The Successive Visibility of the Church, Part 1 – Title page 3
Addenda Miscellanea.
COncil. Ephes. 1. in Epistola ad Nestor. Tom. 1 fol. 315. ed. Pet. Crab. [Petrus & Iohannes aequalis sunt ad alterutrum dignitatis.]
Comment. in epist Synodal. Basil. p. 31. & p. 40. Impress. Colon. 1613. saith that [The Provinces subject to the four great Patriarchs from the beginning of the Christian Church, did know no other supream but their own Patriarcks— And if the Pope be a Patriarck, it is by the Church; If he be Head of all Churches, it is by the Church. And whereas we have said that it is expressed in the 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 Calced…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 duplicate page duplicate page 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, con…idere se quod ex quinquaginta mill. quos habet in suâ Dioecesi à praesenti disciplina Ecclesiae diversos, quaùraginta millia ad Ecclesiasticam uni…n…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 Cass…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 6to. 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 …ound Christian is a member of yours; it is Hereticks (in the softer sense) that are its matter. Its 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 o…d, the name [Hereticks] was oft applyed unto such.
2. The word [Heretick] in the …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 j…stly cl…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 who…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 cornfield.
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 its 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. Its 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 mill…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 Na…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, whats all this to the Answer of my last Papers, which I have now near a year expected from you? I suspected some such …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.