Full and Easy Satisfaction, Title page – Errata
Full and Eaſie SATISFACTION WHICH IS THE TRUE AND SAFE RELIGION. In a CONFERENCE Between
D. A DOUBTER,
P. A PAPIST, and
R. A REFORMED CATHOLICK CHRISTIAN.
In Four Parts:
I. The true ſtating of our Difference, and opening what each Religion is.
II. The true eaſie and full Juſtification of the Reformed or Proteſtant Religion.
III. The Proteſtants Reaſons and Charges againſt Popery, enumerated.
IV. The firſt Charge, viz. Againſt Tranſubſtantiation made good: In which Popery is proved to be the SHAME OF HUMANE NATURE, notoriouſly contrary to SENSE, REASON, SCRIPTURE and TRADITION, or the Judgement of the Antient and the Preſent Church; deviſed by Satan to expoſe Chriſtianity to the Scorn of Infidels.
By Richard Baxter.
London, Printed, for Nev. Simmons, at the Princes Arms in St. Pauls Church-yard. 1674.
and ſtill continueth ſo to do. And while I can ſay, that I know of no Nobleman living who hath read more of my Writings than You have done, all that know the End of Writing, will conſent, that there is no Noble Name which I ſhould prefer. And as I long ago read in the Learned Spanhemius's Dedication of his Dubia Evangelica p. 3. to You (well joyned with the famous Uſher) the predication of Your Judicium ſupra aetatem maturum, rerum omnium cognitione ſubactum pectus, and that as atteſted by the Illuſtrious Duke of Rohane, the Moſt Sagacious Arbiter of ingenies; And years and experience have been long adding to Your knowledge: Being not a ſtranger to the Truth of this my ſelf, I have great reaſon to be Ambitious to ſtand right in Your eſteem: (For who reverenceth the Judgement of ignorant Readers? Or doth not reverence the Judgement of the Wiſe?) And therefore to give You an account of my ſelf and of this writing;
Since I overgrew that Religion which is taken up moſt on humane truſt, by increaſing knowledge I increaſed mens diſpleaſure; and my judgement not falling juſt into the mold of any Sect among Church-dividers, there is ſcarce any Sect which doth not, according to their various intereſts, ſignifie their diſpleaſure. Some only by Magiſterial Cenſures; more credibly acquainting the world, what they are themſelves, than what I am, or what is my judgement. But from others I take a meer ſlander for Clemency, and as Philoſtratus ſaith, de Dicto Phavorini) Et dum Socratis cicutam non bibam, aereâ privari ſtatuâ non laedit. Simple Chriſtianity is my Religion: I determine to know nothing but Chriſt Crucified (and Glorified.) And I am paſt all doubt, that till ſimple Chriſtianity become the terms of Church-Unity and Concord, the Church will never ſee Unity or Concord, which ſhall prove univerſal or durable. So certain am I, that the Wits of the Learned, much leſs of the Community of vulgar Chriſtians, will never arrive at the ſtature, of Concord, in numerous and difficult points: Nor the marvellous diverſity of Educations, occaſions, temperatures and capacities, be ever united in any thing but what is plain and ſimple. And as Certain am I, that the Univerſal Conſcience of true believers will never unite, in any thing which is not evidently divine. And yet as certain am I, that the forſaking of the determination of the Holy Ghoſt and the Apoſtles, Acts 15.28. and of Pauls Deciſion, Rom. 14. & 15. hath been the Engine of Church-Diviſions and many calamitous diſtractions to this day: And that that bleſſed Prince who muſt have the honour and comfort of beginning the true healing and Concord of the Churches, muſt pare off all their ſuperfluities, and leave them at beſt among their things indifferent, and unite them on the terms of ſimple Chriſtianity.
And as to Popery I have certainly found, that the Croſs Intereſts and Paſsions of Diſputers have made us (though really too diſtant) to ſeem commonly about many Doctrinals more diſtant than indeed we are: And that it had been better with us, if ſuch men as judicious Ludov. le Blank, had had the ſtating of our Controverſies at the firſt, that differing words and methods might not have paſſed with either ſide for damnable errors in the faith. I mean in the points of fore-knowledge, predeſtination, providence, predetermination, concurſe, original ſin, free-will, univerſal Redemption, ſufficient Grace, effectual Grace, the nature of Faith, Juſtification, Sanctification, Merit, Good Works, Certainty of Juſtification, and of Salvation, Perſeverance, &c. For my knowing this to be true, I am cenſured by thoſe on one extream, as too favourable to the Papiſts (being indeed an Enemy to injury, calumny, uncharitableneſs or cruelty to any in the world.) But I am much more diſpleaſing to the Roman party; Becauſe I know, that One man is naturally uncapable of being the Monarch of all the world: That the King of Rome (as the Geographia Nubienſis calls him) was never by Chriſt made King of Kings and Lord of Lords: That he never was, nor can be a Paſtor at the Antipodes, and over all the Earth, or as far as Drake and Candiſh did Navigate: That it's a ſorry Argument, [Monarchy is the beſt Government: Ergo, An univerſal Monarchy is beſt:] That the Government ſetled in Nature and Scripture, is for Princes to rule Churchmen and all, by the Sword, and the Paſtors of all particular Churches, to rule their Congregations by the Church-Keys, that is, by the Word, uſing Synods for due concord and correſpondency: And this much will do better than all the ſtir that the Clergies Ambition hath made in the world.
I know that the Pope ſtandeth on no better a foundation than the other four Patriarchs: And that he was but the chief Prelate or Patriarch in one Empire, as the Archbiſhop of Canterbury is in England; And that the Greek Church never took his Primacy in that one Empire to be of Divine Right: For if they had, they had never ſet up the Patriarch of Conſtantinople againſt him, who never claimed his Primacy as jure Divino. I know that the great Council of Chalcedon decreed, Act. 16. Bin. 734. [We following alwayes the definitions of the holy Fathers and the Canon, have our ſelves alſo defined the ſame things, concerning the Priviledges of the ſame Moſt Holy Church of Conſtantinople, New Rome; For to the Seat of Old Rome becauſe of the Empire of that City, the Fathers conſequently gave the Priviledges: And the one hundred and fifty Biſhops moſt beloved of God, being moved with the ſame intention, have given equal Priviledges to the Moſt Holy Seat of New Rome: Reaſonably Judging that the City adorned with the Empire and Senate, ſhall enjoy equal Priviledges with Old Regal Rome.]
I know that their late Biſhop of Chalcedon ſaith (againſt Biſhop Bramhall, Survey, pag. 69.) [To us it ſufficeth, that the Biſhop of Rome is St. Peters Succeſſor; and this all Fathers teſtifie. But whether he be ſo jure Divino vel humano is no point of faith. Vid. Bellarm. 1.2. de Pont. l. 12. And Holden Analyſ. fid. l. 1. c. 9. p. 161. Multa ſunt quae traditione univerſa firmiter innituntur (puta S. Petrum fuiſſe Romae) quae revelata non ſunt; ideoque ab articulorum fidei Catholicae numero excluduntur.
I know that there never was ſuch a thing as a true Univerſal Council in the world (unleſs Chriſt and his Apoſtles were ſuch); nor ever muſt, or will, or can be.
I know that they were called Univerſal but as to one Empire: and that Emperours called them together, who had nothing to do without that Empire; and that (unleſs accidentally any inconſiderable number) no Churches out of the Empire were ſummoned, or ſent their Biſhops thither: Which needs no other proof than the knowledge of the limits of the Roman Empire, and the Notitiae Epiſcopatùum, and the Names ſubſcribed to each Council in Binnius and the reſt.
I know that long ago their Raynerius ſaid (Cont. Waldenſ. Catal. in Biblioth. Patrum Tom. 4. p. 773.) [The Churches of the Armenians, and Ethiopians, and Indians, and the reſt which the Apoſtles converted, are not under the Church of Rome.] And that Godignus and others make no doubt but the Abaſsines had the faith from the dayes of St. Matthew and the Eunuch.
I know that Theodoret. Hiſtor. Sanct. Patr. c. 1. ſaith, [James the Biſhop of Niſibis came to the Synod of Nice; for Niſibis then obeyed the Roman Empire.] Nothing can be more plain.
I know that Jacob. de Vitriaco (and others) ſay (Hiſt. Orient. c. 77.) that [the Churches of the Eaſterly parts of Aſia alone exceeded in number the Chriſtians either of the Greek or Latin Churches]: And that Brochardus that lived at Jeruſalem ſaith, that [thoſe called Schiſmaticks by us are far better men than thoſe of the Roman Church.]
And to perſwade the Kings of other Kingdoms, that the neceſſary way of Church-Union, is to unite all their Subject-Churches under the Patriarchs of another Empire, is no wiſer than to tell all the world that they muſt be under the Biſhop of Canterbury.
I know that it was long ere Our antient Britains, and eſpecially Your Scots, would ſo much as eat with the Roman Clergy, (as Beda ſheweth.)
And I know that their Melch. Canus ſaith, (Loc. Com. cap. 7. fol. 201.) [That not only the Greeks, but almoſt all the reſt of the Biſhops of the whole world, have fought to deſtroy the priviledges of the Church of Rome; And indeed they had on their ſide both the Arms of Emperours and the greater number of Churches: And yet they could never prevail to abrogate the power of the One Pope of Rome.] Was this Pope then (or the Roman Church) Univerſal? Beſides that, to this day, they are but about the third or fourth part of the Chriſtian world.
And I know that General Councils are their Religion: and what the General approved Council at Lateran ſub Innoc. 3. hath Decreed againſt Temporal Lords and their Dominions, and abſolving of their Subjects from their Oaths of Fidelity: Beſides what Greg. 7. hath ſaid in his Concil. Rom. of his power to take down and ſet up Emperours.
The knowing of theſe things, maketh me taken for their enemy. And their Image of Worſhip in an unknown Tongue, with their Bread-Worſhip and multitude of ludicrous deceitful toyes, are things which my ſoul can never be reconciled to: Much leſs to that renunciation of humanity which hereafter I detect, in the following Treatiſe.
And having given You this Account of my ſelf, I add as to this Treatiſe, 1. It grieved me to hear that ſo many refuſed the Parliaments Declaration againſt Tranſubſtantiation: And I deſired to ſhew them what it is.
2. Inſtead of joyning with thoſe who talk much of the danger of Popery in the Land (to keep it out,) I thought it better to publiſh the Reaſons which ſatisfie me againſt it, and leave the ſucceſs of all to God.
3. And having occaſion to re-print the Firſt Part of my Key for Catholicks, with Corrections, inſtead of the Name before prefixed, (of one whoſe face I never ſaw, nor ever had a word from, but ignorantly endeavoured to have provoked him to do good) I thought Your Name fitteſt to be gratefully ſubſtituted, who were the firſt then that checked my imprudent temerity.
Though I was not ſo vain, as to expect of late in your multitude of greater buſineſs, that You ſhould read over my more tedious Writings, I deſpair not but You may find leiſure in peruſing this, to ſee that I have prefixed Your Name to nothing, but what Senſe and Reaſon and Religion do avow. And ſo Craving Your Pardon for the boldneſs and tediouſneſs of this Addreſs, I reſt,
Your Graces humble much obliged Servant, Richard Baxter. Auguſt 27. 1673.
TO THE READER.
THis Dialogue cometh not to you, from an apprehenſion of any extraordinary excellency of it, as if it did much more than is already done: but as extorted by mens neceſsity; 1. Becauſe ſo many ignorantly turn Papiſts of late; 2. And ſome are pleaſed to Say (I dare not ſay, To Think) that it is long of men in my condition; 3. And it is the Art of the Papiſts (which our vanity encourageth) to ſeek to bring the old Books into oblivion (which are unanſwerable) and to call ſtill for new.
The intended Uſe of this is, 1. To tell thoſe that will diſpute with a Papiſt, on what terms and in what order to proceed, leſt they be cheated into a ſnare.
2. To teach the Ignorant Doubters truly to underſtand, wherein the difference between us and the Papiſts doth indeed conſiſt; that the talk of Sectaries Calling that which diſpleaſeth them, Popery, nor the ſcandal of our real or ſeeming diviſions, may not delude them, nor Papiſts puzzle them by putting them to prove every word in our thirty nine Articles or other Writings.
3. To Reſolve all that will be Reſolved, by Senſes, Reaſon, Scripture, or the Judgement and Tradition of the Church.
Of the multitude of Reaſons againſt Popery enumerated, I have here made good but one, by a ſpecial diſputation; becauſe I would not make the Book too big. The reſt I ſhall eaſily prove in another Volume, if greater work and ſhortneſs of life do not hinder it; (which I fully expect.) And leſt I have no more opportunity to anſwer their Charges againſt us on the other ſide, I have reprinted and added (Corrected) the firſt part of my Key for Catholicks, where it is long ago done, and never anſwered. There is extant one Piece of theirs againſt me, unanſwered, called, Mr. Johnſon's Rejoynder about the Viſibility of the Church: which I ſeriouſly profeſs I have left unanſwered, as utterly unworthy of my precious Time, till I have no greater matter to do, which I hope will never be. And he that will well ſtudy his opening of the terms in the latter end, will ſee to how pitiful a caſe they are reduced. I conclude with this ſolemn Profeſsion, That I am ſatisfied of the truth of what I write, and muſt dye ere long in the faith which I here profeſs, and lay my hopes of endleſs happineſs on no other way: And that I would joyfully receive any Saving Truth, from Papiſts or any other, who will bring it me, with ſuch evidence as may make it indeed my own. The Lord Unite us by Truth, Love and Humility. Amen.
Septemb. 1. 1673. Richard Baxter.
THE CONTENTS.
PART I.
WHat is the Proteſtants Religion, and what the Papiſts? pag. 1.
Chap. 1. The occaſion of the Conference: with an humbling conſideration to ſtaggerers. ibid.
Chap. 2. The Conditions of the Conference. p. 6.
Chap. 3. What is the Religion of the Proteſtants. Of the name Proteſtant: The Auguſtane and other Confeſſions: The thirty nine Articles: The Eſſentials of Chriſtianity to be diſtinguiſhed from the Integrals and Accidentals. p. 9.
Chap. 4. What is the Papiſts Religion: out of Veron, Davenport, &c. p. 25.
PART II.
Fourteen Principles in which the Papiſts and Proteſtants ſeem agreed; by which the Proteſtant Religion is by the Papiſts confeſſed and maintained to be all true. p. 40.
PART III.
Twenty five Charges againſt Popery enumerated, to be all in order proved; as Reaſons why no one that hath Religion, or Senſe and Reaſon, ſhould turn Papiſt. p. 61.
PART IV.
The firſt Charge made good, viz. againſt Tranſubſtantiation: In which Popery is fully proved to be the ſhame of Humane Nature; contrary to SENSE, REASON, SCRIPTƲRE and TRADITION, or the Judgement of the antient and the preſent Church; deviſed by Satan to expoſe Chriſtianity to the Scorn of Infidels. p. 75.
Chap. 1. The firſt Reaſon to prove that there is Bread after the Conſecration, from the certainty of the Intellects Perception by the means of ſenſe. ibid.
Twenty Reaſons againſt the denying of common ſenſes. p. 77.
Chap. 2. The Papiſts Anſwers to all this confuted. p. 88.
Chap. 3. The ſecond Argument againſt Tranſubſtantiation from the contradictions of it. p. 96.
Chap. 4. The third Argument from the certain falſhood of their multitudes of feigned Miracles in Tranſubſtantiation. Thirty one Miracles in it enumerated; with Twenty aggravations of thoſe Miracles. p. 99.
Chap. 5. The Minor proved, viz. That theſe Miracles are falſe or feigned. p. 110.
Chap. 6. Arg. 4. Tranſubſtantiation contrary to the expreſs Word of God. p. 117.
Chap. 7. Arg. 5. All theſe Miracles are proofleſs: yea, the Scripture abundantly directeth us otherwiſe to expound, This is my Body. p. 123.
Chap. 8. Arg. 6. Tranſubſtantiation nullifieth the Sacrament. p. 128.
Chap. 9. The Novelty of Tranſubſtantiation, as contrary to the faith of the antient Chriſtians: And the ſingularity, contrary to the Judgement and Tradition of moſt of the Chriſtian world. p. 132.
Chap. 10. The ſecond part of the Controverſie: That it is not Chriſts very fleſh and blood into which the Bread and Wine is turned. p. 146.
Chap. 11. The Concluſion: The Scandal of our difference removed. Whether the falſhood of one Article prove the Papiſts foundation falſe? Whether it do ſo by the Proteſtants? Whether Papiſts have any more Infallibility than others? The neceſſity of diſcerning the Eſſentials of Chriſtianity. The diſtinction of Explicite and Implicite faith conſidered. How come ſo many Princes, Nobles, Learned men, and whole Nations to be Papiſts? All Chriſtians beſides Papiſts, are of one Church, though of many opinions. How come ſo many among us at home of late inclinable to Popery? What hope of Concord with the Papiſts? How to help them off their Councils? Snares in the point of Tranſubſtantiation. Of their denying the Cup to the Laity. p. 152.
Reader,
I Hope the Printers Errata are not many, and I am diſcouraged from gathering them, becauſe I ſee men had rather err themſelves, and calumniate the Author, than take notice of them: So hath Mr. Danvers done by me in a Book againſt Infant Baptiſm, where as an Introduction to abundance of miſtakes in Hiſtory, he abuſeth his Reader by ſeveral ſcraps of a Book of mine, ſo curtail'd as to be inſufficient to ſignifie the ſenſe; And among them feigneth me to write (Chr. Direct. p. 3. pag. 885. l. 13. [to Inſtitute Sacraments] as that which man may do, inſtead of [Nor to Inſtitute Sacraments]; and ſo maketh his credulous flock to believe that I aſſert that very thing which I write againſt: Though the place was markt with a Star in the Errata, and the Reader deſired ſpecially to Correct it. But ſuch dealing is now grown ſo common with ſuch men, that we muſt bear it as the effect of their diſeaſe.