A Defense of the Principles of Love, Part 2 · Exception 9 – Exception 13
EXCEPT. IX. Answered. I must now answer for what I say against the Papists too. I Confess they are separatists or recusants too. But lets hear the Charge? You say [They are very unweighed and rash words, when he saies [Shew me in Scripture or in Church history that either there ever was de facto, or ought to be de jure such a thing in the World, as the Papists call the Church, and I profess I will immediately turn Papist;] We think none can write thus, but declares a great unsteadiness in his Religion; for none that knoweth Church history but can prove that such a Church as the Romane, hath been neer 1300 years actually in being.
Answ. 1. My foregoing words are these, [The Pope hath feigned another thing, and called it the Church, that is, The Universality of Christians headed by himself: Whereas 1. God never instituted or allowed such a Church. 2. Nor did ever the Universality of Christians acknowledge this usurping head.
Now when you say there hath been [such a Church as the Romane] either you mean what I denied [such a Church as they claim and feign] and I described; Or only [such a Church as they are, which is another thing.] If the later, why will you grosly abuse your Reader by such a deceit, which tendeth to tempt him unto Poperie? What's that to my words which you seem to contradict? But if you mean the former, and indeed contradict me, then 1. You prevaricate in befriending Popery. 2. You here set down three more Untruths in matter of fact; 1▪ That there hath been neer 1300 years (or ever was) such a Church; that is, that the7 Untruth. Universality of Christians did acknowledge the Pope for the Universal Constitutive and Governing 8 Untruth.Head. 2. That there is none that knoweth 9 Untruth.Church history but can prove this. 3. That they are very unweighed words, in which I assert what I did.
And all this I have given the World fullThe Cause of Popery tried. proof of, in my Dispute against Mr. Iohnson the Papist, of the Visibility of the Church. Had I not weighed the words, I had not so many years ago so largely proved and maintained them. And I have there fully proved, that the Romane Church was only Imperial, or of the Empire (and the Countreys that after fell from the Empire) such as we call national, because under one Prince. That de facto, the Persians, the Abassines, Indians, part of Armenia, and many other Churches or Christians, never acknowledged him their Constitutive or Governing Head; that the Emperors who called the General Councils had nothing to do with the subjects of other Princes, nor used to call them: That the General Councils consisted only of the subjects of the Empire, (and those that had been of the Empire,) except one Iohannes Persidis, and one or two more inconsiderable persons, that no account can be given of, who they were, or how they came thither. Godignus himself will tell you enough of the Abissines. All the Papists in the World are never able to answer this publick Evidence of fact, with any sense.
Mr. Iohnson's Reply I take not to be worthyOf Mr. Iohnson's Reply to my Book. of an Answer with any man that can make use of an answer; when his shift is so gross as to instance in the Bishops of Thracia as out of the Empire, and such as they, which every novice in history and Geographie can Confute. Unless I was Confuted in▪ London at a publick Play, where (that you may see who influenceth them) a Tutor in Geographie was (as I am credibly informed) brought in telling his Pupill, that Prester Iohn's Countrey of Abassia was of the same Latitude with a place in Worcester-shire called Kederminster.]
Now seeing reason forbiddeth me to interpret you as speaking of the Church of Rome as a Sect or Party, when I spake of it, as the Universality of Christians headed by the Pope (your Context shewing that it is my words that you gainsay,) therefore I must number these three also with the rest of your untruths.
You adde [We wonder that any Protestant should be found, though but by the equalling of Church history to Scripture, as if the uncertain tradition of the one, were to be as much accounted of and followed as the Divine and infallible Revelation of the other.]
Answ. 1. Because this wonder plainly containeth an affirmation that I do so, I must say that it is your tenth untruth: Prove such10 Untruth. a word if you are able.
2. It is not true that this Historie is uncertain (though not to be equalled with Scripture.) Is the Case of a vast Empire of Aethiopia (as big yet after the decay saith Brierwood, as Germany, Italy, France and Spain) uncertain, when the World knoweth that they have not had so much as Converse with the Pope, and at Oviedos attempt did not know who he was? And so of Persia, India, &c.
If you will needs be so much wiser than your neighbours as to prove all historie uncertain, even that there was a Caesar, or a William the Conqueror. 1. While you befriend the Papists in this one point, you will incommodate them in others, 2. And you will promote Infidelitie, by making that historie uncertain by which we know the Canonical books of Scripture, and that they are delivered down to us the same and uncorrupt.
When I had given in few words, a full and plain answer to the Papists about our separation from their Church, and remembred how many Volumes they have troubled the World with, by obscuring our plain andWhether it be intollerable Pride to say that the Papists understand not Christian sense and reason. ordinarie answer, I told them, that must have Volumes to hide the sense, that if this answer seem not plain and full to them, it is because they understand not Christian sense and reason; and not for want of plainess in the matter, or through defectiveness as to satisfie a reasonable impartial man. This, brother, chargeth this saying, to be [insolent, and from intolerable Pride] because I dare so Charge another with want of Christian sense and reason, &c.
Answ. 1. This is his eleventh untruth. I11 Untruth. only named sense and reason objectively, not subjectively. It is not because the Answer which I give the Papists (and which Protestants commonly give) is not full and plain, or wanteth sense or reason, but because the Papists understand it not. He that hath sense and reason may be hindred from using it aright, by interest, partialitie, and wilful negligences which it is no new thing for Protestants to think that Papists are too oft guilty of. But how proud am I then, intolerably proud that in several books have maintained that all Papists that hold Transubstantiation, do make it an Article of Faith, and necessarie to Salvation, flatly to contradict all the senses of all the sound men in the World, that shall judge whether bread be bread, and wine be wine? How much more insolent a Charge is this? But, brother, Popish absurdities have need of a better defence, than to call the adversarie insolent and proud.
2. And is the thing I say true or false? I prove it true. The Answer of the Protestants about Luther's Reformation which I give, is Christian… Sense and Reason: But the Papists or any that deny it seriously, and take it not to be plain and full understand it not: Ergo they understand not Christian sense and reason.
That is, In this: For I never said that they understand not Christian Sense and Reason, in any other thing, nor is there the least appearance of such a sense. Now if this, brother, will deny either of the premises, he may expect an answer. Till then I adde.
3. Are not you, brother, by your own censure notoriously insolent and intolerably proud, if this hold good, as well as I? Do you not take all that you say against me (or some part at least) to be plain and full, and to be Christian sense and reason? And do you not suppose me to think otherwise of it? And do you not think that this is because I understand it not? Thus some mens hands do beat themselves.
4. And do you not implicitly charge all or most Protestant Writers with insolence and intolerable pride as well as me? Do they not all think their reasons against the Papists plain and full (at least some of them:) And do they not think that the Papists denie them because they understand not the Christian Sense and Reason which is in them.
5. And have not all mankind a deficiencie of understanding? And is it pride and insolence to say so?
6. But judge of your own spirit by your own rule: Do not you think those that you before charged with persecution, and making our dividing engines, and whose Communion you think it a duty to avoid, to be such as understand not Christian sense and reason in the arguings which I and others have used against them? And is it not as lawful to think so of the Papists?
EXCEPT. X. Answered. I used the phrase of [Local presential Communion] in Contradistinction, 1. To the Catholick Communion of persons absent, which is by Faith and Love, 2. And the Communion by Delegates and Representatives: And our brother here, 1. Calleth this phrase [insignificant Iargon,] which was not said through any redundancy of Sense and Reason above othets; Nor do I acknowledge his authoritie in the sentence without his reason.
2. He saith [Unlawful terms are imposed on us] Answ. Brother, Do you think men must trust their souls on your naked word? Where in all this book have you done any thing, that with an impartial understanding can go for proof, that [in all the Parish Churches of England that use the Liturgie, that is imposed as a Condition of our Communion in hearing or praying, which it is not lawful sometimes to do?] Answer this, as to Mr. Nie about hearing, and to me about Praying; if you can? and do not nakedly affirm.
3. You say you do not [so much separate as forbear Communion] and your reason is [for we were never of them.] Answ. I take you for a Christian and a Protestant: Are you not so far of us? Is not a member of the same Universal Church of Christ, obliged to hold Communion, as he hath a special Call or occasion, with more Churches than that particular one which he ordinarily joyneth with? If you purposely avoided and denied Communion with all the IndependentOf Separation. Churches in England save one, and wrote to prove it unlawful, I think this were a separating from them, as they are parts of the Church Universal that are neer you.
EXCEPT. XI. Answered. 1. The word Sect (though oft taken but for one party in a division) was not by me applied to all the names before going, but to the last named only, and such other. 2. I spake nothing at all of the truth or falshood of the Censurers words, but of the requitals that Censurers have by other mens Censures, which may be sharp and passionate, and a rebuke to the Censured, and modallyOf Censuring Papists. Culpable, when the words are true. Yet I am content to undergo the Censure you here cast out of me, rather than to censure, that a Papist cannot go beyond a reprobate, unless you do, (as Mr. Perkins doth, to make it good,) be so charitable to all the millions else among them, as not to call them Papists, except they practically hold the most pernicious opinions of their Councils and Divines. I confess I affect none of the honour of that Orthodoxness, which consisteth in sentencing millions and Kingdoms to Hell, whom I am unacquainted with.
EXCEPT. XII. Answered. Here we have first a meer magisterial dictate without proof, that I speak [triflingly] about Of Pauls not scandalizing the weak.Scandal, and shew how little I understand it. But where's his reason or Confutation? 2. Why all is but this [Paul would not eate flesh rather than he would offend his weak brother, &c.] Judge, Reader, whether the bareI know that Expositors much differ about the weak brother here described, but not in the point that I now urge the …ext for. citing of these words be any proof, that in Scripture, Scandal is not taken more for tempting, ensnaring, and laying before men an occasion of stumbling, or sinning, than for meer displeasing men, which is the thing that I affirmed.
But, sure Brother, if you soberly review it, you will find that you deal very hardly with the Scripture and the souls of men. First the word [foreign] which our Translators turn [make to offend] you read [offend] instead of scandalize; And 2. You bring a text against the truth which I assert, which is as plain for it as can well be spoken. The whole Chapter shewing, that [the weake brother] that Paul speaketh of, was one that [with Conscience of the Idol, did eate it as a thing offered to an Idol, and their Conscience being weak was defiled, ver. 7. 9, And it is one whose Conscience is emboldened (or confirmed) to eate those things which are offered to idols, and thereby he may perish, ver. 10, 11.
And it is he that is (not displeased) but made to offend. And the scandalizing which Paul would avoid is called [becoming a stumbling to them that are weak, ver. 9. Emboldening to that heinous sin, ver. 10. Making a brother to offend, v. 13. twice over. Is this, think you, displeasing the innocent, or rather, tempting those that are apt to sin, and confirming the faulty.
Read what Dr. Hammond saith of their weakness, and what foreign signifieth there, and then further tell me; 1. Whether you mean such weak ones that you would not have me offend? 2. Whether those that are most displeased with us for Communion in the Liturgie, be such as you will say, are most in danger of yielding to sin? 3. Whether you would do as Paul doth, Call those weak brethren, who to that day did eate in Idols temples, and that as a thing offered to idols? 4. Whether Paul commanded the Corinthians to separate from the Church, because such men were in their Communion? 5. Whether Paul himself in communicating with that Church, did not that which you write against? 6. Whether by this rule, we should not take heed most of scandalizing those Christians that are aptest to sin? 7. Whether this text, which you so abuse, well considered, is not sufficient against all your Cause, and for that which I maintain?
EXCEPT. XIII. p. 6. Answered. Here is nothing but, 1. His saying that He may well doubt of the truth of what I report, viz. whether any (or many) faithful Ministers would so reproach their people, and their honourable name which is upon them, as to call them pievish and self conceited Christians.] Answ. 1. Are there any such Christians or not? 2. If they are, should their fault be healed or cherished? 3. If healed, should it be reproved or concealed? But I will answer this further anon, when it comes in again.
2. He doubts not but those that thus complained to me expected so much prudence and faithfulness in me as to conceal their Complaints, and not vent them now when the state of affairs is so much altered. Answ. Here areMore of revealing secrets. two untruths implied: 1. That these complaints were only made in secret, with an expectation that not only the persons, but the case it self should be concealed. But how did he know this? Might not many of them be men that since conform, and make the same complaint now openly? Yes, I could name you more than one such? Might not some be such as have done the same in print themselves? Yes, Old Mr. Rob. Abbot was one, who after removed to Austins London, and died there, before Mr. Ash. If you will but read his book against separation, you will see thathe silenced not such matters, but hath said more than ever you are able well to answer. 2. It is not true that these Complaints were only made before the state of affairs was altered; for I have oft heard it since, with greater sense of it than ever before. Nor is it any dishonour to a Minister, not to be ignorant of Satans wiles: The more they know them, the liker they are to overcome them.
3. In his conclusion are two more mistakes, but because they are prophetical, I will not count them with the grossest. The first is, that he hopes that hereafter all that fear God will be very careful how they make any complaint unto a Person, (The Second) who will take the next worst occasion to revile a whole innocent and Godly Party by a malicious publishing of it: Whereas, 1. Since the writing of his book I have had complaints against such as he, by many that fear God; 2. And he cannot prove what he prophesieth I will do. But yet two more untruths are implied in the prophesie. 1. That I will revile a whole Innocent, Godly suffering Party, when I protested I meant no particular party, but those of every party, Episcopal, Presbyterian, Independent, Anabaptist, &c. who through want of Love are aptest causelesly to condemn their brethren and avoid them (unless he will call all the Ignorant, Proud, and Uncharitable of all parties, by the name of a whole Godly suffering party.) 2. That I will revile them maliciously; unless he mean that writing for Love and Unity is a malicious act against Satan and his Kingdom.