradition of receiving them into the Church without rebaptising them, should be observed: this St. Cyrian questioned, and inclined too much to the contrary. Nor is the question here what Stephen's authority was in other particulars, or was not, but whether Lyrinensis say that he had power, and actually did sancire, enact and make a Law to oblige all those in Africa in this particular. Why divert you the question by so many turns, I leave your answer to judgement. You still take all occasions to enervate the Pope's authority, by alleging the opposition of those who (you know, and all the learned with you,) were in error against it, such were those in that Council of Carthage, Firmilian, and St. Cyprian then, whilst they defended the error of rebaptisation. Whence appears the untruth of what you affirm here, that St. Cyprian knew that the ancient custom maintained by Pope Stephen, of non-rebaptization, was to be observed, for he with Firmilian, and Council of Carthage, etc. practised and taught the quite contrary.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 267. I pray answer Cyprians testimony and arguments against Popery, cited by me in the Disp. 3. of my (safe religion.)  William johnson. 
Mum. 267. I see you'll give me work enough, if I had nothing else to do then busy myself with the tasks you set me; what have I to do now with the third disputation of your safe religion (I believe I shall find it much of the same temper with your key) or whether St. Cyprians arguments are with or against Popery? Our question is about Vincentius Lyrinensis his authority; answer that in the true sense of the Latin word, Sanxit, and then we'll talk with you about other questions, when occasion requires it.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 268. You say you will conclude with the saying of your Priest Philip, and Arcadius at Ephesus: and 1. you take it for granted that all consented to what they contradicted not: but your word is all the proof of the consequence. Nothing more common, than Senates and Synods to say nothing to many passages in speeches not consented to. If no word not consented to in any man's speech must pass without contradiction, Senates and Synods would be no wiser societies than Billingsgate affords, nor more harmonious than a fair or vulgar rout: what confusions would contradictions make amongst them.  William johnson. 
Num. 268. Yet certainly, if any one in your Council held at London an. 1562 should have said as much of St. Peter's and the Pope's supremacy, as this legate said in the Council of Ephesus, he would have had all the new Bishops about his ears, and a greater noise against him than was ever yet hard at Billingsgate, which would have rung all the Kingdom over. You answer to my difficulty is fallacious, ex ignoratione elenchi, you suppose me to argue thus in an universal proposition, whatsoever is said by any particular person and not contradicted in Councils is consented to by the whole Council; and upon this false supposition you frame your Reply. Now I advance no such universal proposition at all in that place, but argue from their silence or non contradiction, to their consent out of the particular instance of the legates delivering a doctrine (in your principles) absolutely destructive of the authority, and jurisdiction, of all the Bishops in the Council, and therefore were obliged in conscience to contradict it: their silence therefore, evinces they conceived it was no disadvantage to them, but a great advantage both to them and the whole Church, and so argues they consented to it. All therefore that I affirm is this, whatsoever is said tending directly to the destruction of the authorities, and privileges of those to whom it is said (as those words of the Legates must have done in your opinion) would have been contradicted by them, because they were all obliged to stand for the privileges which Christ had given them, and to oppose every one who delivered any doctrine contrary to them. Seeing therefore not so much as any one in the Council speak the least word against the Legates, its evident they esteemed not themselves to be injured or concerned in them, and consequently consented to their doctrine as Catholic, and Orthodox, nor any way abridging any Bishop there of those Episcopal dignities and jurisdictions conferred by our Saviour's institution upon them.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 269. You turn me to Tom. 2. pag. 327. Act. 1. I began to hope of some expedition here: but you tell me not att all what author you use, and in Binius which I use, the Tomes are not divided into acts, but chapters, and pag. 327. is long before this Council; so that I must believe you, or search paper enough for a weeks reading to disprove you: this once I will believe you, to save me that labour, and supposing all rightly cited. I reply.  William johnson. 
Num. 269. 'Twas your want of books, not mine of preciseness in citations (for I cite Tom, Act and page) which created you this labour, I had reason to think you were not ignorant that the edition of Paulus quintuses (ut supra) was by actions, not chap. And there you may find it as I have cited it.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 270. Philip was not the Council, you bare witnese to yourselves; therefore your witness is not credible.  William johnson. 
Num. 270. Philip was not the council, who says he was? what then? ergo his authority not contradicted by the Council (as I have now declared) is no good argument, the Council consented to his doctrine: make that good. But suppose it had been Philip, or Arcadius alone even speaking out of the Council, it had concluded against you, you have it seems forgot, what you affirmed p. 2. your edit. viz. But at least, of four hundred years after Christ, I never yet saw valid proof of one Papist in all the world, that is one who was for the Pope's universal monarchy or vice-Christship. Now you know the Council of Ephesus was celebrated in the years 430 and 431. That is in a moral consideration of so many years, 400 years after Christ, and who can doubt that this Philip flourished within the first 400, this testimony therefore proves evidently that there was at least one papist, that is one who was for the Pope's univer, +sal monarchy or vice-Christship, in the extent of those ages wherein you profess not to have found so much as one single person in that whole tract of time. For those legates give testimony not only for that precise time of the Council, but also for all precedent ages before it, as I have evidenced by their words.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 271. Yet I have given you instances in my key, which I would transcribe, if I thought you could not as well read print as M. S. of higher expressions than Caput & fundamentum given to Andrew by Isychius, and equal expressions to others as well as Rome and Peter.  William johnson. 
Num. 271. You might have pleased to have told me where, think you I'm bound to were your key at my girdle, as if I had nothing to do but busy myself in reading it over to find your wild citations?  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 272. And who is ignorant that knoweth any thing of Church history, that others were called successors of Peter as, well as the Bishop of Rome.  William johnson. 
Num. 272. What successors mean you? such as were received by Christians to succeed in the place of St. Peter as he was, fidei columna, and ecclesiae Catholicae fundamentum, the pillar of Faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, as the legate speaks here of him? truly Sr. I confess I am so ignorant, that I know no such matter as you talk of.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 273. And that the the Claves regni were given him, is no proof that they were not given also to all the rest of the Apostles.  William johnson. 
Num. 273. The question is not at present, whether it prove absolutely they were not given to others, because they were given to St. Peter: but, whether the legate in this sentence must not mean, this to have been a privilege peculiar to St. Peter, as much as all the former were understood by him to be peculiar to St. Peter. Now, he could not without manifest absurdity be understood in any other sense, for seeing he intended to demonstrate to the Council the pre-eminence of St. Peter and his successors above all others, he had fallen into a gross inconsequence, had he enumerated those excellencies to show St. Peter to be greater than were the other Apostles and his successor higher in authority then the successors of any of the Apostles, should he have specified such particulars as were common with him and the rest of the Apostles, seeing those are so far from proving him to be above them, that they prove the quite contrary, for equal privileges common to all, prove all were equal in those privileges.  Mr. Baxter 
Num. 274. And where you say Arcadius condemneth Nestorius for contemning the command of the Apostolic sea. You tell me not where to find it. I answer you still, that its long since your sea begun to swell and rage, but if you must have us grant you all these consequences, Celestine commanded, therefore he justly commanded; therefore another might not as well have commanded him, as one Pastor may do another, though equal in the name of Christ, And therefore he had power to command without the Empire over all the Catholic Church; and therefore the Council was of this mind: yea therefore the universal Church was of this mind, that the Pope was its universal head. You still are guilty of sporting about serious things, and moving pity, instead of offering the least proof.  William johnson. 
Num. 274. By what I have now writ in answer I think you will not have found me in jest, in the proof of these consequences taken with due circumstances. Celestine, says the legate, commanded, and Nestorius was condemned by him, for not obeying Celestines command, and no man was either in the council or in the whole Church, who had then the repute of an orthodox Christian, either reprehended Celestine for commanding, or justified Nestorius for not obeying and if any did so, produce them in your next by good authority, ergo it was a just command. 2. It being a just command, and must proceed from one who had true authority to command, and against one whom you say by right of the first Council of Constantinople, was the first Patriarch then in the Church, had he true authority over him, he must have had true authority over all those who were inferior to him, ergo there was no man to be found in the church who had power to command Celestine, there; the second consequence. The third I prove thus, he had power to command justly (as is proved) the highest Patriarch in the Empire, and that Patriarch, and the others also, had power to command the Empire, (as I have proved above) ergo Celestine had consequently power to command all those, whom they commanded. The fourth consequence, I prove the legate said this in full and public council, and were all highly concerned in it, (as is also proved,) and yet did not in the least contradict it, ergo the council was of this mind, that it was no abridgement to their privileges, but an establishment of their authority, a prime preservative of the Church's unity and a fundamental institution of Christ, in the perfect orders of Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, as the legates had delivered it to the council. You suppose here without any proof at all, that one pastor though equal may command another in the name of Christ Who ever taught this doctrine before you? everts it not inevitably the order of Church government, commanded by St. Paul? for what is order but a due observance and subjection of inferiors to their respective superiors, which is wholly subverted when an equal takes authority upon him to command his equal, whatsoever pretence of the name of Christ he assume to gloss it; for unless that confer a real authority upon him who commands over him who is commanded, he remains his equal still, that notwithstanding, and then he commands without any true authority, which destroys order: or if it communicate a real authority over the person commanded, it makes him superior who commands and not equal to the other, which destroys your supposition, of one equal commanding an other. This made good, the last consequence follows inevitably; for seeing his Council has ever ●●een reverenced, and received as a true general Council, and what such Councils consent to is the consent of the Catholic Church? for all bodies diffusive are to confirm themselves to their true representatives: it follows, and that very seriously without all jesting, that these consequences are so fast locked up together, that all the tu●●n●●s of your key will not be able to unlock them.   

CHAP. VIII.  
Numb 275. Why perpetual adherence to the Roman Church, was promised by a Bishop who was reconciled from Schism to the Church. Extra-imperial▪ Bishops, obeyed the Bishops of Rome; Num. 276. Mr. Baxter forgets what his adversary undertook to prove, and thereupon accuses him of not proving, what he was not obliged to prove. Num. 277. Why the Roman supremacy in spirituals is necessary to the being of Christ's visible Church. Num 278. He proceeds fallaciously a sensu conjuncto, ad sensu divisum. The difference between temporal Kings, and Pope's government, not understood by Mr. Baxter. Num. 279. He proceeds a jure, ad factum. from what should be done, to what is done; Num. 280. He mistakes his adversaries meaning in governing others as Brethren Num. 281. W●●e her the Pope be absolutely the Monarch of the visible Church.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 275. Yet fear you not to say, that in the time of the holy ecumenical Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon the universal consent of the whole Catholic Church was for you in this point] The Lord keep our consciences from being the servants of our opinions or interests. 1. Was the Pope's legate the whole Church 2. Was there one man at either of these Councils but within the Empire, yea a piece of the Empire? So that they were but such as we now call national Councils, that is, consisting only of the subjects of one republic. 3. Did the Council speak a word for your power without the Empire? 4. Do they not determine it so expressly to be of humane right, that Bellarmine hath nothing regardable to say against it. (Can. 28. Con. Chal.) but that they spoke falsely? And yet your opinion or interest hath tempted you to appeal. viz. to the Sun that there is no such thing as light.  William johnson. 
Num. 275. Here's, nothing but a good face put upon a bad cause, and a repetition of what is answered, emboldened with a new confidence, your first qu. about the Pope's legate is answered. To your second, I answer, yes, there were no small number of extra-imperials: but had there been none, if all were summoned, it ceased not to be a general Council. To the third, yes, every decree it made was spoken to the whole Church, and (as it appears by the letters of Leo the Emperor, writ presently after the Council of Chalcedon to all Churches, even the most distant in those parts) it was universally received in their respective answers by every one of them To your fourth about can. 28. Con. Chal. I have answered already, and shall say more when it is more fully treated.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 276. After the conclusion you have a supernumerary in your margin, from Greg. lib. 10. Epist. 30. But there is no such word in that Epistle, nor is it of any such subject. But it's the 31 Epistle, its like, that your leader meant. And there is no more but that a Bishop not named (person or place) having fallen into Schism voluntarily, swore never more to departed from the unity of the Catholic Church, or the Sea of Rome. But. 1. So may a Bishop of the Roman Province do (or Patriarchate) without believing Rome to be the universal head.  William johnson. 
Num. 276. Can they? and yet make the communion with the Bishop of Rome to be the certification and evidence, they reconciled themselves to the Catholic Church? If any Schismatic in France should reconcile himself to the Catholic Church, could he promise to remain always in the communion of the Bishop of Rheims? suppose that Bishop should so be excommunicated or turn Schismatic, as he might, could he promise never to forsake his communion? seeing therefore an absolute promise was made to remain always in the communion of the Bishop of Rome, it was presupposed that Bishop once lawfully chosen and installed could never be excommunicated, or become a Schismatic, so long as he remained Bishop of Rome; otherwise the promise had been illegal and impious, obliging them to communicate with Schismatics. Now there can be no other sufficient reason given, why the Bishop of Rome can never be excommunicated, or become a Schismatic so long as he is Bishop of that Sea, then that he is the visible head of the whole Church, from whose communion whosoever separates becomes a Schismatic: as he who separates from the loyal obedience of the visible head of a Kingdom, becomes a Rebel but because he has no power above him against whom he can rebel, but as a King can never be a Rebel, so not the highest visible governor of the Church can be excommunicated or commit Schism by contempt of the lawful authority of the Church, because he who is the highest of all has no authority in the Church over him, for than he were not the highest.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 277. So might any one in any other Province have done: And yet it follows not that he ought to do so, because he did so. You see now what all your proofs are come too, and how shamefully naked you have left your cause.  William johnson. 
Num. 277. I have so illustrated, and strengthened my instances, (to open them to your understanding) that every one of them, by an argument a paritate rationis onis (ut supra) evinces the Pope's power to have been universal over all Christendom, seeing those Patriarches and Prelates that were within the verge of the Empire obeyed him, upon no other score, save this, that they still conceived him to be, by virtue of the privileges and powers given by our Saviour to St. Peter and his lawful successors, the chief Governor of themselves and of all other Prelates whatsoever, and of the whole Church; and I challenge you to produce one sole instance of Authority from antiquity which says in express terms, that those of the Empire obeyed them because they were members of the Empire, or that his authority reached not without the Empire. Nay even in time of the Council of Ephesus and Chalcedon, Spain though separate from the Empire, obeyed the Roman Bishop: for it was possessed by the Goths an. 414. who have ever since kept it, and the Council of Ephesus began 430. And not long after, an. 475. France was possessed by barbarous Kings, and never since returned to the Empire, yet still remained under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. When England was after converted, betwixt six and seven hundred years, it was no part of the same Empire, yet yielded it obedience to the Bishop of Rome: the like is of many other Western and Northern Countries out of the Empire converted, about, or after these times. See more of this in my reasons against your grand novelty in restraint of general councils, what you mention here of a parity from Canterbury, hath no parity at all. For the English Church rendered obeisance to the Bishop of Canterbury as to the Primate of the English Church only, whereas those in the Empire obeyed the Bishop of Rome, not as chief Bishop only of the Roman ●●mpire, but as having authority over the whole Church in virtue of succession from St. Peter, who received it from Christ, which I will demonstrate hereafter.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 278. You have not named one man that was a Papist (Pope L●●o was the nearest of any man) nor one testimony that ever a Pope of Rome had the government of all the Church without the verge of the Roman Empire; but only that he was to the Roman Church as the archbishop of Canterbury to the English Church: and as between Canterbury and York, so between Rome and Constantinople, there have been contentions for preeminency: but if you can prove Canterbury to be before York, or Rome before Constantinople that will prove neither of them to be Ruler of the antipodes, or of all the Christian world.  William johnson. 
Num. 278. But if you can prove Canterbury to be not only in place and precedency, but in authority and jurisdiction above York, and withal above all the Metropolitans, Primates and Patriarches which were anciently within the Roman Empire, because they acknowledged his authority to be above all the Prelates of God, to have Christ's vineyard committed to his care from Christ, to be the Father to all the Bishops met in general Councils, and they his professed children; acknowledged by them to be their head, and they as parts subject to him etc. And never to have been acknowledged as supreme in spirituals by these in the Empire, because his authority reached (as I have proved the Bishops of Rome to have been acknowledged by them) no farther than the Empire. When I say you shall have proved the Bishop of Canterbury to have been over all the Metropolitans Primates, and Patriarches within the Empire, in this manner, as I have proved the Bishop of Rome to be, you will have proved Canterbury to have had all the preeminences given him by antiquity to be the Supreme spiritual governor of the whole Church. But seeing neither you, nor any one in his right wits, would ever undertake so great a piece of nonsense, I should have wondered you dazzle the eyes of your readers with such empty shows as these, had it not been so ordinary with you. This very argument hath proved, that not only one man, but (as you cannot deny) all the Churches in the Empire acknowledge it, and yet you say I have not proved one man to hold it, whether this be to be termed confidence, or impudence I leave to judgement.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 279. Much less have you proved that ever any Church was of this opinion, that the Pope was by divine Right the Governor of the world, when you cannot prove one man of that opinion. 3. much less have you proved a succession of such a Church from the Apostles, having said as much as nothing to the first 300 years.  William johnson. 
Num. 279. You forget (and have proceeded in that act of oblivion through your whole reply) that I undertook in these instances, no more then to prove against your bold assertion, that within the first 600. 500 and 400 years, there were some at least, who testified the Supremacy of the Roman Bishop over the whole Church by Christ's institution: though therefore my proofs had not been taken out of those who flourished, within the first 300 years, seeing they were within the first 400, they had been of force against you. But you may remember also that I cited St. Cyprian, who was within the first 300, and Vincentius Lyrinensis who witnesss the same of Pope Stephen contemporary with St. Cyprian, and very many of my chief instances prove, V G. in the councils of Nice, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, that it descended from our Saviour, and had been in all ages since the Apostles, and was to be in all future ages.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num 380. And much less have you proved that the whole Catholic Church was of this opinion.  William johnson. 
Num. 380. Whether I have or no, let others judge.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 381. And yet lest of all have you proved, that the whole Church took this Primacy of Rome to be of necessity to the very being of the Church, & to our salvation, and not only ad melius esse, as a point of order.  William johnson. 
Num. 381. I have proved it to have been a matter ever necessary in the Church by Christ's institution, and therefore necessary ad esse, to the being, and not only add been esse, to the perfection of the Church. For seeing some Governors are essential to the Church, as appears Ephes. 4. v. 11, 12, 13. in the order and Hierarchy of those Governors, there must be some who are to be over all the rest in visible government, otherwise neither could schism be avoided, and unity preserved, (as Optatus cited hereafter affirms, l. 2. contra Parmen.) nor would a visible body have a visible head, which would be monstrous.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 382. So that you have left your cause in shameful nakedness, as if you had confessed that you can prove nothing.  William johnson. 
N. 382. If you mean to such eyes as yours, which I have demonstrated either discovered not or mis-saw the face of my arguments, I grant it; but all open and right sighted eyes, I hope will have seen my cause so invested with grace and truth by what I have here replied, that it will have no shame to appear before heaven and earth, before men and angels for its justification.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 383. In the end you return to terms. To what you say about the word (Christians) I only say that it's but equivocally applied to any that profess not all the essentials of Christianity, of which Popery is none, any more than pride is.  William johnson. 
Num. 383. I leave it to judgement, whether this answer, related to my explication as of Christianity (pag. 64. your edit.) have any sense in it. For what though Popery, as you conceit, were no more essential to Christianity then pride is, yet if a Papist hold all the essentials of Christianity, as you hold he does, he may be univocally a Christian. Will you say, that because pride is none of the essentials of Christianity, therefore no proud man holds all the essentials of Christianity? to what purpose then have you added this clause of Pride and Popery? when I speak in general and abstractive terms, not meddling at all with particulars. Now you give no satisfaction to your Reader about the clear notion of an univocal Christian; you tell him here, that an univocal Christian is he who believes all the essentials of Christianity, but through this whole answer you never give him either a distinct catalogue of essentials, or prescribe any direct rule, or means to know which they are, as we shall see hereafter.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 384. About the word (Monarch) in good sadness, do you deny the Pope to be (an imperious sole Commander?) Which of these is it you do deny? not that he is a (Commander) not that he is (imperious) not that he is (sole) in his Sovereignty. I would either you or we knew what you hold or deny. But perhaps the next words show the difference (as temporal Kings.) But this saith not a word wherein they differ from (temporal Kings.)  William johnson. 
384. You are really a strange man to deal withal. Can any one speak more clearly than I have done? I say we hold no such Monarch in the Church, as is an imperious sole Commander, as temporal Kings are, etc. And when I have said all this in sensu conjuncto, and knit my words and sense together as close as I can, you go and pull all in pieces, and ask me if I understand them in sensu diviso? Is not this very handsome think you? Should I say that jane Shore was no honest Christian woman, would you have asked me, which of these is it that I deny, not that she was a woman, not that she was a Christian, not that she was honest in her conversation; would it not have been ridiculous in a high degree? and if upon this you should add, after I had said, she was no honest Christian woman (conform to what you do here) I would either you or I could know what you hold about jane Shore. Would not every one laugh at you? But in sober sadness, did you not understand what I denied, as plainly as what I deny of jane Shore. Hold we him to be an Imperious sole Commander, as temporal Kings are, whom we unanimously affirm to have no power to deprive Church Officers at his pleasure, as Kings have power to put out what Officer soever they please through their whole Kingdom; who is not alone to govern the Church either immediately or mediately as Kings govern their Kingdoms (according to Christ's institution.) But every Bishop being Christ's Officer, and not the Popes as truly as the Pope is within the precincts of his Diocese, are as true Governors of the different respective parts of the Church, as the Pope is of the whole. Now I hope at last you understand me, how Popes differ from temporal Kings.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 385. Sure your following words show not the difference. First Kings may receive power from Christ 2. King's must rule in meekness, charity and humility.  William johnson. 
When we say, he receives power from Christ, you cannot be ignorant, that we understand it of Christ as author of Christian Religion, and not as author of nature and morality, nor can you but know, that temporal Kings, as such, abstract from Christian Religion, and are truly Kings, whether they be Christians or no; they cannot therefore be said in any formal proper sense to receive power from Christ, as he is head of his Church, but from God, as author of nature and morality.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 386. But I think the meekness, charity and humility of Popes hath been far below even wicked Kings (if cruel murdering Christians for Religion, and setting the world on fire, may be witness) as your own. Histories assure us.  William johnson. 
You tear my discourse all in pieces. I join that of governing in charity, etc. to this as Brethren and Children, and you fallaciously divide it; it is not contrary to the humility of a King, to account all in his Kingdom to be his vassals, Substitutes, Officers, but it would be contrary to the humility of a Pope. A King will not be thought cruel and defective in meekness, if he judge a person, and condemn a malefactor to death, but a Pope would. The rest is a pure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I spoke of the Office of Popes, and you of the persons, I of what we hold they ought to do, and you of what they do, or may hap to do. If any personal cruelty have been exercised by Popes, let them answer it, not I, who have not in the least meddled with it here. But I see such fallacies as these in passing à jure, ad factum, and the like are spread thick over your whole answer, yet even in this objected cruelty, we must take your honest word, for here's no other proof, then that you affirm at a venture, our Historians assure us it is so. You'll tell us I hope, in your next, who those Historians are.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 387. The Government of Kings also is for (men's eternal good,) how ever Papists would make them but their executioners in such things.  William johnson. 
Num. 387. Of what Kings? know you not we dispute now in sensu formali, that is, of temporal Kings (for that was my term, and would you have temporal Kings, that is, temporal Governors, as such tend to a spiritual and eternal good, for if as such they tend to a spiritual end, than all temporal Princes, even Turks and Heathens must do so.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 388. Brethren as such, are no subjects, and therefore if the Pope rule men but as brethren, he rules them not by governing authority at all.  William johnson. 
Num. 388. What mean you by brethren as such, are no subjects abstractively? to what purpose? is it also true to say, men and women as such are no subjects, that is, they are not subjects precisely, quatenus under the formal notion of men and women, for then all men and women should be subjects exclusively? that is, their being brethren, repugns to their being subjects. Take heed, that doctrine will be dangerous at Court: what? were not his Majesty's brethren his subjects? or because his Majesty ruled them but as brethren, he ruled them not by any governing authority, as you say here of the Pope: the like is if any elder brother should be Schoolmaster, or General, or Magistrate over his younger brother, did he not rule him by governing authority? And have you not an express prophecy of two brethren, major serviet minori, the greater shall serve the lesser? Nay, calls not Christ himself his Apostles brethren, will you therefore say he ruled them not by governing authority? But you (I suppose very innocently) fall into a gross folly here, when I say he governs them as brethren, you would have my meaning to be, as they are brethren, by a reduplication upon the object, whereas by the term, as brethren, I mean he governs them as brethren use, or aught to be governed, reduplicating upon the act of governing, not upon the object that is to be governed; that is, the chief Governor of Christ's Church, is according to the will and institution of Christ, to govern all Christians as a brother, who is a Superior and Governor of his brethren, and aught to govern them, to wit, in meekness, charity, and humility: and therefore I make all my reduplications and reflections upon the act, when I say, if only for one who hath received power from Christ in meekness, charity, and humility to govern all the rest, for their eternal good, as brethren, or children, I grant it.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 398. Children to him we are not: you must mean it but metaphorically, and what mean you then? Is it that he must do it in love for their good? so also must Kings: so that you have yet expressed no difference at all.  William johnson. 
Num. 389. To what purpose trifle you thus? do I say, Christians are the Pope's natural children? Say I not, as children, and know you not, that nullum simile est idem? who can think they are otherwise then metaphorical children, and he a metaphorical Father? but will you scruple at the Pater noster, because we call God our Father, and consequently ourselves his children, because we are not the proper and natural, but his metaphorical children? when you next talk of governing them in love for their good, and affirm that Kings must do the like, why leave you out the word eternal, which is my epithet, and wherein the force of my words consists? and than tell me I have expressed no difference at all? is this fair? will not every one who hath but half an eye discover such petty slights as these.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 390. But our question is not new, nor in universal terms: what Sovereignty you claim, you know or should know. Are you ignorant that Bellarmine, Boverius, and ordinarily your Writers labour to prove that the Government of the Church is Monarchical, and that the Pope is the Monarch? the supreme head and Ruler, which in English is Sovereign? Are you ashamed of the very cause or Title of it, which you will have necessary to our salvation.  William johnson. 
390. 'Tis one thing, to say the Government is Monarchical, and another to affirm the Pope to be the Monarch (as you do, and Bell. cited by you, does not) of the whole Church, without ever explicating what kind of Monarch you mean. A government may be termed Monarchical which hath a great part of Monarchy in it, though it be not strict and perfect Monarchy, as a man may be called Angelical, though he be no Angel; thus our Authors (and particularly Bellarmine) put the Church-government to have something of the mixed in it, 
Bell. l. 1. de Rom. pont. c. 5. sect. ultimo.  though he esteems it to incline more to Monarchy then to Aristocracy. Whence appears that your inference drawn from a government thus imperfectly Monarchical, to entitle the chief Governor in it, the Monarch of it, without all restriction as you do, is of no force. And of as little force is your other inference grounded in your former mistake that I am ashamed of any title which I hold necessary to salvation; first prove we call the Pope Monarch, and then say I am ashamed of it.   

CHAP. IX.  
Num. 391. Whether the title of the Vice-Christ be accounted either due, or given by sufficient authority, amongst Roman Catholics to the Pope, or accepted by them. Num. 392. Mr. Baxter confounds Vice-Christi, in place of Christ, and Vice-Christus the Vice-Christ. Num. 393. How far the Pope is understood to be in the place of Christ Num. 394. He miscites his Adversaries words. Num. 395. How the Vice-Christ and the Vicar of Christ differ. Num. 396. Why a Deputy for a King may be called the Vice-King, but a Deputy of Christ cannot be called the Vice-Christ. Num. 397. Mr. Baxter makes Vice God, to be a a higher title than Vice-Christ. Num. 398. Mr. Baxter, in place of alleging a sufficient that is a public authority, citys Orators, Poets, Encomiastics, etc. and yet mistake most of those.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 391. Next you say, that you (very much dislike the title of Vice-Christ) as proved and insolent, and utterly disclaim from it, neither was it ever given by any sufficient authority to your Popes, or did they ever accept of it. Reply. Now blessed be God that makes sin a shame to itself, that the Patrons of it dare scarce own it without some paint or vizard.  William johnson. 
Num. 391. Had you first confuted this answer, and then broke out into this exclamation, it had been much more seasonable, but as it stands, it relishes more of passion then of reason; and will appear so, to any who shall consider the weakness of your proofs against it, whereof most consist in a pure digression, by a fallacy usual to you, proceeding à notione secunda, ad primam, from the second notion to the first, or from the title to the thing itself, as we shall now see.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 392. Is not the very life of the cause between you and us, whether the Pope be the universal head of the Church, Vice-Christi, & Vicarius Christi? Are not these the most common titles that Papists give them, and that they take unto themselves?  William johnson. 
Num. 392. Here you begin your fallacy, Vicarius Christi, is indeed a title, but Vice-Christi is none, the one signifies the Vicar of Christ, but the other signifies, in the place or stead of Christ; which having no substantive or demonstrative annexed to it, cannot possibly be a title, for of itself it signifies no determinate substance. Now if you will join to it a substantive, and say, Papa est Vice-Christi, the Pope is in place of Christ, you may make some kind of title to it, but you can never make it that about which we controvert, for that is Vice-Christus, the Vice-Christ; so that all those who are Vice-Christi in the genitive case, that is, the place of Christ, are not Vice-Christi in the nominative, that is, Vice-Christi, which title only is in question betwixt us; (you were (as some of your Parishioners esteemed you) to govern those of Kidderminster, Vice-Christi, in the place of Christ, were you therefore the Vice-Christ of Kiddermunster? Nor is the title of universal head of the Church set down in your illimited terms here, either a title acknowledged by us as due to the Pope, or given to him by us. For that Christ being the sole universal head of the Church, which comprehends the Church militant and triumphant, the term universal head signifies that which is due to Christ only; we therefore acknowledge there is none but Christ himself according to your expression universal head of the Church, nor is there any universal Vice-head, nor Vice-Christ corresponding to that universal head, to be found in the whole Church. Nay, even speaking of the sole militant Church, we never say, without some restriction, the Pope is universal head of the Church, for universal head, comprises as well the internal and invisible, as the visible Governor of the militant Church; now we all deny that the Pope is head in the invisible government of the visible Church, for that manner of government Christ only is the universal head; nor say we, that there is any Vice-christ or Vice-head constituted in the place of Christ, in this invisible direction of the Church. We therefore restrain the term universal head, by this restrictive visible, nor intent we to say any more than this, that the Bishop of Rome is the visible head of the universal visible Church, so far as it is capable of a visible government, together with other Bishops, who are as truly Christ's officers and vice-gerents in their respective governments though subject to the Pope, as he is in his government. And in this sense only can he be termed a vice-Christ, or vice-God, that is holding the place of Christ in the visible government of his Militant Church. But he cannot be styled the vice-Christ which is the sole title about which we now contend, for that imports an absolute Vice-gerency under Christ in all things. Now in the othet sense above explicated every lawful Bishop also or Pastor, may be termed a Vice-Christ and every King a Vice-God in reference to those whom they govern as truly as the Pope can be: yet neither we nor you attribute usually any such title to any of them because they seem neither to suit with Christian humility, nor with the incomparable supereminency of Christ. Now to show that even when they are attributed by some Encomiastics to our Popes, it is done with restrictions as v. g. in terris, upon earth, visibilis, visible etc. And every one who knows any thing knows this is all we mean.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num 393. Nay look back into your own papers here pag. 6. Whether you say not that they are instituted governor's in Christ's place of his whole visible Church.  William johnson. 
Num. 393. You are a man of a strange confidence, I have looked back upon pag. 6. in your edition and find evidently I say not so much as one word of what you cite here, and had you looked back with an even eye, you would have seen no such words nor any thing like them in that place, let all the world see and judge; and in those pag where I advance a proposition about the Pope's supremacy p. 23. I have not those words, in Christ's place, in which only you ground your argument: let the world again see and judge, my proposition there is this, that the Pope is chief governor on earth in matters belonging to the soul next under Christ where I limit the extent of his government, by saying on earth, and the power in governing, by not saying in all matters belonging to the soul, but in matters belonging to the soul, that is no other save those, though not in all those, to wit not in the internal illuminations, graces, and influences, inspired by the holy ghost into the hearts of Christians, whereby it is evident, I speak such things, as are visible, and external, for that restriction was added, to distinguish his power in government, from that of temporal Princes, who can govern only the external. If you deal so unfairely in your citations, even where every one with the turn of a leaf can discover you: what credit can your readers afford to those which they cannot examine? Corruption.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 394. 2. Doth not Bellarmine (as I have cited else where) labour to prove, that it is not as an Apostle that the Pope succeeds Peter but as a head of the Church in Christ's stead? doth not Boverius cited in my key labour to prove him the Vicar of Christ, and to be Vice-Christi?  William johnson. 
Num. 394. Both Bellarmine and Boverius, make him head no farther in Christ's place, then in order to the visible government over the Militant Church; nor make they him the vice-Christus, the vice-Christ, but to be vice-Christi in place of Christ, or Vicarius Christi; which I have showed to be mainly different from the title of vice-Christus, the vice-Christ, for that put absolutely, seems to impart that he is in the place of Christ in the entire government, of the militant Church, both visible and invisible, and that the Pope as the vice-Christ, can infuse illuminations, and spiritual graces into souls, and knew them and regulated them perfectly as Christ did whilst he was upon earth; and in the visible government of the Church, that he hath a power to displace any Bishop, or Prelate at his pleasure through the whole Church, as if they were his own officers, and not the officers of Christ. And here appears the disparity, in that which you being for a parity, of those who rule in the place of a King, to be styled vice-regis vice-kings, for by reason that Kings have no other governing power save what is visible, all the acts of that power may be communicated, by way of vicegerency to him who is vicegerent of the King, who therefore may be absolutely styled the vice-King, because all those acts are committed to him by the King; but in our case the chief and primacy only of government, being the internal influxes into the soul, are not committed to the Pope; so that he cannot be absolutely termed vice-Christus, the vice-Christ, but still with a restraint and limitation, or secundum quid; And by th●●s appears also your fallacy, that first you proceed a part, ad totum, from one part of government, to the whole; and then a secundum quid, ad simpliciter, to one who in some consideration only is in the place of Christ, to wit the Pope, or vicar of Christ, to an other who is in all respects, and absolutely in place of a King, that is a viceroy or vice-King. I never therefore contended with you that the Pope may not be styled Vice-Christ, with restriction or limitation, but that the title of the vice-Christ absolutely put is not as you put it, due to him.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 395. And what fit English have we for the King's deputy in a distant Kingdom, who is vice-Regis, than the vice-King? or a Chancellor's deputy, than (the vice Chancellor?) vice-Christi is your own common word, and vicarius Christi, none more common scarce than the latter: and what English is there fit for this, than the vice-Christ, or vicar of Christ.  William johnson. 
Num. 395. Your joining together the vice-Christ and vicar of Christ as Sinonomas is frivolous, for they have a quite different signification, when vice-Christ, is put absolutely. and your making vice-Christi in place of Christ, to be the same with vice-Christus, vice-Christ, is absonus: the rest is answered. The English therefore, to signify, how the Pope is in place of Christ is the vicar of Christ, not the vice-Christ.  Mr. Baxter. 
Nun 396. It is evident indeed the very term that expresseth properly as men can speak, the true point and life of the controversy between us. And how could you suffer your pen to set down that the Popes did never accept of this, when it is their own common phrase: (vice-Christi, & vicarius Christi?)  William johnson. 
Num, 396. I never suffered my pen to deny the title of Vicarius Christi, the vicar of Christ, nor that he is vice-Christi, in place of Christ in his visible government; but that which I deny is, that we either use to style them or they assume the title, of vice-Christ, and you have not the consideration to distinguish betwixt vice-Christi, and vice-Christus: which every school boy is able to distinguish.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 397. But here again remember (and let it be a witness against you) that you dislike and utterly disclaim the very name that signifieth the Papal power, as proud and insolent. And if you abhor Popery while you 'tice men to it, let my soul abhor it, and let all that regard their souls abhor it. blessed be that light that hath brought it to be numbered with the works of darkness.  William johnson. 
Num. 397. All will pity you, who see you writ thus confidently upon mere phantasms, and upon your own misconceit of your adversaries words; and sure your light must be very dim, which cannot distinguish betwixt vice-Christi and vice-Christus? but you have involved in the ensuing paragraph another incongruity, you say the the title of vice-Christ, is not the highest, which the Pope's claim, and to prove it you nominate a higher and that is the title of vice-God whereby one would take you to be an Arian, and consequently (in your principles) to be no Christian, then be like you believe God to be higher than Christ, and so believe him not to be God: and you take these two with a third, I say the title of vice-Christ was never given by sufficient authority to our Popes, neither did they ever accept of it, where it is evident I speak of a solemn authoritative attribution, and acceptation of such titles usually and publicly exercised by our Popes, not of a rethorical expression by some particular persons or a negative silence by some particular Pope in not contradicting, or tacitly accepting such expressions, and therefore, I say not of any Pope, as speaking in particular, but of our Popes, taking them collectively as assenting to and useing such titles. Now you answer by a fallacy proceeding a part ad totum as if you would argue this man is endued with reason, therefore all sensible creatures are endued with reason, you discourse thus, some particular person may have given, and some particular Pope negatively accepted of such rethorical, or not legal expressions. This will appear by your subsequent proofs.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 398. Were it not more tedious than necessary, I would cite you the words▪ (vice-Christi & vicarius Christi) out of Popes and multitudes of writers. But alas that's not the highest, the vice-God is a title that they have not thought insolent, or words of the same signification, would you have my proof? pardon it then for proving your pen so false and deceitful (that's not my fault.)  William johnson. 
Num. 398. The first part of this is only a transition, and so requires no answer. The second is answered in the fore going paragraph.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 399. Pope Julius the second in his general Council at Lateran, saith [Cont. Pragmat. sanct. monitor. Binius, vol. 4. pag. 560.] Though the institutions of sacred Canons, holy Fathers, and Popes of Rome and their decres be judged immutable, as made by divine inspiration; yet the Pope of Rome, who, though of unequal merits, holdeth the place of the eternal King, and the maker of all things, and all laws on earth, may abrogate these decres when they are abused. Here from the judge of Faith itself, you hear that the Pope holds the place of the eternal King, the maker of all things, and laws.  William johnson. 
Num. 399. In this proof is neither vice-Christ nor vice-God, if it be, show it in your next. Every Prince spiritual or temporal holds the place of the eternal King, the maker of all things, and laws, and yet they assume not to themselves the title of vice-God.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 400. Pope Sixtus Quartus in passagio sive Bulla contra Turcos, sent to Philip Palatine Elector. 1481. in Breheri tom. 2 pag. 162. vol. 2. saith (Vniversos Christianos Principes, ac omnes Christi fideles requirere eisque mandare vice Dei, cujus locum, quamvis immeriti tenemus in terris, that is, we are constrained (to require all Christian Princes, and all believers in Christ, and to command them, in the stead of God, whose place on earth we hold, though undeserving) Here is a vice-God, holding his place on earth, and commanding all Princes and Christians to war against the Turks in God's stead. note, vide in margin. Here is neither etc.  William johnson. 
Num. 400. Here's is neither vice-Christ, nor vice-God, but only the Pope commanding in the place or stead of God, and you now confound vice-dei, and vice-Deus, as you did before, vice-Christi, and vice-Christus.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 400. I know to a particular people God's Ambassadors are said to speak in his name and stead as if God did beseech men by us, 2 Cor. 5.19. But this is only as to a narrow and limited Embassage, not that they hold God's place on earth, as Rulers over the universal Church.  William johnson. 
Num. 401. This answer of yours overthrows your argument, and shows evidently, that every lawful governor temporal, or spititual, is Vice-Dei, or Vice-Christi, in the name of God or Christ, to govern others. I give also a limited embassage, or Vice-government to our Popes, that is, no farther then in visible and external government. And will you adventure to condemn the ruling of the whole visible Church on earth, to be proud and insolent? was not every one of the Apostles, sent by our Saviour into the whole world? and had not every one a part, received power to govern the whole Church in the name and place of our Saviour? proves not this text of the 2 Cor. 5.19. so much? where he names no particular people or nation, but affirms that they being Ambassadors from Christ, God by them exhorted the world, which Christ had reconciled; and that I conceive extends itself to all Nations in the world. Did not the Council of the Apostles, Act. 15. govern the whole Church in place of Christ, and in God's stead? did not every Apostle in their canonical Epistles give rules, and Commands in God's stead to all Christians? were they therefore Vice-Gods?  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 402. The same Pope Sixtus. 4. saith ibid. pag. 163. Sola superest Romana sedes, sedes utique immaculati agni: sedes viventis in secula seculorum: Haec quippe praedictas Patriarchales genuit Ecclesias, quae quasi filiae in ejus gremio residebant, & in circuitu tanquam famulae in ipsius adsistebant obsequio, that is only the Roman Church remaineth, the seat of him that liveth for ever (my flesh trembleth to write these things:) this did before beget the foresaid Patriarchal Churches (notorious falsehood) which rested as daughters in her bosom, and as servants stood about in her obedience.  William johnson. 
Num. 402. Why should your flesh tremble at these words, I am sorry to see you so subject to quaking upon so small occasion. Read you not a thousand times over in holy writ that Jerusalem is called the city of God, and the city of the living God? is not the ark of the tabernacle, called the seat of God? why then may not the sea of Rome be styled the seat of God, and of his immaculate lamb? therefore was Jerusalem called the city of God, (amongst other reasons) because the chief Priest of God's Church resided there.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 403. Here you see from the Pope himself, that the other Patriarches are his servants, and so to obey him, and that Rome begat them all (that were before it except Constantinople) and neither made Christians nor Patriarch by it, and that Rome now is become the seat of the immaculate Lamb, and of him that liveth for ever.  William johnson. 
Num. 403. But see you not, the text speaks of Pat●●iarchal Seas, and how can you say there were any Patriarchal Seas before Rome was one, seeing you conceit they were all constituted together in the Council of Nice. I have showed that all obedience, argues not servitude, or being the servants of those we obey, Children obey their Parents, and Scholars their Masters, and people their pastors, yet are they not his servants. And see you not, that he says they are only tanquam famulae in some short attenders, and joins to it, quasi filiae, that they are as children, nor speaks he of the Patriarches wherein many Millions, who were quasi filiae, and tanquam famulae, as daughters, and attendants of the Roman sea, and the whole custom and constitution of those Patriarchates, was to serve as mediums, and instruments that the whole Church might more facilely be governed by the sea Apostolic, as we shall see hereafter.  Mr. Baxter 
Num. 404. Truly the reading of your own historians, and the Pope's Bulls. etc. have more persuaded me, that the Pope is Antichrist, than the Apocalypse hath done, because I disinherited my understanding of it.  William johnson. 
Num. 404. Truly Sir, if I may be plain with you without offence, by what you collect from these Historians, Popes &c, you had reason to mistrust your understanding these, as well as the Apocalypses etc. which I leave to judgement.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 405. Benedictus de Benedictis wrote a book against Dr. Whitaker, to prove its as false that the Pope is Antichrist, as that christ is Antichrist, and dedicated it to Pope Paul 5. with this inscription. Paul 5. the Vice-God printed at Bononia. 1608.  William johnson. 
Num. 405. Suppose that were so, is Benedictus de Benedictis a sufficient authority, being but a single Author, or Paul 5. the generality of Popes? you know I speak in such cases and not of particulars.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 406. Caraffas' Theses printed at Naples 1609. had the same inscription (Paulo 5. Vice Deo) to Paul 5. Vice-God  William johnson. 
Num. 406. The like is of Caraffa.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 407. Alcazar in Apocal. in carmine ad Johannem Apostolum, saith of the same Pope, Paul 5. Quem numinis instar, vera colit pietas: whom as a God true Piety adores.  William johnson. 
Num. 407. Nor is Alcazar more than one private, person who when he plays the Poet, uses Licentia Poetica, qui dlibet audendi.   

CHAP. X.  
NUm. 408. What Marcellus said to julius 2. Num. 410. Mr. Baxter makes the gloss upon the Canon Law, to be the Canon Law; he misscites the words of the gloss, whether the Glosser call the Pope God, or the Printer erred in inserting the word Deum into some late impression. Num. 412. Antonius Puccius gives no more to the Pope, than Pulcheria and the Council of Chalcedon gave to the Emperor Martian. Num. 413. Begnius mistaken and mistranslated. Stephanus Petracensis miscited. St. Bernard condemned. St. Antonine miscalled by Mr. Baxter. Num. 414. the Ecumenical power of the four first Councils vindicated by authority and reason.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 408. Christopher Marcellus in his Oration before Pope Julius 2. in the approved Council at Latarane, Sess. 4. (and you take not contradicting to be consenting) and verily to such blasphemy in a Council, so it is, saith thus, Quum tantae reipublicae unicus atque supremus princeps fueris institutus, beatissime Pontifex, cui summa data potestas ad divinum injunctum imperium, etc.) & ante (sub tuo imperio) & (unus Princeps qui summam in terris habeat potestatem.) But these are small things. Teque omnis aevi, omnium seculorum, omnium gentium principem & caput appellant.) But yet (the Prince and head of all ages and Nations, is too low (cura, Pater beatissime, ut sponsae tuae forma decorque redeat.) But yet to make the Church (his Spouse) is nothing (cura denique, ut salutem quam dedisti nobis, ut vitam & spiritum non amittamus: Tu enim Pastor, tu medicus, tu gubernator, tu cultor, tu denique alter Deus in terris) That is (see that we lost not the health that thou hast given us, and the life and spirit. For thou art the Pastor, the Physician etc. To conclude, thou art another God on earth.)  William johnson. 
Num. 408. Marcellus is indeed of more concern, because he speaks in a Council, but the world may see he played the Orator, his first expressions are no way extravagant, but true, and proper; that of divinum imperium is so a●●tered by you &c, that it seems a riddle, you interlace it thus, ad divinum imperium, etc. & ante (sub tuo imperio) & (unus princeps qui summam in terris habeat potestatem, to the divine command enjoined, etc.) and before (under thy command, etc. and (one prince which hath the highest power in earth) riddle me, riddle me, what's this? Now that particle ad divinum injunctum imperium is not spoken of the Pope's power, but of God's divine command, obliging julius to take care of those who were committed to him, for he ●●ayes thus, cum igitur tantae-reipublicae unicus atque supremus princeps fueris institutus cui summa data potestas, ad divinum injunctum imperium, tuum est, quemadmodum oppressum armis erexisti, amplificasti, ita moribus depravatam rulesiam reformare, corrigere, illustrare. That of styling the Church his Spouse, had he meant it of the whole Church militant and triumphantly had been very extravagant, and directly false and scandalous, but applying it only to the visible Church on earth, which is the more ignoble part of Christ's Church; I see not why that may not be termed, according to the sole external government of it, his Spouse: as much as particular Bishoprics or parts of the visible Church, are usually styled the Spouses of their respective Bishops, and they said to be espoused to those respective Churches. His exhorting julius to preserve the health, life, and spirit which he had given them, is easily explicated, that he both gave them, and preserved them, by a careful direction teaching an external governing the visible Church. His last styling him alter Deus in terris, another God upon earth, is that which offends you most, but had you considered, that Moses in holy Scripture is made by God himself, the God of Pharaoh; that God titles those who are in lawful authority Gods, ego dixi dij estis, I have said you are Gods; and that St. Paul affirms that all Gods true servants, and children are participes divinae naturae, participant of the divine nature, which are as high and much higher expressions, than Marcellus gives here to julius, you would not I suppose so confidently have impeached him of blasphemy; nor indeed could, unless you make both St. Paul and the holy Scriptures, nay and God himself, to pronounce blasphemies in applying the like titles to living men: especially seeing that as the holy Scriptures give ground enough to interpreters, to expound them in such accommodated senses, that the●●e are not the least appearances of errors, much less of blasphemy in them, so Marcellus here gives all the world to understand by many other passages of this Oration, he speaks in such a manner usual to Orators here, that there is not the least show of blasphemy at all in them. Now the Council having heard the whole Oration, and not only those parcels, which you have spitefully culled out of it, discovered clearly what his meaning was, and thereupon the Fathers let these expressions pass, as flashes of Rhetoric.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 409. If you say that the Pope accepteth not this; I answer, it was in an Oration spoken in a general Council, in his presence, without contradiction, yea by his own command, as the Orator professeth (jussistitu, Pater sancte, & parui) (you commanded me, holy Father, and I obeyed, Binnius, pag. 562, 563, 564. you may find all this.  William johnson. 
Num. 409. I reply, the Pope accepted it in that same sense as the Council did, and as the other clauses, concealed by you, declared it to be Marcellus his meaning, and no man who reads the whole Oration, can suspect the least thought of blasphemy against Christ, or God in it.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 410. In gloss. extravag. Johan. 22. de verb. signific. c. cum inter, in glos. Credere Dominum nostrum Deum Papam conditorem dictae decretalis & istius, non potuisse statuere prout statuit, haereticum censeatur. So that by your Law, we must believe the power of your Lord God the Pope, or be heretics. If you meet with any Impressions that leave out (Deum) take Rivets note. Haberi in editione formata jussu Greg. 12. à correctoribus Pontificiis, nec in censuris Glossae jussu. Pii. 5. editis, quae in expurgatorio indice habentur Dei Erasmum fuisse.  William johnson. 
Num. 410. You err more than once here. First you commit a tautology, in repeating the words in glossa twice without any necessity: for you say thus, in glossa extravag. joan. 22. de verb. significat. cap. Cum inter, in glossae montibus inquit erant, & erant in montibus illis. 2. You misplace the words themselves, for whereas the Gloss set forth by order of Greg. 13. Colum. 153. verbo declaramus, hath the words thus. Credere autem Dominum Deum nostrum Papam conditorem dicti decret. & istius, sic non potuisse statuere, etc. you transplace the words thus, Credere Dominum nostrum Deum Papam conditorem dicti decret. etc. where you join the words, Deum & Papam immediately together, which are disjoined in the Gloss. Thirdly, you corrupt the Text, for the words are haereticum censeretur, it would be thought heretical, and you put it, haereticum senseatur, let it be judged heretical, or be it judged heretical, and this to make your Reader believe it is a Law or Precept, put in the Imperative mood, when it is no more than the judgement of a private Doctor, glozing upon the Law, or giving an interpretation of it, and by this false play, you give a seeming force to your immediate inference, drawn from these words, viz. So that by your Law (say you) we must believe the power of your Lord God the Pope, or be heretics. Whereby you manifestly impose upon your Reader, that these words are our law, whereas you yourself confess, they only are a part of the gloss, which was made by a particular person, or interpretation of our Law. Fiftly hence follows that you contradict yourself within four lines, for in the first and second line of this paragraph you confess twice over, 'tis but a gloss of the law, and in the fift line you say it is the law itself. Your seventh and ninth error is, that you give here a non proof for a proof, for seeing you acknowledge some impressions have not the word Deum, God, as appears evidently in the edition of Paris An. 1522. where the word Deum, God, is not 63 years older than that of Gregory the 13. How will you ever prove this Glosser used this word but that it was ignorantly added by some copiest, or false print to the text. Yet suppose it were certain (as I have proved it is not) that this Glosser had adjoined the Word Deum, God, it would be no proof at all; for in this paragraph he refers what he delivered there, to the correction of the Church, Si in premissis vel in aliquo premissarum contingeret me errare, if (saith he) I should happen to err in any of the premises.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 410. Pope Nicholas 3. de elect. cap. fundamenta in 6. saith, that Peter was assumed into the Society of the individual Trinity.  William johnson. 
Num. 410. What then? ergo he calls the Pope the Vice-Christ or the Vice-God? that's right. Says not St. Paul, that God hath called us into the Society of his Son? are we therefore made equal to him, or Vice-Christ? says he not, that if we accompany him in his passion, we shall accompany him in his resurrection? & is not that as much as to be assumed into the Society of the individual Trinity? are not Children taken by their Parents into their Society, are they therefore not inferior to them? what consequences are these? nay are not all the holy Angels & Saints in heaven in the Society of the individual Trinity? do they not see him face to face and as he is? is not that to be in Society with him?  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 411. Angelus Polit. in orat. ad Alexan. 6. Pontificem ab Divinitatem ipsam sublatum asserit: He saith, the Pope was taken up to the Godhead itself.  William johnson. 
Num. 411. He might have said as much of any Saint in Heaven, without making them Gods, or Vice-Gods; are they not all taken up to the divinity, when they enjoy God, and see him face to face? collect if you can from these words, a confutation of what I affirm, that the title of Vice-Christ, was given by sufficient authority to the Popes, and accepted by them? are all the Saints and Angels in heaven Vice-christs'?  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 412. At the foresaid Council at Lateran, Antonius Puccius in an Oration before Leo the tenth in the Council, and after published by his favour, said (Divinae tuae Majestatis conspectus, rutilante cujus fulgore imbe●●il●●es oculi mei caligant. His eyes were darkened with beholding the Pope's Divine Majesty. None contradicted this.  William johnson. 
Num. 412. But what if you collect the title of Vice-Christ, from any of these sentences here cited by you, is either Antonius Puccius, or Simon Beginus, or Stephanus Patracensis, or Paulus Emilius, or August. Triumphus, or Zabarella, or Bertrandus, of sufficient authority to confer a solemn title upon Popes, because in particular rhetorical Euloginus, and some of them haply by way of assentation, they extend their expressions farther, then either the Church Canons, or the consent of classic Authors warrant them? If you had proceeded like a Scholar, to confute my assertion, you should have alleged either some Popes, who inserted Vice-Christus, Vice-Christ, into their titles, or, who taught it in their public Bulls, or writings to be due to them; or at least some Council or consent of Catholic Doctors, who give him that title, or prove it to belong to him. But to draw a solemn title, from Orators, Poets, Rhetoritians & Encomiastics what is it but a trifle & to give rather an entertainment than an argument to you●● Readers. And for Antonius Puccius he says no more here to the Pope, than was g●●ven in time of the Council of Chacedon to the Emperor Martian by Pulcheria the Empress, who says, Literae Divinitatis ejus; the letters of his Divinity: and even by the Fathers of that Council Martian is called divinissimus most divine ●●on. Chal. Act. apud Binium Tom. 2. p. 106.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 413. In the same Council, Simon Beginus Modrusiensis Episcopus, in an oration Sess. 6. calls Leo the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the root of Jesse, him whom they had looked for as the Saviour.  William johnson. 
Num. 413. It seems you either took these authorities on trust, or read them very cursorily over. Beginus says not Radix jesses'; the root of jesse, (as you have it) but Radix David the root of David. And his meaning is perverted by you, culling out those words from the rest, conjoined to them in the Oration: for it is evident that he gives Pope Leo these titles, in allusion to his name, and applies them only restrictively, to the saving, or preserving the Roman Church from the invasions of Turks and Heretics, then appearing, and threatening Christendom: this is so evident, that no man can read the oration, and not see it. Now what crime is there in calling him a Saviour, in this particular external preservation. Why did you not fall as heavy upon the holy Scripture judicum 3, 15. for intitling Ehud a Saviour, and 4 Reg. 13.5. that the same title is given to joas. But here you show your spleen and cunning in translating the word Salvatorem, the Saviour, as if Beginus made the Pope to be Christ, he only having due to him the title, of being called the Saviour.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 414. In the same Council Sess. 10. Steph. Patracensis Archiep. saith, (Reges in compedibus magnitudinis magni regis liga, & nobiles in manicis ferreis censurarum constringe, quoniam tibi data est omnis potestas in coelo & in terra) and before (qui totum dicit, nihil excludit.) So that all power in Heaven and Earth is given to the Pope.  
Paulus Emilius de gestis Francor. lib. 7. saith that the Sicilian Ambassadors lay prostrate at the Pope's feet, & thrice repeated, thou that takest away the sins of the world, have mercy upon us.  
And prove to me, that ever any such man was reprehended for these things by the Popes of late▪ Augustinus Triumphus in praefat. sum. ad Johan. 22. saith that the Pope's power is infinite: for great is the Lord, great is his power, & of his greatness there is no end.  
And qu. 36. ad 6. He saith, that (the Pope influenceth, or giveth) the Motion of direction, and the sense of cognition, into all the members of the Church, for in him we live and move and have our being.  
And a little after he saith, (The will of God, and consequently of the Pope, who is his vicar, is the first and highest cause of all Corporal and spiritual motions)  
Would you have more witness of the falsehood of your words. Saith Zabarella I. C. lib de Schism. Innocent 7. and Bened. pag. 20. For this long time past, and even to this day, those that would please the Popes, persuaded them that they could do all things: and so they might do what they pleased, even things unlawful, and so more than God.)  
Antonius' part 3. tit. 21. cap. 5.4. Saith, the Pope receiveth faithful adorations, prostrations, and kisses of his feet, which Peter permitted not from Cornelius, nor the Angel from John the Evangelist.  
Cardinalis Bertrandus Tract. de Origin. jurisd. q. 4. num. 4. (& in Glos. extrag. come. l. 1. fol. 12.) saith, Because jesus Christ the Son of God while he was in this world, and even from Eternity, was a natural Lord, and by natural right could pronounce the sentence of deposition on Emperors, or any others, and the sentence of damnation, and any other, as upon the Persons which he had created, and endowed with natural and free gifts, and also did conserve; it is his will that on his account his vicar may do the same things. For the Lord should not seem discreet (that I may speak with his reverence) unless he had left behind him one vicar that can do all these things.  
Tell me now whether you said true in the Paragraph about the title Vice-Christ? yea, whether it be not much more that hath been given and accepted.  
But what name else is that you agree on as proper to express the power which is controverted? I know no name so fitted to the real controversy; and therefore in disclaiming the Name, for aught I know, you disclaim your cause, and confess the shame of Popery. If he that seeks to the King of England, should say, he disclaimeth the title of the King as insolent and proud, doth he not allow me to conclude the same of the thing, which he concludeth of the proper name? the Name (Papa) (Pope) you know (its like) was usually by the ancients given to other Bishops as well as to him of Rome; and therefore that cannot distinguish him from other men: the same I may say of the titles (Dominus Pater sanctissimus, Dei amantissimus, and many such like) And for (summus Pontifex) Baronius tells you (Martirol. Rom. April. 9) that (it was the ancient Custom of the Church to call all Bishops, not only Pontifices, Popes, but the highest or chief Popes) citing Hierom. Ep. 99 And for the word head of the Church, or of all Bishops, it hath been given to Constantinople, that yet claimeth not (as Nilus tells you) neither a precedency to Rome, nor an universal Government, much less as the Vice-Christ. And that the Bishop of Constantinople was called (the Apostolic Universal Bishop) Baronius testifieth from an old Vatican monument, which, on the other side calls Agapetus (Episcoporum Princeps.) the Title (Apostolic) was usually given to others. Jerusalem was called the (Mother of the Churches.) A Council gave Constantinople the Title of (universal Church) which though Gregory pronounced so impious and intolerable for any to use, yet the following Popes made an agreement with Constantinople, that their Patriarch should keep his Title of universal Patriarch, and the Bishop of Rome be called (the universal Pope) which can signify nothing proper to him, (the name Pope being common) more than (universal Patriarch) doth the foundations and Pillars of the Church, and the Apostles successors: yea Peter's successors were Titles given to others as well as him, and more than these. It being therefore the point in controversy between us, whether the Bishop of Rome be in the place of Christ or as his Vicar, the Head, Monarch or Governor of the Church universal; and the terms (Vice-Christi, & Vicarius Christi) being those that Popes and Papists choose to signify their claim, what other sho●●l●● I use?  William johnson. 
Num. 414. This discourse of yours is defective many ways. First it is fallacious, ex insufficient enumeratione partium, For amongst all the titles you have reckoned you have not that of Pontifex maximus (and the like may be said of many others) which is peculiar to the Bishop of Rome, and was never attributed to any other, nor was any other ever entitled, Vicarius-Christi, the Vicar of Christ, nor Episcopus universalis Ecclesiae, Bishop of the universal Church, nor Caput omnium sacerdotum Dei, the head of all Priests of God, save the Pope; see how much you are out in the accounts. Secondly, it is corrupt, for you fall again (as you did in your key ut supra) to translate Pontifex Pope, and summus Pontifex, Chief Pope. Thirdly you assert the same things without proof, as that Head of the Church was given to Constantinople that the Popes made an agreement with Constantinople; that their Patriarch should keep the title of universal Patriarch, and the Bishop of Rome be called the universal Pope. Fourthly you speak equivocally, for though summus Pontifex (as Baronius notes) was given anciently to all Bishops; yet that was in relation to inferior Clarks, not to all, even Bishops, metropolitans, and Patriarches, as it is given to the Bishop of Rome. So that Summus Pontifex in Baronius his sense signifies no more than a chief or highest Priest, but ascribed to the Pope it signifies the chief and the highest Bishop, and is consignificant with Pontifex Maximus, which Baronius affirms to be peculiar to the Pope, as I have already noted: you equivocate also in the title of Saint Peter's successors, as I have declared above, for though other Bishops may be said to be his successors secundum quid in some part of his Ecclesiastical power, viz, as he was a Bishop, yet none can be said to be his successor simpliciter, absolutely and entirely, that is in the fullness of his power, as he was Prince of the Apostles, and chief Bishop of God's visible Church, as it is visible, save the Bishop of Rome; for the reason above alleged by me, and thus much yourself must grant, according to your own principles; for though you assert other Bishops to be his successors in his Episcopal dignity, yet, seeing you grant him a precedency of place before all other Bishops and Patriarches, as Saint Peter had precedency before all the rest of the Apostles, for otherwise he could not have been as the Ancient Fathers familiarly call him, Princeps Apostolorum, the Prince and chief amongst the Apostles, for that must at least signify a principality in place and rank, seeing I say you yield him this precedency, none can have been successor to Saint Peter in the full extent of his dignity, save the Bishop of Rome.  
As to the particular Authors you cite here, you have very ill luck in your citations, you first produce these words qui totum dicit, nihil excludit, as spoken by Stephanus Patracensis, when they are St. Bernard's words, and cited by this Stephanus, out of his book the consideratione to Eugenius the Pope, and to which words of St. Bernard Stephanus Alcides in this place▪ So that you cannot condemn him, unless you condemn Saint Bernard for using that allusion out of Scripture to the Pope. The meaning of this Author is no more than this, that he having before termed the Church Coelum Heaven, he prosecutes that metaphor, and by Heaven means nothing but Ecclesiastical persons, and by earth those of the laity; for he speaks first of Bishops and Prelates, and then of Christian Kings and Princes, saying to the Pope, Et vera reformatio fiat tam in spiritualibus, quam in temporalibus, ubicunque terrarum tuo decreto diffusa fuerit, after which he adds immediately, Accipe ergo gladium divinae potestatis etc. Quia tibi data est omnis potestas in caelo & in terra. Antoninus, whom you very leardnedly call Antonius, in that place of his History, (if you mean that) has not one word, of what you cite here. Paulius Emilius, Augustin, Triumphus. Zabarella, and Bertrandus I have not yet seen, but these are only particular Authors, not of sufficient authority (which I required) to confer the title of the Vice-Christ upon Popes, nor yet do they so much as mention any such title. Now these authorities were either alleged by you to confute my position, denying the title of Vice-Christ was given him by sufficient authority; or they so many pure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and proofs in the air: you pretend by these allegations, to prove, against my assertion, that the title of the Vice-Christ is given by authority to our Popes, and accepted by them, and to prove this, you cite five particular Authors, whereof not so much as one, names the title of the Vice-Christ. Is not this as much as to say, they give him not the title of Vice-Christ, ergo, they give him the title of Vice-Christ? Sure you dreamed of logic, when you writ this, yet farther, if these five authorities prove any thing against us, tis, that they make the Pope not the Vice-Christ, but Christ himself, or of equal power with him; and one of them that the Pope is of greater power than God himself, which is directly contrary to your pretence, for no Vice-King is the King, nor of equal power with the King. If you reply, in proving they make him equal to God, and Christ etc. They prove more than was undertaken to be proved, and that they make him higher than the Vice-Christ. And secondly you may please to remember, you had two things to prove, the first, that the Popes were held by sufficient authority amongst us to be the Vice-Christ, and secondly that the Popes accepted of that title. Now though you had proved that some have given them eulogiums, sounding something more than the Vice-Christ, yet that will neither prove it was done by sufficient authority, nor, unless you prove the Popes have accepted them, (which you never so much as essay to do) your intent in these prooss; for the authorities you allege are not sufficient to ground a public & solemn title, so that your Thesis is left bare and naked yet without proof. You say here, the ancient Councils, though c●●ld General, yet were but of one principality, that is as (you have often affirmed) their authority extended no farther than the Empire, so that in effect they were not truly general, but national, or provincial. Now I have already produced many reasons to repress this your grand novelty, and proved manifestly that in some of these Councils, were many Bishops out of Spain, France, and Germany, or at least that these Councils had power and jurisdiction over the Churches in those Nations, after they were separated from the Roman Empire under other Kings and Governors. I will now endeavour to show, that there were extra-imperial Bishops in the four first Councils, and that such as were out of the Empire subjected themselves to their determinations, as to such, as were obligatory through the whole Church, concerning the first.  
In the first Council of Nice, Theophilus Gothiae Metropolis, Bishop of Gothia, in the farthest parts of the North beyond Germany Dominus Bospori, Bishop of Bosporus a city of Thracia, Cimmeria or India, as Cosmographers declare the Bishop of Botra, a City of this name is found in Arabia, and Sala, a Town also of great Phrygia, the higher Pannonia, and Armenia is so called as Ptolomeus notes, l. 4. c. 1. Iohan●●es Persidis of Persia, which was not under the Roman Empire, as you acknowledge above.  
In the first Council of Constantinople, the second General, were three Bishops of Scythia. And Etherius Anchialensis, now Anchialos, is a City in Thracia, not far from great Apollonia.  
In the first Council of Ephesus, the third General, was Phebamon Coptorum Episcopus, the Bishop of Kopti, Theodulus Elusae Episcopus, anciently a City of Arabia, Theodorus Gadarorum Episcopus, of that name is a City in Cauà-syria. In the Council of Chalcedon, the fourth General, was present Antipater Bostrorum Episcopus, a City in Arabia, ut supra. Olympius Scythopoleos, which is a City of the Scythians in Coele. syria. Eustathius Gentis Saxacenorum, of Saraca, there is a City so called in Arabia-Foelix. Constantinus Episcopus Bostrorum in Arabia. Subscripsit quidam pro Glaco Gerassae Episcopo, Gerasa is a City in Coele-syria. Now 'tis evident that the Fathers of those general Councils in all their decrees, constitutions and Canons, intended to oblige all Christians through the whole world, and thereby demonstrated themselves to have jurisdiction over the whole Church, and never so much as insinuated that their authority was limited within the precincts of the Empire. Thus the Council of Ephesus says their decrees was for the good of the whole world. Thus the Council of Chalcedon, act. 7 apud Bin. tome 2. pag. 105. declares the Church of Antioch to have under its government Arabia, and act. 16. cap. 28. apud Bin. (which you hold for a Genuine Canon,) that the Bishop of Constance should have under him certain Churches in barbarous Nations, which you must prove to have been then under the Empire. The first Council of Constance (in that Canon which you admit about the authority of the Bishop of Constantinople) makes a decree concerning those Churches which were amongst the Barbarians, that they should be governed according to the ancient custom, no ways restraining the Canon to those only which were under the Empire. Thus Nicephorus lib. 15. hist. Ecclesiast. c. 16. relates that Leo the Emperor writ to the Bishops of all Provinces together (circularibus per orbem literis ad Ecclesias missis, Leo haec sic ad omnes ubique Episcopos misit; which he accounts, were above a thousand) to have them subscribe to the Council of Chalcedon. And in correspondence to those letters of the Emperor, the Bishops of the second Armenia, which seem to have been out of the Empire, writ an answer, wherein they affirm the Council of Nice conferred peace upon all the Catholic Churches founded through the whole world; to wit, by teaching them to defend 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against Arius, and call the Council of Chalcedon twice ecumenical and general; and Adelphus a Bishop of Arabia subscribes amongst the rest to this Epistle.  
The Bishops of the second Mesnia, which you must prove to have then been under the Empire, writ that the Council of Nice delivered the Faith toto orbi terrarum, to the whole world; they style also the Roman Bishop the head of Bishops, and that the Council of Chalcedon was gathered by Pope Leo's command, who since they call him head of Bishops, they extend his power, and consequently the power of that general Council gathered by him, to all Bishops and Churches in the world. To this Epistle subscribes Dita Bishop of Odyssa in Scythia. It is manifest also that the Bishops of Spain, France, and Germany, who were not under the Emperor in time of the third and fourth general Councils, submitted themselves to their decrees, and esteemed themselves obliged to it, as you cannot deny.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 415. As to what you say of the Council of Constance (which you must say also of Basil, and of the French Church, Venetians, etc. you pretend the doubt to be only between ordinary and extraordinary Governors. But 1. of old the Councils called General (indeed but of one principality) were more ordinary than now the Pope hath brought them to be, and I blame him not, if he will hold his greatness, to take heed of them.)  William johnson. 
Num. 415. I wonder you have the boldness to say general Councils were more ordinary (that is) more frequent of old then now they are, seeing that from St. Peter's days till 300. years after Christ there was not so much as one general Council in the Church; was the Church (think you) all that time governed by general Councils as by its ordinary Governor? but what mean you by more ordinary, you equivocate in the word ordinary, for you by that word can mean no more then frequent, whereas I take ordinary, (as it is taken in the Canon Law) for that which is of itself, not frequently, but always required for the Church's government, and without which the Church cannot be rightly governed. Thus a King is the ordinary head and supreme Governor in his Kingdom, and though Parliaments be ordinarily, that is, frequently called, yet they cannot be said, to be the ordinary governor's of the Kingdom. You play and dally with words, not understanding the sense, but the sound of them.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 416. The way not to have been extraordinary, if the Council of Constance had been infallible, or of sufficient power, who decreed that there should be one every ten years.  William johnson. 
Num. 416. Here you use the same equivocation in the word extraordinary, that you did just now in the word ordinary, you call that extraordinary which is not frequent or happens but seldom, when the true sense in which I speak, and which you should oppose is this, that which is not always of its own nature necessary for the Church's government, nor perpetually in use and power, whether it be frequent, or not frequent, that is ordinary, or extraordinary in your mistaken sense. But I would entreat you hereafter, to reflect a little more of what you writ, you hasten so much, that you leave sense behind you. The way (say you) not to have been extraordinary, if the Council of Constance had been infallible, or of sufficient power, who decreed that there should be one every ten years. Here's a nominative case, the way, etc. without a verb.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 417. The Councils that continue so many years as that at Trent did, are then become an ordinary Government.  William johnson. 
Num. 417. Here you fall into a scond Equivocation about the word ordinary, that which lasts about twenty years in the Church with a sovereign power, must be for the time they so continue the ordinary governor of the Church, where you take ordinary for that which continues a considerable space of time. See you not, how handsomely you insinuate here, that the late long Parliament (which continued about as long as did the Council of Trent) was for that time become with you and your abettors the ordinary Sovereign governor of the Kingdom, and thereby his Majesty was excluded from being ordinary Sovereign over it, I hope this will be noted too.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 418. Fourthly what is given to the Church representative, is by many of you given to the Church real or essential (as you call it) which is ordinarily existent, only not capable of exerting the power it hath: the singulis major, ut universis minor, is no rare doctrine with you.  William johnson. 
Num. 418. Here you fumble in the dark, I pray unriddle this in your next, for I cannot, what is that we give to the Church real, and representative? wherein is the Church real not able to exert its power? what mean you by singulis major, and universis minor, to whom apply you this, or to what purpose?  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 419. Fiftly, but let it be as extraordinary as you please, if while these Councils sit, the Pope lose his headship, your Church is then two Churches specifically distinct, and the form of it changeth when a Council siteth: not like the Spouse of jesus Christ.  William johnson. 
Num. 419. You should have done well to have pressed this argument, against those who hold Councils to be above the Pope, it touches not me at all, who am of the contrary opinion; yet even those of that opinion will answer you with a wet finger, that the Church hath neither then two heads, nor loses the Pope his headship: for he remains chief ordinary governor of the Church in all ordinary causes and cases; as well when there is, as when there is not a Council, and he being as ordinary head of the Church, the chief precedent in the Council, the Council is not its chief governor with exclusion of the Pope, because it cannot be a true general Council but by including him in it. So that he with the rest of the Bishops assembled make up the Council, you cannot therefore divide the Council from him, unless you divide him from himself, so that he and a general Council are not two things, adequately distant, but involve him in it, as a humane body involves the head, or a Parliament the King.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 420. Sixtly, As your Popes are said to live in their constitutions and laws, when the person dieth; and your Church is not thought by you to die with them, so why may not Councils do? The laws of Councils live when they sit not, and the French think that these laws are above the Pope, though I shown you even now that Julius 2. in Con. Lateran. concluded otherwise of Decrees, and the Council of the Pope's power.  William johnson. 
Num. 420. Let them remain in their decrees as much as you please, but that will never make them the ordinary chief governor's of the Church, they remain no more in their degrees, than did our ancient Parliaments in their Statutes, yet no man dare say, who is a good subject, that those Parliaments were therefore the ordinary sovereign governor's of the Kingdom, taken exclusively without the King.  Mr. Baxter. 
Num. 421. Seventhly, If a Nation be governed by Triennial (and so Decennial) Parliaments as the highest power and Councils of State; in the intervals who shall be accountable to Parliaments: will you say these Parliaments are extraordinary and not the ordinary Sovereign? no doubt they are. And the Council of State is the Sovereign, but the chief Officer or Magistrate for execution of the intervals.  William johnson. 
Num. 421. Hitherto you have discoursed warily, and covertly, but now you discover openly your opinion of State government. 'Tis well you put an if to it, and make it a conditional, that will save you at a dead lift, but yet every one sees by it, how great an approver you were of the sovereignty of irregular Parliaments, and authority of Councils of State, for you speak not of what might be, but what then was, when you writ this; but I wonder you were so bold as to let this see light (as you did before something like it) even since the most happy return of his Sacred Majesty. Let others judge of such passages as these.  
Thus fare Mr. Baxter produces his answer to my argument and instances, the last four pages are spent in confident repetition of what is now answered, a prescription of what he would impose upon me to be Sylogistocally proved, a prophecy of Christ's speedy coming to judgement, a wholesome admonition to take help from others to be able to encounter him, scilicet, a whole Army of such Pigmees as I, is not able to encounter him, he is so great a Giant; but let the Reader judge whether something like that hath not happened unto him, which happened to such an other whilst he exprobated and outfaced the hosts of the living God. 1. Reg. 17.49.50. And it may be thought of also, whether the 16 Chap. v. 6. of Esay may not be appliable to him, audivimus Superbiam Moab, Superbus est valde, superbia ejus & arrogantia ejus, & indignatio ejus, plus quam fortitudo ejus. Finally which is only worth observance, he adds an earnest request to make a favourable exposition of what he fears may be thought too confident and earnest in his expressions, which I freely pardon, and beg a free pardon of God for him. This as it is no part of his answer, so can it not challenge any part of my reply, I leave the whole process to the impartial Reader, and expect Mr. Baxters' rejoinder.    

Novelty Repressed. The third Part.  
In a brief Answer to Mr. baxter's second part.  
Quest. Whether the Churches of which Protestants are Members, have been visible ever since the days of Christ on earth?  

CHAP. I. Mr. Baxter's definitions and divisions.  
Num. 1. He defines the Church. Num. 2. His former solutions have rendered his definition of the Church insignificant; he defines Protestants the nullity of that definition; he speaks irreverently and unchristianly of the Catholic Church. Whether the profession of a Protestant show him to be as much an univocal Christian, as the profession of a Papist shows him to be a Papist. Num. 3. The reason why Protestants general profefsion of Christianity makes them no univocal Christians. Num. 4. Mr. Baxter frames again a monster, having a visible body, without a visible head. Num. 5, 6, 7. His 6. first syllogisms are out of form, and thereby are 6 Non-proofs. Num. 11. Mr. Baxter 's skill in logical terms. Num. 13. Whether Mr. Baxter, or any formal Protestant be infallibly certain, they love God and their neighbour as they ought to do? Num. 15. etc. 13. authorities, 13. Non-proofs, to show the sufficiency of sole Scripture.  
This question Mr. Baxter resolves affirmatively, pag. 197.  
1. You first prefix an explication of terms, from p, 197. to p. 204. which is of no concern to my argument, nor of much to your answer; I note only obiter, these particulars p. 198. you define the universal visible Church, thus, It is the whole company of believers (or true Christians) upon earth subject to jesus Christ their head: where you first make believers and true Christians Synonimaes; whereas one not baptised may be a believer, but no Christian, for he is made a Christian by baptism, being before a Catechumen; and than you assert the visible Church to consist as well of Catechumen as of baptised Christians, which is absonous, for by baptism they are made Church-members.  
2. You use the word subject to Christ, in your definition which according to you, (ut supra) is equivocal, and thereby unfit to be part of a definition, and may signify no more (according to you) than one of an inferior rank and order, who is not under the government of another, so that when you say subject to Christ, etc. you may express no more by the word subject then that they are inferior to Christ, and that Christ is to take place of all Christians; nor can you distinguish yourself from this difficulty, by alleging, you say they are subject to Christ their head, for you speak equivocally in the word head too, according to the former principles where you were forced to say head signifies no more than a principal member, proceeding, but not governing the rest. In the same page you define Protestants thus, Protestants are Christians protesting against or disallowing Popery, which is worse than the former, for you cannot be ignorant that the first Origin of the word Protestant proceeded from the Elector of Saxony, Landgrave of Hassia and some few other princes of their faction, protesting against the imperial Edict decreed at Worms an. 1526, the observance whereof was established in the diet at Spire 1529, about the not changing any thing in the Churches practise publicly and commonly used before their times till a general Council was assembled, and made decrees about it,; Now it is evident these Princes protested against Popery, and disowned it some years before this, and yet were not termed Protestants for that reason. Take you yourself to be a man of so uncontrollable authority, as to make new impositions, and give new significations to words as your fancy leads you? what? Call you the Greeks for some hundred of years Protestants, because they protested against that which they esteem Popery, the Pope's supremacy: the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, etc. I am sure they execrate that appellation as much, nay more, than they do Popery: nor were they ever termed Protestants, till you called them so. Are the new Arians in Polonia. Antitrinitarians in Sylesia, Socinians in Holland, Hassi●● ●●n Bohemia, Anabaptists, Familists, Montanists, Millenaries, Quakers, in England all Protestants? Protest not all these against Popery? If they be Protestants, Protestants be they, much good do it you with them, you'll say Arians, and Antetrinitarians are no Christians, but you shall see presently your arguments will prove them as true Christians, as you can prove yourself to be for an Arian or Antetrinitarian will say as you do here page. 199. and 200. We profess ourselves to be of no other Church, and before men a man is to be taken of that Religion and Church of which he professeth himself to be, till he be proved false in that profession. pag. 199. You say Protestants in relation to our religion, are as a man purged, healed, freed, from Leprosy, Plague, Consumption etc. then sure you make that which you call Popery, to be infected with leprosy, 
Dr. Ferne, Dr. Bramhall.  Plague, Consumption, as some of your Brothers have done of late, if so, then tell me, I pray, in your next either that you hold the Catholick-Church in those immediately proceeding your beginnings to be spotted with Leprocy, infected with the Plague, and worn almost to nothing with a mortal Consumption, and consequently teaching dangerous errors, and therefore no man with a false conscience could remain in her external communion, but must have forsaken the communion of all particular Churches in the world, which is abominable in the ears of a Christian: or you make it free from those foul disasters, and then tell me where, and which, that holy visible Catholic Church was pure and unspotted from such diseases in the year, 1500, near to the time of your first Protestant's beginning, pag. 200. you say your profession shows you as much to be a true Christian, as he doth the profession of a Papist show him to be a Papist; see you not the difference? thousands and millions deny you to be true Christians, and those not only friends, but enemies also of the Pope, as all the Greeks are, notwithstanding all your profession to be so; but not so much as one denies those to be Papists who profess themselves to be so.  
3. Pag. 200. Parag. Note, you speak not (say you) of internal belief, but of external profession: but there you're out; for whatsoever your internal sincerity be or be not, your very external profession in the particulars of your belief, or rather disbelief against the Roman Church, shows your general profession of true christianity to be false, so that the one convinces the other of falsity, as (in your principles) an Arrian who as you presently say, p. 203. is no Christian, though he sincerely profess the belief of Christianity, yet because that notwithstanding his particular profession of disbelief of the consubstantiality of the Son of God with his Father, shows his general profession to be false.  
4. Page 201. & 202. You renew first your error of making a visible body without a visible head; for I have showed though Christ's person be now visible, yet as he is head of the militant Church, he is invisible, that is, he exercises immediately no visible office, or action in governing his Church, but all are purely internal, spiritual, and invisible. Secondly, you say he is visus, seen to the triumphant Church; but where find you (in your doctrine) any corporal eye amongst the triumphant to see him? pag. 202. num. 2. you say the true Christians were very few, to the Arrians in their prevalency, which you neither prove, nor can prove, for it is manifestly false; I omit many such over-reaches as these, that I may come to your proof, Non-proof 1.  
5. Pag. 204. Your first syllogism is out of form, first having never an universal proposition in it, in place of the word those, form required, all those. Secondly, you put more in the medium of the major, to wit (in its parts) than you do in the medium of your minor, and so make it consist of 4. terms. Thirdly, you make the predicate of the minor, the subject of the conclusion. This is a hopeful beginning, put your syllogism first in form, and then I'll answer it; suppose all adjusted; I deny your minor. Protestants are no part of that Church on earth whereof Christ is head. Non-proof 2.  
6. Pag. 204. the second syllogism is likewise out of form, having no universal proposition in it. Add all to your major to set it in form, and I first deny it. It is not true, that all who profess true Christian Religion in all its essentials, are members of Christ's Church, for to these essentials they may add some error or non-essential as an essential to them, and thereby destroy faith, as you yourself cite Durandus, pag. 211. and put a N. B. not a been upon it. I deny also your minor, (but first prove your major, which you have not done) Protestant's profess not the true Christian Religion, in all its essentials; you prove that in this manner. Non-proof 3.  
7. Your third syllogism p. 295. is also out of form, for want of an universal proposition add All to your major, & I grant that, and deny your minor. Protestants profess not so much as God hath promised salvation upon the Covenant of Grace. Non-proof 4.  
Your fourth syllogism is also out of form, not assuming the whole proposition to be proved, for in that proposition was this term, in the Covenant of Grace, which is not to be found in this fourth syllogism.  
To your fourth syllogism therefore page 205. (supposing it were in form) I deny that part of your major, that Protestants have willingness and diligence to know the true meaning of all the law of nature and holy Scripture, for if they were willing and diligent, they would take the expositions of the universal Church, and not follow their novel interpretations, and private judgements. I deny also that they believe with a saving divine faith any of the mysteries here named, or that their profession general and particular affirm this. Non-proof 5.  
8. Your 5. syllogism p. 206. nu. 2. is likewise out of form for want of an universal proposition: make it universal, and I deny your major, they profess not so much as Catecumen and Competentes, for those profess to believe implicitly all that was taught as matter of faith by the Catholic Church, in that article, I believe the Catholic Church, which Protestants do not, nor can they do it truly, since their professed disbelief of many points evinces the contrary. Non-proof 6.  
9 Your 6. syllogism p. 206. nu. 3. is also out of form, for the same reasons, add all to the major, I deny your major, their general profession is contradicted by their particular denial of such points as are sufficiently propounded to them, as articles of faith. Secondly, you distinguish not betwixt being implicitly contained in general principles, and being expressly contained in the Creeds and Scriptures. Thirdly, Creeds and Scriptures are not enough, traditions and decrees of general Councils in matters of faith must be believed. Fourthly, I deny those Protestants who are such wittingly and willingly, and not excused with invincible ignorance believe any article of faith at all with a supernal saving faith. Thus in six syllogisms you have not so much as one in form. So mighty strong is your first argument. Non-proof 7.  
10. Pag. 206. sect. ad hominem & infra, p. 207. you cite Bellar. and Costerus to no purpose; for our question is not of what is to be believed expressly only, but of what is to be believed, both expressly and implicitly respectively by all Christians.  
11. Your second Argument is p. 207. lit. (b) I grant your major and deny your minor, Protestants are not members of the true Church as intrinsically informed.  
12. Pag. 208. you prove (say you) your antecedent or minor, which is a Syntax in Logic, and deserves a ferula, for no minor can be an antecedent.  
Pag. 208. The antecedent. I deny your minor, Protestants formally such, have not enough to be brought to the unfeigned love of God above all things, and special love to his servants and unfeigned willingness to obey him; for had they this, they would never have disobeyed and disbelieved all the visible Churches in the world, anno 1517. as their first broachers did, and they follow that disbelief to this day.  
Pag. 208. I deny your minor, what I deny in the former syllogism, is not in your profession, both general and particular: the second shows the contrary, and contradicts the first, as did the Arrians (ut supra.)  
13. Pag. 208. nu. 2. I deny you have any certain knowledge or feeling, that you love God or his servants, or willingness to obey his precepts, as you ought to love and obey him, if you be a formal Protestant, for if you be such, your heart deceives you, and your false feelings delude you; please to peruse jer. 17.9. Pravum est cor hominis & inscrutabile, quis cognoscit illud? Ego Dominus scrutans cor & probans renes, qui do unicuique juxta viam suam & juxta fructum ad inventionum suarum. And Sapient. 9.14. cogitationes mortalium timidae & incertae providentiae nostrae: ponder a while the strange delusion which bewitched the Angel or Pastor of Laodicea, Apoc. 3.17. quia dicis, quia dives sum, & locupletatus, & nullius egeo, & nescis quia tu es miser & miserabilis & pauper & caecus & nudus: consider the Pharisee, Luk. 18.13. how much he was deceived in his own judgement of his own state; and let not that saying of the Wise man pass without reflection, Ecclesiastes, 9.1. Nescit homo utrum odio an amore dignus sit, sed omnia in futurum servantur incerta. What would you answer to a new Arrian or Antitrinitarian, etc. nay, to a Turk or jew, which you hold to be no Christian, should they urge the like knowledge and feeling in themselves against you, to prove they were members of Gods true Church? what you would reply to them, take as said to yourself.  
14. Pag. 209. num. 2. your syllogism is not in form, making the predicate of the minor the subject of the conclusion, for your conclusion in form should not be (as you have it) Ergo the Church of which the Protestants are members, hath been visible ever since the days of Christ on earth, which is your Thesis to be proved, but it ought to have been this; Ergo the Church which hath been always visible since the days of Christ on earth, is that whereof the Protestants are members, which is not your Thesis, nor the thing you are immediately to prove; but supposing it right, I distinguish your major if you mean contained in volutely as in general principles I grant it, if expressly containing all things necessary to salvation, I deny it. Again, I distinguish all things necessary to salvation, either you mean all things necessary to be distinctly known, and expressly believed by all to obtain salvation, and so I grant it, or all things also to be believed implicitly, and to be distinctly known to all, and so I deny it. These distinctions supposed, I deny your consequence, viz. That the Church whereof Protestants are members, hath been visible ever since the days of Christ on earth.  
15. Pag. 210. your authorities prove nothing, the aforesaid distinctions applied. Bellar. and Costerus speaks of things necessary to be expressly believed by all. Ragusa of the Scripture well understood, which include the interpretation of the Church. Gerson not of articles of Faith, but of Theological conclusions drawn by private and fallible authority. Durandus treats of private conclusions drawn from Scripture by himself (as you cite him) pag. 212. of delivering nothing contrary to Scripture, and of using the interpretation of the Roman Church. St. Thomas speaks not a word of Scripture, nor so much as names it, in those words cited by you: and in his sum de veritate, adds the interpretation of the Church to Scripture as you cite his words. pag. 213. Scotus cited p. 213. is quite against you, he says (add you) that many needful things are not expressed in Scripture, but virtually contained, which is not protestant, but sound catholic doctrine. Gregor. Ariminensis p. 14. speaks not of points of faith, but of Theological conclusions drawn by private discourse, which is not (as you add next) more than to intent the sufficiency of express Scripture to matters of faith: for the seusteine of faith is infallible and divine; Theological discourse only fallible and humane, now he says diametrically against your tenet, that all truths are not in themselves formally contained in holy Scripture, but of necessity following these that are contained in them, etc. but here's the difficulty, we say that every point we teach, is contained as in general principles at least in Scripture, and necessarily deduced from it, but you add they must be contained formally, for what seems a necessary consequence of Scripture to us, seems not so to you, and the like is of what seems necessary to you, seems neither necessary nor propable to us: so that neither of us can be convinced that our respective deductions are points of faith, and both you must confess yours are not, because you have not infallibly authority deducing them, and we do acknowledge that conclusions drawn from Scripture, abstracting from the Church's authority oblige us not to receive them, as matters of faith.  
16. Pag. 216. Gulielmus Parisiensis says no more than say the former Authors, and Bellar. nothing at all to your purpose, draw if you can the sufficiency of sole Scripture held by you, from words which so clearly declare its insufficiency.  
Pag. 217. Your whole discourse is a pure parorgon; our question is not what is essential or necessary, necessitate medii, or praecepti, to be known and expressly believed by all, per se, and absolutely, but whether one believing all that is essential and necessary in that manner, and withal disbelieving any other point of faith whatsoever after it is hic & nunc, sufficiently propounded as such to any particular person, can either be saved or be a true real part of the visible Church of Christ. Now we answer negatively to this question, because such a disbelief excludes an implicit belief of that point so disbelieved, and consequently a belief of all that God hath revealed, and thereby all supernatural & saving faith. To illustrate the truth of this assertion, let us instance in a Pelagian, who believed all that which you account essential, that is, the common Articles necessary for all to salvation, the Creeds, the Scriptures, etc. And had sufficiently propounded to him the belief of Original sin as a point of Christian faith, which he refuses to believe, and accounts an error; the question will not be in this case, whether that Pelagian believe all these essentials (in the account) but whether that supposed, he be not excluded out of the Church, and dismembered from it, by that wilful disbelief of Original sin. This is our present case, controverted betwixt us; so that though it were admitted that you believe all that material object of faith, which you esteem essential and necessary for all to be expressly believed, yet because we accuse and judge you to disbelieve many points of as much concern as is that of Original sin, and as sufficiently propounded to you as such, as that was to the Pelagians; we have as much reason to judge you to be excluded out of the Catholic Church, and dismembered from it, as we have to judge them; either therefore you acknowledge the point disbelieved by you, and propounded as matter of faith by us to you, to be as sufficiently propounded, as was that of Original sin to the Pelagians, or you deny it; if you acknowledge it, you must acknowledge you are as much dismembered from the Church by your disbelief as they were: if you deny it, than we will put ourselves upon the proof of it; so that till our proofs be heard and fully answered, you cannot secure yourselves of being parts of the Catholic Church, no more than could the Pelagians.  
17. If you affirm (as your principles lead you) that even the disbelief of Original sin, hindered not the Pelagians from remaining parts of the Catholic Church, you contradict St. Augustine and St. Epiphanius, 
In Catalogis Haereticorum  the Council of Nice, all antiquity, nay all modern authors, even your own, and I provoke you to produce so much as one Author, who affirms Pelagians to be parts of the Catholic Church.   

CHAP. II. Mr. Baxters authorities.  
NUm. 18. Whether Mr. baxter's doctrine about sole scripture, agree with Tertullias in his prescriptions. Num. 21. Mr. Baxter would send all his adversaries packing, if he knew how; he supposes his Readers to be very simple Num. 19 Whether St. Augustin taught that common people were to reade-Scipture, in the place cited by Mr. Baxter, whereas St. Augustine taught there that all things belonging to Christian Faith and manners are expressed in Scripture, his two other Collections from St. Augustine examined. Num. 22. He knows not where his Church was An. 1500. Num. 25. He citys two texts of S. Augustine destructive to his own doctrine. Num. 25.26. How much Optatus makes for Mr. Baxter. Num. 26.27. What Optatus means by being within or in communion with the seven Churches of Asia. Mr. Baxter citys two texts in Optatus which quite overthrew him. Num. 28. Divers of his Effugiums examined and confuted, concerning Tertullia's prescriptions. Num. 29.30. Many texts of Tertullian not Englished by Mr. Baxter. make directly against him.  
18. Hence falls to nothing all you allege from Bell. Costerus, Gulielmus Parisiensis, Aquinas, Bannes, Espenseus, etc. p. 216.217.218. For they speak of such as with the belief of what they esteem universally essential, and fundamental in themselves, not to be joined with an actual disbelief, of any point though not so generally necessary to be expressly believed, by every one yet sufficiently propounded to them, hic & nunc, as a point of Christian faith. To what purpose cite you Tertul p. 219. What is that rule which he speaks of. Is it sole Scripture without Church or tradition? prove that, or what hurts us in his other sentence, c. 8. Do we teach any thing against it, prove that? or why make you such observations upon Tertullia's prescriptions p. 220. why prove you not your observations from Tertul. words? where, says he, the rules of Essentials extracted from the whole Scriptures is the Churches ancient creed, that the complete rule of all points of faith is the whole Scripture, what mean you to cite that from Tertullian which destroys you? have you ever yet cleared yourselves from denying some Essentials, I am sure Tertullian puts in the book cited by you the Eucharist, & Baptism amongst the things which he would have to be principal points, taught by St. Peter, and to be believed by all Christians to whom they were sufficiently propounded, & are not our controversies about these? leave not you many books of Scripture out of the Canon, and use you not the large field of Scripture to puzzle the weak? how then can you turn yourselves more from the lash of Tertullian, than the Heretics against whom he writes? And you say this ancient Author, advised the ordinary Christians of his time instead of long puzzling disputes to hold them to the Church's prescription of the simple doctrine of the creed, do you not confound your own public practice in persuading every ordinary Christian to read the Scriptures in his own language, to maintain their cause by some obscure mistaken passages out of them against the Church's prescriptions? nay and the simple doctrine of the Creed too, by perverting that article of believing the holy Catholic Church: instance if you can, the prescription of the Church in the year 1500, to justify your so many oppositions against the prescriptions of all particular visible Churches in that age: and be sure you fail not with all to tell me what Church prescribed in the same year, against the Church of Rome, in opposing those which you call supplemental traditions, held by her and all other visible Churches at that time,  
19 Page 221. You cite St. Augustine de doctrina Christiana lib. 2. cap. 9 and note in an English parenthesis (he was not against the vulgar reading Scripture) which how it follows I know not, unless you would have him also not against the vulgars' being versed both in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, which he here requires for the perfect understanding of Scriptures. Secondly you put an N. B. upon St. Augustine's words minding your reader to note that he affirms all things which belong to Christian faith and manners are thereby set down in Scripture which N. B. might have been well omitted, where you place it, and a N. B. put upon his next following words, whereby it would have appeared, that this holy Doctor speaks not of all manner of points of Faith, but de quibus libro superiore tractavimus of such as he had treated in the foregoing book, and in that he treats only of the Trinity, of the Incarnation, of the Church, of the resurrection of the dead, which we acknowledge are openly set down in Scripture, so much heed take you to the words you cite; so pertinent is your collection drawn from these words about the sufficiency of Scripture, and so fair are you in your citations, let an N. B. pass upon that pag. 223, 223. What conclude you from St. Augustine's words, lib 3. cap. 6. contra lit. Petiliani? which of us ever thought it lawful to teach any thing, praeterquam, besides that is against; (for so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in greek signifies the law or gospel,) and as wise is your question collected thence, page 223. viz, was not the Church then purely protestant in their religion?  
20. To the proof of the minor by your profession p. 223. I have told you already your particular profession in disbelieving many things contained in Scripture, evidences your general profession of taking Scripture for the sole rule of your faith to be false and nugatory.  
21. As to your discourse page 224. tells us first which are all the Essentials of Christianity in your account and then we shall see whether they are all expressly contained in Scripture, or no. The rest is course and unhandsome, better suiting with a country ballad, then, with a controversy.  
You add in good time the parenthesis (if you know how) to keep those Friars and jesuits as much out, as to keep out the devil. I see they stay not in through any want of opposition in you, 'tis well you have not as much of the knowledge, as you have of the malice of him, to whom you compare them, (I beseech God to pardon you) for then they had been all sent packing long ere this, and 'tis not I see for want of ignorance in you, that you are not quit of them, if any such be within the Nation, yet if you drive them no more out, than you can drive out the devil, they have no great reason to fear you. You must think your Reader to be very silly, when you go about to persuade him, that the Pope's supremacy, and transubstantiation were brought into the kingdom by Friars and Jesuits, of late, since you begun your new gospel.  
22 Page 225. you answer the Catholics question, where your Church was &c. very profoundly, what if you can neither tell where it all was, nor half, nor a considerable part, nor for all ages, nor by entire catalogues; can you not at least tell where existed any one, though a small part of it in the year 1500, immediately before your doctrine appeared in Germany show that, and we press you no farther at this time. Pag. 226.227. You change the term Protestant Church into Catholic Church: the question was, where was the Protestant Church, and you show where the Catholic Church was, call you this answering? nor can you suppose the Protestant to be part of the Catholic, for I have showed that hitherto you have not proved it. pag. 227. You first say, your Church was in Europe c. 1. and l. 8. you say, you'll say nothing of Europe. (n. b.)  
23. Page 227.228.229.230. To what purpose have you taken so much pains in copying the Latin texts of St. Augustine: you were afraid I see to English them, lest the vulgar (whom you chief●●ly lalour to please) should find many flaws in them. Intent you therefore to prove no more by those authorities than the Churches being spread all the world over? which of us ever denied, nay who amongst us have not constantly asserted, that? Intent you to show, that whatsoever professors of Christianity are spread through the world are the Catholic Church? why then cite you words quite overthrowing that position out of St. Augustine pag. 230.  
24. Quicunque de ipso capite ab scripturis sanctio dissentiunt etiamsi in omnibus locis inveniantur in quibus ecclesia designata est non sunt in ecclesia, whosoever descents from the holy Scriptures concerning the head (our Saviour) though they be found in all places in which the Church is designed, yet are they not in this Catholic Church, or intent you to evince that all those who profess the Essentials of Christianity (as you understand them,) though they separate from the external communion of all visible Church's existent when they first begun, & communicate only amongst themselves in some particular countries are parts of the Church? why then cite you the words immediately following, Et rursus quicunque de ipso capite scripturis fanctis consentiunt & unitati ecclesiae non communicant, (or as after) ab ejus corpore quod est ecclesia ita dissentiunt, ut eorum communio non sit cum toto quacunque diffunditur, sed in aliqua parte separata inveniatur, manifestum est eos, non esse in ecclesia Catholica. And again whosoever consents with the holy Scripture, concerning the head (Christ) & communicate not with the unity of the Church (& as after) but so descent from his body which is the Church, that their communion be found in some separate part, it is manifest they are not in the Catholic Church. Now seeing St. Augustine intends by this argument to convince the Donatists not being parts of the Catholic Church, because they departed from the external communion of all particular Churches, existing immediately before, & in their time, & yet it is manifest that in your opinion they held all the essentials of Christian Faith; and thereby communicated with those Churches as they were Christians as much as you do, & you separate from external communion as much as they did, it is evident that this very text, cited by yourself against us, unanswerably confutes the substance of your whole book against me, overthrows the foundation of your key, and suppresses that grand novelty of Schismatics being parts of the true Church. O you are a stout disputer, are you not?  
25. Pag. 231. Optatus is cited to as little purpose as was St. Augustine, why distinguish you obedience and subjection from charity? is not it a preserving of charity in the Church to yield subjection to Superiors? is not that a part of Christian charity, being a performance of a command, touching the love to our neighbour? otherwise you must argue thus, Optatus, says the schismatics, were charitatis desertores, non subjectionis desertores, desertors of charity, not desertors of subjection, ergo he makes no spiritual Superiors or Pastors at all essential parts of the Catholic Church, nor talks of unity caused by subjection to them; how like you this consequence? If you admit it, every old wife at Kidderminster might have tanted you and told you, there needs no subjection to you from me, more than to me from you, so long as I am in charity with you and all men, I have no need of subjection to any, and therefore as you acknowledge in your answer to johnson, pag. 231. Optatus calls the schismatics desertors of charity, not of subjection. O this is a welcome doctrine to the vulgar, and a precious seed of rebellion; for if no subjection, but a charity as amongst equals be required to the Essence of the Church; why should it be essential to a commonwealth. O how sweet will this sound in the ear of a Leveller? But why say you, he accounts not the Apostolic Roman See to be an essential part of the Catholic Church? says he not expressly in the words now cited by me, that unity is to be preserved through the whole Church, by means of the singular Seat, unica sedes, of St. Peter at Rome, and is not both unity, and that which is necessary to preserve it essential to the Church? says not Optatus presently after those words, that this unica sedes, the one only See of Rome, is Does Ecclesiae, one of the Dowries or properties of the Church, and are not they essential?  
26. Pag. 231. It is clear Optatus means, by extra septem Ecclesias, out of the seven Churches, no more than out of their communion, as they were parts of the Catholic Church, as appears from the next words you cite, dissentio & schisma tibi displicuit, concordasti cum fratri tuo, & cum una Ecclesia quae est in toto orbe terrarum, communicasti septem Ecclesiis & memoriis Apostolorum, amplexus es unitatem. Dissension and Schism hath displeased thee, thou hast agreed with thy brother, and with one Church which is in the whole earth, thou hast communicated with the seven Churches, and the memories of the Apostles, thou hast embraced unity. Thus you save me the labour of salving your arguments by salving them yourself.  
27. But why cite you Optatus his words, lib. 6. p. 93. in your 232. page, I know not, if it be not to confute and confound your grand novelty, of Schismatics properly so called, being parts of Christ's Church; says he not after his description of the Catholic Church, aquâ vos concisos esse, from which you are cut off. Why have you not added this sentence? to leave your Reader doubtful, whether Optatus say these Schismatics, were or were not cut off from the Church? nothing surer than that! but it's most certain Optatus was in the affirmative, as the full sentence declares, Optat. lib. 6. Itra. Parm. p. 93. which quite ruins that your novelty. Thus you save me again the labour of confuting your novelties, by confuting them yourself. Are you not a strong Disputant? let the world judge that.  
28. Pag. 232. you say first, Tertullian thought it a tiresome way to dispute with the Heretics of and before his time out of Scripture, & that they were to be convinced by prescription; and what I pray think you of the matter? are you of Tertullia's mind? why then have you pressed so much the sufficiency of sole Scripture as the rule by which you intent to dispute against us; may not we reply against you, as Tertullian did against those, that it is a tiresome thing to dispute with Heretics out of Scripture, and that you are to be convinced by prescription? But these Heretic say you, erred in fundamentals; tell us I pray precisely once for all, which are those? how shall we know otherwise whether they erred in sole fundamentals or no? Please also to tell me where Tertullian restrains his rules of prescription to such only as err in those which you would put in the number (if you were able to sum it up) of fundamentals? what fundamental point even in your account, denied the Chilliasts or Millenaries, the Nicolaitans, the Sacramentaries mentioned by St. Ignatius, as he is cited by Theod. Dial. 3. deny they any article delivered in the Creed, or proposed to be expressly believed by Catecumen as necessary to Baptism? But they, say you, lived near the Churches that were planted by the Apostles, and how far lived your beginners from one of them, were they not so near it, that every one of them was of it before they began to novelize? That's not all, say you, but they were near the Apostles days, and were those Christians who lived near the Apostles days, to have another rule of faith and principles to confound Heretics, than those of succeeding ages? Tertullia's rule of prescription is universal, and illimitted either to time or place, is it not? if it be not, how came all ensuing ages to make use of it against Heretics, of their respective ages? And were the Christians in Brittany, Spain and Africa, nearer to those Churches then, than they are now? what perergons are these? Or are those of Armenia and Graecia farther from them now then they were in Tertul. time? Num. 1. pag. 232. It was the common Creed then, say you, and is it not now? nay, but you add, no other doctrine save that; what mean you by other? contrary doctrine to the Creed? no more is it now; not expressed in the Creed? so were not many doctrines inculcated then by Tertullian, as the holy Eucharist and Penance; where read you these expressed in the Creed? which Christian mysteries notwithstanding, Tertullian requires in his prescriptions. Num. 2. pag. 132. if he would have all Apostolical Churches to be assured witnesses, then sure Rome was not excluded, why exclude you't now. Num. 3. pag. 232, 233. if he wo●●l●● have the present Churches to the respective beginnings of Heretics, the immediate witnesses, (as you acknowledge here) why refused you the witness of all immediate Church's existent in the world in your beginnings? did they not all celebrate Mass, pray for the dead, fast Lent, desire the prayer of Saints, held merits of good works, Confession, Purgatory, etc. Name those who did not hold some or all of these, in those times. Pag. 232. you cite Latin Texts without rendering them into English, there's something in't; what mean you when you say Tertullian understands not the Church of Rome, by una Ecclesia? no more than this, that it was not the Church of Rome, when it first begun in Jerusalem, who ever contradicted you in this? mean you that it was not made one visible Church by the same visible government first under our Saviour, whilst he remained on earth, then under St. Peter, both before and after he became Bishop of Rome, which it had under his lawful Successors the Roman Bishops in all ensuing ages? that's indeed the question: and seeing Tertullian speaks here of one Church as propagated through the world successively from the Apostolical Churches, and that of Rome was one, and the chief amongst them, how can Tertullian speak of the Church, and not speak of the Church of Rome in this sentence? and seeing also he treats here of a Church as one visible, and there is no other means to render it so one, if it have not one supreme visible ordinary Tribunal to whom all are subject (as Optatus had said above) and that can neither be the Bishops diffused through the whole Church, nor assembled in a general Council, (for that is an extraordinary Tribunal, as I have proved,) there must be some one supreme ordinary Pastor over all other Bishops, which if it be not the Bishop of Rome, pray tell me in your next who it is. By this is satisfied your seven notanda, pag. 234. for though Tertullian instance in the Apostolical Churches of his time, whilst they agreed in faith with that of Rome, as patterns of Christian faith, yet experience hath told us (and you cannot deny it) that all the rest by departing from the faith professed in Rome, fell by degrees into heresy, so that now you must either say there is no Apostolical not fallen into Heresy, or that the sole Roman remains pure from it, and a pattern of unity and purity of faith to all Christians even till, and at this day.  
29. Pag. 235. you make Tertullian speak both false Latin and nonsense, by putting tenentem for tenendum. 'Tis not put amongst your erratas, your English parenthesises, as you larded the Latin Text with them, three in number, look, methinks something odlie.  
30. Pag. 235. what if Tertullian in that passage send us not to the Roman Church, would you have him to write nothing in his whole works but dispatches to Rome? what if he call the holy Ghost only Vicarius Christi in that place, says he therefore that he only is his Vicar? cannot Christ have one invisible, and another visible Vicar? Why not? says Tertullian (as you here acknowledge) that it is the holy Ghosts office to procure that all the Churches lose not the Apostles doctrine, why then say you they have all lost it? you'll reply they have not all lost it in its essentials; names Tertullian essentials? he says the holy Ghost would never permit all Churches to leave the Apostles doctrine, now that which you account non-essential, was (as we now suppose) as much their doctrine, as was that which you account essential, besides (ut supra) what essentials were contradicted by the Millenaries, Nicolaitans, & c? yet they (in Tertullia's account) left the Apostles doctrine, but you'll reply again, those only are said to leave the Apostles doctrine, who leave all their doctrine; not those who hold some points, though they leave others. Then no Heretic can be said to have left the Apostles doctrine: for never did any leave it all; then though the Church should deny some articles of the Creed, and hold others, it could not be said to have left the Apostles doctrine; you'll bring, I see, the Church at last to a fair pass. I am glad to see you so ingenuous, as to cite the words of Tertullian, ecquid verisimili est, etc. but should have been more satisfied, had you Englished them. He says there, that it is unlikely all Churches should agree in one and the same error, so that when many agree in one, it is no error, but tradition; and then demands whether any one have the audaciousness to say, those erred who delivered such a doctrine▪ How like you this? did not all the visible Churches in the world, deriveable from the Apostles, agree in the celebration of Mass, real Sacrifice, desiring the prayers of Saints in heaven, praying for the dead, fasting in Lent, etc. immediately before Luther begun to play the Novelist? name me any such Church who did not, ergo non est erratum sed traditum, therefore these are no errors, but traditions according to Tertullia's doctrine here; you are an excellent confuter of yourself.  
31. Pag. 236. you cite Tertullian again, reckoning Smirna with many others before Rome. Answer: it was enough for illustrating Tertullia's argument pressed there, of reducing Churches to their first Originals to bring any instance whatsoever of any Apostolical Church, nor was he there to have regard to the order, but to the substance of his instances.  
Pag. 236. you make Tertullian speak false Latin and nonsense again, by printing institutum for instituuntur, so careful are you in your citations fill they but up paper; and help to patch up a new volume, 'tis enough for you. Who can doubt but the Apostolical doctrine will prove an Apostolical Church, when ever planted, as you collect from this Text of Tertullian, but how come those succeeding Churches to agree with the precedent, but by means of a visible head, who hath preserved all in the unity of faith, which subject themselves to him; where did you ever find any Churches continue long in the same faith with the Apostolical Churches, after they had put themselves in opposition to the See of Rome? let such Churches be named in your next.   

CHAP. III.  
More of Mr. Baxters' Arguments.  
Num. 32. Mr. baxter's third Argument out of form. Num. 33. If the Roman Church were infected with the plague, etc. anno 1500. the whole visible Catholic Church was infected with it, which is a foul Blasphemy, Num. 34. Possession stands in force against Protestants. Num. 36. the Pope's Supremacy in spirituals, essential to the Church. Num. 37. The true meaning of the 28. Canon of Chalcedon, and of the 2. Canon of the first Council of Constantinople. Num. 39 Whether the ancient Fathers were accustomed to press the Authority of the Roman See against Heretics. Num. 40. A loud untruth of Mr. Baxter. Num. 41. Extra-Imperial Church's subject to the Bishop of Rome. Num. 44. 5. Reasons of Mr. baxter's against the Pope's supremacy in spirituals answered.  
32. Pag. 238. Your third argument is out of form, having the term as Christian in the first part of the antecedent, and not in the sequel or second part, therefore I deny the antecedent, viz. Though the Roman as Christian hath been always visible, yet the Protestant hath not been always visible. It is fallacia à secundum quid, and simpliciter. For all that can be pretended to follow, is no more than this, that the Protestants have been visible as Christians, that is, so far as they profess the belief of the chief articles in Christian faith; nor yet follows so much, for I deny they believe any one of them as Christians ought to do, that is, with an infallible, supernatural, divine faith, so that they have not been always a visible Church as Christian, though the Roman have been so. Hence falls the proof of your consequence.  
33. Pag. 239. I deny your supposition, that when Protestant's first pretended to reform what displeased them in the doctrine of the Roman Church, that thereby they were cured of the plague, etc. for if the Roman Church were then infected with the plague, all the visible Churches in the world, and consequently the whole Catholic Church was infected with it, which is diametrically contrary to the Texts here cited by you out of Tertullian, and a horrible blasphemy, to affirm that the mystical body of Christ is infected with the plague, or any such like mischief. Here you trifle again, prove the Pope's supremacy first to be an usurpation, and then take it for a ground of your argument: what millions abroad, and within the Roman Territories are those you talk of? is every number which you fancy, a million? Ibid. you frame an objection of your own, and then answer it, what's the one or the other to me? That which I have objected to be proved by you, is no negative, but a plain affirmative, for 'tis this, that you prove any Church now denying or opposing the Pope's Supremacy to have been always visible. Pag. 240. you essay to answer the argument about possession. Your first answer is petitio principii, or falsum suppositum, that any parts of the Catholic Church, much less the most fit, can be nominated wherein the Pope's Supremacy had not possession. Non-proof.  
34. Your second of making good against our title of supremacy, etc. is only affirmed by you who are a party, but never yielded by us, nor legitimately judged, or defined against us: so that sub judice lis est, the matter is still in process, and you know lite pendente, till the cause be decreed or yielded up by one of the parties, the possessor is to enjoy his title, according to all law and reason; you therefore by actual dispossessing the Roman Bishops of that right and title whereof he was quietly possessed in the year 1500, in this our Nation, and in all other places where you entered, upon this pretence only that you think you have sufficiently disproved it from the divine law; is to do him as much wrong as if a plantif in a suit at law, should thrust the defendant out of quiet possession (without decree or order from any competent Judge) upon this sole pretence that he frames a judgement to himself, he has convinced by law the others title to be null, for in these cases both he and you, make yourselves judges in your own cause, and proceed to an execution, without a warrant.  
35. Page 240. To your question, what you must prove? I answer 'tis this, that any Church which has at any time, or does now deny the Pope's supremacy or remain independent of it, has been always visible. Ibid. of such as know nothing of the Pope's supremacy, I say nothing, it being not our case; then only they are bound to allege proof for the denial of it, when it is or shall be sufficiently propunded to them.  
36. Page 241. The Smpremacie itself, I have proved to be essential to the Church, for there can be no visible body without a head. But than it is essential to the subsistence of Christian faith in particular persons, when it is sufficiently propounded to them as a point of faith page 241. You propose your fourth argument in proof of the Catholic Church not acknowledging the Pope's supremacy for some time.  
Your first syllogism is out of form. 1 for want of the word ever. it should be ever since, in your antecedent; 2 and in the sequel, for you say only that the Church whereof the Protestants are members, hath been visible; where as you should say hath been ever, or always visible for that only is the present question. 3 You suppose the sole denial of the Pope's supremacy, constitutes the Church whereof the Protestants are members, which I deny, for all heretics as well as Protestants, denied his supremacy.  
37. Page 232, 233. I have already answered to your 28 canon of Chalcedon, first it uses the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is deferred or attributed, not gave or conferred a new. 2 they pretend to give no more to Constantinople, than the second general Council had done (as appears by the words) now that was to be next after Rome, so that the principality, which Rome had before the Council of Constantinople, was no way infringed by that canon. 3 It is evident that the principality of Rome before all other Patriarchal Churches, was not only in precedency of place, and order, but in power, jurisdiction, and authority over them, for Damascus, as Photius, witness ep. 125 confirmed that Constantinopolitan Council which was an act of Supreme jurisdiction. 4 That addition to the second canon about Constantinople privileges, 
Con. Const. 1 c. 2.  must have been annexed to the canon by some sinister means after the Council was dissolved, for it is both dissonant from the former part of the canon, which decrees that the Canon of Nice, c. 6. be observed in exercise of jurisdiction within their districts prescribed in that canon, and yet this addition infringes the very canon of Nice, where the Bishop of Alexandria was the first and of Antioch the second, both before Constantinople. Second, when Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria with a Council celebrated by his authority pretended to exercise authority over St. chrysostom, neither St. chrysostom nor his adherents ever mentioned this addition to the second canon of Constantinople, which had it been held authentical in their time, they would doubtless have done, as being so powerful to defend their cause. Thirdly, when Sicinius, successor to Atticus at Constantinople, had ordained Proclus his competitor Bishop of Sizicene by virtue of a canon that none should be ordained Bishop without the consent of the Constantinopolitan Bishop, those of Sizicene rejected Proclus and affirmed that canon to have been made only for Atticus: nor did Sicinius so much as mention this canon of the first Council of Constantinople, which he would have done, 
Socrat lib. 7. c. 28.  had he esteemed it a genuine part of the canon in his time: now what is said of equal privileges with Rome cannot be understood of all privileges which Rome had, for then Constantinople should not have been next after Rome, but equal with Rome, but it must be limited to some particular privileges, & then though it had been made equal in them, it might in others remain inferior, nay subject to it.  
38. To what you most urge, that Rome's privileges were given to it by the Fathers, and consequently are not derived from our Saviour's institutions besides that of the greek word now observed, I answer the Council of Chalcedon, could not mean that the Fathers gave as by a new gift, the privileges to Rome without a plain contradiction; for in the Council of Chalcedon the sixth canon of the Nicene Council is alleged thus, Ecclesia Romana semper habuit primatum, the Roman Church had always the primacy, now if it had always the primacy, how could the same Council say, it received its privileges, and consequently its primacy (as you collect here) from the Fathers in succeeding times? Either therefore you must say that (supposing as you do) this canon is a genuine canon of the Council, that the Council contradicts itself, or that they mean not these words, the Fathers gave as a new gift all the privileges to Rome; or you must say that this canon is false, & supposititious, framed surreptitiously, and rejected by St. Leo, destructive of the Nicene canon and ancient privileges of other Churches, and coined by Anatolius & his adherents persuasion out of pride & ambition, as it is most manifest it is, & so of no force, as Leo declares in his epistle to Anatolius. And Anatolius himself in part acknowledges in his answer to Leo. To what you say of the ground of these privileges, the imperialitie of the Roman city, I have told you that was not urged as the sole, but as a partial ground of those privileges as it is also in the letters of Valentinian cited above, but yet that only was mentioned here, because it made most for Anatolius his pretention.  
39 Your second argument is page 244, 245, 246, 247. You ground your arguments in a patent falsehood, those Fathers, and others, as occasion served, pressed mainly and largely this argument, so Bellar. Baron. Perrone, Coccius, Gualterus, Stapleton, and others of this subject, and no small number of them are cited by me in this answer. But you call all their citations, scraps, and it must be so, if you have once said it, your word is a proof at any time, but you should have done well to have cited those scraps, that the world might have seen whether they be so or no; are you a disputant when you have no other reason for your saying then an I say so? but if you make so slight of those proofs, how will you prove from the Fathers either the baptism of Infants, or the necessity of Ministers or the precedency of the Roman Bishop, which you hold but by those which here you call scraps out of these Fathers.  
40. Your next argument page 248. is an abominable untruth, set down by a forehead of brass; you might as well have outbraved the loyal subjects of his most excellent Majesty, in time of the rebellion, by teling them the tradition of the greater part of the Nation was against him, and his title, what man in his right wits would have had the confidence to utter so loud a falsehood, without any proof at all, if there be any perpetual tradition received as you affirm from generation to generation that the Papal viccar-ship or sovereignty is an innovation or usurpation, and that the Catholic Church hath been many hundred years without it, as known and notorious, as that the Turks believe in Mahomet by common consent of histories; and Travellers show this tradition from the year 300 to the year 600 to have been as notoriously known and credited, as it is that the Turks believe in Mahomet, which if you cannot do, all the world will see you are one of the most insufferable out-facers of truth and assertors of open falsehood, that ever yet set pen to paper; and if you do it, I'll leave the papacy. But see you not what an obligation you have now brought upon yourself by your confidence of proving what you have hitherto denied, you had any obligation to prove, you seem not to understand what tradition from generation to generation is, nominate to me any one profession of Christians which held the Pope's sovereignty as it is proposed by the Church of Rome to be an usurpation, and I here oblige myself to show the time since Christ, when that profession was not in the Chrstian world, as clearly as you can show, when the procession of the Turks in the belief of the Mahomet's doctrine, was not in those Nations wherein it is now when the profession itself was not, how could it have any tradition?  
41. Page 249, 250, 251. Is first spent in five non-proofs, let them be proved in your next; concerning the Indians, Persians, etc. Armenians, Parthians, and Abbasins, we have already spoken as occasion served which needs no repetition. Now if I can prove (as I have proved) that any one extra-imperial Church was subject to the Bishop of Rome, and you cannot show some evident reason, why that was subject, rather than all the rest, I convince by that the subjection of all; now it is evident that both the Churches of Spain and France, Britain and Ireland, of France and Germany even when divided from the Roman Empire, were as subject to the sea of Rome as were those which remained united to the Empire. And the ancient historians writing upon the Council of Nice affirm (as I have observed) that the Bishops of all the Churches in Europe Africa, 
Theod. l. 1. c. 7. Mar. Victor advers. Arium l. 1. Euseb. l. 3. de vita Const. c. 7. Socrat. l. 1. cap. 5.  and Asia, were called to it, and consequently from all the Countries excepted by you, save India, if you account that in America; now if they all were called to the Council of Nice, there must have been some who had authority to call or summon them, that was not the Emperor, for he had no power, out of the Empire, ergo, it must have been some spiritual power over them, but none can be thought with any probability to have that power save the Patriarches and those were all resident within the Empire; ergo, some spiritual Governor within the Empire had power out of the Empire; if so, than he who is now supposed to have precedency before all the rest, is the most likely to have had that power, or the others at least, who were under his power.  
42. But to show unanswerably the universal power of the Roman Bishop, as he is successor of St. Peter, over the whole Church; first, the most ancient Fathers of the 4. first ages deferred to St. Peter the care and power over the whole Church, even over the Apostles themselves. Thus in the first age, St. Clement's 
(a) Epist. 1.  style St. Peter the first or chief of the Apostles. 
(b) Epist. ad Rom.  St. Ignatius, that the Roman Church preceded, or was the chief without any limitation to the Empire, 
(c) De divino no. post medium.  St. Denis calls St. Peter the supreme and most ancient summitie of the Divines.  
43. In the second age 
(d) In orat. de consummatione mundi.  St. Hippolytus calls St. Peter the rock of faith, the Doctor of the Church, and the chief or first of Christ's disciples. 
(e) Hom. 5. in Exod. & lib. 5. in johan. hom. 17. in Lucam in ep. ad Rom.  Origen, that he is the Rock upon which the Church is built, and the first of the Apostles, and that Christ had delivered unto him the supreme charge in feeding his sheep, 
(f) De veritate Eccles. ep. 55. ad Corn. ep. 7. ad januar. ep. 52. ad Antonianun.  St. Cyprian that St. Peter received the charge of feeding Christ's sheep, that the Church was built upon him, that the primacy was given to Peter, ut una Christi Ecclesia, & Cathedra una constitueretur. 
(g) hom. de resurrectione.  St. Eusebius of Alexandria, that the Church was built upon the faith of Peter.  

(h) In Chronicis, an. 44. lib. 2. histori.  Eusebius Cesariensis entitles St. Peter the first Bishop of the Christians, and that the providence of God, had made Peter Prince of the Apostles. And to 
(i) Lib. 2. hist. Eccle. c. 24.  show even in time of the Heathen Emperors, this supreme Authority of the Roman Bishop was so notorious in the world, that it was known even to them; he relates that there being strife in Antioch, who of the Pretendents to that Bishopric had right to possess the Bishop's house, that it should be delivered to him whom the Christians of Italy, and the Roman Bishop decreed it was to be given.  
The Nicen Council in the 39 Canon, according to the Chaldaic Edition sent into Portugal, an. 1605. the 11 of November from Franciscus Ross, Bishop of Angomala, in the Mountains of St. Thomas (says thus.) Ita ille cujus principatus Romae est Petro similis & authoritate par, Patriarcharum omnium dominatum & Principatum obtinet. Huic sanctioni siquis repugnaverit & obsistere ausus fuerit, totius Synodi decreto anathemati subjicitur. So he whose principality is at Rome like to Peter and equal to him in authority, hath the dominion and principality over all the Patriarches, whosoever repugns against this Decree, and shall dare to resist it, shall be excommunicated by the decree of the whole Council.  
St. Athanasius calls Marcus Bishop of Rome, 
(k) Ep. ad Marcum.  the Bishop of the universal Church, and after calls the Church of Rome the mother and head of all Churches, and promises obedience to it, and styles it the Apostle-ship, and in another Epistle 
(l) Ep. nomine Episc. Aegyp. Thebaidis & Libiae ad Filicem papam.  affirms that their predecessors had ever received help from the Roman Sea, nay even ordinations, points of doctrine and redresses. That they had recourse to that sea, as to their mother, they confess they were committed to him, and a little after they profess they would not presume without acquainting the Bishop of Rome to conclude any thing, the Ecclesiastical Canons commanding that in causes of high concern (Majoribus causis) that is, causes betwixt Bishops about heresy or belonging to the whole Church, they should determine nothing without the Roman Bishop, and our Lord hath commanded the Bishops of Rome, who are placed in the very top of greatness to have the care of all Churches, and that the judgement of all Bishops is committed to the Bishop of Rome, and that it is decreed in the Council of Nic●●, that without the Roman Bishop neither Councils were to be celebrated, nor Bishops condemned, & that the Roman sea was established firm and movable by Christ our Saviour.  
St. Hilarius 
(m) in psal. 131.  calls St. Peter, the foundation of the Church, the doorkeeper of the Kingdom of heaven, and that judge in the judgement of the earth.  
St. Epiphanius 
(n) In Anchorato inter initium & medium.  that St. Peter was the first of the Apostles established by our Saviour, and the firm rock whereupon the Church of God is built, and that God 
(o) heresi. 51. circa medium.  made choice of St Peter to be the head of his Disciples.  
St. Ambrose 
(p) In luce 24. post medium  that our Saviour left St. Peter as the vicar of his love. 
(q) l. 3. de sacer. c. 1.  St. Ambrose, desired in all things to accord with the Roman Church, and relates that 
(r) orat. de obit. Satiri. fratris post medium  Satyrus his brother, demanded of a certain Bishop, to have a trial of his Faith, whether that Bishop were of the same mind with the Catholic Bishops, that is to say with the Roman Church, St. Optatus 
(s) l. 2. contr. Parmen. non longe ab initio.  Melevitanus writing against Parmenian the Donatist says thus, Igitur negare non potes, scire te in urbe Roma Petro primo Cathed am Episco●●alem esse collatam, in qua sederit omnium Apostolo●●um Capu●● Petrus. unde & Cephas appellatus est. In qua una Cathedra unit●●s ab omnibus servaretur, ne caeteri Apostoli singuli sibi quisque defenderent. Ut jam Schismaticus & peccator esset, qui contra singularem Cathedram alteram collocaret, Ergo Cathedra unica quae est prima de dotibus sedit prior Petrus cui successit Linus etc. Therefore says Optatus thou canst not deny, that thou knowest in the City of Rome the Episcopal chair was first given to Peter, wherein sat the head of all the Apostles, Peter, whence he is called Cephas. In which one chair unity should be kept by all, lest every one of the rest of the Apostles should defend another chair to himself. That now he should be a Schismatic and a sinner, who should erect another chair against this that is single, or one only: therefore in this only chair which is one of the dowries of the Church, first sat Peter, to whom Linus succeeded etc. Thus far Optatus, and then he reckons up seven and thirty Popes succeeding one another to Ciricius, who sat in his time, & then adds. Cum quo nobis totus orbis, commercio formarum in una communionis societate concordat, 
Literarum supplendum videtur.  with whom (Ciricius) the whole world accords with us by the correspondence of form Letters. This done he relates that this truth of unity in faith, and communion was then a thing so notoriously known throughout the whole Christian world, for a mark of a true Christian, that the Donatists themselves to have some pretence to it, even from their first beginning, sent one of their party to be Bishop of the African Donatists in Rome, and still continued the succession of those Donatists' Bishops there to the number of four; whose names he mentions: so ambitious were they of having at least a shadow of communicating with a Bishop at Rome, seeing they could never have it with the true Bishop of Rome, as Optatus notes here.  
St. chrysostom 
(t) Orat. Encom. in Petrum & Paulum orat. 5. contr. judeos' hom. 83 in Math. hom. 87. in joan. hom 80. ad po. Anteoch.  styles St. Peter, Doctor or Teacher of the Apostles, and, that he was the first of the Apostles, & brought under his subjection the whole world, and that Christ built his Church upon him. The top of the Apostolical College, that he was Precedent of the Church throughout the whole world.  
St. Augustine, 
(u) In questi novi test. q. 75 in fine.  That all titles of Authority next after Christ, were in St. Peter, that he was the head to be Pastor of Christ's flock, that our Saviour praying for St. Peter prayed for all the Apostles 
(x) Serm. 15. de Sanctis & Serm. 16.  because what is done for a Superior or Governor is done for all those who are under his charge; that he was the foundation of the Church by virtue of our Saviour's words, upon this rock I will build my Church: he calls the Roman Sea, the Sea Apostolic absolutely, 
(y) Lit. 2. contr. lit. petil. c. 51.  
(z) Himno cont. partem Donati in initio.  That the succession of the Roman Bishops is the rock, which the gates of Hell do not overcome.  
I omit for brevity sake, many other holy Fathers of those ages, hoping these will be a sufficient testimony of St. Peter's and the Roman Bishops authority, not within the Empire only, but through the whole Christian world.  
44. To your fift Argument, p. 251. I deny your Antecedent, you prove it by an outfacing confidence in five particulars; to the first and second, I answer; it is not necessary he should either have chosen or ordained them, nor authorise any other to the validity of ordaining them, nor that they should receive their Episcopal power of ordaining from him, but their Patriarchal power was from him, as I have proved above, in that he both restored and deposed those Patriarches as occasion required. To your third, the laws and canons of the Church they received, and those were confirmed by his authority. To your fourth I have evidenced, they were commanded and judged by him. To your fift I deny the Patriarch of Constantinople to be equal with him in all things, nor can you prove it. No nor so much as essay to prove it, without contradicting yourself, who grant him a precedency of place before the Bishop of Constantinople, which is one privilege.   

CHAP. IU. St. Gregory's doctrine about universal Bishop.  
Num. 45. In what sense St. Gregory condemned the title of universal Bishop, how clearly he attributes to St. Peter the Sovereign authority, over the whole Church, by Christ's authority, and consequently to his lawful Succ●●ssors after his death, the Bishops of Rome. Num. 47 Whether the title of universal were offered St. Leo, by the Council of Chalcedon, why St. Gregory refused and condemned that title. Num. 52. Mr. Baxter contradicts St. Gregory and himself and brings all he hath objected in 8. or 10. pages, to nothing. Num. 53, 54, 55. how various he is in his accounts. Num. 57 into what difficulties Mr. Baxter casts himself.  
45. Pag. 253. You trifle about the title of universal Bishop or Patriarch; this St. Gregory took to be full of pride and insolency, and injurious to all Patriarches and Bishops in the Church, because it was capable of this signification, that he was the universal Bishop of the whole Church; so that there were no other true and effectual Bishops in the whole Church save himself, and the rest were not Christ's, but his officers, nor receiving their power from Christ but from him; this he insinuates in the words you cite here, and after says, jam vos Episcopi non estis, if once an universal Bishop were admitted in the Church, than all the rest were no longer Bishops; for this reason this holy Pope refused and condemned this title, but as for the thing itself which is in controversy betwixt us, that the Pope hath power and jurisdiction over the whole Church, we have above proved St. Gregory to be most positive in it, in several passages of his works. See St. Gregory's Epistles throughout: nor was there every any Pope exercised more acts of jurisdiction through the whole Church, as occasion required, than he did. And in his Epistles themselves, even in those he writ in time of this controversy with john of Constantinople, he gives most evident proofs of it. Ep. lib. 1. ep. 24. he says thus. Hinc namque est quod Petrus authore Deo, principatum tenens a bene urgente Cornelio & sese ei humiliter prosternanti immoderatius venerari recusavit. Hence▪ it is that Peter holding the principality by God's authority, or God being the author, refused to be immoderately venerated by good Cornelius, who prostrated himself unto him; where he attributes St. Peter principality to the institution of God, that is, of our Saviour, but then presently St. Gregory adds, that when St. Peter dealt with Ananias, mox quanta potentia super caeteros excussit ostendit, summum se intra Ecclesiam contra peccata recoluit. He corroborated himself as the highest within the Church against sin. N. B. he says, summam intra Ecclesiam, non intra imperium, the highest within the Church, not within the Empire. And ep. 32. ad Maurit. Cunctis ergo Evangelium scientibus liquet, quod voce dominica, sancto, & omnium Apostolorum Petro principi Apostolo totius Ecclesiae, cura commissa est; cum & totius Ecclesiae principatus ei committitur, & tamen universalis Episcopus non vocatur. It is manifest to all who know the Gospel, that by the voice of our Lord, the care of the whole Church is committed to Peter, the care and principality of the whole Church is committed to him, and yet he is not called the universal Bishop. Nor can you say with reason, as you pretend, that the rest of the Apostles had the care of the whole Church committed to them by our Saviour, as St. Peter had. For he had it says St. Gregory, as being Prince of the Apostles themselves, and so had not only the care of the people, and inferior Pastors and Prelates, but of the very Apostles committed to him, and in this exceeded all the other Apostles, as having the care of the whole Church, people, Pastors, Bishops, Apostles committed to him by our Saviour, which no other had the same, nor said he to any of them absolutely, feed my Lambs, feed my Sheep, that is, all my Lambs, all my Sheep, but to him. Thus St. Paul, when he saith, the care of all Churches lay upon him, he includes not the Apostles themselves, as never having challenged, nor ever having ascribed to him, by antiquity to be princeps Apostolorum, Prince of the Apostles, as St. Peter had. Beside, the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. 11.28. signifies a soliditude, or anctious care, which he took for all the Churches, which might have been taken for them out of an excess of charity extended to all, though he had had no power or care committed to him by our Saviour (as St. Peter had over them.) See you not the care, not of the Churches within the Empire, (as you fancy) but of the whole Church, as now declared, not by humane right from Fathers, or Councils, as you imagine, but by the voice of Christ himself, was committed to St. Peter, and this was no secret in St. Gregory's days, nor a thing known to many or most, but to all (says this holy Doctor) who knew the Gospel. And hence also appears the difference betwixt the title of universal, and the thing itself, controverted betwixt you and me, which you would have signified by that title of having care and power committed to one from Christ over the whole Church; this second (says St. Gregory) St. Peter had, but not the first: and this difference appears yet more evidently, for the holy Pope instances also in the high Priest in Moses Law, as you acknowledge page 265. who, as all men know, had not only precedency of place, but real power and authority over the whole Church of the Jews; and yet (says he) was not called universal. Now this being St. Gregory's doctrine in relation to St. Peter, and our Saviour having subjected his Church under the care and providence of St. Peter, as supreme visible Governor in his place, after his Ascension into Heaven, it will follow that our Saviour judged this government always necessary for his Church: for the very same reason, which made it necessary in the Apostles time, evince it to be necessary in all succeeding ages: this government therefore was to be perpetuated in his Church, and seeing it was fixed upon St. Peter by our Saviour, it must fall upon St. Peter's lawful successors, after his death, and seeing none can claim that succession save the supreme Bishop (for he of Antioch succeeded him in his life time, and therefore could not have that sovereign power derived to him, for St. Peter retained that as long as he lived, as all acknowledge) none save the Bishop of Rome can claim the care of the universal Church committed to him by virtue of Christ's institution; Ergo, he, and he only is the ordinary supreme visible Governor of the whole Church of Christ, in St. Gregory's principles.  
46. But St. Gregory is not only positive in the principle, but in the sequel also, in relation to St. Peter's successor at Rome, for l. 4. ep. 36. ad Eulog. Alexandrinum & Anastas. Antioch. speaking of the Constantinopolitan Synod, which had given the title of universal to john of Canstantinople, he says thus. Idem decessor meus ex authoritate sancti Petri directis litteris cassavit. That his Predecessor had annulled that Council by the authority of St. Peter: behold the Roman Bishops used the authority of St. Peter, and by power of that invalidated a Council collected out of their Patriarchate, which shows that St. Peter's authority descends down to his successors the Roman Bishops, and that having been extended over the universal Church, the successors also have the same extent of authority, in virtue of their first predecessor St. Peter. Now this phrase of exercising acts of government in the Church, was ordinarily expressed by doing them by the authority of St. Peter, as appears in a hundred passages of the ancients, This annulling the acts of that Constantinopolitan Synod is again asserted by St. Gregory, lib. 4. ep. 34. ad Constant. Agustam. where treating of john of Constantinople, he says, Ita ut sanctae memoriae decessoris mei tempore ascribi se in Synodo, 
See the like Text cited above, lib. 7. ep. 65. lib. 2. ep. 37. lib. 7. ep. 64. lib. 1. ep. 72.  tali hoc superbo vocabulo faceret, quamvis cuncta acta illius, Synodi sede contradicente Apostolicâ soluta sunt, So that he, John of Constantinople procured himself to be honoured with that proud title in a Synod, although all the acts of that Synod be dissolved, the Apostolical See contradicting them. Nor shows St. Gregory the authority of his predecessor only, but his own also over the Bishops of Constantinople, for lib. 4. ep. ep. 38. ad joan. constant. Quicquid facere humiliter debui non omisi, sed si in mea correptione despiciar, restat at Ecclesiam debeam adhibere; whatsoever I ought to do in humility, I have not omitted, but if I be despised in my correction, it remains that I must use the Church; that is, as he treats immediately before, use the authority of the Church, in casting him out of it, as a Heathen and Publican, because he refused to hear the Church. And again, lib. 7. ep. ep. 70. ad Episcop. Thessalon. & alios complures. After he had strictly prohibited them to give any consent to the title of universal Bishop, he adds, si quis neglexerit a beati Petri Apostolorum principis pace, se noverit segregatum. If any one of you neglect this my command, let him know that he is segregated or divided from the peace of St. Peter; that is, from the communion of the Catholic Church. What follows for six leaves together, is nothing but a farago of equivocations, misconceits, contradictions, p. 154. after you yourself had cited St. Greg. words, that this title was offered him per Concilium Chalcedonense, by the Council of Chalcedon, you say it was but a brag of his, and that it was offered only by two Deacons in the Council.  
47. Thus you first cite authors against us, and then accuse them of vanities and falsity, when those very citations which you cite for yourself, make against you; the question is not what is, or is not, now extant in the Council of Chalcedon, or wherein St. Gregory grounded his say, but whether St. Gregory affirms that this title was offered him in that Council as you confess, (by citing his words) he does: and is it fit for so mean a worm as you are, to make this most honourable and holy Pope, the Apostle of our Nation to be a bragger, when he relates what passed in general Councils? But now let us see a piece of your skill in History, first you say the title was writ by two. Now Blundel p. 452. acknowledges there was four, and Barron. ad an. 451. num. 32. says they were varii clerici & alii Alexandrini; then say you these two were Deacons. Blundel says no such matter, but that they were particular persons; and Barronius that they were, clerici, and others. Next you add they had no votes in the Council: what wonder's that, when they did not so much as sit in it? You say the names of those who composed those bills, libellos, against Dioscorus, were Theodorus and Ischirion, who as they were only those who offered them to the Council, in the names of their Authors, the bills being composed by others; as well as by them, after his you call those writings libels, on purpose to disgrace them, (as it may seem) for though they be called libelli, that is, little writings in Latin, yet the word libels in English is always taken in a bad sense, and signifies a a false, seditious, infamous pamphlet; but this you thought a fit name for them because they had a superscription containing the title of universal Patriarch given to Pope Leo, never considering what a disgrace you put upon that holy Council, by making it a favourer and receiver of libels, but suppose St. Greg. had had no other ground of his so constant affirmation, that the title of universal Patriarch offered him by those Clerks of Alexandria, in the Council of Chalcedon, read publicly and no way disallowed by any one in the Council, when it concerned them so much (ut supra;) yet this very thing convinces that he thought such a ●●acite approbation, was sufficient to affirm, it was offered him not only in the Council, but per consilium, by the Council of Chalcedon. Next page 254. You show your skill in Grammar, and argue that if the thing were due, signified by the title of universal, the name was also due, never reflecting that one word may be taken in divers senses, whereof one may agree with one particular thing signified, and not the other. Thus Tyrannus signified a King in the ancient signification, but now a Tyrant only, thus Minister in Latin, signifies both a Minister and a servant etc. Nay you yourself confess (and that is one of your contradictions) that the Council offered it not to him in that sense wherein it signifies an universal governor of the Church, but in an other, now because this word beside the moderate signification, in which the Council offered it, is capable of another most pernicious and antichristian sense, (as I have declared) St. Gregory thought it undue and unfit to be accepted, because he esteemed himself obliged to avoid all appearance of evil, and never accept of any title which was apt to breed public scandal in the Church.  
48. Your next work is pag. 255. to confound those two significations of this word, or the thing itself, for that which is to be debated betwixt us, is not what St. Gregory judged to be the thing signified, by this word, for that was most wicked, and unchristian, but the being the supreme visible governor of Christ's Militant Church, yet so that inferior Bishops and Pastors, are true governor's also, each of his portion, and immediate officers, and Vice-gerents of Christ, receiving their original power from him, and not from the Pope, which may also be signified by the word universal; Now you shift cunningly from this second, to the first, and thereby work a confusion in your whole discourse, and deceive your reader, you take it in the first bad signification, or the unchristian thing signified by it (as St. Greg. understood it; pag. 254. & then say it is plain, that it is the thing as well as the name, that St. Gregory wrote against, but that is not the thing now debated betwixt us, but that which St. Greg. took to be signified by that word, which we disallow as much as he did, or you can do.  
49. Page. 255. num. 2. You equivocate again about the taking away Episcopacy, by that title; for we affirm not that St. Gregory thought or john of Constantinople either, to expel all Bishops directly & crudely out of the Church, as you and your zealous brethren lately did out of the English Hierarchy. But that although they remained still in the possession of their former titles, and office of Bishops, yet in effect according to the malignancy of this proud title, St. Gregory thought the virtue and proper force of Episcopacy to be ennervated, that is, that whosoever made himself universal Bishop, made himself Bishop of every particular Diocese, in the Church in capite, and thereby the rest who were possessed of those Dioceses held their titles as from him, as his vicar's a movable at pleasure, by him as it were his servants or officers. And though happily john of Constantinople penetrated not so deep into the malignancy of this title, Yet St. Gregory might suppose he did; or fear he would do, & therefore would not permit so dangerous a title in the Church, by force whereof one might lay a claim so obnoxius to, and destructive of Ecclesiastical Hierarchy and this is that which St. Gregory signifies, that john by force of that title would subjugate all Christ's members to himself, that is, make them his officers and vicar's, holding their Original powers from him, and not immediately from Christ. Now to say as you adjoin, that this is the very form of Popery, is nothing but either your calumny or want of true understanding of our doctrine, wherewith you ought to have been furnished, before you had taken to write so bitterly against us. We subject no Bishop according to his Episcopal power of ordination, or original power of jurisdiction in his Diocese to the Pope; no more than are the Colonels or Captains of an Army, who receive their Patents and Commissions immediately from the King, subject to the general in order to their respective commands, but are as truly Officers of the King, as the general is; nor can the General displace any of them at his pleasure, as the King can do, though he has power to command them upon the King's service, or to correct, punish or displace them, when they give sufficient cause; for that is also belonging to the King's service; Now you had not consideration enough, to see this difference, 'twas not (some will say) for want of ignorance. Now if we take the word universal in the malignant signification, it will follow that if such an universal Bishop fall, the Church falls with him, because there will be no other true Pastor to maintain her in the truth, through the whole Church, the rest being not absolute pastors, but his Officers.  
50. Page 257. Is spent in reciting St. Gregory's execrations against the title of universal, which touched not our controversy.  
51. Page. 258. Whether your reply, or Bellar. answer, be more miserable, I leave to the Reader, he speaks of a Vicar to sinful man, and you answer 'tis no indignity to a Bishop to be a Vicar of Christ the eternal God: next you equivocate again num. 2. the question is not what john thought, or pretended by that title, who can prove or disprove evidently what were his secret thoughts? but what St. Gregory expresses himself to judge of his pretences, either what he did think, or probably speaking might be judged to think, by assuming that title. Now that St. Gregory thought such to be john's pretensions by that title is out of question.  
52. Page 258.259. num. 3. You make Pope Gregory his exceed in censure of john's pretensions in assuming that title, and thereby take away all force from those very citations, which you cite against us, so strong a disputant are you against yourself: why should you think groundless discourses should be of any force against your adversary? nay you are so favourable to St. john, and so froward to St. Gregory, that you make the one pretend no farther, then to a precedency of place, before all other Bishops, which he had before in relation to all, save only the Bishop of Rome, so that it was not in reality a subjection of all the members of Christ to him, which he sought by that title, supposing that it included no more than a primacy of order, or precedency, but that he sought only by that title (having before precedency, before all the rest) to obtain precedency before one more than he had, that is the Bishop of Rome. And for St. Gregory you make him an errand liar, for he says neither himself nor any of his predecessors ever accepted of that proud title, and yet (if it were no more but a supremacy of place before all & not an universal government as you say here it was not) you your self acknowledge that he and all his predecessors (at least since the Council of Nice) accepted of it: nay you will make St. Gregory speak absurdly and ridiculously in inveighing so earnestly against john of Constantinople as a forerunner of Antichrist, a profane person, a destroyer of Episcopal dignity etc. For having pretended no more than to take place of the Pope, whereas you say here, the Pope had then no rite to, nor possession in that precedency of place, but only strived for it: and why then might not john strive also, fort against him without blasphemy or Anti-Christanism?  
What say you of the Greeks refusing to have the universal government of the Church, I have above confuted, out of Hieremius against the Lutherans.  
53. Page 259. The text you urge proves no more than the former, and shows the truth of my answer: the like is of page 260. That title as subjecting all Christ's members, to one, as their universal Bishop, as though they had no other Bishop, nor true Pastor but him, is as manifestly against Christ, as if a General, should subject all the soldiers and Officers under him, as if he were their sole commander by immediate commission from the King, and the rest by commission from him would be against the King.  
54. Page 261. The words you urge do manifestly illustrate my interpretation of St. Gregory, when he says, Et solus omnibus praeesse videretur: for in our opinion it is not true that the Pope, solus omnibus praeest is alone above all, for all Christians, have some other above them then the Pope, as he is supreme governor of the Church. videlicet, their respective Bishops and Pastors, but in the sense St. Gregory speaks of, the universal Bishop only is above all, there being not others but such as have their authority from him, and govern as his Officers in his place, and by his authority.  
55. Page 261. Your first reply to Bellarm. is now answered, 'twas but two Deacons, three leaves of, and now 'tis two or three, they'll increase in time like Falstafs blades in buckerome. The Fathers of the Council called him not only head, or head-Bishop, as London is called the head City, but they called him their head: and themselves the members of that body; whereof he was head, and said that he governed them as the head governs the members. Tu sicut caput Membris prae eras (ut supra) To number the third p. 262. 'twas first two, then on the other side of the leaf it increased to two or three Deacons, who offered St. Leo this title, and without the Councils approbation, and on this side, it is the whole Council, according to St. Gregory whose words you cite against us (and therefore must esteem them true) which consisted of thrice 200 Bishops, Falstafs bounce buckerome was nothing to this increase. Next, you fall into a fallacy ex insufficient enumeratione partium. It was neither in the sense [now explicated] he thought it was offered by the Council, nor as he was Episcopus primae sedis, Bishop of the first sea, in your sense, i. e. The first in place, order, or precedency only, but as it signified the supreme Bishop, who governed all other Bishops, though they were as true, and proper governor's of their respective flocks, as he was of his, which immediate power and commission from our Saviour, as Colonels and Captains are governed by their General. To num. 3. Nor have to this day any Roman Bishop inserted this name of universal into their titles, as the Bishops of Constantinople do, But contrary wise, ever since this proud title was assumed by the Bishops of Constantinople, the Bishops of Rome have inserted this humble title into theirs, of Servi servorum Dei, Servant of the servants of God, as may be seen in St. Gregory's Epistles, written after that time, to which is prefixed by him, that humble title, Gregorius servus servorum Dei. But if it signified no more than that the Roman Bishop is the first in place before all others, why might he not use it, seeing you acknowledge it to be his due, you can give me no other reason for this, then because the word universal is capable of a worse, signification, and therefore to be avoided, which is the very reason I give you, why St. Gregory both refused it and inveighed so much against it.  
56. How the rest of the Apostles had the care of the whole Church, you oppose Bellar. p. 262. sect. 2. To your first answer I have now replied. To your n. 2. No man questions St. Peter being a member of Christ's Church under Christ the head, but so is every Bishop a member of the Church, which hinders not their being true Governors, and visible heads of their respective Dioceses; so was the high Priest amongst the Jews, a member of the Church, next under God the absolute chief head, yet was withal endued with the power of governing visibly the whole Jewish Church as all grant.  
57 Pag. 262. But see you not into what briars you have cast yourself, if you follow the ordinary Edition & read it as you do thus, certe Petrus Apostolus primum membrum sanctae & universalis Ecclesiae est. Peter the Apostle is the first member of the holy & universal Church. You establish St. Peter's supremacy, for what is primum membrum sanctae & universalis Ecclesiae? is it in place only, than the Bishops of Rome as St. Peter's successors have their precedency in place from him, and not conferred upon them by the Fathers, which destroys the main ground of your novelty; you cannot therefore say it is a naked precedency in place, it must therefore have been a primacy over the whole Church in government, as was that of the other Apostles in their singular jurisdictions, yet was he not to be styled absolutely head of the whole Church, for the reasons above declared. But if you follow the lection of Mr. james (whom I credit as much as you do Mr. Ross) you will make a fair piece of nonsense of St. Gregory's words, for they constitute St. Peter no more than a common member of the Church, membrum sanctae & universalis Ecclesiae est; which is true of every good Christian; and yet constitute the other Apostles heads of particular Churches; and thereby give a greater honour and power to them then to St. Peter, which you yourself every where deny.   

CHAP. V Saint Leo, and other holy Fathers.  
NUm. 58. what means Ecclesiae Catholicae Episcopus, given by St. Leo, and other Fathers to the Roman Bishop; how Episcopus universalis Ecclesiae, and universalis Episcopus, Bishop of the universal Church, and universal Bishop, are said by Bellar. to be of the same signification. Num. 60. How Mr. Baxter abuses both Bellar. and St. Gregory; he makes St. Greg. speak false Latin and nonsense, by misciting his words; he understands not St. Greg. Latin phrase. Num. 62. In what sense Catholics affirm Christians to be opposers of the Pope. Bellar. misreported by Mr. Baxter. Num. 64.66. He gives a false translation to Raynerius his words twice over, and misreports his meaning, by concealing the words following in Canus once. Num. 67. 68, 69, etc. He proves his antecedent, but not his consequence which I deny. Num. 69. Whether the Papacy began in Phocas his time.  
58. To your third numb. pag. 263. you are sore pinched to find an answer to the Pope's being entitled Episcopus universalis Ecclesiae, Bishop of the universal Church, could you think it would satisfy any rational man, to say that this title imported no more, then what may be, and aught to be given to every Bishop, who adhered to the common Communion, & was a Catholic, to wit, that he was a Bishop of the Catholic Church? can you be so ignorant as not to know this and the like titles were given him as signal declaratives of his place & honour, whereby he was both distinguished and preferred before all other Bishops and Patriarches, neither of which could be done, had Episcopus universalis Ecclesiae, signified no more than that he was a Bishop, that is, to be accounted amongst the Bishops of the universal Church; for this was common to him with all other Bishops through the whole Church. And I pray you tell me in good earnest, when any one should have entitled his letter to Pope Leo v. g. thus, Leoni Episcopo universalis Ecclesiae, to Leo a Bishop of the Catholic Church; would it not have been profoundly ridiculous, for seeing there might have been some other Catholic Bishops called Leo, as well as the Bishop of Rome, who could know to whom this letter was written, by virtue of that title? but that it may appear evidently how incongruous this your effugium is: several Epistles of Pope Leo, entitled with his own hand will sufficiently manifest it, Saint Leo Epist. 97. entitles his Epist. thus, Leo Romae & universalis Catholicaeque Ecclesiae Episcopus: would you translate these words thus, Leo a Bishop of Rome, and of the universal and Catholic Church. I pray you how many Bishops of Rome were there at that time beside Leo? Or sees not every one who sees any thing that they must be thus rendered into English, Leo Bishop of Rome, and of the universal and Catholic Church. Now this evinces that as he was in power and jurisdiction Bishop of Rome, so was he also Bishop of the universal and Catholic Church in power and jurisdiction, for otherwise the sentence will be incongruous and equivocal. In the like manner, ep. 13. he entitles himself, Leo Catholicae Romanae Ecclesiae Episcopus, Leo the Bishop of the Catholic Roman Church. Now who sees not both that this must be in authority and government, and that the appellation of the Roman Catholic Church is of 12. hundred years standing, Ep. 42. he writes himself thus, Leo Catholicae Ecclesiae Episcopus, now had that imported no more than this, Leo a Bishop of the Catholic Church; who could have known who writ this Epistle? ep. 88 he gives himself this title, Leo Romanae Ecclesiae & Apostolicae sedis Episcopus; Leo Bishop of the Roman Church, and Apostolic Sea. Now seeing he takes the Roman Church, for the same with the Catholic Church (as we have now seen) it imports thus much, Leo Bishop of the Roman or Catholic Church, & of the Apostolical Sea, for had he meant only the particular Roman Church, by Romanae Ecclesiae, he had committed a tautology, in adadding presently, & Apostolicae sedis, for that designed the particular Church of Rome. Now seeing he was by power of government Bishop of the Apostolic Sea, either he must speak equivocally and absonously, or signify by those words that he was by power of government also Bishop of the Roman Catholic Church, ep. 54. thus, Leo Episcopus Romanae & universalis Ecclesiae, Leo Bishop of the Roman and universal Church, ep. 62. Leo Catholicae Ecclesiae Episcopus, Leo Bishop of the Catholic Church; by all this appears the truth of Bellarmine's illation from this title, against your novel and jejune gloss upon the title of universalis Ecclesiae Episcopus, for in effect it comprehends all the authority which we ascribe to the Roman Bishop over the Church, and as much, nay much more than you would have signified by the title of the universal Bishop, conformable to this title in its genuine signification, are others of the like nature given to the Popes, by the ancient Fathers. Thus writes St. Ambrose ep. 81. Ad Cyricium Papam, Recognovimus literis sanctitatis tuae, boni pastoris excubias, quam fideliter tibi commissam januam serves, & pia solicitudine Christi ovile custodias; we discover by your Holiness letters, the watchfulness of a good Pastor, how faithfully you keep the door committed to you, and with how holy a care you preserve the fold of Christ And again, in 1. ad Tim. 3. Domus Dei est Ecclesia, cujus hodie Rector est Damasus, the house of God is the Church, the Governor whereof is Damasus; who was then the Bishop of Rome. The Council of Chalcedon (as we have already seen.) ●●p. ad Leonem, says thus, in super contra ipsum ●●ui vineae custodia, a Salvatore commissa est, id est, contra tuam Apostolicam sanctitatem extendit insaniam, Moreover (Dioscorus) extends his madness against him to whom the care of the Vineyard was committed by our Saviour, that is, against this Apostolical sanctity. An. Ed. Binnii p. 141. The Pope's Legates in the Council of Chalcedon entitle Leo, Caput universalis Ecclesiae, head of the universal Church. Now to embroil the controversy and cast a slur upon Bellar. you put St. Greg. at odds with him, and then ask which of those two is the wiser? whereas Bell. promises first a distinction of two different significations of universalis Episcopus, universal Bishops. In the one he accords with St Gregory, that the said title is profane, sacrilegious, and Anti-christian, and proves that St. Greg. took the words in that sense, when he inveighed so highly against them, and never asserts that Episcopus universalis, taken in that profane sense, and Episcopus universalis Ecclesiae, are of the same force. Then he accommodates (as you yourself do) though another way another signification to those words, universal Bishop, wherein they were taken in the bills directed to St. Leo, in the Council of Chalcedon, for neither would the Council have permitted, nor those Catholics and Clericks have ascribed a profane, sacrilegious and Anti-christian title to Pope Leo: and it appears that as they took the word universal, it had no more of the profane, etc. in it as applied to St. Leo, than it had as applied to the Council of Chalcedon, for to both of them they attribute universal, as therefore the Council was truly universal in a most Catholic sense, without any prejudice to other Bishops, or the Hierarchy of the Church: in the like sense did they understand Pope Leo to be universal Archbishop, his universal jurisdiction, suiting as well with the complete authority of all other Bishops, as did that of the Council; for though the Council was truly universal in jurisdiction over the whole Church, (as I have proved) yet that notwithstanding, the Patholick Bishops became no substitutes, Vicars or Officers to those of the Council, but still remained absolute Officers of Christ, and true Pastors, Bishops, & Governors in place of Christ, in their respective districts, etc. In like manner the Pope's being universal, in jurisdiction, took not away any part of the full power and authority of other Bishops, but consisted together with it, as did the universal jurisdiction, of the Council, Now in this second and Catholic sense only Bellar. affirms that universal Bishop, and Bishop of universal Church, are the same in sense wherein there is no debate between him and St. Gregory. Thus you cunningly delude your Readers, by casting such confused mists as these before their eyes.  
59 By this the weakness of what you say next, p. 264. is clearly discovered, where you vent rather your passion, then speak reason against Bellar. for who can doubt but St. Gregory had ground enough to execrate as he did that title, when it was so obnoxious in itself to profaneness, etc. And pretended by a person of so ambitious a spirit, as was that john of Constantinople, that he was in danger to make the worse use of it, for his own advantage. Thus though Christotocos be capable of a true and Catholic sense, yet because it is also capable and obnoxius (since Nestorius his heresy) to be taken in an heretical signification, the Church forbade it as sacrilegious and profane, and much more as it was then used by Nestorius.  
60. In your answer to Bellar. second reason; p. 264. you abuse both him and St. Gregory. Bell. says the title of universal was not due to john of Constantinople, in neither of the two senses now delivered which you conceal and therefore was absolutely profane and sacrilegious, as applied to him in any sense whatsoever, and yet even St. Gregory himself refused it, as profane, etc. Though in some sense it might be due to him to beat down the pride of john; you abuse St. Gregory in saying p. 265. That he approved that title for himself, or that Bell. affirms, he approved of it as for himself, neither of them say any such matter: prove they do. Know you not that, Malum ex quocunque defectu, that every defect makes a thing evil, seeing therefore there was a defect of a profane signification, and scandal in the title of universal, for that defect he accounted it evil, and absolutely disallowed of it, nor could the capacity of that word, to be taken in a more moderate sense, prevail with him to approve of it, quia malum ex quocunque defectu, the other defect had corrupted it, nor says Bellarmine that he approved it even for himself, but that in some sense it agreed with him, yet the danger of scandal in accepting a title, so subject to bear a profane sense, deterred him from approving of it even for himself, as knowing the curse which lies upon those which give scandal to their weak brethren, and that Christians are to avoyed all appearance of evil.  
61. In your last clause of this paragraph, you fall again into your old fallacy, proceeding a notione secunda, ad primam, from the titles which hath two significations, to the thing controverted, which corresponds but to one of those significations I have proved though St. Greg. disallowed of that scandalous title, yet both he and his predecessors, always admitted of an universal Sovereignty as it was explicated above: most untrue, therefore is your illation, that it sprung up since St. Greg. days your next citation out of St. Gregory confirms what I have now said: he thought the title of universal, by reason of the scandal comprised in it, absolutely to be refused by all good Prelates. And so does the rest that follows out of St. Gregory, page 266. only in these words, sed quoad in me correptione despicior, restat ut ecclesiam debeam adhibere. I note these particulars, 1. you miscite St. Gregory's words, and thereby make them both nonsense, and bald Latin, it should not be (as you have it) sed quoad but sed quia, thus I find it in two different editions of St. Gregory, the one anno. 1564. Basiliae, and the other 1572. Antwerpiae, both which have it quia, nor ever found I it printed or cited otherwise, till I read in your book: now, what sense is this, but until I am despised in my correction, it remains that I use the Church, that is, I must lay the Church's censures upon you, before you offend I must take them of, and who ever joined a present tense of the Indicative mood with a quoad, before you, for that is as much as to say until I am now despised; which makes the time present and future all one, and that, I think, is Nonsense: what think you of it? 2. you prove St. Gregory held the Church's authority to be greater than his own, by these words now treated. Now whatsoever St. Gregory held in this, is not of any concern now, but most certain it is, he neither did nor could prove it by these words; for this phrase, Ecclesiam debeam adhibere, I must use the Church, signifies no more than this, I must proceed according to the rigour of the Church canons and discipline in inflicting upon you the censures of the Church, that is, I must proceed no longer as a friend to entreat, exhort, and admonish you, as hitherto I have done, but as the chief Pastor of the Church, use the fullness of that authority which I have in the name and for the good of the Church, in casting you out of it, by the severity of excommunication: that this only is his meaning, is evident both by the precedent words, where he declares our Saviour's doctrine about excommunication of obstinate offenders, and by the words immediately subsequent, where he affirms he must not prefer his person, though never so dear to him, before the institution of the Canons, etc. Now when will you ever prove the consequence, viz. St. Gregory threatened the use of censures of the Church against john of Constantinople, Ergo, he took the Church's authority to be greater than his own.  
62. Now you come in good time, to prove your seventh argument. page 257. Which you draw from the confession of Papists. I distinguish your antecedent, if you mean Papists confess, that multitudes or the most part of Christians not univocally so called, have been opposers, or no subjects of the Pope, I grant it if univocally, so called, I deny it; therefore by those testimonies there have been visible Churches of such, I deny your consequence. To your first authority, from Aeneas Silvius I answer, he cannot mean, that so small regard was had to the Church of Rome, before the Council of Nice, that it was not believed to be the head of all other Churches &c. (as I have proved it was) unless you make him accuse the Council of Nice, of Innovation, and of introducing a new government into the Church of God, which notwithstanding they supposed to have been ever before their time, for the Council of Chalcedon citys the Sixth Nicene Canons, as affirming that the Church of Rome had always the Primacy, your answer to Bellar. is fallacious proceeding a part, 
Se Con. Chal. Can. 28.  ad totum, Bell. you acknowledge says he, it is partly true, and partly false, & you subsume, but if true, which supposes Bellarmine to affirm that its wholly true, whereas you should have subsumed. but if partly true, as you allege Bellar. to have said it was, and then you fall again into the same fallacy if it be false (say you) that is if the whole be false: whereas you should have said, if it be partly false, as Bellar. said it was. And had you thus proceeded candidly, and logically in your subsupmtion your subsequel against our Historians authority had been Evacuated, for very many good Authors may speak some things, which in part are true, and in part false; that is in some respect true, and in others false, they understanding what they writ in that respect wherein they are true.  
63. Page 268. You mention first the Greeks in opposition to the Pope, recorded by our Historians, what then? Ergo by their testimony there have been visible Churches of such, that is of true univocal Christians, who opposed the Pope that's the thing to be proved; but to prove that, you must prove those historians to have held those schismatical Greeks to have been univocal Christians which is necessary to compose a visible Church, this you have not done, than you cite Golestaldus but where the Lords knows) making mention of such as were under the Pope's patriarchal power, and yet opposed him? but if that Golestaldus were truly ours, prove also that he held them: whilst they stood thus in opposition against the Pope, to be univocal Christians, that's your main work, and yet you do it not; but see you not how you first take such as you must acknowledge to be subjects to the Pope in spirituals resisting their true superior, as being under his Patriarchal power, to be patrons of your cause, another seed of Rebellion; and than you acknowledge Emperors and Kings to be under the Pope's patriarchal power, for many opposers of the Pope were such, I speak of an opposition in faith, and communion, not in civil oppositions, which may happen upon just occasions.  
64. Page 268. Next I wonder to see you so abominably false in your translations; you yourself page 251. cite Raynerius his words, non subsunt, which in my grammar signifies are not under, and yet you translate them here, were not under the Roman Church: is it not true now to say Constantinople and Alexandria, non subsunt, are not under the Roman Emperor, must it therefore be true they were not under it.  
65 Ibid. Canus speaks of different times, not that altogether, but interruptedly some at on time time, some at another, strove to oppose the Pope: but accounts Canus such opposers in sensu conjuncto, so were univocal christians, that's the point, and you never so much as think of proving it, might not you as well argue that so many Provinces, Nations, and Kingdoms, belonging to the Roman Emperors, have opposed the authority of the Roman Emperors. Ergo, they had no lawful authority over them, or to look homeward, so many Nations, Provinces, Cities, Ministers, and Commons, have opposed the authority of our royal Sovereign, Ergo, neither had he any lawful power over them, nor ceased they to be univocal parts of the Kingdom, notwithstanding that opposition, here's another root of rebellion.  
Page 268. But you relapse again into your accustomed falsity in translation, which would have appeared, had you printed Canus his Latin words (thus you make Authors speak in what language you please, English or Latin, as it best serves your turn and covers your falsity,) Canus says there, ab aliis plerisque totius orbis Episcopis, which you translate thus, but almost all the rest of the Bishops of the whole world: so that alii plerique, very many others, is with you, almost all the rest, had you only said a great sort, or the most part, even that had been to stretch the word, plerique to its full length; but to translate it almost all is too too bad, and cries shame of the translator, for, by this means you would persuade your Reader, that scarce any Bishop at all adher'd to the Bishop of Rome, according to this Author, whereas he in the beginning of this seventh Chapter saith that not only the Bishops, but Ecclesia the Church from the time of the Apostles, always acknowledged that the Roman Bishops succeeded place, Faith and authority of St Peter; and that all Catholics respected his judgement, in the controversies of Religion; and this is most clear and evident, but yet this is not all your foul play. You had undertaken to prove, Papists affirm that univocal Christians composing visible Churches, have been opposers of the Pope, And here you seemed to have culled out a text for your purpose, for Canus acknowledges in this place, that a very great number of Bishops, and the greater number of Churches, were against the Pope, and who could he suppose these to be but true Catholic Bishops and Churches? here you think, you have your Reader sure, but why cited you not these words, the next following? O that would have marred your market. Canus is so far from holding these mutineering Bishops and Churches to be true univocal Christians, that he affirms expressly they were either Schismatics or Heretics. Quinimo qui à Romanâ quidem sede defecerunt, high Schismatici semper ab ecclesia sunt habiti; qui vero hujus sedis de fide judicia detrectarunt, heretici. But those (says) Canus who made a defection from the Roman Sea, were always accounted Schismatics by the Church, and those who refused to stand to the judgement of this Sea in matters of faith were esteemed Heretics, these are fair characters of your great sincerity: If you should reply, though Canus account them not univocal Christians, nor true Churches, who made those oppositions, yet them not to be no true Churches, nor no univocal Christians. I reply, it makes thus much at least, that Canus his testimony, proves not that any true Catholic Christians, or Churches, withstood the Pope, for the proof whereof you cited this his testimony.  
66. Ibid, You have a third bout with Raynerius, I answer, whatsoever he may hold of the antiquity of the Waldenses, is nothing to me now; holds he them to be univocal Christians? prove that, thus in all the testimonies you have alleged, for the proof of your antecedent, against my distinction, you have not so much as one that assays to prove it.  
Your eight Argument page 269. Is a pure non-proof, that which you undertake to prove as appears by your question premised in the beginning of this second part, page 197. Is to prove the Church whereof Protestants are members, hath been visible ever since the days of Christ on earth, and your title upon every page pretends to show the successive visibility of the Church of which the Protestants are members. Now (as if you had quite forgot what you were about) you pretend in this your Argument to show, that anciently the Papal sovereignty was not part of the Church's faith, nor owned by the Ancients, when therefore you shall have logically deduced this consequence, the Papal soveraingty hath not been always visible, Ergo, the Church whereof Protestants are members hath been always visible, I will esteem myself obliged to answer the proofs from your testimonies, till than I purely omit your antecedent, and deny the consequence which you ought to draw from it, thence follows not that the Church whereof you Protestants are members hath been always visible, though your antecedent were true, the truth whereof I neither grant, nor deny for the present, but omit it, as not being now to our purpose.  
67. Page 271. Your ninth argument halts of the same leg, it follows, not, that though our Church as papal had no successive visibility, that the Church whereof the Protestants are members had ever since Christ's time on earth a successive visibility, when you have proved this consequence, which you do not so much as mention in your argument: I oblige myself to answer every one of your instances, till that be done, all I am obliged to do by force of logical form, is to omit your antecedent as nothing to our purpose, for you undertake not in this second part to disprove ours, but to prove your own perpetual visibility, and I deny again your consequence, which you ought to draw logically from your antecedent, to wit, that it follows not from this argument that the Church whereof the Protestant: are members, hath been visible ever since the days of Christ on earth.  
68 Your 10. argument is sick of the same disease, is propounded p. 275. this reaches no further then to prove, that there hath been a succession of visible professors of Christianity that were no Papists. Transeat pro praesente, I let that pass for the present neither granting it, nor denying it, nor meddling at all with it, because I judge it of no present concern to our purpose, but whatsoever is of that, I deny it follows thence (what you are to prove) that the Church whereof the Protestants are members, hath been visible ever since the days of Christ upon earth. Moreover by this manner of illogical proceeding, you change the part of the respondent, which only was yours into the part of an opponent, you were to show some other Church beside the Roman to have been perpetually visible, and this you undertake in this second part, by proving the Protestants to be so, Now you turn the scales, and labour by 10. arguments, to prove the Roman Church as Roman is not so. You promised in the beginning a fair logical answer, keep your word and turn not opponent, whilst you are to be respondent, stick to something, otherwise you confound all, and render it impossible to draw any controversy to a period; or open a passage to truth: acquit yourself of your present obligation, prove your said consequence: that accomplished, when your instances come into logical course, I here oblige myself again to answer every one of them: but first let us dispatch this; show your consequence undertaken here, of the perpetual visibility of the Protestant Church to follow from the want of perpetual visibility in the Roman, no more than your perpetual visibility, follows from the want of it, in the Greek, or Abissme Church, what if neither of them have been perpetually visible? For there is no Heretic in the world, no neither Arrian or Sabellian &c. (whom you hold no Christians) which may not argue in the same manner against us, as you do p. 242. were they to prove the succession of their Church as you do of yours; what would you have us answer but deny the consequence, for it will never follow, because we have not been, that Arrians have been perpetually visible. Nay should he argue thus against you; Protestants have not been perpetually visible, Ergo, Arrians have been, might you not omitting his antecedent, deny his consequence, judge therefore by your own cause, and prove your consequence, nay should we argue thus against you Protestants qua tales have not been perpetualy visible, Ergo, the Church whereof Papists are members hath been perpetually visible, might you deny our consequence? the reason why this consequence is denied by all true Christians is this, because ours not being perpetually visible, confers nothing to your being perpetually visible, no more than Cayphas his not being a good Priest, made Annas to be a good one.  
And as little follows it, that though multitudes of Christians, (as you have it in your 10 argument page 275. & the like you have page 249. argument the fourth and page 251. argu. 5. etc.) Had been ignorant of Popery, not of Christianity, and a succession of visible professors of Christianity that were no Papists, that therefore the Church whereof Protestants are members hath been always visible, unless you first prove, that all who are professed Christians, but no Papists, are of that Church whereof Protestants are members, which I have showed to be false. Suppose therefore (ex suppositione impossibili) that the Roman Church had not been always visible, thence will not follow that the Church whereof Protestants are members, has been always visible, this only will follow, that neither it, nor Protestants is the true Church. I press you therefore once more to prove your consequence, and till that be proved I am free from all obligation of answering to the proof of your antecedent, for no man according to logical form is obliged to answer the proofs of any proposition, which is neither denied, nor distinguished by the respondent, but purely omitted.  
69. I will only ex abundanti clear one difficulty, which touches something of the main point about the Ogin of the Pope's supremacy, and is in every pedants mouth, who can chatter against us; this you have raised as a fierce battery against the walls of Rome, and have placed eight pieces of canon upon it. Regino contractus, Marianus, Sigibertus, Rumbaldis, Pomponius, etc. And these make a fearful thundering about our ears, but sure you did it rather to fright us then to hurt us, otherwise you would have taken care to charge them with something else then powder, see you not how they vanish away all into smoke? have you indeed produced a Caput sieret, should be made head of all Churches, you had made some breach, but to bring no more than ut Caput esset caput esse, Phocas constituted the Roman Church should be head, or to be head of all Churches is an empty puff, and no more. Did not a late Parliament immediately before his Sacred Majesty's return, vote and constitute Charles the second to be King of England, etc. or that he ought to be King of England, etc. dare you therefore say that he had no other right precedent to be our Sovereign before the Vote and constitution of that Parliament; know you not when titles and rights are controverted, as it was in Phocas his time, the sovereign tribunal decrees to whom the right or title belongs, not by conferring it upon them as a free gift, but by declaring it to be their right and giving them what they judge to be their due, now that this was so in the case of Boniface 3. is manifest. first, out of Platina, who was no extraordinary favourer of Popes in Boniface 3. Bonifacius tertius patria Romanus, à Phoca Imperatore obtinuit magna tamen contentione, ut sedes Beati Petri Apostoli, quae est caput omnium Ecclesiarum, ita & diceretur & haberetur ab omnibus. Bonifacius the third (says Platina) by Nation a Roman, obtained of Phocas the Emperor, that the seat of Blessed Peter the Apostle, which is head of all Churches, should be so called and esteemed of all. 2. from Carion p. 229. Sabiniano's defuncto, creatus est Pontifex, 65. Bonifacius tertius hic autem Pontifex, ab Imperatore Phochà Augusto obtinuit ut Ecclesia Romana Beati Petri Apostolorum principis sedes, quae jure Caput est omnium Ecclesiarum, ita & diceretur & haberetur ab omnibus etc. Sabinianus being dead, Boniface the third was made Bishop, this Bishop obtained of the Emperor Phocas that the Roman Church, the Sea of St. Peter Prince of the Apostles, which by right is head of all Churches should be so called and esteemed by all, and he citys for this Onuphrius, Panninius, and Pompeius Letus, 3. Illesius in his spanish history of Popes, delivers the substance of Phocas his decree wherein it appears he constituted no more than this, that the Roman Bishop and no other was supreme visible governor of the Militant Church, and that neither Constantinople nor Ravenna, nor any other City save old Rome, was deputed by our Saaviour, and by St. Peter, and Paul for the seat of Christ's vicar, and Prelates of the whole Church, now it is most evident that this constitution of Phocas was not (as you ungroundedly imagine,) the beginning of the Pope's universal headship, for besides the many texts wh●●ch I have already alleged and you acknowledged, from Councils, and Fathers long before the time of Phocas, wherein the Bishop and Church of Rome, is acknowledged to be head of all Churches. justinian much ancienter than Phocas in codice parte prima lib. 1. Tit. 5. de sacro Sanctis Ecclesiis etc. 
(a) Nec patimur ut non vestrae innotescat sanctitati, quod caput est omnium sanctarum Ecclesiaerum, omnes vero sacerdotes sanctae Catholicae & Apostolicae Ecclesiae, & Reverendissimae Archemandritae sanctorum Monasteriorum sequentes sanctitatem vestram, & custodientes statum & unitatem sanctarum Dei Ecclesiarum quam habent ab apostolica vestrae sanctitatis sede, nihil penitus in mutantes de Ecclesiasti●●o statu quam hactenus ob invit utque obtinet uno consensu confitetur etc.  lege 4. nos Reddentes, in Epist. justinian ad johannem Papam 15. Imp. August. annoo. 1576. affirms the Bishop of Rome to be the head of all the holy Churches, and that the unity of the whole Church derives itself from him, that all Priests of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, follow the Bishop of Rome, changing nothing of the state Ecclesiastical, which he to that time had continued. and then did continue; and many years before justinian, Gratian, Valentinianus, and Theodosius Emperor's lib 1. cod. Tit. 3 desumma Trinitate c. 1. Cunctos populos &c, command that all who were within their Empire were to follow the doctrine of St. Peter delivered to the Romans; as the Religion continued in Rome, to that day declared, and which Pope Damasus then followed, and Peter Bishop of Alexandria, and that those only who followed that Religion, aught to embrace the name of Catholics, and all others to be accounted as mad men, and Heretics; and john Bishop of Rome, writes thus to justinian Ibid. lege quarta, long before Phocas reigned; That both the Rules of the Fathers & the statutes of the Emperors declares, the Sea of Rome is truly the head of all Churches; Quam esse omnium vere Ecclesiarum caput & Patrum Regulae, & principum statuta declarant. And this done Pope john delivers this doctrine & precept, that all those who yield not obedience to his commands and laws should be esteemed as c●●st out of the Church, & therefore affirms that all those, who adhere to the doctrine of their own Bishops, & refuse to hear the voice of him their Pastor, he received not into his communion, but commanded them to be Aliens from the whole Catholic Church, ab omni Ecclesia Catholica esse jussimus, alienos, n. b. ab omni Ecclesia, it reaches to all Churches none excepted, and jussimus, it is a command from the Pope, In the Council of Chalcedon, many years before justinian, it is said to be the head of all Churches, & to have always had the Primatum the primacy, which word I have proved, signifies Eccclesiastical power & authority, and yet some years before, Valentinian (ut supra) ascribes the same authority to the Roman Bishop. Thus much in answer to your second part.  
70. From page 293 to page 305. You busy yourself in answering a question I propounded to you, which only say you page 292. you received instead of an answer; I wonder not you write this, but that you printed it, for before this was, or could be printed, it was sufficiently intimated to you that Mr. johnson intended to answer your paper, and obliged himself to answer it wherewith you seem to be satisfied, and sure if he had before patience to expect your answer almost three quarters of a year, upon your excuse of being hindered by other more weighty employments, all equal proceeding should have obliged you to excuse him also, alleging the like reason.   

CHAP. VI Of Heretics and Schismatics.  
NUm. 71. Whether some Heretics are parts of the Church. Mr. Baxter is in the affirmative, his explications unnecessary to the question. Num. 72. His distinctions excluded in the terms of the question. Num, 73. His Citations from Alphonsus a Castro, Bellar. and Canus prove nothing. Num. 74. The negative is proved from scriptures and Fathers. Num. 75. The same is proved by reason.  
71. The question I propounded was this, as you have printed it page 293. (a) Whether any professed Heretics properly so called, are true parts of the universal visible Church of Christ, so that they compose one universal Church with the other visible parts of it. And you first gave it this answer, (b) My words are plain & distinctly answer your question, so that I know not, what more is needful for the explication of my sense, unless you would call us back from the thing to the word, by your [properly so called] you are answered already, Now the former answer to which you relate, is mentioned in my other to you, and printed by you page 292. (c) Some are Heretics for denying points essential to Christianty, and those are no Christians, and so not in the Church, but many are also called Heretics by you, and by the Fathers, for lesser errors consistent with Christianity, and those may be in the Church. You therefore grant the thing itself, that some profess, Heretics are true members of the universal visible Church; this I confess is a categorical answer to my question, and you had no reason to add any more; but I see you love to be doing, and cannot remain quiet when the thing is well; but must be tampering with it though you mar it in the moulding, you take an occasion upon my words, Heretic properly so called, to entangle yourself and your Reader through twelve pages in twelve distinctions, twelve conclusions, and twelve observations: and in this you descant upon universal Church, Heretic, schismatic, properly so called &c, being the principal words used in my question, now to what purpose all this? had not you the word universal Church, Heretic, schismatic, repeated often over through your who●●e writing, and did you not think yourself sufficiently understood when you writ them, if you did not, why omitted you then to explicate the terms, so that you might be understood? if you did then speak clearly and distinctly, what need had you now to give any further explication, did I complain that I understood not what you meant by these terms?  
72. But it is much more absonous to hear you distinguish terms, in order to the answer of my question, by distinctions excluded in the proposition of the question, p 293. I mention the universal visible Church of Christ, can any Christian speak more distinctly than I do, in the expression of the Church, you say page 294. We are not agreed what the universal visible Church is, what of that? are we not agreed there is such a thing, think you or I what we will of the definition of it, 'tis sufficient to give an answer pro or con to my question, whether Heretics be true members of the Church, that we agree there is such a thing as the universal visible Church of Christ; and it will be timely enough, to explicate what you mean by the universal visible Church, when your answer is impugned. Then page 294. you distinguish Heretic properly so called into Etimological, Canonical, & usual, & all these you reject as insufficient, to know what is meant by an Heretic properly so called, so that after you have so often treated in this and other books of Heretics, either you speak of them always improperly, or know not what you say when you speak of them as properly understood, or you have here made an insufficient division of an Heretic properly so called but see you not again, that whatsoever you or I understand by Heretic properly so called, we both agree there are Heretics properly so called, & that's enough to answer my question; then page 295, you distinguish Heretic first into Heretic in opinion and in communion, and then you run into seven more distinctions of Heretics, never considering that I had expressed my question in such terms, that all these distinctions were excluded by the very terms, I say thus, whether any professed Heretics etc. now could you not have said that some professed Heretics are parts of the Cathlique Chucrch, without making such a pother with so many distinctions, what was it to my question, that some are convict others tried, some judged by Pastors, others by others, some by usurpers, some by lawful judges, etc. I did not demand what sort of Heretics properly so called, were held by you to be of the Church, but whether you held any at all to be of it, of what sort soever they were, was all one to me; should any one demand this question of you, whether any who exercised the work of the ministry, since the year 1640 were favourers of the late Rebels against his Majesty, and you in answer should distinguish (as you do here) that some of them were Episcopal, other Presbyterial, some who were first Presbyters turned Independents, and others Anabaptists, some Se●●kers and others Ranters, some Millinaries, and others Quakers, some studied in the Universities, and others went no further than the Country schools, some were tradesmen and others soldiers, some Trumpeters, and others Drummers, some fancied the Rebe●●s by preaching Rebellion in Pulpits, others by framing the Covenants, these by putting on buff coats and turning Colonels or Captains, and fight valiantly in the field, those by instituting associations of Counties, others by writing seditious books and pamphlets, comparing old Noll to David, and young Dick to Solomon, etc. and those distinctions premised you should draw twelve conclusions, which of those were, or were not partakers with the Rebe●●s; could not you have saved all this labour and said in a word, yes, some who exercised the work of the Ministry, favoured the Rebels; seeing no more than this was demanded of you: but yet farther in your distinctions of Heretics, you interlace such as are expressly excluded in my question, I demand whether Heretics properly so called are true members of the Church page 293. you answer p. 296, Prop. 1. That Schismatics, that is Heretics improperly so called are no parts of it, what's that to my question? I demand whether any professed Heretics, are parts of the Catholic Church page 297. That some Heretics if latent, that is not professed Heretics may be parts of it, nay you are not content to answer thus far from the question, but contradict one answer by another, you say page 293 that your answer was plain in your paper sent me videlicet, that some Heretics properly so called are parts of the Catholic Church page 229. prop. 7. you say that some softer Heresy excludes no man from the Church of itself, unless they are legally convict of wicked impenitency and obstinacy in defending it, and then it seems to exclude them; that is all Heresy excludes them, for no man is guilty of Heresy unless he defend it obstinately and impenitently, nor is to be held for an Heretic till he be convicted of that obstinacy; and thus much you acknowledge yourself page 298. n. 7. where you constitute formal Heresy inobstinacy saying, 7. They are either judged to be materially, as to the quality of their Error, Heretics, or also formally as obstinate, impenitent, and habitually stated Heretics. So then by your own confession, all obstinate, that is, all formal, that is, Heretics properly so called are excluded from being true members of the Church. Thus you answer page 193. Some Heretics properly so called are excluded from being of the Church, this I call a contradiction, what call you't? Nay farther in this answer, you th'wart what you answered in your book against me, there without any exception, you affirm page 11. Schismatics to be true parts of the Church, and here you exclude some Schismatics from being true parts of the Church; there you say whosoever held all the Essentials as do all Schismatics, as contradistinct from Heretics properly so called are true parts of Christ's visible Church, because they are constituted Christians, by believing all the Essentials of Christianity. And here you say that some schismatics, who are contra-distinct from heretics, and consequently believe all the essentials are not parts of the Church; nor yet is this all, you contradict yourself in one and the same sentence, p. 297. you say thus, but should any (schismatics, for you speak of those only here,) renounce the body of Christ as such, and separate (not from this or that Church) but from the whole, or from the universal Church as such, this man would not be a member of the Church. Now to separate from the body of Christ, or from the universal Church as such, is to separate from it, as it is the universal Church of Christ, and as it is the body of Christ, quatenus talis, but that is to renounce Christ and Christianity, and consequently to lose the Christian faith, and thereby to become an Apostata, that is, neither heretic nor schismatic, so that according to you a schismatic, which is no schismatic, is no part of the Church of Christ; for never was there yet any schismatic, which separated from the body of Christ as such, that is, as it was the body of Christ, but by some false pretence or other, persuaded himself that not the visible company of Christians which he left, but his separate party was Christ's Church; as may be seen in the Donatists, Luciferians, and others. Now all those who believe all essentials of Christian faith (as you understand essentials) are you say, true parts of Christ's visible Church, because they are univocal Christians, & consequently all those who believe no essential of Christian faith, can be no Christians, & so no parts of the Christian Church: if therefore you mean such only as separate from the whole Church as such, that is, as it is Christ's universal Church, you make them not erroneous in faith, but rejecters and contemners of Christ and Christianity, and thereby Apostates from the faith.  
73. Pag. 300. you cite again Alphonsus of Castro, whose opinion I have already evidenced not to prove your intent, nor second your opinion: than you cite Bell. de Ecclesia, libro 3. c. 4. saying thus, Haeretici pertinent ad Ecclesiam, ut oves ad ovile, unde confugerunt. And then you add this inference, so they are oves still; would you have similitudes to go upon all four? is it not sufficient to Bellar. purpose, that it agrees in this, that both are out of the fold, 'tis true a natural sheep is a sheep, whether it be in the fold or no, but so is not a sheep of Christ, which is his sheep actually no longer than it is in his fold; the Church, though both he and his Church have power over it, to reduce it into the fold, or medicinally to shut the gate against it, and keep it out till it give satisfaction. Might you not as well have carped at our Saviour's words, as you do at Bellarmine's, when he said, & alias oves habeo, quae non sunt ex hoc ovile, and I have other sheep which are not of this fold, joan. 10. so that they are oves, sheep still, though our Saviour say they be not of his fold, know you not that those were by him called sheep; which though they were not actually his, yet were in time to be of his fold, and when he had reduced them to his fold would be his sheep actually. This done you add, and if it be but ovile particular; veluti Romanum) that they fly from, and not the universal, that proves them not out of the universal Church. Who says it does? why interlace you such parergons as those? treats Bell. here of any particular fold? speaks he not expressly of the whole universal Church which he defined cap. 2? but by the rules of contraries, you should affirm here against yourself, that if all heretics fly from the universal Church, they cannot be in the universal Church. Now it is most evident that all heretics fly from the universal Church; ergo, none of them can be in the universal Church: for therefore are they heretics, because they either reject obstinately some doctrine sufficiently propounded to them, as taught by the universal Church to be a point of Christian faith, or embrace some doctrine sufficiently propounded to them to be rejected by the universal Church, as an error in Christian faith, de Eccles. l. 3. c. 2. Next you bring in Bellar. thus. And Bellar. saith of the Catechumenis & excommunicatis, that they are de anima etsi non de corpore Ecclesiae. Now who can understand by those words of yours, but that Bellar. teaches absolutely that both all, as well excommunicati as Catechumeni, are de anima Ecclesiae, of the soul of the Church, whereas he speaks only sub conditione, conditionally, not absolutely, and so of some excommunicate persons, but not of all, that is, such (as he declares himself, c. 6. sect. Respondeo lucem esse, etc.) have faith, and charity, as being either unjustly excommunicated, or repenting before they be absolutely absolved by the Church from excommunication; Bellar. words, cap. 2. clipped off in the midst by you, are those, Rursum aliqui sunt de anima, & non de corpore, ut Catechumeni, vel excommunicati, si fidem & charitatem habeant, quod fieri potest. Again, says Bell. some are of the soul (of the Church) and not of the body, as are the unbaptized or excommunicate, if they have faith and charity which may happen. You see how candidly you have proceeded with Bellarmine, and in this sense, and no other, is Canus to be understood, whom you cite next out of Bellarmine, and if you could prove any professed heretic properly so called, had faith and charity, I would acknowledge with Bellar. that they were de anima Ecclesiae, of the soul of the Church, or de Ecclesia, quae comprehendit omnes fideles, etc. of the Church which comprehends all the faithful from Abel to the end of the world; you see by this, how unfairely you have dealt with Canus also. What follows in answer of yours to my question, whether professed heretics properly so called, are true parts of the visible Church, is upon matter of fact, who are, or who are not in particular rightly condemned for heretics, which is an alien to my question; and so neither worth the answering nor reading. I come now to the question itself.  
74. That therefore not professed heretic properly so called, is or can be a true part of Christ's universal visible Church, I prove by those arguments, 1. St. Paul in his 3 to Titus, v. 10, 11. writes thus, A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject, knowing that he that is such is subverted and sinneth being condemned of himself. Thus yours translate the words, but the vulgar and Pagninus have it, devita, avoid, or decline from, it signifies also in Scapula, to refugee, remove, or expel one from them; where the Apostle speaking indefinitely, is to be understood of all professed heretics properly so called, so that all such heretics are to be avoided, rejected, removed, or expelled from the community and society of all Christians, for the same reason which obliged Titus to avoid them, obliged all the faithful, which is nothing but to be deprived of the communion of the universal Church, and so (even in your principles) just now delivered to be cast out of the Church; and St. Hierom expounds those words that Heretics are cast out of the Church by themselves leaving the Church, and separating themselves from it by their obstinacy in error. 2. St. john in his first Epistle and second chapter, verse 19 ex nobis exerunt, They went out from us, where the Apostle speaks in general of all heretics, and of the whole visible Church of Christ, for how could it be manifest they were not of the Church (as St. john says it was) if they did not visibly go out of it? Thus also St. Cyprian 
(a) St. Cypri. lib. ep. 8. & unit. Eccl. sive de simplicitate.  St. Hierom and St. Aug. writing upon those words expound them. 3. joh. ep. 2. v. 9, 10, 11. whosoever trangresseth, and abides not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God, he that abideth in the doctrine of Christ hath both the Father and the Son; if there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed, for he that biddeth him God speed, is partaker of his evil works. Where the Apostle without any distinction or exception, intends the denial of communion through the whole Church (for he gives a general precept to all Christians) to all those who teach contrary to the doctrine of Christ. And this not as to others scandalous sinners, lest they should draw others to sin by their bad example, but as to Heretics, for no other crime than their maintaining a doctrine contrary to the doctrine of Christ, and that in what point soever it be, for he speaks in general of all doctrine contrary to that of Christ. Now since all professed Heretics, properly so called, teach contrary to Christ's doctrine in some point or other, they are all to be avoided, and deny communion through the whole Church & consequently are out of the whole Church's communion, and so out of the Catholic Church. This is proved from the authorities both of the ancient fathers, later Doctors and Protestant Authors, which are cited and confirmed at large in schism unmasked, in a late conference with Doctor Gunning and Doctor Pierson, from p. 131. to p. 188. where the very definition of schism and heresy, of schismatics and heretics make it most manifest, that no professed heretic or schismatic properly so called, can so long as they remain in that state, be true parts of the Catholic Church. These following I cite for a brief confirmation of this truth. St. Aug. de fide & symbolo c. 10. quapropter nec hereticus pertinet ad Ecclesiam Catholicam, quoniam diligit Deum, nec schismaticus quoniam diligit proximum, wherefore neither doth an heretic belong to the Catholic Church, because she (the Church) loves God, nor a schismatic, because she loves her neighbour. And Optatus lib. 1. cont. Parmenianum, addressing himself to the Donatists (whom you say were not separated from the Church) says thus. Desertâ matre Catholica impii filii dum for as excurrunt, & se separant, ut vos fecistis, à radice matris Ecclesiae, invidiae falcibus amputati, errando rebelles abcedunt. The Catholic mother (that is the Church) being forsaken, wicked children run abroad and separate themselves as you have done, being cut off from the root of their mother the Church, by erring, as rebels depart from her. Now was it the unanimous consent alone of the holy ancient Fathers, and all later authors, yours and ours, but the universal agreement of all Christendom, for even in St. Cyprians time, when the matter of rebaptisation was so hotly agitated through the whole Church, both parties and consequently all Christian Churches, agreed in this, that all professed heretics and schismatics, properly so called, were out of the Catholic visible Church of Christ, for this was the very ground whereupon St. Cyprian, and his party founded their opinion (as appears in the said citations, and is delivered by all authors that treat of it, that they were to be rebaptised; nor was this presupposed ground of their being no members of the Church ever called so much in question as by the opposers of Rebaptisation, but supposed as a known undeniable truth by the whole Church, insomuch that the Council of Nice itself, supposing this as a manifest truth, condemned the doctrine of Rebaptisation as an heresy; as St. Aug. witnesseth in his book de Baptismo contra Donatistas', which is largely explicated in Schism unmasked now cited from page 557 to page 566, this universal persuasion continued ever since amongst Christians, and I provoke you to cite any Author ancient or modern, yours, ours, or of any other Professor amongst the Christians, who before you taught that professed heretics properly so called, were true parts of the visible Church of Christ.  
St. Cyprian epist. 40. Paenas quas meruerunt perpendêrunt; ut a vobis non ejecti ultro se ejicerunt, de Ecclesiâ sponté se pellerent.  
St. Hierom cited by Dr. Hammond in his book of Schism, Marg. 14. Propriae conscientiae videtur esse damnatio, cum quispiam suo arbitrio ab Ecclesiâ recesserit.  
This is also the undoubted and constant doctrine of St. Cyprian lib. 5. epist. 6. ad magnum Schismaticicos v. g. Novatianum in Ecclesia non esse, nec gregis pastorem, That Schismatics were not in the Church, v. g. Novatian nor Pastor of the flock, Si autem Grex unus est, quomodo gregi connumerari potest, qui in Numero gregis non est; But, saith he, If the flock be one, how can he be annumerated to the flock, who is not in the number of the flock, aut Pastor haberi quomodo potest, qui alienus fit & prophanus, Or how can he be esteemed a Pastor, who is become an Alien, and a profane person, Non habitans in domo Dei, not dwelling in the house of God, that is in the Church of God: and it is most evident that St. Cyprian was of this opinion, for it appears in his works that he held the rebaptisation of those which were baptised by Schismatics, as well as by Heretics, because he esteemed them both equally out of the Church, St. Cyprian lib. 2. ep. ad Septianum & Epist. 9 ad eundem. And Lucius a Castra galba in consilio Carthaginensi sub Cypriano; Item Schismaticos non posse condire sapientia spirituali, cum ipsi ab Ecclesia, quae una est, recedendo, infatuati contrarii facti sunt. Neither can Schismatics season with spiritual wisdom, because, they being corrupted by receding from the Church, become contrary or adversaries. This is also taught most Emphatically by St. Augustine lib. de unitate Ecclesiae cap. 4. cited by you in your second part, Quicunque credunt quidem quod Iesus Christus, ita ut dictum est, in carne venerit, & in eadem carne in qua natus & passus est, resurrexerit, & ipse sit filius Dei, Deus apud Deum etc. Si tamen ab ejus corpore, quod est Ecclesia ita differentiant, ut eorum communio non sit cum tota quacunque diffunditur, sed in aliqua parte separata inveniatur, manifestum est, eos non esse in Catholica Ecclesia. Whosoever believes that Jesus Christ, as is said, is come in flesh, and that he risen again in the same flesh, wherein he was born and suffered, and that he is the Son of God, and God with God, etc. Notwithstanding if they descent so from his body, which is the Church, that their communion be not with the whole Church wheresoever it be diffused, but be found in some separate part, it is manifest that they are not in the Catholic Church. Which words cannot be understood of any but Schismatics. St. Fulgent de fide ad Petrum cap. 38. Firmissiime tene, & nullatenus dubita, non solum omnes Paganos, sed etiam omnes judeos, Haereticos, & Schismaticos, qui extra Eeclesiam Catholicam, presentem finiunt vitam in ignem aeternum ituros etc. Believe most firmly, and doubt not at all, that not only all Pagans, but also all Jews, Heretics and Schismatics which end their lives out of the Catholic Church shall go into eternal fire. St Cyprian also Ep. 40. above cited, supposes some Schismatics, and a fortiore all Heretics, to be out of the Catholic Church. And the separation of all Heretics from the Church, St. Austin treats Tom. 9 de symbolo, lib. 2. c. 5. Haereses omnes de illa exieruut (scilicot Ecclesia) tanquam sarmenta inutilia de vite praecisa, ipsa autem manet in sua radice; Portae inferorum non vincent eam, All Heresies have gone out of her (that is the Chucrch) as unprofitable branches cut of from the vine: but she (the Church) remains in her root, the gates of Hell shall not overcome her; St. Cyprian Epist. ad Florentium Pupianum, Epist. 69. In which Epistle he reprehends Pupianus for his insolency, Et quia fecit se Episcopum Episcopi; and proves himself a holy Catholic by his communion with the Church. and with the chief Pastor, and demonstrate Schism by the contrary. Ind Schismata & Haereses obortae sunt, & oriuntur dum Episcopus, qui unus est, & Ecclesia praest, superba quorundam praesumptione contemnitur, & homo dignatione Dei honoratus indignus hominibus judicatur. From hence arise Schisms when the Bishop that is one, and who is the Governor of the Church, is contemned by the proud presumption of some, and the man of God honoured by him, is dishonoured by men.  
Epist. ad Rogatianum, Epist. de superbo Diacono, Haec sunt enim initia Haereticoruus & ortus & conatus Schismaticorum male cogitantium, ut sibi placeant, ut praepositum superbo tumore contemnant; sic de Ecclesia, receditur, sic Altare prophanum foris collocatur, sic contra pacem Christi, & ordinationem, & unitatem Dei rebellatur. These are the Origine of heretics and Schismatics, who to please themselves contemn the precedent of the Church, and so rebel against the peace of Christ and the ordination and unity of God, and in the entrance of the same Epist. he compares Schismatics to Corah, Dathan & Abiram, who separate themselves from the communion of the Jews, and their high Priest Aaron.  
St. Aug. lib. 20, contr. Faustum c. 30. Schisma est eadem opinantem & eodem ritu colentem, quo caeteri, solo congregationis delectari dissidio, Schism is a voluntary Dissidium or separation of one, who agrees in doctrine from the Congregation viz. of the Church.  
St. Aug. lib. 4. contr. Donatistas' Cap. 14. Name & caetera omnia vera vel censeatis vel habeatis, & in eadem separatione tamen duretis, contra vinculum fraternae pacis, adversus unitatem omnium fratrum. Thus he states the Schism of the Donatists, if ye continue in separation against the bond of Brotherly peace, and unity of all the Brethren, that is, of the whole Church.  
Lib, 2, contr. Donatistas', cap. 6. Respondete quare vos separastis? quare contra orbem terrarum Altare erexistis? quare non communicastis Ecclesiis? respondete quare separastis; propterea certe ne malorum communione periretis, Quomodo Ergo non perierunt Cyprianus & Collegae ejus? quare ab innocentibus separastis Sacrilegium Schismatis vestrum defendere no●● potestis. The holy Father disputing against Schismatics asks them, as we à pari ask Protestants; why have you separated yourselves? why have you erected an Altar against the whole world, answer me, why did you separate? certainly you separated, lest you should perish in the communion of the wicked, how then did not Cyprian and his colleagues perish?  
Lib. contra Petilianum, nulla igitur Ratio fuit, sed Maximus furor, quod isti, velut commmnionem caventes, se ab unitate Eeclesiae, quae toto orbe terrarum diffunditur separarunt. There was no cause but a great madness that they fearing communion, should separate themselves from the unity of the Church, through the whole earth, what can be more evident than this, that St. Aug. held the Donatists to be out of the Church, which you flatly deny. St. Hierome, Haeretici de Deo falso sentiendo ipsam fidem violant, Schismatici discessionibus iniquis a fraterna charitate dissiliunt, 
Contra Luciferianos  quamvis ea credunt quae credimus. Heretics by teaching false things of God violate the Faith, Schismatics by unjust separations depart from fraternal charity, though they believe the same thing with us. Nothing can destroy more fully your novelty, then do these words, for he speaks indefinitely of all Heretics, and affirms that they violate the faith, and consequently have no faith, without which they cannot be true members of Christ's Church; and that all Schismatics leave fraternal charity, which is necessary to be in the unity of the Church.  
St. Hieron. comment. in Ep. ad Titum. c. 3. Propterea vero a semet ipso dicitur esse damnatus (Haereticus) quia Fornicator, Adulter, Homicida, & caetera vitia per sacerdotes de Ecclesia propelluntur; Haeretici autem in semetipsos sententiam dicant suo arbitrio ab Ecclesia recedendo. Therefore he (an Heretic) is said to be condemned of himself, because a Fornicator, an Adulterer, a Murderer, and the like vices, are expelled out of the Church by the Priests, but Heretics pronounce a sentence against themselves, by receding or departing from the Church of their own accord. Does not this profound Doctor condemn your novelty in these words, both by teaching that all Heretics (for he speaks indifinitely) depart from the Church, and by showing a difference betwixt other criminal sinners, and Heretics, when they are to be avoided, which you labour to put in the same state, with some Heretics, viz. That other sinners are cast out of the Church, but Heretics out themselves: and yet farther, that even other criminal sinners, when they are excommunicated, are no actual parts of the Church (as you hold they are) because they are cast out of it, which doctrine is also Emphatically delivered by St. Aug. l. 11. quest. cap. 3. Omnis Christianus qui excommunicatur Satanae traditur: quomodo? Scilicet quiaextra Ecclesiam est diabolus, Sicut in Ecclesiae Christus: ac per hoc quasi diabolo traditur, qui ab Ecclesia communione removetur. Vnde illos, quos Apastolus Satanae traditos esse praedicat, esse excommunicatos demonstrat. Every Christian who is excommunicated, is delivered up to Satan, how that? to wit, because the devil is without the Church, as Christ is in the Church: and by this he is as it were delivered to the devil, whosoever is removed from the communion of the Church, whence the Apostle demonstrates those to be excommunicated, whom he pronounces to be delivered to Satan, whence follows also that seeing all professed Heretics are excommunicated persons, that according to St. Aug. they are all out of the Church. I forbear the citation of more Authors, esteeming these ●●ufficient.  
75. I have at large deduced the reason of this truth against you in my answer to your first part. The sum whereof is this, that whosoever disbelieves any divine truth, sufficiently propounded to him as such, disbelieves the infallible truth of God's word, and consequently evacuates the formal object of Christian faith, & thereby destroys faith, which cannot subsist without its formal object, and by that destroys Christianity (in so much as in him lies) and consequently God's Church, nay, and God himself; whence also follows that such a disbeliever hath no supernatural faith at all of any other articles which he believes, but a mere humane, natural, and fallible assent to them, for he cannot assent to any of them, because they are revealed by God's infallible authority, for he hath made that fallible in disbelieving something which is sufficiently notified to him, to be revealed from God. Now if he have no true faith, he can neither have salvation, nor be a member of Christ's true Church, which is directly destructive of your novelty.  
That which has deceived you, and such as follow you in this, is, that you make your whole reflection upon the material object of faith, which considered alone, is as a dead carcase in respect of true Christian faith, seeing it wants the soul and life of it, the infallible authority of God revealing it; and though heretics perversely persuade and delude themselves, they assent for the infallible authority of God, to such articles as they believe, yet seeing we now suppose there is no defect in the proposition of such articles as they believe not, that they are revealed from God, they being proposed to them equally with other articles which they believe, in reality there is no other cause of their disbelief, then that they attribute not an infallible authority to God, revealing the said articles which they disbelieve. Now if he be fallible in one, he is infallible in nothing, for his erring in one, supposes him subject to error, which is to be fallible. And as faith is wanting, so is external communion also to every professed heretic and schismatic, as we have seen, nor will the communion of one heretic or schismatic with another serve the turn, as St. Aug. cited by yourself delivers, l. de unitate Eccles. c. 4. That such as communicate with a part, and not with the whole wheresoever it is diffused, it is manifest they are not in the Catholic Church. Now suppose, one singular person turn a professed heretic or schismatic, and leaves the external communion of the whole Church, he can have no external communion at all; if then he seduce to his party another, that other can have no communion but with the first, who had no communion with the Church; so that their communion is without the Church, and so will ever be, though they increase to thousands and millions.  
This truth therefore thus established, my first argument returns upon you; show me said I, any Congregation of Christians perpetually visible, besides that which acknowledges the Pope's supremacy, etc. This you have not been able to do, but by producing known and notorious heretical congregations, those I have proved not to be either one and the same congregation amongst themselves, (which I demanded) nor one with the Catholic visible Church, because no professed heretics properly so called, can be true members of the true Church. And particularly you fail in this second part; for till you prove Protestants to be no heretics, you can never evince them to be true parts of Christ's visible Church. Now therefore it remains that you begin again, and find out some new solution for my argument, for as yet you have brought nothing satisfactory to salve it: but I hope God will give you the grace, to desist from such impossible enterprises, strike you with a sweet stroke of mercy (as he did St. Paul) and change you into a child of his holy Church, which are the truest hearty desires of  
Your assured best wishing friend, William johnson.    

An Explication of The Catholic Church, The chief terms used in this Controversy, disputed betwixt Mr. Baxter and William johnson.  
William johnson. 
THe Catholic Church of Christ, is all those visible Assemblies, Congregations, or Communities of Christians, who live in unity of true faith and external Communion with one another, and in dependence of their lawful Pastors.  Mr. Baxter. 
Of your definition of the Catholic Church.  
Qu. 2. Whether you exclude not all those converted among Infidels that never had external Cemmunion, nor were members of any particular visible Church, of which you make the Catholic to be constituted.  William johnson. 
It is sufficient that such be subject to the supreme Pastors in voto, or quantum in se est, resolved to be of that particular Church actually, which shall or may be designed for them by that Pastor, to be included in my Definition.  Mr. Baxter. 
You see then that your Definitions signify nothing; no man knows your meaning by them.  William johnson. 
You shall presently see that your Exceptions signify less than nothing.  Mr. Baxter. 
First, you make the Catholic Church to consist only of visible Assemblies; and after you allow such to be members of the Church, that are no visible Assemblies.  William johnson. 
I make those converted Infidels visible Assemblies, as my Definition speaks, though not actual members of any particular visible Church, as your Exception speaks; for though every particular visible Church be an Assembly of Christians, yet every Assembly of Christians is not a particular visible Church; I do not therefore allow such to be of the Church, who are no visible Assemblies, as you misconceive me.  Mr. Baxter. 
3. You now mention subjection to the supreme Pastor as sufficient, which in your description or Definition you did not.  William johnson. 
Am I obliged to mention all things in my Definitions which I express, after in answering your Exceptions▪ prove that.  Mr. Baxter. 
3. If to be only in voto resolved to be of a particular Church will serve, than inexistence is not necessary; to be only in voto of the Catholic Church, proves no man a member of the Catholic Church, but proves the contrary, because it is Terminus Diminuens; seeing then by your own confession, inexistence in a particular Church is not of necessity to inexistence in the Catholic Church; why do you not only mention it in your Definition, but confine that Church to such.  William johnson. 
I make them Actually inexsistent in some visible Assembly, according to my Definition, and in voto only in a particular Church, which is your Exception; now every particular family, or neighbourhood, nay, of two or three gathered together in prayer, is an actual Assembly of Christians, though it be no actual particular Church; for according to S. Hierom, Ecclesia est plebs unita Episcopo; now this part of my Definition, so much here opposed by you, is in effect the same with the first part of the Definition of the visible Church, delivered in your 39 Articles. Article 19 for that says, the visible Church of Christians is a Congregation of faithful men, etc. And my Definition says, the Catholic Church is all those Assemblies, Congregations, or Communities of Christians, who live in unity of faith, etc. which unity makes them one entire and universal congregation of the faithful. In this therefore consists your fallacy, that you esteem none to be actually members of the universal Church, unless they be actual members of some particular Church, which I deny; and affirm that one may be actually a member of the universal Church, though he be not actually, but in voto, a member of any particular Church; for to be actually of the universal, requires no more necessarily, then to be an actual part of some Assembly, though it be no particular Church.  
Reply.  
Will you say you meant in voto, who then can understand you when you say they must be of visible Assemblies, and mean they need not be of any, but only to wish, desire, or purpose it.  
rejoinder.  
This is answered already above; it is not necessary all should be actual members of any particular Church, it is sufficient if they be actually of some Assembly or Congregation of Christians, though it be no particular Church.  Mr. Baxter. 
But yet you say nothing to my ease in its latitude, many a one may be converted to Christ by a solitary Preacher, or by two or three, that never tell him that there is any supreme pastor in the world; how then can he be subject to that supposed Pastor, that never heard of him. The English and Dutch convert many Indians to the faith of Christ, that never heard of a supreme Pastor.  William johnson. 
Whether he be named or no, yet the Church must be supposed to be sufficiently explicated to those Convertists; and that must be represented, as having some prudent manner of Government; so that they must be instructed to render obedience to such Governors as Christ instituted in his Church; which seeing all of my profession hold to be by a chief Pastor, and I have here undertaken to prove it is so, by subjecting themselves to Christ's manner of Government, they virtually subject themselves to a chief Pastor.  Mr. Baxter. 
If it be necessary that a particular Church must be assigned for such members by the supreme Pastors, than they are yet little the better that never have any Assignation from him (as few have.)  
rejoinder.  
Who says it is necessary ad esse, to be a part of the Catholic Church, that all Assemblies of Christians should be actual members of some particular visible Church, prove I say so, from my words; nor is it necessary the chief Pastor should assign any, it suffices, that those Christians be resolved to conform when it is assigned.  Mr. Baxter. 
Qu. 2. What is that faith in unity where all members of the Catholic Church do live? Is it the belief of all that God hath revealed to be believed? or of part, and what part.  William johnson. 
Answ. Of all, either explicitly, or implicitly.  Mr. Baxter. 
Your second Answer further proves, that your Definitions signify just nothing; they must live in the unity of the faith, that is, either with faith or without it; with a belief of what God hath revealed to be be believed, or without it; for to believe any point implicitly in your ordinary sense is not to believe it, but only to believe one of the premises whence the conclusion must be inferred. But why do you not tell me what you mean (by an implicit faith?) faith is called implicit in several senses. 1. When several truths are actually understood and believed in confuso, or in gross, in some one proposition which containeth the substance of them all; but not with accurate distinct conceptions, nor such as are ripe for any fit expression. This indistinct, immature, imperfect kind of apprehension, may be called implicit. 2. When a general proposition is believed as the matter of our faith, but the particulars are not understood or not believed. As to believe that omne Animal vivit, not knowing whether you be Animal or Cadaver; or to believe (all that is in Scripture is the word of God and true) but not to know (what is in the Scripture.) 3. What is only the formal object of faith, that is believed without understanding the Material object. The first sort of these I confess is actual though indistinct; but I suppose you mean not this. 1. Because it is not the ordinary sense of your party. 2. Because else you damn either all the world, or most of your own professed party, at least as no members of the Church; for few or none have an actual understanding and belief of all that God ever revealed to them; because all men (or most at least) have been sinfully negligent in searching after, and receiving truth, and so are sinfully ignorant; no man knoweth all that God hath revealed, or that he ought to know. 3. Because by this rule it is impossible for you, or any man to know who is indeed a member of your Church; for you cannot know men's confused knowledge, or know that it extendeth to all revealed; for if you speak of all revealed in general, or in Scripture, you still damn all (or most in your own sense) for none, as I said, understand it all to a word; but if you speak of all which that particular man hath had sufficient means to know. It is then impossible for you to make a judgement of any man's faith by this, for you can never discern all the means (internal or external) that ever he had, much less can you discern whether his faith be commensurate to the truth so fare revealed; so that by this course you make your Church invisible, I pray tell me how you can avoid it.  William johnson. 
Your discourse about implicit faith seems strange; I require a proof from you, that in your ordinary sense, it is no belief at all. 2. That it is only to believe one of the premises whence the conclusion must be inferred. 3. Tell me why you require that I should have declared to you, what I meant by implicit faith, when you suppose that I speak in the ordinary sense of our schoolmen, and I could not but suppose you understood their doctrine. 4. Why do you put the belief of the formal object without the belief of the material object of faith, a third member of implicit belief; or who did ever so before you? 5. Why do you confound the two first members of your Distinction, both of them being knowledge or belief in confuso; your first is, when several truths are actually understood and believed in confuso, or in gross, in some one proposition which containeth the substance of them all, etc. thus you. Your second is, to believe that omne animal vivit, not knowing whether you be Animal or Cadaver, or to believe that all that is in Scripture is the word of God and true, but not to know what is in the Scripture, thus you. Now tell me, does not this proposition omne Animal vivit, contain the substance of these truths, Equus vivit, Leo vivit, Aquila vivit, etc. so that by believing or knowing this proposition distinctly, omne Animal vivit, I believe or know in confuso, those other propositions contained, as species under their genus in it; and the like is of your second proposition, for believing all that is in Scripture is the word of God, and true expressly; I believe in confuso, all that is in Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, etc. to be the word of God, and true; though I neither believe or know expressly and distinctly all that is contained in those books, can you deny this? If you proceed in Philosophical principles, is not the express knowledge of the genus a confused knowledge of species under it? and an express knowledge of the species, a confused knowledge of the individua under it? and a knowledge or belief (when they are known or believed) in confuso? Thus you give distinctions without differences, and examples to illustrate your distinctions which quite destroy them. 6. Why put you a contradictory proposition, you say thus; not knowing whether you (that is such a man) be Animal or Cadaver; now this is a plain implicancy in adjecto, for it is as impossible that you or any man should be a Cadaver, as that a man should be a barn door, the one being as truly disparate from a true man, as the other; and disparates you know cannot predicate the one of the other, every one therefore knows, who knows what a man is, that no man is or can be Cadaver, a dead ca●●kass; so that no man can be ignorant, whether you be Animal or Cadaver. A little more heed to what you writ, would do well when you dispute. 7. Why say you, you suppose I mean nor your first manner of implicit faith, when I and all who understand themselves, must either mean that or nothing. The object of implicit faith delivered in the Schools, being nothing else save particular truths contained in substance under some general proposition; so that though they be neither known, nor believed distinctly, or expressly, yet they are known or believed in confuso, confusedly and implicitly, by the knowledge or belief of their general proposition. 8. Why misconceive you the notion of implicit faith; it is not, as you conceit, therefore no faith at all, of all the particulars in Scripture; because he who has it, understands not distinctly many truths contained in Scripture; for a Christian has implicit faith, because (such determinate truths being the facto contained in Scripture) by believing all that is contained therein, he believes confusedly or implicitly every one of the said truths, though he have not distinct knowledge of many of them. 9 But most of all I wonder, why you take my second answer in a quite other sense than I intended it; for your second question being this, whether I mean by faith, the belief of all that God hath revealed to be believed, or of part, etc. My Answer is this, of all, either Explicitly, or Implicitly; that is, that those of the Catholic Church must believe all the very same Articles and points of faith; by an Explicite faith in order at least to some of them, and by an Implicit faith in order to the rest; so an explicit faith of some Articles is necessary to all who actually believe with a Divine faith; now you would make me say, as appears by your Reply, that implicit faith is sufficient in relation to all points of faith whatsoever, as if I held it not necessary to believe any thing at all explicitly; for you press me thus, they must live in unity of the faith, that is either with faith, or without it; with a belief of what God hath revealed, or without it; which inference you could never urge against me, if you had supposed me to hold that some explicit faith is always necessary to salvation, in such as are capable of actual belief; for whilst they have explicit faith of some Articles, they can never be thought to be without faith; nor could you with reason, draw any such consequence from my speaking in this distributive sense, both because it is the ordinary sense of the Schools, where an explicit faith of some Articles is held necessary to salvation, and because my Answer connaturally admits of that sense. And lastly because, though the words precisely in themselves were capable of your affixed sense, yet when words are of a doubtful meaning, no man with reason can bind his words to one determinate sense, but must leave the determination to him who framed the proposition. 10. But now let us try a while what will follow from your Doctrine of Implicit Faith, as that term is ordinarily understood by us, To believe any point in our ordinary sense (say you) is not to believe it; now our ordinary sense (as I have declared) is so to believe that point, that we have no distinct or express knowledge of it; but only a confused understanding, because it is contained in confuso, under this Proposition; I believe all that God has revealed, or I believe all that is delivered to be believed in Canonical Scripture; Let us therefore settle this Assertion out of your Doctrine, whosoever believes all that God has revealed, or all that is in canonical Scripture, believes no one particular point contained confusedly in those Propositions, which he understands not with an actual understanding in particular to be revealed, farther than as contained in those Propositions, this is your Doctrine; now I subsume, But no man knoweth all that God hath revealed; to wit, with that actual understanding of every particular, required by you immediately before, as is above explicated, this minor is yours; Ergo say I, no man believes all that God hath revealed; now I proceed, if no man believe all that God has revealed, than you believe not all that God has revealed, this is evident; then further, whosoever belieus not all that God has revealed, is no good Christian, nor in state of Salvation; But you believe not all that God has revealed; Ergo you are no good Christian, nor in state of Salvation. See you not how fair a thread you have spun against yourself; or will you say that he who believes not all which God hath revealed is a good Christian, if you will you may; but sure if you do so, no good Christian will believe you: and that you may see how far you are out, in asserting this, that one cannot truly believe what he understands not actually, and in particular, or no farther than as the particulars are contained in that universal proposition, I believe all that God has revealed, or that is in Scripture; when you recite the Nicene Creed, wherein you profess to believe, that God is creator of all things visible and invisible. I demand, do you truly believe as you profess to believe, when you say those words; if you do not, you make a profession against your own Conscience; if you do, than you may believe with an actual Belief, that he is Creator of many particular things both visible and invisible, whereof you have no actual understanding; or which are wholly unknown in particular, or distinctly to you, or by any other knowledge, then as confusedly contained in the word all; you recite the Athanasian Creed, and there profess to believe, that all men shall rise at the last coming of Christ, and give an account of their works; and yet you have no actual knowledge of many thousands and millions of them: The like is of St. Paul, when he tells us all men are to stand before the Tribunal of Christ, etc. shall we say that St. Paul believed not as he professed to believe, Acts 24.5, 14. Credens omnibus, quae in Lege & Prophetis scripta sunt; yet cannot we suppose that he had then an actual understanding of every particular contained in them. II. And that you may see by instances how untrue your Assertion is, a Christian I suppose has by vincible or culpable oblivion forgot some grievous Sin of his Life past, he comes to the point of Death, he is hearty sorrowful, even for the pure love of God, for all his sins committed against the Law of God without any actual remembrance or understanding of that forgotten sin, and so dies; must not one say in your Principle, that such a Penitent had no actual sorrow for that forgotten sin implicitly, because he had no actual understanding of it; what horrid Doctrine would this be; the like is of one who forgives from his heart all Injuries done against him, but has no actual Remembrance of some of them; does he not therefore actually forgive even those which he has forgotten; a thousand like Examples might be brought, which I leave to your learned consideration, having been something with the longest in this Point, because I know it imports much to make a true understanding betwixt us: 12. why are you so wavering and inconstant in your Propositions; first you say, that few or none have an actual understanding or belief of all that ever God revealed to them; and within three or four lines you say absolutely and without all exception, no man knoweth all that God hath revealed: first you say all men, (or most at least) have been sinfully negligent in searching after and receiving truth; and within a Line or two you leave out your Restriction, and say, no man knoweth all that God hath revealed, or that he ought to know. 13. I would know the reason why you first suppose your principle, that no man can believe all unless he actually knows all; and thence infer against me, that in my Principles, who deny that of yours, I cannot know who is, who is not of my Church, because I cannot know what Reasons any particular have had to know more, or fewer divine Truths, or whether they have concurred with those Reasons or no, and so must make my Church invisible; now I make my Church visible, though by comprehending in it all those who profess an Explicite Faith in several Articles, which they understand distinctly, and an implicit Belief of the rest, whereof they have not distinct understanding; by professing that they believe all that God hath revealed to be believed by them, whatsoever they be in particular; now so long as they persevere in this behalf, though they should happen through culpable negligence not arrive to the knowledge of many things which they ought to know necessitati praecepti, yet they remain members (though corrupt and wicked) of the Church, whereby you see how easily I avoid that difficulty which you thought I could not.  Mr. Baxter. 
The second sort of implicit belief is no belief of the particulars at all, an Animal may live, and yet it followeth not that you are alive or an Animal.  William johnson. 
How impossibly dispute you here? your instance is from the matter; for when you say, omne Animal vivit, every sensible creature lives, it must have this sense, that it lives only so long as it is, and as it continues Animal or a sensible Creature; for otherwise you would have it to be, when it is not, and to live when it is dead; now understanding the proposition thus, whosoever believes omne Animal vivit, believes me to be a sensible creature, so long as I am in being, and to live before my Death, nay you seem not to reflect upon the sense of such propositions; for they relate not to the proposition by chance, in relation to particular individua, but to the Essence of the subject whereof they predicate; for when Philosophers say, omne Animal vivit, they mean it is of the Essence or notion of Animal to be a living thing, and this is true of me and all particulars, whether we be in actual existency or no; nay you bring an instance of a particular to confirm an universal; your Question was of omne Animal, all sensible creators, as appears above, and of all that God has revealed, and to confirm your assertion in this, you being a particular, an individuum vagum, saying an Animal may live, etc. that is some particular Animal; nor stay you here, but to amend the matter, you bring an instance of changeable things, to confirm a proof of things unchangeable; I, who now am, may cease to be in actual existency; but whatsoever is once revealed from God, can never cease to be revealed, or become a thing unrevealed; though therefore it follows not, that because omne Animal vivit, therefore I live actually; yet it follows, that whatsoever is once revealed of God, remains always actually revealed.  Mr. Baxter. 
If this were your meaning, then either you mean, (that it is enough if all be believed implicitly besides that general proposition) or you mean that some things must be believed explicitly, that is, actually, and some implicitly, (that is not at all.)  
Rejoinder.  
I have told you something more must be believed explicitly; how much, or what is a dispute amongst Divines, not necessary to be determined here, yet▪ I will speak something to that presently.  
Reply.  
If the former be your sense, than Infidels or heathens may be of your Church, for a man may believe in general (that the Bible is the word of God and true) and yet not know a word that is in it, and so not know that Christ is the Messiah, or that ever there was such a Person.  
rejoinder.  
Your instance is morally impossible, for either such a person believes the Bible rashly and imprudently, and then (according to all Divines) his faith cannot be supernatural and Divine, or sufficient to constitute him a Christian; or he believes it prudently, and then he must be moved by prudential motives of credibility, which must draw him to afford credit to that Authority as derived from God, which commends to him the Bible, as the written word of God; now that can be no other than the Authority of the Catholic Church, which he cannot be ignorant, to profess the faith of Christ, there being no other save that; though therefore he knows not by experience that Christ is mentioned in the Bible, yet he cannot but know that he is professed to be the Son of God, and Saviour of the world, by those of the Catholic Church, (who delivered the Bible to him, as the word of God) and that such a faith in him is necessary to salvation.  
Reply.  
But if somewhat be explicitly (that is actually) believed, the question that you would have answered was, (what is it?) for till that be known, no man can know a member of your Church by your descriptions.  
rejoinder.  
There was no necessity to tell you that; for when you so often distinguish betwixt points of faith Essential and accidental, seeing you ought to understand the terms of your own distinction, as I could not but suppose you did, you had no need to be informed what points were to be believed by explicit faith; all Essentials in your opinion are such.  
Reply.  
If you take (implicit) in the third sense, then implicit faith is either Divine or humane; Divine, when the Divine veracity is the formal object; humane, when man's veracity is the formal object, which may be conjunct, where the Testimonies are so conjunct; as that we are sure that it is God that speaks by man, who is therefore credible, because God infallibly guideth or inspireth him: that is at once to believe a humane and Divine veracity. If any of this be your meaning, that last question remains still to be resolved by you. A man may believe (that God is true) and that his Prophets and inspired messengers are true, and yet not understand a word of the message; so that still if this will serve, a man may be of your Church, that knoweth not that ever there was such a person as jesus Christ, or that ever he died for our sins, or risen again, or that we shall rise.  William johnson. 
Your third member I have rejected before, as a stranger to implicit faith; but I think you speak not true Divinity when you say, that to believe God to be true, and his inspired Prophets to speak truth, is to believe a humane and Divine veracity; for what Divine ever said before you, that Christian faith, which is to believe God speaking by the Prophets, etc. is to believe so much, as partially a human veracity: for that would make Christian faith partly human, which no Christian can affirm, it being a pure Theological virtue; and having no other formal object, save Divine veracity revealing: for though the Prophet be a human person, yet he speaks when he is inspired by God, not with human, but with Divine authority, God speaking by his mouth.  Mr. Baxter. 
And are all Infidels of your Church while you are arguing us out, but if there be some truths besides the veracity of God (and his messengers) that must be believed; you must show what it is, or your Church members cannot be known, tell me Ergo without tergiversation (what are the revealed truths that must be actually believed,) or what is the Faith material in unity, whereof all members of the Catholic Church do live.  William johnson. 
Tell me what points of Faith you account Essential to make a Christian precisely, (which is part of your own distinction) and you will save me the labour of telling you, what points are to be believed explicitly, if you know not that, you delivered a distinction which you understood not.  Mr. Baxter. 
I pray fly not, but plainly tell me: and if again you fly to uncertain points, because of the diversity of means of informations; and say it must be so much every man as he had means to know, I again answer you. First If a man had no means to know that there is a Christ, it seems then he is one of your Church. Secondly, you still damn all your own, there being not a man that knoweth all that he hath means to know, because all have culpably neglected means: and so you have no Church. Thirdly, still you make your Church invisible (if you had any) for no man can tell, as I said, who knoweth in full proportion to his helps and means; do you not see now whether your Implicit Faith hath brought you.  William johnson. 
Truly (Sir) your demand is not so great a bugbear, to make me fly from it, for fear it devour me: you cannot but know in your perusal of our Divines that your question has been answered by them an hundred times over, have you not heard them deliver in materia de fide, that trite distinction: that some points of faith are necessary to be believed explicitly, necessitate medii, and others, necessitate praecepti, and those of the first class are absolutely necessary for all men, to be so believed, to obtain salvation, and to become parts (at least in voto if they be not baptised of the Catholic Church,) and know you not that Divines are divided what are the points necessary to be believed explicitly, necessitate medii, some, and those the more ancient hold that the expli●●tte belief of God, of the whole Trinity, of Christ, his passion, resurrection, etc. are necessary, necessitate medii, others amongst the recentiors that no more than the belief of the Deity, and that he is rewarder of our works, is absolutely necessary with that necessity, to be explicitly believed; now to answer your question, what it is whereby our Church members are known, I answer that. First, all those who are baptised and believe all the points of our faith explicitly, (if any such persons be to be found) are undoubted members of our Church. Secondly, all those who believe explicitly all the Articles, and whatsoever belongs to them in particular, by reason of their respective offices in the Church. Thirdly, those who so believe all things necessary, necessitate medii, or necessitate praecepti, extended to all adulti. Fourthly, all those who believe in that manner, all things held necessary: necessitate medii, according to the first opinion of the more ancient Doctors. Fifthly, It is probable, though not altogether so certain as the former, that such as believe explicitly the Deity: and that he is a rewarder of our works, and the rest implicitly, as contained in confuso in that (Baptism supposed) are parts of the Catholic Church (now seeing all those who are contained in my four first numbers (which comprehend almost all Christians) are certainly parts of the Catholic Church, we have a sufficient certainty of a determinate Church, consisting at least of these, by reason whereof our Church has a visible consistency: these of the fift rank though not so certain as the former, take not away the certainty of the former, but that consistency supposed, Divines found a question amongst themselves, those of the first opinion will answer that such as believe not the aforesaid Christian mysteries expressly are not parts of the Catholic Christian Church, though they believe the Deity remunerating, and the rest implicitly: see you not by this discourse that we answer sufficiently to your questions, by telling which are undoubted members of our Church, and thereby give a sufficient description of it; (and rendering it visible) by assigning those which are undoubted members of it, though in some others, without which it hath consistency, be controverted amongst us: in this discourse I suppose, that such as only believe the Deity, or some few of our mysteries, are excused by invisible ignorance from the obligation of knowing the rest, for if their ignorance be vincible, culpable, and wilful, it will endanger at least their implicit faith: would not a Philosopher give a sufficient description of a humane living body by defining it to consist undoubtfully of head, shoulders, arms, etc. which are the known parts of it, though there be a doubt amongst Philosophers, whether the nails, humours etc. be animated and parts of it: here therefore you may consider, that we all agree in these parts which give a real visible constitution to our Church, though some question be amongst us about the Exclusion or Admittance of some few, which whether they be admitted or no, our Church remains by reason of the former in a real visible Existency; and by this are Answered your three ensuing Numbers.  Mr: Baxter. 
Quaest Is it any Lawful Pastors, or all that must necessarily be depended on by every member, and who are those Pastors?  William johnson. 
Ans. Of all respectively to each subject; that is, that the Authority of none of them mediate or immediate be rejected or contemned.  Mr. Baxter. 
Here still you tell me, that your descriptions signified nothing; you told me that the members must live in dependence on their lawful Pastors; and now you tell me that their Authority must not be Rejected or contemned: and indeed is dependence and non-Rejection all one? The millions of heathens that never heard of the Pope or any of your Pastors, reject them not, nor contemn them; are they therefore fit matter for your Church? 2. If you say that you mean it of such only as have a sufficient Revelation of the Authority of these Pastors.  
rejoinder.  
You mistake me, I speak of a Rejection and contempt of a subject (as appears by my words) and your Reply mentions the independence without Rejection of such as are no subjects; now the Rejection or contempt of Superiou●●s Authority in a Subject, takes away this dependence of that Superior; and his very working independently of them cannot be done without Rejection and contempt of their Authority, so long as he remains a subject; I pray mind a little better to what you Reply.  
Reply.  
I further Reply, 1. It seems than it is not only the Pope, but every Priest respectively; that is an essential member of your Church, or to whom each member must be subject necessarily add esse: If so then in every man that by falling out or prejudice, doth culpably Reject the Authority of any one Pastor or Priest among a swarm, is damned, or none of the Church though he believe in the Pope and twenty thousand Priests besides. 2. And then have we not cause to pray God to bless us from the company of your Priests; or at least that we may not have too many among a multitude, we may be in danger of Rejecting some one; and then we are cast out of that Church; what if a Gentleman should find some such as Watson or Montaltus described in bed with his wife; or a Prince find a Garnet, a Campian, or a Parsons in Treason, and by such temptation should be so weak as to contemn or reject the Authority of that single Priest, while he obeyeth all the rest: It is certain that such a man is none of the Catholic Church for that; how hard it is in France & Italy then to be a Catholic, where Priests are so numerous, that it's ten to one but among that crowd the Authority of some one may be Rejected: 3. But is it all the Priests that we never knew or knew not to be Priests, that we must depend on? or is it only those whose Authority is manifested to us by sufficient Evidence; doubtless if you will confine our dependency to these only (or else no man could be a Christian.) And if so be you know we are never the nearer a Resolution for your Answer, till you yet tell us how we must know our Pastors to have Authority indeed.  William johnson. 
Sir you mistake again, I speak only of all Respectively to each subject; that is of such as are properly the Pastors of such souls mediate or immediate; and you wave the consideration of the word Respectively, and thereby would extend my words to all Priests in the whole Church; know you not the difference betwixt Pastors, and Priests? are there not millions of Priests amongst us, and a number of Ministers amongst you, which are no Pastors, that is, have no care or cure of souls committed to them: my Assertion therefore is, that a private christian rejecting the authority of his Parish-Priest, Bishop, Archbishop, Metropolitan, Primate, Patriarch or supreme Bishop: who are (in some cases at least his Pastor,) becomes a Schismatic, & casts himself out of the Church▪ now for all the rest who are not his proper Pastors, though they may be Pastors to others, his rejecting or contemning them, will be a grievous fin of pride: but not sufficient alone to cast men out of the Church, because he remains still dependent of his own Pastors, and here falls to ground all your ensuing discourse of the multitude of Priests, etc. Where I will not take notice of an accusation made without proof, and relishing too little of Christian charity, against some particular persons, humbly beseeching God to forgive you for it, and hoping so to temper my expressions, that they still run peaceably on within the bank of Charity.  Mr. Baxter. 
What if they show me the Bishop's orders, and I know that many have had forged orders: am I bound to believe in this authority?  William johnson. 
As much as you can be assured of any being Pastor of such a Church, or Bishop of such a Diocese, or Justice of peace, or Earl, or Baron, by his Majesty's Patents or public orders.  
Reply.  
What if I be utterly ignorant whether he that ordained were himself ordained, per intentionem ordinandi: how shall I then be sure of his authority, that he is ordained.  
rejoinder.  
As sure as you can be, that you were the lawful child of your Father and Mother, who could not be truly married without intention of being Husband and Wife, one to the other? how know you that they had such an intention, solve this, and you solve your own argument.  Mr Baxter. 
And how can the People be acquainted with the passages in Election and ordination, that are necessary to the knowledge of their authority, especially of the Popes and Prelates, and what if you tell me your own opinion of the ●●ufficient means by which I must be convicted of the Popes and the Priest's authority.  William johnson. 
When it is publicly allowed in the Church, witnessed to be performed according to the Canonical prescription by such as were present, and derived to the people without contradiction by public fame.  Mr Baxter. 
How shall I know that you are not deceived, and that these are the sufficient means indeed, unless a general Council have defined them to be sufficient, and if they have, If it were not as an Article of Faith: you will say I am not bound of necessity to believe their definition.  William johnson. 
The orders prescrihed in the canon law, and universally received, are sufficient for this: without decrees of General Councils, for these are no points of faith, but of order and discipline, whereof a moral certainty and ecclesiastical authority is sufficient.  Mr. Baxter. 
And what if I have sufficient means to know the Authority of a thousand Bishops, but am culpably ignorant of some few, through my neglect, doth it follow that I am out of the Church, Is my obedience to each Priest as necessary as my belief of every Article? or multyplying Priests doth fill Hell faster, If men must be judged by your laws?  
rejoinder.  
This is grounded in your former mistake, and solved above, it is not all Priests, but all Pastors in relation to their flocks, that I speak of.  Mr. Baxter. 
But is it our allegiance to our Sovereign that is the character of a subject in the common wealth, and not our allegiance, or duty to every inferior Magistrate? the rejection of one of them, may stand with subjection, though not with innocency; It is not reason to reject a Constable, why then should it more be necessary to our Church membership and Salvation, But still you make your Church invisible: for as no man can know that liveth in the remote parts of the world, whether your Popes themselves are truly Popes, as being duly qualified and elected, now which is that true Pope, when you have often more than one at once, so you can never know concerning your members, whether their dependence on their Pastors be extensively proportionate to the means that discovers their Authority, and whether their disobedience unchurch them or not.  
rejoinder.  
But if you reject the Constable, and with him all superior Magistrates, who maintain his Authority, and come at last so far that you reject the Authority of the supreme or Sovereign power, rather than depend on the Constable you will become a Rebel; this is my case, for the Church being visible, is governed in this world by visible governor's; if therefore one Reject the Authority first of a parish Priest, and then of the Bishop of the Diocese, and after of all those who are Superior to that Bishop even to the highest authority (whether this be in one single person, or in the assembly of these Pastors in general Council, imports little for the present question) he becomes a Rebel to the visible Church, and casts himself out of it; and by consequence, because our Saviour hath said, he who heareth you heareth me) and he who contemneth you contemneth me, rejects also Christ's Authority by rejecting them, and thereby casts himself from being any longer (whilst he remains in that contempt) of the Flock, and Kingdom of Christ, which is his Church: For this contempt must be the same kind in respect of Christ, that it is in regard of all the aforesaid visible Governors, and therefore must reject the Authority of Christ, because it rejects their Authority; but none of those who reject Christ's Authority over them can be parts of his Flock or Kingdom; Ergo note the fallacy of your Assertion in making many Heretics and Schismatics properly so called, Real parts of the Catholic Church.  
Reply.  
I earnestly crave your Answer to the uncertainties which I have mentioned in my Safe Religion, pag. 9, 3. to 104. and tell us how all our Pastors may be known, and whether every particular sin un-Church men, and if not, why the contempt and rejection of a drunken Priest doth it, while all the rest are perhaps too much honoured.  
rejoinder.  
Really, Sir, I am too full of employments, either to Answer or peruse your Books, I never obliged myself to answer them. You make a visible Body with an invisible Head; that is, you admit no other head or supreme Ecclesiastical Magistrate over the visible Church save Christ; who is invisible to the Church, as he is head of it, and whose government is internal and invisible, if you abstract from all visible supreme Authority, and hence you assert that though all the Respective visible governor's in spiritual things be rejected by a subject, yet he may be a part of the visible Church; because he is still subject to Christ, who is invisible to to him in his Head-ship: I suppose I have said enough above to what you demand here, and take those Arguments in your safe Religion to be much of the same nature with these.  Mr. Baxter. 
Qu. 4. Why exclude you the chief Pastors that depend on none.  William johnson. 
Ans. I exclude them not, but include them, as those of whom all the rest depend, as St. Jerome does in his definition, Ecclesia est plebs Episcopo unita.  Mr. Baxter. 
How inconstant are you among yourselves in the use of Terms? how frequent is it with you, to appropriate the name of (the Church) to the Clergy; but remember hereafter when you tell us of the Determinations & Traditions of the Church, that it is the people that you mean, and not only the Pastors in Council, much less the Pope alone.  
rejoinder.  
This Requires no Answer, as opposing nothing against what I say to that Question; who knows not that Terms have different acceptions both amongst you and us, both in Scripture, Ecclesiastical and Civil Authors.   

Of HERESY.  
Heresy is an obstinate intellectual Opposition against Divine Authority revealed when it is sufficiently propounded.  Mr. Baxter. 
Qu. 1. Is the obstinacy that makes Heresy, in that Intellectual Will.  William johnson. 
Answ. In the will by an imperate act restraining the understanding to that.  Mr. Baxter. 
Still your descriptions signify just nothing, you describe it to be an Intellectual obstinate opposition, and yet say that this is in the will.  William johnson. 
You still Reply less than nothing to what I say; yes, it is an intellectual obstinate opposition; but I say not that the intellectualtie is in the will, or do you demand that; Read I pray my description and your question, and you will find no such matter; I say the obstinacy is in the will directly to your question, but the heresy is in the understanding, and therefore comes it to be an intellectual obstinate opposition; because that obstinacy in the will, imperates a kind of immobility in the understanding, whereby it adheres firmly to its Error. Intellectual therefore it is from the understanding, and obstinate from the will.  Mr. Baxter. 
And yet again you contradict yourself by saying, that it is an Imperate act.  William johnson. 
Where say I, that imperate act is in the will? prove from my words I say so, I say indeed that obstinacy is in the will, by an imperate restraining the understanding to that Error; but I never said, that imperate act was in the will: nay, I insinuate sufficiently that it is in the understanding by affirming, that it restrains the understanding, for the imperate act is a kind of immovable judgement imperated in the understanding by the obstinacy of the will; all therefore that I say is this, that there is an obstinacy in the will, showing itself to be there, by that immobility which it imperates in the understanding, and adheres to that error; when therefore I say by that imperate act, I mean not formally by that, but causally.  
Reply.  
No imperate act is in the will, though it be from the will, it is voluntary, but not in volunte; an imperate act may be in the will, but not an imperate; all imperate acts are in (and immediately by) the commanded faculties. The Intelligere, which is the imperate act, is in the intellect, though the velle intelligere, which is an elicit act, be in the will.  
rejoinder.  
You seem to discourse very strangely, and inconsequently of imperate acts; what Philosopher, before you ever said, no imperate act is in the will, though it be from the will, show your Authors for this; is not the quite contrary the common assertion of the schools, does not the will by an imperant act of charity, e. g. imperate within itself an act of obedience, contrition, patience, etc. Nay, do not many Philosophers from hence argue, that the will and the understanding must be one and the same soul, and not two powers really distinct, because the will imperates acts in the understanding; not by way of production or proper efficiency, but by a certain Sympathetical emanation of an act imperated, from the act imperating.  Mr. Baxter. 
2. From hence it is plain, that you cannot prove me or any man to be an Heretic, that is unfeignedly willing to know the truth, and is not obstinately willing in opposing it, which are things you cannot ordinarily discern and prove by others, that are ready to be sworn that they would fain know the truth.  William johnson. 
We enter not into the heart of any particular person, that we leave to God; only the Church presumes such to be Heretics, as have Catholic truths sufficiently propounded to them, and that notwithstanding contradict and oppose them; and let such be ready to swear what they please, she has more reason to think that proceeds out of a blind zeal to their own opinion then that they are not to be presumed Heretics, by their open profession of heretical opinions.  
Qu. 2. Must it needs be against the formal object of faith? is he no Heretic that denieth the matter revealed, without opposing obstinately the Authority revealing.  William johnson. 
Answ. Yes, nor is he a formal, but only a material Heretic, who opposes a revealed truth, which is not sufficiently propounded to him to be a Divine Revelation.  Mr. Baxter. 
Every man that believeth there is a God indeed, believeth that he is true,; (for if he be not true he is not God) if therefore no man be formally an Heretic that doth not obstinately oppose the veracity of God, which is in the formal object; then as there are, I hope, but few Heretics in the world, so those few cannot by ordinary means be known to you, unless they will say that they take God to be a liar: so that you make none Heretics indeed, but Atheists.  William johnson. 
There is a twofold denying of God, the one formal and direct, the other virtual and indirect; Atheists are guilty of the first, and Heretics of the second, which solves your d●●fficulty. This I oblige myself to prove, when occasion shall require it in our Larger Controversy. For the present it is sufficient to tell you, that whosoever obstinately contradicts any truth revealed from God, as all Heretics do some or other of them, they sinfully and wilfully affirm, that what God has revealed is not true; and consequently that God is a liar, and by that destroy, as much as in them lies, the very essence of God, though their obstinacy and pride will not suffer them to acknowledge it; now since you confess here, that what the Heretics deny is the thing revealed, and the revelation is from God, you cannot deny, that Heretics make God a liar, and thereby take away the veracity or truth of God.  Mr. Baxter. 
What if a man deny that there is a Christ, a Heaven, a Hell, a Resurrection, and also deny the Revelation itself, by which he should discern these truths, and yet deny not that veracity of God (no nor the Church) is this no Heretic? I would your party that have murdered so many Heretics (if a falsehood may be wished as a thing permitted to have prevented such a mischief) it is not Goddis veracity that is commonly denied by Heretics, but the thing revealed, and the Revelation of that thing.  William johnson. 
If they be not sufficiently propounded to him as revealed from God, he will be only a material Heretic; if propounded sufficiently as such, the case is implicatory, for that proposition must be made by the Church; so long therefore as he believes the infallible veracity of the Church propounding, he cannot disbelieve what it propounds sufficiently to him to be believed as revealed from God.  Mr. Baxter. 
And your Turnbal against Barronus hath told you, that the revelation is no part of the formal object of faith, but as it were the copula, or a condition, sive qua non. If he that obstinately refuseth to believe that the Godhead of Christ, or the holy Ghost, is any where by God revealed, and so denieth it, be no Heretic unless he also obstinately deny or resist the veracity of God, then there are few that you can prove Heretics (for forma dat nomen) and he that is not an Heretic formally, but materially only, is no Heretic at all.  William johnson. 
Turnballs saying touches not me, nor the present difficulty; an Heretic (as we now treat) denies not only the thing to be revealed, but the thing or Mystery itself to be true; now supposing that it be sufficiently propounded to him that God reveals it, he denying the thing itself to be true, denies that to be true which he hath sufficient reason to judge, by that proposition made to him, to be revealed of God; but whosoever denie●● that, denies virtually God's veracity, by denying the truth of that which God has revealed, and which he hath obligation to believe to be revealed from God. Ergo.  Mr. Baxter. 
Lastly, many a truth is sinfully neglected by the members of the Church, that have a proposal sufficient, and yet not effectual, through their own fault, and yet they are no Heretiticks; millions in your Church are ignorant of truths sufficiently proposed, and their ignorance is their sin, but it followeth not that it is their Heresy; but if it be, than Heretics constitute your Church, and then your Church is a thing unknown, because the Heretics cannot be known, the sufficiency of each man's revelation being much unknown to others.  William johnson. 
Whatsoever their neglect be to know what is propounded, yet so long as they believe explicitly what is necessary to be so believed, necessitate medii, (ut supra) and implicitly the rest, they can be no Heretics; For it is not the ignorance, though culpable, but the contradiction of what is sufficiently propounded to them, and known to them to be propounded by those who have power to oblige them, as being their lawful Superiors, which makes an Heretic.  Mr. Baxter. 
Qu. 2. What mean you by sufficient proposal.  William johnson. 
Answ. Such a proposition as is sufficient in humanis, amongst men, to oblige one to take notice that a King, or Magistrate, have enacted such and such Laws, etc. that is a Public Testimony that such things are revealed by the infallible Authority of those who are the highest Tribunal of God's Church, or by notorious and universal Tradition.  Mr. Baxter. 
In humanis, there lieth not so much at stake as a man's salvation; and man is not able as used to make a truly sufficient revelation of his will to all; and therefore the proportion holds not.  William johnson. 
Imports it not often to salvation, to know some Laws of the Commonwealth wherein you live? would you have God declare by revelation, who are the ordinary Governors of his Church? is not this to have constituted a visible Government imprudently, whose Governors cannot be sufficiently known but by revelation? therefore the proportion holds.  Mr. Baxter. 
2. But if it did, either you think the sufficiency varieth according to the variety of advantages, opportunities, and capacities of the persons, or else that it consisteth only in the act of common publication, and so is the same to all the subjects; if the first be your sense (as I suppose it is) then still you are uncertain who are Heretics, as being uncertain of men's various capacities, and so of the sufficiency in question, unless you will conclude (with me) that thus you make all Heretics as aforesaid, because all men living are culpably ignorant of some truths which they had a revelation of, that was thus fare sufficient: if the second be your sense, than the same unhappy consequence will follow, (that all are Heretics) and moreover, by that sense of obscure education, are unavoidable Heretics, because they had no opportunity to know those things, which, as to that Majority, are of public Testimony, and universal Tradition.  William johnson. 
I tell you I judge of no men's conscience, it is sufficient: 1. That such as acknowledge themselves they know such points of faith to be propounded by the Roman Church, (which I infallibly believe to be the true Church) and that notwithstanding reject them as errors, give me ground to presume them to be Heretics. 2. Such as oppose what all visible Churches have most notoriously practised, and believed as Divine truths, whilst they were so universarily taught, and practised, I may safely presume to be Heretics, because things so notorious cannot morally be presumed to be unknown to any one; for other particulars, I may and do suspend my judgement, for what obligation have I to know all the Heretics in the world, these Rules being a sufficient judge of the greatest part of them. See you not your fallacy, how you pass ab abstracto, in concretum. Our question was only what Heresy is, and you divert it, to inquire which particular persons are Heretics: cannot definitions stand, though we know not all the individuals which are reducible to them.  Mr. Baxter. 
Is not the Bible a public Testimony and record, and being universally received, is an universal Tradition, and yet abundance of truths in the holy Bible are unknown (and therefore not actually believed) by millions that are in your Church, and are not taken by yourself for Heretics, your befriending ignorance would else make very many Heretics.  
rejoinder.  
What if the Bible be a public Tradition, it is only a Tradition, that whatsoever is there delivered is the word of God; but it is no Tradition, that such a determinate sense, and no other, is the word of God in every sentence contained in it, when according to the Analogy of faith the words are capable of many senses; all therefore that is an universal Tradition concerning the Bible, is sufficiently propounded; but what is not Tradition left to the several Discourses and Expositions of Doctors? will it hence follow think you, that because what is not an universal Tradition is not sufficiently propounded to be known, Ergo, what is universal Tradition also is not?  Pope. 
By Pope I mean S. Peter, or any of his lawful Successors in the Sea of Rome, having authority by the institution of Christ to govern all particular Churches, next under Christ.  Of the Pope. Mr. Baxter. 
I am never the nearer knowing the Pope by this, till I know how Peter's Successors may be known to me.  
Qu. 1. What personal qualification is necessary ad esse.  William johnson. 
Answ. Such as are necessary ad esse, of other Bishops which I suppose you know.  Mr. Baxter. 
If so, than all these were no Popes, that were Heretques: or denied Essential points of Faith.  William johnson. 
'Tis true they were no Popes, whilst formal Heretics: if any such were. Baxter. As john 24. johnson prove that. Baxter. And so were no Christians. johnson. Prove that. Baxter. All those that wanted the necessary abilities, to the Essentials of their work. johnson. Prove there were such Popes.  Mr. Baxter. 
And so your Church hath often been headless, and your succession interrupted? Councils having censured many Popes to be thus qualified.  William johnson. 
When you have proved the precedents, prove that.  Mr. Baxter. 
And the dispositio materiae, being of itself necessary to the reception of that form: it must needs follow, that such were no Popes, even before the Councils charged them with incapacity, or Heresy, because they had it before they were accused of it, and Simony than made many uncapable.  William johnson. 
Prove they were lawful Councils which so censured any Popes which we admit as true and lawful.  Mr. Baxter. 
Qu. 2. Where and how must the Institution of Christ be found?  William johnson. 
Answ. In the revealed Word of God, written or unwritten.  Mr. Baxter. 
You never gave the World assurance, how they may truly know the measure of your unwritten Word, nor where to find it, so as to know what it is.  William johnson. 
We say we have.  Mr. Baxter. 
2. Till you prove Christ's Institution (which you have never done;  William johnson. 
That is to be done in our Controversy.  Mr. Baxter. 
You free us from believing in the Pope.  William johnson. 
All are free from believing in the Pope, we believe in God, but not in the Pope; who of us ever obliged you you to do so?  Mr. Baxter. 
Qu. 3. Will any one's Election prove him to be Pope? or who must Elect him ad esse.  William johnson. 
Answ. Such as by approved custom are esteemed by those by to whom it belongs, fit for that Charge; and with whose Election the Church is satisfied.  
Reply.  
Here you are fain to hid yourself, instead of Answering, and show indeed that a Pope (that's made an Essential part of the Church, subjection to whom is made of necessity to salvation) is indeed but a mere name, or a thing unknown, and so can certainly be believed or acknowledged by none. For either Election in him (by somebody) is necessary or not; If not, than you or another man unchosen may be Pope, for aught I know, or any man else; if yea, than it is either any body's Election of him that will serve turn or not; if it will, than you may be Popes, if your Scholars choose you, and then you have had three Popes at once, for many were Elected; but if it be not, than it must be known who hath the Power of Election before it can be known who is indeed the Pope, but you are forced here by your Answer to intimate to us, that the Power of Election cannot be known, & therefore the Pope cannot be known; for 1. Here are no Determinate Electours mentioned, and therefore it seems none known to you, and no wonder, for if you confine it to the People, or to the Cardinals, or to the Emperors, or to the Councils, you cut off all your Popes that were Chosen by the other ways: 2. Nor do you Determine of any particular discernible note by which the Electours and power of Election may be known to that Church; but all these patches make up your description: 1. it must be those that are esteemed fit for the Charge: 2. that by those to whom it belongs: 3. and that by Custom: 4. and that approved: 5. and the Church must be satisfied with the Election: a miserable body then, that hath been so often headless, as Rome hath been, 1. well esteeming them fit to serve turn, though they be unfit; than it is not the fitness that is necessary, but the Estimation (true or false;) 2. but why did you not tell us to whom it is that it belongs to esteem the Choosers fit; here you were at a straight: But is not this to say nothing while you pretend to speak, and to hid what you pretend to open; and who knows what Custom and of what continuance you mean Primitive Custom went one way, and afterward Custom went another way, and latter Custom hath varied from both? and hath the power of Election changed so often? and who is it that must approve this Custom? and what approbation must there be? all these are mere hiding, and no Resolving of the Doubt; and tell us that a Pope is a thing invisible or unknown; 5. and your last assures us, that your Succession was interrupted through many usurpations; yea indeed, that you never had a Pope, for the Church was unsatisfied with the Election of abundance of your Popes, when whores and Simony, and murder, and power set them up; and most of the Churches through the world is unsatisfied with them still unto this day; and you have no way to know whether the greater part of the Church is satisfied, or not, for nonresistance is no sign of satisfaction, where men have no opportuny or power to Resist; and when one part of Europe was for one Pope, and another for another through so many Schisms, who knows which had the approbation of that which may be called the Church?  William johnson. 
What is hidden from your understanding, you take to be hidden in itself, my Answer is Categorick, as it stands conjunctly in my words, and you, mangling them in pieces, have made them obscure, take them as they stand, and I am content; in materia subjecta, to submit them to the censure of any of your learned Divines esteemed Impartial, to judge whether they be not as clear as need to be given in the qualifying of Electours for Elective Princes, or Magistrates, where when Different occasions require, they admit of Different Determinations of Electours, as here it hath happened: and whether your Exceptions be not pure fallacies, proceeding à sensu conjuncto, ad sensum divisum, which is indeed as I have marked, too ordinary a fallacy with you; your 4. Number is a parergon. If the Church did really acquiesce in such an Elected person, as Pope; it was satisfied according to the substance of the Election, which is all I intended, though haply it might be unsatisfied in the circumstances: if the Church never accepted them as Popes, they are not to be accounted Legal Popes, nor in the number of St. Peter's successors, what abuses have happened in the Election of some Popes, happened most commonly when Lay persons, intruded their power and violence into those Elections, mingling Lay authority with Church Government, which is out of their Sphere; now this abuse is much consonant with the Doctrine of Protestants, so that those for the most part, who confirm their practice according to Protestants principles, introduced this abuse into the Pope's Election.  Mr. Baxter. 
Qu. Is Consecration necessary, and by whom, ad esse.  William johnson. 
It is not absolutely necessary ad esse.  Mr Baxter. 
If Consecration be not necessary to Papacy, than it is not necessary that this or that man consecrate him more than another; and than it is not necessary to a Bishop, and then the want of it makes no interruption in succession in any Church, any more than in yours.  William johnson. 
Neither Papal nor Episcopal Jurisdiction (as all the Learned know) depends of Episcopal or Papal ordination, nor was there ever Interruptions of Successions in Episcopal Jurisdiction in any Sea; for the want of that alone, that is necessary for consecrating others validly, and not for Jurisdiction over them.  Mr. Baxter. 
Qu. 5. What notice or proof is necessary to the Subjects.  William johnson. 
Ans. So much as is necessary to oblige Subjects to accept of other Elected Princes to be their Sovereigns.  Mr. Baxter. 
When you have answered to the afore mentioned three Doubts we shall know what that General signifieth.  
rejoinder.  
I have now answered, and therefore you are satisfied.  BISHOP. 
I mean by Bishop, such a Christian Pastor as hath power & jurisdiction to govern the inferior Pastors, Clergy, and people within his Diocese, and to confirm and give Holy Orders to such as are subjects to him.  Mr. Baxter. 
Qu. Do you mean that he must have this power jure Divino, whether mediately or immediately.  William johnson. 
Answ. The Definition abstracts from particulars, and subsists without determining that Question.  Mr. Baxter. 
You seem to yield the Papacy is Jure humano, (and sure of no necessity to salvation) for if man can change the power of Election, and the foundation be humane, it is like that Relation is but his name; and therefore if Bishops must be Jure Divino, they are more excellent and necessary than the Pope.  William johnson. 
Where yielded I that? where said I the Election was jure humano? show where, that there should be an election of him, by competent electours, is Ius Divinum; the Determination, who, hic & nunc, are competent, is Ius Ecclesiasticum, therefore the Papacy itself is only Jure humano; how follows that? know you not, that neither the electours nor consecratours of him give him Papal Jurisdiction, that is given him from Christ, as S. Peter's Successor: the election therefore is not the foundation of Papal Authority, but the promise of Christ. Nor are BB. more excellent than Popes, because both are jure Divino? and as the manner of the election in particular may be, and often is changed in the one, so is it in the other.  Mr. Baxter. 
2. How gross a subterfuge is this, either the Bishop in question is a Divine creature or humane; If a Divine, as you may manifest it, or express it at least, so you ought, it being no indifferent thing to turn a Divine office and Church into an humane; if he be not Divine, he is not of necessity to a Divine Churth, nor to salvation.  
rejoinder.  
What mean you by Divine creature? who ever spoke so but you? the Bishop is a humane creature, but his office is Divine Right; will you have all particulars expressed in Definitions? are they to contain more than the abstract notions of genus, & differentia; the question is not what ought to be expressed in a full Treatise concerning Bishops, but what in a definition ought to be the Genus and differentia of Bishop. I intended not to make a precise definition neither, but only to show you how I take it in my paper, as appears by my words.  Mr Baxter. 
And yet thus your R. Smith, Bishop of Chalcedon (ubi supra) confesseth it to be no point of your faith, that the Pope is S. Peter's Successor Jure Divino.  William johnson. 
You should have done well to cite the place, for I have no time to seek whole books over, nor should you have drawn consequences upon so large citations of Authors.  Mr. Baxter. 
And if you leave it indifferent to be believed or not, that both your Popes and Bishops are Jure Divino, you confess you are but a humane Policy, and Society, and therefore that no man need to fear the less of his salvation by renouncing you.  William johnson. 
Who leaves it indifferent? must all things which are not expressed in Definitions be left indifferent? there is no mention of Risibile in the definition of homo, do Philosophers therefore leave it indifferent whether homo be Risibilis or no.  
Qu. 4. How shall we know who hath this power, what election, or consecration is necessary thereto: if I know not who hath it I am never the better.  William johnson. 
Answ. As you know who hath temporal power by an universal, or most common consent of the people, the election is different according to different times, places, and other circumstances; Episcopal consecration is not absolutely necessary to true Episcopal jurisdiction.  
Reply.  
How now? are all the Mysteries of your Succession and Mission resolved into popular consent.  William johnson. 
Why how now? what is the matter? who says our Succession and Mission is resolved into popular consent? things use to be resolved into their principles; where have I constituted, popular consent, the principle of election? the first part of the question propounded here by you, was not what election was, of what principle it consisted, but how it should be known, (I pray, if you mark not my words, at least reflect upon your own) how shall we know (say you who hath this power, to this I answer directly thus; as you know who hath temporal power by an universal, or most common consent of the people. Is there no difference with you, betwixt the Mysteries of our Succession and Mission, and the manner how to know them. The Mystery of the most blessed Trinity, etc. is known to your Parishioners by your Preaching and Catechising, is it therefore resolved into your Preaching and Catechising, resolved I say into its formal object? for that is the question, and the absurdity which you would infer against me.  Mr. Baxter. 
Is not one way of election necessary, do you leave that to be varied as a thing indifferent.  William johnson. 
Why should it? it is sufficient that some generalities of it be determined jure Divino; as that it be done by Christians, by such as are capable to know who is a fit person for the Office, choosing freely according to the Laws of God; the further Determinations are left to the Church, according to the different ways of proceeding in different Churches, Nations, Dioceses; what is there to be wondered at in this? have you not this practice among you?  Mr. Baxter. 
And is Episcopal consecration also necessary, I pray you here again remember, that none of our Churches are disabled from the plea of a continued Succession for want of Episcopal consecration, or any way of election; if our Pastors have had our people's consent, they have been true Pastors. But we have more. 2. By this rule we cannot tell of one Bishop of an hundred, whether he be a Bishop or no; for we cannot know whether that he hath the consent of the people, yea, we know that abundance of your Bishops have no such consent.  William johnson. 
No man argues you of the want of Succession in your Respective Seas because you want Episcopal consecration, but because you want Episcopal election, confirmation, vocation, Mission, Jurisdiction; for your first Bishops in Queen Elizabeth's time (and the same is of your Ministers of Parishes) were intruded by secular power into their Respective Seas and Parishes, the proper Bishops and Pastors of those Churches yet living, and that without legal deposition, or deprivation of them, by their lawful Superiors, or true election by those Respective capitula, who had the present power of electing the Bishops of their Diocese in such Dioceses as had then no Bishops, or of constituting Parish Priests in such places as wanted them; they had no Jurisdiction but from the Queen and Parliament, as is manifest by the public Statutes yet extant, cited in Erastus junior, part. 2. All those who succeeded to those Intruders, can have no more Jurisdiction than they first had; nor had you ever the full consent of the People, for all those of the Roman party, who in the first institution of your Elizabeth Bishops, were a great part of the Kingdom, if not the greatest, never elected them, nor was there any such popular e●●ction required or admitted in those times.  Mr. Baxter. 
Yea, we know that your Popes have none of the consent of the most of the Christians in the world, (nor for aught you or any man knows) of most in Europe.  William johnson. 
Of what Christians? such as you and your Associates are; we regard that no more, than did the Ancient holy Popes, not to have had the consent of Nestorians, Eutichians, Pelagians, Donatists, Arians, etc.  Mr. Baxter. 
It is few of your own party that know who is Pope, (much less are called to consent) till after he is settled in possession.  William johnson. 
What then? is not the same in all Elective Princes, where the extent of their Dominions are exceeding large.  
Reply.  
3. According to this rule your Successions have been frequently interrupsed, when against the will of General Councils, and of the fare greatest part of Christians, your Popes have kept the seat by force.  
rejoinder.  
These are Generalities, what Popes, what Councils in particular, name and prove if you will be answered.  Mr. Baxter. 
4. In temporals your Rule is not universally true; what if the people be engaged to one Prince, and afterward break their vow, and consent to an usurper; though in this case a particular person may be obliged to submission and obedience in judicial administrations, yet the Usurper cannot thereby defend his Right, and justify his possession; nor the people justify their adhesion to him, while they lie under an obligation to disclaim him, because of their preingagement to another, though some part of the truth be found in your Assertion.  William johnson. 
The people cannot be supposed to consent freely, lawfully, and effectually to an usurper; now I suppose to consent I speak of to be lawful, for I speak of ordinary causes, and not of what seldom or never happens; for where shall you find an universal or common consent to a known usurper, acknowledging him to have a temporal power over them; it is one thing to tolerate, or not resist, and another to consent to his power: now I speak of a free universal consent, where no force or constraint is used.  Mr. Baxter. 
Qu. 3. Will any Diocese suffice ad esse? what if it be but in particular Assemblies.  William johnson. 
It must be more than a Parish, or then one single Congregation which hath not different inferior Pastors, and one who is their Superior: for a Bishop when consecrated, as he hath a higher power then single Priests have in acts of Order, so hath he a power over single Pastors in acts of Jurisdiction when he is installed in a Diocese: for he is to govern not only the people as interior Pastors do, but interior Pastors also.  Mr. Baxter. 
This is but your naked affirmation, I have proved the Contrary from Scriptures, Fathers, and Councils in my dispute of Episcopacy, viz. that a Bishop may be (and of old ordinarily was) over the Presbyters only of one parish of single Congregation, or a people no more numerous than our Parishes, you must show us some Scripture or General Council for the contrary, before we can be sure you here speak truth, was Gregory Thaumaturgus, no Bishop, because when he came first to Neocaesar●●a, he had but seventeen souls in his Charge; the like I may say of many more.  
rejoinder.  
Am I obliged to Answer in this paper all the reasons you alleged in your Book of Episcopacy, what you say here of Gregory Thaumaturgus is easily answered, he was sent to be Bishop of Caesarea, and of the country about it, or under its Command, and though there had been no more than seventeen Christians in the City, yet how know you there were no more in all the Country adjacent, whereof he was Bishop; But suppose there had been no more than that small number, neither in that City nor Country; know you not that he was sent to multiply Christians there as he did, and thereby to make himself a Competent Diocese? the Apostle S. james is recorded to have converted no more the seven persons at the first coming in Spain; would you thence deduce, that the Apostolical office did not include in it a superiority over both Priests & Bishops.   

TRADITION.  
I understand by Tradition, the visible Delivery from hand to hand in all cases of the Revealed Will of God, either written or unwritten.  Mr. Baxter. 
Qu. But all the Doubt is, by whom this Traditions that is valid, must be, by the Pastor or People, or both by Pope? or Councils, or Bishop's Disjunct? by the major part of the Church, or Bishops, or Presbyters, or the minor, and by how many?  William johnson. 
By such and so many proportionably, as suffice in a Kingdom to certify the people which are the ancient universal received Customs in that Kingdom, which is to be morally considered.  Mr. Baxter. 
I consent to this General: But then 1. how certainly is Tradition against you, when most of the Christian World, yea all except an Interested Party, do deny your Sovereignty, and plead Tradition against it? And how lame is your Tradition, when it is carried on your private Affirmations, and is nothing but the improved Saying of a Sect.  William johnson. 
The Intention both of you and me, was to know what was meant by our Terms, that we might come to some Agreement about them: here we are (as appears by your Reply) agreed about what is meant by Tradition; first, your Objection, how this agrees not with our Tradition, is now out of season, and should have its place when we come to the main Controversy. If the notion of Tradition, wherein we are agreed, make against me, so much the better for you, who denied our Sovereignty (as I describe it in my Thesis) or had a Church Government inconsistent with it in the First three and four hundred years. Let those Churches be named, and since those times nominate any particular body of Christians which opposed it, whom I cannot show evidently to have sprung up of new since those times.  Mr. Baxter. 
Qu. 2. What proof or notice of it must satisfy me in particulars, that it is so past?  William johnson. 
Answ. Such as with proportion is a sufficient proof, or notice of the Laws and Customs of temporal Kingdoms.  Mr. Baxter. 
But is it necessary for every Christian to be able to weigh the credit of Contradicting parties, when one half of the world say one thing, and the other another thing, what opportunity have ordinary Christians to compare them, and discern the moral advantages on each side?  William johnson. 
As much as they have to know which Books are, and which are not Canonical Scripture, amongst those which are in Controversy.  Mr. Baxter. 
As in case of the Pope's Sovereignty, when two or three parts of the Christian world is against it, and the rest for it, can private men try which party is the more credible, or is it necessary to their Salvation.  William johnson. 
As much as they can try which is Canonical Scripture in Books Controverted.  Mr. Baxter. 
If so they are cast upon unavoidable despair; if not, must they all take the words of their present teacher.  William johnson. 
As much as they do for the Determination of Canonical Scriptures.  Mr. Baxter. 
That most of the World must believe against you because most of the Teachers are against you.  
There is no Congregation of Christians united in the same profession of Faith, External Communion, and dependence of Pastors, which is contrary in Belief to us, any way to be Parallel with us in Extent and Multitude, prove there is, and name it: All our Adversaries together are a patched body of a thousand different professions, and as much Adversaries one to another, as they are to us; the one Justifying us in that, wherein the other condemn us; so that no heed is to be taken to their Testimonies; non sunt Convenientia.  Mr. Baxter. 
And it seems men's faith is resolved into the Authority of the Parish Priest, or their Confessor, the Laws of a Kingdom may be easilier known than Christian Doctrine can be known, (especially such as are controverted among us) by mere unwritten Tradition, Kingdoms are of narrower compass than the world; And though the sense of Laws is often in question, yet the being of them is seldom matter of Controversy: because men conversing constantly and familiarly, with each other, may plainly and fully reveal their minds, when God that condescendeth not to such a familiarity, hath his mind, by inspired persons, long ago with much less sensible Advantages, because it is a Life of Faith, that he directeth us to Live.  William johnson. 
No such matter▪ no more than the belief of such a Determinate Canon of Scripture is Resolved by your Parishioners into your Authority; can you not distinguish, betwixt a Propounder, and a Revealer: good Christians Resolve their Faith into God Revealing, and so pronouncing their Creed say, I believe in God, etc. when did you ever hear any of ours say, I believe in my Parish Priest; he indeed is the means whereby they came to believe, (as God's Instrument) but he is no principle or formal object of Faith, into which it is Resolved: But constitute you what Systeme you please, of the Christian Religion; let us for the present, suppose it be that which you mention in your papers, that all Christians, even heretics and schismatics compose on●● Catholic Church, whereof Christ is the head; now you say there that some heretics are not Christians, of which sort the Church is not composed, how shall your Parishioners know (as the like is of all the unlearned) which Heretics were Christians, which not, nay, or what Heretics there have been in all succeeding ages, or whether at some time or other, all those whom you term Christians, were not such Heretics, as in Reality were no Christians, being Christians only in name, as the Arians were, nay how shall they know they were any Christians at all, for five hundred years ago, they must take all upon your word, and so as much resolve their Faith into your Authority, as you would have ours to resolve theirs into that of their Parish Priests. Resolve this, and you have solved your own difficulty against us.  General Council. William johnson. 
A general Council I take to be an Assembly of Bishops and other chief Prelates, called, convened, confirmed, by those who have sufficient spiritual Authority to call, convene, and confirm it.  Mr. Baxter. 
Qu. 1. Who is (ad esse) that must call, convene, and confirm it; till I know that I am never the nearer, knowing what a Council is, and which is one indeed.  William johnson. 
Answ. Definitions abstract from inferior subdivisions, for your satisfaction I affirm it belongs to the Bishop of Rome.  Mr. Baxter. 
If it be necessary to the being or validity of a Council, that it be called or confirmed by the Pope; then your Definition signifies nothing, if you abstract from that which is so necessary an ingredient, unless it were presupposed to be understood.  William johnson. 
I have often told you, that Definitions must abstract; if my Definition be true, why yield you not to it? if false, why show not wherein? my Genus is an Assembly, my Differentia, of Bishops and chief Prelates, called, convened, etc. Is there here either a false genus, or a false Differentia? In this first objection you admit both, and yet will not be satisfied with my Definition; this I understand not: when I named the Bishop of Rome, I told you it was for your satisfaction, not for completing my Definition, for that abstracts from particulars.  Mr. Baxter. 
If it belong to the Bishop of Rome to call a Council, as necessary to its being; then the first great general Council,, and others following were none, it being certain that they were not called by him; and as certain that he hath never proved any such Authority to call them or confirm.  William johnson. 
What with you is certain, till you prove it, I hold not only to be uncertain, but untrue also.  Mr. Baxter. 
Qu. 2. Must it represent all the Catholic Church? doth not, your Definition agree to a provincial or the smallest Council?  William johnson. 
Answ. My Definition speaks specifically of Bishops, and those Prelates, as contradistinct from inferior Pastors and Clergy, and thereby comprised all the Priest contained in the Species, and consequently makes a distinction from the National or particular Councils, whom some Bishops only Convened, not all, that being only some part, and not the whole Species or specifical notion applied to Bishops of every age, and yet I said not all Bishops. But Bishops and chief Prelates; because though all are to be called, yet it is not necessary that all should convene, whence appears what I am to answer to the next Questions.  Mr. Baxter. 
Then you have no General Councils, much less can you have any now, for you have none to represent the greatest part of the Church, unless by a mock-Representation. 2. If all must be called, your Councils have not been General, that called not a great part of the Church.  William johnson. 
The matter we are now about is to explicate Terms, whether those Explications agree with us, or make against us, belongs to our further Dispute: what you say of our having had no Councils representing the whole Church, is as easily denied as affirmed without proof; which are those which called not all?  Mr. Baxter. 
If most are necessarily detained (as by distance the Prohibition of Princes, etc.) the call made it not their duty to be there, and so make it not a general Council, which is so called from the Generality of the meeting and representation, and not of the Invitation, no more than a Call would make it a true Council, if none come.  William johnson. 
Your Reason concludes not, drawn from none present, to most absent; when a Parliament is summoned in our Nation, if none at all should come it would be no Parliament; follows it therefore, if most fall sick, or are lawfully hindered, or wilfully absent themselves, that by reason of the absence of them it is neither Representative sufficiently of the Kingdom, nor enabled to enact Laws, binding all the Inhabitants; see you not that such Principles as this of yours, are of dangerous Consequence and render the Laws of our Nation dubious and uncertain? nor is the Call a sole invitation, but a summon, or command.  Mr. Baxter. 
Qu. How many Bishops, and from what parts (ad esse) make such a Council.  William johnson. 
The number is morally to be considered, more or fewer, according to the difference of times, distances of place, and other circumstances, from whence they are to come.  Mr. Baxter. 
This is put off for want of an Answer; is it a Council if difficulties keep away all? if not it can be no General Council, when difficulties keep away the most; much less when such a petty Confederacy as met at Trent, shall pretend to represent the Christian world, you thus leave us uncertain when a Council is General, and when not: how can the people tell when you cannot tell yourselves; when the Bishops are so many as make a Council General.  William johnson. 
By this is answered what you say here, tell me what number present may consist with the Essence of a Parliament, or a Diet in the Empire, and I will tell you with proportion, what number may suffice for a Representation of the Church in a General Council; will you have things of a moral consideration to consist in indivisibles? But who sees not, how by cavilling in in this manner, against the validity of a Council, you lay grounds of dangerous consequence, for rejecting the authority of lawful Parliaments, whilst you thus carp at the members present, and thereby render it as difficult to know which is a sufficient number fo●● Parliament, as for a Council.  Mr. Baxter. 
Qu. 4. May none but Bishops and chief Prelates be members, (as you intimate.)  William johnson. 
Answ. No others, unless such inferiors, as are sent to supply their places, and as Deputies of those Bishops, or Prelates, who are such members of the Council as have decisive Votes, in framing Decrees and Definitions.  Mr. Baxter. 
This is your private opinion, no Council hath defined it, unless they are Contradictory; for I suppose you know that Basil and many Councils before it, had Presbyters in them.  William johnson. 
Basil in many things is not allowed of by us, name those others received as General Councils amongst us, which had simple Priests, with power of giving voices, belonging to them as such.   

SCHISM.  
I understand by Schism a wilful Separation or Division of ones self from the whole visible Church of Christ.  Mr. Baxter. 
Qu. 1. Is it no Schism to separate from a particular Church, unless from the whole?  William johnson. 
Answ. No, it is no Schism, as Schism is taken in the holy Fathers for that great and capital crime, so severely censured by them, in which sense only I take it here.  Mr. Baxter. 
Though I take Schism more comprehensibly, and I think aptly myself; yet hence I observe your justification of the Protestants from the Schism: seeing they separate and not from the Catholic Church, for they separate not from the Armenian, Ethiopian, Greek  William johnson. 
Here you allow of my definition, at least you disclaim not from it; but use your objections, how it makes against my party, this I have told often, is not now our work, but belongs to our dispute in taking your best advantages of my explications. Did not your first Protestant's in Germany separate as much from the Armenians, Ethiopians. Greeks, as they did from uhe Romans, if they did not show the communion they had with them; did you first Ministers either take mission or jurisdiction to preach from any of their Bishops, or Patriarches, did they take the prescription of their Liturgy, Discipline or Hirearchie from them, did they upon occasion join in Prayer, Sacraments, or Sacrifice with them, and did they profess the same faith in all points of faith, and those the very same, wherein they dissented from the Church of Rome, and all this notwithstanding were they in external communion with them? If so they may as well be said not to have separated from the external communion of the Roman Church, and if they separate from that, they also separated from the other, for the very same reasons.  Mr. Baxter. 
Nor from you as Christians.  William johnson. 
Nor from us (say you) as Christians, no sure, for if you did you must be Jew's, Turks, or Infidels.  Mr. Baxter. 
But as scandalous offenders, when we are commanded to avoid we separate not from any; but as they separate from Christ.  William johnson. 
Was there no more in't▪ did not the Primitive Persons who begun your breach, and party owe subjection to their respective Ecclesiastical Superiors, Diocesans, and Pastors immediately before they revolted from them, and is it lawful for a subject to subtract himself from the obedience of his lawful Pastor because that Pastor is a scandalous offender, remains he not in his former power notwithstanding those scandelous offences, till he be legally deposed? if you say he does not, you contradict our Saviour, commanding obedience to be given to the scandalous Pharises who sat in Moses his chair, you destroy all Ecclesiastical Government, and open a way to tread underfoot all temporal authority also in desisting to acknowledge their authority, by reason of Scandelous offences; if you hold these offences, deprive him ipso facto, from all Ecclesiastical power, why shall not another say they deprive Kings and Magistrates; nay even Fathers and Mothers, of their authority over those whom they Govern, and then you would have spun a fair thread, and laid a more open passage to rebellion, than any you can find, or show amongst those whom you term Papists, and will make this good against yourself; that a man cannot be a good subject unless he cease to be of your party, such I suppose you esteem those to be, who follow your doctrine▪ nor yet did you only refuse obedience to them in what you thought to be scandelous and against God; but you absolutely rejected their Ecclesiastical authority, and refused to have any dependence at all of them: as your lawful Pastor, neither acknowledging those under whose immediate jurisdiction you then were, nor any of the Ecclesiastical authority in that time.  Mr. Baxter. 
Qu. 2. Or no Schism unless wilful  W. johnson. 
Noe.  Mr. Baxter. 
Again your further justify us from Schism, if it be wilful it must be against knowledge, but we are far from separating wilfully or knowingly from the whole Church, that we abhor the very thought of such a thing, as Impious and Damnable.  William johnson. 
Abhor it as much as you please, for your own particular (I know not what excuse may be pleaded for you) I am certain that your first beginners did it, and that knowingly and wilfully; and you still maintaining what they begun, must by all considering Christians be judged guilty of the same crime, for still you remain separate from all those Churches from which they departed, that is, from all the visibe Churches existant immediately before they sprung up, and in their time, and still continue through the whole world.  Mr. Baxter. 
Qu. 3. Is it none, if you make it a division in the Church, and not from the Church?  William johnson. 
Answ. Not as we are here to understand it, and as the Fathers treat it, for the Church of Christ being perfectly one cannot admit of any proper Schism within itself, for that would divide it into two, which it cannot be.  Mr. Baxter. 
Though I am sure Paul calls it Schism when men makes divisions in the Church, though not from it, not making it two Churches, but dislocating some members, and abating Charity, and causing contentions where there should be peace, yet I accept your continued justification of us; who if we should be tempted to be dividers in the Church, should yet hate to be dividers from it, as believing that he that is sep●●ate from the whole body is also separate from the head.  William johnson. 
I am glad to see you accept of some thing at the last upshot; If it be for your advantage, God give you good on't; 
See Dr. Ham. in his Book of schism, c. 1, 2, 3  I speak not of Schism taken in a large sense, but of that only which is treated by the Fathers, and reckoned up amongst the most horrid sins which a Christian can commit, and that separates from the whole Church.  
Sir, urgent and unavoidable business constrained me to delay my return to your Solutions, or Explications of your Definitions, till this june 29. 1660.  Mr. Baxter. 
When you desire me to Answer any such Questions, or Explain any doubtful passages of mine, I shall willingly do it; In the mean time you may see, while your Terms are Explained, and your Explications or Definitions so insignificant, how unfit we are to proceed any further in dispute, till we better understand each other as to our Terms and Subject, which when you have done your part to, I shall gladly if God enable me, go on with you, till we come (if it may be) to our desired Issue.  
But still I crave your performance of the double task you are engaged in.  
RICHARD BAXTER.  William johnson. 
Sir, I have thus far endeavoured to satisfy your expectation, and to acquit myself of all my obligations, wherein I have sought, as I strongly hope, first God's eternal glory, and in the next place, your eternal good, with his for whom I undertake this labour, and of all those who attentively and unpartially peruse this Treatise.  
WILLIAM JOHNSON.    

ERRATA.  
Page 75. line 13. add neither. p. 78. l. 6 deal my answering. p. 82. and p. 83. league essaid. p. 97. l. 20. leg. ad vitam. ib. l. 21. lege Devote. p. 102. add l. 12 or. p. 103. read Caesarea. p. 211. l. ult. add by: 127. l. 23. p. 130. l. 21. r. primantè. p. 141. deal and to that head. p. 142. l ult. add and. p. 148. l. 6. deal sole. p. 157. l. read to. p. 158. l. 5. read you. p. 162. l. 18. read and. p. 167. l. 5. deal not. ib. l. 12. add the. ib. l. 17. for as read to. p. 172. l. 21 read plainly. p. 177. l. 12. read points. p. 178. l. 4. at I see begin●● johnsons' answer. p. 193. line 13. r. province. ibid. l. 22. read solve. p. 195. l. 11. r. can. p. 198. l. 8. r. mogus. p. 199. l. 5. add to. ib. l. 20 add as, p. 200. l. 16. r. seen. p. 201. l. 15. read annum. ib. l. e 26. read Mogus. p. 202. l. 8. add who. ib. line 21. for 1585. read 482. p. 203. line 10. read obscurity, ib. l. 12. read found p. 205. l. 4. read 'tis p. 207 read for. p. 216 l. 2. read that Council, ib. line 13. read stating p. 219 l. 19 deal the, p. 220 l. 1 r. Pratriarchates, ib. line 4 & 6 r. patriarchs, p. 221 line 18 r left, p. 222 l. ult. add Donat. p. 227 l. 19 read manifestation, p. 229 line 22 deal To, p. 236 l. 12. add he, ib. l, 24 read Parergon, p. 237 l. 5 r. seeing, p. 239 l. 6 add labour, ib. l. pen. read Council, p. 240 l. 18 r. deposition, ib. l. 24 read be, p. 243 l. 24 read see, p. 244 l. 19 r. had, p. 246 l. 20 read Epitom-spondani, p, 248 l. 22 deal that, p. 150 r. that, p. 254 l. 23 deal on, p. 256 read where, p. 256 l. 25 r. in a judge, add who, r. cannot, p. 259 l. 7 read help, ibid. l. 27 read cum fratribus, p. 260. l. 4 read wont, p. 265 l. 9 add from, p. 261 l. 10 r inflicted, ibid. l. 27 r Theodosius, p. 280 l. 20. read lawful, pag. 280 in may, r. infra citandus, p. 291 l. 14 r. by this, p. 291 r. preserved, p. 292 l. 7 add to, p. 293 r institution, p. 297 l. 3 deal that, p. 303 l. 12 r. by, p. 308 l. 25 add place, p. 310 r. spirits, p. 313. l. 4 add so, p. 316 l. 10 r. or that, p. 318 l. 25 for of read to. p. 325 l. 2. read Anthimus p. 327 l. 26 r. wives, p. 328 l. 29 add if, p. 333 l. 29 read communicate, p. 343 l. 14 add phrase, p. 346 l. 8 add not, ib. l. 6 r. it seems, p. 347 l. 11 r. universality, p. 349 l. 3 r. Popes, p. 364 l. 11 r. and so, p. 365 l. 23 r this, ibid. l. 26 conform, p. 369 l. 4 deal not, l. 5 add not, p. 365 l. 2 add not, p. 368 l. 20 r. mistakes, ib. l. 22 read proud, p. 383 l, 17 read I, p. 372 l. 4 r. pages, ib. l. 20 add of, p: 373 r. reges, p. 390 l. 11 deal note etc. p. 393 l. 7 r. sort, p. 399 l. 9 r. glossa, p. 402 l. 9 r. Eulogiums, p. 403 l. 7 r, Jesse, ib. l. 21. r. Jehud, p. 408 l. 27 r. alludes. p. 409 l. 17 add are, p. 411 r. Saracenorum, p. 412 l. 26 r. Messia, ib. r. Toti, p 434 l. 21 r. knew, p. 435 l. 17 pone, l pro c, p. 442 l. 27 r. verisimile, p. 45 l. 19 deal of France, p. 460 l. 28 r. solicitude, p. 464 l. 16 r. whereas, p. 468 l. 11 deal St. p. 485 l. 15 d. is, p. 494 l. 23 r. Solomon, p. 500 l. 28 r. denied, p. 501 l. 23 r. nor, p. 502 l. 3 r. so much as, ib. d. as, ib. l. 14 r. profession, p. 504 l. 24 r. demostrates, ib. l. 26 r. ecclesiae, p. 503 l. 8 r. Castro Galba, p. 510 l. 1 r. solve▪  

In the Explication of Terms.  
Page 1 put Catholic Church after Johnson, p. 14 l. 1 r. belief, ib. l. 3 r. necessitate, p. 27 l. 1 r. nor, p. 21 l. 7 r. invincible.