The Successive Visibility of the Church, Introduction – Letter 10
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 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 m…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 1m 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 ne…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 Go… 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 thats 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 guideth or inspireth him: This is at once to believe a Humane and Divine Veracity. If any of this be your meaning, the last questions remain still to be resolved by you. A man may believe that [God is true,] and that [his Prophets or inspired messengers are true] and yet not understand a word of the message: so that still if this will serve, a man may be of your Church that knoweth not that ever there was such a person as Jesus Christ, or that ever he died for our sins, or rose again, or that we shall rise. And are Infidels of your Church while you are arguing us out? But if there be some truths besides the Veracity of God (and his Messengers) that must be believed, you must shew what it is, or your Church-members cannot be known. Tell me therefore without tergiversation, [what are the revealed truths that must actually be believed] or [what is the faith materially, in unity whereof all members of the Catholike Church do live?] I pray fly not, but plainly tell me.
And if again you fly to uncertain points, because of the diversity of means of information, and say, [It must be so much to every man as he had means to know] I again answer you. 1. If a man had no means to know that there is a Christ, it seems then he is one of your Church. 2. You still damn all your own, there being not a man that knoweth all that he had means to know, because all have culpably neglected means. And so you have no Church. 3. Still you make your Church invisible (if you had any:) For no man can tell, as I said, who knoweth in full proportion to his helps and means. Do you not see now whither your Implicite faith hath brought you?
R. B.
Qu. 3. Is it any lawful Pastors, or All, that must necessarily be depended on by every member? and who are these Pastors?
Mr. J.
Answ. Of all, respectively to each subject; that is, that the authority of none of them, mediate or immediate, be rejected or contemned by him, that is a true member of the Church.
R. B. Reply.
Ad Qu. 3. R. Reply 1. Here still you tell me that your descriptions signified nothing. You told me that the members must [live in dependance on their lawful Pastors.] And now you tell me that [their authority must not be rejected or contemned.] And indeed, is dependance and non-rejection all one? The millions of heathens that never heard of the Pope or any of your Pastors reject them not, nor contemn them: Are they therefore fit matter for your Church? 2. If you say, that you mean it of such only as have a sufficient Revelation of the Authority of these Pastors, I further reply. 1. It seems then it is not only the Pope, but every Priest respectively that is an essential member of your Church; or to whom each member must be subject necessarily ad esse. If so, then every man that by falling out or prejudice, doth culpably reject the authority of any one Pastor or Priest among a swarm, is damned, or none of the Church, though he believe in the Pope and in twenty thousand Priests besides.
2. And then have we not cause to pray God to bless us from the company of your Priests? or at least, that we may not have too many, when among a multitude we may be in danger of rejecting some one, and then we are cast out of the Church! What if a Gentleman should find some such as Watson or Montaltus describe in bed with his wife; or a Prince find a Garnet, a Campion, or a Parsons in a Treason, and by such a temptation should be so weak, as to contemn, or reject the authority of that single Priest, while he honoureth all the rest: Is it certain, that such a man is none of the Catholike Church for that? How hard is it in France and Italy then to be a Catholike, where Priests are so numerous, that its ten to one, but among the crowd the authority of some one may be rejected!
3. But is it all the Priests that we never knew, or knew not to be Priests, that we must depend on, or is it only those whose authority is manifested to us by sufficient evidence? Doubtless you will confine our dependance to these only (or else no man could be a Christian:) And if so, you know we are never the nearer a resolution for your answer, till you yet tell us how we must know our Pastors to have authority indeed. What if they shew me the Bishops orders, and I know that many have had forged Orders? am I bound to believe in his authority? what if I be utterly ignorant whether he that ordained him, were himself ordained? or had intentionem ordinandi? how shall I then be sure of his authority that is ordained? And how can the people be acquainted with the passages in Election and Ordination that are necessary to the knowledge of their authority? especially of the Popes and prelates. And what if you tell me your own opinion, of the sufficient means by which I must be convinced of the Popes and Priests authority? how shall I know that you are not deceived; and that these are the sufficient means indeed, unless a General Council have defined them to be sufficient? And if they have, if it were not as an Article of faith, you'l say I am not bound of necessity to believe their definition. And what if I have sufficient means to know the authority of a thousand Priests, but am culpably ignorant of it in some few through my neglect? Doth it follow that therefore I am out of the Church? Is my obedience to each Priest as necessary, as my belief of every Article of my faith? If so, I know not whether your multiplying Articles, or multiplying Priests, doth fill hell faster, if men must be judged by your laws. But it is our Allegiance to our Soveraign, that is the character of a Subject in the Common-wealth, and not our Allegiance, or duty to every inferiour Magistrate: the rejection of one of them may stand with subjection, though not with innocency: It is not treason to reject a Constable: why then should more be necessary to our Churchmembership and salvation?
But still you make your Church invisible: For as no man can know that liveth in the remote parts of the world, whether your Popes themselves are truly Popes, as being duly qualified and elected, nor which is the true Pope, when you have oft had more then one at once; so you can never know concerning your members, whether their dependance on their Pastors be extensively proportionate to the means that discovered their authority? and whether their disobedience unchurch them or no? I earnestly crave your answer to the thirty uncertainties, which I have mentioned in my Safe Religion, p. 93, to 104. And tell us how all our Pastours may be known. And whether every particular sin unchurch men? and if not, why the contempt or rejection of a drunken Priest doth it, while all the rest are (perhaps too much) honoured?
R. B.
Quest. 4. Why exclude you the chief Pastors, that depend on none?
Mr. J.
Answ. I exclude them not, but include them▪ as those of whom all the rest depend; as St. Hierom does in his definition, Ecclesia est plebs Episcopo unita.
Repl. ad Resp. ad Quest. 4. How unconstant are you among your selves in the use of terms? How frequent is it with you to appropriate the name of [the Church] to the Clergy? But remember hereafter, when you tell us of the Determinations, and Traditions of the Church, that it is the people that you mean, and not only the Pastors in Council; much less the Pope alone.
Mr. J.
Heresie.
Is an intellectual obstinate opposition against divine authority revealing, when it is sufficiently propounded.
R. B.
Of Heresie.
Is the opposition and obstinacy that makes Heresie, in the Intellect or will?
Mr. J.
In the will, by an imperate Act, restraining the understanding to that errour.
R. B. Reply.
Of Heresie.
Qu. 1. Reply 1. Still your descriptions signifie just nothing. You describe Heresie to be An Intellectual obstinate Opposition; and yet say that this is in the will. And yet again you contradict your self by saying that it is an Imperate act. No Imperate act is in the will, though it be from the will. It is voluntary, but not in voluntate. An Imperant act may be in the will, but not Imperate. All Imperate acts are in (or immediately by the commanded faculties.) The Intelligere, which is the Imperate act, is in the Intellect: though the Velle intelligere, which is an Elicite act, be in the will. 2. From hence its plain that you cannot prove me or any man to be an Heretick that is unfeignedly willing to know the truth, and is not obstinately willful in opposing it: which are things that you cannot ordinarily discern and prove by others, that are ready to be sworn that they would fain know the truth.
R. B.
Qu. 2. Must it needs be against the Formal object of Faith? is he no Heretick, that denieth the matter revealed, without opposing obstinately the Authority revealing?
Mr. J.
Answ. Yes. Nor is he a Formal, but only a Material Heretick, who opposes a revealed Truth, which is not sufficiently propounded to him to be a Divine revelation.
R. B. Reply.
Qu. 2. Reply 2. Every man that believeth that there is a God indeed, believeth that he is true: For if he be not True, he is not God. If therefore no man be Formally an Heretick, that doth not obstinately oppose the Veracity of God, which is the formal object, then as there are I hope but few Hereticks in the world, so those few cannot by ordinary means be known to you: unless they will say that they take God to be a lyar, so that you make none Hereticks indeed but Atheists.
What if a man deny that there is a Christ, a Heaven, a Hell, or a Resurrection? and also deny the Revelation it self, by which he should discern these truths? and yet deny not the Veracity of God, (no nor of the Church?) is this no Heretick? I would your party that have murdered so many thousands as Hereticks, had so judged: (if a falshood may be wished, as a thing permitted, to have prevented such a mischief.) It is not Gods Veracity that is commonly denyed by Hereticks, but the thing revealed, and the Revelation of that thing: And your Turnebul against Baronius hath told you, that the Revelation is no part of the Formal object of faith, but as it were the Copula, or a condition sine qua non. If he that obstinately refuseth to believe that the Godhead of Christ, or the Holy Ghost is any where by God revealed, and so denyeth it, be no Heretick, unless he also obstinately deny or resist the Veracity of God; then there are few that you can prove Hereticks. (For forma dat nomen; and he that is not a Heretick Formally, but materially only, is no Heretick at all.)
Lastly, many a truth is sinfully neglected by the members of the Church; that have a proposal sufficient, and yet not effectual through their own fault: and yet they are no Hereticks. Millions in your Church are ignorant of truths sufficiently proposed, and therefore their ignorance is their sin: but it followeth not that it is their Heresie. But if it be, then Hereticks constitute your Church; and then your Church is a thing unknown; because the Hereticks cannot be known, the sufficiency of each mans revelation being much unknown to others.
R. B.
Qu. 3. What mean you by a sufficient proposal?
Mr. J.
Answ. I mean such a proposal as is sufficient in humanis, to oblige one to take notice, that a King, or chief Magistrate, have enacted such, or such Laws, &c. that is, a publick Testimony, that such things are revealed by the infallible authority of those who are the highest Tribunal of Gods Church; or by notorius and universal Tradition.
R. B. Reply.
Qu. 3. Reply … there lieth not so much at the stake as a mans salvation: and man is not so able as God to make a truly sufficient revelation of his will to all: and therefore the proportion holds not. 2. But if it did, either you think the sufficiency varieth according to the variety of advantages, opportunities, and capacities of the persons, or else that it consisteth only in the act of common publication, and so is the same to all the subjects. If the first be your sense (as I suppose it is,) then still you are uncertain who are Hereticks, as being uncertain of mens various capacities, and so of the sufficiency in question. Unless you will conclude (with me) that thus you make all Hereticks, as aforesaid; because all men living are culpably ignorant of some truths, which they had a revelation of that was thus far sufficient. If the second be your sense, then the same unhappy consequence will follow (that all are Hereticks;) and moreover, that some of obscure education are unavoidably Hereticks, because they had no opportunity to know those things, which as to the Majority, are of publick testimony or universal Tradition. Is not the Bible, a publick Testimony and record, and being universally received, is an universal Tradition? And yet abundance of truths in the holy Bible are unknown, (and therefore not actually believed) by millions that are in your Church, and are not taken by your selves for Hereticks. Your befriending ignorance would else make very many Hereticks.
Mr. J.
Pope.
By Pope, I mean St. Peter, or any of his lawful Successors in the See of Rome, having authority by the Institution of Christ, to govern all particular Christian Churches, next under Christ.
R. B.
Of the Pope.
Qu. 1. I am never the nearer knowing the Pope by this, till I know, how Peters Successors may be known to me. What personal qualification is necessary ad esse?
Mr. J.
Answ. Such as is necessary ad esse for other Bishops; which I suppose you know.
R. B. Reply.
Of the Pope.
Qu. 1. Reply. If so, then all those were no Popes that were Hereticks, or denied essential points of faith (as Iohan. 23.) and so were no Christians; and all those that wanted the necessary abilities to the essentials of their work. And so your Church hath oft been headless, and your succession interrupted, Councils having censured many Popes to be thus unqualified: And the dispositio materiae being of it self necessary to the reception of the form, it must needs follow, that such were no Popes, even before the Councils charged them with incapacity or Heresie: because they had it, before they were accused of it. And Simony then made many uncapable.
R. B.
Qu. 2. When and how must the institution of Christ be found?
Mr. J.
Answ. In the revealed Word of God, written or unwritten.
R. B. Reply.
Qu. 2. Reply 1. You never gave the world assurance, how they may truly know the measure of your unwritten Word, nor where to find it, so as to know what it is. 2. Till you prove Christs Institution (which you have never done,) you free us from believing in the Pope.
R. B.
Qu. 3. Will any ones election prove one to be Pope? or who must elect him ad esse?
Mr. J.
Answ. Such as by approved custome, are esteemed, by those to whom it belongs, fit for that charge; and with whose election the Church is satisfied.
R. B. Reply.
Qu. 3. Reply. Here you are fain to hide your self instead of answering; and shew indeed that a Pope (thats made an essential part of the Church; subjection to whom is made of necessity to salvation) is indeed but a meer name, or a thing unknown; and so can be certainly believed or acknowledged by none. For either Election of him (by some body) is necessary, or not. If not, then you or another man unchosen may be Pope, for ought I know, or any man else. If yea; then it is either any bodies Election of him that will serve turn, or not. If it will, then you may be Pope, if your Scholars choose you, and then you have had three true Popes at once; for so many were Elected. But if it will not, then it must be known who hath the Power of Election, before it can be known who is indeed the Pope: But you are forced here by your answer to intimate to us, that the Power of Election cannot be known: and therefore the Pope cannot be known. For, 1. Here are no determinate Electors mentioned; and therefore it seems none known to you: And no wonder: for if you confine it to the people, or to the Cardinals, or to the Emperours, or to Councils, you cut off all your Popes that were chosen by the other waies. 2. Nor do you determine of any particular discernable note, by which the Electors, and power of election may be known to the Church: But all these patches make up your description. 1. It must be those that are esteemed fit for the charge. 2. And that by those to whom it belongs. 3. And that by custome. 4. And that approved. 5. And the Church must be satisfied with the election. O miserable body then that hath been so oft headless, as Rome hath been! 1. Will esteeming them fit, serve turn though they be unfit? then it is not the fitness that is necessary, but the estimation, (true or false.) 2. But why did you not tell us to whom it is that it belongs to esteem the Choosers fit? Here you were at a streight. But is not this to say nothing while you pretend to speak? and to hide what you pretend to open? 3. And who knows what custome, and of what continuance you mean? Primitive custom went one way; and afterward custom went another way; and later custom hath varied from both; and hath the power of Election changed so oft? 4. And who is it that must approve this custom? and what approbation must there be? All these are meer hiding, and not resolving of the doubt, and tell us that a Pope is a thing invisible or unknown. 5. And your last assureth us, that your succession was interrupted through many usurpations, yea indeed that you never had a Pope. For the Church was unsatisfied with the election of abundance of your Popes, when Whores, and Simony, and Murder, and power set them up: And most of the Church through the world is unsatisfied with them still to this day. And you have no way to know whether the greater part of the Church is satisfied or not; for non-resistance is no sign of satisfaction, where men have not opportunity or power to resist. And when one part of Europe was for one Pope, and another for another through so many Schisms, who knows which had the approbation of that which may be called the Church?
R. B.
Qu. 4. Is Consecration necessary? and by whom ad esse?
Mr. J.
Answ. It is not absolutely necessary ad esse.
R. B. Reply.
Qu. 4. Reply. If consecration be not necessary to the Papacy, then it is not necessary that this or that man consecrate him more then another. And then it is not necessary to a Bishop. And then the want of it makes no interruption in succession, in any Church, any more then in yours.
R. B.
Qu. 5. What …, or proof is necessary to your Subjects?
Mr. J.
Answ. So much as is necessary to oblige them, to accept of other Elected Princes to be their Soveraigns.
R. B. Reply.
Qu. 5. Reply. When you have answered to the forementioned thirty doubts, we shall know what that general signifieth.
Mr. J.
Bishops.
I mean by Bishop, such a Christian Pastor as hath power, and jurisdiction, to govern the inferior Pastors, Clergy, and people within his Diocesse, and to confer holy orders to such as are subject to him.
R. B.
Of Bishops.
Qu. 1. Do you mean, that he must have this jure divino, or humano? and if jure divino, whether mediately or immediately?
Mr. J.
Answ. The definition abstracts from particulars, and subsists without determining that question.
R. B. Reply.
Of Bishops.
Qu. 1. Repl. 1. You before seem to yeild that the Papacy is but jure humano; (and therefore sure of no necessity to salvation:) For if man can change the power of election, and the foundation be humane, its like the relation is but humane. And therefore if Bishops must be jure divino, they are more excellent and necessary then the Pope. 2. How gross a subterfuge is this? either the Bishop in question is a divine creature or a humane: If a divine; as you may manifest it, or express it at least, so you ought; it being no indifferent thing to turn a divine office and Church into an humane: If he be not Divine, he is not of necessity to a divine Church, nor to salvation. And yet thus your R. Smith Bishop of Calcedon (ubi supra) confesseth it to be no point of your faith, that the Pope is St. Peters successor jure divino. And if you leave it indifferent to be believed, or not, that both your Pope and Bishops are jure divino, you confess you are but a humane policy or society, and therefore that no man need to fear the loss of his salvation by renouncing you.
R. B.
Qu. 2. How shall we know who hath this power? what Election, or Consecration is necessary thereto? If I know not, who hath it, I am never the better.
Mr. J.
Answ. As you know, who hath Temporal Power, by an universal, or most common consent of the people: The Election is different according to different times, places, and other circumstances. Episcopal Consecration is not absolutely necessary.
R. B. Reply.
Qu. 2. Repl. 1. How now! Are all the mysteries of your succession and mission resolved into Popular Consent? Is no one way of Election necessary? Do you leave that to be varied as a thing indifferent? And is Episcopal Consecration also unnecessary? I pray you here again remember then, that none of our Churches are disabled from the plea of a continued succession, for want of Episcopal Consecration, or any way of Election▪ If our Pastors have had the peoples consent, they have been true Pastors, according to this reckoning: And if they have now their consent, they are true Pastors. But we have more.
2. By this rule we cannot know of one Bishop of an hundred whether he be a Bishop or no; for we cannot know that he hath the Common consent of the people: yea we know that abundance of your Bishops have no such consent: yea we know that your Pope hath none of the Consent of most of the Christians in the world; nor (for ought you or any man knows) of most in Europe. Its few of your own party that know who is Pope, (much less are called to Consent,) till after he is settled in possession.
3. According to this rule, your successions have been frequently interrupted, when against the will of general Councils, and of the far greatest part of Christians, your Popes have kept the seat by force.
4. In temporals your rule is not universally true. What if the people be engaged to one Prince, and afterward break their vow, and consent to a Usurper? Though in this ease a particular person may be obliged to submission and obedience in judicial administrations; yet the usurper cannot thereby defend his Right, and justifie his possession, nor the people justifie their adhesion to him, while they lye under an obligation to disclaim him, because of their preengagement to another. Though some part of the truth be found in your assertion.
R. B.
Qu. 3. Will any Diocess serve ad esse? what if it be but in particular Assemblies?
Mr. J.
Answ. It must be more then a Parish, or then one single Congregation, which hath not different inferiour Pastors, and one, who is their superior.
R. B. Reply.
Qu. 3. Repl. This is but your naked affirmation. I have proved the contrary from Scriptures, Fathers, and Councils in my disputation of Episcopacy, viz. that a Bishop may be (and of old ordinarily was) over the Presbyters only of one Parish, or single Congregation, or a people no more numerous then our Parishes. You must shew us some Scripture, or general Council for the contrary before we can be sure you here speak truth. Was Gregory Thaumaturgus no Bishop, because when he came first to Neocaesarea, he had but seventeen souls in his charge? The like I may say of many more.
Mr. J.
Tradition.
I understand by Tradition the visible delivery from hand to hand in all ages, of the revealed Word of God, either written, or unwritten.
R. B.
Of Tradition.
Qu. 1. But all the doubt is, by whom this Tradition that's valid, must be By your Pastors, or people, or both? By Pope, or Councils, or Bishops disjunct? By the Major part of the Church, or Bishops (or Presbyters) or the Minor? and by how many?
Mr. J.
Answ. By such and so many proportionably▪ as suffice in a Kingdom to certifie the people, which are the Ancient universally received customs in that Kingdom, which is to be morally considered.
R. B. Reply.
Of Tradition.
Qu. 1. Repl. I consent to this general. But then, 1. How certainly is Tradition against you, when most of the Christian world, yea all except an interessed party, do deny your Soveraignty, and plead Tradition against it? And how lame is your Tradition, when its carried on your private affirmations, and is nothing but the unproved sayings of a Sect!
R. B.
Qu. 2. What proof, or notice of it, must satisfie me in particular, that it so past?
Mr. J.
Answ. Such, as with proportion is a sufficient proof, or notice, of the Laws and customs of temporal Kingdoms.
R. B. Reply.
Qu. 2. Repl. But is it necessary for every Christian, to be able to weigh the credit of contradicting parties, when one half of the world faith one thing, and the other another thing? what opportunity have ordinary Christians to compare them, and discern the moral advantages on each side? As in the case of the Popes Soveraignty, when two or three parts of the Christian world is against it, and the rest for it, can private Christians try which party is the more credible? Or is it necessary to their salvation? If so, they are cast upon unavoidable despair. If not, must they all take the words of their present Teachers? Then most of the world must believe against you, because most of the Teachers are against you: And then it seems mens faith is resolved into the authority of the Parish-Priest or their Confessors. The Laws of a Kingdom may be easier known, then Christian doctrines can be known, (especially such as are controverted among us) by meer unwritten Tradition. Kingdoms are of narrower compass then the world: And, though the sense of Laws is oft in question, yet the being of them is seldom matter of controversie; because men conversing constantly and familiarly with each other, may plainly and fully reveal their minds; when God that condescendeth not to such a familiarity, hath delivered his mind by inspired persons long ago, with much less sensible advantages, because it is a life of faith that he directeth us to live.
Mr. J.
General Council.
A general Council, I take to be, an assembly of Bishops and other chief Prelates, called, convened, and confirmed, by those who have sufficient Spiritual authority to call, convene, and confirme.
R. B.
Of a General Council.
Qu. 1. Who is it (ad esse) that must call, convene, confirm it? till I know that, I am never the nearer knowing, what a Council is; and which is one indeed.
Mr. J.
Answ. Definitions abstract from inferior subdivisions. For your satisfaction I affirm, it belongs to the Bishop of Rome.
R. B. Reply.
Qu. 1. Repl. 1. If it be necessary to the being or validity of a Council that it be called or confirmed by the Pope, then your definition signifieth nothing, if you abstract from that which is so necessary an ingredient, unless it were presupposed to be understood. 2. If it belong to the Bishop of Rome to call a Council as necessary to its being, 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.