The Successive Visibility of the Church, Letter 2 – Letter 3
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 whole] I grant it. 2. You say [all Christians agree] in it, &c. Resp. I think all Protestants, or near all, do: but Franciscus à sancta Clara hath copiously told us (in Artic. Anglic.) that most of your own Doctors are for the salvation of Infidels; and then either you take Infidels for your Church members, or your Doctors for no Christians, or you play not fair play to tell us so gross an untruth, that all Christians are agreed in it.
To your conclusion. Resp. 1. Either you mean that [there is no Salvation to be had out of that Universal Church, whose part (a minor corrupt part) acknowledgeth the Popes Soveraignty] or else [that there is no Salvation to be had out of that Universal Church which wholly acknowledgeth it] or else [that there is no Salvation to be had out of that part of the Universal Church which acknowledgeth it.] In the first sense I grant your conclusion (if really you are part of the Church.) There is no Salvation to be had out of Christs Universal Church, of which you are small corrupted part. In the second sense I told you we deny the supposition in the subject. In the third sense I deny the sequel; non sequitur, because your Major Proposition being false de Ecclesia universali, the conclusion must be false de parte ista, as excluding the rest.
But to the unskilful or unwary reader your conclusion seemeth to import, that [the being in such a Church which acknowledgeth the Popes Soveraignty, as it is such a Church, is necessary to Salvation] and so [that the persons acknowledgement is necessary.] But it is a fallacia accidentis cunningly lapt up, that is the life of your imported cause. That part of the Universal Church doth hold to the Popes Soveraignty, is per accidens; and could you prove that the whole Church doth so (which you are unlike to do) I would say the like. And that your fallacy may the better appear; I give you some examples of such like sophisms.
[Whatsoever Nation is the true Kingdom of Spain is proud and cruel against Protestants: But there is no protection there due to any that are not of that Kingdom: therefore there is no protection due to any that are not proud and cruel.] Or [whatsoever Nation is the true Kingdom of France acknowledgeth the Pope: but no protection is due from the Governours to any that are not of that Kingdom: therefore no protection is due to any that acknowledge not the Pope.] Or [what ever Nation is the Kingdom of Ireland in the daies of Queen Elizabeth, was for the Earl of Tyrone: but there was no right of Inheritance for any that were not of that Nation: therefore there was no right of Inheritance for any that was not for the Earl of Tyrone.] Or suppose that you could have proved it of all the Church. If you had lived four hundred years after Christ, you might as well have argued thus. [Whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ, is against kneeling in Adoration on the Lords daies. But there is no Salvation to be had out of that Congregation of Christians, which is now the true Church of Christ: therefore there is no Salvation to be had out of that Congregation which is against kneeling on the Lords day. &c.] But yet, 1. There was Salvation to be had in that Congregation without being of that opinion. 2. And there is now Salvation to be had in a Congregation that is not of that opinion, as you will confess.
Or [whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ, doth hold the Canticles and the Epistle to Philemon to be Canonical Scripture, (and so have done, &c.) But there is no Salvation to be had out of the true Church: therefore there is no Salvation to be had out of that Congregation which holdeth the Canticles and Epistle to Philemon to be Canonical Scripture.] But yet, 1. Salvation is to be had in that Church without holding it. 2. and its possible hereafter a Church may deny those two books, and yet you will think Salvation not thereby overthrown. This is but to shew your fallacy from a corrupt accident, and indeed but of a part of the Church, and a small part.
Now to your proof of the Major. Resp. ad Major. The present matter of the Church was not visible in the last Generation, for we were not then born: but the same form of the Church was then existent in a visible Matter, and their Profession was visible or audible, though their faith it self was invisible. I will do more then you shall do, in maintaining the constant visibility of the Chruch.
Ad minorem. 1. If you mean that no Congregation hath been alwaies visible [but that Universal Church whose lesser corrupt part acknowledges] the Popes Soveraignty, I grant it. For besides [the whole containing all Christians as the parts] there can be no other. If you mean [save that part which acknowledgeth] you contradict your self, because a part implyeth other parts. If you mean [save that Universal Church, all whose members (or the most) acknowledge it], there is no such subject existent. 2. I distinguish of Visibility: Its 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. Its 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, are members of the Universal Church, (though they never heard of a Pope at Rome) before they are United to Pastors of their own.
The Proof of the Minor from Eph. 4. I grant as aforesaid: The text proveth that Pastors the Church shall have: I disclaim the vain objection [of Conditionality in the promise] which you mention. But it proves not, 1. That the Church shall have an Universal Monarch or Vice-Christ, under Christ. 2. Nor that every member of the Universal Church, shall certainly be a member of a particular Church, or ever see the face of a Pastor, or be subject to him.
You say next [There remains only to prove the Minor of the second Syllogism, viz. that no Congregation of Christians hath been alwaies visible but that which acknowledges, &c.] This is the great point which all lyeth on: The rest hath been all nothing, but a cunning shooing horn to this. Prove this, and prove all: Prove not this, and you have lost your time.
You say [The Minor I prove, by obliging the answerers to nominate any Congregation of Christians which alwaies till this present time since Christ hath been visible — save that only which acknowledges &c.] And have I waited all this while for this? You prove it by obliging me to prove the contrary. Ridiculous! sed quo jure? 1. Your undertaken form of arguing obligeth you to prove your Minor: You cannot cast your Respondent upon proving and so arguing, and doing the Opponents part. 2. And in your Postscript you presently forbid it me; You require me to hold to a Concedo, Nego, Distingno, Omitto, Transeat; threatning that else you will take it for an Effugium. And I pray you tell me in your next, to which of these doth the nomination or proof of such a Church as you describe belong? Plainly, you first slip away when you should prove your Minor, and then oblige me to prove the Contrary, and then tell me, if I attempt it, you'l take it for an Effugium. A good cause needs not such dealing as this: which me thinks you should be loth a learned man should hear of. 3. Your interest also in the Matter (as well as your office as Opponent) doth oblige you to the proof. For though you make a Negative of it, you may put it in other terms at your pleasure. It is your main work to prove [that All the members of the Universal Church have in all ages held the Popes Soveraignty or Universal Head-ship.] Or [the whole Visible Church hath held it] Prove this, and I will be a Papist; you have my promise. You affirm, and you must prove. Prove a Catholike Church, at least that in the Major part was of that mind: (though that would be nothing to prove the condemnation of the rest.) If you are an impartial enquirer after truth, fly not when you come to the setting too. I give you this further evident reason why you cannot oblige me to what you here impose; 1. Because you require me to prove the Visibility of a Church which held not your point of Papacy; and so put an unreasonable task upon me, about a Negative: or else, I must prove that they held the contrary, before your opinion was started: And it is the Catholike Church that we are disputing about; so that I must prove this Negative of the Catholike Church. 2. It is you that lay the great stress of Necessity on your Affirmative, more then we do on the Negative; you say that no man can be saved without your Affirmative [that the Pope is the universal Head and Governor] But we say not that no man can be saved that holdeth not our Negative, [that he is not the Vice-Christ] For one that hath the plague or leprosie may live. Therefore it is you that must prove that all the Catholike Church was still of your mind. 3. And it is an Accident, and but an Accident of a small…r corrupted part of the Catholike Church that you would oblige me to prove the Negation of; and therefore it is utterly needless to my proof of a Visible Catholike Church. For I will without it prove to you a successive Visibility of the Catholike Church, from the Visibility of its Essential or Constitutive parts (of which your Pope is none.) I will prove a successive visible Church that hath still professed faith in God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and been united to the Universal Head, and had particular Pastors, some fixed, some unfixed, and held all essential to a Christian. And proving this, I have proved the Church of which I am a member. To prove that England hath been so long a Kingdom, requireth no more but to prove the two Essential parts, King and Subjects, to have so long continued united. It requireth not that I prove that if ever either h…d, or opposed a Vice-King. This is our plain case. If a man have a botch on one of his hands; it is not needful in order to my proving him a man heretofore, that I prove he was born and bred without it: so be it I prove that he was born a man, it sufficeth. Nor is it needfull that I prove the other hand alwaies to have been free, in order to prove it a member of the body: It sufficeth that I prove it to have been still a hand.
I do therefore desire you to perform your work, and prove that [no Congregation hath been still visible, but such as yours] or that [the whole Catholike Church hath ever since the ascention held a Humane Universal Governour under Christ,] or else I shall take it as a giving up your cause as indefensible. And observe, if you shall prove only that a part of the Catholike Church still held this (which you can never do) then, 1. You will make the Contrary opinion as Consistent with salvation as yours. For the rest of the Catholike Church is savable. 2. And then you will allow me to turn your Argument against your self as much as it is against us (and so cast it away.) e. g. [what ever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ, hath been alwaies Visible: But no Congregation of Christians hath been alwaies Visible, but that which quoad partem denyeth the Popes universal Headship; therefore whatever Congregation of Christians is the true Church, denyeth the Popes universal Headship.
Well! but for all this (supposing you will do your part) I will fail you in nothing that's reasonable, which I can perform. A Catholike Church in all ages that was against the Pope, in every member of it, I hope I cannot shew you; because I hope that you are members, though corrupt. But you shall have more then a particular Congregation, or a hundred.
1. At this present, two or three parts of the Catholike Church is known to be against your Universal Monarchy. The Greeks, Armenians, Ethiopians, &c. besides the Protestants. 2. In the last age there were as many or more. 3. In the former ages till An. D. 1000. there were neer as many, or rather many more. For more be saln off the Tenduè, Nubia, and other parts then the Protestants that came in. 4. About the year 600. there were many more, incomparably; and I think then, but at least of 400. years after Christ I never yet saw valid proof of one Papist in all the world, that is, one that was for the Popes Universal Monarchy or Vice-Christ-ship. So that most of the Catholike Church (about three parts to one) hath been against you to this day; and all against you for many hundred years. Could I name but a Nation against you, I should think I had done nothing; much less if I cited a few men in an age. 5. And all those of Ethiopia, India, &c. that are without the verge and awe of the Ancient Roman Empire, never so much as gave the Pope that Primacy of dignity, which those within the Empire gave him, when he was chief, as the Earl of Arundel is of the Earls of England that governeth none of them, and as the Lord Chancellor may be the chief judge, that hath no power in alieno foro: or as the Eldest Justice is chief in the County and on the b…nch, that ruleth not the rest. Mistake not this Primacy for Monarchy, nor the Romane Empire for the world, and you can say nothing.
At present, ad hominem, I give you sufficient proof of this succession. As you use to say that the present Church best knew the Judgement of the former age, and so on to the he…d, and so Tradition beareth you out: I turn this unresistibly against you. The far greatest part of Christians in the world that now are in possession of the doctrine contrary to your Monarchy, tell us that they had it from their Fathers, and so on. And as in Councils, so with the Church Real, the Major part (three to one) is more to be credited then the Minor part; especially when it is a visible self-advancement that the Minor part insisteth on. 6. And were not this enough, I might add, that your western Church it self in its Representative Body at Constance and Basil, hath determined that not the Pope but a General Council is the chief Governor under Christ; and that this ha…h been still the judgement of the Church, and that its Heresie in whoever that hold the Contrary. 7. And no man can prove that one half or tenth part of your people ca…ed Papists are of your opinion: For they are not called to profess it by words: and their obedience is partly forced, and partly upon other principles; some obeying the Pope as their western Patriarch of chief dignity; and some and most doing all for their own peace and safety: Their outward acts will prove no more.
And now Sir, I have told you what Church of which we are members, hath been visible; yea and what part of it hath opposed the Vice-Christ of Rome. This I delayed not an hour after I received yours, because you desired speed. Accordingly I crave your speedy return; and intreat you to advise with the most learned men (whether Jesuites or others) of your party in London that think it worth their thoughts and time: not that I have any thoughts of being their Equal in learning, but partly because the case seemeth to me so exceeding palpable, that I think it will suffice me to supply all my defects against the ablest men on earth, or all of them together, of your way; and principally because I would see your strength, and know the most that can be said, that I may be rectified if Jerr (which I suspect not) or confirmed the more if you cannot evince it, and so may be true to Gods Truth and my own soul.
Rich. Baxter.