be of your Church because it is so little Catholike I am of the one universal Church which containeth all the true Christians in the world And you are of a Party which hath separated it self from most of the Christians in the world I am of that one body that is centred in Christ the Head you are of a piece of this body that hath centred in a man and oft a confessed heretical wicked man whom you take while he lives to be the infallible Judge and foundation of all your faith and hope and when he is dead perhaps pronounce him to be in hell as Bellarmine did Pope Sixtus and others commonly I know as every Sect hath a kind of unity among themselves however divided from all the rest of the Church so also hath yours but nothing will satisfie me but a Catholike Unity Church and Faith So much being premised I answer your Questions Quest. 1. Whether the Church of Rome was a true Church in the Apostles dayes Answ. The word Church signifies more things then one 1. Sometime it is used to signifie the whole mystical body of Christ containing all and only those that are justified whom Bellarmine calleth living members And in this sense the Church of Rome in the Apostles dayes was not the Church but the justified members were part of the Church 2. Sometime it is used to signifie all that profess true Christianity in the world And thus the Church of Rome was not the Church but part of it 3. It is oft used by your writers to signifie one Church that by Prerogative is the Head or Mistris of all Christians in the world to which they must all be subject and from which they must receive their name as the Kingdom of Mexico of Tripolis of Fez c. are so called from the chief Cities of the same name and from which they receive their Faith and Laws as the body hath life and motion from the head or heart In this sense the Church of Rome was no Church in the Apostles dayes 4. Sometime it is used to signifie one particular Church associated for personal Communion in Worship And thus the Church of Rome was a true Church in the Apostles dayes 5. Sometime it is used to signifie a Collection or Conjunction of many particular Churches though not all under the Bishop of one Church as their Patriarch or Metropolitan And thus the Church of Rome was no Church in the Apostles dayes but about two hundred years after Christ it was It is only the Church in the third of these senses that is in controversie between the Roman and Reformed Churches Now to your next Question Quest. 2. When was it that the Church of Rome ceased to be a true Church Answ. In the first second and third sences it never ceased to be a true Church for it never was one In the first and second sence it never was one either in title or claim I hope In the third it was never one in Title nor yet in claim for many hundred years after Christ but now it is Therefore the Question between us should not be when it ceased but when it begun to be such a Capital Ruling Church Essential to the whole In the fifth sence it never ceased otherwise then as it is swallowed up in a higher Title It begun to be a Patriarchal Church about two or three hundred years after Christ and it ceased to be meerly Patriarchal when it arrogated the Title of Vniversal or Mistris of all In the fourth sence the Question is not so easie and I shall thus answer it 1. By speaking to the use of the Question 2. By a direct answer to it 1. It is of small concernment to my salvation or yours to know whether the Church of Rome be a true particular Church or not no more then to know whether the Church of Thessalonica or Ephesus or Antioch be now a true Church In charity to them I am bound to regard it as I am bound to regard the life of my neighbour But what doth it concern my own life to know whether the Mayor and Aldermen of Worcester or Glocester be dead or alive So what doth it concern my Salvation to know whether the Church of Rome be now a true particular Church If I lived at the Antipodes or in Aethiopia and had never heard that there is such a place as Rome in the world as many a thousand Christians doubtless never heard of it this would not hinder my salvation as long as I believed in the blessed Trinity and were sanctified by the Spirit of Grace So that as I am none of their Judge so I know not that it much concerneth me to know whether they be a true particular Church save for charity or communion 2. Yet I answer it more directly 1. If they do not by their errors so far overthrow the Christian faith which they profess as that it cannot practically be believed by them then are they a true particular Church or part of the universal Church 2. And I am apt to hope at least of most that they do not so hold their errors but that they retain with them so much of the essentials of Religion as may denominate them a true professing Church More plainly Rome is considered first as Christian secondly as Papal As Christian it is a true Church As Papal it is no true Church For Popery is not the Church according to Christs Institution but a dangerous corruption in the Church As a Leprosie is not the man but the disease of the man Yet he that is a Leper may be a mâ—â— And he that is a Papist may be a Christian But 1. Not as he is a Papist 2. And he is but a leprous or diseased Christian. So much to your Questions By this much you may see that it no way concerneth me to prove when Rome ceased to be a true Church For if you mean such a Church as Corinth Philippi Ephesus c. was that is but a part of the Catholike Church so I stick not much saving in point of Charity whether it be true or false But if you mean as your party doth a Mistris Church to Rule the whole and denominate the Catholike Church Roman so I say its Vsurpation is not ceased that 's the misery and its just title never did begin and its claim was not of many hundred years after Christ so that your Question requireth no further Answer But what if you had put the Question At what time it was that your Church began to claim this universal Dominion I should give you these two answers 1. When I understand that it is of any great moment to the decision of our controversie I shall tell you my opinion of the man that first laid the claim and the year when 2. But it is sufficient for me to prove that from the beginning it was not so Little did the Bishops of Rome before Constantines dayes dream of governing all
Peter c. ut supra Sir To comply with your desires of brevity and of confining my self to half a sheet of paper I send you at present only one Argument which being fully discussed shall be followed by others God willing To this as to all the rest of my Arguments which may hereafter be urged I require a Categorical and strict Sylogistical Answer in Form by Concedo Nego Distinguo Omitto Transeat And the particular Propositions specified to which the Respondents apply any of them and no more then precisely thus neither adding Amplifications Reasons Proofs c. of their own out of form and that this may be done with all convenient speed To the place of Scripture Ephes. 4. c. is also required a Categorical answer to what is precisely pressed in it without directing the discourse to other things And what is answered otherwise I shall not esteem an answer but an Effugium or declining of the difficulty By this method exactly observed Truth will easily and speedily be made manifest and your desires of Brevity will be punctually complied with I also desire that the Respondent or Respondents will as I do to this subscribe his or their name or names to their answers so often as any are by him or them returned with the day of the month when returned William Johnson Decem. 9. 1658 The Answer to the first PAPER I received yours and writ this Answer Ian. 4. 1658. Sir WHoever you are a serious debate with so sober a Disputant is to me an exceeding acceptable employment I shall not I hope give you any cause to say that I decline any difficulties or halk your strength or transgress the part of a Respondent But because 1. You have not as you ought to have done explained the terms of your Thesis 2. And have made your Propositions so long 3. And have so cunningly lapped up your fallacies your Respondent is necessitated to be the larger in distinction and explication And seeing you are so instant with me for strictness you thereby oblige your self if you will be ingenuous to make only the learned and not any ignorant men the Iudges of our dispute because you know that to the unlearned a bare Nego signifieth nothing but when such have read your Arguments at length they will expect as plain and large a confutation or judge you to be in the right for speaking most TO your Argument 1. Your conclusion containeth not your Thesis or Question And so you give up your cause the first step and make a new one It should have contained your Question in terms and it doth not so much as contain it in the plain sense so much difference is there between Assemblies of Christians united c. and Congregation of Christians and between Salvation or the Church never was in any other then those Assemblies and no Salvation out of that Congregation as I shall shew you besides other differences which you may see Ad Majorem Resp. 1. By Congregation you mean either the whole Catholike Church united in Christ or some particular Congregation which is but part of that whole In the latter sense your Subject hath a false supposition viz. that a part is the whole and your Minor will be false And your whatsoever Congregation of Christians seems to distinguish that from some other excluded Congregation of Christians that is not part of the Catholike Church which is a supposing the chief part of the Question granted you which we deny We know no universal Congregation of Christians but one which containeth all particular Congregations and Christians the univocally deserve that name 2. Either you mean that this whole Congregation or true Church acknowledgeth the Popes Soveraignty or else that some part of it doth acknowledge it The former I deny and challenge any man living to prove If it be part only that you mean then either the greater part or the lesser that it is the greater I as confidently almost deny for it is against the common knowledge of men acquainted with the world c. If you mean the lesser part you shall see anon that it destroys your cause 3. Either you speak de Ecclesia quae talis or de Ecclesia qua talis and mean that this acknowledgement is essential to it or at least an inseparable property or else that it is separable accident The latter will do you no good the former I deny In summ I grant that a small corrupt part of the Catholike Church doth now acknowledge the Pope to be Christs Vicar or the Vice-christ but I deny 1. That the whole doth so which is your great cause 2. Or the major part 3. Or any Congregation through all ages though if they had it would do you no good 4. Or that it is done by any upon just ground but is their corruption Ad minorem Resp. 1. If you mean any part of the Universal Church by that Congregation which is now the true Church I deny your Minor If the who le I grant it 2. You say all Christians agree in it c. Resp. I think all Protestants or near all do but Franciscus à sancta Clara hath copiously told us in Artic. Anglic. that most of your own Doctors are for the salvation of Infidels and then either you take Infidels for your Church members or your Doctors for no Christians or you play not fair play to tell us so gross an untruth that all Christians are agreed in it To your conclusion Resp. 1. Either you mean that there is no Salvation to be had out of that Universal Church whose part a minor corrupt part acknowledgeth the Popes Soveraignty or else that there is no Salvation to be had out of that Universal Church which wholly acknowledgeth it or else that there is no Salvation to be had out of that part of the Universal Church which acknowledgeth it In the first sense I grant your conclusion if really you are part of the Church There is no Salvation to be had out of Christs Universal Church of which you are small corrupted part In the second sense I told you we deny the supposition in the subject In the third sense I deny the sequel non sequitur because your Major Proposition being false de Ecclesia universali the conclusion must be false de parte ista as excluding the rest But to the unskilful or unwary reader your conclusion seemeth to import that the being in such a Church which acknowledgeth the Popes Soveraignty as it is such a Church is necessary to Salvation and so that the persons acknowledgement is necessary But it is a fallacia accidentis cunningly lapt up that is the life of your imported cause That part of the Universal Church doth hold to the Popes Soveraignty is per accidens and could you prove that the whole Church doth so which you are unlike to do I would say the like And that your fallacy may the better appear I give you some
examples of such like sophisms Whatsoever Nation is the true Kingdom of Spain is proud and cruel against Protestants But there is no protection there due to any that are not of that Kingdom therefore there is no protection due to any that are not proud and cruel Or whatsoever Nation is the true Kingdom of France acknowledgeth the Pope but no protection is due from the Governours to any that are not of that Kingdom therefore no protection is due to any that acknowledge not the Pope Or what ever Nation is the Kingdom of Ireland in the daies of Queen Elizabeth was for the Earl of Tyrone but there was no right of Inheritance for any that were not of that Nation therefore there was no right of Inheritance for any that was not for the Earl of Tyrone Or suppose that you could have proved it of all the Church If you had lived four hundred years after Christ you might as well have argued thus Whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ is against kneeling in Adoration on the Lords daies But there is no Salvation to be had out of that Congregation of Christians which is now the true Church of Christ therefore there is no Salvation to be had out of that Congregation which is against kneeling on the Lords day c. But yet 1. There was Salvation to be had in that Congregation without being of that opinion 2. And there is now Salvation to be had in a Congregation that is not of that opinion as you will confess Or whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ doth hold the Canticles and the Epistle to Philemon to be Canonical Scripture and so have done c. But there is no Salvation to be had out of the true Church therefore there is no Salvation to be had out of that Congregation which holdeth the Canticles and Epistle to Philemon to be Canonical Scripture But yet 1. Salvation is to be had in that Church without holding it 2. and its possible hereafter a Church may deny those two books and yet you will think Salvation not thereby overthrown This is but to shew your fallacy from a corrupt accident and indeed but of a part of the Church and a small part Now to your proof of the Major Resp. ad Major The present matter of the Church was not visible in the last Generation for we were not then born but the same form of the Church was then existent in a visible Matter and their Profession was visible or audible though their faith it self was invisible I will do more then you shall do in maintaining the constant visibility of the Chruch Ad minorem 1. If you mean that no Congregation hath been alwaies visible but that Universal Church whose lesser corrupt part acknowledges the Popes Soveraignty I grant it For besides the whole containing all Christians as the parts there can be no other If you mean save that part which acknowledgeth you contradict your self because a part implyeth other parts If you mean save that Universal Church all whose members or the most acknowledge it there is no such subject existent 2. I distinguish of Visibility It s one thing to be a visible Church that is visible in its essentials and another thing to be visible quoad hoc as to some separable accident The Universal Church was ever visible because their Profession of Christianity was so and the persons professing But the acknowledgement of the Vice-christ was not alwaies visible no not in any part much less in the whole And if it had it was but a separable accident if your disease be not incurable that was visible and therefore 1. It was not necessary to Salvation nor a proper mark of the Church 2. Nor can it be so for the time to come I need to say no more to your conclusion Your Argument is no better then this whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ hath been alwaies visible since the time of Christ But no Congregation of Christians hath been so visible save only that which condemneth the Greeks which hath a Colledge of Cardinals to choose the Popes which denieth the cup to the laity which forbiddeth the reading of Scripture in a known tongue without license c. Therefore whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ hath all these 1. In a corrupt part it hath 2. But it had not alwaies 3. And may be cured hereafter To your proof of the Major 1. I grant your Major 2. Ad minorem 1. Either you mean Universal Pastors each one or someone having charge and Government of the whole Church or you mean unfixed Pastors having an indefinite charge of Preaching and Guiding when they come and have particular calls and opportunities or you mean the fixed Pastors of particular Churches In the first sense your Minor is false the Catholike Church was never so united to any Universal Head but Christ no one of the Apostles governed the rest the whole Church much less any since their time In the second sense I grant that the Church hath ever had Pastors since the Ascension In the third sense I grant that some parts or other of the Catholike Church have ever had fixed Pastors of Congregations since the first settling of such Pastors But any one particular Congregation may cease to have such Pastors and may cease it self and Rome hath been long without any true Pastors and therefore was then no such visible Church 2. If by Congregation you mean not the Universal Church but a part or if you mean it of all the parts of the Universal Church I deny your Minor Communities of Christians and particular persons have been and may be without any Pastors to whom they are united or subject The Indians that died in the faith while Frumentius and Edesius were there preaching before they had any Pastor were yet Christians and saved If a Lay-man Convert one or a thousand and you will say that he may baptize them and they die before they can have a Pastor or ever hear of any to whom they owe subjection they are nevertheless saved as members of the Church And if all the Pastors in a Nation were murdered or banished the people would not cease to be Christians and members of the Church Much less if the Pope were dead or deposed or a vacancy befell his seat would all the Catholike Church be annihilated or cease To your Confirmation of the Major that a visible Church is nothing but a Visible Pastor and people united I answer 1. It s true of the universal Church as united in Christ the great Pastor but not as united in a Vice-Christ or humane head 2. It is true of a particular Political or organized Church as united to their proper Pastors 3. But it is not true of every Community of Christians who are a part of the Universal Church A company converted to Christ
fair Remember it hereafter that you have discharged me from proving a Church that denied the Papacy formally expresly But as to what you yet demand 1. I have here given it you because you shall not say â—'le sail you I have answered your desire But 2. It is not as a thing necessary but ex abundanti as an overplus For you may now see plainly that to prove that the Church was without an universal Pastor which you require is to prove the Negative viz. that then there was none such whereas its you that must prove that there was such I prove our Religion do you prove yours though I say to pleasure you I 'le disprove it and have done it in two books already My reason from the stress of necessity which you lay on your Affirmative and Additions was but subservient to the foregoing Reasons not first to prove you bound but to prove you the more bound to the proof of your Affirmative And therefore your instance of Mahumetans is impertinent He that saith you shall be damned if you believe not this or that is more obliged to prove it then he that affirmeth a point as of no such moment To what I say of an accident and a corrupt part you say you have answered and do but say so having said nothing to it that is considerable Me thinks you that make Christ to be corporally present in every Church in the Eucharist should not say that the King of the Church is absent But when you have proved 1. That Christ is so absent from his Church that there 's need of a Deputy to essentiate his Kingdom and 2. That the Pope is so Deputed you will have done more then is yet done for your cause And yet let me tell you that in the absence of a King it is only the King and Subjects that are essential to the Kingdom The Deputy is but an officer and not essential Your naked assertion that whatsoever Government Christ instituteth of his Church must be essential to his Church is no proof nor like the task of an Opponent The Government of inferiour officers is not essential to the universal Church no more then Judges and Justices to a Kingdom And yet we must wait long before you will prove that Peter and the Pope of Rome are in Christs place as Governours of the universal Church Sir I desire open dealing as between men that believe these matters are of eternal consequence I watch not for any advantage against you Though it be your part to prove the Affirmative which our Negative supposeth yet I have begun the proof of our Negative but it was on supposition that you will equally now prove your Affirmative better then you have here done I have proved a visible Church successively that hâ—ld not the Popes universal Government do you now prove that the universal Church in all ages did hold the Popes universal Government which is your part or I must say again I shall think you do but run away and give up your cause as unable to defend it I have not failed you do not you fail me You complain of a deficiency in quality though you confess that I abound in number But where is the defect you say I must assert both that these were one Congregation and ever visible since Christs time Reply If by one Congregation you meant one assembly met for personal Communion which is the first sense of the word Congregation it were ridiculous to feign the universal Church to be such If you mean One as united in one visible humane Head that 's it that we deny and therefore may not be required to prove But that these Churches are One as united in Christ the Head we easily prove In that from him the whole family is named the body is Christs body 1 Cor. 12.12 13. and one in him Eph. 4.4 5 6 c. All that are true Christians are one Kingdom or Church of Christ but these of whom I speak are true Christians therefore they are one Kingdom or Church of Christ. And that they have been visible since Christs time till now all history even your own affirms As in Iudaea from the Apostles times in Ethiopia Egypt and other parts Rome was no Church in the time of Christs being on earth And to what purpose talk you of determinate Congregations Do you mean individual assemblies those cease when the persons die or do you mean assemblies meeting in the same place so they have not done still at Rome I told you and tell you still that we hold not that God hath secured the perpetual visibility of his Church in any one City or Country but if it cease in one place it is still in others It may cease at Ephesus at Philippi Colosse c. in Tenduc Nubia c. and yet remain in other parts I never said that the Church must needs be visible still in one Town or Country And yet it hath been so de facto as in Asia Ethiopia c. But you say I nominate none Are you serious must I nominate Christians of these Nations to prove that there were such you require not this of the Church Historians It sufficeth that they tell you that Ethiopia Egypt Armenia Syria c. had Christians without naming them When all history tells you that these Countries were Christians or had Churches I must tell you what and who they were must you have their names sirnames and Genealogies I cannot name you one of a thousand in this small Nation in the age I live in How then should I name you the people of Armenia Abassia c. so long ago You can name but few of the Roman Church in each age And had they wanted learning and records as much as the Abassins and Indians and others you might have been as much to seek for names as they You ask were they different Congregations Answ. As united in Christ they were one Church but as assembling at one time or in one place or under the same guide so they were not one but divers Congregations That there were any Papists of 400. years after Christ do you prove if you are able My conclusion that all have been against you for many hundred years must stand good till you prove that some were for you yet I have herewith proved that there were none at least that could deserve the name of the Church Do you think to satisfie any reasonable man by calling for positive proof from Authors of such Negatives yet proof you shall not want such as the nature of the point requireth viz. That the said Churches of Ethiopia India the outer Armenia and other extra-imperial Nations were not under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome 1. You find all these Churches or most of them at this day that remain from under your jurisdiction and you cannot tell us when or how they turned from you If you could it had been done 2. These Nations
Protestants are chief Members is clearly proved And the Papists exceptions against it confuted LONDON Printed in the year 1660. Qu. Whether the Church of which the Protestants are Members have been Visible ever since the dayes of Christ on earth Aff. THe terms explained 1. The Church sometime signifieth a particular Congregation actually met or associated for such personal meeting for Communion in Gods worship 2. Sometime it signifieth an Association of Churches and that either of sewer or of more as they have opportunity of Communion or correspondency by their Pastors and also the Assemblies of the Pastors of the particular Churches so associated Scripture useth it in the first sense and Later custome whether Scripture also I omit in the later 3. Both Scripture and Custome have used the word to signifie the Church Universal of which all particular Churches are Members This is the Church that we speak of in the Question Defin. The Universal Church of which the Protestants profess themselves Members is The Kingdome of Iesus Christ or The whole company of Believers or true Christians upon earth subjected to Iesus Christ their Head The constitutive parts or the Relate and Correlate are as in every Politick Body the Pars Imperans and Pars subdita which is Christ and Christians The form consisteth in the mutuall Relation The End is the common good of the Church and the glory of the Head and the accomplishment of the will of God 2. The Protestants Defin. Protestants are Christians protesting against or disowning Popery The word Protestant expresseth not the essence of our Religion And therefore it must not denominate the Universal Church of which we are Members we are not to call it A Protestant Universal Church Nor doth it signifie an inseparable proper accident For when the Catholick Church had no Popery there was none to protest against and therefore there could be no Protestants And Ethiopia India and other Nations that never had Popery or those Nations that never heard of it have no occasion to protest against it Nor doth it signifie any Positive part directly of our Religion but only the Negation or Rejection of Popery Even as when a man is called Homo purgatus sanatus liberatus à leprâ peste tabe c. a man purged healed freed from the leprosie plague consumption c. it is no positive part nor inseparable proper accident much less any essential part of the man that is signified by the word Healed Purged c. Nor is it necessary in order to the proving him a man or a healthfull man to prove that he was ever a purged or healed man We undertake not therefore to prove that there have been alwayes Protestants that is men Protesting against Popery Nor have we any need in order to the proof of our Thesis to prove that the Catholick Church hath all been free from Popery in all ages or in any age since the Apostles no more then that it hath been free from Pride Ambition or Contention But yet we shall do it ex abundanti The Religion then of a Protestant is Christianity and he knoweth and owneth no other Which is called the Protestant Religion as cleansed from Popery Members that is true integral parts Of which are By Profession We profess our selves to be of no other Church And before men a man is to be taken to be of that Religion and Church of which he professeth himself to be till he be proved false in that Profession If a Papist affirm himself a member of the Roman Church in disputing with him we will take it for granted that he is so every man being best acquainted with his own mind and fittest to describe the Religion which he owns So that two things I here include 1. It is only such a Catholick Church that hath been still visible that Protestants own 2. And only such that really they are of their Profession being valid Note also that it is not directly the inexistency by internal invisible faith that is in question among us or that I mean but the inexistency by external Visible Profession Bellarmine thinks the bare Professors that are wicked are best termed Dead members and the true Professors Living members we will not stick needlesly on words We take the Living members only to be in strict propriety members but Sincerity and Hypocrisie being known only to God and the possessors we speak of Professors as Professors abstractively from their Sincerity or Hypocrisie Hath been Visible 1. Not visible to man in its Internal faith but in its external Profession 2. Not Visible at once to any one man for no man can see all the Christian world at once But Visible in its parts both in Congregations and individual persons 3. Not Visible in the soundness of its professed faith unto Infidels and Hereticks For they cannot see that faith to be sound which they take to be fabulous and false But Visible in the soundness of its professed faith to themselves that know the soundness of faith 4. Not Visible in the excellent degree of soundness in the better parts unto the corrupter or infirmer parts For though de facto they may know what Doctrine the better part do hold as Infidels know what Doctrine the Church holdeth yet they know it not to be true and sound in the points wherein they differ And note again that it is not the Visibility of every accident of the Church nor of every Truth or duty that is but of the Integrity of Religion and necessary only ad melius esse Ecclesiae to the Better being of the Church but it is the Visibility of the Church that we speak of Lastly it is the Body and not the Head whose Visibility is in Question by us Though the Head also is truly Visible in Heaven and Visus or seen to the most excellent Triumphant part of his Body who are fittest to be his Courtiers and in his presence and as much seen on earth as the Pope is to most of the Church which is not at all Ever since the dayes of Christ on earth 1. But not still in one and the same place on earth It might be in one age much of it in Iudea at Ephesus Sardis Laodicaea Colosse Philippi and other parts of Asia and in other ages removed thence either wholly or for the most part It might be in one age in Tenduâ— Nâ—bia and other great Kingdoms where it shall afâ—er cease to be But in some part or other of the earth it hath been still 2. Not equally visible in all Times and Places of the earth In some Times as in the Arrians prevalency it was so oppressed and obscured that the world groaned to find it self turn'd Arrian and the Arrians in General Councils and number of Bishops to whom the true Christians were very few did seem to carry away the Name and glory of the Catholick Church so that in their eyes and in the eyes of slanders by that were of neither
expoundeth them 5. They plead for an appeal to Councils and though we easily prove that none of them were universal yet such as they were they call them all Reprobate which were not approved by their Pope let the number of Bishops there be never so great And those that were approved if they speak against them they reject also either with lying shifts denying the approbation or saying the acts are not de fide or not conciliariter facta or the sense must be given by their present Church or one such contemptible shift or other 6. At least one would think they should stand to the judgement of the Pope which yet they will not for shame forbids them to own the Doctrine of those Popes that were Hereticks or Infidels and by Councils so judged And others they are forced to disown because they contradict their Predecessors And at Rome the Cardinals are the Pope while he that hath the name is oft made light of And how infallible he is judged by the French and the Venetians how Sixtus the fifth was valued by the Spaniards and by Bellarmine is commonly known 7. But all this is nothing to their renunciation of humanity even of the common senses and reason of the world When the matter is brought to the Decision of their eyes and taste and feeling whether Bread be Bread and Wine be Wine and yet all Italy Spain Austria Bravaria c. cannot resolve it yea generally unless some latent Protestant do pass their judgement against their senses the senses of all sound men in the World that not in a matter beyond the reach of sense as whether Christ be there spiritually but in a matter belonging to sense if any thing belong to it as whether Bread be Bread c. Kings and Nobles Prelates and Priests do all give their judgement that all their senses are deceived And is it possible for these men then to know any thing or any controversie between us and them to be decided If we say that the Sun is light or that the Pope is a man and Scripture legible or that there are the Writings of Councils and Fathers extant in the World they may as well concur in a denyal of all this or any thing else that sense should judge of If they tell us that Scripture requireth them to contradict all their senses in this point I answer 1. Not that Scripture before mentioned that calleth it Bread after the Consecration thrice in the three next Verses 2. And how know they that there is such a Scripture if all their senses be so fallible If the certainty of sense be not supposed a little learning or wit might satisfie them that Faith can have no certainty But is it not a most dreadful judgement of God that Princes and Nations Learned men and some that in their way are conscientious should be given over to so much inhumanity and to make a Religion of this brutishness and worse and to persecute those with Fire and Sword that are not so far forsaken by God and by their reason and that they should so solicitously labour the perversion of States and Kingdoms for the promoting of stupidity or stark madness 8. And if we go from their Principles to their Ends or Wayes we shall soon see that they are also against the Unity of the Church while they pretend this as their chiefest Argugument to draw men to their way They set up a corrupted Faction and condemn the far greater part of the Church and will have no unity with any but those of their own Faction and Subjection and fix this as an essential part of their Religion creating thereby an impossibility of universal concord 9. They also contradict the Experience of many thousand Saints asserting that they are all void of the Love of God and saving Grace till they become subject to the Pope of Rome when as the Souls of these Believers have Experience of the Love of God within them and feel that Grace that proveth their Iustification I wonder what kind of thing it is that is called Love or Holiness in a Papist which Protestants and other Christians have not and what is the difference 10. They are most notorious Enemies to Charity condemning most of the Christian world to Hell for being out of their subjection 11. They are notorious Enemies to Knowledge under pretence of Obedience and Unity and avoiding Heresie They celebrate their Worship in a Language not understood by the vulgar Worshippers They hinder the People from Reading the holy Scriptures which the ancient Fathers exhorted men and women to as an ordinary thing The quality of their Priests and People testifies this 12. They oppose the Purity of divine Worship setting up a multitude of humane Inventions instead thereof and idolatrously for no less can be said of it adoring a piece of conserated Bread as their God 13. They are Opposers of Holiness both by the foresaid enmity to Knowledge Charity and purity of Worship and by many unholy Doctrines and by deluding Souls with an outside histrionicall way of Religion never required by the Lord consisting in a multitude of Ceremonies and worshipping of Angels and the Souls of Saints and Images and Crosses c. Let experience speak how much the Life of Holiness is promoted by them 14. They are Enemies to common Honesty teaching the Doctrines of Equivocations and Mental Reservations and making many hainous sins venial and many of the most odious sins to be Duties as killing Kings that are excommunicated by the Pope taking Oaths with the foresaid Reservations and breaking them c. For the Jesuits Doctrine Montaltus the Jansenist and many of the French Clergy have pretty well opened it And the Pope himself hath lately been fain to publish a condemnation of their Apology And yet the power and interest of the Jesuites and their followers among them is not altogether unknown to the World 15. They are Enemies to Civil Peace and Government if there be any such in the World as their Doctrine and Practice of killing and deposing excommunicate Princes breaking Oaths c. shews Bellarmine that will go a middle way gives the Pope power in ordine ad spiritualia and indirectly to dispose of Kingdoms and tells us that it is unlawfull to tolerate Heretical Kings that propagate their Heresie that is the ancient Faith How well Doctor Heylin hath vindicated their Council of Laterane in this whose Decrees stand as a Monument of the horrid treasonable Doctrine of the Papists I shall if God will hereafter manifest In the mean time let any man read the words of the Council and Iudge And now whether a Religion that is at such open enmity with 1. Scripture 2. The Church 3. Tradition 4. Fathers 5. Councils 6. Some Popes 7. The common senses and Reason of all the World even their own 8. Vnity of Christians 9. Knowledge 10. Experience of Believers 11. Charity 12. Purity of Worship 13. Holiness 14. Common Honesty
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
Acacius of Caesarea and his party depose not only Eleusius Basilius and many others but with them also Macedonius Bishop of Constantinople Socrat. lib. 2. c. 33. vel 42. Did this prove Acacius the Vice-Christ What should I instance in Theophilus actions against Chrysostome or Cyrils against Iohan. Antiochen and many such like 4. Still you suppose one Empire to be all the Christian world We must grant you that in all your instances 14. For what you alledge from Gregory I shall give you enough of him anon for your satisfaction if you will be indifferent As to your citation what can I say A years time were little enough to search after your citations if you should thus write but many more sheets If a man had so much time and so little wit as to attend you You turn me to Greg. cap. 7. ep 63. but what Book or what Indiction you tell me not But whatever it be false it must needs be there being no one Book of his Epistles according to all the Editions that I have seen where c. 7. and ep 63. do agree or meet together But at last I found the words in lib. 7. c. 63. ep 63. To which I say that either your great Gregory by subject meant that the Bishop of Constantinople was of an inferiour Order as the Patriarch of Alexandria and Antioch were to Constantinople that yet had no Government of them or else he could say and unsay But I doubt not but this was all his sense But if it had been otherwise Constantinople and the Empire was not all the Christian world Your next citation is lib. 7. ep 37. But it s falsly cited There is no such word and you are in so much haste for an answer that I will not read over all Gregories Epistles 15. You say Cyril would not break off Communion with Nestorius till Celestine had condemned him of this you give us no proof But what if it be true Did you think that it proved the Pope to be the Vice-Christ Prudence might well make Cyril cautelous in excommunicating a Patriarch And we still grant you that the Order of the Empire had given the Roman Bishop the Primacy therein and therefore no wonder if his consent were expected But that Nestorius was condemned by a Council needs no proof And what if Celestine began and first condemned him I she therefore the Universal Bishop But it was not Celestine alone but a Synod of the Western Bishops And yet Cyril did not hereupon reject him without further warning And what was it that he threatned but to hold no Communion with him Vid. Concil Ephes. 1. Tom. 1. cap. 14. And though Pride made excommunication an Engine to advance one Bishop above others I can easily prove that if I had then lived it had been my duty to avoid Communion with a notorious Heretick though he had been Pope The long story that you next tell is but to fill up Paper that Cyril received the Popes Letters that Nestorius repented not that he accused Cyril that Theodosius wrote to Celestine about a Council and many such impertinent words But the proof is that Cyril was the Popes chief Legate Ordinary Forsooth because in his absence he was the chief Patriarch therefore he is said Celestini locum tenere which he desired Well let your Pope sit highest seeing he so troubles all the world for it Christ will shortly bid him come down lower when he humbleth them that exalt themselves That Cyril subscribed before Philip you may see Tom. 2. cap. 23. but where I may find that Philip subscribed first you tell me not But what if the Archbishop of Canterbury sate highest and subscribed first in England Doth it follow that he was Governour of all the world no nor of York it self neither 16. And here you tell us of Iuvenal Act. 6. Repl. 1. The Council is not divided into Acts in Binnius but many Tomes and Chapters but your words are in the Notes added by your historian but how to prove them Iuvenals words I know noâ— nor find in him or you 2. But why were not the antecedent words of the Bishop of Antioch and his Clergy as valid to the contrary as Iuvenals for this 3. If these words were spoken they only import a Iudgeing in Council as a chief member of it and not of himself And his apostolica ordinatione is expresly contrary to the â—orecited Canon of the Council of Chalcedon and therefore not to be believed Yet some called things done Ordinatione apostolica which were ordained by the Seats which were held Apostolike 4. But still you resolve to forget that Antioch or the Empire extended not to the Antipodes nor contained all the Catholick Church 17. You next tell me of Valentinians words A. D. 445. Reply It is the most plausible of all your testimonies but worth nothing to your end For 1. Though Theodosius name pro forma were at it yet it was only Valentinians act and done at Rome where Leo prevailed with a raw unexperienced Prince to word the Epistle as he desired so that it is rather Leo's then the Emperours originally And Leo was the first that attempted the excessive advancement of his Seat above the rest of the Patriarchs 2. It is known that the Emperours sometime gave the Primacy to Rome and sometime to Constantinople as they were pleased or displeased by each of them So did Iustinian who A. D. 530. Lampadio Oreste Coss. C. de Episcopis lib. 1. lege 24. saith Constantinopolitana Ecclesia omnium aliarum est Caput The Church of Constantinople is the Head of all other 3. It is your fiction and not the words of Valentinian or Leo that the succession from Peter was the foundation of Romes Primacy It was then believed that Antioch and other Churches had a succession from Peter It is the Merit of Peter and the Dignity of the City of Rome and the Authority of the Synod joyntly that he ascribeth it to The Merit of Peter was nothing but the Motive upon which Leo would have men believe the Synod gave the Primacy to Rome And Hosius in the Council of Sardica indeed useth that as his motive Let us for the honour of Peter c. They had a conceit that where Peter last preached and was martyred and buried and his relicts lay there he should be most honoured 4. Here is not the least intimation that this Primacy was by Gods appointment or the Apostles but the Synods Nor that it had continued so from Peters dayes but that joyntly for Peters Merits and honour and the Cities dignity it was given by the Synod 5. And it was but Leo's fraud to perswade the raw Emperour of the authority of a Synod which he would not name because the Synod of Sardica was in little or no authority in those daies The rest of the reasons were fraudulent also which though they prevailed with this Emperour yet they took not in the East And Leo himself it
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.