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 antient Author for this Assertion Were those primitive Christians of another kind of Church-order and Government then were those under the Roman Empire 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 Emperour See now how little your Allegations are to the purpose where you nominate any determinate Congregations to satisfie my demand I had no reason to demand of you different congregations of all sorts and Sects opposing the Supremacy to have been shewn visible in all ages I was not so ignorant as not to know that the Nicolaitans Valentinians Gnosticks Manichees Montanists Arians Donatists Nestorians Eutychians Pelagians Iconoclasts Berengarians Waldensians Albigenses Wicleffists Hussits Lutherans Calvinists c. each following others had some kind of visibility divided and distracted each to his own respective age from our time to the Apostles in joyning their heads and hands together against the Popes 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 Catholike 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 your selves to be parts of the Catholike 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 your selves and still remain separate from communion with the Roman Church why possessed you your selves of the Bishopricks and Cures of your own Prelates and Pastors they yet living in Queen Elizabeths time and drew both your selves and their other subjects from all subjection to them and communion with them Is this disunion 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 Common-wealths men Though therefore you do account them all parts of the Catholike 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 Catholike Church unless you make Arians and Pelagians and Donatists parts of the Catholike Church which were either to deny them to be Hereticks and Schismaticks or to affirm that Hereticks and Schismaticks separating themselves from the communion of the Catholike Church notwithstanding that separation do continue parts of the Catholike Church For who knows not that the Ethiopians to this day are Eutychian Hereticks And a great part of those Greeks and Armenians who deny the Popes Supremacy are infected with the Heresie 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 then Hereticks and Schismaticks unless you both agree with them in those differences of faith and subject your selves to the obedience of the Patriarch of Constantinople as to the chief Head and Governour 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 c. and Sir Edwyn Sands of this subject in his Survey p. 232 233 242 c. Either therefore you must make the Eutychians and Nestorians no Hereticks and so contradict the Oecumenical Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon which condemned them as such and the consent of all Orthodox Christians who ever since esteemed them no others or you must make condemned Hereticks parts of the Catholick Church against all antiquity and Christianity And for those Greeks neer 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 Heresie 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 Rome and his party to have fallen from the true faith and lost his ancient authority by that sole pretended error and the Latins alwaies 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 then some Novel writers of yours who prest 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 Hereticks Schismaticks and desertors of the true faith as they continue still to do to this day and yet you will have them both to be parts of the Catholike 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
the Eutychians should sit in the Councill but be presented as a guilty person to be judged becuase he had celebrated a Councill in the Eastern Church without the consent of the Bishop of Rome which said the Legats never was done before nor could be done lawfully This order of Pope Leo was presently put in execution by consent of the whole Councill and Dioscorus was judged and condemned his condemnation and deposition being pronounced by the Popes Legats and after subscribred by the Councill Fifthly the Popes Legats pronounced the Church of Rome to be Caput omnium Ecclesiarum the Head of all Churches before the whole Council and none contradicted them Sixthly all the Fathers assembled in that Holy Councill 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 Patriarchs after that of Rome which notwithstanding that the Councill had consented to as had also the Third General Councill of Ephesus done before yet they esteemed their grants to be of no sufficient force untill they were confirmed by the Pope And Leo thought not fit to yield to their petition against the express ordination of the First Councill of Nice where Alexandria had the preheminence as also Antioch and Hierusalem 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 daies to repent after he had received his condemnation All which had effect in the Eastern Church where Nestorius was Patriarch of Constantinople After this Saint Cyrill having received Pope Leo's Letters wherein he gave power to Saint Cyrill 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 Heresie of Apollinaris so that St. Cyril being also accused of Heresie was barred from pronouncing sentence against Nestorius so long as he stood charged with that Accusation Theodosius the Emperour seeing the Eastern Church embroyled 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 Celestine 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 Legats 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 St. Cyril Bishop of Alexandria being constituted by Celestine his chief Legate ordinary in the East by reason of that preheminency 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 St. Cyril and all the other Legats and Patriarchs In the sixth Action of this holy Council Iuvenalis Patriarch of Hierusalem having understood the contempt which Iohn Patriarch of Antioch who was cited before the Council shewed of the Bishops and the Popes Legats 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 dirigeretur 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 Celestine who presently ratified and confirmed them Not long after this in the year 445. Valentinian the Emperour makes this manifesto of the most high Ecclesiastical authority of the See of Rome in these words Seeing that the merit of St. 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 for then finally will the peace of the Churches be preserved every where if the whole universality acknowledge their Governour when these things had been hitherto inviolably observed c. Where he makes the succession from St. 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 Emperours Letters Pattents For what shall not be lawful for the authority of so great a Bishop to exercise upon the Churches And then 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 entituled a Bishop the sole humanity of the meek Prelate id est 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 c. 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 Apostolick 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 Governour of the same Province to present himself before him Which evidently proves that the highest Universal Ecclesiastical Judge and Governour 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 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 saies Dignum ut opinor existimans si reliquos omnes tantum fidei devotione quantum locī 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 rebaptization or Hereticks 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 publickly 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 pag. 327. Act. 1. where Philip Priest and Legate of Pope Celestine sayes 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 locum-tenens sanctus beatissimusque Papa noster Celestinus nos ipsius praesentiam supplentes huc misit And Arcadius another of the Popes Legats enveighing against the Heretick Nestorius accuses him though he was Patriarch of Constantinople which this Council requires to be next in dignity after Rome as of a great crime that he contemned the command of the Apostolick See that is of Pope Celestine Now had Pope Celestine had no power to command him and by the like reason to command all other Bishops he had committed no fault in transgressing and contemning his command By these testimonies it will appear that what you are pleased to say That the most part of the Catholike Church hath been against us to this day and all for many hundred of years is far from truth seeing in the time of the holy Oecumenical Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon the universal consent of the whole Catholike Church was for us in this point As to what you say of Congregation of Christians in the beginning I answer I took the word Christians in a large sense comprehending in it all those as it is vulgarly taken who are Baptized and profess to believe in Christ and are distinguished from Jews Mahumetans and Heathens under the denomination of Christians What you often say of an universal Monarch c. if you take Monarch for an Imperious sole Commander as temporal Kings are we acknowledge no such Monarch in the Church if 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 Governour of all Bishops and people in the whole Church nay they expresly give it to Martinus Quintus when he was chosen But in extraordinary cases especially when it is doubtful who is true Pope as it was in the beginning of this Council till Martinus Quintus was chosen Whether any extraordinary power be in a general Council above that ordinary power of the Pope which is a question disputed by some amongst our selves but touches not the matter in hand which proceeds only of the ordinary and constant Supream Pastor of all Christians abstracting from extraordinary tribunals and powers which are 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 denyed Only please to give me leave to tell you that I cannot conceive my Argument yet answered by all you have said to it William Iohnson Feb. 3. 1658. Sir It was the 21. of January before your Answer came to my hands and though my Reply was made ready by me the third instant yet I have found so great difficulties to get it transcribed that it was not possible to transmit it to you before now But I hope hereafter I shall find Scribes more at leasure I must desire you to excuse what errors you find in the Copy which I send As also that being unwilling to make a farther delay I am enforced to send a Copy which hath in it more interlineations then would otherwise become me to send to a person of your worth Yet I cannot doubt but your Candor will pass by all things of this nature I am Sir Your very humble servant William Iohnson Feb. 15. 1658. Worthy Sir I have now expected neer three moneths for your rejoynder to the Reply which I made to that answer which you were pleased to send and return to my Argument concerning the Church of Christ but as yet nothing hath appeared I must confess I have wondered at it considering the earnestness which appeared in you at the first to proceed with speed in a business of this nature what the impediment hath been I am only left to guess but certainly truth is strong and it will not be found an easie thing to oppose her while we keep close to form I am now necessitated to go out of London so that if your Papers come in my absence I shall hope you will have the patience to expect untill they can be sent from London to me and my Answers returned by the way of London but I do engage not to make a delay longer then the circumstances of the place and times shall enforce Sir I do highly honour and esteem your parts and person and shall be very glad to bring that business to an handsome
their Diocess yet they might renounce all communion with him Churches that have no power over one another may have communion with one another and that communion they may hold and renounce as there is cause Now if a neighbour Patriarch with so many Bishops of the West had renounc'd Communion with Chrysostomes 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 did no good or did not avail And it is to be noted that your Author Nicephorus tells you lib. 13. cap. 31. that Chrysostomes Letters and his fellow-Bishops also and the Clergies of Constantinople were all written both to the Emperour Honorius and to Innocent And therefore you may see by that on what account it was and what help they did expect The Emperour was not to excommunicate but his Letters might do much Well but you alledge Niceph. l. 13. c. 34. to prove 1. Chrysostomes appeal But you have better or worse eyes then I for I can find there no such thing but a seeking for help as aforesaid 2. You say Innocentius nulls 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 3. You say he excommunicates Atticus and Theopilus and 4. Arcadius the Emperor also and Eudoxia Reply 1. If he did so and did well another Bishop might as well have done it Mennas excommunicated Vigilius of Rome Excommunicating is not alwayes an act of Jurisdiction but a renouncing of Communion with a Ministeriall binding which any Pastor on a just occasion may exercise even on those that are not of his Diocess examples in Church-history are common 2. But I would have you answer Dr. Whittakers Reasons by which he proves that Nicephorus is a fabler in this relation and that that Epistle is not Innocents which cap. 34. he reciteth Lib. de pontif Rom. Contr. 4. Qu. 4. pag. 454 455. 1. Neither Socrates Theodoret or Sozomen make any mention of this excommunication who yet write much of the Case of Chrysostome 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 Emperour and Empress which would have made so great a noise and stir that yet mention Ambrose his censure of Theodosius 2. This Bull of Innocents as Nicephorus would have us believe it hath such falshoods contrary to more credible history as bewray the forgery For Socrates lib. 6. c. 19. writeth that Eudoxia died the same year that Chrysostome was banished and that Chrysostome died the third year of his banishment And Sozomen saith l. 8. c. 28. that Chrysostome was in banishment three years after the death of Eudoxia But if Nicephorus were to be believed Eudoxia was alive and excommunicated by Innocent after Chrysostomes death Nor can it be said that Innocent knew not of her death for his Legats were sent to Constantinople in Atticus time who succeeded Arsacius who outlived Eudoxia This is the summe of Dr. Whittakers confutation of Nicephorus And withall who knows not how full of fictions Nicephorus is 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 Diocess c. whereas the Bishop of Rome by his sole and single authority restored Bishops wrongfully deposed all the Church over Reply 1. It seems you took Chamiers words on trust peruse that page and see his words 2. Single Bishops have censured and therefore might as well remit their own censures Ambrose censured Theodosius who was no fixed Member of his charge and he remitted the Censure Epiphanius presumed even at Constantinople to excommunicate Dioscorus and his Brethren Socrat. lib. 6. c. 14. 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 And if the fact were not proved yet the forbearance proveth not the want of power 3. I deny your unproved assertion that the Bishop of Rome singly restored all the Church over It is a meer fiction How many restored he out of the Empire Or in the Empire out of his Patriarchate but suasorily or Synodically Your next instance of Theodosius his not permitting the Council at Ephesus to be assembled and his reconciling himself to the Church is meerly impertinent We know that he and other Princes usually wrote to Rome Constantinople Alexandria c. or spoke or sent to more then one of the Patriarchs before they called a Council You cannot but know that Councils have been called without the Pope and that neither this nor an Emperours forsaking his errour is a sign of the Popes Universal Government That Emperour gave sufficient testimony and so did the Bishops that adhered to Dioscorus that in those dayes the Pope was taken for fallible and controlable when they excommunicated him But when you cite out of any Author the words that you build on I shall take more particular notice of them Till then this is enough with this addition that the Emperours 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 then the King of Englands subjection to the Archbishop of Canterbury would have proved that the King of France was subject to him 12. 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 expresly 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 Controversie is at end If you do not why do you cite it and why pretend you to believe Generall Councils But what have you from this Council against this Council Why 1. You say Martian wrote to Leo that by the Popes Authority a generall Council might be gathered in what City of the Eastern Church he should please to choose Reply 1. Whereas for this you cite Act. Concil Chalcedon 1. You tell me not in what Author whether Crabbe Binnius Surius Nicolinus or where I must seek it I have perused the Act. 1. in Binnius which is 63 pages in Folio such tasks your citations set me and find no such thing and therefore take it to be your mistake But in the preambul Epist I find that Valentinian and Martian desire Leo's prayers and contrary to your words that they say Hoc ipsum nobis propriis liter is tua sanctitas manifestet quatenus in omnem Orientem in ipsam Thraciam
jure divino you confess you are but a humane policy or society and therefore that no man need to fear the loss of his salvation by renouncing you R. B. Qu. 2. 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 Mr. J. 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 R. B. Reply Qu. 2. Repl. 1. How now Are all the mysteries of your succession and mission resolved into Popular Consent Is no one way of Election necessary Do you leave that to be varied as a thing indifferent And is Episcopal Consecration also unnecessary I pray you here again remember then 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 the peoples consent they have been true Pastors according to this reckoning And if they have now their consent they are true Pastors But we have more 2. By this rule we cannot know of one Bishop of an hundred whether he be a Bishop or no for we cannot know that he hath the Common consent of the people yea we know that abundance of your Bishops have no such consent yea we know that your Pope hath none of the Consent of most of the Christians in the world nor for ought you or any man knows of most in Europe It s few of your own party that know who is Pope much less are called to Consent till after he is settled in possession 3. According to this rule your successions have been frequently interrupted when against the will of general Councils and of the far greatest part of Christians your Popes have kept the seat by force 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 a Usurper Though in this ease a particular person may be obliged to submission and obedience in judicial administrations yet the usurper cannot thereby defend his Right and justifie his possession nor the people justifie their adhesion to him while they lye under an obligation to disclaim him because of their preengagement to another Though some part of the truth be found in your assertion R. B. Qu. 3. Will any Diocess serve ad esse what if it be but in particular Assemblies Mr. J. Answ. It must be more then a Parish or then one single Congregation which hath not different inferiour Pastors and one who is their superior R. B. Reply Qu. 3. Repl. This is but your naked affirmation I have proved the contrary from Scriptures Fathers and Councils in my disputation of Episcopacy viz. that a Bishop may be and of old ordinarily was over the Presbyters only of one Parish or single Congregation or a people no more numerous then our Parishes You must shew us some Scripture or general Council for the contrary before we can be sure you here speak truth Was Gregory Thaumaturgus no Bishop because when he came first to Neocaesarea he had but seventeen souls in his charge The like I may say of many more Mr. J. Tradition I understand by Tradition the visible delivery from hand to hand in all ages of the revealed Word of God either written or unwritten R. B. Of Tradition Qu. 1. But all the doubt is by whom this Tradition that 's valid must be By your Pastors or people or both By Pope or Councils or Bishops disjunct By the Major part of the Church or Bishops or Presbyters or the Minor and by how many Mr. J. Answ. By such and so many proportionably as suffice in a Kingdom to certifie the people which are the Ancient universally received customs in that Kingdom which is to be morally considered R. B. Reply Of Tradition Qu. 1. Repl. I consent to this general But then 1. How certainly is Tradition against you when most of the Christian world yea all except an interessed party do deny your Soveraignty and plead Tradition against it And how lame is your Tradition when it s carried on your private affirmations and is nothing but the unproved sayings of a Sect R. B. Qu. 2. What proof or notice of it must satisfie me in particular that it so past Mr. J. Answ. Such as with proportion is a sufficient proof or notice of the Laws and customs of temporal Kingdoms R. B. Reply Qu. 2. Repl. But is it necessary for every Christian to be able to weigh the credit of contradicting parties when one half of the world faith one thing and the other another thing what opportunity have ordinary Christians to compare them and discern the moral advantages on each side As in the case of the Popes Soveraignty when two or three parts of the Christian world is against it and the rest for it can private Christians try which party is the more credible Or is it necessary to their salvation If so they are cast upon unavoidable despair If not must they all take the words of their present Teachers Then most of the world must believe against you because most of the Teachers are against you And then it seems mens faith is resolved into the authority of the Parish-Priest or their Confessors The Laws of a Kingdom may be easier known then Christian doctrines can be known especially such as are controverted among us by meer unwritten Tradition Kingdoms are of narrower compass then the world And though the sense of Laws is oft in question yet the being of them is seldom matter of controversie 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 delivered 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 Mr. J. General Council A general Council I take to be an assembly of Bishops and other chief Prelates called convened and confirmed by those who have sufficient Spiritual authority to call convene and confirme R. B. Of a General Council Qu. 1. Who is it ad esse that must call convene confirm it till I know that I am never the nearer knowing what a Council is and which is one indeed Mr. J. Answ. Definitions abstract from inferior subdivisions For your satisfaction I affirm it belongs to the Bishop of Rome R. B. Reply Qu. 1. Repl. 1. If it be necessary to the being or validity of a Council that it be called or confirmed by the Pope then your definition signifieth nothing if you abstract from that which is so necessary an ingredient unless it were presupposed to be understood 2. If it belong to the Bishop of Rome to call a Council as necessary to its being
are Eutychians and Jacobites and confesses that their Patriarch is in subjection to the Patriarch of Alexandria c. See more of the Chofti Jacobites Maronites c. p. 493 494. where he confesses that many of them are now subject to the Pope and have renounced their old errors See Nilus on this subject (a) (a) Liberatus in Brev. c. 16. (b (b Epist. praeambula Concil Chalcedon (c) (c) Concil Chalcedon Act. 1. (d) (d) Concil Chalcedon Act. 8. (e) (e) St. Cyprian Epist. 67. (f) (f) Concil Sard. cap. 4. cited by St. Athan. Apol. 2. pag. 753. (g) (g) St. Basil. Epist. 74. (h) (h) St. Chrysost. Epist. 2. ad Innocent (i) (i) Concil Ephes. p. 2. Act. 5. (k) (k) St. Athanas ad Solit. Epist. Julius in lit ad Arian ap Athan Apolog 1. pag. 753. Theodoret. lib. 2. cap. 4. Athanas Apol. 2. Zozom lib. 3. cap. 7. 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. c. g. p. 498. and the whole Council of Calcedon acknowledged the right of that Appeal restoring Theodoret to his Bishoprick by force of an order given upon that Appeal by Leo Pope to restore him Concerning Saint Athanasius being judged and righted by Iulius Pope Chamier cit p. 497. acknowledges the matter of fact to be so but against all antiquity pretends that judgment to have been unjust Which had it been so yet it shews 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 condemed as unjust in consenting to it Niceph. lib. 13. cap. 34. Chamier cit p. 498. sayes 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 save the Pope who restored any who were out of their respective Diocess 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 his sole and single authority restored Bishops wrongfully deposed all the Church over (m) (m) Concil Chalced. Action 1. (n) (n) Concil Chalced. Action 3. * * 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 Iustinian the Emperour Agapet Pope even in Constantinople against the will both of the Emperour and Empress deposed Anthymus and ordained Mennas in his place Liberaâ— in Breviario cap. 21. Marcellinus Comes in Chronico Concil Constantin sub Menna act 4. And the same St. Greg. C. 7. Ep. 63. declares that both thâ— Emperour and Bishop of Constantinople acknowledged that the Church of Constantinople was subject to the See of Rome And l. 7. Ep. 37. Et alibi pronounces that in case of falling into offences he knew no Bishop which was not subject to the Bishop of Rome (o) (o) St. Augustin Tom 1 Epist. Rom. Pontif. post Epist. 2. ad Celestinum Epist. Concil ad I. con Pap. Act. 1. sequ For the age 600. See St. Gregory Pope l. 10. ep 30. where Hereticks and Shismaticks repenting were received then into the Church upon solemn promise and publike protestation that they would never any more separate from but alwaies remain in the unity of the Catholike Church and communion in all things with the Bishop of Rome
my Nego Concedo c. 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 Logicall Disputations where strict form is observed and known to every yong Logitian Instances therefore demanded by the opponent were not excluded but only such excursions out of form as should proceed from the respondent with out 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 Popes 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 alwaies had it hath been alwaies visible and that Church I require should be named if any such be and whilest 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 and so must not prove and you by denying it must affirm and so must prove You prove it is not your part here to prove because the Popes supremacy could not be denyed before it was affirmed and you must be obliged to prove that denyal I oblige you not to prove a continued visible Church formally and expresly denying it but that it was of such a Constitution as was inconsistent with any such supremacy or could and did subsist without it 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 Mahumetan 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 Mahumetan and he says that you may be saved being a Christian. See you not that the obligation of proof in Logicall form depends not of the first position or Thesis but must be drawn from the immediate proposition affirmative or negative which is or ought 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 Kings 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 Christs 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 Catholike Churches holding ever the Popes Supremacy you shall take it as a giveing 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 fair attempt to satisfie 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 then 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 alwayes till this present time since Christ hath been visible c. and you tell me of more then an hundred Congregations besides that which acknowledges Saint Peter c. 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 Conquerour till this present time and he who undertakes to satisfie my demand should nominate more then 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 satisfie my demand you must assert that these whom you first name are both one Congregation and have been visible ever since Christs time This you do not in the pursute 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 which you nominated first or others I required some determinate Congregation to be nominated all the while and you tell me of 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 neer 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 for 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 Popes universal Monarchy or vice-Christship 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
them successively in all ages till Christ as a different Congregation of Christians from that which holds the Popes 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 perpetuall visibility of succession Though therefore you profess never to have seen convincing proof of this in the first 400 years 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 Iurisdiction over all other Bishops in the ensuing instances which happened within the first 400 or 500 or 600 years Iohn Bishop of Antioch makes an Appeal to Pope Simplicius And Flavianus Bishop of Constantinople being deposed in the false Councill of Ephesus immediately appeals to the Pope as to his judge Theodoret was by Pope Leo restored and that by an appeal unto a just judgement Saint Cyprian desirâ—â— Pope Stephen to depose Marcian Bishop of Arles that another might be substituted in his place And to evince the supream Authority of the Bishops of Rome it is determined in the Council of Sardis That no Bishop deposed by other neighbouring Bishops pretending to be heard again was to have any successour appointed until the case were defined by the Pope Eustathius Bishop of Sebast in Armenia was restored by Pope Liberius his Letters read and received in the Council of Tyana and Saint Chrysostome expresly desires Pope Innocent not to punish his Adversaries if they do repent Which evinces that Saint Chrysostome thought that the Pope had power to punish them And the like is written to the Pope by the Council of Ephesus in the case of Iohn Bishop of Antioch The Bishops of the Greek or Eastern Church who sided with Arius before they declared themselves to be Arians sent their Legates to Iulius Bishop of Rome to have their cause heard before him against Saint Athanasius the same did Saint Athanasius to defend himself against them which Arian Bishops having understood from Iulius that their Accusations against Saint Athanasius upon due examination of both parties were found groundless and false required rather fraudulently then seriously to have a fuller Tryal before a General Council at Rome which to take away all shew of excuse from them Pope Iulius assembled Saint Athanasius was summoned by the Pope to appear before him and the Councill 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 a half All which time his Accusers though also summoned appeared not fearing they should be condemned by the Pope and his Councill Yet they pretended not as Protestants have done in these last ages of the Kings of England That Constantius the Arian Emperour of the East was Head or chief Governour over their Church in all Causes Ecclesiasticalâ— and consequently that the Pope had nothing to do with them but only pretended certain frivolous excuses to delay their appearance from one time to another Where it is worth the noting that Iulius reprehending the said Arian Bishops before they published their Heresie and so taking them to be Catholikes for condemning Saint Athanasius in an Eastern Councill gathered by them before they had acquainted the Bishop of Rome with so important a cause useth these words An ignari â—stis hanc consuetudinâ—m esse ut primum nobis scribatur ut â—inc quod justum est à â—finiri possit c. Are you ignorant saith he that this is the custome to write to us first That hence that which is just may be defined c. where most cleerly 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 proceedings of Pope Innocent the first about 12. hundred years since in the Case of Saint Chrysostome Where first Saint Chrysostome appears to Innocentius from the Councill assembled at Constantinople wherein he was condemned Secondly Innocentius annulls this condemnation and declares him innocent Thridly he Excommunicates Atticus Bishop of Constantinople and Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria for persecuting Saint Chrysostome Fourthly after Saint Chrysostome was dead in Banishment Pope Innocentius Excommunicates Arcadius the Emperour of the East and Eudoxia his wife Fifthly the Emperour and Empress humble themselves crave pardon of him and were obsolved by him The same is evident in those matters which passed about the year 450. where Theodosius the Emperour of the East having too much favoured the Eutychian Hereticks by the instigation of Chrysaphius the Eunuch and Pulcheria his Empress and so intermedled too far in Ecclesiasticall 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 Legats unto them And though both Leo's letters were dissembled and his Legats affronted and himself excommunicated by wicked Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria and president of that Coventicle who also was the chief upholder of the Eutychians yet Theodosius repented before his death banished his wife Pulcheria and Chrysaphius the Eunuch the chief favourers of the Eutychians and reconciled himself to the Chruch with great evidences of Sorrow and Pennance Presently after Anno. 451. follows the Fourth General Council of Chalcedon concerning which these particulars occur to our present purpose First Martianus the Eastern Emperour wrote to Pope Leo That by the Popes Authority a General Council might be gathered in what City of the Eastern Church he should please to chuse Secondly both Anatolius Patriarch of Constantinople and the rest of the Eastern Bishops sent to the legats of Pope Leo by his order the profession of their Faith Thirdly the Popes Legats sate in the first place of the Council before all the Patriarchs Fourthly they prohibited by his order given them That Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria and chief upholder of
issue which hath been so calmly and soberly prosecuted I am an enemy to passion and as I have hitherto found you sweet and gentle in your proceedings towards me so shall you alwaies find me Worthy Sir Your friend to serve you William Johnson May 2. 1659. Sir Be pleased to return your Answer Papers or Letters which you intend for me to the same place to which you directed your former by which means I shall be secure to receive them at my house which is fourscore miles from London To Mr. T. L. who called me to this work Sir THough I am a stranger to you I thought meet to take notice of the Letters which you sent your friend here T. H. It seems you urge hard for a Reply and intimate somewhat of triumph in my delay you speak as an incompetent Judge God is the Master of my time and work and him I must serve and not neglect his greater work for such trivial objections as your friend hath sent me which are answered over and over by many so long ago Had you read Blondel Molineus de novitate Papismi Whitaker Sibrandus Lubbertus Chamier Abbots Crakenthorp Spalatensis or one of many that have confuted them you would sure call for no more Or if in English you had read Dr. Field Dr. White yea or but Sir Humphery Lind to pass by multitudes you might have seen their vanity Yea plainly read impartially my two books against Popery and be a Papist if you can But it seems you take it for a poor answer to be referred to books Do not fear it But yet let me tell you that my hand is not more legible then my printed books and if I had sent you this in print would that have made it a poor answer Or rather is not this a poor exception and shews that it is not truth that is look after for truth may be printed as well as written If you be deceived by the men of the Papal way let me yet intreat you but to read over those two books The safe Religion and the Key for Catholikes If your soul be not worth so much labour take your course I did my duty But I must say that it is doleful case that professors are so ungrounded that such vanities should carry them away from Catholike verity and unity to a faction that usurps the name of Catholikes To be free with you I think it is that pride and levity that brings them first to separation from our Churches into Sects and the guilt which they there incur that prepareth professors to be so far forsaken of God as to be given up to believe a lie and to turn Papists O dreadful case that one Bishop cannot swell in pride but men must make a Religion of his pride yea and make a Catholike Church of it yea and plead for it and make the sin their own yea condemn all Christians that list not themselves under this Prince of pride He is culpably if not wilfully blind that hath read Scripture and Church history and knoweth not that the Pope for three hundred years after Christ was not the creature that now he is nor had for most of that time any more Government over other Bishops then I have over neighbour Pastors and after that time he was no more an universal Head or Governour or Vicar of Christ then the Archbishop of Canterbury was having indeed a far larger Diocess then he but never was more then the swelled Primate of one National Imperial Church When Synods began to be gathered out of a Principality the Emperours desiring that means of unity within their Empire the pride of the Prelates set them presently a striving for superiority who should sit highest and write his name first and have the largest Diocess c And now men make a Religion of the fruits of this abominable pride What are all their disputings for and all this stir that they make in the world but to set up one man over all the earth and that to do a spirituall work which consisteth not with force but is managed on conscience One wretched man must govern the Antipodes on the other side of the earth that is indeed uncapable of truly and justly Governing the City of Rome it self Popes that their own Councils have condemned for ravishing maids and wives at their doors for Murders Simony Drunkenness Heresie denying the Resurrection and the life to come that is being no Christians these forsooth must be the universal Governours or we are all undone and we are damned if we believe it not O how dreadfull are the effects of sin and how great a judgement is a blinded mind This comes of falling into Sects and parties which leads men into the gulf of the most odious Schism even Popery in the world But if you are engaged in this party it s two to one but you are presently made partial and will not so much as read what is against them or will believe them if they do but tell you that we write lies when they are things done in the open sun and which they cannot confute nor dare attempt leâ—t they manifest their shame Take from them their Clergies vast Dominions Principalities Lands and Lordships Riches and worldly Honours with which they so much abound and then try how many will plead for the Pope then they 'l say If Baâ—l be a God let him plead for himself But I confess I have little hopes of turning any of them though I could shew it them written by an Angel from heaven that Popery is a deceit for the Scripture that 's above Angelical authority declareth it and by making it a nose of wax they take it as if it were not sense nor intelligible without the Popes interpretation which in difficult cases he dare not give They cry up the Church and when we would have them stand to the Church they shamefully turn their backs and when two or three parts of the Churches through the world are against the Papal Soveraignty they refuse them as Hereticks or Schismaticks They cry up Tradition and when we offer them in the main point to be tried by it they disclaim the Tradition of two or three parts of the universal Church as being all Hereticks And may not any Sect do so too as honestly as they yea among the ignorant that know not Chaffe from Corn â—hey have some of them the faces to perswade them that their Church is the greater half of the Christian world when they know they speak notoriously falsly or else they are unworthy to speak of such things that they understand not But to what purpose should any words be used with men that have taught so great a part of the world not to believe their eyes and other senses Can any writing make any matter plainer to you then that Bread is Bread and Wine is Wine when you see them and tast and eat and drink them And yet their general Councils approved by the
profess it to be their Tradition that the Pope was never their Governour 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 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 4. Their absence from general Councils and no invitation of them thereunto that was ever proved or is shewed by you is sufficient evidence 5. 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 Ethiopick 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 Vsher de success Eccles. In Ethiopicarum Ecclesiarum universali Canone descriptum habebatur Hic panis est corpus meum In Latina translatione contra fidem Ethiopic Exemplarium ut in prima operis editione confirmat Pontificius ipse Scholiastes expunctum est nomen Panis 6. Constantines Letters of request to the King of Persia for the Churches there which Euseb. in vit Constant. mentioneth do intimate that then the Roman Bishop ruled not there 7. Even at home the Scots and Brittains obeyed not the Pope nor conformed about the Easter observation even in the daies of Gregory but resisted his changes and refused communion with his Ministers 8. I have already elsewhere given you the testimony of some of your own writers as Reynerius contra Waldens Catal. in Biblioth Patr. Tom. 4. p. 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 9. I have proved from the Council of Chalcedon that it was the Fathers that is the Councils that gave Rome its preheminence But those Councils gave the Pope no preheminence over the extra-imperial Nations For 1. Those Nations being not called to the Council could not be bound by it 2. The Emperours called and enforced the Councils who had no power out of their Empire 3. The Diocess are described and expresly confined within the verge of the Empire see both the description and full proof in Blondel de Primatu in Ecclesia Gall. And 10. The Emperours themselves did sometime giveing power to the Councils Acts make Rome the chief and sometime as the Councils did also give Constantinople equal priviledge and sometime set Constantinople highest as I have shewed in my Key p. 174 175. But the Emperours had no power to do thus with respect to those without the Empire But what say you now to the contrary Why 1. You ask Were those Primitive Christians of another kind of Church order and Government then were those under the Roman Empire Answ. When the whole body of Church history satisfieth us that they were not subject to the Pope which is the thing in question is it any weakening of such evidence in a matter of such publick fact to put such a question as this Whether they were under another kind of Government 1. We know that they were under Bishops or Pastors of their own and so far their Government was of the same kind 2. If any of them or all did suit their Church associations to the several Commonwealths in which they lived and so held National Councils and for order sake made one among them the Bishop primae sedis then was that Government of the same kind with that of the Imperial Churches and not of another kind The Roman Government was no other but One thus Ordered in one Empire And if there were also One so ordered in England one in Scotland one in Ethiopia c. this was of the same kind with the Roman Every Church suited to the form of the Common-wealth is even as to that humane mode of the same kind if a humane mode must be called a Kind It may be of that same kind and mode without being part of the same Individual But 2. You say that How far from truth this is appeareth from St. Leo in his Sermons de Natali suo where he sayes Sedes Roma Perri quicquid non possidet armis Religione tenet Reply If you take your Religion on trust as you do your authorities that are made your ground of it and bring others to it when you are deceived your selves how will you look Christ in the 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 oid book of Nicol. Fabers And in that Sermon there is no such words as you here alledge Neither doth he Poetize in his Sermons nor there hath any such words which 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 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 past between him and the Council of Chalcedon and that he was one of the first tumified Bishops of Rome he shall not be judge in his own cause 3. 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 perswade 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 2. At the Council of Nice the contrary is manifest by the sixth Can. Mos antiquus perdurat in Aegypto vel Lybia Pentapoli ut Alexandrinus Episcopus horum omnium habeat potestatem c. And the common descriptions of the Alexandrian Patriarchate in those times confine it to the Empire and leave out Aethiopia Pisanus new inventions we regard not 3. I deny that the Patriarch of Alexandria was under the Government of the Bishop of Rome any more then the Jury are under the Foremen or the junior Justices on the bench are under the senior or York is under London or the other Earls of England are under the Earl of Arundel 4. 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 that were under Alexandria were not therefore under Rome 5. 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
so many years as that at Trent did are then become an Ordinary Government 4. What is given to the Church Representative is by many of you given to the Church reall or essentiall as you call it which is ordinarily existent only not capable of exerting the power it hath The singulis major at universis minor is no rare doctrine with you 5. 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 sitteth which is a two-headed mutable Church not like the Spouse of Jesus Christ. 6. As your Popes are said to live in their constitutions and Laws when the person dyeth 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 shewed you even now that Iulius 2. in Conc. Later concluded otherwise of Decrees and the Council of the Popes power 7. If a Nation be Governed by Trienniall and so Decenniall Parliaments as the highest power and Councils of State in the intervalls who shall be accountable to Parliaments will you say that these Parliaments are extraordinary and not the ordinary Soveraign No doubt they are And the Council of State is not the Soveraign but the chief Officer or Magistrate for execution in the intervals Having begun this Reply May 2. I was again taken off it about May 5. or 6. And about May 11. I received a Letter from you wherein you tell me of a quarter of a years expectation Be patient good Sir These matters concern Eternity Believe it I have somewhat else to do of greater hast and moment Even some of your own friends find me more work What if ten of you write to me at once is it fair for each one of you to call for an answer as hastily as if I had but one in hand This is not my case but it is more then thus Fear not lest I give you over till you first prove the deserter and turn your back if God enable me Only I must tell you that I take it for a flight already and a forsaking of your Cause that you turn to these rambling impertinent citations and discourses in stead of a Syllogisticall arguing the case and that when you had spoken so much for it I have here that you may have no cause of exception nor pretence of cause in this Paper replyed to your last and in another proved the Visibility of our Church syllogistically and as overplus also disproved yours and proved it to be an upstart the sprout of Pride upon occasion of the greatness of the City of Rome and of the forming the Church to the Civil State in that one Empire If now you will deny to do the like I shall conclude you fly and forsake your Cause Besides your Rejoinder to this Reply I principally expect that you syllogistically in close and faithfull Arguing do prove to us the Affirmative of these Questions following Qu. Whether the Church of which the subjects of the Pope are Members hath been visible ever since the dayes of Christ on earth In which these three Questions are involved which you have to prove 1. Whether the Papacy that is the Vniversal Monarchy or Soveraign Government or Vice-Christship of the Pope take which term you like hath continued from Christs dayes till now 2 Whether all the Catholick Church did still submit to it and were subjects of the Pope 3. Whether those that did submit to it did take it to be necessary to the Being of the Church and the salvation of all believers or only to the more peaceable and better being If you call for Catalogues or proof of Visible succession and pretend so high to it your selves and yet will give us none when we importune you to it you tell us that you seek not to reveal the truth and Church but to hide them I urge you the harder though it may seem immodest because as the Cause doth lie upon your proof here so I know you cannot do it Pardon my confidence I know you can do no more then Baronius Bellarmine Bullinger c. set together have done and therefore I say I know you cannot do it I know your Vice-Christ I doubt the Antichrist is of humane introduction springing out of a Nationall I mean Imperiall Primacy which also was of humane invention It was but one Civil Government or Commonwealth in which your Bishop had his Primacy and that long without a Governing power And this National Primacy because of the greatness of the Empire was at last called Universal And even this was long after the dayes of Christ some hundreds of years a stranger in the Church unless as the Greatness of the Church of Rome and advantages of the place did give that Church such authority as ariseth from magnitude splendour honour and accidental advantages from the populousness wealth and glory of the City of Rome The carnall Church is led by the Vice-Christ the earthly Prince of Pride contending in the world for command and superiority and prosecuting his Cause with Strappados fire sword and gunpowder when Christ gave no Pastor a Coercive power to touch mens bodies or estates The true spirituall Church is Headed and commanded by Jesus Christ the Prince of Peace and knoweth no other Universal Head because no other hath either Capacity or Authority It obeyeth his Laws and learneth of him to be charitable patient meek and lowly and wonders not at errours and divisions on earth nor therefore accuseth the providence of God but knoweth by faith that the Universal Judge of Controversies is at the door and that it is but a very little while and we shall see that the Church had an Universal Head that was alone sufficient for his work for he that cometh will come and will not tarry Amen Even so come Lord Jesus Sir I desire you presently to send me word whether you will by close Syllogisticall arguing prove the successive visibility of your Church as Papal or not that I may know what to expect And once more I pray you take the help of the ablest of your party both that I may not be so troubled with wrong or impertinent allegations and that I may be sure that your insufficient arguings are not from any imperfection of the person but of the Cause If you meet in these Papers with any passages which you think too confident and earnest I beseech you charge them not with uncharitableness or passion for I hope it proceeded not from either but I confess I am inclined to speak confidently where I am certain and to speak seriously about the things of God which are of everlasting consequence May 18. 1659. For Mr. William Iohnson THE SECOND PART Wherein the successive Visibility of the Church of which the
like of the Ordinary Glosses of the Bible which yet seem of greater authority then Aquinas The sixth example is of some not Canonized Saints as Anselm Cantuar. Hugo de Sancto Victore and others as authentick as S. Thomas And say they his Canonization hindereth not which some pretend as of great colour To say that S. Tho. in some part of his doctrine erred in faith derogates not from his Canonization nor from the approbation of his Theologicall doctrine even as to say this of other Saints and chief Doctors derogateth not from their Canonization or approbation For as the Church by Canonizing one a Saint doth not thereby approve all his Deeds so in approving his doctrine it doth not hereby approve all his sayings or writings but only that which is not retracted by himself or corrected by another or deservedly to be corrected as contrary to truth And now when Fathers even the chief and your Saints and highest Doctors have this Testimony from the famous University of Paris to have somewhat hereticall or erroneous in the faith and so who among you is free I leave it to modesty to judge whether the Greeks Armenians c. and we are not of one Faith Religion and Catholick Church for all our differences in some points Have you had all these Nations man by man before your bar and convinced them of pertinaciousness in heresie If not call them not Hereticks till you are willing to be called such your selves and that by your selves And thus I have evinced 1. That the Church of which the Protestants are Members hath been Visible since the dayes of Christ on earth 2. And ex abundanti that the Papal Church as Papal hath not been visible and that Christian Churches without Papal Soveraignty have been Visible since Gregories dayes and the whole Catholick Church was such before And you see both in the Essentialls and in the freedom from the Romish Vice-Christ where our Church hath been before Luther even since Christ. Sir I have performed this task on this supposed condition that you will now do the like as to your own Church and send me in solid Arguments your proof of this Thesis The Church of which the Subjects of the Pope are Members hath been Visible ever since the dayes of Christ on earth Where note that it is not the Visibility of your Church as Christian United in Christ the Head that is in Question We grant as Christians all of you are of the true Christian Church that destroy not your Christianity But it is your new Church form as Papal that we question and renounce Protestants are of no Church but the Christian united in Christ The name Protestant signifieth not any essentiall of their Church but their Rejection of your Church as Headed by the Pope You are therefore to prove that your Catholick Church as Headed by the Pope hath been visible in all ages And here I must in Justice expect that you give us such a Definition as you will stand to through the dispute 1. Of the Church 2. Of the Pope and 3. Of the Subjects of the Pope or Papists The term Roman Catholicks would but divert and elude For it is not as Romane that we oppose you that is as inhabitants of Rome or as subject to him as a Bishop of Rome Nor is it as Catholicks that is as of the Universal Christian Church but as Papists that is subjects of the Pope as universal Soveraign or Bishop To dispute of terms not agreed on is lost labour Define first or you do nothing I find of your Writers some by the Church mean the Pope as Gretser Defens cap. 10. lib. 3. de Verbo Dei pag. 1450 1451. By the Church saith he we mean the Pope of Rome and per Ecclesiam Papam interpretantur Non abnuo Some by the Church mean a Council and what they mean by a Council I know not well And some mean the Roman Clergy i. e. of that Diocess And some mean all the Clergy under the Pope And some mean all the people that are his subjects I have given you the Reason of my doubting of your meaning in these terms in a Book come out of the Press since your last to me where I have answered most of yours 2. Let me desire of you such proofs as in your own judgement are cogent I suppose as I have there told you Key pag. 41. cap. 12. that none of you will take either Sense Reason Scripture the Tradition or judgement of most of the Church for a sufficient proof but yet we will accept of them when you argue but ad hominem for we renounce them not I think what ever you say that is not the Determination of the Pope or a Council by him approved which is all one you will give us leave to judge that you are uncertain your selves whether you say true in it if de fide Saith Skul Revius Apol. pro Bellâ—rm c. 6. p. 255. The Popes Power is as the hinge the foundation and that I may comprehend all in a word the summ of the Christian faith Greg. Valent. Anal. fid l. 8. c. 7. The Authority that resideth in the Pope alone is called the Authority of the Church and Councils Bellâ—r de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 3. It is apparent that the whole firmness or strength of Councils is from the Pope not partly of the Pope and partly of the Council Binnius Vol. 2. p. 515. saith Every Council hath just so much strength and authority as the Apostolike seat bestoweth on it But I leave you to give us your own judgement Your Testimonies from Fathers can seem of no great weight to us while you so slight them your selves as commonly you do with what lies or Errors or other incompetency you charge Iustin Mart. Irenaeus Tertullian Origen Victorinus Cyprian Eusebius Epiphanius Prudentius Hierom Lactantius Augustine Procopius Theodoret Isidore Euthymius Sozomen Oecumenius Bernard and all the Fathers see Dr. Iames Corrupt of Fath. Part. 4. p. 2 3. Tell us therefore how far you credit them Sir if you refuse thus first to explain your terms and then prove the Visibility of your Church as Papal successively as I have proved the Visibility of the Church that I am of I shall be forced to conclude that you love not the light but at once give up your cause and the reputation of your impartial Love of truth Addenda Miscellanea COncil Ephes. 1. in Epistola ad Nestor Tom. 1 fol. 315. ed. Pet. Crab. Petrus Iohannes aequalis sunt ad alterutrum dignitatis Comment in epist Synodal Basil. p. 31. p. 40. Impress Colon. 1613. saith that The Provinces subject to the four great Patriarchs from the beginning of the Christian Church did know no other supream but their own Patriarcks And if the Pope be a Patriarck it is by the Church If he be Head of all Churches it is by the Church And whereas we have said that it is expressed in the
â—irst sense is either spoken of one that professing the rest denyeth some one or more essential Articles of the Faith or parts of Christianity or one that only denyeth not what is necessary to the Being but to the Integrality or sober and better-being of a Christian. 3. Hereticks are either convict and condemned or such as never were tryed and judged 4. Hereticks condemned are either condemned by their proper Pastors or by others 5. If by others either by Usurpers or by meer equal neighbour consociate Pastors 6. They are condemned either jâ—stly clâ—ve non errante or unjustly clave errante 7. They are either judged to be materially as to the quality of their errour Hereticks or also formally as obstinate impenitent and habitually stated Hereticks Upon these necessary distinctions I answer your Question in these Propositions Prop. 1. As the word Hereticks signifieth Schismaticks as such so Hereticks with drawing from some parts of the universal Church only may yet be parts of the whoâ—e even with those parts from which they separate If they say You are no parts and therefore we disown you and will have no Communion with you this maketh neither cease to be parts and while both own the Head and the Body as such they have an union in tertio and so a communion in the principal respects while they peevishly disclaim it in other respects Besides that the local or particular Communion is it that is proper to members of a particular Church and therefore the renouncing it only separates him from that Church But it is the general Communion that belongs to us as members of the Church Universal which may be still continued But should any renounce the Body of Christ as such and separate not from this or that Church but from the whole or from the Church Universal as such this man would be no member of the Church Prop. 2. As the word Heretick is taken for one that denyeth any thing essential to Christianity so an Heretick if latent is out of the Church Deo judice as to the invisible part or soul of the Church as Bellarmine calls it as a latent Infidel is but he may be if latent in the outward communion or as Bellarmine calls him a dead member that properly is none as the straw and chaffe are in the corn-field Prop. 3. Such an Heretick convict and judged by the Pastors of that particular Church of which he is a subject-member is accordingly to be avoided and in foro illius Ecclesiae is so far cast out of that Church as the sentence importeth Prop. 4. Such an Heretick if he be a Pastor of one Church and be convict and condemned by the consociate co-equal Pastors of the neighbour Churches is accordingly cast out from communion of all the Churches of which they are Pastors Prop. 5. So far as any Christians through the world have sufficient proof or cognisance of the said conviction and condemnation they are all bound accordingly to esteem the condemned Heretick and avoid him Prop 6. If Heresie be taken for the obstinate impenitent resisting or rejecting of any point of Faith that is of Divine Revelation which is made so plain to the person that nothing but a wicked will could cause such resistance or rejection such persons being justly convicted and condemned as aforesaid are to be taken as persons condemned for obstinacy and impenitency in any other sin and are out of the Church as far as a man condemned for impenitency in drunkenness or fornication is Prop. 7. Heresie taken in this softer sense for the denyal of a truth of Divine revelation not essential to the Christian Religion or necessary to the Being of a Christian excludeth no man from the Church of it self unless they are legally convict of wicked Impenitency and obstinacy in defending it Prop. 8. A sentence passed in alieno foro by an Usurper that hath no true Authority thereto proveth no man an Heretick Prop. 9. A sentence passed by an Authorized Pastor or by many if it be notoriously unjust clave errante proveth no man an Heretick or out of the Universal Church Prop. 10. A sentence passed by one Church or many consociate binds none to take the condemned person to be an Heretick and out of the Universal Church but those that have sufficient notice of the Authority of the Judges and validity of the Evidence or a ground of violent presumption as it s called that the sentence is just Prop. 11. He that is sentenced an Heretick or Impenitent by the Pastors of some Churches and acquit by the equally-authorized Pastors of other Churches is not eo nomine to be condemned or acquit by a third Church but used as the evidence requireth Prop. 12. There is an actual excommunication pro medelâ and pro tempore due for an actual willful defence of error or for other willful sin which statedly puts not a man out of the Church as there is an excommunication à statu Relatione which is due for stated habitual or obstinate impenitency in that or other great or known sin Having thus distinctly told you my judgement how far Hereticks are or are not in or out of the universal Church I add in order to the application 1. That this whole debate is nothing to the great difference between you and us it being not de fide in your own account but a dogma theologicum which you differ about among your selves Bellarmine tells you Alphonsus a Castro maintaineth that Hereticks are in the Church de Eccles. l. 3. c. 4. And he himself saith that haeretici pertinent ad Ecclesiam ut oves ad ovile unde confugerunt ibid. c. 4. so that they are oves still and if it be but ovile particulare veluti Romanum that they fly from and not the Vniversal that proves them not out of the Vniversal Church And Bellarmine saith of the Catechumen Excommunicatis that they are de anima et si non de corpore Ecclesiae ib. c. 2. and may be saved cap. 6. And the anima Ecclesiae is not incorporated in the world without All that have that soul are of that Church which Christ that animateth his members is the head of Which made Melchior Canus fatente Bellarmino de Eccl. l. 3. c. 3. confess the being of that which indeed is the true Catholike Church saying of the Vnbaptized Believers that sunt de Ecclesia quae comprehendit omnes fideles ab Abel usque ad consummationem mundi 2. Many Popes have been condemned for Hereticks even by General Councils as not only Henorius by two or three but Eugenius by the Council of Basil when yet he kept his place and the rest come in as his successors And your writers frequently confess that a Pope may be an Heretick as Pope Adrian himself affirmeth Now if these are not of the Church then they are not Heads of the Church and then being essential parts of your Church it followeth that your Church is heretical
and unchurched with them But if these Popes may be in the Church and Heads of yours while Hereticks then so may others 3. It s commonly said by others of yours as well as Bellarmine that the Councils were misinformed about Honorius and the Popes that consented to those Councils and so that he was not a Heretick nor out of the Church Also that a Pope may erre in matter of fact and unjustly excommunicate If so a Pope and Council may erre about another as well as about Honorius or other Popes and therefore their sentence be no proof that such are out of the Church no more then that he and Eugenius were out 4. As the Pope and his Synods condemn the Greeke so the Greeks condemn and excommunicate you as formerly the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Pope have excommunicated each other I am therefore no more bound to take them for excommunicate persons than you they having as much authority over you as you over them and their witness being to us as credible as yours 5. The Abassines Armenians Greeks c. are not proved to deny any essential point of the Christian Religion or which is necessary to the Being of a Christian or Church 6. Nor are they proved to be willful obstinate and impenitent in defending any errors with a wicked mind and so to be formally Hereticks in your own sense 7. They are large Nations and millions of souls and their Pastours numerous so that its impossible they should be all legally by you convicted They never spake for themselves nor were witnesses heard against them Noxa caput sequitur Guilt of Heresie is to be proved of each individual whom you condemn If a few Bishops were Hereticks or a Prince were such that proves not that the rest and all the Pastors or people even to many millâ—ons are such Or if half had been such in former ages that proves not that half or any are such now Christ never appointed the excommunicating of millions for the sakes of a few of their Rulers nor of whole Nations unheard but of single persons upon a just and equal tryal If therefore your Pope or any of his Councils which you falsly call General do excommunicate or condemn Habassia Armenia Georgia Syria and other Naâ—ions as Hereticks it is so far from unchurching them or proving them such as that it is one of the greatest sins that can be committed by the sons of men with inhumane injustice cruelty pride and arrogancy presuming to pass a damning sentence on so many millions of souls whose faces you never saw nor were ever called to a legal tryal 8. Your own writers ordinarily acquit the Greeks from Heresie and those of them that have travelled to other Countries as Syria c. acquit most of them as I have proved in former writings out of their own words not needful therefore here to be recited when you may see any writings 9. Your Pope and Bishops is none of their authorized Pastor and therefore hath no power as such to judge them And as neighbour Churches they have as much to do to judge you as you to judge them Therefore they are never the more out of the Church for your judgement any more than you for theirs 10. There are as many and as great errors proved by them to be in your Church as is by you to be in theirs so that in sum your cause being much worse and your censure of them proving you guilty of such inhumane cruelty injustice arrogancy usurpation c. by condemning them you go much nearer to prove your selves no Christians and no Church than them 11. And yet I think the far greatest part of them many thousands to one are not actually excommunicated or condemned by any pretended sentence of your own whatever your writers may say of them and whatever one Council might say of some few in some one age 12. Lastly It can be no matter of certainty to you your self or any of you that these Nations or Churches are Hereticks both because it is a thing that none of your approved Councils have determined of as to any person now living nor to any considerable number comparatively in other ages and also because you confess your Pope and Councils fallible in these cases of fact and personal application You cannot therefore build upon such acknowledged uncertainties BUt Sir having thus answered your demand I must ask you what 's all this to the Answer of my last Papers which I have now near a year expected from you I suspected some such â—ergiversation when I took the boldness to urge you so hard to the tasks that you were reasonably engaged to perform viz. 1. To prove by close Argumentation the nullity of our Churches as you begun in your first Argument 2. To answer my proofs of our successive visibility 3. To prove your own successive visibility in all ages since Christ as I have proved ours I do therefore once more urge you speedily to do this assuring you that else I must take it for an open deserting of your Cause But yet I must add that if you will please to dispute the main cause in difference between us upon equal terms we have yet other Questions in which we differ that are lower then these and nearer the foundation Besides the forementioned work therefore I desire that you will dispute the main Cause in two distinct disputations in one of which be you the Opponent and bring your strongest Arguments against the Reformed Churches and Religion and in the other I will be Opponent and argue against Popery in the beginning agreeing upon the sense of those terms that we are like to have greatest use of through our disputation If you will but let us meet and state our sense of such terms before I return into the Country that we may the better manage it after at a distance it will be worth our labour And for verbal dispute I shall at any fit time and place most cheerfully entertain it if so many doubting persons may be present as that it may be worth our labour In the mean time I pray pardon it if the roughness of any passages discover the frailty of Your Servant R. Baxter Iune 7. 1660. Mr. Iohnsons EXPLICATION OF Some of the most used TERMS WITH QUERIES Thereupon And his ANSWER And my REPLY LONDON Printed 1660. AFter the writing of the foregoing Paper I again urged Mr. Johnson to the speedy answering my Papers Of which when he gave me no hope I committed them to the Press But afterward he seemed more inclinable both to that and to a Verbal conference And in order to both if we had opportunity I desired him first that we might agree on the sense of those terms that are like to be most used in the substance of our Controversie promising him that I will give him my sense of any term when he shall desire it and accordingly he explained his sense of many of them as
guideth or inspireth him This is at once to believe a Humane and Divine Veracity If any of this be your meaning the last questions remain still to be resolved by you A man may believe that God is true and that his Prophets or 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 rose again or that we shall rise And are 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 shew what it is or your Church-members cannot be known Tell me therefore without tergiversation what are the revealed truths that must actually be believed or what is the faith materially in unity whereof all members of the Catholike Church do live I pray fly not but plainly tell me And if again you fly to uncertain points because of the diversity of means of information and say It must be so much to every man as he had means to know I again answer you 1. If a man had no means to know that there is a Christ it seems then he is one of your Church 2. You still damn all your own there being not a man that knoweth all that he had means to know because all have culpably neglected means And so you have no Church 3. 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 whither your Implicite faith hath brought you R. B. Qu. 3. Is it any lawful Pastors or All that must necessarily be depended on by every member and who are these Pastors Mr. J. Answ. Of all respectively to each subject that is that the authority of none of them mediate or immediate be rejected or contemned by him that is a true member of the Church R. B. Reply Ad Qu. 3. R. Reply 1. Here still you tell me that your descriptions signified nothing You told me that the members must live in dependance on their lawful Pastors And now you tell me that their authority must not be rejected or contemned And indeed is dependance and non-rejection all one The millions of heathens that never heard of the Pope or any of your 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 I further reply 1. It seems then 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 ad esse If so then 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 in 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 when among a multitude we may be in danger of rejecting some one and then we are cast out of the Church What if a Gentleman should find some such as Watson or Montaltus describe in bed with his wife or a Prince find a Garnet a Campion or a Parsons in a Treason and by such a temptation should be so weak as to contemn or reject the authority of that single Priest while he honoureth all the rest Is it certain that such a man is none of the Catholike Church for that How hard is it in France and Italy then to be a Catholike where Priests are so numerous that its ten to one but among the 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 you will confine our dependance to these only or else no man could be a Christian And if so 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 What if they shew me the Bishops orders and I know that many have had forged Orders am I bound to believe in his authority what if I be utterly ignorant whether he that ordained him were himself ordained or had intentionem ordinandi how shall I then be sure of his authority that is ordained 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 sufficient means by which I must be convinced of the Popes and Priests authority 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 'l say I am not bound of necessity to believe their definition And what if I have sufficient means to know the authority of a thousand Priests but am culpably ignorant of it in some few through my neglect Doth it follow that therefore I am out of the Church Is my obedience to each Priest as necessary as my belief of every Article of my faith If so I know not whether your multiplying Articles or multiplying Priests doth fill hell faster if men must be judged by your laws But it is our Allegiance to our Soveraign that is the character of a Subject in the Common-wealth and not our Allegiance or duty to every inferiour Magistrate the rejection of one of them may stand with subjection though not with innocency It is not treason to reject a Constable why then should 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 nor which is the true Pope when you have oft had more then one at once so you can never know concerning your members whether their dependance on their Pastors be extensively proportionate to the means that discovered their authority and whether their disobedience unchurch them or no I earnestly crave your answer to the thirty uncertainties which I have mentioned in my Safe Religion p. 93 to 104. And tell us how all our Pastours may be known And whether every particular sin unchurch men and if not why the contempt or rejection of a drunken Priest doth it while
all the rest are perhaps too much honoured R. B. Quest. 4. Why exclude you the chief Pastors that depend on none Mr. J. Answ. I exclude them not but include them as those of whom all the rest depend as St. Hierom does in his definition Ecclesia est plebs Episcopo unita Repl. ad Resp. ad Quest. 4. How unconstant are you among your selves in the use of terms How frequent is it with you to appropriate the name of the Church to the Clergy But remember hereafter when you tell us of the Determinations and Traditions of the Church that it is the people that you mean and not only the Pastors in Council much less the Pope alone Mr. J. Heresie Is an intellectual obstinate opposition against divine authority revealing when it is sufficiently propounded R. B. Of Heresie Is the opposition and obstinacy that makes Heresie in the Intellect or will Mr. J. In the will by an imperate Act restraining the understanding to that errour R. B. Reply Of Heresie Qu. 1. Reply 1. Still your descriptions signifie just nothing You describe Heresie to be An Intellectual obstinate Opposition and yet say that this is in the will And yet again you contradict your self by saying that it is an Imperate act No Imperate act is in the will though it be from the will It is voluntary but not in voluntate An Imperant act may be in the will but not Imperate All Imperate acts are in or immediately by the commanded faculties The Intelligere which is the Imperate act is in the Intellect though the Velle intelligere which is an Elicite act be in the will 2. From hence its plain that you cannot prove me or any man to be an Heretick that is unfeignedly willing to know the truth and is not obstinately willful in opposing it which are things that you cannot ordinarily discern and prove by others that are ready to be sworn that they would fain know the truth R. B. Qu. 2. Must it needs be against the Formal object of Faith is he no Heretick that denieth the matter revealed without opposing obstinately the Authority revealing Mr. J. Answ. Yes Nor is he a Formal but only a Material Heretick who opposes a revealed Truth which is not sufficiently propounded to him to be a Divine revelation R. B. Reply Qu. 2. Reply 2. Every man that believeth that there is a God indeed believeth that he is true For if he be not True he is not God If therefore no man be Formally an Heretick that doth not obstinately oppose the Veracity of God which is the formal object then as there are I hope but few Hereticks in the world so those few cannot by ordinary means be known to you unless they will say that they take God to be a lyar so that you make none Hereticks indeed but Atheists What if a man deny that there is a Christ a Heaven a Hell or a Resurrection and also deny the Revelation it self by which he should discern these truths and yet deny not the Veracity of God no nor of the Church is this no Heretick I would your party that have murdered so many thousands as Hereticks had so judged if a falshood may be wished as a thing permitted to have prevented such a mischief It is not Gods Veracity that is commonly denyed by Hereticks but the thing revealed and the Revelation of that thing And your Turnebul against Baronius hath told you that the Revelation is no part of the Formal object of faith but as it were the Copula or a condition sine 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 denyeth it be no Heretick unless he also obstinately deny or resist the Veracity of God then there are few that you can prove Hereticks For forma dat nomen and he that is not a Heretick Formally but materially only is no Heretick at all 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 Hereticks Millions in your Church are ignorant of truths sufficiently proposed and therefore their ignorance is their sin but it followeth not that it is their Heresie But if it be then Hereticks constitute your Church and then your Church is a thing unknown because the Hereticks cannot be known the sufficiency of each mans revelation being much unknown to others R. B. Qu. 3. What mean you by a sufficient proposal Mr. J. Answ. I mean such a proposal as is sufficient in humanis to oblige one to take notice that a King or chief Magistrate have enacted such or such Laws c. that is a publick Testimony that such things are revealed by the infallible authority of those who are the highest Tribunal of Gods Church or by notorius and universal Tradition R. B. Reply Qu. 3. Reply 〈…〉 there lieth not so much at the stake as a mans salvation and man is not so able as God to make a truly sufficient revelation of his will to all and therefore the proportion holds not 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 Hereticks as being uncertain of mens various capacities and so of the sufficiency in question Unless you will conclude with me that thus you make all Hereticks as aforesaid because all men living are culpably ignorant of some truths which they had a revelation of that was thus far sufficient If the second be your sense then the same unhappy consequence will follow that all are Hereticks and moreover that some of obscure education are unavoidably Hereticks because they had no opportunity to know those things which as to the Majority are of publick testimony or universal Tradition Is not the Bible a publick Testimony and record and being universally received is an universal Tradition And yet abundance of truths in the holy Bible are unknown and therefore not actually believed by millions that are in your Church and are not taken by your selves for Hereticks Your befriending ignorance would else make very many Hereticks Mr. J. Pope By Pope I mean St. Peter or any of his lawful Successors in the See of Rome having authority by the Institution of Christ to govern all particular Christian Churches next under Christ. R. B. Of the Pope Qu. 1. I am never the nearer knowing the Pope by this till I know how Peters Successors may be known to me What personal qualification is necessary ad esse Mr. J. Answ. Such as is necessary ad esse for other Bishops which I suppose you know R. B. Reply Of the Pope Qu. 1.
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 them R. B. Qu 2. Must it not represent all the Catholike Church Doth not your Definition agree to a Provincial or the smallest Council Mr. J. Answ. Yes my Definition speaks specifically of Bishops and chief Prelates as contradistinct from inferiour Pastors and Clergy and thereby comprises all the Individuums contained in the Species and consequently makes a distinction from National or particular Councils where some Bishops only are 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 come Whence appears what I am to answer to the next two Questions R. B. Reply Qu. 2. Repl. 1. Then you have had no General Councils much less can have any more 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 call'd not a great part of the Church 3. If most are necessarily detained as by distance the prohibition of Princes c. the call made it not their duty to be there and so makes it not a General Council which is so called from the generality of the meeting and representation and not of the invitation no more then a Call would make it a true Council if none came R. B. Qu. 3. How many Bishops and from what parts must ad esse make such a Council Mr. J. Answ. The number is morally to be considered more or fewer according to the difficulties of times distances of place and other circumstances as is also the parts from whence they are to come R. B. Reply Qu. 3. Repl. This is a 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 your self when the Bishops are so many as make a Council General R. B. Qu. 4. May none but Bishops and chief Prelates be members as you intimate Mr. J. Answ. No others unless such inferiours as are sent to supply the places and as Deputies of those Bishops or Prelates are such members of the Council as have Decisive votes in framing Decrees and Definitions R. B. Reply Qu. 4. Repl. This is but 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 Mr. J. Schism I understand by Schism a willfull separation or division of ones self from the whole visible Church of Christ. R. B. Of Schism Qu. 1. Is it no Schism to separate from a particular Church unless from the whole Mr. J. 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 R. B. Reply Of Schism Qu. 1. Repl. Though I take Schism more comprehensively and I think aptly my self yet hence I observe your justification of the Protestants from the charge of Schism seeing they separate not from the Catholike or whole Church For they separate not from the Armenian Ethiopian Greek c. nor from you as Christians but as scandalous offenders whom we are commanded to avoid We separate not from any but as they separate from Christ. R. B. Qu. 2. Or is it no Schism unless willfull Mr. J. Answ. No it is not Schism unless the separation be willfull on his part who makes it R. B. Reply Qu. 2. Repl. Again you further justifie us from Schism If it be willfull it must be against knowledge But we are so far from separating willfully or knowingly from the whole Church that we abhor the thought of such a thing as impious and damnable R. B. Qu. 3. Is it none if you make a Division in the Church and not from the Church Mr. J. Answ. Not as we here understand Schism and as the Fathers treat it For the Church of Christ being perfectly one cannot admit of any proper Schism within it self for that would divide it into two which it cannot be R. B. Reply Qu. 3. Repl. Though I am sure Paul calls it Schism when men make 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 separated from the whole body is also separated from the Head Mr. J. Sir The want of a Scribe hath forced me to fail a little in point of time but I hope you will excuse him who desires to serve you W. J. Iune 22. 1660. R. B. Sir Vrgent unavoidable business constrained me to delay my return to your solutions or explications of your definitions till this June 29. 1660. 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 still unexplained 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 Appendix THe most that I here said against the successive Visibility of our Church is reduced by them to the point of Ordination They say We can have no Church without Pastors no Pastors without Ordination and no Ordination but from the Church of Rome therefore when we broak off from the Church of Rome we interrupted our succession which cannot be repaired but by a return to them This is the sum of most of their discourses in what shape soever they appear To which I answer 1. As a Church is taken for a Community of Christians which are really members of the Church universal so it may ad esse be without Pastors But the Catholike Church can never be without them nor yet any true Political organized particular Church 2. It is contrary to the Papists own opinion that Ordination of their particular Pastors is
aforesaid and assure your self however God shall direct the successe I shall rest Sir A thirsty desirer of truth and yours unfeignedly Tho. Smith Feb. 16. 1656. If what you write to me be first sent to Mr. John Smiths of Worcester as before it will be safely sent to me Good Sir think not I slight a business of so eternal consequence by my neglect for the present for none shall for the future be found more earnest to find out the mind of God and he assisting I hope as chearfully to close therewith Sir THe speed of your former applications to me by way of answer incites me to the confirmation of those thoughts of your worth which were at my first addresses to you harboured in my brest but the substance of your discourse is a stronger motive Although peradventure it may seem somewhat wonderful that I should so soon be brought over to the serious apprehensions of the weight of what you have written to me yet when you consult the divine providence and the Almighty direction which prompted me to the choise of your self above others upon grounds not altogether insufficiently established which will be further made good when I shall have the happiness of a personal entercourse of communion with you it will be certainly concluded upon by your self and whosoever it shall be communicated to that the truth which I have already seriously pondered was the full aim of my intentions which truth I shall impartially and joyfully entertain wheresoever I find it without any thoughts at all of temporal or external discouragements of which I have already contested with some and expect the Lord arm me against them far greater It is no small thing that I shall be lookt upon as an Apostate and so worthy of excommunication utterly but I conclude according to St. Augustine I guess that it is no shame to turn to the better and withal I add although I could insert some small exceptions I am to the main satisfied but yet in some doubtful suspence wherein I expect full satisfaction by your book which I received intimation from you is in the Press and quickly to be published If I might receive two or three lines from you in the interim by way of establishment it would be very gratefully accepted in relation to the comfortable taking off those obstacles which I am certain to meet with in my change of judgement I am very sorry that a person whom I know to be so tender of eternal souls in general should be so continually taken off your important business daily by particulars But being likewise sensible that you value a soul according to the worth of the same I am encouraged to think yea I verily believe these rude things proceeding from a soul that is to rise or fall according to what is now determining between us it will not be unacceptably received from Sir The admirer of your worth Tho. Smith March 24. 1656 7. A Narrative of the case of T. S. by his friend Reverend Sir Mr. Thomas Smith late of Martins Ludgate London was brought up in the Protestant Religion and for some years accounted an affectionate professor thereof by those who were acquainted with his diligence and pains in writing out at large the notes he took of Mr. Calamies and others pious Sermons but afterwards not living up to the knowledge he had he grew more remiss in his practice and in his company and became a great affliction to his Father in his life-time by reason thereof but a greater to his Mother after his Fathers death which I suppose Mr. Iacomb Mr. Fauller and others of her acquaintance cannot forget But when she understood the company he most frequented were Papists who did at length take the boldness to resort to her house she was very much perplexed fearing that they had prevailed with her son to turn Papist which she soon found as she told me to be so indeed I was not willing to believe her report but desired to satisfie my self by discoursing with himself hoping that I should not have found his judgement determined that way as I did to my great trouble find it to be especially in his justification of the Jurisdiction and Authority of the Pope and other tenets of the Church of Rome By this time he had wasted his Patrimony and had run himself into debt so far that he durst not walk up and down the streets as he had done he went a Voyage to the Barbadoes but returned thence in a worse condition then he went yet continued still in the opinion he had received notwithstanding the great offence and trouble it was to those from whom he expected relief and maintenance whose hearts and hands were in that particular somewhat shut up against him in so much that he was reduced to manifold extremities here Afterwards hopeless of any livelyhood here he went over to Ireland where he had a kinsman but meeting with disappointment there of what he expected he returned again into England and steered his course to Worcester where he had another kinsman lived during this Voyage I exchanged several letters with him being desirous to make him sensible of the hand of God eminently out against him hedging up his way with thorns everywhere which I desired might be in order to his return to God looking upon his condition to be manifestly desperate for ever if he should refuse to return and harden his heart against him At Worcester he fell sick which through Gods blessing brought him to a more serious consideration of his everlasting state which he apprehended to approach near And it wrought some kind of doubt in him touching the truth of some of the chief of those things which he had entertained as true about the Church of Rome as he informed me by his letter whereunto for his conviction and better satisfaction I did advise him to apply himself unto Mr. Baxter of Kederminster who I told him I did believe was a great lover of souls which he by letter did as he told me and that Mr. Baxter did return him an answer thereunto in writing with liberty to shew it to any the most learned of his way which when he came to London he shewed me acknowledging himself much convinced by it and the more taken for that so large and full an answer with that liberty should be dispatch't to him with so much expedition which as I remember he said he had the next day after he sent his Yet was he confident as he said that it would be answered and as he told me he had left it with one that had undertaken it He spake of its being shewn to Embassadors or an Embassador and that within fourteen days he should have an answer to it but enquiring after it I could never see any answer nor could he notwithstanding all his solicitations and provocations used prevail to have an answer which he seemed to be very much offended at and at length as he