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
Council of Nice that many Princes were subjected to the Church of Rome by Ecclesiastical custom and no other right the Synod should do the greatest injury to the Bishop of Rome if it should attribute those things to him only from custom which were his due by Divine Right This Citation I take from Bishop Bromhall having not seen the Book my self The Popish Bishop of Calcedâ—n Survey cap. 5. To us it sufficeth that the Bishop of Rome is Saint Peters successour and this all the Fathers testifie and all the Catholick Church believeth but whether it be jure divino or humano is no point of Faith An ingenuous Confession destroying Popery See Aubert Miraeus notitia Episcopat where in the antient Notit and Leunclavius record of Leo Philos. Impera There are none of the Abassine or other extramperial Nations under the old Patriarcks Cassander Epist. 37. D. Ximenio operum p. 1132. saith of that learned pious Bishop of Valentia Monlucius so highly commended by Thuanus and other learned men that he said Si sibi permittatur in his tribus capitibus viz. forma publicarum precum de ritibus Baptismi de formâ Eucharistiae sive Missae Christianam formam ad normam priscae Ecclesiae Institutam legi conâ—idere se quod ex quinquaginta mill quos habet in suâ Dioecesi à praesenti disciplina Ecclesiae diversos quaùraginta millia ad Ecclesiasticam uniâ—nâ—m sit reducturus That is If he had but leave in these three heads the form of publick Prayers of the rites of Baptism and the form of the Eucharist or the Mass to follow the Christian form Instituted according to the rule of the Antient Church he was confident that of fifty thousand that he had in his Diocess that differed from the present discipline of the Church he should reduce forty thousand to Ecclesiastical union By this testimony it is plain that the Church of Rome hath forsaken the antient Discipline and Worship of the Church by Innovation and that the Protestants desire the restitution of it and would be satisfied therewith but cannot obtain it at the Papists hands So Cassâ—nder himself Epist. 42 p. 1138. I would not despair of moderation if they that hold the Church possessions would remove some intolerable abuses and would restore at tolerable form of the Church according to the prescript of the Word of God and of the antient Church especially that which flourished for some ages after Constantine when liberty was restored which if they will not do and that betime there is danger they may in many places be cast out of their possessions Still you see Rome is the Innovator and it is Restitution of the antient Church-form that would have quieted the Protestans which could never be obtained So again more plainly Epist. 45. p. 1141. Whether Hereticks are in the Church When I came to London I enquired after Mr. Iohnson to know whether I might at all expect any Answer to the foregoing Papers or not And at last instead of an Answer I received only these ensuing lines PAg. 5. part 1. You say I reply first had not you despaired of making good your cause you should have gone by argumentation till you had forced me to contradict some common principle Now I have by Argumentation forced you to this if you will maintain what after you seem to assert in divers passages viz. That Hereticks are true parts of Christs Catholick Church for thus you write p. 11. Some are called Hereticks for denying points essential to Christianity those are no Christians and so not in the Church but many also are called Hereticks by you and by the Fathers for lesser Errours consistent with Christianity And these may be in the Church And p. 12. you answer thus to your adversary Whereas you say it is against all antiquity and Christianity to admit condemned Hereticks into the Church I reply first I hate their condemnation rather then reverence it where you saying nothing against their admittance into the Church seem to grant it I therefore humbly entreate you to declare your opinion more fully in this question Whether any professed Hereticks properly so called are true parts of the universal visible Church of Christ so that they compose one universal Church with the other visible parts of it Iunii 6 to William Johnson The Answer ANsw. My words are plain and distinctly answer your question so that I know not what more is needful for the explication of my sense Unless you would call us back from the Thing to the meer Name by your properly so called you are answered already But I would speak as plainly as I can and if it be possible for me to be understood by you I shall do my part 1. It is supposed that you and I are not agreed What the Vniversal visible Church it self is while you take the Pope or any meer humane Head to be an essential part which is an assertion that with much abhorrence I deny You think each member of that Church must necessarily ad esse be a subject of the Pope and I think it enough that he be a subject of Christ and to his orderly and well-being that he hold local Communion with the parts within the reach of his capacity and be subject to the Pastors that are set over him maintaining due association with and charity to the rest of the more distinct members as he is capable of communion with them at that distance So that when I have proved a person to be a member of the Catholick Church it is not your Catholick Church that I mean No â—ound Christian is a member of yours it is Hereticks in the softer sense that are its matter It s necessary therefore that we first agree of the Definition of the Catholick Church before we dispute who is in it 2. Your word Properly so called is ambiguous referring either to the Etymologie or to some definition in an authentick Canon or to custom and common speech Of the first we have no reason now to enter controversie For the second I know no such stablisht Definition that we are agreed on For the third custom is so variable here not agreeing with it self that what is to be denominated Proper or Improper from it is not to be well conjectured However all this is but de nomine and What is the proper and What the improper use of the word Heretick is no Article of Faith nor necessary for our debate Therefore again you must accept of my distinguishing and give me leave to fly confusion 1. The word Heretick is either spoken of one that corrupteth the Doctrine of Faith as such or of one that upon some difference of Opinion or some personal quarrels withdraweth from the Communion of those particular Churches that before he held communion with and gathereth a separated party such are most usually called Schismaticks but of oâ—d the name Hereticks was oft applyed unto such 2. The word Heretick in the
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
followeth Queries of R. B. on these definitions with Mr. Iohnsons Answer and my Reply Mr. J. The Catholick Church of Christ. THE Catholick Church of Christ is all those visible Assemblies Congregations or Communities of Christians who live in unity of true faith and external communion one with another and in dependance of their lawful Pastors R. B. Of the Church Qu. 1. Whether you exclude not all those converted among Infidels that never had external Communion with nor were members of any particular visible Church of which you mâ—ke the Catholick to be constituted Mr. J. Answ. It is sufficient that such be subject to the supream Pastor and in voto quantum in se est resolved to be of that particular Church actually which shall or may be assigned for them by that Pastor to be included in my definition R. B. Reply Q 1. Repl. ad 1 m 1. You see then that your Definitions signifie nothing no man can know your meaning by them First you make the Catholick Church to consist only of visible Assemblies and after you allow such to be members of the Church that are of no visible Assemblies 2. You now mention subjection to the supream Pastor as sufficient which in your description or definition you did not 3. If to be only in voto resolved to be of a particular Church will serve then inexistence is not necessary To be only in voto of the Catholick Church proves no man a member of the Catholick Church but proves the contrary because it is Terminus diminuens Seeing then by your own confession inexistence in a particular Church is not of necessity to inexistence in the Catholike Church why do you not only mention it in your definition but confine the Church to such will you say you meant in voto who then can understand you when you say they must be of visible Assemblies and mean they need not be of any but only to wish desire or purpose it 4. But yet you say nothing to my case in its latitude Many a one may be converted to Christ by a solitary Preacher or by two or three that neâ—er tell him that there is any supream Pastor in the world How then can he be subject to that supposed Pastor that never heard of him The English and Dutch convert many Indians to the faith of Christ that never hear of a supream Pastor 5. If it be necessary that a particular Church must be assigned for such members by the supream Pastor then they are yet little the better that never have any such assignation from him as few have R. B. Qu. 2. What is that faith in unity whereof all members of the Catholike Church do live is it the belief of all that God hath revealed to be believed or of part and what part Mr. J. Answ. Of all either explicitly or implicitly R. B. Reply Reply Ad 2m. Your second answer further proves that your definitions signifie just nothing They must live in unity of the faith that is either with faith or without it with a belief of what Goâ— hath revealed to be believed or without it For to believe any point implicitly in your ordinary sense is not to believe it but only to believe one of the Premises whence the conclusion must be inferred But why do you not tell me what you mean by an Implicite faith Faith is called Implicite in several senses 1. When several truths are actually understood and believed in confuso or in gross in some one proposition which containeth the substance of them all but not with accurate distinct conceptions nor such as are ripe for any fit expression This indistinct immature imperfect kind of apprehension may be called Implicite and the distinct and more digested conceptions Explicite 2. When a general proposition is believed as the matter of our faith but the particulars are not understood or not believed As to believe that omne animal vivit not knowing whether you are Animal or Cadaver Or to believe that all that is in the Scripture is the Word of God and true but not to know what is in the Scripture 3. When it is only the formal object of faith that is believed without understanding the material object The first sort of these I confess is Actual Belief though indistinct But I suppose you mean not this 1. Because it is not the ordinary sense of your party 2. Because else you damn either all the world or most of your own professed-party at least as no members of the Church for few or none have an Actual understanding and belief of all that ever God revealed to them because all men or most at least have been sinfully negligent in searching after and receiving truth and so are sinfully ignorant No man knoweth all that God hath revealed or that he ought to know 3. Because by this rule it is impossible for you or any man to know who is indeed a member of your Church for you cannot know mens confused knowledge or know that it extendeth to all revealed For if you speak of all revealed in general or in Scripture you still damn all or most in your own sense for none as I said understand it all to a word But if you speak of all which that particular man hath had sufficient means to know it is then impossible for you to make a judgement of any mans faith by this For you can never discern all the means internal or external that ever he had much less can you discern whether his faith be commensurate to the truth so far revealed So that by this course you make your Church invisible I pray tell me how you can avoid it 2. The second sort of Implicite Belief is no Belief of the particulars at all An Animal may live and yet it followeth not that you are alive or an animal If this were your meaning then either you mean that it is enough if all be believed Implicitly besides that general proposition or you mean that some must be believed explicitly that is actually and some Implicitly that is not at all If the former be your sense then Infidels or Heathens may be of your Church For a man may believe in general that the Bible is the Word of God and true and yet not know a word that 's in it and so not know that Christ is the Messias or that ever there was such a person But if somewhat must be explicitely that is Actually believed the Question that you should have answered was What is it For till that be known no man can know a Member of your Church by your description 3. If you take Implicite in the third sense then Implicite faith is either Divine or Humane Divine when the Divine Veracity is the formal Object Humane when mans Veracity is the formal Object Which may be Conjunct where the Testimonies are so conjunct as that we are sure it is God that speaks by man who is therefore credible because God infallibly
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
Pope have made it an Article of their faith that the whole substance of the Bread and Wine is turned into the Body and Blood of Christ so that there is left no Bread or Wine but only that colour quantity and tast that before belonged to it And if you know not Bread when you eat it or Wine when you drink it and when the senses of all the sound men in the world concur with yours is it not vain for me or any man to dispute with you Can you have any thing brought to a surer judgement then to all your senses And yet no doubt but your seducers can say something to prove that Bread is not Bread when you see and eat it No wonder then if they can confute me But do they indeed believe themselves how is it possible there is no exercise of reason and belief that supposeth not the certainty of sense If I cannot know Bread and Wine when I see touch â—ast them then cannot I know the Pope the Councils the Scripture the Priest or any thing else If you think to let go this point of Popery and hold the rest you know not what Popery is for a Pope and Council having determined it you are damned by them for denying the faith and if you depart from the infallibility of their Rule and judge in points of faith or at least from the obligation of it in one thing they will confess to you that you may as well do it in more False in this and certain in nothing is their own conclusion Sir I have not been unwilling to know the truth having a soul to save or lose as well as you and having as much reason to be loth to perish If you have so far forfeited the Grace of God as meerly to follow the pride of a pretended Vice-Christ that hath turned doctrine into error worship into superstition and dead formality light into darkness discipline into confusion mixt with tyranny if meerly to set up one Tyrant over the consciences and bodies too of all believers in the world you can fall into a Sect deny Scripture Reason the Judgement and Tradition of most of the Church and your own and all mens eye-sight tast and other senses the Lord have mercy on you if you be not past it I have done with you yet remaining An unfeigned desirer of your welfare and lamenter of the Apostacies and giddiness of these times Richard Baxter May. 18. 1659. Did you know what it is by loose and false allegations to be put to read so many Volumes in great part in folio to try whether the alledger say true or false you would not expect that I should return an answer and read so much of so many folios in any less then ten or eleven daies which I think hath been all that I have had to write and read so much The Reader must take notice that I wrote the former Letter to the person that sent Mr. Johnsons Letters with a charitable jealousie that if he were himself in doubt he might be resolved But in his return he fully disclaimed Popery and assured me that it is for the sake of some friends that he desired my labour and not for his own R. B. The Reply to Mr. Johnsons second PAPER Sir THE multitude and urgency of my employments gave me not leave till this day May 2. so much as to read over all your Papers But I shall be as loth to break off our Disputation as you can be though perhaps necessity may sometime cause some weeks delay And again I profess my indignation against the Hypocrital Jugling of this age doth provoke me to welcome so ingenuous and candid a disputant as your self with great content But I must confess also that I was the less hasty in sending you this Reply because I desired you might have leisure to peruse a Book which I published since your last A Key for Catholikes seeing that I have there answered you already and that more largely then I am like to do in this Reply For the sharpness of that I must crave your patience the persons and cause I thought required it Ad 1m. What explications were made to your Friend of your Thesis I could not take notice of who had nothing but your writing to Answer 2. If you will not be precise in Arguing you had little reason to expect much less so strictly to exact a precise Answer which cannot be made as you prescribed to an Argument not precise 3. I therefore expect accordingly that the unlearned be not made the Judges of a dispute which they are not fit to judge of seeing you desire us to avoid their road 4. Again I say if you will not be precise in arguing I can hardly be so in answering And by a Congregation of Christians you may mean Christians politically related to one Head whether Christ or the Pope But the word Assemblies expresseth their actuall Assembling together and so excludeth all Christians that are or were Members of no particular assemblies from having Relation as Members of Christ our Head or the Pope your Head and so from being of the Congregation as you Call The Church universall 5. I had great reason to avoid the snare of an equivocation or ambiguity of which you gave me cause of jealousie by your whatsoever as I told you as seeming to intimate a false supposition To your Like I answer it is unlike and still more intimates the false supposition Whatsoever Congregation of men is the Common-wealth of England is a phrase that importeth that There is a Congregation of men which is not the Common-wealth of England Which is true there being more men in the world So whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church doth seem to import that you suppose there is a Congregation of Christians univocally so called that are not the true Church which you would distinguish from the other Which I only let you know at the entrance that I deny that you may not think it granted Yet I must tell you that nothing is more ordinary then for the Body to be said to do that which a part of it only doth As that the Church administreth Sacraments Discipline Teatheth c. the Church is assembled in such a Council c. when yet it is but a small part of the Church that doth these things And when Bellarmine Gretser c. say the Church is the infallible judge of Controversies of faith they mean not the whole Church which containeth every Christian when they tell you that It is the Pope they mean and therefore I had reason to enquire into your sense unless I would willfully be over-reacht You now satisfie me that you mean it universally viz. â—ll that Congregation or Church of Christians which is now the true Church of Christ doth acknowledge c. which I told you I deny 6. To my following distinction you say that all the world knows that whatsoever is acknowledged
to have been ever in the Church by Christs instiution cannot be meant of any accidental thing but of a necessary unchangeable and essentiall thing in Christs true Church To which I Reply Either you see the gross fallacy of this defence or you do not If you do not then never more call for an exact Disputant nor look to be delivered from your errors by argumentation though never so convincing If you do then you are not faithfull to the truth In your Major proposition the words being many as you say you penetrated divers arguments together ambiguities were the easier hidden in the heap That which I told you is Accidental to the Church and that but to a corrupted part was the Acknowledging of the Papacy as of Christs Institution and therefore if it were granted that a thing of Christs Institution could not be Accidental yet the Acknowledgment that is the Opinion or asserting of it may If the Church by mistake should think that to be Essential to it which is not though it will not thence follow that its Essence is but an Accident yet it will follow that both the false opinion and the thing it self so falsly conceited to be essential are but accidents or not essential You say It cannot be meant of any Accidental thing But 1. That Meaning it self of theirs may be an Accident 2. And the question is not what they Mean that is Imagine or affirm it to be But what it is in deed and truth That may be an Accident which they think to be none 2. But that which you say all the world knows is a thing that all the world of Christians except your selves that ever I heard of do know or acknowledge to be false What! doth all the world know that Christ hath instituted in his Church nothing but what is essential to it I should hope that few in the Christian world would be so ignorant as ever to have such a thought if they had the means of knowledge that Protestants would have them have There is no natural body but hath natural Accidents as well as Essence Nor is there any other society under heaven Community or Policy that hath not its Accidents as well as Essence And yet hath Christ instituted a Church that hath nothing but Essence without Accidents Do you build upon such foundations What! upon the denyal of common principles and sence But if you did you should not have feigned all the world to do so too Were your asseriton true then every soul were cut off from the Church and so from salvation that wanted any thing of Christs Institution yea for a moment And then what would become of you You give me an instance in the Eucharist But 1. Will it follow that if the Eucharist be not Accidental or integral but Essential that therefore every thing Instituted by Christ is Essentiall surely no 2. The Question being not whether the Being of the Eucharist in the Church be Essential to the Universal Church But whether the Belief or Acknowledgment of it by All and every one of the members be Essential to the Members I would crave your answer but to this Question though it be nothing to my cause Was not a Baptized person in the primitive and ancient Churches a true Church-member presently upon Baptism And then tell me also Did not the ancient Fathers and Churches unanimously hide from their Catechumens even purposely hide the mysterie of the Eucharist as proper to the Church of understand and never opened it to the auditors till they were Baptized This is most undenyable in the concurrent vote of the ancients I think therefore that it follows that in the Judgement of the ancient Churches the Eucharist was but of the Integrity and not the Essence of a member of the Church and the acknowledgement of it by all the members a thing that never was existent Where you say your Major should have been granted or denyed without these distinctions I Reply 1. If you mean fairly and not to abuse the truth by Confusion such distinctions as you your self call Learned and substantial can do you no wrong They do but secure our true understanding of one another And a few lines in the beginning by way of distinction are not vain that may prevent much vain altercation afterwards When I once understand you I have done And I beseech you take it not for an injury to be understood As to your conclusion that you used no fallacy ex Accidente and that my instances are not apposite I Reply that 's the very life of the Controversie between us And our main Question is not so to be begged On the grounds I have shewed you I still averr that the holding of the Papacy is as Accidental to the universal Church as a Cancer in the breast is to a woman And though you say It is Essential and of Christs Institution that maketh it neither Essential nor of Christs Institution nor doth it make all his institutions to be essentialls Now of your second Syllogism 1. I shall never question the successive Visibility of the Church Whereas I told you out of your Fransc. Ã S. Clara that many or most of your own Schoolmen agree not to that which you say All Christians agree to you make no reply to it As to your Minor I have given you the Reasons of the necessity and harmlesness of my distinctions we need say no more to that a Congregation of Christians and a Church are Synonima But the word true was not added to your first term by you or me and therefore your instance here is delusory But to say whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church is all one as to say whatsoever Church of Christians is now the true Church When I know your meaning I have my end Though my syllogism say not that the Church of Rome acknowledgeth those things alwaies done and that by Christs institution it nevertheless explicateth the weakness of yours as to the fallacy accidentis For 1. The holding it alwaies done and that of Christs Institution may be either an Accident or but of the Integrity and ad bene esse yea possibly an errour 2. And I might as easily have given you Instances of that kind To your 3. Syllogism I Reply 1. When you say the Church had Pastors as you must speak of what existed and Universalls exist not of themselves so it is necessary that I tell you How far I grant your Minor and how far I deny it My argument from the Indians and others is not solved by you For 1. You can never prove that the Pope was preached to the Iberians by the Captive maid nor to the Indians by Frumentius 2. Thousands were made Christians and baptized by the Apostles without any preaching or profession of a papacy Act. 2. passim 3. The Indians now Converted in America by the English and Dutch hear nothing of the Pope nor thousands in Ethiopia 4. Your own do
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
rest of the world Sir If you have impartially read the ancient Church history and yet can believe that all these Churches were then under the Pope despair not of bringing your self to believe any thing imaginable that you would have to be true 3. Your next question is When the Roman Emperours were yet Heathens had not the Bishops of Rome the supremacy over all other Bishops through the whole Church Answ. No they had not nor in the Empire neither Prove it I beseech you better then by questioning If you askt Whether men rule not Angels your Question proves not the Affirmative 4. But you ask again Did those Heathen Emperours give it him Answ. 1. Power over all Churches none ever gave him till titularly his own Parasites of late 2. Primacy of meer degree in the Empire for the dignity and many advantages of the Emperial seat the Bishops of the Empire gave him by consent Blondel de primatu gives you the proof and reason at large yet so as that small regard was had to the Church of Rome before the Nicene Council as saith your Aeneas Sylvius Pope Pius the second 5. Whether the Bishop of Rome had power over the Bishop of Arles by Heathen Emperours is a frivolous question Arles was in the Roman Patriarchate and not out of the Empire The Churches in the Empire might by consent dispose themselves into the Patriarchal orders without the Emperours and yet not meddle out of the Empire Yet indeed Cyprians words intimate no power Rome had over Arles more then Arles had over Rome that is to reject communion with each other upon dissent Nay it more confuteth you that even under Heathen Emperours when Church associations were by voluntary consent of Pastors only and so if they had thought it necessary they might have extended them to other Principalities yet de facto they did not do it as all history of the Church declareth mentioning their Councils and associations without these taken in See now how little your objections are worth and how groundlesly you bid me See now how little my allegations are to the purpose As for the rabble of Hereticks which you reckon up as you esteem them some of them are no Christians univocally so called and those cannot be of the Christian Church Others of them were better Christians then the Romanists and so were of the same Church with us And it is not many reproachfull names put on them by malice that makes them no Christians or of many Churches or Religions If an arrogant usurper will put nick-names on all that will not bow to him as the Vice-Christ and call them Iconoclasts Berengarians Waldensians Albigenses Wicklefifts Hussites Lutherans Calvinists you may as well give them a thousand more names this makes them not of various Religions nor blots out their names from the book of life I have in my most retired thoughts perused the History of those mens lives and of the lives of many of your Popes together with their severall doctrines and with death and judgement in my eyes as before the great God of Heaven I humbly beg of him that I may rather have my everlasting portion with those holy men whom you burned as Waldenses Albigenses Hussites c. then with the Popes that burned them or those that follow them in that cruelty unless reconciling grace have given them repentance unto life The Religion of all these men was one and they were all of one universall Church Where you again call for One Congregation I tell you again that we know no Vnity essentiall from whence the Church can be called one but either Christ or the Vice-Christ the former only is asserted by us and the latter also by you which we deny And therefore we cannot call the universall Church One in any other formal respects but as it is Christian and so One in Christ. Yet have I herewith satisfied your demand but shewed you the unreasonableness of it beyond all reasonable contradiction You next enquire whether we account Rome and us One Congregation of Christians I answer the Roman Church hath two Heads and ours but one and that 's the difference They are Christians and so One Church as united in Christ with us and all other true Christians If any so hold their Papacy and other errours as effectively and practically to destroy their Christianity those are not Christians and so not of the same Church as we But those that do not so but are so Papists as yet to be truly and practically Christians are and shall be of the same Church with us whether they will or not And your modest stile makes me hope that you and I are of one Church though you never so much renounce it As Papall we are not of your Church that 's a new Church form But as Christian we are and will be of it even when you are condemning torturing and burning us if such persecution can stand with your Christianity But you aske Why did you then separate your selves and remain still separate from the Communion of the Roman Church Answ. 1. We never separated from you as you are Christians We still remain of that Church as Christian and we know or will know no other form because that Scripture and primitive Churches knew no other Either you have by Popery separated from the Church as Christian or not If you have it s you that are the damnable Separatists If you have not then we are not separated from you in respect of the form of the Christian Church And for your other form the Papacy 1. Neither I nor my Grand-father or great grand-father did separate from it because they never entertained it 2. Those that did so did but Repent of their sin and that 's no sin We still remain separated from you as Papists even as we are separate from such as we are commanded to avoid for impenitency in some corrupting doctrine or scandalous sin Whether such mens sins or their professed Christianity be most predominant at the heart we know not but till they shew Repentance we must avoid them yet admonishing them as brethren and not taking them as men of another Church but as finding them unfit for our Communion But O sir what manner of dealing have we from you must we be imprisoned rackt hang'd or burn'd if we will not believe that bread wine are not bread and wine contrary to our own and all mens senses and if we will not worship them with Divine worship and will not obey the Pope of Rome in all such matters contrary to our Consciences and then must we be chidden for separating from you if we 〈◊〉 a while escape the strappado and the 〈◊〉 What! will you blame us for not believing that all mens senses are deceived and the greater part of Christians and their Traditions against you are false when we read and study and suspect our selves and pray for light and are willing to hear any of your reasons but
cannot force our own understandings to believe all such things that you believe and meerly because the Pope commands it and when we cannot thus force our own understandings must we be burned or else called Separatists would you have the Communion of our Ashes or else say We forsake your Communion In your Churches we cannot have leave to come without lying against God and our consciences and saying We believe what our senses contradict and without committing that which our consciences tell us are most heynous sins We solemnly protest that we would do as you do and say as you say were it not for the love of truth and holiness and for fear of the wrath of God and the flames of hell but we cannot we dare not rush upon these errours and sell our souls to please the Pope And must we then either be murdered or taken for unchaâ—â—â—â—ble will you say to so many poor souls that are ready to enter into another world Either sin against your consciences and so damn your souls or else let us burn and murder you or else you do not love us you are uncharitable if you deny us leave to kill you and you separate from the Communion of the Church We appeal from the Pope and all unreasonable men to the great God of heaven and earth to judge righteously between you and us concerning this dealing As for possessing our selves of your Bishopricks and Cures if any particular person had personal injury in the change being cast out without cause they must answer for it that did it and not I though I never heard any thing to make me believe it But must the Prince and people let alone delinquent Pastors for fear of being blamed for taking their Bishopricks Ministers of the same Religion with us may be cast out for their crimes Princes have power over Pastors as well as David Solomon and other Kings of Israel had Guil. Barklay and some few of your own knew this The Popes treasonable exemption of the Clergy from their Soveraigns judgement will not warrant those Princes before God that neglect to punish offeâ—â—ing Pastors And I beseech you tell us â—hen our consciences after the use of all means that we can use to be informed cannot renounce all our sences nor our reason nor the judgement of the most of the Church or of antiquity or the Word of God and yet we must do so or be no members of your Church what wrong is it to you if we choose us Pastors of our own in the order that God hath appointed Had not the people in all former ages the choice of their Pastors we and our late forefathers here were never under your oversight but we know not why we may not now choose our Pastors as well as formerly We do it not by tumults we kill not men and tread not in their blood while we choose our Pastors as Pope Damasus was chosen The tythes and other temporal maintenance we take from none but the Magistrate disposeth of it as he seeth meet for the Churches good And the maintenance is for the cure or work and therefore they that are justly cast out of the cure are justly deprived of the maintenance And surely when they are dead none of you can with any shew of reason stand up and say These Bishopricks are yours or these Parsonages yourâ—â— It is the Incumbent personally that only â—an claim title saving the supereminent title of Christ to whom they are devoted But the successive Popes cannot have title to all the tithes and Temples in the world nor any of his Clergy that never were called to the charges If this be disunion it is you that are the Separatists and cause of all If you will needs tell all the Christian world that except they will be ruled by the Pope of Rome and be burned if they believe not as he bids them in despight of all their senses he will call them Separatists Schismaticks and say they disunite and are uncharitable again we appeal to God and all wise men that are impartial whether it be he or we that is the divider You ask me Is not charity subordination and obedience to the same state and Government required as well to make one Congregation of Christians as it is required to make a Congregation of Commonwealths men Answ. Yes it is But as all the world is one Kingdom under God the universal King but yet hath no universal Vice-King but every Commonwealth only hath its own Soveraign even so all the Christian world is one Church under Christ the universal King of the Church but haâ—â— not one Vice-Christ but every Church hath its own Pastors as every School hath its own Schoolmaster But all the anger is because we are loth to be ruled by a cruel usurper therefore we are uncharitable Your next reason against me is because They cannot be parts of the Catholike Church unless Arrians and Pelagians and Donatists be parts and so Hereticks and Schismaticks be parts Reply 1. You know sure that your own Divines are not agreed whether Hereticks and Schismaticks are parts of the Church And if they were yet it is not de fide with you as not determined by the Pope If it be then all yours are Hereticks that are for the affirmative Bellarmine nameth you some of them If it be not then how can you be sure its true and so impose it on me that they are no parts 2. Arrians are no Christians as denying that which is essential to Christ and so to Christianity Pelagianism is a thing that you are not agreed among your selves of the true nature of Many of the Dominicans and Jansenists think the Jesuits Pelagianize or Semipelagianize at least I hope you will not shut them out Donatists were â—chismaticks because they divided in the Catholike Church and not absolutely from it and because they divided from the particular Churches about them that held the most universal external Communion I think they were still members of the universal Church but I 'le not contend with any that will plead for his uncharitable denyal It s nothing to our case That the Aethiopians are Eutychian Hereticks I will see better proved before I will believe it Rosses words I so little regard that I will not so much as open his book to see whether he say so or not I know that Heresie is a personal crime and cannot be charged on Nations unless you have evidence that the Nations consent to it which here you have none Some are called Hereticks for denying points essential to Christianity these are no Christians and so not in the Church but many also are called Hereticks by you and by the Fathers for lesser errors consistent with Christianity and these may be in the Church The Abassines and all the rest have not been yet tryed and convicted before any competent Judge and slanderers we regard not 2. Many of your own writers acquit them of Heresie and say the
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
wits in and whence they might gather more matter of dispute to puzzle the weak And therefore Tertullian adviseth the ordinary Christians of his time instead of long puzzling disputes with them out of Scripture to hold them to the Churches prescription of the simple doctrine of the Creed But now come in the Papists and 3. will neither be content with Creed nor Scripture but must have a Church or faith partly made up of supplemental Traditions of more then is in all the Scripture and so run further from Tertullian and the ancient simplicity then these Hereticks and yet are not ashamed to glory in this Book of Tertullian as for them Of the Fathers judgement of the Scripture sufficiency see the third part of my safe Religion where I have produced Testimonies enough to prove the Antiquity of the Protestants Religion and the Novelty of Popery But nothing can be so plain and full which pre-engaged men dare not deny Let me instance but in one or two passages of Augustine so plain as might put an end to the whole Controversie Aug. de Doctr. Christian. lib. 2. c. 9. In his omnibus libris timentes Deum pietate mansueti quaerunt voluntatem Dei. Cujus operis laboris prima observatio est ut diximus nosse istos libros si nondum ad intellectum legendo tamen vel mandare memoriae He was not against the Vulgars reading Scripture vel omnino incognitos non habere Deinde illa quae in eis aperte pofita sunt vel praecepta vivendi vel regulae credendi solertiùs diligentiúsque investiganda sunt Quae tanto quisque plura invenit quanto est intelligentia capacior In iis enim quae apertè in Scriptura posita sunt inveniuntur illa omnia quae continent fidem moresque vivendi N. B. spem scilicet atque charitatem de quibus libro superiore tractavimus Tum vero facta quadam familiaritate cum ipsa lingua divinarum scripturarum in ea quae obscura sunt aperienda discutienda pergendum est ut ad obscuriores locutiones illustrandas de manifestationibus sumantur exempla quaedam certarum sententiarum testimonia dubitationem de incertis auferant You see here that the Scripture as sufficient to faith and manners to be read by all that fear God and can read and the harder places to be expounded by the plainer was the ancient Rule of faith and Religion And this is the Religion of Protestants Aug. lib. 3. c. 6. contra lit Petiliani pag. 127. Proinde sive de Christo sive de ejus Ecclesia sive de quacunque alia re quae pertinet ad fidem vitamque nostram non dicam Nos nequaquam comparandi â—i qui dixit Licet si nos sed omnino quod secutus adjecit si Angelus de coelo vobis annunciaverit praeterquam quod in Scripturis Evangelicis accepistis Anathema sit I must needs English this short passage to the utter confusion of Popery And therefore whether it be of Christ or whether it be of the Church or whether it be of any other matter that pertaineth to our Faith or Life I will not say if we as being not worthy to be compared with him that said Though we but I will say plainly what he added following If an Angel from heaven shall declare to you any thing besides that which you have received in the Legall and Evangelicall Scriptures let him be Anathema or accursed Was not the Church then purely Protestant in their Religion The Minor needs no proof but our own Profession My profession is the best evidence of my own Religion to another And I profess this to be my Religion which is contained in the holy Scripture as the Test or Law or Rule And let no man contradict me that knoweth not my Religion better then I do The Articles of the Church of England profess this also to be the Religion of the Composers And the Protestants commonly uno ore do profess it It is the great difference between us and the Papists The whole Universal Law of God that we know of and own is contained in Nature and Scripture conjunct But the Papists take somewhat else to be another part We allow by-Laws about mutable undetermined things as aforesaid to Governours But we know no Universal Law of faith and holiness but Nature and Scripture This is our Religion And this Religion contained in Nature and Scriptures hath been still received Obj. We confess Scripture is sufficient to them that have no further light All that is necessary to the salvation of all is in that perspicuously as Costerus Bellarmine and others say but more is necessary to salvation to some Ans. 1. Then at least it containeth all the Essentialls of Christianity which sufficeth to our present end 2. And what maketh more Necessary to me or others here in England if it be not necessary to all Is it because that more is Revealed to us But how and by whom and with what Evidence We are willing to see it and can see no such thing But if this be it if I may speak so plainly without offence it seems it concerneth us to keep out Friars and Jesuites from the Land as much if we knew how as to keep out the Devil For they tell us 1. That we must believe the Popes Soveraignty against the Tradition and judgement of most of the Catholick Church 2. And we must believe our selves to be void of Charity because no Papists contrary to our internall sense and knowledge 3. And we must believe that bread is not bread and wine is not wine contrary to the common senses of all sound men and if we will not thus renounce the Churches Vote Tradition our Certain knowledge Reason and all our Senses we must be damned where as before this doctrine was brought us we might have been saved as having in the Scriptures all things necessary to the salvation of all But the Papists must needs have us shew them where our Church was and name the persons Answ. 1. It were not the Catholike Church if it were confined to any place that is but a part of the Christian territories 2. Nor were it the Catholike Church if we could name half or a considerable part of the members As Augustin oft tells the Donatists it is the Church which begun at Ierusalem and thence is spread throughout the world Part of it may be in one Nation one year which may forfeit and lose it before the next God hath not tyed it to any place 3. To tell you where the Catholike Church hath been in every age and who were the Members or the Leaders requireth much knowledge in History and Cosmography which God hath not made necessary to salvation 4. There are no known Histories that deliver us the Catalogues of the Christians in every age of the world Had any been so foolish as to write them they would have been too chargeable to keep and too
examine qui cuncta ejus membra tibimet conaris Vniversalis appellatione supponere Here you see 1. That the unity and concord of the Church is not maintained by universal Headship but by fraternal communion and humility 2. That it wounded Paul and should do us to see the Church make men as it were their heads though they were Apostles and though Peter was one of them and that extra Christum beside Christ none no not Peter should be as a Head to Christs members 3. Much more abominable is it for any man to pretend to be the universal Bishop or Head to all Christs members 4. That the sin of this usurpation was against Christ the Churches Head and that before him in Judgement the usurper of universal Episcopacy will be confounded for this very thing 5. And that the crime of this title of universal Bishop was that it endeavoured to put all Christs members under him that used it tibimet supponere not to exclude all other Bishops but to put under him all Christs members These are the words of Gregory and if men can make what their list of words so full and plain and oft repeated in many Epistles what hope have they that their Judge of Controversies should do any more to end their Controversies then Scripture hath done which they cannot understand without such an unintelligible Judge He proceeds ibid. Quis ergo in hoc tam perverso vocabulo nisi ille ad imitandum proponitur qui despectis Angelorum legionibus secum socialiter constitutis ad culmen conatus est singularitatis erumpere ut nulli subesse solus omnibus praeesse videretur He maketh him the imitator of the Devil that aspiring above the rest of the Angels fell by pride But Bellarmine hath three Reasons to prove yet that Gregory after all this meant not the universal Headship or Episcopacy indeed 1. Because the holy Council of Chalcedon offered it him Ans. 1. A fair offer because two or three Deacons inscribed their Libels to him with the name of universal Archbishop And we must believe that the Council approved of this though we cannot prove it Or if they called him the Head as the City of London is the Head City in England and the Earle of Arundel the Head Earle or the Lord Chancelour the Head Judge that yet have no Government of the rest what advantage were this to the Roman Vicarship 2. If Gregory judge the name so blasphemous when it signifieth an universal Governour of the Church surely he believed that the Council offered it not to him in that sence but as he was the Episcopus primae sedis 3. But again I say the matter of fact is it that I am enquiring of And I have the testimony of this Roman Bishop that none of his Predecessors would receive that name 2. But saith Bellarmine he saith that the care of the whole Church was committed to Peter which is all one Ans. 1. But so it was committed also to the rest of the Apostles Paul had on him the care of all the Churches that claimed no Headship 2. He exprâ—sly excludeth Peters Headship both in the words before recited and after saying Certe Petrus Apostolus primum membrum or rather as Dr. Iames Corrupt of the Fathers Part. 2. p. 60 saith he found it in seven written Copies Apostolorum primus membrum Sanctae Vniversalis Ecclesiae est Paulus Andreas Iohannes quid â—liud quam singularium sunt plebium capita Et tamen sub uno capite omnes membra sunt Ecclesiae that is Peter the first of the Apostles is a member of the holy and universal Church Paul Andrew Iohn what are they but the Heads of the singular flocks of the people And yet all are members of the Church under one Head that is Christ so that Christ is the only Head Peter is but a member as the other Apostles are but not a Head 3. But saith Bellarmine Gregory could not but know that the title of Episcopus Vniversalis Ecclesiae which is all one had been oft assumed by the Popes Ans. 1. Whether was Bellarmine or Gregory the wiser man at least the fitter interpreter of those words would Gregory have made them so blasphemous foolish prophane and devilish if he had thought them of the same importance with those which his Predecessors used Or was he so silly as not to know that this might have been retorted on him What a silly â—or what a wicked dissembling hypocrite doth Bellarmine feign Pope Gregory to have been 2. But verily did the Learned Jesuite believe himself that Vniversalis Episcopus Ecclesiae Episcopus Ecclesiae Vniversalis are of the same signification Every Bishop in the world that adhered to the common Communion of Chrâ—â—â—ians and was a Catholike was wont to be called a Bishop of the Catholike Church and is indeed such but he is not therefore the universal Bishop of the Church But Bellarmine will not charge Gregory of such horrid dissimulation without reason His first reason is that Gregory did it for caution to prevent abuse Ans. What! charge it with blasphemy prophaness devilism wronging all the Church and also to excommunicate men for it and all this to prevent abuse when he held it lawful Did hell ever hatch worse hypocrisie then this that he fathers on his holiest Pope But 2. His other reason is worse then this forsooth because the question was only whether Iohn of Constantinople should have this title and not whether the Bishop of Rome should have it and therefore Gregory simply and absolutely pronounceth the name sacrilegious and prophane that is as given to Iohn but not to himself yet he refused it himself though due to him that he might the better repress the pride of the Bishop of Constantinople Ans. The sum is then that Gregory did meerly lye and dissemble for his own end He labours to prove that blasphemous sacrilegious c. which he desired But we will not judge so odiously of the Pope as Papists do Doth he charge the other Patriarchs and Bishops to give it no man doth he blame them after in other Epistles that gave him that Title and doth he profess that never any of his Predecessors received it and make so hainous a matter of it and yet all this while approve it as for himself Who will believe a Saint to be so diabolical that calls it an imitation of the Devil You see now what the Roman Cause is come to and whether their Church as Papal that is their Universal Soveraignty be not sprung up since Gregories dayes Hear him a little further ibid. Atque ut cuncta breviter cingalo locutionis adstringam sancti ante Legem sancti sub Lege sancti sub Gratia omnes hi perficientes Corpus Domini in membris sunt Ecclesiae constituti nemo se unquam Vniversalem vocare voluit Vestra autem sanctitas agnoscat quantum apud se tumeat quae illo nomine vocari
not at this day abhor the reading of the Office So that here is all invented new by Gregory which was hardly received in Spain and yet that changed since Arg. 9. If the Generality of Christians in the first ages and many if not most in the later ages have been free from the Essentials of the Papists faith â—hen their faith hath had no successive Visible Church professing it in all ages but the Christians that are against it have been Visible But the Antecedent is true as I prove in some instances 1. It is an Article of their faith determined in a General Council at Laterane and Florence that the Pope is above a Council But that this hath not been successively received the Council of Basil and Constance witness making it a new Heresie 2. It is an Article of their faith that a Generall Council is above the Pope for it is so determined at Basil and Constance But that this hath had no successive duration the Council of Laterane and Florence witness 3. It is an Article of their faith that the Pope may depose Princes for denying Transubstantiation and such like Heresies and also such as will not exterminate such Hereticks from their dominions and may give their dominions to others and discharge their Subjects from their oaths and fidelity For it is determined so in a Council at Laterane But this hath not been so from the beginning Not when the 13. Chapter to the Romans was written Not till the dayes of Constantine Not till the dayes of Gregory that spake in contrary language to Princes And Goldastus his three Volumes of Antiquities shew you that there hath been many Churches still against it 4. It is an Article of their faith that the Body and Blood together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ is truly really and substantially in the Eucharist and that there is a Change made of the whole substance of Bread into the body and of the whole substance of Wine into the blood which they call Transubstantiation So the Council of Trent But the Catholick Church hath been of a contrary judgement from age to age as among many others Edm. Albertinus de Eucharist hath plainly evinced though a quarreller hath denyed it and little more And it s proved in that successively they judged sense and Reason by it a competent discerner of Bread and Wine 5. It is now de fide that the true Sacrament is rightly taken under one kind without the cup as the Councils of Constance and Trent shew But the Catholick Church hath practised and the Apostles and the Church taught otherwise as the Council of Constance and their Writers ordinarily confess 6. It is an Article of their faith as appears in the Trent Oath that we must never take and interpret Scripture but according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers But the Catholick Church before these Fathers could not be of that mind and the Fathers themselves are of a contrary mind and so are many learned Papists 7. It is an Article of their faith that there is a Purgatory and that the souls there detained are holpen by the suffrages of the faithful But the latter was strange to all the old Catholick Church as Bishop Vsher and others have proved and the very being of Purgatory was but a new doubtfull indifferent opinion of some very few men about Augustines time 8. It is now an Article of their faith that the holy Catholick Church of Rome is the mother and mistris of all Churches But I have shewed here and elsewhere that the Catholick Church judged otherwise and so doth for the most part to this day 9. It is now an Article of their faith that their Traditions are to be received with equall pious affection and reverence as the holy Scripture But the Catholick Church did never so believe 10. The Council of Basil made it de fide that the Virgin Mary was conceived without Originall sin But the Catholick Church never judged so 11. It s determined by a Council now that the people may not read the Scripture in a known tongue without the Popes License But the Catholick Church never so thought as I have proved Disp. 3. of the safe Religion 12. The Books of Maccabees and others are now taken into the Canon of faith which the Catholick Church received not as such as Dr. Cosin and Dr. Reignolds have fully proved To this I might add the Novelty of their Worship and Discipline but it would be too tedious and I have said enough of these in other writings See Dr. Challoner pag. 88 89. In 16. points Dr. Challoner proveth your Novelty from your Confessions Indeed his Book de Eccles. Cath. though small is a full answer to your main Question Arg. 10. If Multitudes yea the far greatest part of Christians in all ages have been ignorant of Popery but not of Christianity then hath there been a succession of Visible Professors of Christianity that were no Papists but the antecedent is true therefore so is the consequent In this age it is an apparent thing that the far greatest part are ignorant of formal Popery 1. They confess themselves that the common people and most of the nobility of Habassia Armenia Greece Russia and most other Eastern Churches that are not Papists are ignorant of the Controversie 2. They use to tell us here among Protestants that there is not one of many that know what a Papist is 3. We know that of those that go under the name of Papists there is not one of a multitude knoweth We hear it from the mouths of those we speak with I have not met with one of ten of the poorer sort of them even here among us that knoweth what a Papist or Popery is but they are taught to follow their Priests and to say that theirs is the true Church and old Religion and to use their Ceremonious worship and to forbear coming to our Churches c. and this is their Religion And in Ireland they are yet far more ignorant And it s well known to be so in other parts Their Priests they know and the Pope they hear of as some person of eminent Power in the Church But whether he be the Universal Vicar of Christ and be over all others as well as them whether this be of Gods institution or by the grant of Emperours or Councils c. they know not And no wonder when the Papists think that the Council of Chalcedon spoke falsly of the humane Originall of the Primacy in the Imperiall territories And when the Councils of Basil and Constance knew not whether Pope or Council was the Head And that the people were as ignorant and much more in former ages they testifie themselves And before Gregories dayes they must needs be ignorant of that which was not then risen in the world Yea Dr. Field hath largely proved Append lib. 3. that even the many particular points in which the Papists now differ
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
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
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