An Historical Prologue, as a Key to understand our English Differences.
§ I. IT is a dreadful Instance of the sottish deceivableness of Mankind, that one of the most happy Kingdoms on Earth, should be almost consumed by their own hands, in Divisions infamous through the World, and that to this very day the Cause and Matter of them, is not known (except by the contrivers, among our selves) by such who madly continue the Divisions. Nor is it known who is in the fault, but they strive on, accusing one another. And it's one of the saddest notices in this World, that studious Learned Pastors that are grown old in Studies, and profess all to be devoted to Truth and Love, are so far from having skill and will to heal us, that they are the men that cause the wound, and keep [...]t open, and are greater hinderers of our Concord and Peace, than Princes, Lords, or any Seculars: And what one judgeth the certain Cause of the Worlds Divisions, another as confidently judgeth the only way to heal them: And both sides confess while they lay it on each other, that it is the Clergy that are the deadliest Enemies of Peace.
§ II. It is not the noise of Drums and Trumpets, which tells an Army the causes of the War: The Masters of the War can chuse their own Trumpeters, and talk loudest of that which they would have divert men from the true cause. Episcopacy, [Page 2] and Liturgy, and Ceremonies, and Conformity, are the things that make the greatest noise. But Jewel, Bilson, Hooker, &c. differed not about these, nor Sir Edwin Sandys, the Author of Europae Speculum: Nor the English Clergy and Parliaments in Bishop Abbots days, who were of their mind, when the Differences began to rise and threaten us.
§ III. It's certain that the fundamental, universal Quarrel through the World, is between the followers of Cain and Abel, the Serpents and the Womans Seed, or the Servants of Satan and of Christ: For the carnal mind is enmity to God, and neither is nor can be subject to his Law. Selfishness is the sum of wickedness; and Holiness of Moral good. Uniting in one God is possible and safe: But to the selfish there are as many Religions and Ways, as sandy self-interest requireth. Good men will do good, and bad men will do evil, under every Form of Government: Because Great-Good men are so rare, to keep Bad men from doing hurt, is not the smallest use of Laws. Good men of different Opinions can live in Love and Peace. I never knew any called Puritanes, who did not love and honour such Conformists, as Bishop Jewel, A. Bishop Grindal, A. Bishop Abbot, A. Bishop Vsher, Bishop Davenant, and many such; and such as Mr. Bolton, Dr. Sibbs, Dr. Preston, Mr. Whateley, and all such other; yea while they wrote against some of them (as Bishop Morton, Hall, Downame, &c.) But what are the particular Quarrels?
§ IV. Departing from the only Center and Test of Universal Concord, and devising an Vniversal Humane Soveraignty, hath set the World into [Page 3] mortal Discord, on pretence of being the only way to Concord. Christ only is the Head, the King, and Law-giver, and Judge of the whole World: The Law of Nature, and sacred inspired Apostolical Scriptures, are his only Universal Law. Pastors by the Word, and Princes by the Sword (conjoyned where it may be) rule under him only in their several Provinces. God made the largeness of the Roman Empire a Receptive Means of the happy propagation of Christianity. Mans nature is prone to selfishness and ambition: By degrees those humours, and the Wisdom of the World, conformed the Episcopal Government to the Civil, and made those Bishops highest, who dwelt in the Cities where the Secular Rulers were highest. The Churches had before used to serve God in Concord, and to Assemble for Consultation when Concord required it. The Emperors therefore exalted the great Bishops, not to Govern alone, but to preside in these Assemblies. The first General Council had been called as a rational means to cure the shameful threatning Discords of the Churches, without the formality of any President, save the Emperor and a temporary Moderator: But three Patriarchs were soon set up, and after made five, and other Bishops in different degrees of grandeur: The great and shaking dangers bred by Religious Factions, were ordered to be decided by Assemblies of Bishops, when changes were made in the Cities of the Empire, the Rule of conforming the Church to the Civil Government bred a competition between Rome and Constantinople, because of the translating of the Imperial Seat. They grew higher and higher; and whenever any Emperor [Page 4] of Constantinople fell out with his own Patriarch, he either put him out, or favoured the preheminence of the Bishop of Rome to curb him: But usually his own Bishop being at his command, he favoured his Interest against the Roman: And it being the Law of their Councils called General, that the five Patriarchs must be there, by themselves, or their Delegates, and the Emperors calling the Councils (upon great occasions) they called them in some Eastern City for the most part, and the main Body of the Councils were the Greek Bishops, very few of the Western being there, nor the Pope himself, nor at C. P. Conc. 1. so much as any Legate.
When the Patriarch of Alexandria, who was the third, fell out with him of Constantinople, he would extol the Roman Preheminence to strengthen himself: And when the East had Arian persecuting Emperors and Bishops, the Orthodox would fly for countenance to the Orthodox Emperor and Bishop in the West: But usually the other four Patriarchs in Councils concurred, and the Roman Clergy were a small part of their Councils.
But these Councils dolefully disagreeing, became a Church Militant, and on pretence of agreeing, the Churches tore them all to pieces, and all upon two occasions: 1. WHO SHOULD BE GREATEST, or please the greatest for worldly Interest? 2. WHO SHOULD PASS FOR ORTHODOX, when after the Arian and Macedonian Heresies, much of the strife was about ambiguous words: Till at last the Division of the Churches, the Degeneracy of the Clergy, the Badness of Emperors, and the Rebellion of Generals, [Page 5] and Mutinies of Souldiers, delivered up the Empire to the Infidels. And the Bishop of Rome became the Chief Rebel, and set up the French in the Western Empire, against his Lawful Prince, and furthered the Division of the Empire to its Ruine. But this Division occasioned an Universal Claim.
§ V. In all the old Contests it never came into the mind of the Emperors or the Councils, to set up a Government over all the World, but only in the Empire: They never Summoned the Bishops of all the World but only of the Empire (and not most of them.) As I have oft said, The Subscriptions yet tell us that it was the Bishops of the Roman Provinces. But the Empire being large, they used sometime the swelling phrase of totius Orbis, meaning Orbis Romani: And the Greek Patriarchs never dreamed of a Jus Divinum, or Establishment by Christ, or his Apostles, much less of an Universal Power: For they all knew that Constantinople had no such pretence, being a new Erected Seat; And they were not so impudent as to profess to set a Humane Law against a Divine: And the Roman Bishop long went no higher, nor ever used that Argument against Constantinople [My Power is of God and yours but of Men] which had been most obvious and unresistible, and therefore would have been used, had it been true and then believed.
But at last, from the Name of Saint Peter's Successor, the Pope began a double new Claim. 1. TO A DIVINE RIGHT. 2. TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ALL THE WORLD (of Christians at least.) And the breaking of the Empire necessitated him to this pretence which [Page 6] his ambition had obscurely before begun. For else, 1. His old power had died, when he was no Member of the Empire, and so from under the ancient Government and Laws: And all must have been built on a new uncertain Foundation. 2. And when all the old Eastern Empire was gone, his Power and Primacy would have been confined to a narrow compass. VVherefore he served his present interest; 1. By setting up the French Empire, and 2. By pretending to a right of Universal Soveraignty over the VVorld as the Successor of St. Peter.
For a General hath no strength without his Army, who must have their Part in the Fight, the Victory, and the Prey: Popes always ruled but in and by these Councils: These therefore must, as Church Parliaments have their Power in the Universal Soveraignty, and the Pope as Universal Monarch must Rule not absolutely; but in and by these Law-makers and their Laws.
How this Land was brought to Popery by degrees, and how much the most Religious Men did towards it, I must not tell Historically lest I be too long. He that readeth but Beda, and Malmesbury, and Huntington, and Hoveden, and Matthew Paris, may see how the Roman Grandeur drew on the change, and how good people took the advancement of the Bishops in Wealth and Power, and the Number and Endowments of Monasteries to be the chief strength of the Christian Church, while Princes were hardly restrained from Rapacity, Sacriledge, and from the Crimes that commonly breed in worldly Power, Wealth and Pleasure. The wickedness of some Princes made the Power of the Prelates seem necessary [Page 7] to bridle them: And then better Princes took it for their Chief Piety to advance them, who were all taken for sacred Persons, Men of God: And after the Saxons overthrow of the Brittains, the Countrey being Heathens, and long in Converting, it must needs be that ignorance must be predominant for a long time: And the Cure of it was greatly hindered by the continual Wars of the Saxon Kings among themselves, and after by the Danish Wars and Conquest.
And under the Normans the Bishops were grown so strong by their dependance on the Pope, who was then grown to the heighth of his Usurpation, as that they were almost in continual Contests with their Kings. The Ignorance of the English Clergy was so great that the Kings were put to fetch their chief Bishops from other Lands, where they had got more learning than was found at home, and so had been trained up in the heighth of Popery: And even those that were the most Famous for Learning and such Piety as then prevailed, were yet most Zealously addicted to the Pope, and learnt of Rome to strive for Grandeur.
Wilfrid of York who is magnified by Malmesbury and others after Beda, was so zealous to be the sole Bishop in that large Northern Countrey, when the King and the A. Bishop of Canterbury said there was work enough for four, and decreed a division, that in resistance of the King and the A. Bishop he appealed to the Pope, and went divers times himself to Rome, and once at Seventy years of age, rather than have his vast Bishoprick divided.
[Page 8]And when by his better skill in Computation he prevailed against the Holy Scots for the Roman time of Easter, the Merit of that, and that he was the first that brought in singing by Antiphons, and the Benedictine Monkery were good works which he pleaded against diminishing his Bishoprick: W. Malmesbury, p. 151.
The most Learned were placed at Canterbury, Viz, Odo, Dunstane, specially Lanfranke, Anselme, &c. whose Miracles by the Monks are magnified beyond belief, which tended much to advance their Interest. But what the generality of the Bishops were long, judge by these words of Malmesbury de gest. Pont. li. 1. p. 116. [speaking how Stigandus got both the Bishopricks of Winchester and Canterbury, and how Sacrilegious and Wicked a Life he lived, selling Bishopricks and Abbies, of unbounded Ambition and Covetousness, adds, [ Sed ego conjicio illum non judicio sed errore peccare, quod homo illiteratus (sicuti pleri (que) & pene omnes tunc temporis Angliae Episcopi) nesciret quantum deliquerit, rem Ecclesiasticorum negotiorum sicut publicorum actitari existimans,] that is, [ But I conjecture that he sinned not knowingly but by error; That being an Illiterate Man, (as most and almost all the Bishops of England then were) he knew not how much he transgressed; thinking that Church matters were to be managed like Publick matters.] (that is secular.) And this was in good K. Edward's Reign, and at the Conquest. And is it any wonder if such Bishops brought in Popery. And though the Conqueror strove not till he was setled, he and his Son after him were fain to be resolute in defending themselves against their own Prelates and the Pope: And though Hen. 1. wisely ordered them, [Page 9] the Bishops that had Sworn to be true to the Empress his Daughter, broke their Oath, and after swore to K. Stephen against her, and brake that Oath, and sware to her again, and brake that Oath, and again turned to Stephen, and his own Brother the Bishop of Winchester led the way: And no wonder when they were great enough to Build suddenly the many great Castles, ( Sherburne, Salisbury, Devises, Malmesbury, &c. which he surprized.) And when Hen. 2. succeeded Stephen after long bloody VVars, with the greatest advantage of a Powerful Government, yet was he not able to master his own Bishops strengthened by the Pope. VVho feared not openly to tell him as Thomas of Canterbury did, [ Certum esse Reges potestatem suam ab Ecclesia accipere, & non ipsam ab illis sed à Christo, &c. Hoveden, Hen. 2. p. 285.]
§ VI. But the General and his Army, the Universal Church-Monarch and his Church-Parliament could not well agree. Many hundred years the Roman Church-Monarch having the Preferments in his power, got Councillors to his mind, who were as ready to be militant against Princes, and Peace, as he to command it: Till at last the Monarch by a packt bribed Clergy having got possession of a Power like to absolute, disgraced it with a succession of such Monsters of wickedness, as the most flattering of their Historians declare to be unworthy to be named in the Catalogue. And they had so often two Popes at once, filling the World with blood, while by the Sword they tryed their Cause, and at last three Popes (and saith Wernerus in Fasc. Temp. once six at once that were then, and had been Popes) some Kingdoms being [Page 10] for one, and some for another, that the Christian World could no longer bear the mischievous effect, France having one Pope, and Italy and Germany another, expose the Nations to blood, and the Christian Religion to decay and scorn: Till necessity forced the Emperor of Germany and other Princes, first by the Council of Constance, and after by that at Basil, to overtop, depose and correct the Popes.
§ VII. But when the Councils were ended, though a Decennial Council was decreed, and all means used to prevent relapse, the chief Executive Power in the intervals being in the Monarch (the Pope) and it being the Pope, and not the Councils that gave Preferments, all the Councils Decrees against Absoluteness, and for Decennial Councils proved but empty words. The worldly Bishops clave to the Pope. Eugenius 4. condemned and Deposed as an Heretick, Simoniack, &c. continued in despight of his deposers, and their succession is from him to this day. The Greeks by necessity were forced a while to countenance a debauched Council at Florence, to undo what the other Councils had done, (who are there pronounced Rebellious Church-Parliaments, who would have changed the Universal Monarchy;) But being cheated, they went home, and had so sad entertainment by the Greek Church, as made them repent, and wish they had hearkened to their Marcus Ephesus.
§ VIII. Things returning to the old channel of Tyranny and Corruption, and their Clergy not reforming, Reformers got a double advantage, 1. By the sense of the need of Reformation, which the two Church Parliaments, Constance and Basil (after [Page 11] Pisa) had left upon the Peoples minds, with the general murmur at their frustration. 2. The horrid Corruption of the Clergy by gross Ignorance, palpable Errours, Pride, Covetousness, and almost all iniquity, which made even nature loath them: Whereupon the old Bohemian complaints were reassumed, and Tecelius's Indulgences provoking Luther, he awakened the University of Wittenburg, and they the Princes and Learned men of Germany.
§ IX. At their first awakening, they coming newly out of darkness, were sensible of little but the gross sort of corruptions, which men of common sense and morality might perceive: And few had studied the case of a Pretended Universal Jurisdiction, being bred up in the Reverence of that Church Unity for which it was pretended: But one Truth let in another till the case became very commonly understood.
Accordingly men fell into three Parties. 1. The worldly Clergy was against Church-Parliaments, unless such as would obey the Pope, and against Reformation, saying, The Pope was fittest to do what was to be done, for Councils and Popular Humours would never know where to stop, but would break down all the Churches strength and glory. 2. Luther's Party (after their riper thoughts) were for such a Reformation as consisted in a nullifying of the Papal Church and Separation from it, as no True Church, but the Seat of Antichrist. 3. A moderate sort of Papists were for reforming of many things in the Roman Church, but not for nullifying it. They were for reconciling the two Parties, and for submissive Conformity, but not for Separation. Such were Julius Pslug, Sidonius, and Agricola, who drew up the Interim, and also [Page 12] Erasmus, Cassander, Ar. Baldwin, Wicelius, &c. And in France the great Chancellor Michael Hospitalias, Thuanus, and many of their most excellent Lawyers and Parliament-men, and some Bishops and Divines.
These men being offended at the Separating part of the Reformation, were taken with the notion of Unity and Government, but understood not the true state of the Controversie, and were of two minds among themselves. 1. Some had long had an untryed notion by Tradition, that the Church throughout the World was One Body Politick under one Humane Government. 2. Others never thought of that, but having seen a submission of all the Western Churches to the Pope, thought a Separation unlawful.
§ X. But the case of the Separation, which they understood not who blamed it, was this.
The Reformers took the Universal Church in all the Earth to have no Head, King, or Soveraign Governour but Christ, none else having the least shew of true capacity or right; and therefore that none had an Universal Legislative, Judicial or Executive Power: And a Church-Soveraignty was a more irrational conceit than a Civil Soveraignty over all the Earth: And an Aristocracy of Bishops more irrational than a Papal Monarchy. Therefore they professed not to separate from Papists as Christians, or from any of their Societies as parts of Christ's Church; but to renounce, deny, and separate from their new Vsurped Church-Species or Form, as it is feigned to be an Vniversal Humane Soveraign with his Subjects. Had they never corrupted other Doctrine or Worship this Church-Species of Universal Soveraignty, is to be separated from.
[Page 13]2. And with all, the Reformers found, that though they could have submitted to Patriarchs as a Humane Power set up by Princes, had they Governed according to the Laws of Christ, yet 1. It being but a Humane Power, 2. And one Prince having no right to set up a Patriarch over another Princes Subjects, 3. And the Roman Patriarch claiming also the Universal Soveraignty, or part of it in Councils; 4. And having corrupted Doctrine, Worship and Discipline, they took it to be their duty to renounce also the Pope's Patriarchal Government; and for all Christians to obey Christ's Universal Laws alone, and the Local Laws circa sacra left to man's Legislation, of the particular Princes and States where they live. And not to place Universal Unity or Concord in any Usurping Humane Soveraign, or their Laws, or mutable circumstances: And, had those excellent moderate Papists before-named, well studied this point of Universal Soveraignty, it's like they had forsaken Rome.
§ XI. When the Pope thought to satisfie the World, and confound the Reformation by the Council of Trent, the Cardinal of Lorain, and the French consented not to much that they there did; but stuck to the Councils of Constance and Basil, lest they should lose the Liberties of the Gallican Church: So that it was long e're that Nation seemed to own the Council of Trent, and never did it heartily and universally; but continued at some further distance from the Absoluteness of the Pope than Italy or Spain. And to this day they continue to maintain, 1. That the Pope hath no Power over the King in Temporals: 2. That he hath no Power to Depose Kings: 3. That General [Page 14] Councils are so far above him as to reform him and his disorders 4. That he is not Infallible alone, but in conjunction with the Church or Councils. And though some have spoken and written against the first and second, Barclay and many others have confuted them, and the Parliaments have burnt their Books. And this is the Moderate Popery of France.
Well may I call them Papists still; for, 1. They renounce not a Humane Universal Church Soveraignty. 2. They allow the Pope to call Councils, and Preside, and to be the principium Vnitatis, and Patriarch of the West. 3. They know that when no Church-Parliaments are in being, the Universal Executive Power must be continued, or the Universal Policy be dissolved: Therefore they allow the Pope a Right of Universal Government according to the Canons, but not Arbitrary; and therefore not above Councils: So that if those that are for the King Ruling by Law, and making Laws only in and by Parliaments, be yet for Monarchy then Concil. Constan. Basil, and the French are yet for Popery.
As to our Reformation it is so fully recorded by many and newly by that excellent and moderate Historian Dr. Burnet, that for the time he writes I shall only transcribe a few Notes out of his Abridgment.
Page 87. The Oaths which the Bishops swore to the Pope and the King were found so inconsistent, as it appeared both could not be kept; which caused the Popes to be dismist.
Page 113. An Act was made for Election and Consecration of Bishops; in short, The King to name one, and the Dean and Chapter in twelve [Page 15] days to return an Election of the person named by the King—
Page 138. Cranmer, Tonstall, Clark and Goodrik. Bishops being called to give their Opinion of the Emperors Power to call Councils said, That though ancient Councils were called by the Roman Emperors, yet that was done by reason of the extent of their Monarchy that was now ceased: But since other Princes had an entire Monarchy within their Dominions: Yet if one or more of those Princes should agree to call a Council to a good intent, and desire the concurrence of the rest, they were bound by the rule of CHARITY to agree to it.
Page 139. Cranmer said—that this Authority of General Councils flowed not from the Number of Bishops, but from the Matter of their decisions; which were received with an Universal Consent; for there were many more Bishops at Arimini — than at Nice or Constantinople, &c. Christ had named no Head of the whole Church, as God had named no Head of the World —
In Queen Elizabeth's Reign 1559. the Divines appointed to dispute against the Papist Bishops in their second paper maintain, That every Church had power to reform it self: This they founded on the Epistles of Paul to the particular Churches, and St. John to the Angels of the Seven Churches: In the first three Ages there were no General Councils, but every Bishop in his Diocess, or such few Bishops as could assemble together, condemned Heresies, determined Matters that were contested; so did also the Orthodox after Arrianisme had so overspread the World that even the See of Rome was defiled with it.
[Page 16]Page 358. A Bill that came to nothing was for empowering thirty two Persons to revise the Ecclesiastical Laws: But as this last was then let fall, so to the great prejudice of this Church, it hath slept ever since.
For before this p. 129, 130. l. 2. In King Edward's Reign Bucer's Opinion was asked about the review of the Common Prayer Book: He wished there might not be only a denunciation against scandalous Persons that came to the Sacrament, but a Discipline to exclude them: That the Habits might be laid aside, &c.— At the same time he understood that the King expected a New Years Gift from him, of a Book written particularly for his own use: So he made a Book for him concerning the Kingdom of Christ: He prest much the setting up a strict Discipline, the Sanctification of the Lords day, the appointing many days of Fasting, and that Pluralities and Non-residence might be effectually condemned; that Children might be Catechized, that the reverence due to Churches might be preserved, that the Pastoral Function might be restored to what it ought to be, that Bishops might throw off Secular Affairs, and take care of their Diocesses, and Govern them by the advice of their Presbyters; that there might be Rural Bishops over twenty or thirty Parishes, and that Provincial Councils might meet twice a year; that Church Lands be restored, and a fourth part assigned to the poor; — that care be taken for Education of Youth and for repressing Luxury, that the Law be reformed, and no Office sold but given to the most deserving, that none be put in Prison upon slight offences — The young [Page 17] King was much pleased with these advices: And upon that began himself to form a Scheme for amending many things, &c. — It appears by it that he intended to set up a Church Discipline, and settle a Method for breeding Youth —
Page 361, 362, li. 4. To return to Queen Elizabeth, the Changes are recited, and he addeth, [ The liberty given to explain in what sence the Oath of Supremacy was taken, gave a great evidence of the Moderation of the Queens Government; that she would not lay snares for her people, which is always a sign of a Wicked and Tyrannical Prince. But the Queen reckoned that if such comprehensive Methods could be found out as would once bring her people under any Vnion, though perhaps there might remain a great diversity of Opinion, that would wear off with the present Age, and in the next Generation all would be of one mind.
Page 363. The Empowering Lay men to deprive Church-men, or Excommunicate, could not be easily excused; but was as justifiable as the Commissions to Lay-Chancellors for those things were. There are 9400 Benefices in England, but of all these the Number of those (viz. Papists) who chose to resign rather than take the Oath was very inconsiderable. Fourteen Bishops, Six Abbots, Twelve Deans, Twelve Archdeacons, Fifteen Heads of Colledges, Fifty Prebendaries, and Eighty Rectors was the whole number of those that were turned out: But it was believed that the greatest part complied against their Consciences, and would have been ready for another turn, if the Queen had died while that Race of Incumbents lived, and the next Successor had been of another Religion.
Read what he saith of Mr. Parker's great unwillingness to be A. Bishop, and the threatning [Page 18] else to Imprison him. p. 363, 364, &c.
I conclude with that honest Note, p. 369. [ There was one thing yet wanting to compleat the Reformation of this Church, which was the restoring a Primitive Discipline against scandalous Persons, the stablishing the Government of the Church in Ecclesiastical hands, and taking it out of Lay hands who have so long profaned it — So that the dreadfullest of all Censures is now become most scorned and despised. See the rest.
The Papists in Queen Elizabeth's days sometime strove by Treasons the recovery of their Power; and secretly strove by Policy to divide the Protestants, and to root out those that were most against them. The Ministers unhappily fell into these Parties. 1. Some were for the Grandeur of the Bishops, and for strict observance of Liturgy and Ceremonies, and against Parochial Discipline; and these prevailed with the Queen. 2. Some were against Diocesan Bishops and Ceremonies, and some things in the Liturgy, and were for Parish Discipline: And these were called Nonconformists and Puritans. 3. Melancthon and Bucer had prevailed with some others, who were indifferent as to Bishops, and most of the Ceremonies and Forms, but Zealous for Parish Discipline and a godly Life, and for using things indifferent only indifferently, to Edification, and not to the hinderance of the Ministry of refusers. And Bucer's Scripta Anglicana written for K. Edward, which urged this Parish Discipline with great Zeal and Judgment, prevailed with a great part of the Queens Council, and of the Protestant Nobility and Gentry; but most of the Clergy were of the two first mentioned Opinions, called Extreams by others.
[Page 19]§ 4. All the Parliaments that were called in Queen Elizabeth's time were still suspicious that Popery would keep too much strength by the peoples Ignorance and Impiety, for want of good Preaching and godly Living in the Ministry: And therefore were usually complaining of the Bishops (especially Whitguift) for silencing so many Nonconforming Preachers, and keeping up so many Pluralists, and so many meer Readers: And they were oft attempting a Reformation of this, and to have restored the Nonconformists, and united the godly Protestants: But by the Bishops Counsel the Queen still restrained them, and charged them not to meddle with Ecclesiastical Matters, as belonging to her; In Sir Simond Dewes Journals you may see the many attempts and her constant prohibition and restraint: And Parliaments were loth to offend her, or make any breach, remembering how great a deliverance they had by her from Queen Mary's Persecutions. Though they grudged at the Imprisonment of Mr. Strickland and others that had spoke earnestly for Reformation, of Bishops Affairs, and the Ministry, yet they bore it patiently because of what they did enjoy. One of their strongest attempts you may read in their Petition of Sixteen Articles in Sir Sim. Dewes, An. 1584, and 1585. page 357. which is well worth the reading: But it was not endured.
But she long endured the Popish Bishops in their Seats, though in Parliament the A Bishop of York, the Bishop of London, the Bishops of Worcester, Landaff, Coventree, Oxford, Chester, the Abbot of Westminster were against the Bill for the Supremacy and abolishing Popery. See Sir S. Dewes [Page 20] p. 28. and p. 23. also the Bishops of Winchester, Carlile, Exceter. Which patience of hers mentioned put Sir S. D. the Historian on the recital of so large a Catalogue of Records for the Kings Power against the Pope and Usurping Bishops as is worth the reading, page 24.
§ 5. Also for many years the Papists came to our Temples, till the Pope forbad them: But the Parliament men much differed about this: Some would have all men forced to the Sacrament: Others would have them forced to hear some allowed Teachers, but not to be compelled to the Sacrament, because it is the investing of men in the Pardon of sin and right to Salvation, which no unwilling Person is capable of. Of this see in the foresaid Author, p. 177. the Excellent Speech of Mr. Aglionke, and of others.
I mention this because the late Reconcilers have made the mixture of Papists and Protestants in Communion the first ten years of the Queen to be the desireable state to which they would have had us reduced. Of which more anon.
But the Queen here also restrained them, and would have all left to her and the Bishops.
Mr. Yelverton told them how perillous a President it might prove for worser times for the Parliament to be so restrained; Where (saith he) there was such fulness of Power, as even the right of the Crown was to be determined, and by warrant whereof we had so resolved, that to say the Parliament had no Power to determine of the Crown was High Treason. Ibid. page 176.
§ 6. The Invasion 1588, and many Treasons, and the Popes Excommunications, increased the Parliaments Zeal against Popery, and the Clergies [Page 21] also. And when the Case of the Queen of Scots was referred to the Council of the Parliament, they earnestly urged the Queen by many Reasons, to execute the Sentence of Death which was past upon her; seeing while the Papists hoped for her Reign, neither the Life of the Queen nor the Kingdom could be safe. See Sir S. D' Ewes, page 400, &c.
These were their apprehensions then of Popery.
§ 7. In K. James's time the horrid Powder Plot to have blown up King and Parliament, and the Murder of Two Kings in France successively, H. 3. and H. 4. and other Inhumanities, increased this Kingdoms Zeal against Popery. As the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy were made for their discovery, so multitudes of Learned Men were employed in confuting their pretended Sovereignty and manifold Errors. And the common Preachers had ordinarily in their Sermons One Vse, as they called it, for the Confutation of the Papists. Besides that the Homilies and Jewels writings against them were to be in every Church. And as many of the Bishops in Queen Elizabeth's first time were such as had been Exiles and Suffered by the Papists, so many both in her days and K. James's, were Learned and Godly Men, who remembred former times, and were greatly desirous of the Extirpation of Popery, and of the increase of able Preachers, and of the Concord of Protestants to that End. And the Books of Martyrs written by John Fox being common in all parts of the Land, increased the peoples hatred of Religious cruelty. But some few Bishops (specially A. Bishop Whitguift and Bancroft) exceeded [Page 22] the rest in their prosecution of the Nonconformists; And though before by connivance they had enjoyed more quietness, yet when once the Canon was made and Executed for Subscribing that [ there is nothing contrary to the Word of God in the Liturgy, &c.] and the Excommunicating Canons, five, six, seven, &c. the reconciliation of the Protestants seemed hopeless.
Yet even the hottest prosecuting Bishops were firm Adversaries to Popery; yea Whitguift thought Arminianism came so near it, as made him consent to the ill-framed Lambeth Articles. And that unhappy Controversie called Arminian (which I have largely proved to be over-aggravated on both sides for want of a distinct way of Examination, in my Cath. Theol.) increased the Division much. The Jesuits being most hated by the Protestants, the Arminians were taken to incline to Popery, though the Dominicans who had been on the contrary side, had been the Bloody Masters of the Inquisition. And when our English Arminians were accused of approaching Popery, it inclined some of them to think more favourably of a Reconciliation with those whom they were likened to. And the Papists never ceased their diligence, secret or open, for the restoration of their Forreign Jurisdiction and their Errours.
§ XII. The Councils at the Laterane, Lyons, and others having so set up the Pope above Kings, as that those whom he Excommunicates may be deposed, and are then no Kings: And their Most Learned Doctors writing this, the Pope came to lay much of his strength upon King-killing; and it hath proved too successful: Had it been only [Page 23] against Rebellion, Kings had their defence: But what can one do against a Desperado, who is promised Preferment if he escape, and taught, if he so die for the service of the Church, to look for as much greater a Reward than Martyrs, as his service is more voluntary, and of more publick benefit than theirs? When Henry the Third was so murdered in France, Henry the Fourth turned Papist, it's like much for fear. And when the first Knife had but struck out his Teeth, the next dispatcht him. King James here was not a fearless man: He had known of the many Treasons which Queen Elizabeth escaped. The Powder-Plot thundred to him, though it took not fire. King Henry's Stabs did yet speak louder. He was told, This shall be your End; think not to escape; Instruments will be found who prefer the Church before their Lives, if you repent not. What a strait now is a King in, whose Life is thus at the mercy of a thousand deluded desperate Slaves of the Pope! That which kindleth revenging anger in a Kingdom or Senate, may rationally cause fear in a single man: For it is easier to kill a King, than a Kingdom or a multitude.
§ XIII. The unhappy Differences about the five Articles in Belgio (in which I am past doubt both Parties there were much to be blamed) involved the Learned Hugo Grotius in sufferings: The Contra-Remonstrants were too violent, and trusted to the Sword of the Prince of Orange; and Grotius being condemned to Imprisonment, and by his Wife got out in a Trunk, on pretence of carrying away his Books, becoming the Queen of Swedens Resident Embassador in France, no doubt exasperated, and falling into intimate acquaintance with [Page 24] the French Jesuits, especially Petavius, grew to that approbation of the Moderate French Popery, which I have here after proved, and to that desire of reducing the Protestants to them, which not only Valesius Orat. in Obit. Petavii, but his own Writings fully testifie. And his design was to bring Rome as the Mistress Church, to Rule, not arbitrarily, but by the Canons of Councils, securing the Right of Kings and Bishops, and casting aside the Schoolmens subtil vain Disputes, and reforming the bad lives of the Clergy, and some small mutable things; and in this to draw in the Church of France, and England to agree, and the Queen of Sweden, and if possible the Lutherans, and to crush the Calvinists as unreconcileable: And he tells us how many in England favoured what he did, though those whom he miscalleth Brownists were against it.
§ IV. The Church of England and the Parliament being before discontented at the Marriage-Articles as to Toleration, and at the Popes Agents and Nuntio's here in London, were much more offended at the changes suddenly made by Bishop Laud. The blotting out the name of the Pope and Antichrist, and the Zeal for Altars and Bowings, and the report of a Treaty for Union with Rome, Printed by some with the particulars, and their conceit that Arminianism lookt towards Popery, and the casting out many Conformable Ministers, and many such things, especially when they thought the Liberty of their Persons, and their Properties had been Invaded, and that A. Bishop Laud, and the new Clergy Men, ( Sibthorp, Mainwaring, Heylin, &c.) were the Cause of all; I say, These things raising in men a dread of Popery [Page 25] our greater distances were here begun: And though in A. Bishop Abbot's days the Church of England was against the Syncretism, and few went with Bishop Laud at first, he afterwards got many to adhere to him. He that would see all the Case in an unsuspected Author, let him read Dr. Heylins Life of A. B. Laud, where he shall find much of the proceedings, and the Articles and Reasons of the Treaty with the Papists. And if he add Laud's Tryal, and Rushworth's Collections, he may see more. Heylin tells us that the Design was but to bring the Papists in to us, by removing that which kept them out: They that feared a Toleration of Papists did much more fear a Comprehension or Coalition, though their Conversion they desired: For they knew that they must still be Members of the false Universal Papal Kingdom, and that we must in the greatest points come to them, who without changing their Religion could not come to us: And if we could hardly now keep out the Pope, what should we do when he had got so much more advantage of us? Besides all other Changes we must change our very Church-species, or else we should not be of the same Church, though we sate in the same Seats: For a Church which is but a subject part of a Sovereign greater Church, is no more of the same species with one that is subject to no other (but Christ) than our Cities are of the same species with a Kingdom.
§ XVI. These distances between the old Church-men and the Laudians having increased to that which they came to in 1641. suddenly on Octob. 23. the Irish Rebellion Murdering two hundred thousand, and Fame threatening their coming into England, cast the Nation into so [Page 26] great fear of the Papists, and next of Bishop Laud's new Clergy who were supposed to be for a Coalition, as was the Cause (where-ever I came) of Mens conceit of the necessity of defensive Arms; and this was increased by two or three Opinions which many were then guilty of, who had not Learning enough to know which side was right according to the Law.
One of their Opinions was, That the Law of Nature is the Law of God. Another was that no men have Authority to abrogate it. Another was that the Law of Nature inclineth men to Love their Lives, and to private Self-defence. Another was that every Kingdom or Nation hath by the Law of God in Nature, a right of publick Self-defence against professed Enemies and apparent danger of its destruction. And another was, that They whose profest Religion obligeth them on pain of Damnation to do their best to exterminate or destroy the Body of the Kingdom (are to be taken for its profest Enemies, if they renounce not that obligation: Especially if they or their Confederates Murder two hundred thousand Fellow-Subjects, and apparently strive for power over the rest. These Opinions being then received, and by many ill-applyed, things then ran to what we saw.
§ XVII. When the old Churchmen and Parliament on one side, (and we know who on the other side) began the War, necessity caused them to call in the Scots as Auxiliaries, who brought in the Covenant and attempted Illegally the Change of the Church Government; and all after falling into the hands of Cromwell and his Army, the King destroyed, the Parliament pulled down, and other unthought of Changes which we saw, Discord and War grew odious to the Nation. [Page 27] And we longed to be reconciled to those that we had differed from especially in matters of Religion.
Among others more considerable, I attempted in Worcestershire a Reconciliation with them. I tryed first with my Neighbours: The Gentry that I spake with of the Royal Party, professed willingness, and that they desired but the Security of the Essentials of Episcopacy. Dr. Good and Dr. Warmstrie with others of them Subscribed their approbation to our Agreement: When I tryed with others distant, Bishop Vsher easily consented, Bishop Brownrig on somewhat harder terms, but such as would have healed us; Dr. Hammond on harder yet, but yet such as we could have born save that he left all to the uncertain determination of a Convocation. Put shortly Dr. Warmstrie withdrew his Consent, and as the reason of it sent me a Writing against our Agreement, saying, It was a confederacy with Schism, and labouring to prove that they were no Ministers or Churches which had not Episcopal Ordination, and much more to that effect. I wrote a full answer to it, which satisfied all that I shewed it to, but did not publish it. The writing answered was Dr. Peter Guning's, now Bishop of Eli. Presently I found this opinion, That they were no true Ministers or Churches that had not an uninterrupted Succession of Diocesane Ordination from the Apostles, but that they were true Ministers and Churches that had Roman Ordination, became the stop to our desired Agreement, and I saw that it proclaimed an utter renunciation of the Reformed Churches which have no such Succession, and yet a Coalition with the Roman Clergy, though [Page 28] the Bishops of Rome have had the most notorious intercisions. And having read Grotius his Discussio Apologetici Rivetiani in which he more plainly pleads for Canonical Popery, than he had done in his Votum, or Consultatio, &c. I thought I was bound in Conscience to give notice to the Royalists of the Grotian Party and Design, and after printed a small Collection out of Grotius his own words: These Dr. Pierce wrote against, and others were offended at. But in the Second Part of my Key for Catholicks, I shewed the utter impossibility of this Conceit of Sovereign Government by General Councils.
§. XVIII. When God was pleased by the restoration of the King to raise Mens hopes of Protestant Agreement, I need not repeat what was done towards it; among many worthier Persons by my Self, the Earl of Manchester and the Earl of Orery first making from us the motion to His Majesty, who readily consented, and granted us the healing Terms exprest in His gracious Declaration of Ecclesiastical Affairs 1661; for which the London Ministers subscribed a Thanksgiving, and the House of Commons gave him their Publick Thanks, as making for the Publick Concord. But when the King under the Broad Seal granted a Commission to many on both Sides, to treat and agree of such Alterations of the Liturgy as were necessary to tender Consciences, and the Bishops and their Drs. yielded not to the least, but to the last maintained that none were necessary for them; I saw in the Manner and the Issue with whom it was that we had to do, and consequently what England must expect. I easily perceived that much more would be imposed. For I saw what some [Page 29] intended, and I could conjecture what must be the Means: But others went further than they. If I my self had been of the opinion that a Syncretism or Coalition with the Church of France on Grotius's terms had been the way of Church Concord most pleasing to God, and that all were intolerable Schismaticks that united not on these terms, as Members of one Universal Church, under one humane Soveraignty. It's like I should have done my best to accomplish these things following, at least, if I were also of the temper of those of that Mind which I have known.
I. I should have laboured to render all those as odious and contemptible as I could, that had been against the Coalition.
II. It's like I should have done what I could to Silence all those Ministers that were likest to hinder my Design.
III. It's like I should have desired if less would not do this, that more might be imposed on them, that it might be effectually done.
IV. It's like I should have done all that I could to Banish them far enough from the Ears and Presence and Acquaintance of Rulers, that we might represent them at our pleasure, and they might not answer for themselves.
V. If all this would not do, were I sufficiently hardened, It's like I should endeavour to break all those that will not bend, and to ruine them utterly, and lay them in Jailes with Rogues, and make men believe that they are intollerable Persons deserving worse, and that all this is Mercy to them.
VI. It's like that were I of that mind and temper, I should make it my chief design to make [Page 30] a tender Conscience a Scorn, and to drive it out of Esteem and Power, and then there would be little in the rest to hinder my desires; I might expect that they would all take my Pills whom I could first get to swallow as big a thing.
VII. I would make the great noise about Episcopacy, Liturgy and Conformity, and not say a word till all were ready of a Coalition with the French Papists or Roman Church.
VIII. I would (as Dr. Heylin) call this a Drawing in the Papists to us, when we had opened the Door wide enough for their Universal Soveraignty, and I would not call it a going over to them.
IX. It's like I should learn of Grotius, to call none Papists but only those that count all good and lawful that the Popes do, or as Dr. Saywell, disown none but the Jesuited Party, and then I would detest and rant against Papists as hotly as any of them all.
X. I would not put any Oath or Profession of Popery, or of an Universal foreign Jurisdiction on any of the Lay Communicants, nor on the Inferior Clergy till they were ripe for it: It's gently said of Dr. Saywell, What Bishop puts you to own the Power of General Councils before he will give you the Sacrament? If the Bishops will but own and be subject to a foreign Jurisdiction, and the Clergy only to the Bishops at first, and the Laity to that Clergy and Bishop; the Chain is strong enough at present, we need no more.
XI. I will Prognosticate no further conditionally of my self, but whoever is engaged in such work, above all cannot spare the Engine of Historical Vntruths. Against those that may not be [Page 31] heard speak for themselves, nor be acquainted with them that hear the report, this must do the greatest part of the work; it cannot be probably done without it: Perjury is a thing that I will not meddle with.
XII. They must make the Differences of Protestants as odious as they can, and make men believe that they are running mad for want of Catholick Government and Unity, and as a late Book called An Address, &c. tell them that lately there were an Hundred and forty several Sects, (and if it be denied, it is but proving so many Complexions.)
XIII. Above all, they must say nothing for the Pope himself, but only for General Councils, advancing their Honour by making odious all that they Condemned, and by the Reverence that Protestants have exprest to the best as means of Concord: And they must be sure to confound Concord and Government, Communion and Subjection.
XIV. And they must be sure to keep the Ministry; partly in hope of Preferment, and partly in servile Dependance, and specially to Corrupt the Vniversities, that part may be Ignorant and Vicious, and part ambitious Militants; And when once all these have got into Church Livings, let the Dislikers get them out if they can.
XV. Some have ever found it of great use to Altering-designs, to represent all that are against it as Rebellious, and make Rulers believe that they are their Enemies. And when our King here hath done so much by the Act of Oblivion, and advancing the late Duke of Albemarle, and acknowledging the Service of him and his Army, and many others who formerly fought against [Page 32] him, I cannot but suspect some Altering design in them that would still rub the old Sores, and fetch thence Materials for all their Purposes. (If I may mix ridiculous things with terrible,) that as the Drunken Man easing his Bladder by a running Conduit, stood half the day there in a mingent posture, complaining to Passengers that his Water would not stop, because he still heard the Conduit run; so if they can but make the Nation Drunk or Melancholick, the noise of nothing but War, and Rebellion, and Blood, will make them think that their Blood is still running.
XVI. And beyond Sea, the Papists have found it the greatest Expedient to their Successes, to keep Great Men from Study, and Learning, yea, and from Conscience and Sobriety, and train them up with Sport, and Wine and Women, and Debauchery, and ranting Jollity, and scorns at Conscience and Preciseness, that they may not discern their own interest, nor have understanding enough to see the Snare, but may tamely put their foot in the Stocks & under pretence of Universal Concord and Government, make themselves the Subjects of a foreign Usurpation. And if the Pope may but govern till the next General Council, it will be like a Lease of many Hundred Years, as good as a Fee-simple; And may he but Rule all as Patriarch and Principium Vnitatis by the Canons already made, it will be as good as the Guardianship of Infants, that will never call the Guardian to Account.
§. XIX. I must say after all this, that I love the French Church much better than the Italian, and if we must all be Papists, had rather we were French Papists, of the two. And yet that I more [Page 33] fear the French Papists than the Italians. For the Italian Party are at so visible a distance, that they can design no way for their advantage but a Toleration (unless they could get the Government) And their Toleration would a while but make the Nation better know them, and more dislike them: But the French Party cry down Toleration, and trust wholly to a Coalition and to force: They hope to do their work before its known what they are doing: They will cry down Popery, meaning only the Pope's absolute Power above Councils: It is but abating the Latine Service, Transubstantiation, Priests Marriage, granting the Cup to the Laity, and two or three more such things, and crying up nothing but the Name of the Church of England (though changed by Subjection to a Forreign Jurisdiction) and then crying up Obedience and Conformity to it, and crying down Schism as an intolerable thing, and the Papists shall seem to turn to us, and not we to them, and then no Dissenter shall be suffered. Mr. Thorndikes Book of forbearance of Penalties, tells us of no other hope of sufferance, but on supposition that we all agree in subjection to the thing called, The Vniversal Political Church. And a Learned Tribe by Interest and Opinion engaged in the Cause may be ready by confident triumphant Writings and Disputes to make good all this, and scorn and tread down Gainsayers as Schismaticks. And the Coalition will take in the parts and labours of those that now are called Papists, who are trained up in Militant Arts.
XX. But as long as God and the King are against them, we need not much fear the Success of their Endeavours: Such a Care hath the King had to secure the Land against all suspicion of Popery [Page 34] in himself, that a severe penalty is to be inflicted on any that shall so defame him: Yea he hath passed Acts for the Clergy, Corporations, Vestries, the Militia, Nonconformists, in which they are all obliged by Promise or Oath never to Endeavour any Alteration of the Government of Church and State: And again I say, what sober Man can be so sottish as to think that to subject the King, Clergy, and whole Kingdom to the Forreign Jurisdiction of a pretended Universal Sovereignty (Monarchical, Aristocratical or Mixt) is no alteration of the Government of the Church, yea of the Church-specifying Form.
XXI. This is a great secondary reason why we cannot be for such a change because we cannot Consent that Church, Vestries, Corporations, Militia, &c. should be all perfidious or perjured: Yea all the Land that have taken the Oath of Supremacy against all Forreign Jurisdiction. We accuse not others but excuse our selves: Yea what Crime is it against King and Kingdom, to make them the Subjects of a Forreign Power, I leave to other men to enquire.
XXII. God seemeth purposely to have confounded them in their Design, by leaving them no Materials for their Fabrick. I can imagine no pretences of possibility but in some of these following ways. 1. That it is the Colledge of Bishops diffused over the Earth that must exercise Legislation and Judgment by Consent, or by Majority of Votes: And I shall never fear the prevalency of this Opinion, till an Epidemical Madness turneth us into a Bedlam.
2. That it must be a true General Council that must Govern us: And this is no more to be expected [Page 35] than that all the World fall under one Monarch, or that all Christians save one Kingdom Apostatize; which God prevent.
3. That Patriarchs with such Metropolitans as they will call, be taken for the Governing Representers of all the Bishops and Churches on Earth. But there is no possibility left us of this way: For it must be either by the five old Patriarchs or by new ones. 1. If the old ones, Gods Judgments have made that way unpracticable. 1. The Cities of Antioch and Alexandria are destroyed, where two of the Patriarchs should be Bishops. 2. The Turk is Lord of four of the old Patriarchal Seats; and none can be chosen, rule, or come to Councils without his Consent. And he can get almost whom he will Chosen, and so the Turk should be our Chief Church Governour. And the Places are bought with Money, and the Possessors answerable. Ludolphus tells us that the Patriarch of Alexandria is some unlearned ignorant Person that scarce knoweth Letters, and that Men are made Clergy-men there against their wills, all Men shunning the Office because of the Sufferings from the Turk which they must undergo. They have no just Qualification, Election or Power: There are three nominal Patriarchs of Antioch chosen by three several Parties, besides the Popes. They are utterly uncertain which of them is right, or rather certain that none of them are or can be such. All the four Nominal Patriarchs are against the Romans, and several against each other: And many of the chief Christian Churches own none of them as their Governours, and none own them all as such.
And must our Kings and Kingdoms be Subjects [Page 36] of ignorant Subjects of the Turk, because once Men were advanced to high Titles over Towns now destroyed, in one Christian Empire now dissolved or turned Mahometans.
4. There is therefore but one way left, which is for the Pope and his Privy Council of Cardinals to be the standing Governour, by Judgment and Execution, and to call when Princes force him to it, such European Councils as he can, and (as he doth) to make four Nominal Patriarchs (of Const. Alex. Antioch and Jerusalem) as Men make Kings, Queens, and Bishops on a Chess-board, and to call these General Councils, as he did that at Trent, and to keep the people ignorant enough to believe it.
As for the making of a sort of new Patriarchs there must go so much to agree who they shall be among all Christian Princes and Nations, and then to prove that they are the true Representers of all others, and that the Representers or represented have any Universal Legislative Power, that I am in no Expectations of any such Sovereignty. I have proved against Mr. Hooker that the Body of the people as such are not the Givers of the Power of their Govern ours, nd therefore cannot give power to an Universal Supream.
XXIII. When I had seen all Mr. Thorndikes Books, and Dr. Heylins, and some other such, and A. Bishop Bramhall's Book against me, with a long and vehement reproving Preface, I purposed to have again detected the design, and have answered that Book. But my Bookseller Nevill Simons told me that Mr. Roger Lestrange then Overseer of the Press, came to him and vehemently protested that he would ruine him if he printed [Page 37] my Answer to it: And when it might not be Printed I forbore to Write it.
Since then among others Mr. Dodwell hath appeared with most Voluminous confidence, whom I have answered; who I doubt not will want neither Ink, Paper, Words or Face for a reply.
My Conference with Bishop Guning I thought it against the Rules of Converse to publish. But his Chaplain Dr. Saywell, Master of a Colledge in Cambridge, whom I take for his Mouth, being himself present, hath published what he would have the World to believe of our Discourse, in a Book against me, for Universal Jurisdiction: And therefore he hath put some necessity on me to publish the Truth, which I am confident will not be to the Readers loss of time, who will peruse it. When I had sent him my Book of Concord, he sent me Dr. Saywell's first, by Dr. Crowther, of which I wrote to him my sence. On this he desired me to come speak with him, which having done three several days, I thought it meet at Night to Recollect our Discourse and send him the Sum of all in Letters, that neither he might forget it, or any Man misrepresent it. These four Letters I have therefore here annexed, and with them an answer to Dr. Saywell's Reasons for a Forreign Jurisdiction.
XXIV. I am so far from charging the Church of England with the guilt of this Doctrine or Design, that I prove that the Church of England is utterly against it. But then by that Church I do not mean any Men that can get heighth and confidence enough to call themselves the Church of England; but those that adhere to the Articles of Religion, the Doctrine, Worship and Government by Law Established.
[Page 38]XXV. And I am so far from uncharitable Censures of the Men whom I thus confute, that I profess that I believe Mr. Thorndike, Bishop Guning, Mr. Dodwell, &c. to be Men that do what they do in an Erroneous Zeal for Unity and Government, and are Men of great Labour, Learning, and Temperance, and Religious in their way: And I have the same Charity and Honour for many French Papists, yea for such Papal Flatterers as Baronius who joyned with Philip Nerius in his first Oratorian Exercises and Conventicles: Yea I cannot think that they that burn and torment Men for Religion, could live in quietness, if they did not confidently think that it is an acceptable Service to God. And I fear not still to profess that were it in my power, I would have no hurt done to any Papist which is not necessary to our own defence.
But I must say that I much more honour such as Gerson, Ferus, Espencaeus, Monlucius, Erasmus, Vives, Cassander, Hospitalius, Thuanus, &c. who among Papists drew nearer the Reformers, than such among us as having better Company and Helps draw fromward them, and nearer to the Deformers.
XVI. And as to you, Reverend Brethren Conformists, who are true to the True Church of England; I humbly crave of you but three things. I. That you will by hard study and Ministerial diligence and holiness of life, keep up to your power the common Interest of Christianity, of Faith and serious Piety and Charity. II. That you will heartily promote the Concord of all godly Protestants, and therein follow such measures as Christ himself hath given us, and as you would have [Page 39] others use towards you. III. That you will openly and faithfully disown the dangerous Errour of Universal Legislative and Judicial Soveraignty, and bringing the King, and Church, and Kingdom under any Forreign Jurisdiction, Monarchical, Aristocratical or Mixt; and never stigmatize the Church of England and your sacred Order with the odious brand of Persidiousness, after so many Imposed and Received Subscriptions, Professions and Oaths, against all Endeavours to alter the Government of Church or State.
XVII. And as to the Nations fears of future Popish Soveraignty, for my part I meddle no further than 1. To do the work of my own Office and Day, 2. And to pray hard for the Nations Preservation, 3. And to trust God, and hope that he will perfect his wonders in such a deliverance, as shall confirm our belief of his special care and providence for his Church.
But I must tell you that such Reasons as Bishop Gunings Chaplains, should not be thought strong enough to make you so secure, as to abate the fervour of your prayers. His words are these (more congruous far to him than to you and me) page 282, 283. ‘[The only means that is left to preserve our Nation from destruction, and to secure us from the danger of Popery, is to suppress all Conventicles, &c. — Being by this method provided against having our People seduced by the Papists, which as yet they are in great danger of— the next thing is to consider how to prevent violence, that those be not murdered and undone that cannot be perswaded to submit. Now to secure this, His Majestes gracious promises to conform any Bills that were thought necessary to preserve the Established Religion, [Page 40] that did not intrench on the Succession of the Crown, do make the way very easie; if our People were united among themselves, and in the Religion of the Church of England. For matters may be so ordered, that all Officers Ecclesiastical, Civil and Military, and all that are employed in Power and Authority, of any kind, be persons both of known Loyalty to the Crown, and yet faithful Sons of the Church, and firm to the Established Religion: And the Laws that they act by may be so explained, in favour of those that Conform to the Publick Worship, and the discouragement of all Dissenters, that we must reasonably be secure from any violence that the Papists can offer to force our submission: For when All our Bishops and Clergy are under strict Obligations and Oaths, and the People are guided by them; and all Officers, Civil and Military, are firm to the same Interest, and under severe penalties, if they act any thing to the contrary: Then what probable danger can there be of any violence or disturbance, to force us out of our Religion, when all things are thus secured, and the Power of External Execution is generally in the hands of men of our own Perswasion. Nay moreover, the Prince himself will by his Coronation Oath be obliged to maintain the Laws and Liberties of the Kingdom so Established.]’
I am not of a Calling fit to debate the Reasons of these Reverend Fathers; some will read them with a Plaudite; some with a Ridete; some with a Cavete, and I with an Orate: And he that will abate the fervour of his prayers by such securing words, is one whose Prayers England is not much beholden to. The words with all their designs are edifying, as Diagnostick and Prognostick. I only say, [ Seeing we receive a Kingdom which cannot [Page 41] be moved, let us have grace whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear; for our God is a consuming fire, Heb. 12.28, 29.]
March 28. 1682.
Chap. I. The Protestant Church of England is against all Humane Vniversal Soveraignty, Monarchical or Aristocratical; and so against all Forreign Church Jurisdiction.
I Prove this, I. From the Oath of Supremacy, which saith thus:
‘I do utterly testifie and declare in my Conscience, That the King's Highness is the only Supream Governour of this Realm, and of all other His Highness Dominions and Countreys, as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Things or Causes as Temporal. And that No Forreign Prince, Person, Prelate, State or Potentate, hath, or ought to have ANY JURISDICTION, Power, Superiority, Preheminence or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realm. And therefore I do utterly renounce and forsake all Forreign Jurisdiction, Priviledges, Preheminence and Authorities granted or belonging to the Kings Highness, his Heirs and Successors, or united or annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm.’
Here all the Kingdom swears, That none have, or ought to have any Jurisdiction here, who is Forreign. Yet some Papists have been encouraged to take this Oath, by this Evasion.
[Page 42] Obj. No Jurisdiction is here disclaimed of Forreigners, but what belongs to the King: But Spiritual Jurisdiction, called the Power of the Keys, belongs not to the King: Ergo.
Ans. For securing the King's Jurisdiction, All Forreign Jurisdiction is renounced; signifying that there is no such thing as a Jurisdiction over this Realm, but the King's and his Officers. The Power of the Keys, or Spiritual Power, is not properly a Jurisdiction, as that word includeth Legislation, but only a Preaching of Christ's Laws, and administring his Sacraments, and judging of mens capacity for Communion according to those Laws of Christ: And this under the Coercive Government of the King. Much like that of a Tutor in a Colledge, or a Physician in his Hospital. What can be more expresly said than this here, that ‘[No Forreign Prince, Person, Prelate, State or Potentate, have, or ought to have any Jurisdiction, Power, Superiority, Preheminence or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realm.]’ Is that of Pope or Councils neither Ecclesiastical nor Spiritual? Is not the word [ Prelate] purposely put in to exclude that Power hence which Prelates claim? Though the King claim not the Power of the Keys, he knew that by the claim of that Power the Pope and Councils of Forreigners had been the disturbers of his Government: And therefore all theirs here is excluded as a necessary means to secure his own.
1. Popes and Councils have claimed a Legislative Power over us and all the Church: But the Laws of this Land know no such but in Christ over all, and in King and Parliament under him [Page 43] over this Land: And therefore the Oath excludeth the Power claimed by Popes and Councils.
2. As to Judicial Power, these Forreigners claim a Power of Judging who in England shall be taken for a true Bishop and Minister; who shall have Tythes, Church-Lands and Temples; whether the Kings, Lords, and all Subjects, shall be judged capable of Church-Communion, or be Excommunicate: And our Laws declaring that all this Forreign Claim is Usurpation, fully proveth that it was the sense of the Oath to exclude them.
They claim also a Power of Judging who shall pass here for Orthodox, and who for Hereticks: And in their Laws the consequence is, who shall be burned for a Heretick, or be exterminated, or after Excommunication deposed from their Dominions, and their Subjects absolved from their Allegiance? But certainly the Oath excludeth them from all this.
The most of the Papists claim no Power directly due to their Pope, but that which they call Ecclesiastical or Spiritual (the rest is but by consequence, and in ordine ad Spiritualia:) But if this be not excluded in the Oath, then they intended not to exclude the Papacy: And then what was the Oath made for, or what sense hath it, or what use? And who can believe this?
If the meaning of the Oath be not to exclude the Pope's Ecclesiastical Power, then they that take it may yet hold that the Pope is Head of all the Churches on Earth, and hath the Authority to call, and dissolve, and approve, or reprobate General Councils, and may Ordain Bishops for England, and his Ordinations and his Missionaries be here received, and Appeals made to him, and [Page 44] Obedience sworn to him, his Excommunications, Indulgences, imposed Penances, Silencings, Absolutions, Prohibitions here received: All which our Statutes, Articles, Canons, &c. shew notoriously to be false. It is evident therefore that this Oath renounceth all Forreign Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction.
II. The second proof is from many Acts of Parliament: Those which prohibit all that receive Orders beyond Sea from the Pope, or any Papists, to come into England, on pain of death: Those that forbid the Doctrine, Worship and Discipline both of Popes and Councils: The words of 25 H. 8. c. 21. are these.
‘Whereas this Realm recognizing no Superiour under God but the King, hath been, and is free from Subjection to any man's Laws, but only such as have been devised, made and ordained within this Realm for the wealth thereof, or to such other as the People of this Realm, have taken at their free liberty by their own consent to be used among them, and have bound themselves by long use and custom to the observance of the same; not to the observance of the Laws of any Forreign Prince, Potentate or Prelate; but as to the accustomed and antient Laws of this Realm, originally Established as Laws of the same, by the said sufferance, consent and custom, and none otherwise: It standeth therefore with natural equity and good reason, &c. that they may abrogate them, &c.’
Moreover the Laws of England determine, that no Canons are here obligatory, or are Laws, unless made such by King and Parliament. And if it be true which Heylin, and some others say, that [Page 45] the Pope's Canon-Laws are all here in force still, except those that are contrary to some Laws of the Realm, that is but as the Roman Civil Law is in force; not as a Law of the Pope or old Romans, but as made Laws to us by King and Parliament. The Roman Senate and Emperor give us the Matter of the Civil Law, and the Pope and Councils of the Canon-Law; but the Soveraign Power here giveth them the Form of a Law; as the King coineth Forreign Silver.
III. The Articles of Religion prove the same. 1. The twenty first Article saith,
‘General Councils may not be gathered together without the Commandment and Will of Princes: And when they be gathered together (forasmuch as they be an Assembly of Men, whereof all be not governed by the Spirit and Word of God) they may err and sometime have erred, even in things pertaining to God: Wherefore things ordained by them, as necessary to Salvation, have neither strength nor Authority unless it may be declared that they are taken out of the Holy Scriptures.’
Here note, 1. That General Councils (so called) in the Empire, had no power to meet, much less to Rule, without the Commandment of Princes. And so those called by the Emperor had no power over the Subjects of other Princes.
2. And true Universal Councils will never be Lawfully called, till either all the Earth have One Humane Monarch, or all the Heathen, Infidel, Mahometan, Papist, Heretical and Protestant Princes agree to call them: For one hath not Power over the Dominions of all the rest. And so the Aristocratical Party put the whole Church under [Page 46] an impossible and non-existent unifying and governing Power.
3. That which may be proved a Duty out of God's Word, was such before any Pope or Council made Laws for it. So that if their Commands herein are any more than declarative, and subservient to God's Laws (as the Crying of a Proclamation, or as a Justices Warrant,) God hath forestalled them by his Laws, and theirs come too late.
And if all the Power that Councils or Bishops have as to Legislation, be to make Laws unnecessary to Salvation, it were to be wished they had never made those that are hinderances to Salvation, and set the Churches together by the Ears, and have divided them these 1200 Years and more. Surely our English Canons 5, 6, 7, 8, which Excommunicate so many faithful Christians, do much hinder Salvation, if they be not necessary to it.
But it's apparent that they take their Laws to be necessary to Salvation; 1. Who say All are Schismaticks that obey them not; and that such Schismaticks are Mortal Sinners in a state of Damnation. They that make their Canonical Obedience necessary to avoid Schism, and that necessary to Salvation, make the said Canonical Obedience necessary to Salvation. But, &c.
2. And one would think that they that torment, and burn Men, and silence Ministers for not obeying their Canons, made them necessary to Salvation.
The 34th Article saith, That ‘[ every Particular or National Church hath Authority to Ordain. Change, or Abolish Ceremonies, or Rites [Page 47] of the Church, ordained only by Man's Authority, so that all things be done to edifying.]’
And if so, they that may abolish the Rites ordained by General Councils, or Popes, are not their Subjects: nor is this Power of making and abolishing Rites reserved to them, nor can they deprive any National or Particular Church of this their own Power.
The 36th Article saith, That ‘[The Book of Consecration of Arch-Bishops, Bishops, and Ordaining of Priests, &c. doth [ Contain all things necessary thereto.]’
But nothing in that Book doth make it necessary that English Bishops or Priests receive their Power or Office from any Foreigners, Pope, Council or Bishops; which yet must be necessary if they be their Subjects.
The 37th Article saith, That ‘[Though the Queen hath not the Power of administring the Word and Sacraments, yet she is not, nor ought not to be subject to any foreign Jurisdiction; And that the Bishop of Rome hath no Jurisdiction in this Realm of England.]’ And if so, then he hath no Patriarchal Jurisdiction here; nor have foreign Councils any.
IV. King Edw. 6. Injunctions say, That ‘[No manner of Obedience or Subjection is due to the Bishop of Rome within this Realm.]’ Therefore not as to a Patriarch, President or Principium Vnitatis.
V. Queen Elizabeth's Injunctions say, ‘[No manner of Obedience or Subjection is due to any such foreign Power—And Admonit. [No other foreign Power shall or ought to have any Authority over them.]’
[Page 48]VI. The Reformatio Legum Ecclesiast. c. 9, 10, 11.14, 15. are full proof: There the Reformers professing reverence to the 4 first General Councils as holding sound Doctrine, add ‘[Quibus tamen non aliter fidem nostram obligandam esse censemus, nisi quate [...]us ex S. Scripturis confirmari possint: Nam concilia nonnulla interdum errasse, & contraria inter se desinivisse, partim in actionibus juris, partim etiam in fide manifestum est. Ita (que) legantur Concilia quidem, cum honore & Christiana reverentia, sed interim ad Scripturarum piam, certam, rectam (que) regulam examinentur.’
C. 15. ‘Orthodoxorum Patrum etiam authoritatem minime censemus esse contemnendam; sunt enim permulta ab illis praeclare & utiliter dicta: ut tamen ex eorum Sententia de Sacris Literis judicetur, non admittimus: Debent enim sacrae literae, nobis omnis Doctrinae Christianae & regulae esse & judices. Quin & ipsi Patres tantum honoris sibi deferri recusarunt, saepius admonentes lectorem ut tantisper suas admittat sententias & interpretationes, quoad cum sacris literis consentire eas animadverterit.’
Et de Haeres. c. 1. ‘Illorum intolerabilis est error qui totius Christiani orbis universam Ecclesiam solius Episcopi Romani principatu contineri volunt. Nos enim eam quae cerni potest Ecclesiam sic definimus, ut omnium coetus sit fidelium hominum, in quo S. Scriptura sincerè docetur; & Sacramenta (saltem his eorum partibus quae necessaria sunt) juxta Christi praescriptum administrnetur.’
Et de Judic. Cont. Haeres. c. 1. ‘Appellatio reo conceditur ab Episcopo ad Archiepiscopum, & ab Archiepiscopo a [...] Regiam personam ( but no further) Vid. de Eccles. c. 10. de Episc. Potestate.’
[Page 49]Et pag. 190. ‘Rex tam in Archiepiscopos, Episcopos, Clericos, & alias Ministros quàm in Laicos intra sua regna & dominia plenissimam jurisdictionem tam civilem quàm Ecclesiasticam habet, & exercere potest: Cum omnis Jurisdictio tum Ecclesiastica tum secularis ab eo tanquam ex uno & eodem fonte derivantur.’
Et de Appell. c. 11. ‘There's no Appeal to any above or beyond the King, judging by a Provin [...]ial Council, or Select Bishops.]’
Though the King died before these were made Laws, they tell us the Church of England's since.
VII. To save transcribing, I desire the Reader [...]o peruse that notable Letter of King Henry the [...]th to the Archbishop of York: It is the first in the second Part of the Caballa of Letters; well worth the reading, to our purpose.
VIII. The Liturgy for Nov. 1. called the Pope Antichrist, And the Homilies to the same since: And the Convocation in Ireland, Art. 8. 1615. So doth the Parliament of England, in the Act [...]or the Subsidy 3 Jacobi, of the Clergy. And [...]ure they that took him for Antichrist, thought [...] not that as Pope or Patriarch he had any ruling [...]ower here.
IX. The Apology of the Church of England [...]n Jewel's Works, (ordered to be kept in all the [...]arish Churches) saith, Pag. 708.
‘[Of a truth even those greatest Councils, and where most Assemblies of People ever were, (whereof these Men use to make such exceeding reckoning) compare them with all the Churches which throughout the World acknowledge and profess the Name of Christ, and what [Page 48] [...] [Page 49] [...] [Page 48] [...] [Page 49] [...] [Page 50] else I pray you can they seem to be but certain Private Councils of Bishops, and Provincial Synods? For admit peradventure Italy, France, Spain, England, Germany, Denmark, Scotland, met together; If there want Asia, Greece, Armenia, Persia, Media, Mesopotamia, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Mauritania, in all which Places there be both many Christians, and many Bishops, how can any Man, being in his right Mind, think such a Council to be a General Council?]’
Pag. 629. ‘It's proved that Councils have been so factious and tyrannical, that good Men have justly refused to come at them.’
Pag. 593. ‘But the Gospel hath been carried on without and against Councils; and Councils been against the Truth.’
And Jewel, Pag. 486. sheweth that ‘[Councils have been against Councils, and the Arrian Hereticks had more Councils than the Christians.] and sheweth their uncertainty.’
Pag. 19. As to the Authority of Councils, Augustine saith, ‘[Ipsa plenaria Concilia saepe Priora [...] posterioribus emandantur.’
And of the Succession and Ordination of Bishops, he saith, Pag. 131. ‘[If there were not one of them (that turned from Popery) or of us left alive, yet would not therefore the whole Church of England fly to Lovaine. Tertullian saith, Nonne & Laici sacerdotes sumus.—Ubi Ecclesiastici Ordinis non est Consessus, & offert & tingit sacerdos qui est solus. Sed & ubi tres sunt, Ecclesia est, licet Laici. And frequently he saith, The Church is found among few, as well as among many.]’ And he was for Lay Mens Baptizing.
[Page 51]X. The first Canon commandeth Preachers Four times a Year to declare ‘[That All usurped & foreign Power (forasmuch as the same hath no Establishment nor Ground by the Law of God) is for most just Causes taken away and abolished. And that therefore, No manner of Obedience or Subjection within His Majesties Realms and Dominions is due to any such foreign Power.’
The 12th Canon Excommunicateth ipso facto any that shall affirm, ‘That it is lawful for any [...] of Ministers to joyn together and make [...], Orders or Constitutions, in Causes Ecclesiastical, without the King's Authority, and shall submit themselves to be ruled and governed by them.]’ Therefore none may go beyond Sea to Councils without his Authority. And the Canons of Foreigners are not to be made a Rule without his Authority. And is not other Princes Authority as necessary in their Dominions?
The Canon which bids Prayer 55th describeth ‘[ Christ's holy Catholick Church to be the whole Congregation of Christian People dispersed throughout the whole World.]’ But such a Church hath no Legislative or Judicial Power.
XI. The Controversie is about an Article of Faith, [I believe the holy Catholick Church.] The Humanists say, It is an universal Political Society, Governed by one humane Supream, (Monarch, Aristocracy or mixt) under Christ. Protestants say, It hath no universal supream Ruler but Christ. Now the Generality of Protestant English and transmarine, who write on the Creed, expound this Article accordingly in the Protestant sence; as he that will peruse their Books may find; which sheweth what is the sence of the Church of England.
[Page 52]XII. Though King Edw. VI. was but a Youth when he wrote his sharp Book against Popery, (lately printed.) It sheweth what his Tutors and the Clergy of his time, who were called the Church, then thought of these Matters.
XIII. If the Parliaments of England all the days of Queen Elizabeth, King James, and King Charles I. and II. knew what was the Doctrine of the Church of England about a Forreign Jurisdiction, it is easie to gather it in their Votes, and Acts. Let him that would know whether they were for a Coalition with the French on such terms, read Sir Simon Dewes Journals, Rushworths Collections, or Prins Introduction ad annum 1621. or any other true Historian, and he will see how far they were from owning any Forreign Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction. But the contrary minded would make the World believe that all these Parliaments were of some Sect differing from the Church of England. But what call they the Church of England but that part of the Clergy who conform to the Laws: And did not the Law-makers understand the Laws?
Or if they more regard the sence of the Clergy, let them read A. Bishop Abbot's very plain and bold Letter to the King, in Prin's Introduct. pag. 39, 40. and Dr. Hackwell's, &c. and they may know what was then the sence of the Clergy: With whom concurred the Bishops of Ireland: Insomuch that Bishop Downame expressing his sense of the Papists there, and his contrary desires, presumed to add, [ And let all the people say Amen;] at which the Church rang with the Amen. And though he was questioned in England for it, he came safe off. His Neighbour Bishops [Page 53] also declaring Popery to be Idolatry, and the Pope Antichrist.
XIV. The Bishops and chief Writers of England have taken the Pope to be the Antichrist; Cranmer, Whitguift, Parker, Grindall, Abbot, all A. Bishops of Canterbury; Vsher, Downame, Jewel, Andrews, Bilson, Latimer, Hooper, Farrar, Ridley, Robert Abbot, Hall, Allig, and abundance more Bishops: The Martyrs, Sutcliffe, Fulke, Sharp, Whittaker, Willet, Crakenthorp, and most of our Writers against Popery. Sure then they were for none of his Jurisdiction here.
XV. The Prayers have been and are to this day added in the end both to our Bibles and Common Prayer Books, which shew how far the Church of England was from desiring a Coalition with the Papists by submitting to any Forreign Jurisdiction: They say to God, ‘[Confound Satan and Antichrist, with all Hirelings, whom thou hast already cast off into a reprobate sense, that they may not by Sects, Schisms, Heresies, and Errors, disquiet thy little Flock. And because, O Lord, we be fallen into the latter days and dangerous times, wherein Ignorance hath got the upper hand, and Satan by his Ministers seeketh by all means to quench the light of thy Gospel, we beseech thee to maintain thy Cause against those ravening Wolves, and strengthen all thy Servants whom they keep in Prison and Bondage. Let not thy long-suffering be an occasion either to increase their tyranny, or to discourage thy Children, &c.]’
Though A. Bishop Laud put out all these Prayers from the Scots new Liturgy, we had never had them still bound with ours to this day if the [Page 54] Church of England had not at first approved them.
There is also a Confession of Faith found with them, describing the Catholick Church as we do.
XVI. The Oath called Et Caetera of 1640. saith that ‘[The Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England containeth all things necessary to Salvation.]’ Therefore Obedience to any Forreign Jurisdiction is not necessary to Salvation: And therefore not necessary to the avoiding of Schism, or any Damning Sin.
XVII. The Church of England holdeth that no Forreigners (Pope or Prelates) have Judicial Power to pronounce the King of England a Heretick. Or Excommunicate, (though as Bishop Andrews saith in Tortura Torti even a Deacon may refuse to deliver him the Sacrament if uncapable, much more that Pastor whom he chuseth to deliver it him.) For it's known by sad experience how dismal the Consequences are; exposing the lives of the Excommunicate to danger among them that believe the Pope and his Councils, and rendering them dishonoured and contemned by their Subjects: We know how many Emperors have been deposed as Excommunicate, and what Queen Elizabeth's Excommunication tended to; And if our Laws make it Treason to publish such an Excommunication, sure the Law-makers believed not that either Pope or Prelates had a Judicial Power to do it. In Prin's Introduct. p. 121. the Papists that were unwilling to be the Executioners, had no better plea, than [That no Council had yet judged the King to be a Heretick.] But Protestants deny that any Council hath a Judicial Power so to judge him, though all Men have [Page 55] a Discerning Power to judge with whom they should hold Communion.
But if our Defenders of a Forreign Power say true, then the Universal Judge (Pope or Prelates) may Judge and Excommunicate Kings who they think deserve it. And if so, not only Justice, but Humanity requireth that such Kings be first heard speak for themselves, and answer their Accusers Face to Face. And this can seldom be well done by proxy, as the Prelates will not Excommunicate the Proxies or Advocates only. And must all Emperors and Kings travel no Man knows whither or how far to answer every such accusation, and that at the Bar of a Priest, that's Subject to another Prince, (perhaps his Enemy;) And if it be at an Universal Council, the King of England may be Summoned to America or Constantinople, at nearest, if they must be indifferently called together.
XVIII. The Church of England is not for Popery, but against it: But the Doctrine of an Universal Church Soveraign under Christ, is Popery; by the Confession of Protestants and Papists. I. Protestants ordinarily rank the Papists into these sorts, differing from each other. 1. Those that place the Universal Supream Power in the Pope alone, (which are most of the Italians that dwell near him.) 2. Those that place it in a Pope and General Council agreeing, (which are the greatest number.) 3. Those that place it in a General Council as above the Pope, especially if they disagree. 4. Those that place it in the Universal Church real or diffusive. See Dr. Challoner in his Crede Ecclesiam Catholicam, describing these four sorts of Papists.
[Page 56]II. And the Papists themselves number all the same differences, as you may see in Bellarmine at large.
Of the first Opinion is Valentia in Thom. To. 3. Disp. 1. p. 7. § 45. and divers others both Jesuits, Friars and Seculars. And Albert. Pighius hath written an unanswerable Book against the Supremacy of Councils. But Bellarmine himself saith, of this way, ‘[Vs (que) ad hanc diem quaestio superest etiam inter Catholicos. Lib. 2. de Concil. c. 13.’ And they that have different Soveraigns have different Churches.
Of the second Opinion are the greatest number of their Doctors.
Of the third Opinion (for a Councils Supremacy above and against the Pope in case of disagreement) were the Councils of Constance and Basil; And saith Bellarmine, Joh. Gerson, Petr. de Alliaco. Card. Cameracensis, Jacobus Almanius, Card. Nicol. Cusanus, Card. Florentinus, Panormitanus, Toslatus Abulensis, and multitudes more; with Oviedo, Okam, &c. and the Parisians and French Church: And the Pope and Jesuits will not say that all these are Protestants, or none of the Roman Church: And the Church of England never took them for any other than Papists.
XIX. The small Book called Deus & Rex, which is approved by the Church of England, may give the Reader satisfaction herein.
XX. The common strain of the most approved Doctors of the Church in their Licensed Books against the Papists, disclaimeth all Forreign Jurisdiction of Pope or Prelates.
1. Bishop Jewel I before cited.
2. Bishop Bilson is too large to be recited. Of [Page 57] Christian Subj. p. 229. ‘[To Councils (saith he) such as the Church of Christ was wont by the help of her Religious Princes to call, we owe Communion and brotherly Concord, so long as they make no breach in Faith and Christian Charity; Subjection and Servitude we owe them none.]’ See more p. 270, 271, 272, 273, &c. of the Errours and Contradictions of General Councils, and how the major Vote obligeth us not to follow them.
And pag. 233. [The Title and Authority of A. Bishops and Patriarchs was not ordained by the Commandment of Christ or his Apostles, but the Bishops long after, when the Church began to be troubled with Dissentions, were contented to link themselves together in every Province to suffer one—to assemble the rest. "Pag. 261. The Bishops speaking the Word of God, Princes as well as others must yield Obedience: ‘But if Bishops pass their Commission, and speak beside the Word of God, what they list, both Prince and People may despise them.’
3. Dr. Fulke on Eph. 1. § 5. sheweth that the Church hath no Head but Christ, and no man can be so much as a Ministerial Head.
4. Dr. Reynolds against Hart proveth, that none but Christ can be the Head of Government any more than the Head of Influence.
5. Dr. Whitaker against Stapleton de sacra Script. pag. 128. ‘He sheweth his Ignorance as worthy to sit among the Catechumens, that instead of Believing that there is a Catholick Church, puts [ believing what the Catholick saith and believeth [sic tu, ut novam tuam fidem defendas n [...] vos articulos condis, etiam non haeresis sed perfidiae [Page 58] Magisteres] I believe that there is a holy Catholick Church, but that I must believe all that it believeth and teacheth, I believe not. Augustine appealed from the Nicene Council to the Scripture. We receive not the Baptism of Infants from the Authority of the Church, but from the Scripture. And pag. 103. he sheweth that [Councils have erred, and corrected one another, and are more uncertain than the Scripture. And pag. 50. [The Peace of the Church is better secured by referring all to the Scripture than to the Church.’
‘Pag. 501. The Catholick Church in the Creed is invisible, and known only by Faith.’
6. See Bishop Hall's, No Peace with Rome, and his Letter to Laud. It is tedious to cite all in Willet, Slater, Prideaux, Abbot, Marton, Crakenthorp, Challoner, White, and the rest to this purpose.
It is most notorious, that the Church of England was against all Forreign Jurisdiction of Pope or Prelates as over this Land.
To cite a multitude of such Testimonies, would but needlesly swell the Book, and weary the Reader.
Chap. II. The whole Kingdom and Church is sworn against all Forreign Jurisdiction, and all alteration of Government in Church and State: And ought not to be stigmatized with PERJURY.
§ 1. THat the whole Church and Kingdom is under such Oaths is visible.
[Page 59]I. The Oath of Supremacy before cited against All Forreign Jurisdiction is put upon all the Land.
II. The Oath called Et caetera 1640. is against Change of Government, and was taken by many.
III. The Act of Uniformity obligeth the whole Ministry to subscribe against all endeavours to alter the Government.
IV. The Oxford Act of Confinement sweareth all Nonconformists (and more) never to endeavour any Alteration of Government in Church or State.
V. The Vestry Act sweareth all the Parish Vestries to the same.
VI. The Corporation Act sweareth all the Cities and Corporations of England to the same; that is, All in Power and Trust as to Government.
VII. The Militia Act sweareth all the Souldiers of the Land to the same.
So that it is undeniable that all the Kingdom is sworn never to endeavour any Alteration of Government in Church or State, and also expresly against all Forreign Jurisdiction.
§ 2. That it is not only an Alteration, but even an Alteration of the very Species or Constitution of Church and State Government, to bring the Land under the Forreign Jurisdiction either of Pope, Prince or Prelates, I have proved by it self; and to any man of understanding, it needs no proof.
§ 3. That Church and State, and the whole Land ought not be wilfully perjured, is clear. 1. It is so heinous a sin against God, as is like to bring down destructive vengeance: He that threatneth it even in the Tables of Stone: The Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his Name in vain: And Perjury [Page 60] is the chief taking his Name in vain, to confirm a Lie. And if this threatning reach to every individual, what will become of perjured Church and Kingdom? The Lord is the avenger of all such crimes: And it's a fearful thing to fall into the hands of this God, who is a consuming fire.
II. ‘Perjury is a direct dissolution of Societies: Mutual Trust is their concernment: Utter Distrust is a Virtual death or war King and People are tied to each other by Oaths: Majors and chief Officers, and Judges are tied to fidelity by Oaths. The Bishops swear their Clergy to them, (though old Canons condemned it:) Loose this Bond, and what are Societies? Who can trust him that maketh no conscience of the Obligation of Oaths, any more than an Enemy?’
III. It depriveth the King of a necessary means of security for his life. If all conscience of the Oaths of Allegiance were gone, it is supposed that the conscience of Loyalty would be gone. And many a Traytor would study how to kill Kings secretly without danger to themselves, or to make it good by strength and numbers.
IV. It depriveth all the Subjects of necessary Security for Estate, Name or Life. If Church and State should openly be perjured, who can expect that all Individuals should stick at it? But rather that every Man that hath an Enemy, or hath either Wealth or Place which another desireth, should presently be Sworn to the Gallows or the Block? It were far better dwell among Toads, Snakes, and Adders, or Wolves and Bears against whom a Man hath some defence: Homo homini Lupus, would be turned into Homo homini Diabolus.
[Page 61]V. It would make us uncapable of Trust, Traffick, and Friendship with any Forreign Land: Open National Perjury is so odious against the Light and Law of Nature, that Englishmen would be to other Lands, as Man-eating Canibals are to us. None could treat with us or trust us.
VI. This would be a most heinous wrong to the King, to have the History of his Reign so odiously blotted to all Posterity, as that under him the Land should be turned to Diabolism, and made the hatred and scorn of all the Earth; when God had honoured it with so many Blessings above most others.
VII. It would render Popery it self more odious than it is, as if it lived by the most horrid crimes, and must revive by National Perjury: And would confirm those self-conceited Whimsical Expositors of Rev. 13. that think the mark in the Forehead imposed upon all that must buy and sell, and be Freemen is PERjury with PERsecution; and that dream that the Letters of the Name of the Beast, are not to be understood meerly Numerally, but Materially and Nominally, and that [...]. xi, sigma-tau are our Ch. and St. conjoyned by a Serpentine [X] or [ and] to signifie that our Swearing and Forswearing was for [ Church and State.] Yea and the more odious fancy of another Name in them will become their Sport.
VIII. It would make the Nonconformists say that never Men on Earth were dealt with so inhumanely, and Challenge the World to give any such instance in any History, Christian, Mahometan or Pagan, if the same men that have reviled [Page 62] them as Rebellious, and endeavoured their Imprisonment and utter Ruine for not Swearing never to endeavour any alteration of Government, should all this while be designing the alteration of it, and first to make all men abjure it, and after to bring them to it. The Dissenters scruple not Swearing never to Endeavour the Altering of the State, Government, nor of the Church as in the Hands of such Pastors as Christ or his Apostles instituted; nor any Reformation by Sedition or unlawful Means: But they durst not absolutely abjure all Lawful Endeavour, to take the Church Keys out of Lay-mens Hands, and to have more Bishops than one to many score or hundred Churches, &c. And if we must lye in Jails as Rogues for refusing this for fear of Perjury, and yet the Reverend or other Prosecuters should so far alter all the Government of Church and State as to bring all the Land under a Forreign Jurisdiction, Legislative, Judicial and Executive, and to make King, Parliament, Clergy and People the Subjects of the Pope, or which is more base, of a Court or Colledge of Prelates who are almost all Subjects to Forreign Papists, Mahometans and Heathens, of whom few dare disobey their Lords and Princes, this would be such a thing as Humane Language hath no words significant enough to describe.
§ 4. Obj. Sinful Oaths bind none, and must be broken.
Ans. 1. Sinful Oaths involve Men in the dreadful guilt of Perjury.
2. Oaths sinfully imposed and taken, yet bind to Lawful Matter.
[Page 63]3. If these Oaths be sinful, why were they imposed? Shall the same Men urge all to take them, and then say, You may break them as being sinful?
4. It is not sinful to Swear Loyalty and Self-defence against foreign Enemies or Usurpers.
Obj. 2. Luther and your other Reformers broke their Vow of Chastity and Obedience to the Pope, and defended it.
Answ. 1. You think they did ill, and will that justifie you?
2. To obey a Pope, that is by Usurpation a Vice-Christ, or King of all the World, is a great Sin, and they that Swear it, are no more bound to it, than they that Swear Murder or Treason. And the Vow of Chastity becomes unlawful to those that have not the Power of Continence. But for those that had, let them justifie them from Perjury that can: I cannot.
3. The Perjury of a few Individuals, and of a Kingdom, vastly differ.
4. They took that Oath in ignorance, thinking they had done well. But those that I now speak to, at once reviled them that took it not, and did their best to lay it on all the Land, and yet were then for a Foreign Jurisdiction, and designed or desired that all that took it might after break it.
But these Objectors shew us that there is no Sin so odious and inhumane, which Learned and Reverend Men may not plead for, under a Name and Mask of Virtue, Loyalty, Piety, and the Churches Good and Service.
Obj. The Laws may repeal these Oaths.
[Page 64] Answ. That will but free new Men from taking them; but not those that have already Sworn from keeping them in all the lawful parts.
Chap. III. What Endeavours have been used by the more Moderate Papists to bring England under a Foreign Jurisdiction in King James's time.
§. 1. I Will not meddle now with their violent Attempts abroad and at home, nor so much as name them. (Commonly Known) It is not my design to speak or act offensively, but defensively: Their ways of Wit and Deceit have been many, and among others pretended Motions for a Coalition hath not been the least: And their injurious Pretences that our Rulers have been inclined to them, as knowing how much that may do with the ignorant sequacious Multitude.
§. 2. I. In Queen Elizabeths days, they much perswaded her that to go as far from the Church of Rome as the Anti-Papists desired, would cross her Interest, and make the reduction of the Kingdom impossible, who were all Papists but as it were the other day.
II. In King James's time, they would fain have conquered him by the fear of Murder, when he heard of the Murder of two King's of France, H. 3. and H. 4. that had greater defensive Powers than he: And the Powder Plot was yet more frightful: And continued threatnings more.
And he shewed his peaceable Disposition in promoting the Spanish and French Matches for [Page 65] his Son: and especially if it be true that Rushworth [...]nd other Historians say, that He, and his Son, [...]nd his Council took their Oaths for a Toleration; [...]n the words recorded by them.
§. 3. And to make People believe that he was [...]t the heart a Papist, the Bishop of Ambrun boasteth of his success in a Conference with him, published in French in Mr. D'ageant, printed at Grenoble 1668. where in Pag. 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178. he tells this Story. (It's like the Archbishop told it to ingratiate himself with Cardinal Richlieu, to whom he sent it, and would not scruple aggravation.) ‘Afterwards there was a good understanding between the two Crowns: The King of England at the request of the K of France, did often remit the ordinary severities used against the Catholicks in England: He was even well-pleased with the Proposals that were secretly made to him by the King of France, in order to the reducing of him into the bosom of the Church. Insomuch, that after several Conferences held for that Effect, by the consent of his Majesty, without communicating any thing of that matter to his Council, for fear that the business being known should have been obstructed; The Archbishop of Ambrun passed into England, as if it had been without Design, in the Habit and under the Name of a Counsellor of the Parliament of Grenoble, whose curiosity had incited him to see England. He had no sooner Landed at Dover, but the Duke of Buckingham came to meet him, and having saluted him thus whispered in his Ear [ Sir, who call your self a Counsellor of Grenoble, but are the Archbishop of Ambrun, you are welcom into these Kingdoms. You [Page 66] need not change your Name nor your Quality, for here you shall receive nothing but Honour, and especially from the King my Master, who hath a most high Esteem of you.] Indeed the King of England used him most Kindly, and granted him many Favours on behalf of the Catholicks, and even permitted him in the French Embassador's Lodgings where was a great Assembly to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation to the Catholicks, the Doors being open, There were near Eighteen thousand Persons who received that Sacrament, and yet no man said any thing to them as they went in at the Gate, nor no where else. Although there were many of the English always standing in the Street beholding the Ceremony. During his abode, he had many Conferences with that King, who having come to agreement in all the controverted Points, he wrote a long Letter to the Pope by a Catholick Gentleman, his Subject, whom he sent secretly of purpose, by which Letter he acknowledged him to be the Vicar General of Jesus Christ, on Earth, the Universal Father of Christians, and the Head of all the Catholicks; assuring him that after he had made sufficient provision with respect to the things agreed on, he would open [...] declare himself: In the mean time; he pro [...]ed him not to suffer any more to make search in his Kingdom for the Priests which were sent over by his Holiness, and the most Christian King, provided they were no Jesuites, whom he said he could not trust for many Reasons, chiefly because he counted them to have been the Authors of the Powder Plot, by which they had designed to have blown him up [Page 67] in his Parliament. In his Letter among other things, he intreated the Pope to grant that the Church Lands which had become part of the Patrimony of the principal Houses in England might not be taken from them; that on the contrary, they might be permitted to possess them; because if it should be otherwise, there might arise trouble on that account. He said also, that nothing hindred him from declaring himself presently, but that he desired to bring the King of Denmark his Brother-in-Law with him; whom he had in order to that end, but under another pretence, prayed to come over into England, where he hoped to Convert him with himself. That in so doing he should secure the Peace of his Kingdoms, which otherwise he could hardly keep in Peace, and that they two joyned in the same Design, would draw with them almost all the North. The Duke of Buckingham and the Gentleman, whom he sent to Rome, were the only Persons of his Subjects to whom he had made known this design. But the Death of King James, which put a stop to this Negotiation, put a stop to the Effect of it, which was a matter of great Grief to his Holiness, and the King of France.]’ Thus far Deageant: At the End of his Book is a Narrative of the Archbishop of Ambrun of his Voyage into England, written to Cardinal Richlieu. In which he speaks much to the like purpose, as done 1624. adding, ‘That the King told him with great freedom the affection he had for the Catholick Faith, and was so particular as not to omit any thing, insomuch that he told me, that from his Childhood his Masters perceiving his inclinations thereto, he [Page 68] had run great hazards of being assassinated.)’ The rest is, ‘That the King resolved to settle Liberty of Conscience by calling an Assembly of Trusty English and Foreign Divines at Dover or Boloigne.’
I have recited this to shew that as they are not wanting in Art and Industry, so they abuse the Name of Princes to promote their Cause. Who can tell but much of this is Lies? And if King James to prevent Butchery, gave them a few fair words, it's like they added more of their own. And if he used the Papists kindly, as being against Cruelty, they were the more unexcusable that would have destroyed him, and could not be kept in Peace.
§. 4. Yet do the Papists make people beyond Sea believe that they live here under constant Martyrdom! Sure if History be to be believed, the Articles of King James and his Son, our late King, about the Spanish and French Matches, do acquit both Kings from any just Accusation of Cruelty against the Papists. Rushworth aftermentioned thus reciteth the private Articles of the first Match, Pag. 86, 87, 88.
1. ‘Particular Laws made against Roman Catholicks, under which other Vassals of our Realm are not comprehended, and general Laws under which all are equally comprized, if repugnant to the Romish Religion, shall not any time hereafter by any means or chance whatever, directly or indirectly, be commanded to be put in Execution against the said Roman Catholicks: And we will cause that our Council shall take the same Oath, as far as it pertains to them, and belongs to the Execution which by them and their Ministers is to be exercised.’
[Page 69]2. ‘That no other Laws shall hereafter be made anew against the said Roman Catholicks; but that there shall be a perpetual Toleration of the Roman Catholick Religion within Private Houses throughout all Our Realms and Dominions; which We will have to be understood as well of Our Kingdoms of Scotland and Ireland, as in England; which shall be Granted to them in manner and form as is Capitulated, Decreed, and Granted in the Articles of the Treaty concerning the Marriage.’
3. ‘That neither by Us, nor by any other interposed Person whatsoever, directly or indirectly, privately or publickly, will We Treat or Attempt any thing with the most renowned Lady Infanta Donna Maria, which shall be repugnant to the Roman Catholick Religion: Neither will We by any means perswade her that she should ever renounce or relinquish the same, in Substance or Form, or that she should do any thing repugnant or contrary to those things which are contained in the Treaty of Marriage.’
4. ‘That We and the Prince of Wales will interpose Our Authority, and will do as much as in Us shall lye, that the Parliament shall approve, confirm and ratifie all and singular Articles, in favour of the Roman Catholicks, capitulated between the most renowned Kings, by reason of this Marriage: And that the said Parliament shall Revoke and Abrogate particular Laws made against the said Roman Catholicks, to whose observance also the rest of Our Subjects and Vassals are not obliged; as likewise the general Laws under which all are equally comprehended, to wit, as to the Roman Catholicks, [Page 70] if they be such as is aforesaid, which are repugnant to the Roman Catholick Religion. And that hereafter we will not consent that the said Parliament shall ever at any time enact or write any other, or new Laws against Roman Catholicks.’
‘Moreover, I Charles Prince of Wales engage my self (and promise, that the most Illustrious King of Great Britain my most honoured Lord and Father shall do the same both by word and writing) that all those things which are contained in the foregoing Articles, and concern as well the Suspension as the Abrogation of the Laws made against the Roman Catholicks shall within three years infallibly take effect, and sooner if it be possible, which we will have to lye upon our Conscience and Royal Honour; that I will interceed with the most Illustrious King of Great Britain my Father, that the ten years of the Education of the Children which shall be Born of this Marriage with the most Illustrious Lady Infanta their Mother, accorded in the Twenty third Article (which term the Pope of Rome desires to have prorogued to twelve years) may be lengthened to the said term. And I Promise freely of my own accord and Swear that if it so happen that the entire power of disposing of this matter be devolved to me, I will also grant and approve the said term.’
‘Further, I Prince of Wales oblige my self upon my Faith to the Catholick King, that as often as the Illustrious Lady Infanta shall require that I should give ear to Divines or others whom her Highness shall be pleased to imploy in matter of the Roman Religion, I will hearken to them [Page 71] willingly without all difficulty, and laying aside all excuse. And for further caution in point of free exercise of the Catholick Religion and Suspension of the Laws above-named, I Charles Prince of Wales Promise and take upon me, in the word of a King, that the things above-promised and treated concerning those matters shall take effect and be put in execution as well in the Kingdoms of Scotland and Ireland, as of England.’
The Privy Councillors Oath, saith the same Author, was this.
‘I A. B. do Swear that I will truely and fully observe as much as belongeth to me all and every the Articles which are contained in the treaty of Marriage between the most Gracious Charles Prince of Wales and the most Gracious Lady Donna Maria Infanta of Spain: Likewise I Swear that I will neither commit to Execution nor Cause to be Executed by my self or any inferior Officer serving me, any Laws against any Roman Catholicks whatsoever, nor will execute any punishment inflicted by those Laws, but in all things which belong to me will faithfully observe, his Majesties word given on that behalf.]’
I have recited this to shew that the Papists deceive Forreigners, when they tell them that they lived here under cruel Persecution. And yet let none think that the King turned Papist: For all this was on condition of the Spanish Match which was broken: And the King well knew that the Parliament would never consent to it.
But his own words may satisfie us in this: For, saith Rushworth, ‘[The King called a Parliament [Page 72] 1623. (when the Match was broken) and saith to them, [It hath been talked of my remisness in maintenance of Religion, and suspicion of a Toleration: But as God shall judge me, I never thought nor meant, nor ever in word expressed any thing that savoured of it.]’ But the stinging Petition against the Papists (as the King called it) which this Parliament offered him shewed still what they were against.
If the Papists say these Articles frustrate prove no forbearance of Severities against us; Rushworth answers them saying, pag. 156. of the French Match, ‘[In Novemb. the Articles were Sworn to by King James, Prince Charles, and the French King. The Articles concerning Religion were not much short of those for the Spanish Match.]’ And pag. 173. ‘[That the English Catholicks should be no more searched after, nor molested for their Religion.]’
§ 5. And they have the less reason to accuse the King of Cruelty, or yet to report that he was in Heart a Papist, when he rather endured their displeasure than he would turn to them, and yet endured the disgust both of the Church-men and Parliament than he would lay by his Clemency toward them. ‘The Commons, saith Rushworth pag. 213. An. 1625. censured Mr. Ri. Montague for endeavouring to reconcile England and Rome and to alienate the Kings Affections from his well-affected Subjects.’
And the A. Bishop Abbot wrote this Letter to the King.
‘I have been too long silent, and am afraid by my silence I have neglected the Duty of the place it hath pleased God to call me to, and your Majesty to place me in. But now I humbly crave leave I may discharge my Conscience toward God, and my Duty to your Majesty: And therefore I beseech you freely to give me leave to deliver my self, and then let your Majesty do with me what you please. Your Majesty hath propounded a Toleration of Religion. I beseech you take into consideration what your Act is, what the consequence may be. By your Act you labour to set up the most and Heretical Doctrine of the Church of Rome, the Whore of Babylon: How hateful it will be to God, and grievous to your good Subjects the Professors of the Gospel, that your Majesty who hath often Disputed and Learnedly Written against those Hereticks, should now shew your self a Patron of those wicked Doctrines, which your Pen hath told the World, and your Conscience tells your self, are Superstitious, Idolatrous, and Detestable. And hereunto I add, what you have done in sending the Prince into Spain, without the consent of your Council, and Privity and Approbation of your People: And though you have a Charge and Interest in the Prince as Son of your Flesh, yet have the people a greater as Son of the Kingdom, upon whom next after your Majesty are their Eyes fixed and their welfare depends. And so tenderly is his going apprehended, as (believe it) however his return [Page 74] may be safe, yet the Drawers of him into this Action, so dangerous to himself, so desperate to the Kingdom, will not pass away unquestioned, unpunished. Besides this Toleration which you endeavour to set up by your Proclamation, cannot be done without a Parliament, unless your Majesty will let your Subjects see that you will take to your self ability to throw down the Laws of your Land at your pleasure: What dreadful consequents these things may draw afterward, I beseech your Majesty to consider: And above all, lest by this Toleration discountenancing the true Profession of the Gospel, wherewith God hath blessed us, and this Kingdom hath so long flourished under it, your Majesty do not draw upon this Kingdom in General and your self in particular Gods heavy wrath and indignation. Thus in discharge of my Duty towards God, and your Majesty, and the place of my Calling, I have taken humble leave to deliver my Conscience. Now Sir do what you please with me.’
Thus you see what difficulties the King went through to avoid all shew of Cruelty to the Roman Sect; when at the same time the Canons Excommunicated Protestants that affirmed any thing to be unlawful in the Liturgy, Ceremonies, or Church Government, and the Laws were in force against them.
Chap. IV. Of the Papists Endeavours in the time of King Charles the First, and the great wrong they did him.
§. 1. THE same method they still continued, 1. In vain they subtilly laboured to have perverted the King. 2. And then pretended their great sufferings to procure Indulgence. 3. And secretly gave out that the King was for them, to draw on others that they thought would be still of the Kings Religion.
§ 2. When he was in Spain the Bishop of Couchen a Trained Veterane, and Head of the Inquisition was chosen to take the charge of labouring his Conversion, and Carolus Boverius wrote to him that Book for Church Monarchy, which is now extant: And the Pope wrote to him an insinuating Letter; to which this answer as returned by the Prince is recorded by Prin as out of Mr. De Chesne the King of France his Geographer, and by the Caballa of Letters, and by Rushworth, who saith the Latine Copy was preserved by some then in Spain at the Treaty, and this following in the Caballa is but an ill Translation of it.
‘I received the dispatch from your Holiness with great content, and with that respect which the Piety and Care wherewith your Holiness writes doth require. It was an unspeakable pleasure to me to read the generous Exploits of the Kings my Predecessors, in whose Memory [Page 76] Posterity hath not given those Praises and Elogies of Honour as were due to them. I believe that your Holiness hath set their Examples before my Eyes to the end I might imitate them in all my Actions: For in truth they have often exposed their Estates and Lives for the Exaltation of the Holy Chair. And the Courage wherewith they have assaulted the Enemies of the Cross of Jesus Christ, hath not been less than the Care and Thought which I have to the End that the Peace and Intelligence which hath hitherto been wanting in Christendom might be bound with a true and strong Concord. For as the common Enemy of Peace still watcheth to put hatred and dissention among Christian Princes, so I believe that the Glory of God requires that we should endeavour to unite them. And I do not esteem it a greater honour to be descended from so great Princes, than to imitate them in the Zeal of their Piety. In which it helps me very much to have known the mind and will of our thrice honoured Lord and Father, and the Holy Intentions of his Catholick Majesty, to give a happy concurrence to so laudable a Design. For it grieveth him exceedingly to see the great evils that grow from the Divisions of Christian Princes, which the Wisdom of your Holiness foresaw, when it judged the Marriage which you pleased to design between the Infanta of Spain and my self to be necessary to procure so great a good. For it is very certain I shall never be so extreamly affectionate to any thing in the World, as to endeavour alliance with a Prince that hath the same apprehension of the true Religion with my self. Therefore I [Page 77] intreat your Holiness to believe that I have been always very far from Novelties, or to be a partizan of any Faction, against the Catholick Apostolick Roman Religion. But on the contrary I have sought all occasions to take away the suspicion that might rest upon me. And that I will employ my self for the time to come to have but one Religion and one Faith; seeing we all believe in one Jesus Christ: Having resolved in my self, to spare nothing that I have in the World, and to suffer all manner of discommodities, even to the hazarding of my Estate and Life for a thing so well pleasing to God: It rests only that I thank your Holiness for the permission you have pleased to afford me. And I pray God to give you a Blessed Health, and his Glory after so much pains which your Holiness takes in his Church. Signed,’
§ 3. Read Rushworth's Copy p. 82, 83. whether is most current I know not, but this much shews that the Papists complaint of cruel usage here is unjust. And lest any believe them that say King Charles was at the Heart a Papist, let them note, 1. How many and strong temptations he frustrated. 2. That when he wrote this he was in their power. 3. That here is no promise to subject himself to a Foreign Jurisdiction, but to endeavour Peace and Concord; which may better be by drawing the Papists to us, than by coming to them. The truest Adversaries to Popery are the greatest Lovers of true Concord and Peace.
§ 4. All the lenity that was shewed them after [Page 78] here, and the agency of Panzani, Con. &c. I pass by, lest my recital be misunderstood. The Reader may see enough if not too much in Rushworth, and in Prin's Introduction, &c. I only add that this King who was so Zealous for Concord, and that overcame so many Temptations to Popery distant and in his Bosom, and was so firm as not to fear to grant them the audience promised, yet was so much against all cruelty to them, that he suffered very much for his Lenity and Clemency to them, both from themselves and from the Protestants. But the most odious injury that ever they did him, was by pretending his Commission for that most inhumane War and Massacre in Ireland; when in time of peace they suddenly Murdered two hundred thousand, and told Men that they had the Kings Commission to rise as for him that was wronged by his Parliament; the very fame of this horrid Murder, and the words of the many Fugitives that escaped in Beggery into England (assisted by the Charity of the Dutchess of Ormond and others) and the English Papists going in to the King was the main cause that filled the Parliaments Armies: I well remember it cast people into such a fear that England should be used like Ireland, that all over the Countreys, the people oft sate up, and durst not go to Bed, for fear lest the Papists should rise and Murder them. And this is all that the Papists have yet got by their Bloody Cruelty, to necessitate people in fear to take them for their Mortal Foes. Bishop Morley saith in his Letter to the Dutchess of York p. 6, 7. ‘ That by raising and spreading malicious and scandalous reports against the King that he was a Papist and intended to bring in Popery, on [Page 79] that account only they raised many thousands against him, without whose assistance they could never have overpowered him, and oppressed him as they did: And the success they had thereby against the Father, encouraged them to make use of the same Engine against his Son, by giving it out that the King by living so long abroad in Popish Countreys was so corrupted in his Religion, that if he were suffered to return, he would bring in Popery along with him. So that with this groundless fear I found many considerable and very much interested Persons possest when I was sent into England, about two Months before the Kings return; most of which time I spent in undeceiving all I met with, especially the Heads and Leaders of the Presbyterian and Independant Parties, (who seemed to be most afraid of such a Change) by assuring them that those misreports they had heard of the King and his Brothers were nothing else but the malicious Inventions of those that were in fact or consent the Murderers of his Father— For to my certain knowledge (said I) who was almost always an Eye-witness of their actions, the King and both his Brothers, &c.]’
And he was confident that this was the case of the Dutchess of York, and that the Papists falsly gave it out that she was theirs to draw people to them.
And what then could have been more injurious to King Charles the First, than this boast and report of the Irish Murderers. By which they would make him to have so dreadfully begun; for the rebellion was Octob. 23. 1641. and Edgehill Fight the same day 1642. And hereby they have given the Scots occasion to publish to posterity these Scandalous words in their Books against the Cromwellians called, Truth its Manifest, printed 1645. pag. 17, 19. ‘[The King seeing he was [Page 80] stopped by the Scots first in their own Countrey, next in England, to carry on his great design takes the Irish Papishs by the hand rather than be alway disappointed, and they willingly undertake to levy Arms for his Service, that is, for the Romish Cause, the Kings design being subservient to the Roman Cause, though he abused thinks otherwise, and believes that Rome serveth to his purpose: But to begin the work they must make sure of all the Protestants, if they cannot otherwise by Murdering and Massacring them — p. 19. The next recourse was to the Irish Papists, his good Friends, to whom from Scotland a Commission is dispatched under the Great Seal (which Seal was at that instant time in the Kings own Custody) of that Kingdom to hasten according to former agreement, the raising of the Irish in Arms who no sooner receive this new Order but they break out, &c.]’ And I am not willing to believe this.
A report so dishonourable to the King, his Life, his Arms, his Death, and to all that fought for him, that the Fifth Commandment forbids us to believe it, though the Scots should say, They saw the Sealed Commissions: Yea though I had seen them my self; seeing it is possible for the Irish to Counterfeit the Scots Broad Seal.
But by this it appeareth what wrong the King had by the Irish boasting of his Commission, and the Papists pretending to more countenance than he gave them.
§ 4. And as the said R. Bishop of Winchester was confident they slandered the Dutchess of York in her Life, so he conjectureth that the Jesuit Maimbrough hath done since her death, and that some of them devised the Confession which he printeth as hers, which he professeth to be false as to the accusation of himself. The words of Maimbrough translated are these.
A Declaration of the Dutchess of York, translated out of Maimbourg's Histoire du Calvinisme.
A Person Educated in the Church of England, and as much instructed in her Doctrine (according to the Opinion of the most able Divines of her Party) as her Condition and Capacity could admit, ought to expect to be the Object of publick censure, when she quits her Religion to imbrace that of the Church of Rome. And as I freely confess that I have been one of her greatest Enemies, if not in effect at least in will, I have thought it reasonable, that for the satisfaction of my Friends, I should declare the Motives and Reasons of my Conversion, and of the so suddain and unexpected change of my Religion, yet without engaging my self in the Questions and Objections which might be made on this Occasion.
I Protest in the presence of Almighty God, that since my return into England, no Person whatsoever, hath directly or indirectly, perswaded me to imbrace the Catholick Religion: It is a favour which I owe to the alone Mercy of God; I dare not even think that the Prayers which I have made him every day since my return from France and Flanders, to beg of him to discover to me the Truth have obtained for me.
It is very true, that having seen the Fervour and the Devotion of the Catholicks of those Countries, and feeling that I had none of it, or very little, I have never ceased since that time to ask of God the Grace, that if I were not of the true Religion, I might be so before I died.
[Page 82]Nevertheless I had not the least doubt but that the Belief of the Church of England was the true, and I never had any scruple or trouble of Conscience on this Occasion until November last, that I began to read Dr. Heylin's History of the Reformation, which is much esteemed; and whereof the reading in the Opinion of all the able Men of the Kingdom, is sufficient to free the Conscience from all Scruples and Doubts which might arise about Religion. But for my part far from finding in that History what was said of it, I found to the contrary that by reading of it; it only made me see the most horrible Sacriledges that were ever heard spoken of, and that it was not sufficient to satisfie an indifferent understanding, nor to perswade it that we had the least foundation or appearance of reason for changing the ancient Face of the Church, and renouncing the Catholick Religion.
I noted in that History first, that Henry the Eighth quitted not the Communion of the Church of Rome, nor opposed the Authority of the Pope; but because he would not let him put away the Queen his Wife, to Marry another. 2. That King Edward the Sixth being yet a Child, his Uncle who governed him abusing the Royal Authority, which he had in his hand, enriched himself by appropriating to himself and his Family the Lands and Goods of the Church. 3. That Queen Elizabeth not being the lawful Heir of the Crown, could not keep the unjust Possession which she had taken but by renouncing the true Church, because the Purity and Rectitude of her Doctrine was not consistent with the Usurpation of the Kingdom of Great Britain.
[Page 83]I could not conceive, much less believe, that the holy Spirit which governs the true Church, should be the Author of the Three Points that I now noted, which have been the only Foundation of the Subversion of the ancient Religion, to favour the Licentiousness of Henry the Eighth, the Usurpation of Queen Elizabeth, and the Ambition mixed with the extream Avarice of the Uncle of Edward the Sixth. Neither could I understand how the Bishops, who boast that they had no other design [...]n separating themselves from the Communion of the Church of Rome, but to endeavour the re-establishing of the Doctrine & Discipline of the Primitive Church, have not thought of this pretended Reformation, but while Henry the Eighth attempted a Separation from the Roman Church, that he might satisfie his guilty Pleasures.
All these Reflections having busied my Mind after the reading of that History, I endeavoured to [...]nstruct my self in the Points controverted between [...]s and the Catholicks: I examined them the most [...]xactly that I could by the Scripture it self, and though I thought not my self sufficient for under [...]tanding it well, I found nevertheless some things which appeared to me so clear, so easie to be un [...]erstood, that I have a thousand times wondred that I have been so long without reflecting on them.
I was particularly and strongly convinced of the [...]eal Presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Sacrament of the Altar, of the Infallibility of the Church, Confession, and Prayer for the Dead. I was willing to confer of these Matters by way of Discourse with the two most able Bishops that we [...]ave in England, and both confessed to me ingenuously, [Page 84] that there are many things in the Church of Rome which it was to be wished that the Church of England had still observed, as Confession, which it could not be denied but that God had commanded it, and Prayer for the Dead, which is one of the most authentick and ancient Practices of the Christian Religion; But as to themselves, they made use thereof in private, without making publick profession thereof.
As I pressed one of these Bishops upon the other Points of Controversie, and principally on the real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Sacrament of the Altar, he answered me freely, That were he a Catholick, he would not change Religion, but that having been educated in a Church in which he believed there was all that was necessary to Salvation, and there having received his Baptism, he thought he could not quit it without great Scandal.
All this Discourse served but to increase the ardent desire which I had to become a Catholick, and I felt inward pains and horrible disquiets after the Conversation I had with these two Bishops.
Nevertheless that I might not precipitate in an Affair of this Importance, and where my Salvation was concerned, I endeavoured to satisfie my self entirely. I prayed God with all my heart to calm my troubled Mind by making me to know the Truth, the search of which had caused my trouble. Being in this Condition, I went at Christmas to the Kings Chapel to receive the Sacrament, which put my Soul into new troubles, which continued till I discovered my state of Mind to a Catholick, who to procure me the repose and tranquillity [Page 85] which I wished, caused a good Priest to come to me, and he was the first Ecclesiastick, with whom I conferred of my inward condition and the affairs of my Soul. The more I spoke with him, the more I found my self inwardly perswaded and strengthened by the Grace of the Holy Spirit to change Religion.
As I could not doubt of the truth of the words of Jesus Christ, which assures us that the Holy Sacrament contains his Flesh and his Blood; I could not easily believe that he who is truth it self, had permitted that the Communion under one kind had been introduced into his Church, in which and with which he hath promised to dwell to the end of the World, if it sufficeth not for the Salvation of them who communicate under one kind only.
To conclude, I am not able to enter into Dispute with any on these great Truths, and though I were, I would not engage my self further than in a Discourse of a few words, and without contesting to express simply the Motives and Reasons of my Conversion.
I call God to witness, who knows the secret of Mens hearts, that I had never thought of changing Religion if I had believed I might obtain Salvation by continuing in the state I was by my Birth and Education, and I think it is not necessary that I here declare that it was not Interest, nor prospect of Honors, or of any fading and perishable Profits which have perswaded me thereunto, seeing that on the contrary by changing Religion, I exposed my self to the hazard of losing both my Friends and my Credit; and freely to confess the truth, I considered and examined often, whether it was not more expedient for me to keep my Friends, [Page 84] [...] [Page 85] [...] [Page 86] my Rank, and my Credit in the Court, by continuing in the Exercise of the Religion of the Church of England, than quit all these things in a view and hope of the good things of the life to come; but thorough the Mercy of God, which inl [...]ghtens those that seek it, I felt no pain or difficulty in making the choice I have. I shall only say that all my fear hath been, lest the poor Catholicks of this Countrey should suffer much on the occasion of my Conversion, and that God should nor give me the Grace to suffee patiently with them the Disgraces and Afflictions of this Life to merit the Eternal. At St. James the 8 th of August, 1670.
Postscript.
BUt since the first writing of this, the Publick Matter of Fact hath taught the World how little Cause those that he calleth the Heads of the Presbyterians and Independants, or any others, had to believe Bishop Morley's confident Testimony, of one or other; Or honest Mr. Gache's Letter to me, or the rest of the French Letters published with it by Lauderdale. I cannot forget Dr. Morley's words to my self in Jan. 1659. before King Charles II. came in, that most on this side the Alpes would joyn with the Church of England, were it not for the blocks that Calvin had laid in the way; And this he knew by his converse with them. But this Coalition was not to be our becoming Papists, ( quoad nomen) but France forsooth, if not Flanders too, would turn Protestants (as they have done.)
I knew not when I writ this Book, 1. Of King James's Paper published as found in King Charles [Page 87] the Second's Pocket, and the Testimonies that he died a Papist, nor what was witnessed of his Engagement for them. 2. I knew not of what King James the Second would after be and do. 3. I knew not of Archbishop Bramhall's Letter, Printed by Dr. Parre in Archbishop Vsher's Life, confidently assuring Archbishop Vsher, that on his certain Information, the Papists in 1647. got into Cromwell's Army, and confederated with the Papists at Oxford in the King's Army to have the King put to Death: And whether they sent beyond Sea for Approbation, and obtained it.
Chap. V. The foreign Leaders of the English Conciliaters, who are for introducing a foreign Jurisdiction.
§. 1. THe horrid Confusions in the Roman Church by two and three Popes at once (some Kingdoms cleaving to one, and some to another) constrained the Emperor and divers Princes to call a Council called General, for remedy. The Popes being by this Council condemned and deposed, it could not be expected that they should approve them and consent: so that the Council was necessitated (though cross to late Custom) to declare their Power to be above the Popes, so far as to judge and depose him if he deserve it: This way went the Councils of Pisa, Constance, and Basil. But the Pope's Upholders still stuck to him, and said, Parliaments may as well depose Kings. The Body cannot cut off the Head. And Eugenius 4th, though condemned [Page 88] by the Council and deposed as a Heretick, Simonist, Blasphemer, &c. kept Possession, and their Church succeedeth him to this day.
§. 2. This opinion for the Church Diffusive represented in a Council being above the Pope, was kept alive in Bohemia, France and other Countries, and in Luther's time did much further his Reformation; by encouraging Princes and People to disobey the Pope. And Luther at the first seemed to go but little further: But afterward quite cast off the Pope, and denied all his Claim of universal or foreign Jurisdiction.
§. 3. Some that joyned with Luther in reforming many Abuses, thought that the whole World (or Church) must have one Humane Head or Governor in Religion, and that we must not separate from subjection to the Pope, but only keep him to govern by Church Canons, and not Arbitrarily, as being singulis major, but universis minor. And so the Controversie came to be the same as between Monarchs that will be above Law, and those that are limited by the Laws. The Italians and some others are for the first; but the French and some others are only for his limited Power. Of these in Luther's time were Erasmus, Julius Pflug., Sidonius, Agricola, the Authors of the Interim, and Wicelius, Cassander, Haffmeister, and after Fr. Baldwin, and divers others. And in France some excellent Lawyers, yet more moderate, as the Chancellor Mich. Hospitalius, Thu [...]nus, and a great Party with them.
§. 4. Joh. Gerson Chancellor, and a Member of the Council of Constance before these, was so moderate (though he was for burning Hus and Jerome of Prague) that in the great Point of the [Page 89] sufficiency of God's own Laws, he condemneth even most of these Moderators. I will insert his words in Sermone in die Circumcisionis Domini habito Trasconae coram Papae (in the Pope's own hearing.)
‘[Schismatis praesentis sedationem invenire non sufficient leges humanae jam conditae, nisi superior Lex Divina vivae & architectonica consulatur. Quod fortè non satis actum est us (que) in praesens: Obliget quod ait Dominus in Isaia, Timuerunt me mandato hominum, & doctrinis; ideo ecce ego addam ut admirationem faciam populo huic miraculo grandi & stupendo; Peribit enim sapientia à sapientibus ejus, & intellectus prudentium ejus abscondetur: Ex quo loco sumpsit Jesus illud improperium contra Pharisaeos quod irritum faciebant mandatum Dei propter suas traditiones. Audirent utinam ista auribus suis hi qui legem Evangelicam, legem Divinam cum professoribus suis deserentes, humanis traditionibus incumbant toti, adeo ut ad superiorem legem illam oculos attollere vel non valeant ex ruditate, vel nolint ex iniquitate, vel negligant ex inerti segnitie, cum tamen rebus leges humanae non sufficiunt; prout in schismate praesente compertum videtur; & ad Legis divinae radicem & interpretationem Consultatio referatur, & secundum eam conscientia formetur necesse est, Quid autem mali, quid periculi, quid Confusionis attulerit contemptus sacrae Scripturae; uti (que) SVFFICIENTIS PRO REGIMINE ecclesiae Alioquin Christus fuisset Legislator imperfectus: Interrogetur experientia, consideretur clerus, cui desponsari debuerat Sapientia quae de sursum est, purifica & pudica; an ipse fornicatus est cum adultera illa meretricula, sapientia terrena, animali, diabolica: Status insuper ecclesiae nonne factus est totus brutalis & monstrosus? [Page 90] ubi coelum deorsum, hoc est, id quod spirituale est, & terra sursum, spiritus serviens & caro dominans: Principale accessorium, & accessorium principale; us (que) ad hoc ut quidam delirare non dubitent quod per inventiones humanas etiam melius, quàm per legem divinam & Evangelicam regeretur: Quasi minus sit anima quàm Corpus, & spiritualis quàm carnalis fructus: Haec assertio per meam fidem blasphema est; nedum falsa. Evangelica quippe doctrina per suos professores dilatavit Ecclesiam us (que) in Coelum, quam filii Agur exquirentes sapientiam quae de terra est detruserunt us (que) in coenum: Et quod ex toto non corruerit est ex gratia Dei & salvatoris nostri. Haec ego loquor eo liberius quia mihi Conscius sum, non ex quaestu, non ambitu, non ad laudem propriam meae professionis, sed pro assertione veritatis & utilit [...]e publica haec dicere.’
O happy England, if Protestants had been as much in this against Popery and Error.
§. 5. And here the Roman Deceivers and some peaceable Men of them, have joyned to draw us to them on Pretences of Peace and Reconciliation. Some honest peaceable Men have been destroyed by the rest for their Moderation. The Learnedst Moderator that we have had, was M. Ant. de dominis Archbishop of Spalato, whose Books de Republ. Eccles. are full of both Learning and Judgment, and so moderate that I cannot call him a Papist: Though being enticed to Rome again by flattery, he perished by their Cruelty.
What Leander was, I am not fully acquainted. Fr. de Sancta Clara aliàs Davenport, was a real Papist, and designed on the pretence of Reconciliation to draw us over to them; And hath shewed more acquaintance with Scotus and other [Page 91] Schoolmen, than with the Protestants in his attempt to reconcile our Articles to their Doctrine.
Dr. Morley Bishop of Winchester tells us, That in his Conference with the Jesuit F. Darcy, he would have drawn him to them, by perswading him that they are not unreconcileable but can abate us many things; P. 5. ‘[The Father replied, that perhaps we should not find them so stiff in all Points: for in things of Positive and Ecclesiastical Constitution only, the Church might in order to Christian Peace alter something which she had before Established; and he doubted not but she would: And his Instances were, the Latine Service, the Sacrament under one Species, and the Caelibate of Priests; But as for Matters of Faith, they could not alter or abate any thing, instancing in the Point of the Churches Infallibility.’
And this is their ordinary Opinion, and yet they would not grant the Cup to the Bohemians, and to this day the Churches Peace hath not prevailed with them for such Alterations as they say are in their Power.
What of this Kind they offered in the Treaty with Archbishop Laud we shall see after.
The Book called The Catholick Moderator, goeth this way.
But no man hath attempted it with so much ability of Judgment and Success of late as Hugo Grotius, in his Votum Pro Pace, Consultatio and Notes on Cassander, his Annotations on the Revelations, and De Antichristo, and his Writings against Rivet. The Dutch dealt hardly with him as an Arminian, and Judged him to perpetual Imprisonment, (when they had not such another Man [Page 92] among them) from which his Wife delivered him, getting him carried out in a Trunk, on pretence of carrying from him his Arminian Books. And being escaped into France he was intimate with the Learned Jesuits, especially Petavius, and made the Queen of Sweden's Embassador, who shortly after turned Papist, and is yet living at Rome: And it is no censoriousness to suspect that his great exasperation might have influence on his judgment.
And because he is the Man whom our English Defenders of a foreign Jurisdiction own, I will next tell you what his late judgment was in his own words.
I confess I have a far greater honour for those Men that were bred in Popery and are Moderators, than for those being bred Protestants revolt from Reformation to a Coalition. I doubt not but Gerson, was a very holy Man: Cassander seemeth to have been an excellent Pious learned Man: And I doubt whether most of our nominal Protestants that are for a foreign Jurisdiction be near so moderate as he. He oft (as de Officio Pii Viri, p. 788, 789, &c) maketh the Church of Rome to be but a part of the Universal Church: ‘He maintaineth (that some called Schismaticks, are not indeed departed from the Church for departing from Rome, as long as they depart not from Christ the Head of the Church: and that only defection of Love, and not diversity of Rites and Opinions cuts Men off from Christ! And that as long as they are joyned to Christ the Head by sound belief of him, and by the Bond of Charity and Peace, they are joyned to the Church, and are not to be taken for Schismaticks and [Page 93] Aliens from the Church, though they be rejected and seem separated from their Society and Communion, by another more powerful part of the Church, which doth obtain the Government.’ (How much more moderate and sound is Cassander, than such as Mr. Dodwell.) And Pag. 791. he saith the same of the Oriental Churches, and the Ethiopians that are not under the Pope. And he still speaketh so cautelously, that it is not easie to understand how far he took the Papacy to be necessary. Yet sometime he only excuseth the unwilling departers from Rome, and asserteth, Consult. de Pont. Rom. p 931. ‘That it is not alien from the consent of the ancient Church, that Obedience to our Chief or Supream Rector the Successor of St. Peter in Governing and Feeding the Church, is required to the Unity of this external Church: And it is not only Primacy of Order, but Obedience to one Chief Ruler that he Pleads for.’ And in his Epistle to Lindanus, and frequently he still professeth only to desire some Reformation in the Roman Church, but never to depart from it, nor own those that do.
Chap. VI. Grotius's Judgment in his own Words.
§. 1. TO give you Grotius's Judgment to the full, would be to transcribe many Books: I shall choose some plain Passages.
Discussione Apologet. Rivet. p. 255. ‘Those that knew Grotius, knew that he always wished for the restitution of Christians into one and the same [Page 94] Body. So they are: even of that one Body of which Christ is Head. But he sometime thought even after he was known to the most excellent Vairius, that it might be begun by a Conjunction of the Protestants among themselves: Afterwards he saw that this was altogether unfeasible; because, besides that the Genius of almost all the Calvinists is most alien from all Peace, the Protestants are not joyned among themselves by any common Government of the Church, They are united in all the 7 terms of Unity required, Eph. 4.4, 5, 6. They desire not to be of any Universal Body but Christs, no more than under one Monarch of the World. which are the Causes that the Parties made cannot be gathered into one Body of Protestants, yea and that more and more Parties are ready to rise out of them. Wherefore Grotius now absolutely judgeth, and many with him, that the Protestants cannot be joyned among themselves unless at once they be joyned to them that cohere to the See of Rome, without which there can be no common Government hoped for in the Church. Nor in Kingdoms neither under one Man or Senate; But they have a better Union. Therefore he wisheth that the Division which fell out, and the Causes of that Division were taken away. The Primacy of the Bishop of Rome according to the Canons, is none of these, &c.’
Ib. P. 185. ‘ Grotius professeth that he will so interpret Scripture, God favouring him, and Pious Men being consulted, that he cross not the Rule delivered by himself, and by the Council of Trent, &c.’
[Page 95] ‘ P. 239. The Augustane Confession commodiously explained hath scarce any thing which may not be reconciled with those Opinions which are received with the Catholicks by Authority of Antiquity and of Synods as may be known out of Cassander and Hoffmeister. And there are among the Jesuits also that think not otherwise.’
‘ P. 71. (The Churches that join with Rome have not only the Scriptures, but the Opinions explained in the Councils, and the Popes decree against Pelagius, &c. They have also received the egregious Constitutions of Councils and Fathers, in which there is abundantly enough for the Correction of Vices: But all use them not as they ought: And this is it that all the Lovers of Piety and Peace would have corrected (as Borromaeus did.)’
Page 18. Speaking of false Doctrine, ‘[These are the things which, thanks be to God, the Catholicks do not thus believe, though many that call themselves Catholicks so live as if they did believe them. But Protestants (so live) (by force of their Opinions, and Catholicks by the decay of Discipline.’
Page 95. ‘What was long ago the judgment of the Church of Rome, the Mistress of others, we may best know by the Epistles of the Roman Bishops to the Africans and French, to which Grotius will subscribe with a willing mind.’
Page 7. ‘They accuse the Bull of Pius Quintus, that it hath Articles besides those of the Creed; but the Synod of Dort hath more. — But these in the Bull are New as Dr. Rivet will have it. But very many Learned Men think otherwise, that they are not new, if they be rightly [Page 96] understood, and that this appeareth by the places both of Holy Scripture, and of such as have ever been of great Authority in the Church, which are cited in the Margin of the Canons of Trent.’
Page 35. ‘And this is it which the Synod of Trent saith, That in that Sacrament Jesus Christ true God and truely Man, is really and substantially contained under the form of those sensible things: Yet not according to the Natural manner of existing, but Sacramentally, and by that way of existing, which though we cannot express in words, yet may we by Cogitation illustrated by Faith be certain that to God it is possible. (The Councils expressions are, that [ There is made a change of the whole substance of the Bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of Wine into the Blood; Which Conversion the Catholick calleth Transubstantiation.’
Page 79. ‘When the Synod of Trent saith, That the Sacrament is to be adored with Divine Worship it, intends no more, but that the Son of God himself is to be adored.’
Page 14. ‘ Grotius distinguisheth between the Opinions of School men, which oblige no Man, (for saith Melchior Canus our Church alloweth us great liberty) and therefore could give no just cause of departing (as the Protestants did) and between those things that are defined by Councils.’
‘Even by that of Trent: The Acts of which if any Man read with a mind propense to peace, he will find that they may be explained fitly and agreeably to the places of Holy Scripture and of the ancient Doctors that are put in the Margin. [Page 97] And if besides this by the care of Bishops and Kings those things be taken away which contradict that holy Doctrine, and were brought in by evil Manners, and not by Authority of Councils or old Tradition, then Grotius and many more with him will have that with which they may be content.]’
‘ Val. pro pace, That which he blameth is. 1. The School-mens liberty of disputing, and Opinions not agreeable to Councils. 2. And the Pride, Covetousness, and ill Lives of the Prelates and others (which all sober Jesuits and Papists blame.)’
Page 16. ‘That the labours of Grotius for the peace of the Church were not displeasing to many equal Men, many know at Paris, and many in all France, many in Poland, and Germany, and not a few in England, that are placid, and Lovers of peace: For as for the now-raging Brownists and others like them, with whom Dr. Rivet better agreeth than with the Bishops of England, who can desire to please them that is not touched with their Venom?]’
And whereas you may find Grotius and his Adherents yet disclaiming Popery, and saying, ‘They are no Papists, he tells you his meaning, Ib. p. 15. [In that Epistle Grotius by Papists meant those that without any difference do approve of all the sayings and doings of the Pope, for Honour and Lucres sake as is usual.]’
By this description I suppose that many Popes even of late were no Papists, such as condemned the Acts and Persons of their Predecessors, and such as censured Liberius and Honorius, nor Adrian the sixth, that saith a Pope may be a Heretick; [Page 98] nor Baronius, Binnius, Genebrard, that exclaim against many of them: Nor Bellarmine, nor Queen Mary, nor More or Fisher, nor Bonner, nor Gardiner, nor any that ever I met with.
But others more moderately call only those Papists that are for the Popes Power above Councils: And so the French are none; nor the Councils of Constance and Basil were none: Grotius addeth p. 45. that ‘By Papists he doth not mean them that saving the Rights of Kings and Bishops do give to the Pope or Bishop of Rome that Primacy which ancient Customs and Canons, and the Edicts of ancient Emperors and Kings assign them; which Primacy is not so much the Bishops, as the Roman Churches preferred before all other by common consent. So Liberius the Bishop being so lapsed that he was dead to the Church, the Church of Rome retained its right and defended the Cause of the Universal Church.]’
Ans. If it be a Primacy of Name and Honour only without any Governing Power, it's nothing to our case. But seeing it's a Governing Primacy that he means, 1. It's against the right of Kings and Kingdoms, that Foreigners claim Jurisdiction over them. 2. Emperors never gave Popes or Councils power over other Princes Dominions, nor could give any such. 3. Nor did ancient Councils, nor could do. Who gave it them? And who knows to what Councils he will limit this power? Councils these thousand years have been for much of Popery. 4. If Common Consent give this power, it binds not the Dissenters.
The Judgment of others concerning Grotius.
1. Vincentius wrote a Book called Grotius Papizans.
[Page 99]2. Claud. Saravius an Eminent Parliament-man in Paris in his Epistles, p. 52, 53. ad Gron. saith, ‘[Heri invisi Legatum— De ejus libro & libello postremis interrogatus respondet plane Mileterio consona: Romanam fidem esse veram & sinceram, solos (que) clericorum mores degeneres schismati dedisse locum. Adferebat (que) plura in hanc sententiam. Quid dicam? Merito quod falso olim Paulo Festus, [ [...], &c.] Sed haec tibi soli. Infensissimus est Riveto. Est sanè in praecipiti in quo diu stare non licet. Deploro veris lacrymis tantam jacturam: Deum (que) ex animo supplex veneror ut illi spiritum suum mentem (que) meliorem det.’
And in another Epistle to Salmasius p. 196. he saith, being ask'd his Judgment of his last Books, ‘[Tantum abest ut omnia probem, ut vix aliquid in co reperiocui sine conditione calculum apponam meum. Verissimè dixit ille qui dixit Grotium papizare. Vix tamen in isto scripto aliquid legi quod mirarer, quodve [...] occurreret. Nunquid enim omnes istiusmodi authoris lucubrationes erga Papistarum errores perpetuam [...] & [...] erga Jesuitas amorem, erga nos plusquam vatinianum odium produnt & clamant. In voto quod ejus nomen praeferebat an veritus est haec [...] profiteri?’
And how far he was familiar with Grotius he [...]ells us p. 248. ‘Ad Vincent. Fabrit. [Cum eo nempe Communicaveram vel solebam mea fere omnia,] &c.’
And what Salmasius thought of him these words of Saravius ad Salmas. intimate.
‘Ex quo à vera orbita in religionis negotio deflexit, captasti occasionem toto biennio antequam sato fungeretur, eum illudendi, certe irritandi.’
[Page 100]I have formerly said that worthy Mr. Ereskin yet living, (since dead) told me that Petavius told him that Grotius was resolved to have declared himself for the Church of Rome, and joyned with them if he had returned safe from the Journey he died in.
Henr. Valesius in his Funeral Oration on Petavius saith, p. 684. Bates [...]i Collect. ‘[Quid non praestitit ut clarissimum Virum Hugonem Grotium ad Catholica [...] Communionem adduceret? Erat ille quidem minimè à nobis alienus, & poene noster, quippe qui doctrinan Tridentim Concilii in omnibus sese amplecti palam profiteretur. Id unum supererat, ut Ecclesiae Sacrari [...]m ingressus Communionem nostram Sociaretur. Quod ille nescio quas ob causas dum ad Catholicae fidei umtatem plurimos secum sperat adducere Consultò differebat.’
But I make no other mens, but his own words the Index of his Faith.
Chap. VII. Of the several sorts of Conciliators or Peace-makers about our Controversies with the Papists.
§ 1. IF any shall think that I who have spent so much time and labour for the Churches peace, am now against it, or would raise dishonourable suspicions, on any just endeavours to that end, they will utterly mistake me.
There are divers sorts of Endeavours for peace with the Papists, by real Protestants.
§ 2. I. The old Conformists that prevailed against the Dissenters in Queen Elizabeth's days, [Page 101] were for going no further from the Papists than they needs must, lest they gave them occasion of accusation.
II. Since then many Men have taken notice that many of our Doctrinal Controversies consist more in ambiguous words, and misunderstanding of each other than most on either side imagine: And they have endeavoured the lessening of such Controversies by better Explications and stating of the Case: In this kind Spalatensis and Bishop W. Forbes have done very Learnedly, but in some things yielded a great deal too far. Camero, Amiraldus, Capellus, Testardus, the Theses Salmurienses and Sed [...]nenses have done much: But no Man so much as Lude Le Blank in his Theses, which he sent me his desire here to publish. To these I adjoin my self, as (among many other Writings) in my Catholick Theology and Methodus Theologiae I have openly and largely shewed the World. And no Censures have deterred me from this honest and necessary way of pacification.
III. But there are others that would on pretence of Peace take in many of their Errors in Doctrine, Government and Worship; But yet are for no Foreign Jurisdiction.
IV. But those that I now write against go further, and some under the Name of a Prince, Patriarch, and the Principium Vnitatis Catholicae would come under the Pope, some by pretence of the power of General Councils, or an Universal Colledge of all Bishops, and some by these and Patriarchs conjunct, would bring us under a Foreign Jurisdiction, and contrive an Union on some French terms. And would to this end let in abundance of corruptions in Discipline and Worship [Page 102] on pretence of Obedience to the Canons of Councils. Yea some condemn those as Schismaticks, yea as in a state of Damnation who are not in these matters of their mind. It is these that I am against.
§ 3. While I oppose these, I still own my foresaid reconciling Books, and no reproach of those that run into a contrary extream shall ever drive me from the true terms of Peace, nor to desire any cruelty against them, or any of their Sufferings but what necessary defence (of Soul and Body) require: And though my Exposition of the Revelation have offended many, upon far closer study of it since, I am not less but more perswaded that Pagan Rome was Babylon, and that John Fox (Martyrol. Vol. I. p. III. who took his Oath of a Divine Revelation to him, which brought him to take the Pagan Empire for the Beast with Seven Heads and Ten Horns, and to expound the Times and Thousand years accordingly) is much to be regarded: But if I be uncertain of such points, I will rather suspend my Judgment, than in uncertainty venture on any thing that is against Christian Love and Peace. I hold Communion with the Romans in Christianity, though not in Popery: I take all true Christians among them for Part of the Catholick Church of Christ, though I take their pretended Catholick Church as Headed by the Pope, for no Church of Christ at all, nor as Headed by any Usurping Humane Head whatsoever.
Chap. VIII. The Doctrine of Archbishop Bromhall [in defence of Grotius in his Book called, His Vindication of himself and the Episcopal Clergy from the Presbyterian Charge of Popery, as managed by Mr. Baxter in his Treatise of the Grotian Religion, I fiercely Prefaced by a Dignitary of the Church. ( Parker.)
§ 1. I mean to give you his own words, and pass by his mistakes against my self. Only saying, That it was not fairly done to affirm that I numbered him with the Papists, or those that designed to bring in Popery, when I had no such words, yea and praising him, excepted him from that number, only dissenting from his too near approach: But whether he except himself, his words will best shew.
§ 2. Page 20, 21. he saith, ‘[I will endeavour to give some light what was the Religion of Grotius: He was in affection a Friend and in desire a true Son of the Church of England: And on his Death bed recomended that Church as it was Legally Established to his Wife, and such other of his Family as were then about him, obliging them by his Authority to adhere firmly to it so far as they had opportunity. They that Record his death say that he died in Rostok in his too hasty passage from Sweden towards is Wife then absent; Quistorpius Pastor of Rostok being with him: Yet this Bishop knew Grotius: Who saith true I know not.’
[Page 104]Page 81. ‘[I know no Member of the Greek Church that give them (the Popes) either more or less than I do. How much that is see in their Patriarch Jeremias, and in the Council at Florence.’
Page 82. ‘To wave their last four hundred years determinations is implicitely to renounce all the necessary Causes of this great Schism. And to rest satisfied with their old Patriarchal Power and Dignity, and Primacy of Order (which is another part of my Proposition, is to quit the Modern Papacy both Name and Thing. The very worst of Popery was brought in by Hildebrand long before four hundred years last: And he that can receive all that their Councils brought in till 1256. need not stick at any of the rest save Transubstantiation: We cannot obey the Pope as Patriarch and Universal Primate, though he would quit the last four hundred years additions: Nor think this a quitting Popery.’
Page 84. ‘In the first place if the Bishop of Rome were reduced from his Universality of Sovereign Jurisdiction Jure Divino, to his Principium Vnitatis, and his Court regulated by the Canons of the Fathers, which was the sence of the Councils of Constance and Basil, and is desired by many Roman Catholicks as well as we. 2. If the Creed or necessary Points of Faith were reduced to what they were in the time of the four first Oecumenical Councils according to the Decree of the third General Council, Did the third tye us to the fourth? admitting no additional Articles but only necessary Explications, and those to be made by the Authority of a General Council, [Page 105] or one so General as can be Convocated. That was well put in. But by whom Convocated? And lastly, Supposing that some things from whence offence hath been either given or taken— I say in case these three things were accorded— whether Christians might not live in an Holy Communion, and come in the same publick Worship of God, free from all Schismatical Separation of themselves one from another, &c.’
‘We have no Controversie with the Church of Rome about a Primacy of Order, but a Supremacy of Power. Over Councils. I shall declare my sence in four Conclusions. 1. That St. Peter had a fixed Chair at Antioch, and after at Rome is a truth which no Man who giveth any credit to the Ancient Fathers and Councils can either deny or well doubt of.’
2. ‘That St. Peter had a Primacy of Order among the Apostles is the unanimous voice, &c.’
3. ‘Some Fathers and School-men who were no Sworn Vassals to the Roman Bishops affirm that this Primacy of Order is affixed to the Chair of St. Peters Successors for ever, &c.’
Page 107. ‘They who made the Bishop of Rome a Patriarch were the Primitive Fathers, not excluding the Apostles and Christian Emperors and Oecumenical Councils: What Laws they made in this case we are bound to obey for Conscience sake (till they be repealed lawfully) by virtue of the Law of Christ. Did Christ make the Subjects of the Roman Emperors perpetual Law-makers to other Princes and all the World? Or to that Empire when it's dissolved?’
[Page 106]Page 104. ‘(To my Objection that all Protestants must then pass for Schismaticks that take not the Pope for Principium Vnitatis and Patriarch, &c. he answereth [still weaker and weaker: — Must a Man quit his just right because some dislike it? Their dislike is scandal taken; but the quitting of that which is right for their satisfaction should be the scandal given: Whether is the worse? 1. How are they forced to fall under the reproach of Schismaticks? If they be forced any way, it is by their own wilful Humours or erroneous Conscience: Others force them not. 2. I would have him consider which is worse and the more dangerous condition, for Christians to fall under the reproach of Schismaticks — or to fall into Schism it self. Whosoever shall oppose the just Power of a Lawful Patriarch lawfully proceeding is a material Schismatick.]’
Reader, I forbear confuting these things by the way, being now but on the Historical relation of their Judgments. You see how great necessity (to avoid Schism) they place in our subjection to a Forreign Jurisdiction. The Confutation you shall have of all together.
Chap. IX. The Judgment of Archbishop Laud, as delivered by Dr. Heylin, and by himself.
§. 1. IN the Life of Archbishop Laud, Pag. 414, 415, 416, 412. ‘[Touching the Design of working a Reconciliation betwixt us and Rome, I find it charged on him by another Writer [Page 107] ( Fuller Ch. Hist. lib. 11. p. 217.) who holds it as unlawful to be undertaken, as it was impossible to be effected — Answ. If it be a Crime it's Novum Crimen of a New stamp, never coined before.—As to the Impossibility, many Men of Eminence for Parts and Piety have thought otherwise —( Spalatensis and Sancta Clara are named as Reconcilers.) And if without prejudice to the Truth, the Controversies might have been composed, it is most probable that other Protestant Churches would have sued by their Agents to be included in the Peace. If not, the Church of England had lost nothing by it, as being hated by the Calvinists, and not loved by the Lutherans.’
‘Admitting then that such a Reconciliation was endeavoured betwixt the Agents of both Churches, Let us next see what our great Statesmen have discoursed upon that particular, on what terms the Agreement was to have been made, and how far they proceeded in it. And first, the Book entituled, The Pope's Nuntio, affirmed to have been written by the Venetian Embassador at his being in England doth discourse thus: As to a Reconciliation, saith he, between the Churches of England and Rome, there were made some general Propositions and Overtures by the Archbishop's Agents, they assuring that his Grace was very much disposed thereto: and that if it was not accomplished in his Life-time; it would prove a work of more difficulty after his Death; that in very truth for the last three Years the Archbishop had introduced some Innovations, approaching nearer the Rites and Forms of Rome: That the Bishop of [Page 108] Chichester, a great Confident of his Grace, the Lord Treasurer, and Eight other Bishops of his Grace's Party, did most passionately desire a Reconciliation with the Church of Rome. That they did day by day recede from their ancient Tenets to accommodate with the Church of Rome. That therefore the Pope on his part ought to make some Steps to meet them, and the Court of Rome remit something of its rigour in Doctrine, or otherwise no accord would be. The Composition on both Sides in so good a forwardness before Pauzani left the Kingdom, that the Archbishop and the Bishop of Chichester had often said that there were but two sorts of People like to hinder the Reconciliation, the Puritans among the Protestants, and the Jesuits among the Catholicks.’
‘Let us see the Judgment and Relation of another Author in a Gloss or Comment on the former, entituled, The English Pope, Printed at London the same Year 1643. And he will tell us that after Con had undertook the managing of Affairs, the Matter began to grow towards some Agreement. The King required, saith he, such a Dispensation from the Pope, as his Catholick Subjects might resort to the Protestant Church, and take the Oaths of Supremacy and Fidelity; and that the Pope's Jurisdiction should be declared to be but of Human Right. And so far had the Pope consented, that whatsoever did concern the King, should have been really performed so far as other Catholick Princes do usually enjoy and expect as their due: and so far as the Bishops were to be Independent both from King and Pope. There was no fear of [Page 109] breach on the Pope's part: So that upon the Point the Pope was to content himself with us in England, with a Priority instead of a Superiority over other Bishops, and with a Primacy instead of a Supremacy in these parts of Christendom: which I conceive no man of Learning and Sobriety would have grudged to grant him: It was also condescended to in the Name of the Pope, that Marriage might be permitted to Priests, that the Communion might be administred sub utra (que) specie, and the Liturgy be officiated in the English Tongue; And though the Author adds not long after that it was to be suspected that so far as the inferior Clergy and the People were concerned, the after-performance was to be left to the Pope's discretion, yet this was but his own suspicion without any ground at all. And to obtain a Reconciliation on these Advantages, the Archbishop had all the reason in the world to do as he did, in ordering the Lord's Table to be set where the Altar stood, and making the accustomed reverence in all approaches towards it and accesses to it, and in beautifying and adorning Churches, and celebrating Divine Service with all due Solemnities: in taking Care that all offensive and exasperating Passages should be expunged out of all such Books as were brought to the Press; and for reducing the extravagancy of some Opinions to an evener temper. His Majesty had the like reason also for tolerating lawful Recreations on the Sundays and Holidays, the rigorous restraint whereof had made some Papists think (those most especially of the vulgar sort whom it most concerned) that all honest [Page 110] Pastimes were incompatible with our Religion. And if he approved auricular Confession and shewed himself willing to introduce it into the use of the Church, as both our Authors say he did, it is no more than what the Liturgy commends to the care of the Penitent (though we find not the word Auricular in it) and what the Canons have provided for in the point of security for such as shall be willing to Confess themselves. But whereas we are told by one of our Authors that the King should say, he would use force to make it be received, were it not for fear of Sedition among the People; yet it is but in one of our Authors neither, who hath no other Author for it, but a nameless Doctor. And in the way to so happy an Agreement (though they all stand accused for it by The English Pope, p. 15) Sparrow may be excused for Pleading for Auricular Confession, and Watts for Pennance, Heylin for Adoration towards the Altar, and Mountague for such a qualified Praying to Saints as his Book maintaineth against the Papists.’
‘If you would know how far they had proceeded towards this happy Reconciliation, the Pope's Nuntio will assure us thus: That the Universities, Bishops and Divines of this Realm, did daily embrace Catholick Opinions, though they professed not so much with Pen or Mouth for fear of the Puritans. For example, they held that the Church of Rome is a true Church, that the Pope is Superior to all Bishops; that to him it pertaineth to call General Councils; that it's lawful to Pray for the Souls of the Departed; that Altars ought to be erected of Stone; In [Page 111] sum, that they believed all that is taught by the Church, but not by the Court of Rome. Another of their Authors tells us, that those among us of greatest Worth, Learning and Authority began to love Temper and Moderation, that their Doctrines began to be altered in many things, for which their Progenitors forsook the visible Church of Christ: As for example, The Pope not Antichrist, Prayers for the Dead, Limbus Patrum, Pictures, that the Church hath Authority in determining Controversies of Faith, and to interpret Scripture; About Free Will, Predestination, Universal Grace, that all our Works are not Sins; Merit of good Works, inherent Justice, that Faith alone doth not justifie; Charity to be preferred before knowledge; the authority of Traditions; Commandments possible to be kept; that in Exposition of Scripture they are by Canon bound to follow the Fathers; And that the once fearful Names of Priests and Altars are used willingly in their Talk and Writings,] In which Compliances, so far forth as they speak the truth (for in some Points, through Ignorance of the one, and Malice of the other, they are much mistaken) there is scarce any thing which may not well consist with the established (though for a time discontinued) Doctrine of the Church of England, the Articles whereof, as the same Jesuit hath observed, seem patient or ambitious rather of some sence, wherein they may seem Catholick▪ And such a sence is put upon them by him that calls himself Franciscus à Sancta Clara, as before was said. And if upon such Compliances as those before, on the part of the English, the Conditions offered by the Pope might have been Confirmed, [Page 112] who seeth not that the greatest benefit of the Reconciliation must have redounded to this Church, to the King and People. His Majesty's Security provided for by the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance, so far as it concerned his Temporal Power, And Men taught to be Perjured, by taking in Foreign Ecclesiastical Power. The Bishops of England to be Independent on the Pope of Rome. And yet Obey his Councils Canons. The Clergy to be permitted the use of Marriage, the People to receive the Communion in both Kinds, and all Divine Offices officiated in the English Tongue; no Innovation made in Doctrine, but only in qualifying some Expressions, and discharging some Outlandish Glosses that were put upon them: And seeing this, what Man could be so void of Charity, so uncompassionate of the Miseries and Distractions of Christendom, as not to wish from the very bottom of his Soul that the Reconciliation had proceeded on so good terms; as not to magnifie the Men to succeeding Ages, who were the Instrument Authors of so great a Bles [...]ing. Christ hath given us a sufficient Law for the Government of the Church; else, saith Gerson, he were not a perfect Lawgiver: Must we be beholden to the Pope for leaving us a little of that which Christ gave us? Who gave him Power to take any of it from us? Would our Conciliators have magnified the Men that for the Peace of England would have agreed with Cromwell to allow the King the Isle of Wight, or W [...]les ▪ Or to have made a Law that every Highway Robber shall re [...]urn [...]ne half to the Owner? And with what Conscience could the Subjects of Christ have obeyed all the rest of the Usurpers sinful Canons? So far Dr. Heylin, who was the Archbishop's Intimate and Agent.’
Archbishop Laud's own words as laid down in his Book defended by Dr. Stillingfleet.
§ 1. The Archbishop disclaimeth the Divine Institution and the Infallibility of General Councils: ‘But he thinks we must allow them [external Obedience; and that honour and priviledge which all other GREAT COURTS have; that there be a Declaration of the invalidity of their Decrees, as well as of the LAWS of other Courts, before private Men can take Liberty to refuse Obedience. Part. 3. c. 2.’
And page 540. ‘It doth not follow because the Church may erre, that therefore she may not govern. For the Church hath not only a Pastoral Power to Teach and Direct, but a Praetorian Power to controul and censure too, where Errors and Crimes are against fundamental Points, or of great Consequence.] Thus the Archbishop.’
It is the Universal Church and Councils that he speaks of. But, 1. There is no such thing on Earth as he calls the Church, that is, One Universal Aristocracy that hath Power of Governing all the Christian World in one Council or otherwise, as one Supream.
2. General Councils of divers Kingdoms o're all the World, are no more a Court than the Assembly at Nimeguen was.
3. No Obedience is due to them, but only consent for Concord, so far as their Canons tend to true Concord, and that by virtue of Christ's Law, for Peace and Concord. Obedience hath no formal Object but Authoritatem [Page 114] Imperantis; But Assemblies for Concord have no Imperium.
4. No Clergyman as such hath any but Pastoral and Teaching Power, and as a Tutor to order his own School. The Power of the Keys is no other.
5. Mens holding and renouncing of Communion with other Persons or Churches may be without Governing Power. I am not Governor of all that I hold or renounce Communion with. No Bishops have power Judicially to determine of Individuals, who shall have Communion with every Parish Church on Earth: If they have, they must hear them all speak for themselves before they judge them (in or out.) They are not Governors of foreign Kings and Kingdoms, though in their Government of their particular Churches they must all agree to observe one Rule, that is, Christ's Laws.
6. There never was an Universal Council of all the Churches, but only of one Empire (a part of that) nor ever will be, till the Church be so destroyed as to be brought into a narrow space (which God forbid).
As to Dr. Stillingfleet's Defence of all this, I take him not to approve of all that he blameth not: And if he did, I believe on second thoughts he will more retract this than▪ he did his Irenicon.
Chap. X. Dr. Peter Heylin's own Judgment.
§. 1. BEcause we come newly from repeating Dr. Heylin's words of Archbishop Laud, [Page 115] though they fully shew his own Judgment, I will [...]ere annex some more.
1. There is a Book written by a Papist, called Historical Collections of the Reformation, gathered most out of Dr. Heylin's own words (and some [...]ut of others) describing the Reformers and Reformation so odiously, as greatly serveth the Priests to turn Protestants to their Church: And [...]s the Jesuit Maymbourgh maketh Dr. Heylin's Writings to have Converted the late Dutchess of York, it's like it was this Collection out of him.
2. In his Book on the Creed, speaking of the Catholick Church, he saith,
Pag. 407. ‘Such is the Ambition of the Pope of Rome, that unless he may be taken for the Catholick Church, he passeth not for being reckoned a Church at all: And yet this is of the two the Lovelier Error. Better the Church be all Head, than no Head at all: And such a Church that is all Body and no Head at all have some of our Reformers modelled in their late Platforms.].’
Answ. Is Christ no Head at all? Or is any other Person or Court capable of Governing all Christians on Earth? All Protestants hold that the whole Church hath no Head but Christ.
Pag. 408. ‘Speaking still of the Catholick Church he saith [The Government of the Church not being Monarchical, as our Masters of the Church of Rome would have it, nor Democratical as the Fathers of the Presbytery, and Brethren of the Independency have given it out, both in their Practice and their Platform, it must be Aristocratical.’
[Page 116] Answ. This is a gross Slander of the Presbyterians and Independents. Did ever the Presbyterians or Independents say, that All Christians on Earth must Govern the whole Church▪ in one Meeting▪ or by Delegates? where be the Laws that any of them pretend all Christians made? Or the Judgments they past on any Persons after exploration? The Presbyterians are for an Aristocratical Government of National Churches, and some few Independents are for popular Government in single Congregations; but no further.
2. Is the Church now Governed by One Aristocracy, that is, per Optimates that are One Persona Politica by Vote ruling all the Christian World? Where is their Meeting? What be their Laws? Whom do they so try and judge? An Universal Governing Aristocracy is more impossible and irrational than an Universal Monarchy Civil or Ecclesiastical. Every Bishop and Presbytery Governing his own Church, and these keeping Concord by just Correspondency, is no liker an Universal Aristocracy, than an Assembly of Princes for Concordant Government of their Dominions, or than all the Mayors and Justices ruling their several Corporations and Provinces make the Government of England Aristocratical.
Pag. 409. Saith he, ‘[Every Bishop, where-ever he be fixt and resident, hath like St. Paul an universal Care over all the Churches, which since they could not exercise by personal Conferences, they did it in the Primitive times, before they had the benefit of General Councils, by Letters, Messengers, and Agents for the Communicating of their Counsel, and imparting their Advice one to another as the emergent Occasions [Page 117] of the Church did require the same. These Letters they called Literas formatas & Communicatorias.’
Answ. Thus Bishop Gunning and others. But, 1. St. Paul's Apostolick Power enabled him to do the Work of an Apostle (which is, to plant Churches in as much of the World as they could, and deliver them Christ's Doctrine and Laws infallibly as receiving them by sight and hearing or miraculous revelation.) And this Power each Apostle could exercise singly, and not only by Voting as part of a College; the Spirit of Christ teaching them all the same Doctrine. But Bishops have no such Office or Power.
2. There are several ways of expressing a Care of all the Churches. Every Christian must do it by private Endeavours. Every Official Preacher by Preaching where he is called. Every Pastor by guiding his Flock in Concord with all true Christians, in the things which Christ hath made necessary to their Concord: And if Archbishops have right to a larger Province, they must do it in their proper Province, per partes, & not as one Aristocracy.
3. It is granted, that as all Christians and Bishops must have a Love to all the Churches, and a Care to do them good in their several Places, so Concord in things necessary is a great means of that good, and the ancient Pastors endeavoured it by Messages, Letters and Synods; and so must we. But what Universal Laws were made by Literae formatae? What formal Judgments were past by them? Where did the Writers meet first to hear the Accused and examine Witnesses? Or must all believe the report of every single Pastor? And was it all the Bishops on Earth, [Page 118] or a major part, that wrote these Legislative and Judicial Letters? What strange things can some Men gather from meer Communion and Concord? Bishops had then a Necessity of getting the common consent of as many of their Order as they could, to make their Government of force to the People, that were all Volunteers, and not constrained by any Magistrate? And it's useful still to the same end.
4. And we grant them that every Bishop and Presbyter, that giveth counsel to other Churches doth not do it as a meer private Man, but as a Bishop: that is, One that by Office is authorized to give such Pastoral advice to such as he is called to give it to; But not as one that hath the charge of Governing other Mens Flocks, or is a Member of an Aristocratical, Supream Senate, Parliament, Court, or Voting States. Suppose each Hospital have its allowed Physitian, who in doubtful Cases consulteth with many others; Their counsel is the counsel of Physitians; that is, of Men licensed for that Work and Care: But it proveth them not to have any proper Governing Power over his Hospital or Patients.
5. If every Bishop be a Governor not only in, but of the whole World or Church, it is either Singly, or Collectively as part of a Governing Company. If singly, it's a monstrous Body that hath so many thousand Universal Heads. If collectively, then no one is a Supream Governor, but a part of that Body which is such. And no one on Earth can act as such a part of One Aristocracy, without presence with the rest, hearing what they say, and what Actors and Witnesses say, and gathering Votes.
[Page 119] Pag. 411. ‘He confesseth out of Socrates about the Emperors Power in Church Matters, that [ from the time in which Emperors received the Faith, Ecclesiae negotia ex eorum nutu pendere vis [...] sunt Socr. l. 5. Proem.’
And if so, why is Mr. Morice angry with me for saying, That Bishops used in Councils much to follow the Emperors minds. 2. And then it will be but an odd Universal Legislative and Judicial Soveraign Power over all the World, which dependeth on the consent of so many Princes, Protestants, Papists, Mahometans Heathens, Jacobites, Nestorians, &c. as a General Council must be called by or depend on. And it will be an endless Controversie, what Princes have or have not a Power to consent or dissent, that their Subjects shall go to such Councils. But also Consultation, is not Government.
Chap. XI. The Judgment of Mr. Herbert Thorndike, a late Eminent Divine of the Church of England.
§ 1. MR. Thorndike hath written so much on this Subject that I need no more than refer the Reader to his Books, for the discovery of his mind. The sum of his late Writings (these thirty years past) is to call us all into one visible Catholick Church which is unified by one Humane Government of all, out of which nothing will excuse us from Schism, or make our failing tolerable. His arguments for an Universal Aristocracy answered by Dr. Izaak Barrow in the end [Page 120] of his Treatise of Supremacy, I will not here recite, because they are there so fully and learnedly confuted.
§ 2. In his [ Just Weights and Measures] he tells us that the Church of Rome being a true Church, Reformation lyeth in Restoration, and not in Separation. Confusion. 1. The form denominateth: The Church of Rome which we separate from is a pretended Soveraignty over all Christians. This is no true Church of Christ. 2. But we separate not from them in point of Christianity. But 1. From their Usurpation. 2. And other Sins.
Page 5. he saith, ‘[Who will take upon him to shew us that the Worship of the Host in the Papists is Idolatry.’
Page 6, 7. ‘They that separate from the Church of Rome as Idolaters are thereby Schismaticks before God.’
‘For in plain terms we make our selves Schismaticks by grounding our Reformation on this pretence.’
‘Should this Church declare that the Change which we call Reformation is grounded on this supposition, I must then acknowledge that we are Schismaticks.’
Ch. 2. ‘Is to disprove them that make the Pope Antichrist, and Papists Idolaters, and shew that the supposition of one Catholick Visible Church, is the ground of all Communion and supposed to Reformation. And Ch. 3. Nothing to be changed but on that Ground of such Visible Unity.’
Ch. 5. ‘If our Lord trust his Disciples and their Successors with the Rule of his Church, he trusteth them also to make Laws for the Ruling [Page 121] of it— These Laws are as Visible as the Laws of any Kingdom or Common-wealth that is or ever was are Visible — I maintain the Popes Canon Law (and the same is to be said of the Canon Law, by which the Patriarch of Constantinople now Governs the Eastern Church) to be derived from those Rules whereby the Disciples of our Lord and their Successors governed the Primitive Church in Unity. — The power of Giving Laws to the Church; the power of Dispensing the Exchequer which God hath provided for the Church, are in the Governors of the Church; and the power of admitting into and excluding out. It's a Visible Society founded by God under the Name of the Catholick Church, on the command of holding Communion with it.’
Page 41. ‘The Church in the form which I state it is a standing Synod, able by the consent of the Chief Churches, containing the consent of their resorts to conclude the whole.’
Page 48. ‘The Church of Rome hath and ought to have when it shall please to hear reason, a Regular pre-eminence, over the rest of Christendom in these Western parts. And he that is able to judge and willing to consider shall find that Pre eminence the Only Reasonable means to preserve so great a Body in Unity. And therefore I am not my self tyed to justifie Henry the Eighth in disclaiming all such pre-eminence.’
Page 48. ‘That the difference may be visible between the Infinite and the Regular Power of the Pope.’
Page 91. ‘The perpetual Rule of the Church [Page 122] makes them Hereticks to the Church that Communicate with Hereticks and Schismaticks that Communicate with Schismaticks. And having before made the Church of England Schismaticks he makes all Schismaticks that Communicate with it.’
Page 94. ‘The Flesh and Blood of Christ by Incarnation, the Elements by Consecration being united to the Spirit, that is, the Godhead of Christ, become both One Sacramentally, by being both One with the Spirit or Godhead, to the conveying of Gods Spirit to a Christian.’
Page 125. ‘The worshipping the Host in the Papacy is not Idolatry.’
Page 132. ‘He saith that the Oath of Supremacy is but to exclude the Popes Temporal power: But because the words seem to exclude the power of General Councils, of which the Pope is and ought to be the chief Member, of necessity the Law gives great offence: And that offence is the sin of the Kingdom, and calls for Gods Vengeance on it; which though all are involved in the account in the other World will lye on them, which may change it and will not.’
Page 134. ‘But the authority of those Divines of this Church who have declared the sence of the Oath of Supremacy with publick allowance are now alledged by the Papists themselves to infer that the matter of it is lawful (as excluding only the Popes Civil Power.)’
Page 141. ‘We receive the Body and Blood of Christ, and by consequence his Spirit Hypostatically united to the same, to inable us to perform.’
[Page 123]Page 149. ‘The Church of Rome cannot be charged with Idolatry. The Pope cannot be Antichrist.’
Ch. 22. ‘The Reformation pretended is abominable and Apostasie, and the usual Preaching a hinderance to Salvation; and new Homilies to be formed to restrain Preaching.’
Page 146. ‘I confess I can hope for no good end of any dispute without supposing the sence of the Articles of One Catholick Church, which hath carried us through this discourse, for the Principle on which all matter in debate is to be tryed.’
‘P. 214. And oft he professeth that Presbyters not ordained by Bishops, baptize and give the Eucharist, void of the Effect of a Sacrament, and only by Sacriledge—speaketh against killing and and banishing— [But this will require the like Moderation to be extended to the Recusants of the Church of Rome, (p. 234.) The Recusants being for the most part of the Good Families of the Nation, will take it for a part of their Nobility freely to profess themselves in their Religion; if they understand themselves: Whereas the Sectaries, being people of mean quality for the most part, cannot be presumed to stand on their reputation so much.’
‘In his Book called The Forbearance of Penalties, c. 3. p. 12, 13. he makes the foundation of all Union to be the Government and Laws of the Church as visibly Catholick, which Laws must be one and the same, the violating whereof is the forfeiture of the same (Communion.) And here I crave leave to call All Canons, All Customs of the Church, whether concerning the [Page 124] Rites of God's Service, or other Observations, by one and the same name of Laws of the Church.’
‘P. 23. As for the Canons of the Church, it was never necessary to the maintenance of Commumunion that the same Customs should be held in all parts of the Church. It was only necessary the several Customs should be held by the same Authority. That the same Authority instituted several Customs; for so they might be changed by the same Authority, and yet Unity remain.’
‘Whereas questioning the Authority by questioning whether the acts of it be agreeable to ☞ God's Law or not, how should Unity be maintained? It is manifest that they (the Fathers) could not have agreed in the Laws of the Church, if any had excepted against any thing used in any part of the Church, as if God's Law had been infringed by it. — It followeth of necessity, that nothing can be disowned by this Church as contrary to God's Law, which holdeth by the Primitive Church. Here is 1. An Universal Legislative Power over all the Church on Earth. 2. This Power is in Councils, of which the Pope is the chief Member; and the only reasonable means of the Union of so great a Body, is his Regular Power as distinct from Infinite Power. 3. All the Canons Rites and Customs, are these Laws of the Church. 4. All Kings and Kingdoms are bound to obey them. 5. No man must question whether these Laws or Customs, or any of them are contrary to God's Law. 6. The men that must have this Absolute Power over all the Kings and Kingdoms on Earth, that will be Christian, are themselves the Subjects of the Turks, the Moore, the Emperor of Abassia, the Persian, the Emperor of Indastan, called the Mogal, the Kings of Poland, Hungary, Spain, France, England, Denmark, Sweden, the Emperor of Germany, and abundance more; when it's known that few Bishops are chosen in any of these Countreys Mahometans or Papists, but such as the Princes like, and that they dare not go against their wills in any great matter. 7. Their minds are known already, and consequently what they would do in Councils, if all these Princes would agree to call an Universal Council. The Major Vote, if it were called in Mesopotamia, or that way would be such as Rome calleth Hereticks: If called in Greece it would be Greeks: If in Italy, or Germany, or France, they would be Papists; no where Protestants. Few would travel above a thousand miles to the Council. 8. Tho' one would think that this platform of Governing the whole Earth, could be believed by no man in his wits, yet you see Learned men are so far deceived: And it is by judging of the World by the Old Roman Empire. There indeed Councils were Nationally General: They were Courts: They had Legislative Power and Pretorian Command: None might appeal from them for Relief in Foro Humano. Emperors gave them this Power. It was but rational, over their own Subjects: What Power had they over others? The Convocation in England, or the General Assembly in Scotland may be made and called a Court by the King: But France or Spain were never Governed by them, nor took them to be over them unquestionable Legislators: Yea, I believe King and Parliament at home are not so subject to their Laws.’
[Page 125]Page 27. He saith (as Mr. Dodwell) ‘It is agreed on by the whole Church, that Baptism in Heresie or Schism (that is, when a man gives up himself to the Communion of Hereticks or Schismaticks by receiving Baptism from them) though it may be true Baptism, and not to be repeated, yet it is not available to Salvation, making him accessory to Heresie or Schism that is so Baptized. And are not these unmerciful men that will let men take up with a damning Baptism, and will not rebaptize them that they may have a saving Baptism, which yet they hold necessary to Salvation? They fear Anabaptism it seems more than mens Damnation.’
Pag. 28. ‘The promise of Baptism is not available, [Page 126] unless it be deposited with the true Church, nor to him that continueth not in the true Church that may exact the promise deposited with it. The true Church that is an Usurped Power of Universal Legislation, is here made by him and Mr. Dodwell as necessary to Salvation as Christ, and more than the holy Scriptures. But what will now become of all the Papists that (by dispensation) come in to Protestant Churches? They also are all damned as Schismaticks for communicating with them; unless he forgot to except them that the Pope dispenseth with.’
Page 33. ‘[It is out of love to the Reformation that I insist on such a Principle as may serve to reunite us with the Church of Rome; being well assured that we can never be well reunited with our selves otherwise. Yet not only the Reformation, but the common Christianity must needs be lost in the divisions, which will never have an end otherwise. How much wiser are these men than Christ and St. Paul, who made it the duty of all that were baptized Christians, to live as one Body of Christ in Love? Him that is weak in the faith receive, but not to doubtful disputations, Rom. 14.1. The Kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. He that in these things serveth Christ, is acceptable to God, and approved of men.’
Pag. 111. ‘[If it be said that it is not visible where those Usurpations took place, I shall allow all the time which the Code of the Canons contains, which Pope Adrian sent to Charles the Great, pag. 128. which I would have this Church to own. This yet is some mercy to us: But is it as your grant? 1. How will this stand with all that you have written for the continued Universal Legislative Church? Did it cease at Charles the Great's time? and yet are all damned that are not subject to it? 2. How shall we be sure that the Canons bind us till Adrian's time, and not since? 3. But Sir, we take him for a Papist that is for all the Canons and Customs till Charles the Great: And there are many things before that which we cannot Conform to without renouncing the Laws and sufficient Government of Christ, which we cannot do upon such pitiful reasonings as yours.’
[Page 127]In Mr. Thorndike's large folio Book, there is yet much more for his Universal Legislative Aristocracy mixt with Regular Papacy. The sum of all is, The Pope Governing at least in the West by the Canons in the intervals of General Councils (that is, alwaies,) and as the chief Member with Councils making Laws for all the World. Thus the French and Italian Papists differ whether the Pope shall Govern the World as the King of Poland doth his Land; or, say some, as the Duke of Venice, or rather as the King of France. But Protestants know no such thing as an Universal Legislative Church, nor owns any Universal Laws but Gods; unless you mean Nationally Vniversal, as in the Empire Councils and Laws were called. I refer you again to Dr. Barrows Confutation of the rest of Mr. Thorndikes.
Chap. XII. The Judgment of Dr. Sparrow Bishop of Norwich, and divers others.
‘BIshop Sparrow Pref. to Collect. [ As my Father sent me, so send I you. Here committing the Government of the Church to his Apostles, our Lord Commissions them with the same [Page 128] Power that was committed to him, for that purpose when he was on Earth; with the same necessary standing Power that he had exercised as Man for the good of the Church. The standing Power of the Head or Soveraign, and that of Official Ministers much differ. Less cannot in reason be thought to be granted, than all Power necessary for the well and peaceable Government of the Church. And such a power is this of Making Laws. All necessary power since Christ by his Apostles published his Universal Laws, is but that all Ministers in their several Churches guide the Flocks by these Laws of Christ, and teach them the people, and determine of incidental Circumstances pro loco & tempore; and not to make new Universal Laws. This is a Commission in general for making Laws: Then in particular for making Articles and Decisions of Doctrines controverted the power is more explicite and express, Mat. 28. All power is given me: Go therefore and teach all Nations, that is, with authority and by virtue of the power given me. And what is it to teach the Truth with authority, but to command and oblige all people to receive the Truth so taught? Christ expresly limiteth the Apostles to teach the Churches what he had commanded them, and promiseth to give them the Spirit to bring all to their remembrance, and lead them to all Truth. And this power was not given to the Apostles persons only; for Christ then promised to be with them in that Office to the end of the World; that is, to them and their Successors in the Pastoral Office: To the Apostles or Bishops that should succeed them to the end of [Page 129] the World. When the King send [...] out Judges and Justices he doth not make them Kings or Legislators. The Apostles had the Spirit for promulgating and recording Christs Laws: Others have it only to preserve and teach them, and rule by them, and not to make more such, as if they were insufficient, and Christian Religion were still to be changed by new additions, and were half Divine and half Humane: Gods Word and the Bishops in medley. To this One holy Church our Lord committed in trust the most holy Faith, &c. commanding under penalties and censures all her Children to receive that sence, and to profess it in such expressive words and forms as may directly determine the doubt. Thus she did in the great Nicene Council— This authority in determining Doubts and Controversies the Church hath practised in ALL AGES, and her constant practice is the best Interpreter of her right. The three first Ages had no General Councils: The three next had National or Imperial General Councils. The thousand years last past (which you include in [ All Ages] had such Councils and practices as prove not her right. Else why do not you now practise accordingly? — Bishop Guning owneth but six General Councils, which were all but in three Ages. And others but four, and none that I know of but eight, who do not openly profess Popery. Hath Christ given any new commands since those which he sent the Apostles to deliver? Have you any more of his commands to give us than the Apostles delivered in their times? If you may make new ones, you have more than Apostolick power, which was to teach whatever Christ commanded them. He is with them to the end of the World. 1. In blessing the Word delivered and recorded by them. 2. In blessing those that teach it. But not those that add to it the supplement of their own Universal Laws. And which is the Church that in all Ages (th [...]se thousand years) have had this power? Three parts of the Christian World say, It is not the Roman. The Roman Church say, It is not the Greeks. Both say, It is not they in Abassi [...], Egypt, Mesopotamia, Armenia, Georgia, &c. The Protestants confess it is not they. And is obedience to an unknowable Power necessary to Concord and Salvation?’
[Page 130]I shall not tire the Reader with the needless recitation of many more late Divines that lived since 1630. enough are known. Those that have defended Grotius of late I pass no judgment on; you may read their own Books and judge as you see cause; viz. Dr. Thomas Pierce now Dean of Salisbury, and the famous Preface to Archbishop Bromhall's Book against me, &c. I fear all this History is needless. Men now laugh at me for proving by Mens writings their endeavours to subject the King and Kingdom to a Foreign Jurisdiction, when they say it is more sensibly and dreadfully proving it self.
Chap. XIII. Dr. Parker's Judgment (since Bishop of Oxford.)
THE last mentioned Author Dr. Sam. Parker, besides what he hath said against me in his large Preface before Archbishop Bromhall's Book, hath since gone so far beyond all his Fellows, that finding himself unable to answer this Argument otherwise, [The World must not have one Universal Humane Civil Governor (King or Aristocracy) ergo, It must not have one Humane Priest or Church Governor] desperately denieth the Antecedent, and saith, that though de facto the Kings of the Earth have not one Soveraign over [Page 131] them all (that is meer Man) they ought to have. Audite Reges. I cannot conjecture who he meaneth unless it be the Pope, and he be of Cardinal Bertrand's mind, that God had not been wise if he had not made one Man a Vice-God, or his Deputy to Rule all the World: For sure he never dreamed that all Kings and States on Earth would meet or voluntarily agree to chuse one Universal King over them.
I met newly with an extraordinary Wit, who saith that after the Conflagration, in the Millennium of the New Heaven and Earth, Christ or his Vice-Roy will triumphantly Rule, &c. But 1. I never read before of a Vice-Roy after the Conflagration, which he saith will first consume Antichrist. 2. I know not how much of the New World he assigns to this Vice-Roy's Government; for if Gog and Magog after cover the Earth, and the New Generation be numerous, (which he thinks the Earth will bring forth like lower Animals,) it may be the New Jerusalem may be so small that one Vice-Roy may Rule it. 3. But sure that holy Generation will make Government and Obedience far easier things than now they are.
Chap. XIV. Dr. Saywell's Arguments for a Foreign Jurisdiction considered.
§ 1. THis Dr. (who I may well suppose speaketh his Lord and Masters sence) is so open as to let us know, 1. That it is the Popes Power above General Council [...], which they call [Page 132] Popery. 2. And that they join with the conciliar Party in point of Church Government, and so take not them for Papists, who hold not that Soveraignty of the Pope, but only his Primacy. 3. That it is but the Jesuited Party of the Church of Rome, which they renounce. 4. That they also renounce all Nonconforming Protestants as a Jesuited Party. So that he would tempt us to believe what some affirm that their design hath long been to subdue the Jesuits and Reformed Churches (or rather destroy these) and to strike up a Union with the French, and maintain that they are no Papists as to Government. But though the Power of old Protestants in England were never so much subdued to them, methinks the Jesuits Interest in France should resist them, unless the Jesuits themselves be (as some vainly think) faln out with the Pope, and then it will be the Jesuited Party which these Men will own.
§. 2. But to his Arguments, [Page 342. Mr. B. saith, ‘I have earnestly desired and searched to know t [...]e proof of such a Legislative Vniversal Power, and I cannot find it. But if Mr. B. would seriously consider these Texts, he might find that obedience is due to the Church, Mat. 18. If he neglect to hear the Church let him be to thee as an Heathen Man and a Publican. Now as one private Man may ne [...]lect to hear the Episcopal Church to which he belongs, so the Episcopal, Provincial and National Church may also prove Heretical, and neglect to hear the Catholick Church; but the Vniversal Church can never fa [...]l, for the Gates of Hell shall never prevail against it. And if more Persons, or particular Churches give offence by Heresie, Schism, &c. the Church Vniversal, or the rest of the Bishops may reprove [Page 133] them for it, and then there is no reason why one Man should be censured and many go fr [...]e; and consequently our Saviour hath established the Authority of his Church over all Christians, as well particular Churches as private Men.’
Ans. 1. Let us try this Argument by the like. (God hath commanded obedience to Kings, and said, He that will not hear the King and Judge, shall be put to death. But Kings and their Kingdoms may be Criminal: And if private men must obey Authority▪ or be put to death, so must Kings and Kingdoms? Why should they escape? Therefore all Kings and Kingdoms must obey One Universal Humane King or Kingdom under Christ.] Do you think this is true? No; There is no such Universal Humane Empire. Monarchical or Aristocratical. No Mortal Men are capable of it, any more than of Ruling the World in the Moon, or the Fish in the Sea, (but of a part only.) So there is no such Universal Church Power; but particular there is.
As to your reason, I answer, God is the Universal King▪ and he only is the punisher of all Soveraign Powers, whether Monarchs, Aristocracies or Mixt. (which I have ever asserted, though the Lying Spirit hath feigned the contrary.) God hath several ways to Rule and Judge them here, and his final Judgment is at hand. And the case is like with National Churches, save that their own Princes may punish offending Clergy-men.
2. One Person or Nation may renounce Communion with another as Heretical, without any Ruling Power over them: And the other may do the same by them (deserving it) Am I a Governor or Legislator over every one that I may [Page 134] refuse to eat or pray with as a Brother.
3. That there is no Humane Universal Church which hath power to Govern a National Church, as the Bishops may their Flocks, is proved. 1. They cannot have the Authority who have not so much as a Natural Capacity: But none have a Natural Capacity to Govern all the Christian World: Ergo none have such Authority.
2. They have not the Authority who have not the Obligation to use it in such Government. (For an Office containeth Authority and Obligation.) But none are obliged to Govern all the Christian World: Ergo, &c.
For the Minor, 1. None are obliged to Impossibilities: But, &c.
2. None are obliged without some obliging Law: But there is no Law obliging any to Govern all the Christian World: Ergo.
3. If they are obliged, they are condemned if they do it not: But none do Rule all the Christian World: He confesseth none have done it since the sixth General Council, that is, these thousand years (and more by one.) And doth he not Damn the Bishops of all the World then for neglecting their great Duty a thousand years together?
If he say, that Others made Canons enough before, I answer, 1. If they have had no such work to do these thousand years, then there was no Office, or Obligation or Power to do it.
2. It was then only those that made the Laws that had that Soveraignty. The Dead are no Rulers; and so the Church hath had no Soveraign since.
2. If he say, They since Ruled by the old Laws, [Page 135] I answer, 1. That was not by Legislation, but Execution. 2. They never Ruled the Universal Church as one Soveraign Power by the old Laws, but only per partes in their several Provinces, as Justices and Mayors Rule the Kingdom, without Soveraignty.
Arg. 3▪ That which never was claimed till the Papal Usurpation, was not instituted by God: But a Soveraign Government of the Unive [...]sal Church on Earth was never claimed till the Papal Usurpation: Ergo.
That Councils were only General as to one Empire, and called only in one Empire, and pretended to Govern that Empire, and not all the World, I have fully proved against Johnson.
Arg. 4. Those that must Rule all the Christian World, must teach them. (For the Pastoral Government is by the Word.) But no one (Person or Aristocracy) are the Teachers of all the World. Who have pretended to it but the Papacy?
Arg. 5. If any Soveraign may Rule England and all other Churches as a Bishop ruleth his Flock, then that Soveraign Power, may when they judge it deserved Excommunicate the King and all the Kingdom, and silence all the Bishops and Ministers, and forbid all Church Communion (as Popes and their Councils have done.) But the consequence is false— Ergo —
Arg. 6. If any have such power, they must be such as people may have access to, to decide their Causes, and may hear their Accusations, Defences, Witnesses: But so cannot the Universal Church of Bishops: They confess these thousand years they met not in Council; and whither else [Page 136] should we carry our Witnesses? and where else should we expect their sentence? Paul's charge was, 1 Thes. 5.12, 13. Know them that labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you, and esteem them very highly in Love for their work sake — But we cannot know all the Bishops over the Earth, that never were among us.
An unknown Judge cannot be obeyed: That is, One whom we cannot know to be indeed our Judge: But it's impossible for us now to know what number of Bishops, and who, must be called the Universal Judge.
And an unknown sentence cannot be obeyed; but it's impossible for us to know the sentence of the Majority of the Bishops on Earth, about any case to be judged by them these thousand years.
But enough is said of this already: And Dr. Barrow hath utterly confounded your pleas for Foreign Jurisdiction.
Pastors and Churches may Reprove one another, who Govern not one another.
And do you think we are so sottish as not to see, that your Colledge and Council must have some to call them together, or to gather Votes, and preside, and approve? And that the question will be only of the Degree of the Popes power, and whether the French sort of Popery be best?
§ 2. Dr. S. addeth, p. 343. ‘[So the Scripture plainly tells us elsewhere that Churches of Kingdoms and Nations have a Soveraignty over them, to which they must yield Obedience, Isa. 60 12. where the Prophet speaking of the Christian Church saith, The Nation and Kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish, yea those Nations shall be utterly wasted. If Nations and Kingdoms must serve the Church, then [Page 137] she hath Authority to Command their Obedience in things that belong to Peace and Holiness]’
Ans. I confess Campanella de Re [...]no Dei doth thus make the Papacy the Fifth Monarchy, and confidently brings many such Texts for their Clergies Universal power. But, 1. Is it the King of the Church or the People that must be obeyed? The people have no Ruling Power. And if it be the Soveraign the question is, Who that is? Protestants say, It is only Christ: And the Text plainly meaneth, [ The Nation that will not serve Christ the Head of the Church for the good of his Body, shall perish.] But the Italians say, It is the Pope and Council, and the French, That it is the Council and Pope (as President and Prime Patriarch) that is here meant.
2. This may be discerned by considering, Who it i [...] that is to destroy such Nations: It is Christ as the second Psalm sheweth; If it were the Pope and Council you threaten all Nations as terribly as Bellarmine doth.
3. And what is the perishing and wasting here meant? No doubt, their Souls that rebel against Christ shall perish, and he will also punish Bodies and Kingdoms as such. Put doth any of all this belong to the Bishops? None of it. 1. Excommunicating is their destroying work: But the Heathen and Infidel Nations are not to be Excommunicated? What have you to do to judge them that are without? Will you cast them out that never were in? 2. And destruction by the Sword is no Bishop's Work.
4. And when is it that all Nations that obey not shall utterly perish? We see that 19 parts in 30, saith Brierwood, of the World are Heathens and [Page 136] [...] [Page 137] [...] [Page 138] Mahometans, and yet prosper: Ever since Abraham's days till now the Church is a small part of the World. And it is not by any Power of the Church Governours that the Souls of Infidels perish, but by themselves. And their Kingdoms are unlikely to be destroyed till Christ's second coming. And if it be his destroying them at his Judgment that is meant, that proveth no Power in the Church against them.
But I confess you tell us what to fear: and whence it is that the French Protestants suffer. They must utterly perish that obey not a Governing Universal Soveraignty? Nay, not only French Subjects by their Lawful King, but Protestants States and Kingdoms that thought they had no Soveraign but their own proper one and Christ▪ But this is in Ordine ad Spiritualia. Yet, O you intend no Cruelty.
§. 3. Pag 344. He tells us of the Churches Power to decide Controversies, and of the Council, Act. 15.
Answ. A multitude of Protestant Writers have long ago answered all this. 1. The word [ Church] is ambiguous. When Christ and his twelve Apostles were on Earth, they were the Church (as to Rule.) And then the Vniversal Church met in a House together, celebrated the Sacrament together, &c. Must they do so now? It was no General Council that met, Act. 15. unless you will say that there dwelt a General Council at Jerusalem as long as the Apostles dwelt there. None of the Bishops of the Churches planted by Paul, Barnabas and others about the World are said to be there, nor any at all but the Inhabitants of Jerusalem, save Paul and Barnabas who were sent as [Page 139] Messengers, and were not the Men sent to. And you now say, that none but Bishops have decisive Votes.
2. And there are more ways of deciding Controversies than one. We doubt not but every Pastor may decide them by Evidence of Scripture and Reason. And many assembled may contribute their Reasons and be helpful to each other, and may see more than one, if they be meet Men. And Pastors thus by Teaching Evidence do that as Authorized Officers (as Tutors and Schoolmasters) which Private Men do but as Private Men, and not as Officers: so that even thei [...] Teaching Decision is an act of Authority as well as of Skill. And so far as Humane authority must go, the concurrent Judgment of a multitude of Divines, as of Physitians, Lawyers, &c. Cateris paribus deserveth more reverence than a singular opinion. But for all that, 1. An Assembly of Lay Men have no Authority but from their Evidence and Parts. 2. An Assembly of Bishops have no deciding Authority but by an office by which they are entrusted as fallible Men to teach others what they know themselves, by the same Evidence which convinced them; and to guide their particular Congregations in mutable Circumstances. 3. But an Assembly of Apostles had Power to say, It seemeth good to the H [...]ly Ghost.
Obj. 1. There were the Brethren also. 2. Single Apostles had the Holy Ghost, yet they did it in an Assembly.
Answ. 1. The Inspiration or extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were then common to most Christians at least, as you may see by comparing Gal. 3.2, 3. 1 Cor. 12. Act. 8. Rom. 8 9, &c. [Page 140] 2. There were but two Messengers more than those that dwelt together, and met ordinarily. And, 1. The Apostles themselves had not such present command of the Spirit, as excluded the need of consultation. 2. And no doubt but the doubtful Christians abroad did more reverence the consent of all, than one alone. What therefore they did as consenting inspired infallible persons, will not prove a soveraignty in all the Bishops of the World in a Council, to decide Controversies by Sentence and Command. No doubt but the Assembly at Nimeguen, Munster, Francfort, &c. may decide Controversies between Princes, but not by soveraignty over each other, but by consent. To their Subjects it's reverenced as a consent of Princes, but to each others it's the consent of Equals. I have said that Archbishop Vsher said to me, That Councils were but for Concord, and not for Government; the Major Vote of Bishops being no rulers of the Minor, nor of the absent.
Obj. But all Pastors are related to the Vniversal Church.
Answ. As a Licensed Physitian is related to all the Kingdom, that is, he may be Physitian to any that desire him: How strictly do the Canons forbid Usurpation in other Mens Dioceses? The English Ordainers say, Take thou Authority to Preach the Word of God and Administer the holy Sacraments where thou shalt thereto be lawfully called. A general Ordination maketh none a Governor of other Mens Flocks.
§. 4. Dr. S.— ‘[The Apostles to give Example how Controversies should be ended in future Ages, did not decide it by their infallible Spirit only, but [Page 141] proceed in an ordinary Method, plainly countenancing the Authority of Councils, and intimating to us, that all Christian People ought to submit to their Decrees.’
Answ. 1. They did decide it by their Infallible Spirit; else they had not fathered all on the Holy Ghost: But not [ only] by that Spirit: for it was also by their Vnderstandings and their Tongues. Even so they did not write the Gospel only by the Spirit, but also by their Reason and their Pens. But they decided it not without that Spiritual infallible Inspiration, which your Councils have not.
You may as well say when Act. 6.2. the twelve called the Multitude, &c. that there was a General Council, that spake not only by the Spirit: And Act. 11.2. Peter pleadeth his Cause before the Apostles and Brethren, who were satisfied by his Reasons: This was such another General Council. But who doubteth but the Apostles had Reason as well as the Spirit, and used the gift of the Spirit in the use of Reason, and not only in Extasies: And therefore Consultation and the Spirits infallible Inspiration may go together.
2. We deny not the use of Consultation and the Consent of many as a help to incline mens Minds to Satisfaction: But only infallible Men can by infallible Authority decide Controversie sententially. And if Pope or Councils have such Infallibility, they have done ill that they would use it no better than the Multitude of their Contradictions manifesteth. And if they were Infallible, the Peoples actual Faith is never the more infallible unless they themselves were infallible also. Are all the believers of Popes and Councils themselves [Page 142] infallible, or not? If yea, then are all herein equal to the Pope and Councils. If not, then the Laity know not but they may be deceived in thinking the Pope and Councils infallible.
3. I have truely recited the doleful decision of Controversies which they have made: They have raised abundance of Controversies which have torn the Church into pieces, as I have fully proved, whether Mr. Maurice will or not.
4. It would have been a Service to the World indeed if Pope or Councils would to this day, after 1500 years Controversie, vouchsafe to end them, and not tell us that they are appointed to end them, and yet will not? Why are there still Cart loads of Books of Controversies among Papists, and Protestants, and all; and yet no Council doth decide them? Even the Catalogues of Heresies given us by Ephinanius, Philastrius, Augustine, &c. are few of them medled with in your six Councils. It is the Controversies about the sence of Scripture which is most talkt of, which Councils must decide: And of the many hundred or thousand Controverted Texts, how few have Councils ever Expounded to us? How great is their guilt if they are bound to do it, and will not?
5. But you do but speak darkness, and no satisfaction to us, to tell us that [ all Christian people ought to submit to their Decrees,] till you tell us, Whether it be to All their Decrees, or but to some, and to which, and how known.
The Case may be, I About points absolutely necessary to Salvation, or points not so necessary. II. About points plainly exprest in Scripture, or points there darkly exprest.
[Page 143]I. As for points absolutely necessary sober Papists themselves confess that they are all plainly exprest in Scripture: Else it were no perfect Doctrine or Law of God: if a Council contradict any Article of the Creed, must we receive its Decrees? Sure Councils have no power to judge that there is no God, no Christ, no Scripture, no Heaven! Nor must we believe them if they should so do: And if they have power only to tell us that, There is a God, a Christ, a Heaven, Scripture hath told us this already; and we need not that a Council tell it us. If we believe it as of God it is a Divine Faith; if as of Man, it is but a Humane Faith.
2. But if it be only points not Necessary, a Council cannot make that necessary which God made not so? And it's a great wrong to the World, to increase the difficulty of Faith and Salvation, by making more necessary to it than God hath done.
II. And whether they are necessary or not, if they are plainly exprest in Scripture what need we a Council to say the same again? Is not Gods plain words intelligible, as well as theirs? And must we not believe Gods plain words till a Council repeat them? How many things then must we refuse to believe, which are plainly exprest in Scripture?
But if they be things not plainly exprest in Scripture, it's like they are not Necessary to Salvation. If they be, they are such deductions from plain Scripture as are obvious to a sound understanding, or not: If yea, then every sound understanding may know them. Or if Men be ignorant, either Councils or single Pastors may teach [Page 144] them: But that is by opening the evidence of truth and not by commanding Men to believe it? Teaching and not Magisterial determining begeteth rational belief.
But if they are not such obvious deductions, we cannot be sure that Councils rightly collect them: But we are sure they have no power to command us believe without giving us convincing proof of the truth.
For instance, The first General (National) Council, determineth that Christ is [ God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God,] I believe they meant the truth: But these words are so far from making me a new Article of Faith, or making the point plainer than Scripture made it, that they are to me much darker than many Scripture words. That Christ is God, even One God with the Father, and that he is the Eternal Word, and Son, the only begotten of the Father, the Scripture plainly tells us. And that the Person of the Son is of the Father: For the Persons being three it is meet to say that one is of the other. But God of God, and Very God of Very God, is of harder understanding, and hath tempted mistakers to say it is [Godhead of Godhead] as if the Essence as well as Persons were many. Creeds must be supposed to speak properly. And denominations formal are most proper: The Tritheites take advantage of this, and say, [ It is not said that the Person of the Son is of God the Father; but the Godhead as such: God of God being twice said, say they, signifieth two Gods: They misinterpret it: But the Scripture speaketh plainlier. The same I say of [ Light of Light] a Metaphor in a Creed. And they that put [ substare accidentibus] into the definition [Page 145] of [ substance] and when they have done, say that God hath no accidents, do not by the Word [ substance] add any plainness to the Scripture phrase.
And how little the Council at Constantinople and Chalcedon did to end the Controversies of Prelates, and unite the Church, by setting Constantinople and Rome in mutual Jealousies and Competition, the World knows.
And what the Councils at Ephesus and Chacedon did to end the Controversies about the Nestorian and Eutychian points, or that at C. P. against the Monothelites, or that under Justinian de tribus capitulis, Mr. Morice and you cannot keep the World from knowing; nor yet what all the Councils about Images, some for them, and some against them, have done.
Are they the only means of ending Controversies, 1. Who do end none? 2. Who have most increased them? 3. Who are the greatest Controversie themselves? The World will never be agreed which are to be taken for General Councils Authoritative and which not; nor can you give us any thing that hath the shadow of reason to satisfie any impartial Man: And no wonder when indeed there never was an Universal Council in the VVorld.
All true Christians are agreed in all that constituteth Christianity: And it is not the Authority of Councils that made them Christians, and so agreed them. And to dream of ending all Controversies about lesser matters, as long as men are so ignorant and imperfect, as all are in this VVorld, is the part of no Man in his VVits.
§ 5. Page 345. Dr. S. ‘[Accordingly the Christian [Page 146] Church has challenged such an Authority, and has held such Assemblies as occasion did require; and six such have been approved and received generally i [...] the Church, and no more.]’
Ans. In all this matter of fact I think there is not one true word.
1. The Christian Church did never challenge such an Authority, (unless you mean the Papal Church) as in Council to have a Legislative and Judicial Soveraignty over the whole Christian VVorld.
2. Never such an Assembly was call'd or held, as I have fully proved.
3. The six you mean we honour, and are of the same Faith as they were, but how far all the Christian World hath been from receiving them all, I have elsewhere shewn (and so hath Luther de Conciliis and many Protestants.)
4. That there were no more approved and received as these were, is unproved.
§ 6. Dr. S. [As for Mr. B 's exception, why we do not own the second of Eph. and second of Nice for General Councils also? I answer, because they were at the time they were first held and many years after accounted no General Councils, and not received for such by the Church — And page 346. [Mr. B. demandeth how shall any Mans Conscience be satisfied that just these six had a supream, &c. Ans. By the publick Acts of the Church as we are satisfied of our Acts of Parliament: For there are no more generally received, and these are.
Ans. 1. I will not stand here on many previous questions: How we shall know that a Council not General binds us not as much as a General, if they have as wise Men and as strong Evidence: [Page 147] And whether any Council be General which carrieth it but by a Major Vote, where a few turn the Scales, and the rest dissent. But,
2. If there be in this decision of this great point one word that should satisfie any Mans Conscience which will not be satisfied with meer noise, or the VVriters Authority, I confess I cannot find it.
1. Either the Decrees of the said Councils are obligatory by their Soveraignty before the diffused Church receiveth them, or not. If yea▪ then that obligation must be first known; yea and it is known and the Council known by those that are nearest, before all the Church on Earth can know it.
If not, then it is not the Council but the Receiving-Church which hath the obliging Soveraign power: And this is indeed to make Soveraign and Subjects to be the same. This is like Mr. Hooker's Principles (and many Politicians) that the Legislative Power is really in the people by Natural right, and it's no Law which hath not common consent. And if so, no Man can tell how to date your Church Laws: They did not begin to be Laws when the Council made them; but when all the Church on Earth consented▪ But we have need of the Decree of a General Council, (for no Dr. is sufficient) to tell us when all the Christian VVorld consenteth, for if every Christian must travel all over the VVorld to know, it will be a vagrant Church: And if he must send, he cannot be sure that his Messenger saith true: And a thousand Messengers may all differ: And who can bear their Charges? And if a Council tell us when the VVorld consenteth [Page 148] to former Decrees, we must know also the worlds consent to that Decree before we can be sure it's true.
And 2. VVhether the Church diffusive give authority to the Decrees, or only be the Promulgators, whose reception must be our notice, it is a contradiction to say, [I know it first because all the World of Christians receive it.] For that's all one as to say, [ Every single Christian knoweth it because all Christians know it first.] That is, All know it before they know it: The parts are in the whole.
3. Hath God laid the Salvation of all the Millions of Men and Women, Learned and Unlearned upon such acquaintance with Cosmography and History as to know what Councils (past 1000 years) all the Christian World receiveth? Or whether the greater part be for them or against them? Is there one of a hundred thousand that knoweth it?
It's like you will say, They must take their Teachers, or Bishops words. Ans. If so, those in Italy, Spain, Portugal, Poland, Germany, and all the Papists are bound to believe that you and all of your mind are Liars, for saying, There are but six such approved Councils; for their Bishops tell them of very many more. And then the Eastern Christians are bound to take you for Liars, whose Bishops tell them there were not so many. And the Protestants are bound to dissent, who generally hold that there never was one such General Council as had a Universal Jurisdiction over the Christian World. How then shall the people know what Councils as such are so received?
4. Yea it is a thing that neither you nor the [Page 149] most Learned Man can know. Were you ever in Ethiopia, Syria, Armenia, Georgia, Circassia, Mengrelia, and in all the Greek Churches? If it be Travellers that you trust to, they give you no credible notice of any such thing: And you lay our Salvation on the avoiding of Schism, and this upon our obedience to the Universal Jurisdiction, and so you lay all our Salvation on the Testimony of Travellers, who of all Men are most. susspected of a liberty to Lie.
5. But the plain truth is, that notice which we have by Travellers and Historians of the mind of most of the Christian World, assureth us that a very great part of it receiveth neither your six Councils, nor your first four, and the rest receive many more; If you have read Brocardus and Jacobus de Vitriaco, who dwelt both at Jerusalem, and Haitho and others in the Novus Orbis that describe Tartary and Armenia, and Leo Afer, and Paulus Venetus, and Boterus, and Godignus, and Ludolphus of Abassia, &c. you may perceive how great a number of Christians there be who own not so much as your four first Councils, some abhorring that at Ephesus, and some that at Chalcedon. And you know that both Greeks and Papists receive more than six.
6. And I crave your answer to the Question which I put to your Bishop and you, How could Christians know which were the true Soveraign Councils, when the far greatest part of the Bishops disowned them? I will not censure you to be so ignorant of History as not to know that the far greatest part of the Church renounced the Council of Chalcedon in the Reign of divers Emperors? And the Council of Nice in the Reign of [Page 150] Constantius and Valens. How then could they be known by your Rule?
But you say, [ We may know it by the publick Acts of the Church as we know the Acts of our Parliaments.]
Ans. I desire no better proof; how we know them I have oft mentioned. But here you leave us utterly in the dark: What mean you here by [ the Church] and what by [ its publick Acts?]
1. If by the Church you mean, 1. All Christians of this Age, we are sure they agree not of it.
2. If you mean the Greater number, we are uncapable of gathering the Votes or knowing it: But I have shewed you that we have reason to conjecture that most are against you: Vast numbers rejecting some, and the rest receiving more, and the Protestants (nor any but the Papists that I know of) receive not any as Universal Soveraign: And the Papists also are divided about it, as Pighius and many more will shew you.
3. If you mean it of the most in former Ages, I still say, one Age hath had most for the Council of Nice, Chalcedon, Constantinople second and third, and another Age most against them.
4. If you go the only way that's left you, and with the Papists call only those the Church who are of your mind, unchurching the most of the Church on Earth, then I confess you may say that the Church receiveth them and only them. But few wise Men will reverence a Church so described.
II. And what the Acts of the Church are which give us such assurance as you mention, I cannot imagine: As to our Statutes I have proved a Physical [Page 151] Evidence of the certainty of their being what they pretend; even such a consent of Men of cross Interests and Dispositions in the compass of a Land where the fact may be known, as cannot be counterfeited or false. But about Councils the case is quite otherwise. I. The most of the Church do not so much as think that there are any such Councils, or at least never did hold it till the Papal Usurpation, that they had a Soveraignty over all the Earth.
II. They are utterly disageerd how many and which are to be received.
III. They are disagreed which be their Canons? Even of the first at Nice, how long did three Popes contend about it with the African Bishops? And since Pisanus and Turrian bring us forth 80 Canons instead of 20, which the unlearned Africans receive.
IV. They are not agreed which of their Canons still bind, and which not: nor which are de fide, and which not: Many (as the 20th at Nice) are laid by without any Councils repeal.
IV. And the World is so much bigger than Britain, that it is not so easie to be sure of the sence of all Christians about the Matter. And how should it when it was never agreed on from the first?
If by the Church Acts you should mean the Decrees of later Councils, that is to prove ignotum per ignotius. How know we which Councils to believe when so many condemned one another? And if the Sixth was the last, there came none after to notifie the reception of it.
And whereas you say that those of Eph. 2. and Nice 2d, were when they were held, and many Years [Page 152] after accounted no General Councils, nor received as such by the Church.
Answ. The Mystery lyeth in some Sectarian Notion of the Church that you have: you mean some Party; but it's hard knowing what. For, 1. Bellarmine himself saith, that the second Ephes. Council wanted nothing to make it as true a General Council as the rest, but the Approbation of the Pope's Legates. It was called by the Emperor, the Number greater than many others: the Consent so great, that he saith that they decreeing Heresie, sola navicula Petri evasit. 2. It had not only the Consent of the present Bishops as much as other Councils, but was as commonly received by the prevailing majority, while the Emperor seemed to be for that way.
2. And the second Council at Nice was taken for as consenting a General Council during the Reign of Irene, and after under the Emperors that were for Images; yea, and by the Pope himself, and all his Party in the West: But it's true that when the Emperors were against Images it was abhorred: And so one Council was for Images, and another against them; (as one for Photius and another against him) by turns, for too long a time, as the Emperors were affected: But for the time, they were all called General, as that at Nice is by the Romans yet.
2. But if this had been true (as it is not) which you say, How shall all Christians know it to be true? When such as I with all our searching cannot know it? yea are past doubt that it is false? It's like you'll say, It is our obstinacy: And so all shall be Schismaticks and condemned with you, whom you are pleased to call obstinate, for escaping [Page 153] that Ignorance which would better serve your Ends.
§. 7. Dr. S. ‘[ But Mr. B. objecteth, That the Nestorians, Jacobites, Abassines, &c. renounce some of the six Councils (yes, three of the six) They had a personal Veneration for the Persons of Nestorius and Dioscorus, and did believe them when they said that the Councils were mistaken in Matter of Fact, and Condemned them for Opinions, which they did not own, and thereupon did reject those Councils: But they did not then, nor do not at this day reject the Catholick Faith, and the Rules of Christian Unity, which are contained in the six General Councils. So that in effect they own them; For the principal thing required is to profess the true Faith, and hold the Vnity of the Spirit in the bond of Peace and Righteousness, which those Churches do, in that they own the Nicene, and C. P. Councils, and deny not the Doctrine of the other four.’
Answ. Do you think that none of your Readers will see how much you here overthrow or give up your Cause? 1. If holding the Unity of the Spirit in the bond of Peace and Righteousness will serve, while they renounce the Councils as erroneous and tyrannical, and holding the same Faith and Doctrine will serve, what have you been Pleading for? we are for all this as well as you? 2. And if the Council may erre in Matter of Fact, which may be known by common sence and reason, how much more may they erre in matter of right and supernatural Revelation, as the Articles of the Church of England say they have done.
3. You confess here that Men may reject three or four of your six Councils, and yet be no Schismaticks, [Page 154] but hold Faith, Unity and Peace. And are the other two more necessary than all the rest? You say, They hold the two first. Answ. They hold not the Infallibility of Councils, nor that they may not be rejected when they erre, nor that we may not be discerning Judges when they erre: For all this is renounced in their renouncing all save two or three.
4. You say, They reject not the Rules of Christian Vnity. Answ. Therefore they judged not the Decrees of Councils to be that necessary Rule: Else the Decrees of those renounced by them would be as necessary as the rest.
5. It's apparent by this that they held the same with those Councils, not because of the Authority of those Councils, but on other Grounds: For it is not possible that they who renounced the Councils, should believe the Christian Faith, on their Authority. They believed it as a Divine Revelation fide Divina, and so do we.
6. And dare you say that a Man that believeth the same things because they are revealed by God in his Word, shall be damned unless he believe them fide humana, because a General Council decreed them.
7. Did your other Councils add any Decrees to the first? If not, what need of believing any thing as theirs? If yea, then receiving the Decrees of the two first is not a receiving the Decrees of the later.
8. And on whose Authority did Christians believe the first 300 years before there was any General Council?
§. 8. Dr. S. P. 346. ‘[ Obj. Did the Catholick Church die or cease after the sixth General Council? [Page 155] Answ. The Essence of the Catholick Church doth not consist in the being of a Council.—Their meeting is but an external means for better declaring the Catholick Faith, and holding mutual Correspondence between the several Churches.’
Ans. 1. Still you are constrained to destroy your own Cause. You confess then that Councils are no constitutive Governing part of the Church as a Governed Society. And if so, it hath some other Humane constitutive Regent part, or none. If none, we are so far agreed: This is it that we contend for. If any other, you must come to your Lords College of the diffused Pastors; who never made Law, never heard a Cause, or judged out of Council, to this day, nor possibly can do.
2. What is this that you call an external means of Correspondence? Is it a necessary Supream Legislative and Judicial Power? or not? If it be, it must be a constitutive Essential part of the Church as Political. For every Politick Society is informed by such. And you argued before that Nations must be under such as well as Dioceses under Diocesans. If not, habetur quaesitum.
3. And because your former words assert an Vniversal Soveraignty, I wonder how any of common reason can think this necessary to the whole Christian World, during the few Years that those two or six first Councils sate, and never before nor after? Are dead Men our Governors? VVill a Power of Governing never exercised serve for a Thousand Years last, and 300 before, and not for the other 300? Or hath the Church had one Form of Government for 200 or 300 Years, and another for all the other 1300? And when you tell us that Kingdoms must be judged as well as [Page 156] single Persons, did those first Councils judge all the sinning Kingdoms since. If you own no Councils since the first Six, all Kingdoms that have sinned these 1000 Years had no such Judges. And what Councils or other Church Power save the Popes, judged the many Southern and Eastern Countries that revolted? Or the Western Nations in their various Changes and Crimes? Must we have such an Uuniversal Judge now, who never judged any these 1000 Years.
4. Your Lord saith at last that they are Mutable Laws which Councils make. If so, why must we needs obey the six Councils that were 1000 Years ago, under another Prince? May not 1000 Years time, and another King's Government make a Change in the Matter and Reason of the Law? If you say, it stands till another General Council change it; I answer, 1. VVhat Council abrogated the 20th Nicene Canon against Kneeling on the Lord's Day in adoration? and many such other. 2. Then if ever there was a General Council it's Decrees are immutable (and so you contradict your selves) For it's certain there never will be a General Council to abrogate what is done, till all the VVorld be under one Christian Monarch.
5. The Laws of England bind us not now as the Laws of the Kings and Parliaments that are dead; that is, not by Virtue of their Authority (though made by them) But as the Laws of the present Legislative Powers who own them and rule by them, and can abrogate them when they will. And when the Canon-makers are dead 1000 Years ago, where now is the Ruling Power whose Laws those are? There is no General Council to [Page 157] own them, nor ever will be! A thousand Years sure is time enough to prove the death of a Power never since exercised: were there a Seminal Virtue of Universal Regiment in the diffused Church, a Thousand Years Sleep in reason must pass for a Death.
6. Yea, the diffusive Church hath since disowned the Universal Obligation of those same Councils, and doth disown them to this day. For it is not near half the Christian VVorld that own them; yea, none but Papists that I could ever be certified of do receive any such Councils at all, as Legislators and Judges to all the Christian World; but only as Reverenced Rules of Concord made by Contract. And if Constantine, Theodosius, Martian, &c. called their Subjects to Councils 1000 Years ago, why is our King and Kingdom now any more subject to the Subjects of those Emperors than to them?
But if you were content to endure us to unite in Christ, and take his Laws for our Rule and bond of Peace, and stay till the next General Council, be against us, we desire no more.
§. 9. P. 347. Mr. B. saith, ‘[It is a doleful thing to think on what account all these Men expect that all Christians Consciences can be satisfied, &c.]’ D. S. answereth, ‘[It is a doleful thing indeed to think how they should be satisfied that set up a Pope in every Congregation, and follow him in opposition to the Catholick Church and General Councils.— Mr. B. knows he does this, and deludes the poor People, &c.’
Answ. 1. If I know it, methinks I should know that I know it. Which if I do, it's I that am the Impudent Liar: If not—Somebody is mistaken. [Page 158] Qu. Whether a Council of such Bishops be infallible, or can make us a better Rule than the Scripture.
2. Readers, here you see that it is no wonder that these Reverend Fathers renounce Popery. You see what a Pope is in their account: It is a Minister of a single Church, who taketh not their Lordships or Councils to be Law-givers and Judges over all the Earth. We poor Protestants took him for a Pope that claimed such an Universal Rule alone, or as the President of Councils: But these Men take him for a Pope that denieth Popery, and pretendeth to no Government beyond his Parish. Yea, not only so, but in our Parishes we oblige none to take up any of their Religion (Faith or Duty to God) on our commanding Authority, but to learn by the Evidence which caused our own Faith, to believe by a Faith Divine.
3. I have oft said that the Catholick Church is such by Faith and Subjection to Christ, which I own and daily Preach: But that there never was a General Council of the Christian World, nor is there any such thing as a Catholick Church in the Popish sence, that is, having one Political humane Soveraignty. And how did the Man make himself believe that I knowingly opposed that which my whole Writing labours to prove never had a being. Reader, Lament the Case of the Church on Earth, when the most studious Leaders are so dark and rash and bad, as either I, or these Reverend Fathers are, setting the World into ruinating Divisions by words of such a Dialect as is harsh to name.
§. 10. P. 348. Dr. S. pretendeth to some Scripture Proofs, viz: 1 Cor. 14.32, 33. The Spirit of [Page 159] the Prophets are subject to the Prophets. For God is not the Author of Confusion, but of Peace, as in all the Churches of the Saints.]
Answ. Reader, Do you think this proveth that the whole Church on Earth is under one humane Soveraignty that hath a Legislative and Judging Power. 1. This Text speaketh only of the avoiding Disorder in particular Assemblies by the means which they had present there among them. To keep them from speaking two at once, and such like Disorders: As the Archi-Synagogoi were used to do in the Jews Synagogue. And must a Council from all the Earth be gathered to that Assembly to rebuke such Disorder? If it must be but to make a General Law to forbid it, that's done already in Scripture and in Nature: And must the World meet to do it again?
2. Their Dr. Hamond saith, that this Text speaketh of the Spirit in each Prophet being subject to himself, that is, to his own reason, and that the Spirit moveth them not to speak irregularly and confusedly: And what's this to the Power of Councils?
3. If it were spoken of the other present Prophets, what's this to Men that are no Prophets, and that are dead 1000 Years ago? Are not present Pastors fitter Moderators of their Assembly, than a General Council of dead Men?
§. 11. Next he that so condemneth me as an Opposite, citeth my words as granting his Cause; yet this reconcileth him not: I am not so idle as to write him a Commentary of my own words; for, I can devise no plainer. Only I may tell him that he too quickly forgot that God is not the Author of Confusion: and therefore it is not lovely: [Page 160] A Law should not be confounded with a Contract or amicable Agreement; nor a Soveraign Government with a Peace-making Assembly of Equals; nor a possible Council of those within reach with an impossible Council out of all the World. Neither the King of France or of England were Subjects to the Assembly at Nimeguen.
§. 12. P. 351. He saith, he could give numberless Quotations of Protestants, Melanchthon, Bucer, Calvin, Bishop Andrews, K. James, Spalatensis, Casaubon, Bishop White, Bishop Mountague, Archbishop Dr. Hamond, Dailee, &c.
Answ. I cannot answer what you can do, but what you do. But the Reader may know how far to believe you, that will but search these few. 1. Read what I have cited out of Melanchthon to Bishop Guning, or rather his own Epistle of the Conference at Ratisbone, and that to King Henry the 8th.
2. Read Bucer de Regno Dei, and the rest of his Opera Angl. and judge as you see cause.
3. I am ashamed to cite any words of Calvin, to confute our Drs. intimation.
4. Whether Spalatensis was a Protestant I dispute not, but read his own words cited by me in my Treatise of Episcopacy, and then read him of Councils, and judge.
5. Bishop Vsher, as I have oft said, told me himself, That [ Councils are not for Government of the absent or the particular Bishops, but for Concord.]
What Mind Dr. Hamond was of I determine not: But of the rest you may judge by these.
The Matter is, All Protestants hold that we must Serve God in as much Concord as we can: [Page 161] And that the Meeting of Pastors is a means of Concord: And that it was the true Christian Faith which the Councils which he nameth owned; and we are of the same Faith: and therefore they reverence these Councils: And they hold that still Concord being much of the Strength and Beauty of the Churches, when there is any special reason for it, (as several Princes assemble by themselves or Messengers at Munster, Ratisbone, Francfort, Nimeguen) so Pastors even of several Kingdoms, not too distant, may for mutual help and Concord meet in Councils: And none should needlesly break their just Agreements, because of the general Command of Concord: But 1. They hold that these Councils be no representers of all the Christian World; 2. Nor have any Universal Jurisdiction. 3. Nor any true Governing Power at all over the absent or dissenters, but an Agreeing Power. 4. And if they pretend any such Power, they turn Usurpers. 5. And if on pretence of Concord they make Snares, or Decree things that are against the Churches Edification, Peace or Order, or against the Word of God, none are bound to stand to such Agreements.
These being the Judgment of Protestants, what do these Men but abuse their words of Reverence to Councils, and Submission to their Contracts, as if they were for their Universal Soveraign Jurisdiction?
§. 13. And next he saith, ‘[Whereas Mr. B. doth usher in his Discourse with an intimation that this was only a Doctrine of the Gallican Church, he cannot but know that this was the sence of the Church of England in the beginning of Queen Elizabeths Reign.]’
[Page 162] Answ. 1. I honour the Gallican Papists above the Italian; but I am satisfied that both do erre.
2. There is a double untruth in Matter of Fact in your words: 1. That I cannot but know that which I cannot know or believe. 2. That yours was the sence of the Church of England: which I have disproved. But what is your proof?
D. S. [For the 20th Article saith, ‘[The Church hath Power to Decree Rites and Ceremonies and Authority in Controversies of Faith, and the next Article doth suppose this Authority in General Councils.’
Answ. The Church of England supposeth that Kingdoms should be Christian, and the Magistrates and Pastors Power so twisted as that their Conjunction may best make Religion national, (as it was with the Jews) But it never owned a foreign Jurisdiction, or the Governing Power of the Subjects of one Kingdom over the Princes and People of another. It followeth not that because the Church in England may Decree some Rites here, that therefore foreign Churches may command us to use their Rites. Our own Church Teachers no doubt have Authority in Controversies of Faith; that is, to teach us what is the truth, and to keep Peace among Disputers, but not to bind us to believe any thing against God's Word, and therefore not meerly because it's their Decree: Therefore the Article cautelously calls the Church only [ a Witness and Keeper of holy Writ] which we deny not. And that [ besides Scripture they ought not to enforce any thing to be believed for Necessity to Salvation.] But you would have us believe the Soveraign Universal Jurisdiction of Councils, yea and the lawfulness of all your Oaths [Page 163] and Impositions, as necessary to escape damning Schism; and is not that as necessary to Salvation?
2. And one would think there needed no more than the next Articles to confute you, which you cite as for you. They knew that there had been Imperial General Councils, which being gathered and authorized by the Emperors, had the same Power in the Empire that National Councils have with us, or in other Nations. But there's not a syllable of any Jurisdiction that they have out of the Empire: Yea, contrary it's said, 1. That they may not be gathered together without the Commandment and Will of Princes: And therefore cannot Govern them without their Will, nor have any Conciliar Power, being no Council: And one King cannot command the Subjects of another. Indeed if Princes will make themselves Subjects to a Council or Pope, who can hinder them? 2. They are here declared to be Men not all governed by the Spirit and Word of God, and such as may erre and have erred in things pertaining to God. Therefore their meer Contracts and Advice are no further to be obeyed than they are governed by the Spirit and Word of God; which we are discerning Judges of. And it is concluded that [ things ordained by them as necessary to Salvation, have neither Strength nor Authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of the Holy Scripture.] So that even their Expositions of the Articles of Faith, which you make their chief Work, hath no further Authority than it's declared to be taken out of the Scripture it self, nor yet their decision of the sence of controverted Texts. And such proof must be received from a single Man.
[Page 164]§. 14. Such another proof he fetcheth from the Statute 1 Eliz. c. 1. ‘Forbidding to judge any thing Heresie but what hath been so judged by Authority of Canonical Scripture, or the first four General Councils, or any of them, or any other General Councils.]’
Answ. As if forbidding private Heretication were the same with the Universal Soveraignty of Councils; we are of the same Religion with all true Christians in the World, and we are for as much Concord with all as we can attain: But is Concord and Subjection all one, or Contract and Government.
§. 15. The like Inference he raiseth from a Canon 1571. forbidding any new Doctrine not agreeable to the Scripture, and such as the Ancient Fathers and Bishops thence gathered.
Answ. And what's this to an Universal Church Soveraignty?
§. 16. The Church of England's Sence is better expounded, Reform. Leg. Eccles. c. 15. ‘Orthodoxorum Patrum etiam authoritatem minime censemus esse contemnendam: sunt enim permulta ab illis praeclare & utiliter dicta: Ut tamen ex eorum sententia de sacris literis judicetur, non admittimus. Debent enim sacrae literae nobis omnis Christianae doctrinae, & Regulae esse, & Judices. Quin & ipsi Patres tantum sibi deferri recusarunt, saepius admonentes Lectorem, ut tantisper suas admittat sententias & interpretationes, quoad cum sacris literis consentire eas animadverterit.’
§. 17. D. S. P. 358. [Mr. B. saith, The doubt is whom you will take for good Christians into your Communion▪ But this can be no doubt,—when I except [Page 165] only the Jesuited part of the Roman and other Churches.
Answ. So you take in the Church of Rome, which you cannot do without taking in the pretended Soveraignty Essential to it. Was not that Church Papal before there were any Jesuites? But hold, Dr. It's France that you are first Uniting with: and they say, that the Jesuites are there the Predominant part. And are you against them there?
§. 18. P. 360. He takes it ill that I suppose him to separate from the Church of England, I have fully given him here my proof. The Church of England took not it self for a part of an Universal humane Political Church. But his Church doth, and is thereby of another Political Species, as a City differeth from a Kingdom.
I will not tire the Reader with following him any further. Vain Contenders necessitate us to be over tedious.
§. 19. I am loth here to answer the rest of his Book against our Nonconformity; 1. Because I would not follow them that decoy, and divert Men from the state of our chief Controversie, to hide their Design. 2. Because it seemeth to me to be of no use: He that will not read impartially what we say as well as they, will never be cured of his Errours by any thing that we can write. And he that will impartially read but my first Plea for Peace, Apology, and Treatise of Episcopacy, and take this Book to be a Satisfactory answer, shall never be troubled by my Replyes, no more than the distracted.
§. 20. This much I shall presume to say, lest he expect some account of his Success upon my self:
[Page 166]I. That when he tells the Reader at last of my Concessions, as if I scarce differed from them, save by not giving over Preaching when forbidden, they do but shew how charitable and humble they are in their Domination, who yet can hardly suffer such Men alive out of Jail, much less to preach, who come so near them.
II. That when he tells us that the Presbyterian Cause is given up, and yet their Party make the name of Presbyterian (odious to them but not to us) the Engine of their reproachful malice, this seemeth not to me to come from the Spirit of Christ.
III. That when this whole Book pretendeth to confute us, and scarce once that I find in all the Book, truely stateth the case of our difference, but still silenceth or falsly representeth the points which we judge sin, yea heinous sin; such a Deceiving Volume seemeth not to me to beseem a Bishop, or his Amanuensis, or Chaplain.
IV. That when he tells us what pitiful proof he hath for the justification of their Silencing and Ruining ways, and yet how extream confident he is, it maketh me wish Christians to pray yet harder that Christ would save his Church from such Bishops.
I will now stay but to instance in that which they say the Bishop hath some peculiarity in, viz. Our Assent to the Rubrick about the Salvation of dying Baptized Infants. Reader, I have reason to believe that it is the Bishop as well as Dr. Saywell that speaketh to me. And 1. He dealeth more ingenuously than they that on pretence of [ Assenting to the use] say that we are not to Assent to the Truth of this as a Doctrine of Religion: [Page 167] He professeth the contrary, and that Assent to this is required as well as to the Catechism.
2. He seeketh not their Evasion that make not the phrase Vniversal, but Indefinite: For he knew, 1. That in re necessaria (which he takes this to be) an Indefinite is equal to an Universal: And 2. That a quatenus ad omne valet consequentia: And the assertion is of Infants quâ Baptized.
3. It is a certainty mentioned by Tautology that must be by every Minister professed, [ It is certain by the Word of God that they are undoubtedly saved.] Here we ask them two things, or three. 1. VVhether none should be a Minister of Christ who cannot truely profess this undoubted Certainty. 2. VVhether almost all the Learned Writers and Ministers of the Reformed Churches should be Silenced that hold the contrary. 3. But specially what be the words of God here meant which express this undoubted certainty? They confess that God saith, Deut. 12.32. Thou shalt not add thereto, nor take ought there-from; and concludeth the Bible with, [ If any Man add to these things, God shall add to him the Plagues that are written in this Book:] We tell them we dare not venture on such a dreadful Curse: This cannot be one of their things indifferent: Therefore before we profess our Assent that this is undoubtedly certain by the Word of God, they will shew us so much compassion as to tell us, where to find that Word of God? And after all our intreaty (even my own to the Bishop) he giveth us by his Chaplain but this one Text of Scripture, Gal. 3.27. As many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ.] Reader, is here one word of the certain undoubted Salvation of dying baptized Infants without exception?
[Page 168]1. Here is no mention of baptizing Infants; and it's usual with this sort of Men to say, That we cannot prove Infant Baptism by Scripture, but only by Tradition or the authority of the Church.
2. This Text most certainly speaketh of the Adult: And will not these Drs. believe St. Peter himself who told Simon when he was Baptized, Thou hast no part nor lot in this matter: For thy heart is not right in the sight of God; Thou art yet in the gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity? If they say that Simon had been saved if he had died as soon as he was Baptized, and that he fell to that false Heart, and gall of bitterness after, who will take such Drs words in despight of the evident truth? His Friend Grotius more modestly expoundeth Gal. 3.27. Sicut à baptismo vesies sumuntur, ita vos Promisistis vos induturos Christum, id est victuros secundum Christi regulam. Do these Men believe that all Infidels and Hypocrites shall be saved if they die as soon as they are Baptized? Or do they think that none such may be and are, Baptized? The very words before the Text are, Ye are all the Children of God by Faith in Christ Jesus: And Christ saith, He that believeth and is Baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned. And yet they bring us no Text for their new Article of Faith, but one which will as much prove the Salvation of all dying baptized Hypocrites and Vnbelievers, as of all dying Infants. As if none came in without the Wedding Garment, or such were in a state of Life.
I must profess that I cannot see should I subscribe this, how I could escape the guilt of Heresie, being liable to the foresaid Curse and Plagues [Page 169] of adding to the Word of God, by saying that Gods Word speaketh this certain and undoubted Salvation of dying Baptized Infants as such without Exception. Yet if we would all conform to all their Oaths, Covenants and Impositions besides, we must all be cast out and forbid to preach the Gospel, if we durst not Assent to this one Article. Such is the mercy of these Men! And all is justified as for sound Doctrine, which we are ignorant of, and these Masters are the Judges whom we must believe.
Yet note that though when he got the Church of England to pass this Article, he put not in the least Exception, and the Canon forbids the refusing Baptism to any Child that is offered to it, yet now he limits it to all Children seriously offered by any that have power to educate them in that profession. And as it is not the Parent that must be the Promiser; nor is suffered to be so much as one of the Godfathers or Sureties for his Child, so by this little limitation, what a dreadful brand of perfidious Covenanting with God, doth he six on our common English Baptism? For sure it is not the confident talk of such Writers that makes any English Man ignorant, 1. That our Godfathers commonly are not once desired by the Parents to Educate their Children in that Profession. 2. Nor ever give them the least reason to expect it. 3. Nor ever perform it. 4. Nor have any power so to Educate them, because the Parents never purposed so far to commit their Children to them, nor they themselves never dream of any such power or undertaking; except only such as adopt a Child, or take an Orphan or Grand-child as their own. I have lived almost sixty seven years, [Page 170] (now near seventy four) and never knew one Godfather Educate the Child, (save the Parent that is forbidden to be Godfather) or that it was ever expected from him by the Parents. It seems the Poor never came to Bishop Guning as they have done to me, to beg Money to pay the Curate and Clerk, and to hire some poor Man to be Godfather, or else their Children cannot be Baptized: So that he that can get but Twelve pence a day by hard labour, may get on the Sunday Twelve pence for standing an hour at the Font as Godfather, and perhaps half a Crown; and so it's become a Trade, of such as never mean to see the Child again. Though none but the poor thus hire Promisers, yet the Nation commonly never give them power to Educate their Children. And thus while the Bishop first must force us to profess the certain undoubted Salvation of dying Baptized Infants without exception he comes himself with an exception which shuts out all that ever I knew conformably Baptized in all my Life; and maketh the common Baptism of the Land to be perfidiousness: The Anabaptists will not be converted by such Doctors.
And it's known how much these Men are for tying us to deliver no Doctrine from any Text but what the Fathers have thence gathered: And Augustine de Baptis. Cont. Donat. li. 1. c. 11, 12. at large expoundeth this single Text of the Dr. by Simon's case, and supposing the Donatists to say that Simon was pardoned in Baptism and lost it by his next sin, he saith, c. 12. [ Quid si ad ipsum baptismum fictus accessit? Dimissa sunt ei peccata, an non sunt dimissa? Eligant quod volunt — si dimissa dixerint, quomodo ergo spiritus sanctus disciplinae effugerit [Page 171] fictum? Si in isto ficto remissionem operatus est peccatorum? — fateantur vero baptismo Christi baptizari posse hominem, & tamen cor ejus in malitia vel Sacrilegio perseverans peccatorum abolitionem non sinere fieri. At (que) ita intelligant in communionibus ab Ecclesia separatis posse homines baptizari, ubi Christi baptismus eadem Sacramenti celebratione datur & sumitur, qui tamen tunc prosit ad remissionem peccatorum cum quis reconciliatus unitati, sacrilegio dissensionis exuitur quo ejus peccata tenebantur, & dimitti non sinebantur. Sicut enim in illo qui fi [...]lus accesserit, sit ut non denuo baptizetur, sed ipsa pia correctione & veraci confessione purgetur, quod non posset sine baptismo, ut quod ante datum est, tunc valere incipiat ad salutem, cum illa fictio veraci confessione recesserit —
Thus Gods Word must by ten thousand Ministers be said to affirm that certainly and undoubtedly, which he brings but one Text for grosly abused, contrary to the Doctrine even of Augustine who laid too much on Baptism, and contrary to the very Law of Christ, which saith, He that believeth not shall be damned, not excepting the Baptized, Mark 16.16.
Obj. But yet all Baptized Infants may be saved? Ans. The question now is, Whether that Text Gal. 3.27. prove it, or any Word of God.
He must be supposed to know that there are many Opinions among the most Learned Divines about the Case of Baptized Infants Salvation, (ten I have elsewhere named.) And must every Minister in England determine which of all these is right, because it's Dr. Guning's Opinion?
Many Nonconformists hold that the Covenant of Grace, doth certainly put all true Christians Infants into a state of Pardon and Salvation, (calling [Page 172] them Holy) which is to be openly done by Baptismal Investiture. But that the Children of all the Atheists, Infidels, Idolaters, or wicked men on Earth are in such a state, and certainly saved so dying, if any Christian will but stand as in England as Godfather, and if a Band of Soldiers can but take up thousands of them, and so Baptize them, and that the Salvation of them is undoubtedly certain by Gods Word, to every one that must be tolerated to be a Minister; this is our present way of Church Concord, but not Christs way.
And if all the Infants on Earth have right to Salvation if they can but be Baptized, why should they not have it Unbaptized, when it is none of their fault it being not in their power? It is his own argument when we question the undoubted certainty affirmed, p. 162. [ To say the unworthiness or the sin of the Godfather or Father can deprive the Baptized Child of the benefit of Gods Ordinance, is a monstrous Opinion.] And whose sin is it but the Fathers that depriveth all Infidels Children of Baptism, and so of the benefit of it? Will all England believe that God layeth the Saving or Damning of Millions upon the bare act of outward Baptism, while the Children have equal antecedent right?
The Bishop and his Chaplain Dr. refer me to Mr. Dodwell for part of my answer: And Mr. Dodwell is so much of the Bishops mind, that I may suppose the Bishop to be much of Mr. D's mind. I will urge him therefore ad hominem with one argument from Mr. D. against Conformity; let him answer it without condemning Mr. D. if he can.
[Page 173]In Sacramental Investitures no Man receiveth more right than what the Invester intendeth to give him, or at least not that which he declareth that he doth not give him. But multitudes of Baptizing Ministers in England and all the Reformed Churches declare that they intend not to give by Baptismal Investiture a present right to Salvation to all Baptized Infants, (if they so die.) Ergo all Baptized Infants receive not by Baptism a present right to Salvation.
The Major is Mr. D's about Ordination. The Minor is notorious in the known Writings and Doctrines of such Ministers; some holding that only the Children of true Christians are by Baptism stated in a certain right to Salvation; some holding it only of the Elect; some holding it only of professed Christians Children; and almost all denying it of the Children of Atheists and Infidels. When Dr. Cornelius Burges did but write that all the Elect, though they lived wickedly after till Conversion, received a Seed of Regeneration in their Infant Baptism, what abundance of Dissenters, yea how few Consenters did he find in England? When yet he affirmed this of none but such as are after saved.
And if for want of the Baptizers Intention, thousands in England have no right to Salvation presently on their Baptism, then it is not lawful to say that the contrary is undoubtedly certain by the Word of God.
But I confess Mr. D's Proposition is false, as I have formerly proved to him. And perhaps necessity will force himself to deny it as to Baptism, though it overthrow his assertion about Ordination. Specially if he be for Laymen and Womens [Page 174] Baptizing as the Papists are in case of danger.
But the Name of the Church will warrant such Lords to prove all such Declarations, Subscriptions, Oaths, not only sinless, but necessary to Order, Peace, Obedience, Ministry, and I think to Salvation: For they make Schism Damning, and such Obedience necessary to escape Schism.
But he hath one cleanly shift, Though the Corporation Declaration, be, that [ there is no Obligation from the Covenant on me or any other person,] and a Man think that some are obliged by it against Schism, Popery and Prophaneness, and to repent of Sin.] He saith no Man is forced to take these Declarations, Vestry Oaths, &c. For he may chuse, and none constraineth him to be in Corporation trust, or a Vestry-man, and so a Minister, so the Act was to appropriate this sweet Morsel of so Swearing declaring, &c. to themselves: And to themselves let it be appropriated for me. And yet when all the Corporations, Vestries and Ministry are constituted as they are, — this is the necessary Unity—
But Obedience to the Church solveth all. I once askt a Convocation man, what were the Words of God by which this Article was proved and past in the Convocation, and he could not name me any Text that perswaded the Convocation to pass it; but told me Dr. P. Guning urged it so hard, that they yielded to him without much contradiction: I was not willing to believe that the Church of England would pass an Article of Faith against their Judgments to avoid striving with one man, when in imposing it they must strive against and silence thousands, and condemn most of the [Page 175] Reformed Churches; but rather that really they contradicted him not, because they thought as he: And yet I was loth to think them so uncharitable as to put all Ministers to declare such a thing to be in the Word of God, and never tell them where to find it. Between both what to think I know not: But if really Dr. G. was the Church, the reverence of his Name [ Church] shall never make me add to the Word of God, or corrupt his Ordinance; nor subscribe to his Book, or to a Foreign Jurisdiction, if he Father it on the Church.
The main strength of all his condemnations of us, and justifications of himself is, that, They are the Church, and our lawful Rulers, and we must obey, and be Sworn never to endeavour any alteration of Church Government, (not excepting Church depopulation by large Dioceses, nor the use of the Keys by Lay Chancellors. And if you ask for the proof of all this, and that they are not Vsurpers nor Church-destroyers, nor Subverters of Episcopacy it self, nor grand Schismaticks, you must be content with, 1. Ipse dixit, and 2. Episcopacy is ancient. 3. And the people have neither an Electing or necessary Consenting Vote; and yet when not only Mr. Clerkson and I, but also Dr. Burnet have fully proved that for twelve hundred or thirteen hundred years the peoples Consent was requisite, these great dependents on Antiquity and the Church, can wash all off with a torrent of words.
If the Letters in the Caballa and other History be credible, how great a hand had G. Duke of Buckingham in making the Church of England in his days? Read but what Heylin saith of [Page 176] Bishop Laud's preferment; and the Letters of some Bishops to Buckingham in the Caballa, and judge what made the Church of England: How basely do they sneak and beg of him for Preferment [...] e. g. Theophilus Bishop of Landaffe, is a most miserable Man if his Grace help him not to a better Bishoprick: Mountagues place at Norwich was of little worth since Henry the Eighth stole the Sheep, and scarce for God's sake gave the trotters, as he saith in his Letter to Laud. And this was the way. So the Church of England is Jure Divino made by the Civil Powers: But yet a few words can prove (just as he proveth all the rest) that the Dean and Chapiter chuse the Bishops and not the King. As Heathens made Images of the Gods and thought the Gods did actuate them, so men make the Images of Bishops and Councils, and some Spirits actuate them, whatever they be, whether those Noble Lords, Knights and Gentlemen that at their death lamented that they lived Atheists and Infidels, repented that as Patrons they chose Parish Church men I know not. But while these Drs know that many Great Councils have decreed the nullity of those Bishops that got in by Secular help and favour, and Damned the Seekers and Accepters of it; and yet would perswade the Church that all Gods Word is insufficient for Universal Laws without the addition of Soveraign Councils, I will regard them as they deserve, and not as they expect. Why answer they not my late Book of English Nonconformity?
The True Sum.
Popery is, I. The turning a National Univerglity or Catholicism of Councils, Church, Power, [Page 177] into a Terrestrial Universality. II. Turning Confederacy and Communion into Political Regency. III. Deponing Kings and States from their Sacred office of Supream Government (and sole forcible Government) of the Church or Persons and things Ecclesiastical, (the Clergy having only the Power of the Keys, Word and Sacraments to work on Conscience without corporal face.)
Chap. XV. The first Letter to Bishop Peter Guning, upon his sending me Dr. Saywell's Book.
I Thankfully received from you by Dr. Crowther Dr. Saywell's Book, and a motion for Conference with him, which I yet more thankfully accept; I read over the Book presently, and think it meet to give you this account of the Success:
I. 1. I perceive that it doth not concern me, nor many, if any, that I converse with; For it is Presbyterians, Separatists, Quakers and Fanaticks that he accuseth, and I am conversant with few such.
2. And yet the strein of his Book is such, as will make Readers undoubtedly think, that by Presbyterians and Nonconformists, or Conventiclers, he meaneth the same Persons, and speaketh of the common Case of the present ejected silenced Ministers: Of whom I must again and again say, 1. That I have had opportunity by Acquaintance and Report of knowing a great part of the silenced Ministers of England, and I know but of [Page 178] few of them that are Presbyterians; and Judge most of them to be Episcopal; Lawyers and Gentlemen indeed incline to place all the Government in the King and Magistrates. 2. That in 1661. when we were Commissioned to endeavour Concord with you, not only those named in the Commission, but all the Ministers of London were invited by Mr. Calamy ▪ and Dr. Reinolds, and Mr. [...] and Dr. Wallis, &c. to come to us in Consultation, and let us know their Sence: and many came. And I remember not one Man that dissented from what we offered you first, which was Archbishop Vsher's Primitive Form, which took not down Archbishops, Bishops, or a farthing of their Estates, or any of their Lordships or Parliamentary Power or Honour, (unless the Advice of their Presbyters, and the taking the Church Keys out of the hands of Lay Chancellors cast you down.) 3. That when the King's Declaration about Ecclesiastical Affairs 1660. granted yet much less Power to Presbyters, and left it almost alone in the Bishops, we did not only acquiesce in this, but all the London Ministers were invited to meet to give the King our joyful Thanks for it: And of all that met, I remember but two (now both dead) who refused to subscribe the Common Thanksgiving (which with many Hands is yet to be seen in Print). And those two exprest their Thankfulness; but only said [That because some things agreed not to their Judgments, they durs [...] not so subscribe, lest it signified Approbation; but they should thankfully accept that Frame, and peaceably submit to it.]
All this being so, I appeal (with some sense of the Case of England) to your self and common [Page 179] reason, whether it be just and beseeming a Pastor or Christian, or a Man to make the Nation believe, 1. That we are Presbyterians, 2. And against Bishops) 3. And therefore that we are Schismaticks. 4. And therefore that we must be Imprisoned or Banished, as those that would destroy the Church and Land. Would a Turk own such dealing with his Neighbour? Is this the way of Peace? Will this bring us to Conformity? Was it Anti-Episcopal Presbytery which the King's Declaration 1660 determined of? Nothing will Serve God, and the Churches Peace, but Truth and Honesty, or at least that which hath some appearance of it.
II. I find that almost all the Strength of his Book as against Presbyterians (who are his Fanaticks) is his bare word, saying that they are Schismaticks, and that they forsake the Judgment and Practice of the Universal Church by forsaking Episcopacy. And will this convince me, who am certain, that I am for that Episcopacy which Ignatius, Tertullian, Cyprian, &c. were for, and am past doubt that the Episcopacy which I am against is contrary to the Practice of the whole Church for 200 Years, and of all save two Cities (Alexandria and Rome) for a much longer time; If I prove this true (which I undertake) must I then take his turn, and desire the Banishment of the Contrary-minded Bishops, as dangerous Schismaticks for forsaking the Practice of the Church?
III. I understand not in his Platform of the Rule which denominateth Dissenters Schismaticks, Pag. 353. what he meaneth by the very highest Power, most necessary to be understood in these [Page 180] words [ The Laws and Orders of the Church Vniversal] to which every Provincial Church must submit.] What the Scots mean by [a General Assembly] I know, and what the old Emperors and Councils meant by [ an Vniversal Council] Viz. Universal as to that one Empire. But I know no Vniversal Law-givers to the whole Church on Earth, but Jesus Christ; neither Pope nor Council. If I am mistaken in this, I should be glad to be convinced: for it is of great moment: And is the hinge of our Controversie with Rome.
IV. He doth (to me) after all give up the whole Cause, and absolve me and all that I plead from the guilt of Schism, and lay it on your Lordship, and such as you, if I can understand him when he saith, Pag. 363. ‘[It is clear that in the Church of England, there is no sinful Condition of Communion required, nor nothing imposed but what is according to the Order and Practice of the Catholick Church, there can be no pretence for any Toleration, &c.]’
And Pag. 360. ‘[There is no Question to be made but where there is an interruption in the Churches Communion, there is caused a Schism: and it must be charged on them that make the breach which will lye at their Doors, who by making their Communion unlawful, do unjustly drive away good Christians from it; neither doth such a Person that is driven away at present from the external Communion, cease to be a Member of that Church, but is a much truer Member thereof than that Pastor that doth unjustly drive him from his Communion. This fully satisfieth me; and if you will read my late small Book, called, The Nonconformists Plea for [Page 181] Peace, you will see what it is that I think unlawful in the Impositions;’ And if you will read a new small Book of your old troubled Neighbour Mr. Jo. Corbet, called, The Kingdom of God among Men, I have so great an Opinion, that by it you will better understand us, and become more moderate and charitable towards us, that I will take your reading it for a very obliging Kindness to
Add. V. His terms of Communion are not right, as I have proved.
VI. He speaketh against Toleration so generally without distinction, as if no one that dissented but in a word were tolerable, which is intolerable Doctrine in a pretended Peace-maker.
VII. He inferreth Toleration while he denieth it, in that he is against putting us to Death: How then will he hinder Toleration? Mulcts will not do it, as you see by the Law that imposeth 40 l. a Sermon: For when Men devoted to the Sacred Ministry have no Money, they will Preach and Beg: Imprisonment must be perpetual or uneffectual: for when they come out they will Preach again. And it contradicteth himself; for it will kill many Students being mostly weak) as it kill'd (by bringing mortal Sickness on them) those Learned, Holy Peaceable and Excellent Men, Mr. Jos. Allen of Taunton, Mr. Hughes of Plimouth, and some have died in Prison: And he that killeth them by Imprisonment, killeth them, as well [Page 182] as he that burneth them or hangeth them. And the Prisons will be so full, as will render the Causers of it odious to many, and make such as St. Martin was separate from the Bishops; the same I say of Banishment.
Dr. Saywell's Principles infer as followeth;
I. Schismaticks are not to be Tolerated. They that are for the sort of Diocesane Prelacy, which we disown are Schismaticks: Ergo—not to be Tolerated.
The Major is Dr. S's. The Minor is proved thus.
They that are against that Episcopacy which the Primitive Universal Church was for and used, are Schismaticks: The foresaid Diocesane Party are against that Episcopacy which the Primitive Universal Church was for and used— Ergo they are Schismaticks.
The Major is Dr. S's. The Minor is thus proved, I. They that are for the deposing of the Bishops that were over every single Church that had one Altar, and those that were over every City Church, and instead of them setting up only one Bishop over a Diocess which hath a Thousand, or many Hundred Altars, and many Cities, are against the Episcopacy which the Primitive Universal Church was for: But such are the Diocesane Party now mentioned— Ergo—The Major is proved, not only from Ignatius who maketh one Altar and one Bishop with his Presbyters and Deacons, the no [...]e of Individuation to every Church, but a multitude of other proofs which I undertake to give: And from the Councils that determined that every City of Christians have a Church (till afterward they began to except small Cities) [Page 183] The Minor is notorious Matter of Fact, every Parish with us hath an Altar, and many hundred have but one Bishop: Ergo they are no Churches according to the Saying, Vbi Episcopus, ibi Ecclesia, & Ecclesia est plebs Episcopo adunata. And [...] then signified every great Town, like our Corporations and Market-Towns: And Titus was to set Elders in every such City.
II. They that render Bishops Odious, endeavour to Extirpate Episcopacy. But so do (I need not name them)— Ergo—The Major is granted. The Minor is proved. 1. They that use Episcopacy to the Silencing of faithful Ministers of Christ, (near Two thousand at once, than whom no Nation under Heaven out of Britain hath so many better) and to render them and all that adhere to them odious and ruined, do that which will render Bishops odious—But— Ergo—
2. From Experience, when we treated with you 1661. the People would have gladly received Episcopacy as we offered it to you, and as the King granted it in his Declaration: But when they saw near Two thousand Silenced, and that Bishops thought all such as I, and the many better Ministers of the Countrey where I lived, to be intolerable, it hath done an hundred times more to alienate the People, from Episcopacy, than all the Books and Sermons of the Opposers of Episcopacy ever did: e. g. The People that I was over would reverently have received Pious Bishops: But though I never saw them, nor wrote to them one Letter against Episcopacy these 19 years, but have largely written, to draw them to Communion in the Parish Church, and much prevailed, yet they will now rather forsake me as a complier [Page 184] with Persecuters (as Martin did the Bishops) than they would own our Diocesane Prelacy, since they saw me, and so many better Men of their Countrey Silenced, and cast out, and many of themselves laid in Jails with Rogues, and ruined for repeating a Sermon together, as they were always wont to do. He that will teach Men to love Prelacy by Prisons, Undoing them, and Silencing and ruining the Teachers whom they have found to be most edifying and faithful to them, will do more to extirpate Prelacy by making it odious, than all its Enemies could do; The reason of the thing seconded by full experience are undeniable proofs: No Men that I know of have done more against Episcopacy than Bishops: and (Pardon my free inviting you to Repentance) none that I know alive, either Sectaries or Bishops, more than you two, who I unfeignedly wish may have the honour before you die, of righting the Church and repairing the honour of true Episcopacy. It is a dreadful thing to us Nonconformists to think of appearing before God, under the Guilt of Silencing Two Thousand of our selves, if it prove our doing; If not, let them think of it that believe they shall be judged, Prov. 26.27. Whoso diggeth a Pit shall fall therein, and he that rolleth a Stone it shall return upon him.
Chap. XVI. The Second Letter to Bishop Guning, after our first Conference.
I Much desire some further help for my Satisfaction in the Three things, which we last Discoursed of. 1. Whether I mis-recited or misapplied the Case of St. Martin's Separation? 2. Whether by [...], in Ignatius be not meant One material Altar or Place of ordinary Communion of one Church? 3. What are the true terms of Universal Christian Concord? But the last is to me of so much greater Importance than the rest, that I will now forbear them, lest by diversion from this, my expectation should be frustrate. And seeing I profess in this to write to you with an unfeigned desire to learn, and also to take the Matter to be such as my very Religion and Church relation lyeth on; I beseech you either by your self, or some other whom you direct to speak your sense, to endeavour my better information.
The only terms or way of Vniversal Christian Concord you say is, Obedience to the Vniversal Church: and the Pastors are the Church: And he is not a true Member of the Church that doth not obey it: And this Church to be obeyed is not only a General Council, but also a Collegium Pastorum who rule per literas formatas, being Successors to the Apostles, who had this Power from Christ.
This is the Substance of what I understood from you. Here I shall first tell you what I [Page 186] hitherto held, and next tell you wherein I desire Satisfaction.
I. I have hitherto thought, 1. That only Christ was a Constitutive Head of the Church Universal, and had appointed no Vicarious Head or Soveraign, either Personal or Collective, Monarchical, Aristocratical, or Democratical. 2. Therefore none but Christ had now an Universal Legislative Power? nor yet an Universal Judicial and Executive. 3. And that this is the first and fundamental difference between us and the Church of Rome. 4. But I doubt not but that all the Pastors in the World may be intellectually thought on in an Universal Notion, and we may say with Cyprian, Episcopatus est unus, &c. as all the Judges and Justices and other Officers are Universally All the Governing Power of the Kingdom under the King; and as all the Individuals are the whole People as Subjects. 5. And I doubt not but each Pastor is in his place to be obeyed in all things which he is authorized to Command. 6. And these Pastors must endeavour to maintain Concord as extensive as is possible; to which end Councils and Communicatory Letters are to be used: And that the individual Pastors and People are obliged by the General Law of endeavouring to maintain Love and Concord, to observe the Agreements of of such Concordant Councils in all things Lawful belonging to their Determination. 7. And I doubt not but while there were but twelve Apostles, those twelve had under Christ, the Guidance of the whole Christian Church on Earth (which for a while might all hear them in one place;) and were to do their work in Concord: and had the Unity of the Spirit thereto, by which they infallibly [Page 187] agreed in that which was proper to them, (and they had no Successors in) even, though they were never so distant, as well as when they were together, Act. 15. though in other things Peter and Paul, and Paul and Barnabas disagreed. And as in the recording of Christ's Works and Doctrine, in infallible Scriptures, so also they agreed in their Preaching it, and in the Practice of all that was necessary either to Salvation, or to the forming or Communion of the Churches. 8. But I supposed that none but those who were called to it immediately by Christ, or endued with the gift of Infallibility therein, were to be as his Mouth and Hand, in so delivering the Gospel, and writing the Holy Scriptures, as should be his Word, or Law to all the Christian World, and to all future Generations. 9. But as Prophets of old were the bringers of all new Revelations, and the Priests were but the Preservers, Expounders and Appliers of the Word which the Prophets had brought; So the Spirit in the Apostles, Evangelists and Prophets infallibly delivered that Word and Law, which all succeeding Pastors must Preach, Practise, and Rule by; as the only Universal Law.
This being hitherto my Judgment, if you are not mistaken, I am no Member of the Universal Church, and so no Christian, and therefore am uncapable of Communion, and have not Christ's Spirit, nor title to Salvation, and therefore it concerneth me speedily to try, and receive Instructions: However we are of two Religions and Churches if you are in the right.
II▪ That which I have hitherto denied herein, is, 1. That there is any Vicarious, Constitutive or [Page 188] Governing Head of the Church Universal, or Soveraign Power, Personal or Collective, having Supream, Universal, Legislative, Judicial and Executive Power under Christ, which all Christians are bound to be Subjects of, and to obey.
2. That Obedience to such an Universal Church-Soveraign or Power is not the necessary means or terms of Universal Concord or Communion:
1. Because there is no such Power.
2. If there be, it cannot be Universally known by Christians, 1. That it is, 2. What it is, 3. And in whom it is.
3. Nor can the Measure of Obedience to such Power necessary to Concord and Communion of all, be Universally known. 4. And de facto, there is no such Concord or Communion Universal in the World, nor ever was, at least since the Apostles days. Of these in order.
I. If there be any Vicarious Universal Supream Power that all must obey that will be Members of the Church, the Institution of it is to be found in Scripture, or in some other Divine Record: But no such thing is found in either, we have no other Divine Record that notifyeth this: and Scripture doth not. It is the Apostles Power that is the thing hence alledged. But, 1. While they were near the whole Church in its Infancy or small Number, Men could have sent to them for their Judgment: But so they could not, had they lived to see the Church in its present extent: If the twelve Apostles were now at Jerusalem, and we doubted of the Nestorian, Eutychian, Monothelite Controversies, and the rest in Epiphanius and Philastrius Catalogue. Could all the Christians in America, Africa, Asia and Europe know that the [Page 189] major Vote of the Apostles met at Jerusalem had thus or thus decided? How few would live long enough for that Satisfaction. 2. The Apostles singly by an infallible Uniting Spirit were the Mouth of Christ to deliver obligatorily his Laws and Doctrine, without meeting to Consult and Vote it. Paul professeth Gal. 1. that he received not his Gospel from the Apostles, but from Christ: And his Epistles need not a proof of their Authority from the Votes or Consent of the rest; but were otherwise received: And so of other parts of Scripture. 3. The Apostles were to be dispersed about the World, and not to stay long together to Govern the World as a College: And while they stayed at Jerusalem, we read not of their doing any thing in a College and Conciliar way, save that Act. 15. & 11. which was, 1. No General Council from all the Churches: 2. Nor done by Apostles only▪ but the Elders and Brethren also of the Church at Jerusalem. 3. And was not laid on the Authority of a major Vote, but on the Apostolical Spirit of Infallibility and their special knowledge of Christ's mind, in which they all concurred.
2. Therefore their Authority of Teaching the World all Christ's Commands M-28-20. being proper to them by these two advantages (being chosen Ear-witnesses, and having the Spirit to guide them into all truth) in this they have no Successors though they have in the continued parts of their Work. They were Christs Instruments in Universal Legislation, and the Scripture written by them is his Word and Law, and they were accordingly enabled to Seal it by Miracles, and giving the Holy Ghost by Imposition of their [Page 190] Hands: This Law of Christ all Christians own: But if in this they have Successors, 1. The Church hath a larger Law than we have thought on, and Gods Word is a greater Volume. 2. And Miracles are as necessary to Seal the new Word as to Seal the old.
II. The Scripture denieth a Vicarious summam potestatem, or Soveraignty over the Universal Church having a Legislative Power. 1. In that it saith that There is One Law-giver, Jam. 4.12. that is, But One. 2. In calling Christ only the Head, Lord and King, and calling Apostles but Members, 1 Cor. 12.27. and Stewards and Ministers by whom we believe. 3. Baptizing us only into the Name of Christ, and not of the Apostles; and Baptism is Christening, and sheweth all that is necessary to make us Members of the Church and Body which Christ is the Saviour of. 4. Paul decryeth it as Carnality and Schism to think of Men above what is written, as if they had been Baptized into the Names of Men. 5. The Apostles did not Convert Men by preaching up themselves as Soveraign, but Christ, only professing themselves Witnesses and Messengers of his Words and Deeds: The Eunuch Acts 8. was Baptized by Philip upon his bare believing in Christ, without hearing the [...]ote of a Colledge of Apostles. Nor did the Preachers that Converted Men do it by the Argument of the Authority of such a Colledge. As Dr. Hammond saith on 1 Tim. 3. ‘[And such are all particular Churches of the whole World considered together, under the Supream Head Christ Jesus, dispensing them all by himself, and administring them severally not by any one Oeconomus, but by the several Bishops [Page 191] as Inferior Heads of Unity to the several Bodies, so constituted by the several Apostles in their Plantations, each of them having an [...], a several distinct Commission from Christ Immediately and Subordinate to none but the Supream Donor or Plenipotentiary.]’
(Neither to a Personal nor Collective Soveraign Power.)
The Judges of England have a Power which limitedly in their several Courts and Circuits respecteth all the Kingdom. But, 1. They have no Legislative Power. 2. Nor are they Constitutive Essential parts of the Kingdom: It would be the same Kingdom were their Power changed. 3. Therefore the Constitutive Oaths or Bond is only between King and Subjects, and we are not to Swear Allegiance to any other than the King. 4. Nor are they Judges out of their several Courts and Circuits. 5. Much less in other Kingdoms. 6. Nor is any a Judge to all the World, so is it in the Case in question, yet were they Apostles to the Universal Church, that which none are since their time.
III. If there be such a Vicarious Governing Soveraignty over the Universal Church, it is either the Pope, or a General Council, or some Colledge of Pastors: But it is none of these.
1. As to the Pope you say that he is so far from being Head of the Church that he is not a Member: So that I need not say more of this to you.
2. That General Councils are no such Soveraign Power which all must obey that will be Christians or in a Church, seemeth to me past doubt for these Reasons.
[Page 192]1. Because there is no such thing in the Creed, though the Catholick Church and Communion of Saints be there. But it would be there were it. of such necessity to Christianity.
2. Because there is no such thing said in all the Scripture, which would not omit so necessary a point. What is said from Acts 15. is answered before; it was no General Council: A General Council was not then the necessary means of Concord or Communion.
3. There never was one General Council representing the Universal Church in the World. I have fully proved in my second Book against Johnson, that the Councils called General were so only as to the Roman Empire, (and few if any so General,) and that the Emperor called all the Chief Councils who had no Power without his Empire, nor called any that were without.
4. I have oft proved the unlawfulness of calling General Councils now, as the Church is dispersed at such distances over the Earth, and under Princes of so contrary Interests and Minds.
5. I have oft proved the Impossibility of such a Councils meeting to attain the ends of Government in question; being to pass by Sea and Land from all quarters of the World, by the Consent of Enemies that rule them, and through Enemies Countreys, and Men of Age, that must have so long time going, and sitting and returning, and of divers Languages uncapable of understanding one another, and a number uncapable of present Converse, with other such insuperable difficulties.
6. If such Councils be necessary to the Being of Christianity, Church or Concord, at least the Church hath seldom had a Being, or Concord; it [Page 193] seldom having had such a Council in your own esteem: And you cannot say that it ever will have any.
7. If General Councils have Supream Government (visible) it is, 1. Legislative. 2. Judicial. 3. Executive.
But I. If Legislative, then 1. Their Laws are either Gods Infallible Word, or not: If not, all Men must disobey them when they err: If yea, Gods Word is not the same one Age as another, and is Crescent still; and we know not when it will be perfect.
2. Their Laws will be so many that no Christians can know them, obey them, and have Concord on such terms.
3. If they could agree who should call them, and whither; yet the Prince whose Countrey they meet in would be Master of the whole Christian World, and so of other Christian Countreys by Mastering them.
4. Princes would be Subjects, 1. To Foreign Powers. 2. Yea to the Subjects of other Princes. 3. Yea of their Enemies. 4. And to such Pre [...]ates as they are uncapable to know whether they are truely called to their Office. 5. Or whether they are erroneous or sound in Faith.
5. And then the Ecclesiastical Laws of all National Churches and Kings might be destroyed by such Councils as Superior Powers.
6. And no Princes or Synods could make valid Laws about Religion, till they knew that no Law of any such Council were against them.
7. The Laws of Christ recorded in Scripture would by all this be argued of great insufficiency: [...]f more were Universally necessary, he that made [Page 194] the rest would have made them, whose Authority is to the Church unquestionable.
8. The Christian World is divided so much in Opinion, that except in what Christs own word containeth plainly, they are in no probability of agreeing. So much of Legislation.
II. As to Judgment. 1. To judge the sence of a Law (Scripture or Canon) for the common Obligation of the Church, is part of the Legislative Power, and belongs to the Law-makers. 2. To judge the Case of Persons, e. g. whether John, Peter, Nestorius, Luther, Calvin, &c. be a Heretick, an Adulterer, a Simonist, &c. requireth that the Accuser and Accused, and Witnesses of both be present and heard speak: But he that would have all Hereticks, Criminals, Accusers, Witnesses, travel for a Tryal to Jerusalem, Nice, Constantinople, Rome, even from America, Ethiopia, &c. will not need any Confutation.
III. The same I say of Executive Silencing, Ejecting, Excommunicating, &c.
II. A Soveraign Power that cannot be known, is not necessary to Christianity, or the Constitution, Communion or Concord of the Church. But General Councils so impowered cannot be known.
I. I have shewed that it cannot be known by ordinary Christians that there are any such Authorized by Christ. I know it not, nor any that ever I was familiar with: The main Body of the Reformed Churches know it not; for they ordinarily deny it as the prime point of Popery. They cannot prove it, who affirm it: Therefore they know it not, as others may judge. Millions are Baptized Christians that never knew it.
[Page 195]II. It is not to this day known which were true General Councils that are past: Some say those were Latrocinia and Conventicles that others say were Lawful Councils. Some are for but four; some for six; some for eight; some for all so called; there is no agreement which are true and obligatory. Grotius is for Trent and all; which others abhor.
2. It is not known who hath Power to call them, and whose call is valid.
3. Nor what Individuals or Particular Churches are capable of sending and chusing, and obliged to it. Almost all the Christian World is judged uncapable by the most of Christians. The Papists are so judged by the Greeks, Protestants, &c. The Eastern and Ethiopian Christians, are excluded by the Papists, Greeks, &c. as Jacobites, Nestorians, Schismaticks, &c. The Greeks are excluded by the Papists and others as Schismaticks and Erroneous. The Protestants are judged Hereticks and Schismaticks by the Papists and many Greeks, &c. How Lutherans and Calvinists, Diocesans and Presbyterians, &c. judge of one another, I need not tell. And can all or any of them know which of these must make up a Legislative Council of the whole Church on Earth?
4. It is not known how many must Constitute such a Council, nor in what proportions. If there be innumerable Bishops under Philippicus for the Monothelites out of the East (as Binnius saith) and few out of the West, was that a true General Council? If at Nice, Ephesus, Constantinople, Chalcedon, there be not one out of the West to twenty or forty, or a hundred others, is it a true representative of the whole Church? If there be [Page 196] two hundred at Trent, or a thousand at Basil out of the West, or some few parts of it, and few from the East, and none from Ethiopia, Armenia, America, and many other Churches; are these a true Universal Council? And can we all be here resolved?
The Countrey where the Council meeteth, and the Prince who is for them, will have more Bishops there, than any, if not all the rest; when remote parts, and the Churches under Enemies, or dissenting Princes will have few.
5. The same Councils that had most for them under one Prince, have had most Bishops against them under the next, and so off and on for many Successions: We know that the Council of Nice was mostly for the truth, because we try it by the Word of God: Else how should it be known after; when under Constantius and Valens most of the Bishops by far, in Councils and out, were Arrians? The World groaned to find it self grown Arrian. The Council of Constantinople, in the beginning set up Greg. Nazianzen, and in the end was against him? Which part was the Universal Governor? The first Council at Ephesus was against Nestorius till Joh. Antiochenus came; and then it divided into two, which condemned each other; and after by the Emperors threatening was united: The Chalcedon Council carried most while Martian Reigned; and after most condemned and cursed it; and then again most were for it, and under other Emperors most cursed it again; and under Zeno the most were for Neutrality or Silencing the difference. The Eutychians had far most at Ephes. 2. and a while after under Theodos. 2. and Anastasius, &c. And under others [Page 197] (and most Princes) most were against them, and called Eph. 2. Latrocinium. And yet most of the East have been for Dioscorus ever since, saving the Greeks. The Monothelites had far most (innumerable Bishops out of the East, saith Binnius ut supra) under Philippicus in a Council, yea, saith Binnius, the Council at Trullu in Constant. were Monothelites, and yet the same Men that were at the foregoing approved fifth General Council at Const. And over and over most Bishops were for one side, and most for the other, as Princes changed afterward. Under Justinian most seemed for the Phantasiastae against the Corrupticolae: VVhich yet are since (with Justinian) accounted persecuting Hereticks. The approved Council at Const. de tribus Capitulis had some time most Bishops for it, and sometime most-against it: Insomuch that it occasioned much of Italy it self to renounce the Popes-headship and set up the Patriarch of Aquileia as their Chief. The Council at Nice 2. and others for Images, and so others against them, have been so oft and notoriously under one Emperor owned by most, and under another condemned by most, yea by the same Bishops owned and after disowned, that no Man can tell which of them to take for the Universal Legislators or Rulers of the Church by the number of the Bishops, but only we must know which of them were sound by the VVord of God. And since them what Council ever was there that could be so known by numbers to be of Authority? Constance and Basil that had the greatest numbers are condemned by Florence, and by the most of the Roman Church. No Man can tell us of all that are past, what Councils are of obliging Authority [Page 198] and must be obeyed by any outward Note, but only by trying them by the VVord of God.
6. And what wonder, when there is no other certain Note by which an obliging Council can be known from others? (And he that knoweth what God saith without the Council needs it not.) The Papists have no Note of difference but the Popes Approbation. And Protestants know that this is no proof of their Authority. At Eph. 2. Bellarmine and Binnius tell us that the consent was so general, that only St. Peter's Ship escaped drowning. At Const. 1. they confess that the Pope had not so much as a Legate: By what Note shall we know the true and Authorized Councils from the rejected, when part of the Christian VVorld is for one and against another, and the other part contrary?
III. And there is no Agreement in what the Power of such Councils materially doth consist, and what it is that they may command us, and what not.
IV. Nor is there any Agreement which and how many are their true Obligatory Laws, when we have such huge Volumes of Decrees and Canons; woe to us if all these must necessarily be obeyed to our Concord or Salvation. And if not all, how shall we know which?
V. Nor do we know how we must be sure that all these Canons indeed were Currant and had the Major Vote; or many be Counterfeit; when the Africans had then such a stir with the Pope about the Nicene or Sardican Canon; and when to this day the Canons of the Laterane Council sub Innoc. 3. are justified by most and denied by many.
[Page 199]VI. If this could be known to a few Learned Men, it is certain that to most Christians, yea Ministers it cannot: To me it is not. And it's certain that all Christians, nor all Ministers are not obliged to so great a task as to search all the Councils, till they know which they be, and which the Laws which they must obey.
III. And as the Power and Laws cannot be known, so it is certain that Obedience to these is not the necessary means of Christianity, Concord or Communion, because the necessary measure of such Obedience cannot be known to such a use; Christ in his Institution of Baptism and other ways, hath told what he hath made necessary to be a Member of the Universal Church, and how all such must live in Love and Peace, in obeying the rest of his Word so far as they can know it. But you that make Obedience to a visible Power over the Church Universal, necessary to our Membership, can never tell us which is the necessary Degree! If it be all the Canons and Mandates that must be so obeyed, no Man can be saved: much less can the Churches all have Concord on such terms! yea, every Christian: If it be not all, who can tell us which be the necessary Canons, and Acts of Obedience, and distinguish Essentials from Integrals, unless you will return to the Word of God, and say that The Covenant of Grace is Essential, which we may know without these Councils Laws. The Ministry of Councils teaching us how to know God's Word and Laws is one thing, and their own pretended universally obliging Legislation is another.
Of all this I have said much in the second Part of my Key for Catholicks, and in my foresaid Rejoinder to W. Johnson.
[Page 200]II. But you tell me of another Church Power which all must obey that will have Communion and Concord, which you call Collegium Pastorum.
If none be Church Members or Christians that understand not what this is (much less do obey it) I doubt the Church is still a little Flock indeed: For I understand it not, nor know one Man that I think doth.
1. Is this College of Pastors to Rule while General Councils sit, or but in the intervals? If sedente Concilio, which of them is Supream? If only between Councils; have they a Legislative Power, or only the Judicial and Executive? If the former, where are their Laws to be found? that all the Church may know them? And I ask all the Questions before askt of the Laws of Councils: How shall we know which be Current? and necessary? and which are not?
If not, then they are no Supream Rulers that have no Legislative Power?
2. Who be these Men that make this College? we cannot obey them till we know them; Are they all the Bishops in the World, or but part? If but part, which part, and who, and where shall we find them? I know you will not say they are the upstart College of Cardinals, nor the Roman Clergy only: And I never heard of any others besides Councils that pretended to it: viz. To be Universal Governours.
If it be All the Bishops of the World; 1. Do they meet to Consent, or do they not? If they do and must, when, where, how? was there ever such a meeting which was no Council? No, you say, It is per literas formatas.
[Page 201]2. Are these Literae formatae, Legislative, Judicial or Executive? If none of these, they are no Acts of Government. And I asked, where shall we find them if they are our Laws? If they be Judicial and Executive, whither is it that the Accusers, Accused and Witnesses must come to be heard speak before the Sentence was passed per literas formatas: e. g. Theodoret, and the rest de tribus Capitulis, when it must be judged, 1. Whether they wrote such words? 2. What the sence was? 3. Whether they were Heretical? 4. Whether they repented, and must we go to all the Bishops in the World one by one for tryal? or be judged without being ever heard?
3. I cannot imagine what can be here said, unless it be that some Bishops first do the thing, and then others do per Literas consent. But, 1. Do some Bishops first make Laws for all the World, and then the rest consent, or only for their own Churches? By what Authority do they the first?
2. Or do some Bishops try and judge a Man, e. g. in this or that Country and Parish, and then all the rest in the World consent, that never hear them, or hear of them? Every Man (nor any) is not Excommunicated per Literas formatas, by all the Bishops in the World, or most. 3. But it is not the Executive or Judicial Acts that our Question is concerned in, but the Rule of Obedience, which is a Law. As it was never known that Men must not be taken in by Baptism, or cast out by Excommunication, till all the Bishops on Earth agree to it; so no Universal Laws are extant that were made by such Letters.
4. And how can this be the Rule, and Test of Christianity, or Church-membership or Concord, [Page 202] when no Christians, much less all, can possibly know that all or most Bishops have per Literas, consented to such obliging Laws? 1. How can we prove that ever any went over all the World to them? ( Drake or Candish did it not.) 2. And that they opened the Case aright to them? 3. And that these Laws had the Major Vote? 4. And that they are not forged or corrupted since? 5. And that these were true Bishops themselves that did it in America, Ethiopia, Armenia, Greece, &c. out of our reach?
6. Yea, What possibility is there of any such known Agreement, when it's known that almost all the Christian World is divided into Parties, which disagree and censure one another? The English Diocesans and Church differeth from the Roman, and the most, or many of the Reformed. The Lutherans from the Calvinists; The Papists from us all, and from the Greek, and the Greek from them and us; and all from the Abassines, Copties, Syrians, called Jacobites, Nestorians, &c. and from the Armenians, Georgians, Circassians, Mengrelians, Russians, &c. How shall I, and all the Ministers on Earth, yea, and all Christians, know that all these have per Literas formatas, made Laws which all must necessarily obey?
But if it be only the Sound Part that hath this Universal Government, how can I, and all Men know which, and who that is? Hearsay of Adversaries report will not tell us; and almost all on Earth are condemned or accused by the rest, or most, or many. And we must hear them (that dwell at the Antipodes or Jerusalem, &c.) before we judge them, so far as to exclude them from the Sacred Power.
[Page 203]If it be said, That it is not the making of New Laws, that is done by this Collegium Pastorum all over the world, but their Consent to those that Councils made: I answer, 1. Are they not Valid upon the Councils making them? Then Councils have not Legislative Power. 2. If it be left impossible to most to know which were true Councils, and which are their Valid Laws, when the present Assemblies have best opportunity to signifie Consent, how impossible will it be to know which Councils and which Laws (and in what sense) are approved by all the Bishops in the World, or by most? And that the Votes were faithfully gathered? And by whom? And that the Major part are the Rulers of the Minors.
Will. Johnson saith, That it is a General Judicial Sentence, De Speciebus, and not De Individuis, that Councils use; E. g. [We Anathematize all that hold or do this or that.] But, 1. It's known that they Anathematized many Individuals. 2. No Man can be bound by it, till it fall upon Individuals. Condemning Arrians, proveth no Man to be an Arrian: Forbidding us to hear Hereticks, obligeth none not to hear him that is not proved a Heretick: Judgment must be of Individuals before it can be executed.
He that must obey the Universal Church, must be commanded by the Universal Church, and must know that they command him, and what they command him; which is to me, and to most impossible.
4. William Johnsons and his Parties last Answer is, That the People must Believe their own individual Pastors, telling them what the Universal Church commandeth: And indeed there is no other [Page 204] way practicable; But then, 1. This is but a trick to make every Pastor the Lord of our Faith and Souls; on pretence of obeying the Universal Church. And if this be your sense it will amount to this [ No man is a Christian that believeth not his Pastor telling him what the Vniversal Church commandeth.]
2. But I find most Teachers are as ignorant as I am, who know not such Universal Authority or Laws.
3. Archbishop Vsher, and many other Bishops, thought that General Councils were not for Regiment, but Concord: And he that believeth no such Governing Power, cannot declare it to his Flock, nor obey it.
4. By this way, most Christians shall be bound on pain of Damnation to believe Untruths, and things contrary to what others must believe, e. g. In Abassia, Egypt, Syria, &c. they will be bound to believe one thing▪ and at Constantinople another, &c. Those called now Nestorians, are by Travellers said to own none of that Heresie, but to Condemn the Council of Chalcedon and Eph. 1. for wronging Nestorius, as Innocent did them that condemned Chrysostome: Those called Jacobites and Eutychians are said to have no more of the Heresie, but to condemn the said Chalcedon Council for wronging Dioscorus, and to own the second Ephesine Council: some will be bound to be for Images in Churches, and some against them; some for Constantinople, and some for Rome's Supremacy, (and all in their Countries to be Papists) for their Pastors tell them that the Catholick Church is on their side: yea, in the same Country (as in England) some must be for Arminianism (as it is [Page 205] called) and some against it; some for the imputation of Christ's righteousness, and some against it; some for free Prayer in the Pulpit, and some against it, &c. For on both sides their differing Pastors plead the Authority of the Church: Few Christians can thus agree in any thing but Christ's plain Laws, which I shewed are the terms of Concord.
If we must appeal from particular Pastors, to whom is it? If to Councils, to whom must we appeal from disagreeing Councils? If to the whole Church on Earth, how shall we hear from them and know their mind? I never saw, nor knew any Man that saw any literas formatas subscribed by all Bishops scattered through the Earth.
5. You that are Zealous against Popery, I presume would not have me be a Papist: But I cannot avoid it if I receive your Doctrine (that there is a Church-Power in a Council or College of Pastors, to Govern the Universal Church: and that none are in the Church, nor have the Spirit that obey not this Universal Church of Pastors, and that to obey them is the only means, or terms of Concord.]
For, 1. I then yield them the fundamental difference. That there is one Universal summa Potestas, or Visible Head (Collective) under Christ. 2. And if so, I cannot deny it to be the Pope as the Principium Vnitatis, and the Chief Executor of the Laws, and the first Bishop in Councils. For Councils are rare, and the Church is a Church when there are no Councils: And the Pope is a known Person, and Rome a known Place, and accessible, and no other pretendeth to this Power that I know of: And the Executive Power must [Page 206] be Constant: And any other Supream accessible College is unknown to me and all that I can speak with, and I can no more obey them, than a College of Angels unknown to me. If the Church have a visible Vicarious Supream, the Pope is likest to be he, as to the constant Executive Power, and the President of Councils. I suppose you take the Councils of Constance and Basil, and the French for Papists; though they set a Council above the Pope.
6. The World hath no Universal Civil Government under God; neither a Monarch, nor a College or Council of Kings. All the World is Governed by Men per partes in their several Dominions, as all England is under the King, by all the Mayors, Bailiffs and Justices: But there is no Council of Justices that are One Vniversal Governour Collective: Nor is the Dyet of Princes, or any Council of Kings one Supream Government of the Earth. A Logical universality there is, as all Rulers considered notionally rule all the World by Parts, but no Political Head or Universal Governour over the whole, whom all the Parts must obey.
I. If now I am in the right, and you mistaken, then you wrongfully deny the Spirit, Church-Membership, and consequently Salvation as well as Concord, to all Protestants that ever I knew or read, who deny a visible Universal Church Head, Personal or Collective; And I think to most in the World. And what Schism that is, I need not say.
II. If I am in the wrong, I am no Christian, nor Church Member, nor can be saved (For you say, [This Body so governed only hath the Spirit]: [Page 207] And I cannot help it; not knowing possibly how to know, 1. Who this College is? 2. What Councils. 3. Or which be the Laws which I must obey, 4. Nor with what degree of Obedience. 5. Nor that they have such Power. How great need have I then earnestly to beg your speedy help for my Information: Which will oblige
Chap. XVII. The Third Letter to Bishop Guning.
To the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of Ely.
THough in Conference I told you the Sense which I had of your words, yet judging it my duty to think of them over and over again, I also judge it my duty in Writing to leave with you the sum of such a Judgment as I am able to pass on them, on my best Consideration, leaving it now to your self whether you will by word or writing return any further Answer, my hopes of Satisfaction thereby being very low.
The sum of your Speech which I am concerned in, is as followeth:
I. ‘That certainly a Supream Vicarious Governing Power there is in the Bishops by Christ's Institution, 1. Because it is Prophesied, Isai. 60.12. That the Nation and Kingdom that will not serve [Page 208] the Church shall perish; And the word Church is never put for Christ. 2. And the Apostles only were admitted by Christ to his last Supper, and so the Power of Administring that Sacrament till Christ come, is given only to them, and such as they shall give that Power to. 3. And it was not Paul and Barnabas that had the infallible judgment of that Case decided, Act. 15. but the College of the Apostles.’
II. ‘That this Supream Vicarious Governing Power over the whole Church on Earth is, 1. In all the Christian Bishops of the World, 2. And the Major part goeth for the whole, 3. And General Councils are their Representatives, and so have this Power. 4. And that to such Councils it is enough that all be called, though all be not there. 5. And it is their reception by the Church Vniversal, which must prove their Vniversal Power, and the Obligation of their Laws. 6. And though the Vniversality of Bishops be not always in such a Council, they have always that Power which in Councils is to be used: as the Judges out of Term time. 7. And that if I, or any will publish a Heresie, we shall know where that Church is by their Censure. 8. But as Promulgation is necessary to the Obligation of Laws, so many that never can or do hear of the foresaid Vniversal Church-Governing Power or what their Laws are, or what is the sence of them, may be saved without them, by the reading of the Word; as many that have not the Scriptures may be saved without them.’
‘And this you say answers three parts of my last Papers. 9 Of these General Councils it is only six that you own as such, Nice 1. Const. 1. Eph. 1. Chalced. Const. 2. (de tribus Capitulis) & Const. 3. against the Monothelites.’
[Page 209]III. "You say that These six things are the Governing Acts of this Chief Power.
1. To judge which are the true Books of Scripture, "and the true Copies and Readings.
2. ‘To judge what is the sence of the Fundamentals, Baptism, Creed, whose words misunderstood will not save any.’
3. ‘To judge and declare what is the true Church Government instituted by Christ and his Apostles, or delivered by them.’
4. ‘To judge and declare what are the instituted Ordinances e. g. Confirmation as it is a giving of the Holy Ghost by Imposition of Hands, and not only an owning of our Baptismal Covenant, which we do in every Sacrament: and so of other Ordinances.’
5. ‘A Judicial Power, not of all individual Cases, but that those e. g. that hold or do this or that be Excommunicate.’
6. ‘A Legislative Power, to make alterable Canons or Orders of the Church Vniversal.’ This is the sum of all your Explicatory Discourses: To which I answer.
§. I. To your proofs that such a Universal Governing Church there is instituted. 1. To Isai. 60.12. I say, 1. It is not safe stretching dark Prophetical Texts, farther than we can prove they are intended. The New Testament plainlier tells us the Church State and Power than the Old.
2. The Universal Church hath not expounded the Text, whether it speak of the state of the Jews after the Captivity, or of the State of the Catholick Church now, or of the more Blessed State of it at the last, when it is more perfected, Therefore how are you sure that you have the true sence of it without the Churches Exposition?
[Page 210]3. The words indeed are nothing for a Vicarious Soveraign Power. Every Political Body is essentiated by the Pars imperans, and the Pars subdita: Christ is the only essentiating Pars imperans in Supream Power: Christ then is the Prime part of the Church: The word [Church] then is not put for [Christ] alone, but for the Society consisting of King and Subjects, and sometimes for the Subjects alone. It's oft said that many Nations served the Israelites: we say, many Countreys were subject to the Romans, the Medes, Persians, Greeks, Turks: and we do not mean that either the Turkish, Roman, Persian, &c. Common Subjects did govern all these Nations, nor that their Bashaws, Judges, Magistrates, &c. as one Persona Politica in summa potestate ruled them by a Major Vote: If the King will say that all the Corporations in Middlesex shall be under London, or obey or serve it: Who would feign such a sense of it, as to say that there must be therefore some Power to rule them by a Vicarious Supremacy beside the ordinary Government, or that all the City must Govern by a Major Vote. The sense is plain. As we all 1. Obey the King as the Universal Constitutive Head, 2. And the Judges, Justices, Mayors, as ruling under him per partes, in their several Places. 3. And we serve all the Kingdom, as we serve its common good, which is the finis regiminis; So other Countries served the Romans, Greeks, Turks, &c. And so all Kingdoms should serve the Church or Kingdom of Christ; that is, 1. Christ as the only Head and Universal Governour: 2. All his Officers as particular Governours in their several Limits and Places (but none as Rulers of the whole) [Page 211] 3. And the bonum Commune, or all the Church as the End of Government. And how can we feign another sence?
§. 2. To your second Proof I answer, 1. The 70 Disciples were Christ's constant Attendants as his Family, with whom he was to Eat the Passover.
2. We all grant that none have Power to Celebrate the Eucharist, or Govern the Church but the Apostles, and those to whom the Spirit of Christ in them did Communicate it. But we say that they Communicated it to the Order of Presbyters, as I thought all had Confessed (as some Councils do.) 3. The Apostles were not appointed as one Supream ruling College to give the Sacrament by their Votes to all the World, but each one had Power to do it in his place: Nor did they Ordain only as a College by such Vote (as Vna persona Politica) but each one had Power to do it alone: Nor did they write the Scriptures as one Collective Person by Vote, but each one had the Spirit and Power to do it, (as Paul did, &c.) nor did they sit on one Throne, or had the promise so to do, to Judge the Tribes of Israel, as one College by Vote, but to sit on twelve Thrones Judging the twelve Tribes, as under Christ the only Universal Head and Governour.
§. 3. To your third I answer, 1. I answered to that Act. 15. in my last to you. 2. Paul and Barnabas had the same Infallible Spirit, and had before said the same against the keeping of Moses Law: But 1. Recipitur ad modum recipientis: No wonder if among those that quarrelled with Paul ▪ the Consent of those that had received Christ's Mind from his own Mouth and Spirit, did better [Page 212] satisfie the doubtful, than one Man's word alone. 2. And Christ's Work was to be done in Unity.
§. 4. II. As to the Seat of this Power I answer, 1. All the true Bishops of the World Govern the particular Churches as Kings Govern all the Kingdoms of the World, under God, one Universal Monarch: But there is neither one, Universal Monarchical, Aristocratical or Democratical Soveraign, Civil or Ecclesiastical under Christ: But each hath his own part.
§. 5. 2. I have shewed the impossibility of our judging of the Major Votes at our distances in most controverted Cases.
§. 6. 3. And I have, where I told you, proved that there never were, must or will be true Universal Councils, much less are such the standing Governours of the Church. But in Cases of need, such as can well do it, should come to help each other by Council and Concord, without pretending to Universal Governing Power.
§. 7. 4. 1. Who called them to Nice, Ephesus, Chalcedon, Constantinople, &c. out of the Extra-Imperial Countries?
2. Who shall call them now out of the Empire of the Turk, Abassia, the Mogul, Tartary, and the rest?
3. If calling Men make the Council Universal though they come not, is it a Council if none come? or how many must it be to ascertain us that it is Universal? Hath the Pope the Calling Power? or who is it, and how proved, that they that obey it not may be unexcuseable?
§. 8. 5. I have told you how unable I am to know what the Major part of all Christians or Bishops in the World receive, save only by uncertain [Page 213] fame, saving that while I know otherwise what is necessary truth, I know that they are not the Church that receive it not, whoever they be. I am a Stranger to Abassia, Armenia, Georgia, India, Russia, Mexico, &c. And what if I never knew that there are such Countries in the World?
2. I can easily prove what I told you, how oft the Major Part hath changed, yea, the same Bishops upon the change of Princes, and cried, Omnes Peccavimus. And who knoweth by Majority of Votes, which Years they were in the right?
3. Either the Canons of Councils were obligatory upon the Promulgation before the absent Bishops in all Countries received them, or not; If yea, then it is not Universal Reception that made them so: If not, then the absent are not bound to receive them.
4. How many Years will it be after a Council before we can know whether all or most of the Christian World receive it? By all that I can read in History, I cannot tell, e. g. whether more Bishops were for the Council of Chalcedon, or against it, for the time of seven or eight Emperors Reign; Nor whether more now be for or against the second Nicene Council (which the Lutherans so much favour) and so of many more. And every one cannot know it, nor fetch his Faith, or Religion from a Catalogue of all the Christian Bishops in the World, or a Calculation of their numbred Votes.
§. 9. 6. Frustra est Potentia quae non reducitur, nec reducenda est in actum. 1. Indeed as the Pope is naturally uncapable of Governing all the Christian World, All Bishops on Earth are much more uncapable as one Collective Voting Power, but only [Page 214] per partes in their several Limits. 2. How can I obey a Power that acteth not?
§. 10. 7. Alas what abundance of Heresies have been Published since the Six Councils which you own? yea, by Ranters, Quakers, Familists, &c. in our times, besides Beckman's Catalogue of German Fanaticks. And yet what Universal Council, or Literae formatae of all the World, have given us sufficient notice of their Evil? How foolishly have the Papists done about Jansenianisms, the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, &c. to seek the Pope's Determination, if the sense of all the Bishops of the World can be known to decide the Case? How many Heresies have been Condemned in Councils since the Sixth Council, of which the whole Church hath no otherwise notified their sence (as in the Case of Philoponus of Images, of Elipandus, and Faelix, of Abbot Joachims Abeilard, of Gilbert Porretane, of Wecilo; of Berengarius, Wickliffe, Husse) whether it was Heresie or not? You say, If I broach a Heresie, the Vniversal Church will soon tell me where they are by Condemning it: When Multitudes have been broached these last Thousand Years, of which those in Abassia, Syria, Egypt, Armenia, and most of the Christian World, have never told us that ever they were Judged, or so much as heard? Shall no Bishops or Provincial Council condemn new Heresies, but leave e. g. Swenkfeldius, David George, Serv [...]tus, Pomponatius, Vaninus, and a hundred such to pass for good Christians, till they hear from all the Bishops of the World? And what need General Councils be gathered to Condemn such, if we can know the sence of all without them?
[Page 215]§. 11. 8. If one that cannot know the sence of all the Bishops on Earth, may ordinarily be a good Christian, and saved by the Scripture only, then why should they be sent to enquire of all the Bishops on Earth, when a sure and nearer way is at hand.
2. And then such may be of the Church and have Christ's Spirit, that obey not such a Vicarious Church Head.
3. And if want of Promulgation nullifie the Obligation, that is no Governing Vicarious Soveraign to all the Christian World, which cannot Promulgate his Laws to all. Neither I, nor any that ever I knew, can tell how to know the Minds of all the Bishops on Earth, or gather their Votes, so as to rule our Obedience; If the Scripture could not be commonly made known, it could be no common Rule; as it is not to them that have it only in unknown Tongues.
§. 12. 9. What shall satisfie any Man that the Six Councils owned by you are the Acts of a Supream Vicarious Universal Church Power, and no other? but those, 1. If the Pars imperans in Supremacy be (as Politicks say) a Constitutive Essential part of the Society, then since the sixth Council, the Church hath been no Church for want of an Essential part, if Councils were that part: But if it be all the dispersed Bishops, the Head hath been in nudâ Potentiâ, unactive these Thousand Years, as the Socinians say the separated Soul is till the Resurrection, or as one in an Apoplexy.
2. This favoureth the Seekers, who say that the Church this Thousand Years hath been lost in the Wilderness, or asleep.
[Page 216]3. The same Councils have done and undone. That at Const. 1. in the beginning set up Greg. Naz. and in the end forced him to resign going about to depose him; which part was obligatory? That at Ephes. first, was first one, and after two, and Nestorius, Cyril and Memnon, were all Condemned, and after two of them restored, and Joh. Antioch: and Cyril by Theodosius threats were brought to confess that they had differed but in Words, and did not know it: Which part was Obligatory? That at Chalcedon consisted of many, yea most that had gone contrary in Ephes. 2. and cried, Omnes peccavimus, and so did many others, and most Bishops were oft and long against it after. That at Const. de Tribus Capitulis, is noted commonly as a meer Cheat and abuse put on Justinian by an Eutychian, and condemned three dead Mens Words before at Chalcedon absolved, set the World (even Italy) into a greater Schism. If you are sure all these are Universally Obligatory, prove it, and prove that no other are as much so. Divers others were as numerous, and called by as good Authority. If you say, as of Ephes. 2. they were Latrocinia and forced; I answer, No more than many others. At Const. [...]. Nazianzen tells you they raged like Mad Men: At Ephes. 1. they fought it out even before the Emperors Commissioners. Theodosius 2d. used his over-ruling Power at both Eph. 1. & 2. What force was used in that under Philippicus, and many others that erred and were more numerous than such as you receive. Sola navicula Petri, saith Binius, scaped Drowning at Eph. 2. so Concordant were they all; What have you against even Constance and Basil on your Grounds? If you say they erred, I grant it: and [Page 217] how shall we know that none of the Six did so? It was not their Number nor Consent that proved them in the right. Tell us how to know the Councils that we must obey from all the rest? Is it by other Councils Testimony? that is, to run in a Vain Circle: How know we that the later is right other way than of the former? Is it by Scripture or by Reason. Tell us how, without subverting your own Foundation, the Soveraignty of Councils.
4. Do you hold all the Six Councils still obligatory as the Rule of our Obedience and Communion E. g. 1. That at Nice 1. and the Quini Sextum at Trull forbid Adoring by genuflexion on any Lords Day, &c. And no General Council hath revoked it, but above a Thousand Years after it wore out by degrees in most Churches: And yet Thousands of Christians are here to be denied Sacramental Communion, if they keep these Canons even in the reception of the Eucharist: and Hundreds, yea Thousands of Christ's Ministers shall be silenced, ejected, and ruined if they will not Assent and Consent so to use them. How many Canons in the Six Councils can I name which do not now bind us?
§. 13. As to the work of Councils and Bishops named by you; I. As to our receiving the true Scripture from an Universal Church-Governing Authority. 1. Paul's Epistles were received otherwise. Yea, there is no mention of any part of the New Testament that was not received till such Universal Government required it.
2. If I must first know the said Church Authority before I receive the Scripture, how shall I know it? Not by the Scriptures; for that is supposed [Page 218] yet not received: If by the Assertors Authority, that is to know they have it, because they have it, which is the Question. If by some fore-known Character of Infallibility, what is it? unless with Knot you come to the Miracles of the present Church, I know not what can be said.
3. But is not the common Protestant way (which you call Chillingworth's) much surer? 1. VVe first receive the Matter of Fact Historically, (that such Persons were, and wrote such Books, and did such Deeds) from the Concurrent Testimony of all Credible VVitnesses▪ some Enemies, some Hereticks, the generality of Lay-Christians, Presbyters that in all Churches received and used them, and Bishops also as credible entrusted Keepers of these Records: As we know the Laws of the Land, by Judges, Lawyers, People, and all that make up a full Historical Certainty, and not from some fore-known Universal Governing Bishops Judicial Sentence. 2. And the Matter of Fact being known by certain Historical Evidence, I have so largely shewed how the rest is known in my Reasons of Christian Religion, and Life of Faith, &c. that I will not repeat it: Do you think that most (or any) Christians before they received the Scriptures, did first otherwise know that all the Bishops on Earth are by God authorized to be a Supreme Collective Sovereign to the Church, and to judge infallibly which are the true Scriptures for all the People, and that they are now most of them true Bishops? &c. Which way are all these things to be known?
We deny not that Ministers are by Office entrusted to keep, expound and preach the S. Scriptures: But we use against the Papists herein, to [Page 219] distinguish the Authority of a Teacher or Embassador, from the Authority of a Judge; and the Authority of an Official limited Judge, in proprio foro, from that of an Universal Judge to all the World. Indeed it is commonly granted, that it is proper to the Law-makers to judge of the sense of their own Law, so as Universally to oblige the Subjects: For it is part of Legislation it self, the sense of the Law being the very Law: Else Judges might make us what Law they please, by expounding the Words as they please. But the Power of Judicatures is limitedly to expound and apply the Law only to the decision of particular Cases that come before them.
If the Question be, Whether our Statutes were really made by those Kings and Parliaments whose Names they bear? And are not altered or corrupted since? How shall we be sure? By a Natural Certainty from such Concurrent Testimonies as cannot be false; viz. 1. The Judges have still judged by them; and, 2. The Councellors plead them; 3. Justices and all Officers execute them; 4. All the People hold their Estates and Lives by them, and stand to the Determination made according to them; 5. The Records attest them. And it is not possible were they forged or corrupt, but that the Interests of Multitudes would have led them to plead that, and appeal from the Corruption: And yet none of these named are Supreme Governours of all the Kingdom, who thus Historically assure us.
4. It may be questioned, What is the Law of Nature? And it is known much by the Agreement of all Mankind, and that is known Historically: But neither of them is known by any Humane [Page 220] Soveraign-Authority appointed to Govern all the World. And so it is in the present Case.
The Agreement of all Christians, Ministers and People, Friends and Adversaries, of contrary Opinions and Interests, contending against each other about the Rule of their Expositions, is a full Historical Evidence of Fact, when no considerable Contradiction, even of Jews or Heathens, is made against it.
5. It is notorious, 1. That regularly our first Reception both of Creed and Scripture, is by Gods appointment to be by Children from their Parents, before ever they hear a Preacher, Deut. 6. and 11. Thou shalt teach them thy Children, lying down and rising up, &c. And God will bless his appointed Means. Timothy learned the Scripture when he was a Child. If you say, Parents received it first from the Church: I answer, Our Parents regularly were to receive it as we did, even from their Parents, and they from theirs, and so on to those that had it from the Apostles, or first Preachers. And all Parents are not a Colledge of Sovereign Rulers of all the World.
2. And private Christians by Conference convert many. 3. And those that have not their Faith either of these ways, usually have it by the teaching of particular Presbyters where they dwell. And yet none of these are the Collective-Soveraign to all the Christian World; any more than Tutors in Law, Physick, or Theology are. Three and twenty Years ago I read most that you say in a Paris Doctor H. Holden's Analys. S. fid. who yet (though mixt with injurious passages against the S. Scripture) acknowledgeth, that it is by such an Universal Consent of all Christians, Lay and [Page 221] Clergy, that we receive the Scriptures, that it is a Natural Historical Evidence that the Matter of Fact is resolved into, and not of Supernatural Infallibility by Authority. 4. And when Vinc-Lirinensis turneth us to quod ab omnibus ubique & semper receptum est, and the Papists that go with Holden lay most on the Consent of all Christians, they never thought that the Laity through all the Christian World are one Universal Collective Soveraign. Nor do you think so of all the Consenting Priests, while you appropriate this Collective-Soveraignty to the Bishops.
6. I would know, whether it be only the Scripture, or also our Christianity and Creed, which must be received as from a Soveraign Church-Power? If you say it's only Scripture, why may we not receive the Scripture otherwise, if we may otherwise receive our Christianity, Creed and Baptism? But I doubt not but you will say, It is both. If so, then a Child (or Man) must know and believe that Christ hath authorized a Vicarious Soveraign Prelacy, before he can believe that there is a Christ that had any Authority himself. 2. And he must be so good a Casuist as to know what maketh a true Bishop. 3. And so well acquainted with all the World, as to know what parts of the Earth have true Bishops, and what they hold. And is this the way of making Christians?
Perhaps you will say, That Parents, Tutors and Priests tell them what all the Bishops of the World hold as a Soveraign Judicature. I answer, 1. If they did, Holden confesseth that the Certainty of Faith can be no greater than our Certainty of the Medium. And the Child, or Hearer, that knoweth not that his Parent and Teacher, therein [Page 222] saith true, can no more know that the Creed or Scripture is true, on that account.
2. The generality of Protestants believe not an Universal-Governing Soveraign under Christ, but deny it; Therefore they never Preach any such Medium of Faith: And can you prove that those that are brought to Christianity by Protestant Parents, Tutors or Preachers, are all yet Unchristened, or have no true Faith? 7. Why should we make Impossibilities necessary, while surer and easier Means are obvious? It is impossible to Children, to the Vulgar, to almost all the Priests themselves, to know certainly what the Major Vote of Bishops in the whole World, now think of this or that Text or Article, (save only consequently when we first believe the Articles of Faith, we next know that he is no true Bishop that denieth them. And it is impossible to know that Christ hath authorized a Soveraign Colledge, before we believe Christs own Authority and Word. But the Protestant Method is obvious: viz. To hear Parents, Tutors and Preachers, as humble Learners: To believe them Fide humana first, while they teach us to know the Divine Evidence of Certain Credibility in the Creed and Scriptures; and when they have taught us that, to believe Fide Divinâ, by the Light of that Divine Evidence which they have taught us: What that is, I have opened as aforecited, and also in a small Treatise against the Papists, called, [ The Certainty of Christianity without Popery;] in which also I have confuted your way: Besides what I have said in the Second Part of The Saints Rest,] and my [ More Reasons for the Christian Religion.]
8. I cannot by all your Words understand how [Page 223] you can have any Faith, on your Grounds. 1. You that renounce Popery, I suppose take not the Popish Prelates for any part of the Soveraign Colledge. 2. I perceive that you take not the Southern and Eastern Christians for a part, who are called Nestorians, Eutychians or Jacobites. 3. I find that you take not the Protestant Churches that have no Bishops for any part, (for the Soveraignty is only in Bishops.) 4. I find that you take not the Lutheran Churches, or any other, for a part, whose Bishops Succession from the Apostles hath not a Continuance uninterrupted, (which Rome hath not.) 5. And me thinks you should not think better of the Greeks than of such Protestants, on many accounts, which I pass by. Where then is that Universal Colledge on whose Judging-Authority you are a Christian? Sure you take not our little Island for the Universal Church. I would I knew which you take for the Universal Church, and how you prove the Inclusion and Exclusion.
9. I find not that the Universal Church hath so agreed as you suppose of the Canon of Scripture, and the Readings, Translations, &c. Four or five Books were long questioned by many; General Councils have not agreed of the Canon: Bishop Cousins hath given us the best account of the Reception of the true Canon: Provincial Councils have said most of this. Even the fullest at Laodicea hath left out the Rev [...]lations: The Romanists take in the Apocrypha: Many Churches have less or more than others: What Grotius himself thought of Job and the Canticles, I need not tell you: Nor how Augustine and most others strove for the Septuagint against Jerome: And if [Page 224] the Universal Judicature have decided the many Hundred Doubts about the Various Lections, I would you would tell us where to find it; for I know not.
§. II. Your second Use of the Soveraign Power, is to judge of the Sense of Fundamental Articles of Faith; because the Words may be taken in a false Sense.]
1. This is very cautelously spoken: Is it only Fundamentals that they are to expound by Soveraign Judgment? How then shall we know the Sense of all the rest of the S. Scriptures? And how will this end a Thousand Controversies? 2. And why may not the same Means satisfie us about Fundamentals, which satisfieth us about the Integrals of Religion? Yea, we have here far better help. The first Christians Catechized and taught the Sense of Baptism before they were Baptized: They and their Tutors and Preachers taught the same to their Children, and so on: Baptism and the Fundamentals have been constantly repeated in all the Churches of the World. There are as many Witnesses or Teachers of these, as there are Understanding Christians. And yet must all needs hear from the Antipodes, or know the Sense of a Humane Soveraign of the World, before they receive them?
3. Can this Supreme Colledge speak the Fundamentals plainlier than God hath done, and than the Parish Priest can do? Are they necessary to tell us that Christ died, rose, ascended because Scripture speaketh it not plain enough? We know that no Words of Creed or Scripture, falsly understood, make a true Believer. But is not that as true of a Councils Words, as of the Creed? [Page 225] And are there any Words that Men cannot misunderstand? Why hath [ Filioque] continued such a Distraction in the Churches, and Councils yet end it not? To say nothing of [...], and other such: Have we a necessity of a Soveraign Judicature, to be to all Men in stead of a Schoolmaster, to tell them what is the meaning of Greek and Hebrew Words? And could not one Origen or Jerom tell that better than a General Council of Men that understand not those Tongues? I must confess that what understanding of the Words of Creed or Scripture, I have received, was more from Parents, Tutors, Teachers and Books, than from Soveraign Councils, or Colledge of Bishops, (though Dr. Holden say he is no true Believer and Catholick that believeth an Article of Faith, because his Reason findeth it in Scripture, and not rather because all the Christian World believeth it.) There is more skill in Cosmography, Arithmetick, and History necessary to such a Faith, than I have attained, or can attain. I can tell E. g. by Lexicons and other Books what [...] ▪ signifieth in the Creed, better than how all the Bishops in the World interpret it by an Authoritative Sentence.
§. III. Your third Work of this Soveraign Power is, [ Authoritatively to declare what Government of the Church was delivered by the Apostles.] 1. As I said of Scripture, we know such Matter of Fact better by Universal Consent of all Christians, and true History, than by such a Judicature of all the Bishops of the VVorld. 2. But Protestants do so strongly prove that the S. Scripture is the entire Regulating VVord of God, without defect or supplement by Unwritten Tradition, as that [Page 226] nothing is left out of it which is of Divine Obligation to all the Christian VVorld in all Ages: And therefore that all that the Spirit instituted as Universally Necessary in Church-Government, is there.
3. If it were not so, this Gap of Unwritten Necessary Supplemental Tradition, will let in, no Man knoweth what, besides Church-Power, on the like Pretences. 4. Tradition hath been oft pretended by General Councils against each other, (as I undertake to prove.) 5. All that is not in Scripture of Church-Offices and Government have been so far new, or changed up and down, as proveth that the Church never took them as Universal Necessary Institutions of Christ delivered by the Apostles. I need not instance in Patriarcks, and such like, nor such difference of Seats as Nazianzen and Isidore Pelusiota wish levelled; when if General Councils themselves had been this Necessary Church-Government, the Church had not been Three Hundred Years without them, (yea, and to this Day indeed.)
6. As the King by his Laws, and by his Officers, Judges and Justices, Lawyers, &c. without another Vicarious Soveraign or Vice-King, doth tell the Subjects what is the Constituted Government of the Kingdom, and all Official Powers, which they must obey, so doth Christ by his Written Law, and by his Ministers teaching us in their several places, tell us what is his Church-Government, without an Universal Vicarious Soveraign.
7. When Leo the First called himself Caput Ecclesiae Vniversalis, and Boniface was called Vniversal Bishop, (much more long after for many Hundred [Page 227] Years) so great a part of the Empire judged the Roman Bishop to be the prime in the Empire, and in Councils, and Principium Vnitatis, as Archbishop Bromhal speaketh, as that it seemeth then to have been the Major part of the Bishops of the whole World, the Empire being then the far greatest part of the Universal Church: And even Salmasius (liberally) granteth that the Pope was not a meer Patriarch, but the Heads of the Patriarchs and Church Universal (in the Empire) de Eccles. Suburbicar. prope fin. And I understand not how he is Principium Vnitatis in a Governed Society as such, who is not Principium Regens. But it followeth not that it was so from the Apostles, nor that it must continue so when the Empire is overthrown, or the Emperor will change it. If most of the Church be in one Empire, and the Prince think he should form the Government to that of the State, (as the Chalcedon Council that magnified Leo yet witnesseth) doth this make one of his Subjects Ruler of all other Christian Kings, or subject the World to Foreigners? Yea, and that when the Empire and its Laws are overthrown, and most of the Church is without the Empire, enlarged more over other Lands. Must we turn Papists, if they can but prove that once a General Council, or the Major part of Bishops was for them by Corruption, or Secular Advantage? What Changes have the Majority oft made?
§. IV. Your fourth VVork of Universal Supremacy, is [ To declare what Ordinances were received from the Apostles, as Imposition of Hands to give the Holy Ghost, and such others.
1. I acknowledge that Baptism and the Eucharist were known by practice before the New Testament [Page 228] was written, and the continued practice hath been as sure a Tradition of the substance of them, as the Scripture it self hath had: But it is all Christians, Lay and Clergy, that assure us of this, yea Hereticks and Enemies with them, by Universal Historical Concord, and not the Authority of a Supreme Universal Judicature: And yet it was all recorded in the Scripture, that without those sure sufficient Records, the Tradition might not, as Oral or practical only, be continued. So that all that is Universally Necessary is now in Gods written Law. And, if it had not been so, the Papists changes of the Eucharist, (which yet Holden with others pleadeth Current Tradition for) tell us how little security we should have had of them. If there be more Sacraments than two in the Scripture, we will receive them: Or if more could be proved instituted by Christ, and delivered from the Apostles, than the Scripture mentioneth, we should not refuse them: But we are perswaded there is no such proof. The Papists plead Scripture for all their seven Sacraments; and we quarrel not at the Name, but expect better proof of all that is Obligatory to the whole Church on Earth, than an unproved Universal Judicature.
VVhat Confirmation is, I now pass by.
§. V. Your fifth VVork for the Soveraign Power is, Judicial Sentencing (not Individuals ordinarily, but) by Description such as are to be cast out by Excommunication.] 1. This is not part of Judicial Government, but Legislative: To say, [ He that is impenitent in Drunkenness or Heresie, shall be cast out,] is the Penal part of the Law. And Gods Law hath already told us who shall be [Page 229] cast out: There are Sins enough enumerated to this use.
2. If all the Necessary Doctrine and Practice be expressed in Scripture, then so is the Necessary Cause of Excommunication: For that Cause is [bringing other Doctrine, or Impenitence in breaking Gods Law. But the Antecedent is true: Ergo.
3. How happy had it been for the Church, if there had been no Hereticating or Anathematizing but for violating Scripture, Doctrine and Law impenitently? Alas, what Work have Hereticators and Anathematizers made in the Church?
4. How know we what Curses are valid, when General Councils have cursed per Vices almost all the Christian World? And the same Bishops in one Council cursed one party, and in the next the contrary; and cursed their own Councils.
5. As there needeth no Vicarious Monarch of the whole World, (no nor of one Kingdom under the King) to tell who shall be Fined or Hanged, but the Kings Law as the Rule, and the Judges and Justices in their several Limits to pass Sentence in particular Cases; so there needs no Church-Vicarious-Judicature of all the Earth, to judge who shall be cursed and cast out: Christs Laws, and the Pastors respectively in the several Churches, are enough: And in doubtful Cases, and for Concord, Neighbor-Bishops in Synods must Consult.
§. VI. Your sixth Use of an Universal Supremacy, is to make mutable Church-Laws.
1. God is the only Lawgiver to all the World: Christ to all the Church. We deny any such Church on Earth as hath an Universal Soveraign [Page 230] under Christ, and can make Laws for all the Christian World.
2. How is Gods Law sufficient in s [...]o Genere, if it leave out that which is to be commanded to all the World of Christians? How is Mans Universal Legislative Power proved, (any more than an Universal Civil Soveraignty?) Or how differeth it from Gods?
3. Mutable Things are not of Universal Need or Use: These By-Laws (like those of Corporations) are only the Work of particular Churches or Countries. E. g. One Translation of Scripture, one Metre or Tune of Psalms, &c. will not fit all the World that have several Languages, &c.
Upon the whole, I am more confirmed by longer Considerations, 1. That to assert a Soveraign Vicarious Church-Power over all the Christian World, is to make a Church which Christ never made.
2. And Treasonably to set up an Usurpation of his Prerogative.
3. And to plead for that which de facto never was in being.
4. And to lay the Ground of heinous Schism and Persecution, by prosecuting impossible Terms of Concord and Communion.
5. And to make this the necessary Medium of our believing in Christ, or knowing his Word and Will, is to subvert the Christian Faith and Scripture.
6. And as one Pope cannot possibly, through Natural Incapacity, Govern all the Earth in Religion, one Collective and Aristocratical Soveraign of all the Bishops on Earth, is so incomparably more uncapable, that I wonder that any [Page 231] Considerate Man can believe it. Pighius well tells us of the Novelty and Vanity of Heading all the Churches by General Councils.
7. And if the French, and the Councils of Constance, and Basil, and Cassander, and Grotius, and such Papists as set Councils over the Pope, had not taken in the Pope as the ordinary Governing, Executive Head, to Rule by the Councils Laws, they had been far more gross and incredible than the Italian Papists, who prefer the Pope.
8. And that Civil Government may so much easier be exercised by Officials than the Spiritual, that a Civil Monarch of all the Earth is far more congruous and possible, than a Humane Visible Church-Head under Christ, Personal or Collective.
9. That if this was the Principle from which you disputed at the Savoy, and in the Convocation, and from which our late Changes, and the silencing of Two Thousand Ministers have been made, it's no wonder that the Effects were such: But if ever we be healed, it must be by other Terms and Hands.
This Feb. 13. Being with the Bishop again, he disclaimeth the Names of Supreme, Summa Potestas Vicaria, as Invidious, and chuseth the Name of [ a Ruling Collegium Pastorum Ministerialium, who are the Church, which is the Mother which all must receive their Faith from and obey, and so must know their Consent.
Chap. XVIII. The Fourth Letter to Bishop Guning.
To the Lord Bishop of Ely. (Dr. Guning.)
THough I intended to trouble you no more by Writing, yet observing how apt you are to mistake me, and because time streightened our Discourse; Lest I be mistaken, and consequently mis-reported, I thus send you the sum of what I said to your last, as far as it concerned me.
I. Whereas you are offended at my Applicatory Conclusion, I must still say it, that [☞ If these were the Principles upon which our Changes were made by your Endeavour 1661 and 1662. it is no wonder that Two thousand Ministers were Silenced and Cast out.] And is it more offence to you to hear what you did towards it, than to them and their Flocks to suffer it? Is this impartiality?
II. My naming Holden as saying what you say, was not invidiously to intimate that you differ not from him in any thing else; but to tell you that these thoughts are not new to me, and that even a Papist pleading rather Historical- Natural-Evidence in Vniversal Tradition, than judicial Authority, in this is further from the common Papists than you.
III. ‘You are offended at my comparing Bishops to Kings only in this respect, that they both govern only their proper Provinces, and neither are [Page 233] Rulers of all the World: And your reason is, because it intimateth that Bishops rule like Kings.’
Who can Dispute on these terms? Did I not in the stating of our Question agree, that it is not the Power of the Sword, but only Ecclesiastical Power of the Word and Keys, that we Dispute of? Did I not still profess to you to speak only of this? And doth comparing Princes Coactive Government with it, only in the extent, neither of them being over all the World, contradict this, or wrong you by unjust intimations?
IV. You take the words ‘[ Aristocratical-Supream Vicarious, under Christ, Legislative] to be invidious, and you disown them; 1. Because they intimate a forcing Power like Princes, 2. Because Christ only is Supream.’
But 1. It is not de nomine that we dispute, but de re; and I understand all this while that we had no other question to debate.
2. I desired still nothing more than that you would state your assertion in your own words, that I might use no other: You tell me your own words are [ Collegium Pastorum] I tell you again, that nameth only the subject Matter of the Power, where our question is de formâ, what is their Power which we must obey.
You next tell me ‘[ It is a College of Pastors having a Ministerial, Ruling, Judicial Power over the Vniversal Church] I take up with your own words:’ Only remember that before you asserted a Legislative Power (of mutable Laws) and now it is but judicial! If so, then we owe no Obedience to their Laws, but to their Sentence according to Christ's Law: How then is obeying them the only way of Concord?
[Page 234]But say you, It is but mutable Laws that they make? Answ. And are mutable Laws no Laws. And is he no Legislator that maketh but mutable Laws? Neither King nor Parliament will believe this.
But you say, Canons are not Laws. I thank you for that Concession. So saith Grotius de Imp. sum. Potest. If so, then they are but either Counsels or Agreements, (Contracts.) It is not de nomine that we contend. A Law, saith Grotius, is Regula actionum Moralium: More fully, A Law is the signification of a Ruler's Will making the Subjects Duty.] If a Canon be none, then Literae formatae are none: And where there is no Law, there is no Transgression. Then no Obedience is due to the Laws of the College of Bishops. And then obeying them is not the only way of Concord. Authoritas imperantis est objectum formale Obedientiae: you disown also the word (Pars imperans) I take your own [ Pars Regens] which to me is of the same Signification as to Ecclesiastical Power. Jus regendi is that which I mean by Authority, and Debitum Obediendi, by Subjection. But I think that indeed authorized Pastors may make proper Laws, e. g. At what Places and Hours to meet: what Translations, Version, Metre, and such Orders to use; but only to their proper Subjects, and not to all the Christian World.
V. ‘You Copiously blame us for denying that Obedience to the Universal Church, which we give to every single Pastor; and thought that I owned no Power but Parochial.]’
I tell you still, 1. I maintain that there were in the first Age (and perhaps except two Churches, for the second Age and more) no Bishops distinct [Page 235] from Archbishops but Parochial, and I described them at large.
2. But though Cyprian and the Carthage Council said, Nemo nostrum se dicit Episcopum Episcoporum; yet I deny not such as may be called Archbishops. Would you but restore Parish Churches, or at least make true Discipline a practicable thing, I should never quarrel against your Government.
3. I still tell you that I am for Councils, and that as large when requisite as they can well be made. And Pastors there agreeing, oblige us to obey their true Authority far before a single Pastor's: For it is Authoritas Doctoris? and it is Discipuli Obedientia that is due: And a Teacher's Authority is founded in his Credibility, and that on his Skill; Oportet discentem credere: And a thousand Historians, Philosophers, Physitians agreeing, oblige me to greater belief than a single one. And a Dissenters singularity obligeth me to suspition and suspension of my belief. Besides, that God bindeth us to do his work in as much Love and Concord as we can: And the Canons or Agreements of Councils when Just do determine the Matter of that Concord.
4. But that which I still repeat to you, is, that I deny the being of any such Church as you tell me I must necessarily obey; That is, one Ruling Ministerial College of Pastors over the whole Christian World. I remember no Protestants that own such a thing but you, and some such of late. Mr. Thorndike and Mr. Dodwell do imply it, but they speak not fully out. What an unedifying way of Discourse is it for you so Copiously to call out for our Obedience, when we only desire you to prove that there is any such Governing [Page 236] College to obey? I deny the subject of your Question, and you largely prove the Predicate. If you would spend many hours to tell me, I must obey Gabriel the Angel as the Ruler of this Kingdom, I only beg of you to prove that he is such a Ruler, and then to tell me how I shall know his Mind; will your Exhortation to Obedience profit me?
VI. Your Copious instances of difficult Texts of Scripture that need a sure Exposition, are no Proof to me, that Ergo There is a College of all the Bishops on Earth that must be the Expositor. I told you the Eunuch, Act. 8. was not so resolved of the sence of Isai. 53. It was not the Ancient way. A single Teacher may resolve a Doubter by Expository Evidence. An agreeing Provincial or National Council may do more without knowing the Mind of all the World; And many Texts will be difficult when all the World have done their best.
VII. But you urge that no Scripture is of private Interpretation.
A. 1. All is not Private Interpretation, which is made by Persons, Pastors or Councils, which are not a College authorized to Rule all the Christian World (or Church.) If it be, 1. I confess I never received one Article of my Faith, or Exposition of one Text of Scripture aright: For I never believed one of them upon [the Authoritative-Ruling-Judicial-Vniversal Power of all Bishops on Earth as an authorized College.] 2. And I know not one Man living then that expoundeth not Scripture by Private Interpretation; 3. And I know not that any one these Fifteen hundred Years have not done the same.
[Page 237]2. And it is certain that there is no Commentary on the Scripture yet written by the Universal College of Bishops; And it's harder to deliver it down by Memory than by Writing.
Therefore all Scripture is in this sence of Private Interpretation; yea, such Councils as are called General, have expounded little more than the Articles of the Creed (with sad dissention as to their Votes.)
But I confidently think that you follow a wrong Exposition of the Text, and that it speaketh not of [ an Efficient Interpretation] but [ an Objective, a Passive, and not an Active] Q. d. you must not interpret Scripture Prophecies narrowly and privately, as if they spake but of such or such a private Person, that was but a present typical object of them: For holy Men spake as moved by the Spirit, which looked farther, and meant Christ to come] e. g. you know how many Prophecies are meant of David and Solomon proximately, and of Christ ultimately. And you know what Grotius thinks of the proximate sence of [ A Virgin shall bring forth a Son.] And of Isa. 53, &c. which yet ultimately by the Holy Ghost is meant of Christ; and whether the Prophet himself knew it always, many doubt: Josias or Jeremy may be meant as types, and yet Christ Principal as typified: when David saith, My God, why hast thou forsaken me? They pierced my hands and my feet: They divided my garments among them, and cast lots for my vesture, &c.) and so many Texts cited by St. Matthew, these are to have no Private Interpretation as of the private Persons, only the first Objects; for the Holy Ghost intended them to be Prophecies of Christs] when you bring me any [Page 238] Literae formatae from all the Bishops on Earth for another sence, the reverence of their Concord will do much to make me forsake this.
Just so the Papists, and too many others distort that 1 Tim. 3.15. (which I wonder that I heard not from you) when the Text plainly calleth the Church, The House of the living God, and telleth Timothy how to behave himself in it, as a Pillar and Basis of the Truth; it is but putting [ The Pillar] for [ a Pillar] and then saying, that it is not the title of Timothy, but of the Church, and so it becometh useful to some mens Opinions.
Therefore still that which I am more confirmed in by your failing to prove your Affirmative, is ‘[That there never was instituted, and never was existent, and is not now existent in the World any one Ecclesiastical Ruling Persona Collectiva Civilis or Governour authorized by Christ to Rule under him all the Christian World, (that is, all the Church) by Legislation and Judgment, or either of them, and to Constitute the Vniversal Church visible, as one by relation to that One Governour;’ Especially that all the Bishops on Earth Governing per literas formatas never were, nor are such a Power, nor yet as Congregate in an Universal Council.] If such a College of all Bishops on Earth, ruling all the Christians on Earth by Consent, be the Church which you mean that all must obey that will have Concord, I say, There is no such Church on Earth, nor ever will be before the Day of Judgment.
After all this sure you cannot mistake the Question, 1. It is only of an Ecclesiastical Power by the Word and Keys. 2. It is not whether all Bishops ruling by Parts in their several Provinces, [Page 239] and keeping Concord in convenient Meetings or Councils may be said to Govern all the Church (as all the Magistrates in England Govern all England in Subordination to the King.) But it is of One Persona Ecclesiastica in whom the Church is relatively called One, as Venice is one Commonwealth with relation to one Supream Senate, which ruleth the whole.
1. Shew me any Literas formatas of all Bishops in the World before the Council of Nice, yea, or ever since to this day?
2. What need the Council meet, if all Bishops could know each others Mind and Consent without it, e. g. Did they all agree about Easter-Day before? Or about the extent of Patriarchs Jurisdictions. 3. There was never a General Council in the World; It was called General only as to one Empire: The Emperors that called them, had no Power elsewhere: The Subscriptions shew you that none other came; yea, and but a part of the Empire. Few out of the West were at any great Councils.
4. Heticks have had as great Councils as ever had the Orthodox, and as much Consenting. And the disallowed have been as great as the approved; Sola navicula Petri, as I said out of Binnius escaped Drowning at Eph. 2.
5. There never must nor will be an Universal Council of all the Church hereafter, as I have elsewhere proved, And is the Universal Regent Ministerial Church extinct these Thousand Years? How can we obey a Power that is not?
6. But you say, I confess that the Roman Empire was seven Parts of the Church: Answ. Your haste overlooked my exception of the Empire of Abassia, [Page 240] which Brierwood saith, is now as great as Italy, Germany, France and Spain: and was incomparably greater heretofore; And you may gather from Damianus a Goes, Alvarez, and especially Godignuus de rebus Abassinorum, that, they had Christianity from the Eunuch mentioned Act. 8. And it's certain that their case was much unknown to Rome it self, till the Portugals and Oviedo's late access. And though now they give some Preeminence to the Patriarch of Alexandria, that is but since the Banishment of Nestorius and Dioscorus, who thereupon carried the Interest of their Parties without the Empire into other Lands. Of Abassia see more in Ludolphus since come out.
7. Either this Vnum Collegium Omnium Episcoporum must rule the Church Universal by a Major Vote, or by Consent of all Bishops in the World. If the former, where shall they meet to Vote? who shall gather them? how many Years or Ages will it be doing? How shall all Christians know that they are truly gathered? Shall we, till we know the Major Vote of all Bishops on Earth, suspend our Obedience? and have no Faith, no Concord till then? If all must Consent, or almost all, the case will be still harder, how to procure, and how to know it: May the Heretick keep his Heresie till all the Bishops on Earth condemn him per literas formatas, or otherwise? When e. g. the Nestorians or Eutychians or Monothelites have the greater number of Bishops one Year or Age, and the lesser the next; Is Bishops Consent the determining ruling Power?
8. Either this One ruling Church is necessary in all Ages, or only in some, or at least the exercise [Page 241] of their Power: If in all, the Church is extinct or ungoverned, either these 1500 Years, except during your Six Councils, or all the time that we have had no Universal Government by them: If but in some Ages, why not in the rest as well? And is not the Church still the same thing in specie, and for the same use and ends.
VIII. You say all Heresies are Condemned already. Answ. 1. Yes, Virtually by God's Word, Rectum est index sui & Obliqui. 2. But if you say Actually in their form, How great is your Mistake! The Devil could invent a Thousand more yet. My long Catalogue of Errors to be forbidden in my Book of the Churches Concord will tell you of enow that are too possible.
2. If the use of your Ruling Church ended so long ago, why doth not the Church end? or how are we to be Governed by it, when it doth not Govern? I never heard from it since I was born by any Literae formatae. To say, I must obey the old Canons, is to say I must obey a Government that was, and not one that now is and Governeth. The Pope I could possibly send to: Old Councils I can read: But how to hear▪ from a College of all the Bishops on Earth, that never see or hear of one another or me, and that are broken into so many Sects, I know not. I have my self, with some Wise and Able Divines, Pleaded the Cause that you Plead for, to try what they could say to me: And they answer me with Laughter, as if I were Distracted for talking of all being Governed by all the Bishops on Earth, as one ruling College by Consent or Vote.
IX. You lay much stress on the Church, being (our Mother). And Solomon saying, [ Obey the Law [Page 242] of thy Mother] Answ. 1. You may possibly believe that Solomon by [ Mother] meant an universally Governing College of Bishops] but when will you prove it? 2. You cannot name one Text that I know of that calleth the Church [our Mother] except Gal. 4.26. And there 1. You suppose that by [ Hierusalem which is above] is meant the Church which is on Earth: which I know many others think: But it is uncertain. 2. And when will you prove that by Hierusalem, is meant your Ruling College. 3. Or that it speaketh of any one Universal Government. The word [ Mother] is a Metaphor: And Similitudes prove nothing but the Point of Assimilation. The Text expresly saith that It is called our Mother, because she hath many Children. But these Children are not begotten by All the Bishops in One Voting College, as Universal Rulers, but by particular Pastours. And so that one Church of Christ hath many begotten and ruled per partes.
X. You still lay much on [ The Nation that will not serve thee, shall Perish.] And you bring three or four Fathers to prove that spoken of the Christian Church. And you say still the Church is no where taken for Christ.
I answer, 1. As the Kingdom includeth the King and Magistrates as the only Governours, so doth the Church include Christ and his Ministers: 2. I believe that it is meant of the Universal Church: But three Fathers Interpretation or threescore is a Private one compared to your College. 3. All Power is given to Christ: Princes are his Ministers. Infidels that are Converted to serve the Church, must serve Christian Magistrates as well as Bishops. And it's as likely to [Page 243] be specially meant of Magistrates: For Bishops destroy not the Disobedient, nor so much as Excommunicate the Infidel World: What have we to do to Judge them that are without? But Princes conquer and destroy resisting Enemies. So that this Text will no more prove One ruling College of Bishops over all, than one Monarch or College of Kings to rule all the World; nor so probably.
4. The Nations serve the Church, 1. When they Obey the King of all the Church, 2. and his Universal Laws. 3. And his Officers ruling per partes in their several Provinces by Word and Sword. 4. And serve the good of the whole▪ as the end of Government: Stretch the words on any Rack that is not against reason, and besides these four, you can never prove one Universal ruling College.
XI. You say, God is not the visible Head of the World, and Men have access to Kings, but not to Christ.
Answ. God is the King or Supream Governor of all the World; and you have no more visible access to the Father than to the Son: And particular Pastors are as accessible as Kings: And Church Government, which like a Physitian, or Tutor, depends on personal Skill, may much less be performed by absent Men at the Antipodes, than Civil Government.
XII. But it's said, [ It is the whole Churches reception of Canons, though Councils be not properly Vniversal, tha [...] maketh the Obligation Vniversal.
Answ. If they bind not by the Imposers Power, they were not received as binding Universally: If Reception be the Obligatory Act, Subjection [Page 244] is Government, and Lay Men and Women govern by receiving. And I have proved how mutable and how uncertain Reception is: They say all the Church was against Adoration by genuflexion on the Lord's Day, and for Milk and Honey, and the white Garment in Baptism: And yet particular Churches laid them down before any Universal Judicature allowed it.
XIII. Qu. If you know that all the Bishops of the World receive any Doctrine or Practice as needful or good, will not you do so too? and do you not so receive the Creed and Bible?
Answ. 1. I receive the Laws of the Land only as authorized by the Law-givers: But I know them to be the same Laws that the King and Parliament made, by the concurrent Testimony and Use of all Judges, Lawyers and People of the Land, (and Proclamation by the Proclaimers) But I know them not by my obeying all these Judges, Justices and People as one authorized College, that is under the King to Govern the whole Land: So here, I know the Writings of Homer, Virgil, Cicero, to be theirs the more confidently by Universal Tradition: But not because I believe that all the Witnesses in the World that have so received them, are Commissioned to be Rulers or a Judicature to the World; I receive Divine Truths as Delivered in the Creed and Scriptures, as from Christ and his Apostles, especially Commissioned and qualified to teach all Men whatever he commanded them, and this by the hand of my Parents and Pastors; and since I understood History common consent puts me the more out of doubt of the Matter of Fact, that these are their true Writings and Doctrines: But not from the Bishops, [Page 245] as one College Commissioned to rule all the World or Church on Earth. And alas, how few are so well verst in History as to know much of this.
To know what is received now ab omnibus ubi (que) is too hard: But to know the semper is much harder especially when the Filio (que) and the [...], and many such like, have had more for them in one Prince's Reign, and more against them in another, and so off and on; and to know which had most was impossible, to most Christians: How few know at this day whether the [ Filio (que)] have more for it, or against it? Not I, nor any Traveller that I have spoke with.
XIV. ‘ But you would not for a World be guilty of saying what I have written of Councils; 1. As if they were to be abhorred for their Faults. 2. You say, How great Matters the Articles of two Natures and Wills and of one Person are, and no small nor wordy difference.’
Answ. 1. I can mention Mens Faults without abhorring them, I honour them for their good, and am for the use of needful modest Councils of good Men.
2. I doubt not but the Matters determined were weighty: But how far Persons wronged and misunderstood one another, and strove about words when they meant the same thing, I have not nakedly said, but proved to you. When Theodosius forced by threatning Cyril and Johannes Antioch. and Theodoret to agree, did they not confess that they had wrongfully anathematized each other, and were of one Mind, and did not know it? Have I not proved to you that Nestorius denied two Persons? and that Cyril oft asserteth but one Nature [Page 246] after the Union? Do you indeed think that [One] and [Two] are words that have but one signification? Have I not proved the Ambiguity, and the Misunderstanding of each other in too many? But O how hard it is to be Impartial and to Repent, when Contentious Bishops in Councils have notoriously torn the Churches, drawn streams of Blood, Cursed and Reproached one another, and Cursed that Cursing it self and their Party the next change, and have overthrown the Empire, and set up the Pope by striving about Jurisdiction and hard words, who shall be greatest and wisest, must not this which cannot be hid be lamented? If Cyril were but half as bad as Joh. Antioch. Theodoret, Isidore, Pelusiota, Socrates and Sozomen, &c. make him, how partial were his Admirers? But I see it is as hard for Bishops to repent as other Men, when their Self-esteem and Dignity seemeth to themselves to entitle them to the reputation of Sanctity and Innocency: And if they divide the Christian World as wofully as the West and East, and the Abassines, Copties, Jacobites, Nestorians, Armenians, Protestants, &c. are divided at this day, or should they Silence Thousands of Faithful Ministers of Christ for not Sinning, or for Nothing, and bring thereby Confusion and Schisms, among serious Christians to the hardening of the Prophane and Hereticks, it will seem to some a more heinous Sin to name their Sin, and call them to Repentance, than in them to commit it. And yet one may name the Sins of a Thief or Drunkard, and call him to Repentance without blame. But have I said half so ill by them, as they said by one another? They anathematized each other, but so do not I by them; What say I worse of the first and [Page 247] best of your Six Councils than Eusebius and Constantine said of them, when he burnt their accusing Libels against each other?
2. What say I worse of the first Council at Constantinople than Greg. Nazianzen saith? I do but recite his words and the History? Did they not set him up in the beginning, and pull him down at the end? (and for what)?
3. What say I of the first Ephes. Council but what the recorded Acts do tell us? How they divided into two Parts, and each Excommunicated the Leaders of the other, and the Orthodox Part fought with the other notwithstanding the Endeavours of the Emperor's Lieutenant to have kept the Peace; and yet when they had done, found that they had been of one Mind, and knew it not, (except Nestorius.) And how much hand a Woman had in it against him, the History tells us.
4. Have I said so much against that at Chalcedon as the many Councils that anathematized them did? or more than they said of themselves when they cried Omnes Peccavimus for Voting with Dioscorus and the Eutychians at Council Eph. 2. I would fain know, when as the greater Part of the Empire and Church was against this Council, in the days of Zeno, Basiliscus, and Anastasius, by what means every Christian should then have known the sence of the Universal Church. At Jerusalem the Orthodox rebelliously resisted the Emperor's Lieutenants, and put them to [...]light in defence of this Council (following a Monk that compared the four Councils to the four Evangelists) and sent the Emperor word that they would spend their Blood for it: And yet even there, before, [Page 248] the prevailing Part had condemned it. At Antioch the Bishop and Monks fought it out to so much Blood, that the Monks Carcasses could have no Grave but the River Orontes: At Constantinople and Alexandria the Matter oft was little better. Are these things indifferent or jesting Matters of small Infirmity?
5. And the 5th General Council Const. 2. was thought long by a great Part of the Church to have contradicted the▪ 4th de tribus Capitulis, and was so much disowned, that even Venice, Liguria, Istria, &c. renounced the Pope and Roman Primacy for Owning it, and chose a Patriarch at Aquileia to be the Primate instead of Rome; which long continued, till Sergius reconciled them.
6. And that Concil. Trullanum called Quino-Sextum which you own as the same with the Fifth, is disowned by the Roman Party to this day, and accused by them to have been Monothelites. (Vid. Binnium) And yet said to be the same Men who were the Second Const. Council: And so they make that Second also to have been Monothelites.
6. And the next, Const. Third were condemned by the Seventh General at Nice, as heinous Sinners for condemning Church Images, and even Helvicus, with other Lutherans, call it Synodum Iconoma [...]hicam quam O [...]cumenicam dici voluerunt. And I think that the Church of Rome disowneth the Doctrine both of it and the Second of Nice, which hath agreed that Christ's Body is not flesh in Heaven.
Now I would know while these Councils thus anathematized each other, or lamented their own former Errors, as Voting by Fear or Mistake, [Page 249] and while most of the Bishops declared against any of them as they oft did, and when Heraclius, Philippicus or other Emperors were Monothelites, and the Major part of the Bishops followed them, how common Christians should know whom to Obey.
XV. I remember that you also pleaded Christ's words, Hear the Church] But he saith also, [ Tell the Church] even the same Church which we must Hear. And verily here I am utterly at a loss. Christ I know and Paul I know should be heard, but who are this one Universally ruling College for me to to hear? yea, the Pope may be told and heard; but how to tell or hear a College that dwell all over the Earth, I know not, I cannot hope to live long enough to send to, or hear from Abassia, Armenia, Syria, Mengrelia, Georgia, Circassia, and all the Greek Churches, and to Mexico, and perhaps the Antipodes; nor do I think our Salvation lyeth so much on our Skill in Geography, that we must know that there are any such Countries in the World, nor a Rome or a Constantinople, &c. And I cannot think that most of the World, will ever hear that there is such a Man as I in being; nor that one of a thousand of the Bishops ever hear the Names, or know the Opinions of all the rest, or of the one half of them: And if I were rich enough to hire a Messenger to go all over the Earth, and were so foolish as to hope to live till he returned, I must take their Votes on the Credit of the Messengers Word, which is a sandy Ground for Church-Communion and Salvation. Nay, I cannot hope to live to see a General Council, much less to see the end of it, [Page 250] and to be certain of their Votes and Sentence: And if I knew that I had all the Bishops on Earth for one Opinion, I am not certain whether most of the Presbyters (being an hundred to one) be not against them; and in England the Presbyters are part of the Convocation, which is the Representative Church. Had I lived on Earth when the Council of Nice was contradicted at Sirmium, Ariminum, Tyre, Milan, and the World groaned to find it self turned Arrian: Or when they were Anathematizing each other, and fighting at the first Eph. Council: Or when the 2d Nicene were condemning the second Const. Or when Vigilius was dragged by a Rope at Const. by Justinian's Command, and the Patriarch of Aquileia set up against Rome; or when the Trull. Canons were made by Men now called Monothelites; or when innumerable Monothelite Bishops met under Philippicus, &c. I could not possibly have told how to know the Governing Judgment of the College of Bishops that live all over the Earth. Nay, when you own no Council since the Sixth, why will no Importunity intreat you to tell me, whether for these Thousand Years last the Universal Church was Governed by one College, and what Governing Act this Colledge hath so long exercised over all the Christian World? And how it was known? And whether their Literae formatae are to be found written? And where? Or are only transmitted to all the World by Memory? and by whose Memory? and of whom we may all enquire of them with certain Satisfaction? Or whether the Church hath been this Thousand Years no Church, or Ungoverned.
You say the Council at Frankford condemned that [Page 251] at Nice: How shall I know which the College owned at the time of the sitting of each Council? How few Councils were ever so great as that at Basil? Can you tell me how to be sure whether the College be more for it or against it at this day?
Bear with me for telling you, that if I had not found that you are a Man of strong Passions, & full of your self, and of undoubting Confidence in your Apprehensions, I should wonder how so Studious, Learned and Sober a Man could possibly take either Union, Communion, or Salvation, to lie upon Mens Belief of, and Obedience to such a College as all the Bishops on Earth: And if you take the Creed to mean this as the Holy Catholick Church, I shall not wonder if you take me, [and almost all the Protestants that ever I knew or read,] for Hereticks; and having twice admonished me, and not convinced me, if you avoid me, and should not only Seventeen Years silence me, but banish or burn me, if you are for such execution upon Hereticks; or at least take me, and all such as I, to be intolerable, and use us accordingly.
XVI. I will sum up the Difference between you and me in a Similitude. All Power in Heaven and Earth, and all Judgment is given to Christ. The Creator's Government by Civil Rulers he changeth not, but is now their Soveraign King. His Church he Governeth as a Saviour and a Teacher, and their Heavenly High Priest: It is his School, and we are his Disciples; I suppose that God the Father and Christ is the only Rightful, Universal, Civil and Church-Monarch, and none else can give Laws, or exercise Judgment over the whole Earth; but that Magistrates and [Page 252] Pastors are Commissioned by God to their several Provinces, Governing the whole only per partes between them; and God, as the Monarch, maketh them such Universal Laws as they must Rule and be Ruled by. And that there is no more proof of one Ecclesiastick Humane Judicature to Rule all the World, than of one Civil one, and less probability: But that Princes and Pastors must do all by the best Advantages of Unity, Love and Concord, and keep such Synods and Correspondencies as are necessary to that end; I suppose that every Kingdom hath its own King and Inferiour Magistrates Ruling by their several Courts and Circuits, and by the Kings Laws; but not Ruling all the Kingdom as one College of a Voting Synod of Judges, Justices and Majors. If Senates have any where a Supremacy, it is from the peculiar Constitution of that Commonwealth; and there is no Institution of a College of Kings (or one Monarch) to Rule all the Earth: But their Unity is centred in God that is one.
I suppose that the King hath ordained that all Free-Schools in England, Scotland and Ireland, shall have each their proper Schoolmasters, one to a small School, and to a great one a Chief Master, with under Schoolmasters; and he hath made an Order that they shall teach E. g. Lilly's Grammar, and faithfully perform their Trust, or be put out by them that have the Power: And if any School-Difficulty occur, they may do well to consult for their Mutual Help.
But you seem to add, g. d. as if, 1. All the World is one Humane School, though under several Kings. 2. None is a Member of this School that is not under the College of Schoolmasters [Page 253] that dwell all over the World, and never know one another, and that doth not live in Obedience to that College. 3. All these Schoolmasters of the whole World must meet by themselves or Delegates in General Councils. 4. All Schools must receive Canons from these Councils, and be judged by them, and bring their Accusation (at least Appeals) to them, from all Nations of the Earth. 5. All the Schoolmasters of the several Kingdoms must hold National Assemblies in those Kingdoms [or Provinces] as a College of Governors to the whole Land. 6. A Thousand, or many Hundred or Scores Local particular Schools must be Schools but equivocally so called, and have all but one proper Schoolmaster, who alone must have the Keys of them, and judge of each Scholar that is, 1. admitted, 2. corrected, 3. or put out. 7. All these Schools under this Diocesan Schoolmaster shall have his Ushers, (and no proper Schoolmasters) who shall have Power to teach those that will learn, and to tell the proper Schoolmaster, (perhaps One Hundred, Eighty or Twenty Miles off) of every Boy that deserveth to be corrected or put out. But none of these Ushers shall have Power, 1. To judge whom to take or refuse, or what Boys to correct, nor to correct them till commanded by the Diocesan Master: 3. Nor to put out any till he bids him: 4. Nor to forbear correcting or casting out any when commanded, though he know them to be the best.
I think this, 1. Deposeth all the Inferiour Schools, and robs them of proper Schoolmasters, which are their due. 2. And deposeth the Ushers, that should be mostly Schoolmasters. 3. And maketh School-Government an impossible thing, [Page 254] while one only in a Diocess is to use that which he cannot do. 4. And thereby overthroweth Learning, and introduceth Barbarousness. 5. And bringeth in a new sort of Diocesan Schoolmasters, who will undo the Scholars and themselves by undertaking Impossibilities.
But I disallow not, 1. A Chief Schoolmaster in each School. 2. Nor needful Overseers or Visitors to see that all Schoolmasters do their Duty. 3. Nor that the King and Justices keep them all to their Duty, and make Laws that they truly teach the Sacred Scriptures, and correct those Schoolmasters who by their Insufficiency, or Unfaithfulness deserve it.
Again, I tell you, 1. Make us no Universal Governor but Christ. 2. And restore the Power of necessary Discipline to the Parish-Churches, or at least make Christs Church-Discipline a possible practicable thing, and you will reconcile many Nonconformists to you. But to say only one Schoolmaster, with meer Teaching-Ushers, shall Govern many Hundred Schools, or one Bishop many Hundred Churches, or rather Oratories and Chappels that are made but parts of one true Church infimae specici; this is in English to say, that there shall be no considerable Government of such Schools or Churches at all, and to put it down on pretence of having the Power to do it. And yet by the Charity and Justice of many that now Write and Preach against us, we are all unruly, intolerable, rebellious Schismaticks, and against Bishops, for desiring more Bishops, at least one to every [...] ▪ or Corporation, that Discipline might be a possible thing, I have in many Years (of Liberty) tryed without Rigour so much [Page 255] as all Church-Canons agree to be necessary, in a Congregation that had not Three Thousand Souls, and was unable for it with the assistance of Three Presbyters, when one Parish about London hath Thirty Thousand, and Forty Thousand, if not Sixty Thousand Souls, and most, or many, far less Governable.
XVII. The Essentials of the Sacred Office are, 1. Power or Right; 2. Obligation to; 3. The Work. 1. The Work, you say, is to Rule the Church Universal on all the Earth, not only separately per partes, but as Vnum Collegium, which is Vna Persona Politica. 2. The Power is Jus Regendi. 3. The Obligation maketh it their Duty.
The Apostles were sent first to Preach the Gospel to every Creature, or all Mankind, and make them Christians; and after to Teach them all Christs Doctrine and Law, and to Rule them by Pastoral Guidance thereby.
2. If the College of Bishops be their Successors, are they bound to that Work in uno Collegio, which the Apostles did each one apart? That is, deliver Christs Commands, and guide the Churches. If, yea, are they not bound in uno Collegio, to Preach to all the Heathen World? And then, are they not guilty of the Damnation of most of the World for not so Preaching to them?
3. If you say that it is only a Regiment that they must do in uno Collegio, or per Literas formatas, do you not make the whole Pastoral Church guilty of perfidious Negligence, (as a Pastor would be, that never guided his Flock) for not at all performing any such Government? What one Act of Government hath the College performed in our Age? or in the Age foregoing? or in any Age according [Page 256] to your self since Constant. Pogonatus his sixth (or seventh) Council? And was it only the Church of those Ages that was bound to Govern? Then it was they only that were Authorized, or had the Office and Power: For Obligation to the Work (though not ad hic & nunc) is Essential to the Office as well as Authority: Or will the Performance of the Bishops of the Fourth and Fifth Centuries excuse all that succeed them to the end of the World from any Performance? Why then not from all Pastoral Guidance? And are they not then degraded?
XVIII. We are against Singularity in Matters of Faith: We believe that all Christs Church shall never err from any one Essential of Christianity or Communion; else it would thereby cease to be a Church: But we believe General Councils (such as the Empire had) have erred so far as to condemn each other of Heresie. We perswade all Men to believe as the Church believeth; that is, to receive that from the Apostles, quod ab omnibus ubique & semper receptum fuit, which the Church received and delivered as from them with known common Consent, and to suspect odd Opinions, Novelties and Singularities.
But Protestants against Papists commonly use these Distinctions: 1. Authority of a Governor by Legislation, and Judgment, or either, is one thing. 2. Doctoral Authority (like a Philosopher in a School of Consenters) is another. 3. The Authority of Witnesses (which is their Obliging Credibility) is another. 4. The Authority of a Steward, or Keeper of Records, is another. 5. The Authority of a Herald, or Cryer, or Messenger, (to publish Laws) is another. 6. And the Authority of [Page 257] Contractors in Mutual Self-Obligation, is another.
Accordingly they hold, 1. That there is no one Universal Head, Governour, or Summa Potestas Ecclesiastica, to Rule the whole by Legislation or Judgment, Personal or Collective, but Christ.
2. That there is no one Person, Natural or Political, that is bound or authorized to be the Teacher of the whole World or Church; but that all Pastors must Teach and Guide in their several Provinces.
3. That the larger and more uncontrouled the Testimony is, the greater is the Credibility and Authority of the Witnesses: And therefore if all the Churches in the World, as far as we can learn, agree, de facto, that these are the Books, Doctrines, and practised Ordinances which they received; and especially when Hereticks or Infidels, and Enemies that would gainsay it, cannot with any probability, we thus receive the said Books and Practices, (as Baptism, &c.) ex Authoritate Testium, and not ex Authoritate Judicis Regentis; or else Lay-Men, (such as Origen, when he was a more credible Witness of the Text than an Hundred unlearned Bishops, and such as Hierom, that was no Bishop, of whom I say the same) yea, and Women, yea Hereticks and Infidels, (such as Pliny, &c.) would be Church-Rulers.
4. All Pastors being by Office to Preach Christ's Word, and Ministerially Officiate accordingly, are thereby especially intrusted with the keeping of these Sacred Records, as Lawyers while they daily use them, are with the Laws, and the Universal Testimony of such Officers is the most credible part of the Witnesses Work; or if not Universal, [Page 258] the more the better. 5. Every Pastor is as a Cryer to proclaim Christ's Laws. 6. And in Circumstances left to Mutable Humane Determination, the more common Consent (Caeteris paribus) the better. And this is the use of Councils; this is enough: But the Protestants that I have known and read, do make it our first Controversie with the Papists, Whether Christ ever Instituted any one Head or Ruling Power over all the Church, under himself? And, 2. Whether Pope or Council be such? Both which they deny.
XIX. If you have not read it, I intreat you read in the Cabal-Supplement King Henry the VIII's Letter to the Archbishop and Clergy of the Province of York, where you will find, ☞ 1. Your cited seeming Contradictions of Scripture, answered by use of Speech and Reason, without any Universal Judicature. 2. That Dic Ecclesiae cannot be meant of the Church Universal. 3. That the Universal Church hath no Head or Governor but Christ, but the Clergy subserve him, as Ministers by whom he giveth Spiritual Grace, and quae Spiritu aguntur libera sunt, & nulla Lege astringuntur; and if the Teachers do their Office with scandal, Magistrates must punish them, and that it is the Ecclesia quae non Constat ex bonis & malis, which the King is not the Head of: But that in Spirituals, as the word signifieth Spiritual Persons and their Goods and Works, and the enforcing the Observances of Gods Laws, the King is Head: And the reason of the word [ Head] notably vindicated, with much more.
XX. I crave your Pardon both for the Prolixity and Boldness, while I add this Question▪ (not as accusing you of Popery, Perjury or Disloyalty;) [Page 259] How can I be cleared from the guilt of Perjury, and Disloyalty, if having taken the ☞ Oath of Supremacy, and subscribed according to the Canons, &c. I shall plead for the subjecting of the King and all Subjects to a Foreign Power in Spirituals? when the Oath disclaimeth it, and the Can. 1. saith, That [ all Vsurped and Foreign Power hath no Establishment or Ground by the Law of God, and is for most just Causes taken away and abolished, and therefore no manner of Obedience or Subjection within His Majesties Realms and Dominions is due to ANY SVCH Foreign Power.
And all Ministers subscribe Can. 36. against all Foreign Power, as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Things or Causes, as Temporal.
And Articl. 21. General Councils may not be gathered together without the Commandment and Will of Princes: (And when will all Princes, Orthodox, Heretical, Mahometan, Heathen, Enemies in VVar, &c. agree to gather them out of all the VVorld?) And when they be gathered together, (for as much as they be an Assembly of Men whereof all be not Governed with the Spirit and Word of God) they may err, and sometime have erred even in things pertaining to God; wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to Salvation, have no Strength nor Authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of the Holy Scriptures. (And doth Church-Unity, Concord, and Salvation, lie on things not necessary to Salvation?) If you say, that none of this speaketh against Foreign Ecclesiastical Power, such as the Apostles had; I answer, 1. Not against a Foreigners Preaching and Baptizing, and Celebrating the Lord's Supper, if he be where we are, (and there he is no Foreigner:) But against all Foreigners [Page 260] proper Government of Men as their Subjects. The Apostles Commission in that was extraordinary, and yet they Ruled Doctorally none but Voluntary Consenters. 2. The Law, Oath, Canon and Articles disclaim such Power as the Pope claimeth here: But the Pope claimeth proper Ecclesiastical Government, and most English and French Papists (and half the rest I think) claim for him only the power of the Word and Keys, and not any forcing Power by the Sword.
XXI. As hence, I wonder not that Mr. Thorndike threateneth England, unless we right the Papists by altering the Oath of Supremacy; so I conclude with another Request, That seeing Dr. Heylin, and many others of you, honour Melanchthon, you will read his Epistle to King Henry the VIII. Epistolarum Vol. 1. per Pencer. Edit. Anno 1570. pag. 59.60. &c. But especially Ep. de Ratisb. act. p. 188. &c. & de Wormat. Colloq. p. 201. &c. where he speaketh against Eccius and other Papists overvaluing Councils, and making them Legislators and Judges to us, and tying the Church to the ordinary succession of Bishops, and Obedience to their Laws, and imagining the Church to be like Civil Polities, Pag. 191. [1. Humano more Constituit in Ecclesia Potestatem interpretationis, propemodum ut de praetoria potestate interpretandarum Legum Jurisconsulti Loquuntur. 2. Addit amplius non licere privatis, non paucioribus reprehendere judicia Majoris partis seu dissentire à suffragiis plurimorum. 3. Majorum Synodorum sententiis & decretis parendum esse, &c. — In Ecclesia longe alia res est. — In hoc coetu non potest as alligata est certis personis aut certae multitudini, sed donum est aliquorum piorum: Id est, lumen divinum, quo intelligunt sapientiam in Evangelio [Page 261] traditam, quae est supra rationis humanae judicium Posita. Pag. 195. addit Vinculum dilectionis à Paulo Vocari Obedientiam Praestandam Episcopis Ordinaria successione regnantibus & eorum legibus,— Yet Synods and Discipline he was for, by present faithful Pastors.
And Luther, Lib. de Conciliis, speaketh (as was his way) more sharply of Councils, telling us what their Work is, and is not; and that one Augustine hath taught the Church more than all the Councils that ever were, yea one Catechism: And that before the Council of Nice, Arianism was but a Jest in Comparison of what it grew to afterward, (though doubtless the Council did well in condemning it) and he justifieth Nazianzen's Words of Councils: And except the undeniable Evidence of David Derodon, he saith more than I have seen in any to vindicate Nestorius, as certainly holding one Person and sound Doctrine in sense, but for want of Learning, taking it for an improper Speech to say that God was begotten of Mary, killed, risen, &c. And that the Controversie of the Ephes. Council and him was but about Words. And I think he that readeth but Derodon's Citations of the Words of Cyril, will think me rather charitable than injurious, for saying that though his Words were Eutychian, he meant also better than he spake.
[Page 262]REader, The Bishop's repetition in Conference (before and with Dr. Beveridge and Dr. Saywell) occasioned my over-tedious Repetitions: But you may perceive they have not been wholly in vain, while at the last the Bishop was forced, I. To deny Canons to be Laws: And then what is their Churches Legislative Power? and how can we obey a Law that is no Law? And why are we called to Swear Canonical Obedience? or why are we called Schismaticks for not obeying them? And if they might be called Laws to their proper Subjects, can Usurping Foreigners therefore make us Laws?
II. He is put to disown the Names of Vniversal Soveraignty, and Summa Potestas, but only as Invidious, that is, as opening that which they would hide by other Names fitted to deceive: And yet maintaineth the thing, and calls them Rectors and Vniversal Governors: As if Jus regendi in Supream Rectors were not the same thing, and that which he knew we were to dispute.
III. When he hath oft pleaded for Obedience to the Vniversal Church and its Laws, and made Law-making its work, he is fain at last to reduce it almost to Sentence and Execution. And in his many instances of such Judging Powers to name not one that requireth an Universal Human Judge.
IV. He was angry at the Argument fetcht from the incapacity of an Universal King or Civil Senate; But why? Only, as invidious? that is, As detecting their Error; And saith, that it intimateth that they claim a Kingly forcing Power, [Page 263] whereas he knew that I profest the contrary of them, and only brought a comparing Argument. But if they had claimed no forcing Power, or made Princes believe that they were bound to be their Hangmen or Executioners, the World had suffered less, and they know that their Curses would have been despised as bruta fulmina, and Protestants would have said Procul à Jove Procul à fulmine.
V. He could never be got to give up the least shew of a Satisfactory account, where his Collegium Pastorum out of Councils was to be found, or whom it consisted of? They dare not go to Patriarchs whatever they think, as knowing how farr, and where they long have been, and most against them.
VI. Nor could he be got to answer my instances of the incapacity of Councils; nor my proof that they were not of terrestrial, but only of National (Imperial) Universality.
VII. Nor would he answer my proof of the utter incapacity, either of one Man, or one College; for Universal Government of all the World.
VIII. Nor to answer my proof that his Universal Soveraignty is the most essential Point of that which Protestants call Popery.
IX. Nor my Reasons that a Pope's Headship is not so impossible as this same, tho' both are impossible.
X. Nor the plain Evidence, that this way must needs bring us under the Government of the Pope himself, and every King and Kingdom under the Government of foreign Subjects, and of those Princes whose Subject-Bishops make the greatest Number in Councils.
[Page 264]XI. And we cannot be informed how their Form of Government differeth from the French, and that the French are no Papists. And that they that since Laud's time have studied a Coalition, would not receive them to our cost.
XII. Nor yet how the Nation and Clergy shall be saved from Perjury that are all Sworn against all Foreign Jurisdiction.
For it is a vain Argument that saith, The Oath of Supremacy renounceth no Jurisdiction but what the King owneth: But the King disowneth Ecclesiastical Spiritual Jurisdiction.
For, 1. Ecclesiastical and Spiritual Jurisdiction are expresly named. 2. The Oath renounceth it as Foreign, because it is against the King to be under the Power of Foreigners. The King chooseth his own Pastors, and Ruleth them by the Sword, (as he doth his Physitians) though he profess not to be a Pastor himself, nor to Administer the Word, Sacraments or Keys.
And the new Oath, called the Test, expresly abjureth the Foreign Jurisdiction of any Prince, Prelate, &c. Spiritual and Ecclesiastical.
It's ludicrous jesting with Oaths for any to say, by [ Prelate] is not excluded [ Many Prelates in a College or Council, but some one]: If One, much more many; as Prince and Potentate excludeth many. And all our present Clergy that are in the Parliament and Convocation, have taken this Oath or Test: and they call themselves the Church-representative: And if after this they should be for a Foreign Jurisdiction (and specially Universal) in a College, or a Council, or a Pope, or a Council and College under the Pope as President, their Subscription to our Articles, and their usage [Page 265] of Oaths, would be no invitation to Dissenters to imitate them, or Conform.
Chap. XIX. Mr. Henry Dodwell's Leviathan further Anatomized.
§. 1. I Have already elsewhere (in two Books) detected the Schismatical and Tyrannical Doctrine of Mr. Dodwell in his tedious voluminous Accusation of the Reformed Churches as damnable Schismaticks, that Sin against the Holy Ghost, and have No right to Salvation by Christ. I recite now a few Passages that shew the Constitution of the Church he Pleads for.
Pag. 73. ‘The Essential work of the Ministry according to my Principles, is to transact between God and Man; to Seal Covenants on behalf of God, and to accept of those which are made by Men, and to oblige them to perform their part of the Covenant by otherwise authoritatively excluding them from God's part. Paul saith, I was not sent to Baptize, but to Preach the Gospel of Christ, Mat. 28. And Paul to Timothy tell us of other parts as Essential: They can include or exclude none but those that include and exclude themselves, which shall be effectual whatever the Priest say or do; He is but a Minister, Invester and Declarer of it. Hence results the whole Power of Ecclesiastical Government. And for this, No great Gifts and Abilities are Essential. All the Skill that is requisite essentially, is only in general to know the Benefits to be performed on God's part, and the Duties to be performed on Mans, and the Nature [Page 266] and Obligation of Covenants in general, and the particular Solemnities of Ecclesiastical Covenants; And of this how any Man can be uncapable, who is but capable of understanding the common Dealings of the World— Then a Moscovian Priest may serve, or such as Optandus Bishop of Geneva was, illiterate: and one may be taken from any Shop or Cart that understands the Dealings of the World. But how much more requireth Paul to Timothy, and Chrysostom, &c. 2. And yet I, and all of my Degree, yea, all the Ministers or the Reformed Churches that disown his Leviathan, are uncapable of Ministry or Christian Communion by our ignorance. 3. But is the Nature of the Covenant-Benefits, Duties, &c. so easily known as he talks? And yet must we Perish for not knowing them.’
Pag. 72. ‘He sheweth that Immoralities of Life are not sufficient to deprive them of this High Power.’
And of the Power it self he saith, Pag. 80, 81. ‘It is not stated in Scripture, but to be measured by the Intention of the Ordainers, and that the Hypothesis (of God's setling in Scripture) is irreconcileable with Government in this Life, by permitting Men to appeal to Writings against all the visible Authority of this Life. Note here, that tho' his Priesthood have the Power of saving or damning Men; yet he confesseth the very office in Specie is not of God's making. For if it be not stated in Scripture, it is not in the meer Law of Nature; And our Church-Changers are no Prophets: And if God made not the office, then the arrogated Power is not his Gift.’ On the contrary (saith he) ‘Our Hypothesis obliging inferiour Governours to prove their Title to their office, and the extent of it from the intention of their Superiour Governours, doth oblige all to a strict dependance [Page 267] on the Supreme visible Power, so as to leave no place for Appeals concerning the Practice of such Government (which as it lasts only for this life, so it ought not to admit of Disputes more lasting than its Practice) from them, and that upon rational and consciencious▪ Principles: for how fallible soever they may be conceived to be in expounding Scripture, yet none can deny them to be the most certain as well as the most competent Judges of their own Intentions: As certainly therefore as God made his Church Note that he speaketh of God's Church in the singular Number, and not of national Churches which are many. a visible Society, and constituted a visible Government in it, He hath constituted a Species of visible Governors over the several Parts, but no one (Personal or Collective) over the whole. so certain their Hypothesis is false.’
P. 83. ‘How can Subjects preserve (their due Subordination to their Superiours) if they practice differently? They may possibly do it notwithstanding Practices of Humane Infirmity, and disavowed by themselves; But how can they do it while they defend their Practices, and pretend Divine Authority for it? Yea, and pretend to Authority and Offices unaccountable to them; which must justifie a whole course of different Practices.’
P. 84. ‘If their Authority be immediately received from God, and the Rule of their Practices be taken from the Scriptures, as understood by themselves what reason can there be of subjection to any humane Superiours. Is it no Obedience unless it be absolute? Is none due to God above Man? Must not his Law be undorstood?’
[Page 268]I Must intreat the Reader that he will not call any of these men Papists till they are willing to be so called: You are not their Godfathers: Do not then make Names for them. But I must confess that once I thought the stablished French Religion had been Popery, and I see no reason to recant it: But if Brierwood's Epistles mis-describe them not, Mr. Dodwell is not so much of their Mind, for the Supremacy of a General Council, as I thought he had been: Will you know my Evidence? It shall be only in his own words.
I. Separation of Churches, &c. Pag. 102. ‘[The Church with whom this Covenant is made, is a Body Politick as formerly, though not a Civil one] and God hath designed all Persons to enter into this Society.’
Pag. 98. ‘Faith and Repentance themselves, on which they so much insist, are not available to Salvation, at least not pleadable in a Legal way, without our being of the Church: And the Church of which we are obliged to be, is an external Body Politick: (So that it's clear it is the Universal Church, and a visible Humane Politie which he meaneth.)’
Pag. 107. ‘[The design of God in erecting the Church a Body Politick, thus to oblige men to enter into it, and to submit to its Rules of Discipline however the secular State should stand affected— It is more easie for the vulgar Capacity whatsoever, to prove their interest in a visible Church, than in [Page 269] in an invisible one, consisting only of elect Persons.’
In these, and many places of both his Books, he tells us, that the Catholick Church is One Body Politick, and hath on Earth a Supreme humane Government, which I have noted in his words in my Answer to him.
II. Pag. 488. ‘Only the Supreme Power is that which can never be presumed to have been confined.’ (Of which more in his words which I have confuted.)
III. That the Intention of the Ordainers is the true measure of the Power of the Ordained, he copiously urgeth (and proveth as much as the Ringing a Bell will prove it, by loudness and length) Pag. 542. ‘[Therefore the Power actually received by them, must not be measured by the true sence of the Scripture, but that wherein the Ordainers understood them.]’ Now the Ordainers of the first Protestants never intended them Power to abrogate the Mass, or Latin Service, or Image-worship, or to renounce the Pope, or gave them any Power but what was in Subordination to the Pope, but bound them to him and his Canons, and to the Mass, and the other parts of Popery. To prove this, he saith, [Pag. 489. ‘It is very notorious that at least a little before the Reformation, Aerius and the Waldenses and Marsilius of Padua and Wickliff were Condemned for Hereticks, for asserting the Parity of Bishops and Presbyters: And it is as notorious that every Bishop was then obliged to Condemn all Heresies, that is, all those Doctrines which were then censured for Heretical by that Church, by which they were Ordained to be Bishops—Our Protestants themselves do not pretend to any Succession [Page 270] in these Western Parts, where themselves received their Orders, but what was conveyed to them even by such Bishops as these were.’
And Pag. 484, 485, 486. he sheweth at large, ‘[ That All the Authority which can be pretended in any Communion at the present, must be derived from the Episcopal; especially of that Age wherein the several Parties began.—Within less than Two Hundred Years since, there was no Church in the World wherein a Visible Succession was maintained from the Apostles, which was not Episcopally Governed. And the first Inventers of the several Sects were at first Members of these Episcopal Churches Or Papal, say others., and received both their Baptism in them, and all the Orders they received.—There was then no other Communion that could give this Authority.— Our Adversaries will not deny,— but that their Orders were received by them, were actually received by their Forefathers in the Episcopal Communion And the Papal..—They have actually received no more Power from God, than they have received from their Ordainers;— For their Ordainers, are they, and they alone, who have represented Gods Person in dealing with them Representing his Person is a high word. But he never enabled them to change his Laws, or Church-Offices; but only as Servants, to deliver that same Power by way of Investiture, which he had instituted and described in his Law, and was in their Commission: As the Londoners may not change the Lord Mayor's Office, but put him in that which the Charter maketh..— 2. They have actually received from their Superiors nothing but what their Superiors did actually intend [Page 271] to give them. One would think this should be very clear Yes: If the Bishops had been Makers of the Office, and Donors with absolute Power, and not only Servants entrusted to deliver their Masters Gifts and Offices..’
To the Objection, that [ They ought to have given more Power,] he answers, ‘That only proveth that we have no more, if they wronged us.]’ Where now is all the Reformers Power? Did the Pope or his Bishops intend them any against himself?
IV. But yet he perceived that some might say, Particular Ordainers might have singular Intentions. (And I cannot tell him that as Richardus Armachanus, and abundance more thought Bishops and Presbyters to be ejusdem Ordinis, so did Jacobus Armachanus of late, and Bishop Downame and many other Bishops, and declared that Presbyters had Power of Ordination, but for Order sake it should not be without the Bishop, save in cases of necessity.) To this he saith, ‘[That the Ordainers must be presumed to do according to the common sense of the Church and Canons.]’ But what if they declare the contrary? As Bishop Edw. Reinolds openly declared that he Ordained Presbyters into the same Order with Bishops, who were but the prime Presbyters; and that he was of Dr. Stillingfleet's Judgment, that no Form of Government was Jure Divino necessario.
Saith he, [ Pag. 487. ‘The Law is alway charitable to presume that every Man intends as becomes him to intend: (Very good.) But it's prudent to presume his actual Intention not from what others do think will become him, no nor from what will really become him in the Judgment of God.— Therefore [Page 272] they must not judge of the Intention of the Bishop by the real Will of God I am wholly of your Mind, specially as to the Pope and his Bishops: But I'll judge of their Power by the Will of God..’
Supposing us to be [ Proud of the Suffrages of the Schoolmen, pag. 492.493. He suspecteth, ‘It was rather Picque than Conscience that brought them to it.’ (Alas! Were not the Schoolmen Prelatical enough? Many of them were Bishops, and one was a Pope at least.)
And the Council at Basil that allowed Presbyters deciding Votes, and St. Jerome, and the Reformers, all fall under his Censure for the like; viz. That Necessity put them on it as a Shift, or else the Pope by the Vote of Bishops would have carried it; and he justifieth not the Necessities choice, but concludeth, Pag. 496, 497. ‘If it be suspicious whether the Men who then followed these Principles did embrace them out of a sincere sense of their Truth, then they cannot be presumed to have been Principles of Conscience. Which if they were not, this is sufficient to shew that they are not fit Measures of the Power that was actually given by the Bishops of that Age.]’ I confess, I had thought that the Papist Bishops Intention had not been the Measure of the Power of Bishops or Presbyters: And that Mr. Dodwell had not been so much against the Council of Basil as unjust Conspirators by ill means to overtop the Pope.
He saith truly, Pag. 505. ‘[Most certainly they who were of this Opinion, (the Papists) could not intend to follow the Doctrine of the Wicklefists and Waldenses, who had been lately censured for maintaining the Equality of Bishops and Presbyters.]’ No [Page 273] nor the Doctrine of Luther, Cranmer, or such as the Church of England hath held.
V. Yet being forced to confute himself, he saith, p. 52. ‘[It is sufficient for my purpose that Ecclesiastical [...]ower be no otherwise from God, than that is of every Supreme Civil Mugistrate. It is not usual for Kings to be invested in their Offices by other Kings, but by their Subjects. Yet when they are invested, that doth not in the least prejudice the Absoluteness of their Monarchy, where the fundamental Constitutions of the respective places allow to them.]’ (And hath not God's fundamental Law as much Power?) much less doth it give any Power over them to the persons by whom they are invested.
‘If the Power of Episcopacy be Divine, and all that men can do in the case be only to determine the Person, not to confine his Power, &c.’ (what kept the man from seeing how great a part of his Book he here confuteth?) Doth he not confess now that God's Law may give the Power, which men may not alter, but only determine of the Person to receive it? In the case of the Presbyters Office he will have it otherwise, because the Bishops are, forsooth, not only the Investers, but the Donors, who give just what they please; and he proveth it fully, by saying it confidently and copiously: Because God giveth it not immediately: Yes, he immediately by his Spirit in the Apostles, instituted the species, though he do not immediately chuse the Receiver. But who giveth the Bishops their Power? The Council is above them: Do they give them their Power? Who giveth them theirs? And who giveth the Pope his Power? If his may be given by Divine Charter without a Humane Donor, but a meer Invester, why may not a Presbyters?
[Page 274]VI. But it is the Vicedeity that is his great foundation. Pag. 543. saith he, ‘[Nor is there any reason for them to oppose God and the Church as they do on this and other occasions The Church is the Bishops and Council, the Pope being President. If the Churches Authority be received from God, then what is done by Her, is to be presumed to come from him, the same way as what is done by any man's Proxy is presumed to be his own act: And as what is done by an Inferior Magistrate by virtue of his Office, is presumed to come from the Supreme.]’
This is in Answer to an Objection, That [ the Powers united by God are inseparable by any Humane Authority: But the Power of Ordination is by God united to the other Rights of Scripture Presbyters, &c.] He answers [ If our Adversaries mean, that those Presbyters who had both those Powers united in them by God, could not be deprived of the one without the other, nor of any by any Humane Authority; this, if it should prove true is a case wherein our present Ordinations are not concerned, which were not received in those times, wherein our Adversaries pretend to prove that these two Powers were inseparably united That is, in Scripture times. Dr. Hammond confesseth the same: And yet we are all no Ministers, and have no Sacraments, nor right to Salvation, if we have not uninterrupted successive Episcopal Ordination from those times.. They may be separated de facto, tho' they who separate them be to blame for so doing.—If they were then united by God, because they were united by the men who represented God, why are they not disunited by God now when men alike impowered by him have disunited them? Why should they not oblige God in one case as well as the other?
[Page 275]Readers, you see here the Core of the Churches disease, and chief of our differences: 1. By the Church they mean not the People, but the Prelates and Councils headed by their great President. 2. They suppose these to be God's Proxies, and that God doth what they do, and they so oblige God to stand to it, and men to take it as God's act. 3. They suppose these Prelates and their President alike impowered by God, as the Apostles were; and therefore God by his Proxies now may undo what he did by his Proxies then. Do you now wonder if Pope and Council by Canons have power from God to make new Canonical Scriptures, and new Universal Laws for the Church; yea and for the World? And if these may undo the Scripture Laws and Institutions, and make other Sacraments and Worship in their stead?
But Protestants have long ago proved, 1. That there is no Vice-God, and that God hath no Proxies or proper Representatives with whom he hath entrusted his Power so, as that their word must lead, and he will follow: But only Embassadors, whose Message is prescribed them by God, and they are to speak and do only what he bids them, and he will own it, and not that which they add of their own, or which they do against his Word.
2. That the present Pastors have not the same power as the Apostles had; who were commissioned to deliver Christ's Commands to the World, and enabled for it by the Spirit of Infallibility and Miracles: Even as the Jewish Priests had not the Power of Moses, nor could change a tittle of the Law, but only keep it, teach it, and apply it.
VII. That he and his followers are for a Supreme [Page 276] Governing Visible Humane Power over the Universal Church, is a thing that I need not cite their words further to prove. Mr. Thorndike, Bishop Bromhall, Bishop Gunning, Bishop Sparrow, Dr. Saywell, and the rest of that mind, are not ashamed of it. And it is a General Council that by some of them is supposed to be this Supreme Power: And when I have proved against Johnson that there never was a General Council of the Christian World, but of the Empire, I can get none of them to answer me (save that when the Empire was broken, some of the pieces came together for a Job at Florence, &c.) But it is the Pope's right, saith Bishop Bromhall, to be President and Patriarch of the West; (which Thorndike and others largelier insist on as the necessary Principium Vnitatis, which turned poor Grotius to them for Unity. But I confess I thought Mr. Dodwell had been more for a Councils Power than I find he is.
The Protestants believe no Supreme Governor of the whole Church but Christ. Dr. Iz. Barrow of the Unity of the Church, hath fully overthrown the fiction of a human Supreme Aristocracy as well as of a Monarchy: But an Union of all the parts in one Head Christ, we all believe, and consequently a Communion among themselves.
VIII. But what Mr. Dodwell's Judgment is of the Power of the Council, and whether the Supremacy be in it, or in the President, I will tell you only in his own words; supposing the Reader to know that the Papists so far differ among themselves, that 1. Some are for the Pope's Supremacy alone, the Council being but his Counsellors, as some are for the Kings, the Parliament being but [Page 277] his Counsellors. 2. Some are for the Councils Superiority over the Pope, as some say Parliaments are greater than the King, and urge his old Oath to pass such Laws quas Vulgus elegerit; so say they, the Pope must own those that the Council passeth; yea, that they may depose him if he deserve it. 3. Some say that Universal Legislation belongs only to the Pope and Council agreeing, the Pope being to Call and Approve them: And this is the prevailing Opinion among them; so that the Controversie is much like that which men have raised about Kings and Parliaments. Now, saith Mr. Dodwell,
[Ch. 24. Pag. 509, &c. Even by the Principles of Aristocratical Government, no Power can be given validly, but to persons who are are at least in conjunction with those from whom they receive their Power— Subordinate Authority must be derived from the Supreme. No act can be presumed to be the act of the whole Body, but what has passed them in their Publick Assemblies, (in which Body is the Right of Government) — so it have the prevailing Vote: Nay, though that prevailing Vote be not the greater part of the Society, so it be the greater part present at such Assemblies What an happy advantage hath the Pope, that can get forty Italians together at Trent, seven years before he can send to, and they come from Mexico, Abassia, Armenia, and all the World. There is an Art in all things, and men live by their wits., God himself cannot be supposed to have made a Government, even of his own Institution, practicable, till he have setled these Rules of Administring it Sir, God will not learn of you: But God hath made no such Government at all, Monarchy or Aristocracy.. As nothing but the Society it self can in justice make a valid Conveyance of its Right, so it is not conceivable how the Society it self can do it by any thing but its own act.
[Page 278]If this be so, 1. Mark that this man disclaimeth any other Divine Institution than by the Society. 2. The People that have no Power, being the greater part of the Society or Church, give the Bishop and Pope, and Council their Power. 3. If the Clergy were all the Church, the Presbyters give that Power to the Bishops and Pope, which they had not themselves. 4. All runs on the false Antimonarchical and Anarchical Principle, which I have confuted in Hooker, that the Body makes Power by giving up their own Right. 5. Then the General Councils and Pope have no Power: For the Body of the Universal Church never gave it them, but the Emperors, (save as to Teaching and Arbitrations.) 6. Then in those Countries where the Body of Clergy and People put down Bishops, there Bishops are put down by such as had Power to do it. For 1. If man may set up Diocesans, Popes and Councils, man may take them down.
Yet the Proteus changeth his face, and presently supposeth [that the whole Right of these Assemblies could not have proceeded from the bare consent of the Society, but from the actual Establishment of God.— No Assemblies can dispose of the Rights of such Societies, but such as are lawful ones according to the Constitutions of that Society.—As out of Assemblies they have no power to act who might act in them, how many soever of the Suffrages, and how freely soever they had been gotten; so all those Meetings, how numerous soever, for acts of Government, if they be not Legal, they add nothing of advantage to the power of particulars singly considered. They are not in the Eye of the Law, Assemblies, but Routs, and their concurrence, not Consent, but Confederacy: And as it [Page 279] were Rebellion in particular persons to attempt any thing of that nature concerning the Government without the consent of their present Established Governours;—so is there nothing in such a Meeting that can give them any Power as united more than they had as singly considered, that may excuse them from Rebellion A General Council meeting without the Call of the Pope their Established Governour, are Rebels.. Nay rather, by the Principles of all Societies, that which had not been Rebellion, if done singly, is counted so, if it be done in unlawful Assemblies. And sure none can think it reasonable to ratifie the acts of Rebells. — And if the Society be not represented by unlawful Assemblies, how can it in justice be obliged by them? How can any of its Rights be disposed of by them who are not its Legal Representatives 1. Hath the King no power but as a Representative? If yea, why not others? 2. Who made Pope or Prelates the Representatives of those that never consented to them?. —P. 513. The most natural way is by abrogating the acts of such Assemblies. Therefore the Jurisdiction of the Assembly by the President, is a right consequent of the Office of a President, as a President, and a circumstance requisite to make the Assembly it self lawful—specially where no certain places or periods of times are agreed on for the keeping of any Now we know what Councils have Authority: Only those appointed by the President.. There must be some who have the power of Assembling them, when they judge it convenient for the publick, and who may be allowed for competent Judges of that convenience.— Every one is not permitted to judge of the occasion.— But there is none concerning whom this Power can so probably be presumed—None to whom all undisposed [Page 280] Power, does by the common Rules of all Societies, so naturally Escheat, as the President of the Assemblies. Even in the Assemblies a Veneration is due to him, for his Office above all other Members, but much more so out of the Assemblies, where none is in a likely way to be able to oppose him. He who calls an Assembly must have some advantage over all the Members called by him, that he may oblige them to convene, and it is necessary to the Publick that they be obliged to meet when they are so called, that is, when the IVDGE of Circumstances thinks it necessary, &c. But there is none who can pretend to this advantage, I do not say, of Jurisdiction, but even of Authority and Reverence, above his fellow Members, besides the President.
Besides, the Power of such Assemblies expires with the Assemblies themselves: so that in the intervals of Assemblies there remains no more of that Power, &c. But the Convening of Assemblies is an act of Authority, in that very interval, and therefore cannot agree to any but the President, whose Authority alone can be antecedent to the meeting of the Assemblies; so that if it be the right of any it must be his, because none besides him is capable of it.
Answ. 1. Did Hosius of Corduba, or Eustathius Antiochenus, or Cyril Alexandr. Anatolius Const. &c. call the Councils of Nice, Ephesus, &c. or had an Antecedent right to it? 2. Hath no King or Parliament a right to call a Convocation in England? 3. Have not K. James, Jewel, Crakenthorpe, Buckeridge, Bilson, Carlton, Abbot, Field, Andrews, and other English Bishops and Divines, and Chamier, Sadeel, Chemnisius, and the rest abroad, fully proved that the Emperors called the General Councils, as did the Spanish and French Kings, and the Emperor Provincial ones. 4. Doth not [Page 281] every Conformist Subscribe to the Articles of Religion, which say, that General Councils may not be called but by the Will of Princes? Though Mr. Dodwell have the plain Honesty not to be Ordained or Subscribe these English Articles, Mr. Thorndike, Bishop Bromhall, Bishop Guning, Dr. Saywell, Dr. Parker, &c. I suppose did; But let us hear him further.
‘And this is more certainly true of him who has a right to preside in Assemblies when they are convened by Virtue of his General Right to preside over the whole Society, as well when Assemblies are not Convened as when they are, than of him who is chosen by the particular Assemblies for their particular Occasions. And he who has his Precedency not by virtue of any particular Election, but for term of Life, must have such a Presidency as I am speaking of. Not only the Assemblies convened by him are in this regard lawful; but also no Assemblies are lawful but what are called by him, because there is no other way of making them lawful, but the lawfulness of their Call; nor any Power to Call them distinct from that of such a President.’
Do you wonder that this Man Conformeth not? Or do you not wonder that those Subscribe and are called Protestants that are of his Mind? If they can answer the Articles, the King and Parliament, that say the King hath Power to call Synods, what do they make of their Readers that obtrude such Baronian fictions on us, without once attempting to answer Protestants, who with all credible Historians, prove it past all modest Contradiction that Emperors were the ordinary Callers of the General Councils, and not the Presidents or Pope.
[Page 282] Pag. 516, 517. He goeth on asserting Assemblies called without the President to be unlawful, nullities, and by the highest common interest to be punished (so far must we think the Councils of Nice, Ephesus, &c. to be from binding us) and saith, ‘[Indeed the Bishops could not renounce this Power without dissolving the Society by making the Exercise of Government unpracticable, or without changing the whole frame of Government; For— who must have it? If none had had it, how could the Society be secured, that Assemblies should meet if none had Power to oblige particular Members to be present at them when called? If at any time no meeting were ascertained, the Government would be dissolved?’
Ans. 1. Did this reading Man never hear of the Claim of Princes to call Councils in their Dominions? Did he not know where he lived? Did he never read the late Act of Parliament in Scotland, that asserts all Church-Power in Exteriors to be in the King? Nor any of the Protestants Confessions or Divines? Should I think he had quite forgotten all this? or that he had the craft to take no notice of it, as that which was too hot to handle?
2. And was it not a piece of Wit to take it for granted that such Assemblies (as he calleth the Councils) are so Essential to the Church, that the Government and Society is dissolved without them, or without a Ruling Presidents Power to call them? And the Pope must have a Power to oblige all particulars to come when he calleth them? And no wonder when (unless Men be Cheaters) the whole Power Escheateth into the Presidents hands when the Council is dissolved; which is [Page 283] when ever his Holiness please: And long enough may you Petition him for these Church Parliaments, when to call them, is to surrender part of his Power.
Answ. 3. But what if all these Church Councils as such have no Governing Power at all over any of the particular Bishops, any more than a Synod of Schoolmasters have over each others Persons and Schools, but meet only by Christ's general Obligation to do all their work with greatest Prudence for Mutual Help and Concord? He hath been told on both Ears oft enough that this is not only his Adversaries Judgment, but such great Bishops as I have oft named: yea, and of Grotius his Friend, when he wrote de Imp. sum. Potest. And where do you find this Disputant once attempt in all this begging presuming Volume to prove any Regent Power in such Councils (but what the Magistrate giveth them.)
Monstra mihi, inquit Hieron. quisnam Imperatorum celebrari id Concilium jusserit? saith Grotius, (ib. P. 168.) Non ideo convocari Synodum quod in ea pars sit Imperii, satis jam demonstratum arbitror: Finis ergo, ut Episcopus Wintoniensis recte notat, hic est, ut ad veritatis & Pietatis amplificationem Consilium Principi praebeant; hoc est, Praeeant ipsi judicio directivo— & ut per Synodum stabili [...]i testata (que) fieri possit Consensio Ecclesiae.— Omnium autem horum finium nullus est necessarius simpliciter. Ne (que) Synodus simpliciter ad illos fines necessaria. This he goeth on to prove, and more than so, that Synods are oft hurtful (as well as unnecessary, Cum potius, saith August. rarissimae inveniantur haereses propter quas damnandas necessitas talis exstiterit.) I will not repeat, saith Grotius, the Complaint of almost all Ages, that the [Page 284] chief Diseases were brought into the Church à Sacerdotibus: citing Nazianzen, he addeth, Ne (que) agit de Arianis duntaxat Synodis, sed de omnibus suorum temporum, praecipue quibus ipse interfuit (Mr. Morrice might easily know this)— Nec pauca referri possunt si opus sit infoeliciorum conciliorum exempla, quale fuit sub Constantino Antiochenum, Caesariense & Tyrium, cujus conventus Episcopis scribens Constantinus, nihil ait ab illis fieri, nisi quod ad odia & dissensiones serendas, ad perniciem deni (que) humani generis faciat.—Zanchy's way cited by him, is oft better than Councils, that the Magistrate command Ministers in Controversies, 1. Vti non suis sed Scripturae vocibus, 2. Et à publicâ damnatione abstinere.
And Pag. 209. saith Grotius, The Church hath no Legislative Power by Divine Right—What was written in Synods before Christian Emperors for Order and Ornament, are not called Laws but Canons, and have either only the force of advice, as in things which rather belong to singular persons than to all; or they oblige by way of Agreement, &c. But some Legislative Power may be given by humane Laws.—
But perhaps some will say that Mr. Dodwell speaketh only of National, or Provincial, or Diocesane Councils, and not of General ones, and therefore by the fixed President, meaneth not the Pope.
Answ. 1. I would he were willing and able to tell what he meaneth. But he felt what a fine advantage he had under the Name of Bishops Presidency to please a Party, and say more than every one of them shall at first perceive. But he expresly maintaineth that the Universal Church is one Political Society, and hath a visible Supreme humane [Page 285] Government that is Absolute, and from which there is no appeal: And that this Society hath Legislative Power, and is bound but by the Laws made in its own Assemblies: And that these Assemblies are Rebels, and punishable if not called by the President: And though Mr. D. had the Prudence to use the word President rather than Pope, if ever he speak intelligibly it's here. And Mr. Thorndike (whom he valueth as a sound Protestant) Archbishop Bromhall, and the rest of the Tribe, do openly assert the due Presidence of the Pope, as Principium Vnitatis and first Patriarch.
Saith Mr. Dodwell further, Pag. 522, 523. [ Supposing those Presbyters that chose the President had invested him in his Office by Prayer and Imposition of hands, and no Bishops had any more to do in his Consecration, than Kings have in the Inauguration of our ordinary Kings—it will not follow that those Presbyters who chose and consecrated him, must have any more Power over him—Nor is it only true that this way may be so—but indeed it must be so; whenever the Person so invested is supposed to be invested in the Supreme Power, and whenever the Society over which he is placed is also Independent on other Societies [As the Universal Church is] Such a Person can never be placed in his Power, if not by them who must after be his Subjects, unless by his Predecessor, which no Society can safely depend on for a constant rule of Succession. (And doth any but the Pope pretend to this Soveraign place)? In his own Society he can have none of his own Order that can perform the Ceremony to him, because we suppose Him to be Supreme; and there cannot be two such in one Society. (True: And you make it your fundamental that the Catholick Church is one such Society; and so must have such a Supreme).
[Page 286]And it's worth the noting which he adds ‘[And therefore I, for my part, am so little solicitous for any consequence that may be hence inferred to the prejudice of my Cause, as that I am apt to think that this must have been the way at first in the making of Bishops, how Absolute soever I conceive them to have been when they were once made.—’
Ans. Are we not beholden to the Universal Presidentship for this concession? I forced Johnson, alias Terret to the same: And yet both these men cry down a Power resulting from God's Law or Charter to the person duly receptive, when yet the Instance of the Papacy constraineth them to make it their foundation. Why then must Presbyterian Ordination be Nullity, if Inferiors only chuse and Consecrate the Pope, and Presbyters only at first chose and Consecrated Bishops?
Obj. The difference is, that such Inferiors are but Electors and Investing Ministers, and not Donors of the Power, but Popes and Prelates are Donors.
Ans. 1. Then no Prelate could be such but by the Popes or Councils donation. 2. Doth not Mr. D. oft say, that the Body is the seat of Power, and so giveth it? 3. But why should he think that we must take his word for this difference and the Prelatical Donation instead of Ministry? Do not the Papists themselves more commonly hold that the Presbyters (or Priests) Office is of fixed Divine Institution, and more unalterable, than that the Bishops is? The latter is disputed; the former undisputable. (It may be Mr. D. will thus prove that he is no Papist: But I had rather he be one than worse.)
Nay, what will you say if after all he be half an Independent?
[Page 287]P. 523. saith he, ‘[This seems best to agree with the Absoluteness of Particular Churches, before they had by compact united themselves under Metropolitanes and Exarchs into Provincial and Diocesan Churches.—And this seems to have been fitted for the frequent Persecutions of those earlier Ages, when every Church was able to secure its own Suecession by its own power withoue depending on the certain opportunities of the meeting of the Bishops of the whole Province. And the alteration of this practice, the giving the Bishops of the Province an interest in the Choice of every particular Colleague, seems not to have been so much for want of power in the particular Churches to do it, as for the security of Compacts, that they might be certain of such a Colleague as would observe them. — And he thinks [it probable that it was in imitation of the Philosophers Successions, that these Ecclesiastical Successions were framed.— And when the Philosophers failed to nominate their own Successors, then the Election was in the Schools.]’
Ans. What could be said more gently by such a man? 1. Then the first Churches were like Philosophers Schools; very good; not many score or hundred Schools as the first and least Order. 2. The Government of Churches was much like that of Philosophers in their Schools. 3. Bishops (and much more Presbyters) might be made then without Bishops, by the Election and Consecration of Presbyters. 4. This was the old way in time of Persecution. 5. This alteration was not for want of Power in the Particular Churches, &c. 6. But it was made to secure Observance in the Colleagues. 7. And Church Successions framed in imitation of Philosophers.
[Page 288]We shall in due time enquire whether we are all bound to stand to these changes, on pain of all the scorn and sufferings that the followers of them will lay upon us.
Will you know more of this Self-confutation? In his Preface he saith, [P. 4. ‘I suppose all Churches Originally equal, and that they have since submitted to prudential Compacts.’
But are not all we (poor nothings then) obliged on pain of damnation to stand to all that our Fore-fathers did? And must we not take the Imperial Subjects of Asia, Africa and Europe, (we know not who) for our Fore-fathers in Brittain? and be of that Heathens mind that drew back from Baptism, when he heard his Fore-fathers were in Hell, and said, that he would be where they were? No, this moderate man tells you, ‘[Though they may oblige them as long as the reason of these Compacts lasts, and as far as the equity of those Compacts may hold, as to the true design of those that made them, and as far as those Compacts have meddled with the alienable Rights of Particular Churches; yet where any of these Conditions fail, there the Particular Churches are at liberty to resume their Antient Rights.’
Obj. Yea, but who shall judge when any of of these Conditions fail?
He answers next [ And I suppose the power of judging when these Conditions fail to be an unalienable Right of Particular Churches, and not only to judge with the Judgment of private discretion, but such a Judgment as may be an authentick measure of her own practice.
We thank you Sir, that you give us so fair quarter: But if you had not, had we known [Page 289] where, we should have commenced a Suit for our Native and Christian Birth-right, and put you to prove quo jure John, Thomas, Peter, &c. meeting a thousand years ago we know not why, nor when, nor by what Authority, did give away the Birth-right and the Souls of an hundred millions not then in being, that never consented or heard of their names, nor were bound to know that there was such a City as Rome, Nice, &c. or such men as Leo, Tharasius, &c. in the World. And if you had answered us according to the Roman genius with Gaols, or Fire and Faggot, we would have appealed to God whether you and all such will or not; and when God judgeth, do your wor [...]t.
But would you think what a stress this Humane Catholick layeth on innovating Prelates Compacts? He adds after all this,
P. 6. Whoever they were that nominated the persons, whether the People, the Clergy, or the Prince, or the Pope; yet still they were the Bishops that performed the Office of Consecration; which was that which was then thought immediately to confer the Power.
Ans. You were not then in being, and therefore did not then think it.—And you know mens thoughts so long before you were born no better than others; Oportet fuisse memorem. Had you not memory enough to make your Preface meet with your Book, where you say that Presbyters did Consecrate Bishops, and yet did not give them the Power? and say that as to the Supreme President, (we know his name) it must still be otherwise.
Yet this fundamental Humanist concludeth, p. 11. [ They must be guilty of disobedience to the Divine Government, — Guilty of giving or abetting a Divine Authority in Men to whom God has never given [Page 290] such Authority, nay in opposition to all the Authority, he has really established among men. They must be guilty of forging Covenants in Gods Name, and counterfeiting the great Seals of Heaven in ratification of them. And what can be more Treasonable by all the Principles of Government? What is more provoking and more difficultly pardonable — They must be guilty of sinning against the Holy Ghost, and unto Death, and of the sins described in the passages of the Epistle to the Hebrews, with which none do terrifie the Consciences of ignorant unskilful persons more than they do. They must be guilty of such sins which as they need pardon more than others; so do they in the nature of the things themselves more effectually cut off the offender from all hopes of pardon in an ordinary way. By being disunited from the Church, he loses his Union with Christ, and all the Mystical benefits consequent to that Vnion. He has therefore no Title to the Sufferings, or Merits, or Intercession of Christ, or any of those other blessings which were purchased by those Merits, or which may be expected from those Intercessions. He has no Title to pardon of sin, to the gifts and assistants of the blessed Spirit, or to any Promises of future Rewards, though he should perform ALL OTHER PARTS OF HIS DVTY, besides this of uniting himself again to Christ's Mystical Body in a VISIBLE COMMVNION: Till then, there are no promises of acceptance of any Prayers which either he may offer for himself, or others may offer for him. And how disconsolate must the condition of such a person be!
And pag. 20. Suppose I were mistaken—why should they take it ill to be warned of a danger?—
Ans. 10. What harm was it for those, Act. 15. to say, Except ye be circumcised and keep the Law of [Page 291] Moses, ye cannot be saved? And yet did Paul rail when he said, Beware of evil-workers, beware of Dogs, beware of the Concision? What Sect cannot easily without a Doctors degree thus dispute? You are all damned that be not of our mind or Sect. But the Devil hurts those most whom he least affrighteth.
Ans. 2. What if we put this to wise men to tell us, 1. How he can prove that all the Christian World agreed to the Compacts that bring us under these hellish consequences. I provoke him again to answer my proof against Terret, that they were the Compacts but of one Empire?
2. How proveth he that we Brittains are under such Compacts, when our Ancestors (and the Scots) renounced Communion with the Romanists?
3. If our Ancestors after turned to Popery or Church-Tyranny, how proveth he that we are any more bound to sin as they did, than if they had turned to Arianism or Turcism? when Ezek. 18. & 33. speak for the clean contrary.
4. What if we prove that Christ hath himself given the Church in the Scriptures, an account of his own Institution of Church-Form and Government, as much as is necessary to its Essence, Unity and Salvation, and that all altering Compacts contrary to this are diabolical: Will Christ damn us for not breaking his Laws, and serving the Devil? Is it the sin against the Holy Ghost, and unpardonable, not to despise Christ's Laws, and not to obey the Devil?
5. What if we prove to him that the very Species of his Prelacy, and specially of a Supreme Catholick Jurisdiction is condemned by Christ, and Treason against him? Are we Traytors for not being Traytors?
[Page 292]6. What if we prove to him, that according to his very Canons, the Pope and Bishops that he damns us for not owning, are no Bishops, having no true Call and Title to that which they pretend to?
Will you have yet another of his Self-contradictions? P. 7. [ I cannot but look on it as an Argument that God never intended to oblige Particular Churches to as great a dependence on other Churches as that is wherein he has obliged Subjects to depend on their own Churches, because by his contrivance of things it does not follow, that Separating Churches must be left as destitute of the ordinary means of Salvation on their separation from other Churches, as particular Subjects are on their separation from their own Churches— Abating what obligations they have brought on themselves by their own Compacts, God has made them equal.—There is no way of judging who is in the right, but by the intrinsick merit of the Cause. I really believe that the true original design of those Compacts whereby particular Churches have voluntarily submitted to restrictions of their original Power, was ONLY that every particular Church might have her Censures confirmed in all other Churches in reference to those who were originally her own Subjects; not to gain a Power over any other Subjects but her own; nor to submit to any other Power, &c. Alas! And have Compacts by we know not who brought us all into the snare of the unpardonable sin? Though Christ died for the World, he saveth none but Consenters: And can Men in Asia, in Towns whose Names we poor Countreymen never heard of, make Laws to Damn all to the Worlds end, that obey them not; and this without our own Consent?
[Page 293]To conclude, this Gentleman hath yet an easie remedy against all this: He doth indeed frequently prove (if you will believe him) that though you have Faith that works by Love, and do all other duty, (that is in Love to God and Man) you cannot be saved without external Communion, that is, subjection to this humanly compacted Catholick Church; so said Pope Nicholas long ago, yea and Aeneas Sylvius when Pius 2d, that all other Graces and Duties will not save a Man that is not subject to the Bishop of Rome: But saith this Man, p. 13. They may easily avoid the danger only by returning to the Catholick Vnity. Mark Catholick Vnity. National Unity will not serve: We grant it. But what Catholick Vnity is, and whether Catholick Councils with a Catholick President that hath an Antecedent Power to call and oblige them, without which they are null, rebellious and punishable, and to whom all Power escheateth in the Intervals of Councils, whether I say, this be necessary to Catholick Unity, or to Antichristian Church Tyranny is the doubt.
I will conclude this with Dr. Iz. Barrow's Theses, p. 255.
1. Patriarchs are an Humane Institution.
2. As they were erected by the Power and Prudence of Men▪ so they may be dissolved by the same.
3. They were erected by the leave and confirmation of Princes, and by the same they may be dejected, if great reason do appear.
4. The Patriarchate of the Pope beyond his own Province or Diocess doth not subsist upon any Canon of a general Synod.
5. He can therefore claim no such Power otherwise than upon his Invasion or Assumption.
[Page 294]6. The Primates and Metropolitans of the Western Church cannot be supposed otherwise than by force or one of fear to have submitted to such an Authority as he doth Vsurp.
7. It is not really a Patriarchal Power, (like that granted by the Canons and Princes) but another sort of Power which the Pope doth Exercise.
8. The most rightful Patriarch holding false Doctrine, or imposing unjust Laws, or Tyrannically abusing his Power may and ought to be rejected from Communion.
9. Such a Patriarch is to be judged by a free Synod if it may be had.
10. If such a Synod cannot be had by consent of Princes, each Church may free it self from the mischiefs induced by his perverse Doctrine and Practice.
11. No Ecclesiastical Power can interpose in the management of any Affairs within the Territory of any Prince without his Concession.
12. By the Laws of God, and according to ancient Practice, Princes may model the Bounds of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, erect Bishopricks, enlarge, diminish or transfer them as they please.
13. Wherefore each Prince having Supream Power in his own Dominion and equal to the Emperors in his, may exclude any Foreign Prelate from Jurisdiction in his Territories.
14. It is expedient for the publick peace and good that he should do thus.
15. Such Prelate according to the Rules of Christianity, ought to be content with his doing so.
16. Any Prelate Exercising Power in the Dominion of any Prince, is eatenus his Subject; as the Popes and all Bishops were to the Roman Emperor.
[Page 295]17. Those Joints of Ecclesiastical Discipline Established in the Roman Empire by the Confirmation of Emperors, were (as to necessary continuance) dissolved by the dissolution of the Roman Empire.
18. The Power of the Pope in the Territories of any Prince did subsist by his Authority and Favour.
19. By the same Power as Princes have curbed the Exorbitancy of Papal Power in some Cases, (of entertaining Legates, making Appeals, disposing of Benefices, &c.) by the same they might exclude it.
20. The practice of Christianity doth not depend on the subsistence of such a form instituted by man.
As to Mr. Dodwell's fundamental Opinion (that the Minister can have no Power which the Ordainer intended not to give him) He overthroweth by it all the Reformation and all the English reforming Ministry, as derived from the Roman Ordination: For it's certain that the Roman Bishops intended not to give them Power to reform, or to Worship God as they have done.
And the Protestants are against him: Saith Dr. Challoner (in his Credo Eccles. Cath. p. 95.) However the Priest at the Baptizing, or the Bishop at the Ordination, had another meaning, yet the words wherewith they Baptized and Ordained being the words of Christ, are to be taken in Christs meaning; in as much as he which receiveth from another, is to receive it according to the intention of the Principal Giver, and not the Instrumental Giver. He which confers Baptism and Orders as the Principal Donor is Christ; the Bishop or Pastor confers them only as his Instruments.] So others.
As all Power is of God and must be obeyed, so Usurpation is of Satan, and the higher the worse; and the word Antichrist is supposed by [Page 296] many to signifie one that is a Vsurping Christ, that is, a Usurper of Vniversal Soveraignty which none but Christ is capable of.
Mr. Jos. Glanviles Character of Devils or Evil Spirits in his Sadduc [...]ismus Triumphatus is considerable, p. 33. and 42. Edit. 2. ‘[The meanest and basest in the Kingdom of darkness — having none to Rule and Tyrannize over within the Circle of their own Nature and Government, they affect a proud Empire over us, the desire of Dominion and Authority being largely spread through the whole circumference of degenerated Nature, especially among those whose Pride was their Original Transgression: Every one of these desireth to get him Vassals to pay him Homage. —’
‘The good Angels have no such ends to prosecute, as the gaining any Vassals to serve them, they being Ministring Spirits for our good, and no self-designers for a proud and insolent Dominion over us.’
But I think no Devil but Beelzebub the Prince aspireth so high as to be Ruler of all the World or Church: And when Cardinal Bertrand told Philip King of France that God had not been Wise if he had not set up one as his Vicegerent visibly to Rule all the World, I do not find that he set up that Vice-god so far above God himself as to forbid obeying him before his Viceroy, or to deny Gods Universal Laws to be above Mans, and to deny all Appeals to God and his Word, or to say that the President of Counsels must be obeyed without excepting,
If Gods Laws and his be inconsistent.
Since the Writing of all foregoing, Mr. Dodwell hath Published the Second Part of his Leviathan, [Page 297] called, A Discourse of one Altar and one Priesthood, as against us whom he calleth Schismaticks, and me in particular. It is much of the Complexion of the First Part, (His Schismatical Book) being a Chain of many linked Propositions, of which many are false, and many falsly shaped and applied: But put off with a confident Affirmation that he hath proved them true; And his former Method is defended by as confident an Affirmation, that all that is said against them invalidates not his proof. The shortest way, I confess, of defending himself, and answering others, and saveth the labour of much Writing and Reading: And I think if the tedious Discourses of his two Volumes had been just so abbreviated, it had been a Kindness to his Readers.
§ 2. Whether he reserve his Answer to my last Book against him to another Treatise, or mean to overpass it by saying it is contemptible, I know not, nor much desire to know. I find him here in his Preface doing that which may serve his turn much better than an answer, viz. 1. Many angry Charges that I slander him; 2. An attempt to prove it agreeable to his Method. 3. Confident Affirmation that I write not accurately, nor answer his Proofs. And to those that read his Books and not mine, this is enough.
§ 3. His Proof of my Slander is mostly by way of question; Where did I say this or that? Where, 1. Those things that I spake of others, he feigneth me to say of him: Joyning divers late Writers together, I mention what is said among them, some one part, and some another, and he takes all to himself. 2. When I mention the clear Consequences of his Doctrine. 3. And when in my [Page 298] Letters I recite his Verbal Discourse with me, he asks, Where have I said it.
Did I not find him a designed Hider, I would not suspect designed Fraud, but should be very glad that he so much as intimateth in his Questions a denial of so many Errors; But who can choose but suspect his Sincerity in such seeming Denials, who findeth some of them unsincere. E. g. He asketh (Pref.) Where did I once call Thomas Aquinas a Saint? This startleth me: Many times have my Ears heard him call him [Saint Thomas] and never once heard him call him otherwise. And doth he now seem to deny it? I never said that he so wrote, but so called him. Had I not reason to believe that when he oft calls ( the Church of Christ in the singular Number; One Political Body under One humane Government which all must obey, and not question, whether it's Laws be agreeable to the Law of God] that he meant the Church Catholick, and not a Diocess? There are Thousands of Diocesses; but the Church that he spake of is but One. Had I any reason to believe that when he talkt of the sole right of the President to call Councils or Assemblies to make Church Canons, that he meant only Diocesans? When as a Diocesane hath no Bishops under him to Convocate? And whether it be not Convocate Bishops to whom he appropriateth this Legislation, let the Reader judge as he seeth cause.
§ 4. But I abhor making any Man thought to own what he disowneth. And I gladly receive his intimated Denyals in these Questions; and tender them to the Consideration of all that are for a foreign Jurisdiction.
[Page 299]1. Mr. Dodwell denieth (by intimation) all humane Vniversal Church Supremacy, and consequently all humane Power of Legislation or Judgment over the whole Church. He denieth the Government of the Catholick Church Collectively ought to be either Monarchical or Aristocratical, in Pope or Council.
2. He denieth the Pope to have any Primacy or Presidentship in General Councils, or that it belongs to him to call them. It was but a Diocesans Power to Convocate his Presbyters that he meant.
3. He taketh the French Church for Papists, while they own the Popish Communion (though many are not so in their Principles: But it is Mens Principles that I spake of, and not their Communion).
4. He denieth Communion with any part of the Roman Church (Doth Dr. Saywell do so?)
5. He taketh the Councils of Constance and Basil for Papists, (and hath no Communion with those that own them as being Papists.)
6. He proveth the French Church guilty of the Hildebrandine Doctrine of deposing Princes (and Aquinas too.)
7. He disowneth the terms of Cassander and Grotius as not sufficient to a lasting Peace.
8. He (odly) dreamed that when I deny a Governing College of Bishops, I thought the Lord Bishop of Ely had meant such as our University Colleges, cohabiting, (this is no Slander in him) yet he declareth that by such a College, he means but Bishops ejusdem Speciei, governing the Church by parts, and not any One Numerical Soveraign Company: But that they should hold all due Communion [Page 296] [...] [Page 297] [...] [Page 298] [...] [Page 299] [...] [Page 300] (which he may see I still grant.) And he falsly fancies that I am against Cyprian's naming of Colleagues or his sence.
§ 5. But if Mr. Dodwell be sincere, he makes himself one of the greatest Separatists in the World: Consider how narrow his Communion is, and the Church which he owneth:
1. He hath no Communion with the rigid Italian Papists.
2. Nor with the moderate Papists that are for the Councils of Constance and Basil For he takes them for Papists with whom he hath no Communion.
3. Nor with the Church of France, because they have Communion with Papists: Though many of them are no Papists in their Principles.
4. He hath no Communion with any Protestant Churches that have not Bishops.
5. Nor with any Protestants that have Bishops not Ordained by Canonical uninterrupted Succession from the Apostles (at lest presumptively).
6. With none of the Greek Church that have Communion with the Church of Rome, or with any Schismaticks, or that want such Succession, or refuse the Laws of the Church (which is all.)
7. With none of the remote Nations, called Jacobites, Nestorians, &c. Because they are judged Hereticks or Schismaticks, or Communicate with such, or have a notorious interruption of Succession.
8. Not with the Maronites, or any Sect that Communicate with Papists.
9. Not with the Nonconformists of the Church of England, whom he endeavoureth to prove Damnable Schismaticks.
[Page 301]10. Not with the true and old Church of England, who professed to hold Communion with those Foreign Protestants whom he calleth Schismaticks: Nor with any of the present Bishops and Conformists, who profess the same Communion: For his Rule is, that they are Schismaticks who Communicate with Schismaticks.
Who then hath he Communion with? It seems none but those few new Men in England of his own Mind, who perhaps may call themselves the Church of England.
11. Nay, not with those among them who profess Communion with the Church of Rome, except with the Jesuited part.
12. And with those of them who are for one Supreme Universal Aristocracy, or Legislative College, Council and Judicature over the Universal Church.
And now can you tell which is the Church that he is of: Or is there a more notorious Separatist or Schismatick than he?
§ 6. And now can any Man tell which is that Church which he speaketh such wonderful things of? as the One Body Politick of Christ) with one visible human Government? Which be the Bishops and Church that have all that Leviathan-like Power of Heaven and Hell, which he describeth and asserteth? Is it only the uncertain relicts of all these?
§ 7. Mr. D. hopeth (justly) that none, or few of his friendly Readers will read what I write against him; and therefore when I detect his Fraud and putid Errors, he puts it off with saying, [I do but put many new Questions, and answer nothing accurately.] But, for the sake of them [Page 232] that will read, I will ask him, 1. Whether his little invisible Church be a Body meet for the Glorious Elogies which he giveth the Church of Christ; I profess I know not one Bishop that is of his professed Principles. Archbishop Laud was not, that took a General Council to be a Court of Pretorian Power to be externally obeyed by all the Church. Bishop Guning is not, as the foresaid Evidence sheweth.
2. And I would ask him whether his Church have all the Power of Heaven and Hell which he describeth, over those that are without the Church, or only over those within? Paul saith, What have we to do to judge them that are without? And if so, how narrow is the Power of his magnified little Church? Let their own Subjects escape their Damning Power how they can; it seems none of all the people on Earth whom he counteth Schismaticks or Hereticks are within their reach: For these with him are all without. If it be said, They were within when they were Baptized, I answer, 1. What they were, and what they are, is not all one. 2. But he saith that the Sacraments are but Sacrilegious Acts and Nullities that are done by such. And if so, they were never Baptized, and so never in the Church.
§ 8. But let us come to his new Book and Method. And first I will tell him once more what our different Church Principles are, that he may not accuse he knows not what.
1. Christ is the only Head, Prophet, Priest and King to the whole Church on Earth; both of Influence and Government, Constitutive, Specifying [Page 233] and Unifying; and hath no Deputy or Vicar under him, Aristocratical or Monarchical that hath any such Capacity, Power or Obligation.
2. Therefore the Church though Compaginated in all its parts, is only one Politick Body of Christ, and not of Man, and hath no other Soveraign.
3. Therefore neither Pope, Council or College of Bishops have any Legislative or Judicial Power over the whole Church Collective; but only the several Pastors are such to their several Churches.
4. Yet are they obliged to keep the Unity of the Spirit in the Bond of Peace and Love, and to do all in Concordant Observation of Christs Laws. And all Churches and Christians to help others to their Power.
5. And when they afford such Counsel, or help for Concord to other Churches, they do it not as Lay-men, but as Pastors, in the Universal Church, though not as Pastors to other Mens Flocks. As Physicians of several Hospitals, and Judges of several Courts, or Mayors of several Corporations, or Kings of several Kingdoms may advise for Concord, without Usurping each others Government.
6. As God only by Moses made the Jewish Law, and the Priests were not to make more, but only to Rule by it, it being a Prophetical and Mediatorial Work: So Christ only by himself and his Spirit (of Infallibility and Miracles) in the Apostles, made the Christian Universal Law, and no Men are to make more such, but to Rule by that so made.
7. As Gerson truely told the Pope, Christs own [Page 304] Law is sufficient for the Government of the Church (Universal) else Christ had not been a perfect Law-giver: And they that pretend by Supplements or Emendations to add or do better, are not his Ministers but Accusers.
8. Therefore those Popes and Councils that have presumed to make Laws for the whole Church have Usurped Christs Prerogative, and are false Prophets or Traytors against Christ.
9. Therefore none should own them as such, nor is it Schism, but Duty so far to disown them.
10. Nor should any own these Bishops as such, who own this their Usurpation. As no Soldiers of the Kings Army should follow those Captains who subject themselves to and take Commissions from an Enemy, Usurper or Foreign Princes.
11. The Power of Bishops under Christ as to Laws is only to keep and teach Christs Laws, and Rule by them, and determine themselves of undetermined circumstances or accidents, which vary as time and emergent occasions vary, and are unfit for Universal Obligation; and this Power they have only over their single Flocks, though by contract they may join in such things with others for Concords sake.
12. When the case of many Churches is alike, and their common good requireth Concord in any such accidents, all are bound to observe such Concordant Agreements, by virtue of Christs command for Concord.
13. But if on this pretence Pastors will turn Agreements for Concord into Laws, and make that seem needful to Unity which is against it, and hurtful to the Churches, no Christians should encourage their Usurpation by Obedience, it [Page 305] being contrary to Christs general Laws.
14. Whatever maketh true Christians maketh Men Members of Christ and his Church? And only the Essentials of Christians go to make true Christians, and the Integrals to make compleat Christians.
15. The Canons of Bishops are not Essential to Christianity, nor the understanding the many Controversies about Diocesans, Patriarchs, Councils, Ordinations, Successions, nor to know which is the true Bishop.
16. Baptism is our Christening, and he that is truely Baptized is a Christian, and a Member of Christ, and hath the pardon of Sin and right to Heaven before he be a Member of a particular Church, or Pastor; as the Eunuch Acts 8. and many converted without Bishops: As the Indians by Edesius and Frumentius, and the Iberians by a Maid, &c.
17. Whosoever truely repenteth and believeth and loveth God as God, and is of a Heavenly Mind and Life, is pardoned before God, before Baptism, and Baptism doth but Invest him in it, and make him a Christian more fully by Covenant and before the Church, and the want of it without contempt will not keep him from Salvation.
18. No one shall be saved by being joyned to a right Bishop, or receiving the Eucharist, who hath not true Repentance, Faith, Love, and the Spirit of Holiness: No Sacrament saveth the unqualified.
19. Thousands live in ignorance and wickedness, in Atheism, Sadduceism, Carnality, Adultery, Drunkenness, &c. that conform to Bishops [Page 306] and receive the Eucharist. And to tell such they are in a state of Salvation is opposition to Christ, and Damnable deceit of Souls.
20. The Levites and Inferior Priests received not their Office from the High-priest, but by Gods Law had it by Inheritance to which God chose the Tribe of Levi: Nor had the High Priests power to add to, or alter the Laws and Office of the Inferior Priests or their own.
21. Nor was there a necessity of an uninterrupted regular Succession; much was of man's making: Christ owned them that were in possession, though Usurpers, not of Aarons Line, but such as bought the place of the Romans.
22. Seeing the High Priest was a Type of Christ, and the Scripture saith so much of the change of the Law and Priesthood, and Christ hath made sufficient Laws for Church Offices, it is presumption to Judaize, and pretend to any other imitation of the High Priests than Christ hath ordained.
23. No one of the Apostles was an High Priest over the rest, but had equal Apostolical Power.
24. Christ rebuked them for seeking who should be greatest, and expresly forbad that which they sought.
25. Every Pastor or Church-Presbyter hath an Office subordinate to the Teaching, Priestly and Ruling Office of Christ.
26. Every ones Pastoral Office is instituted and described by Christ (by his Spirit in the Apostles) and this specification is Divine, which none may alter, nor make any other such.
27. Therefore (as Papists confess of the Pope) all that men have to do is (not to be makers or [Page 307] donors of the Office, but) to determine of the persons that shall receive it from Christ's donative Instrument, his Law, and ministerially to invest them (as men Christen, Marry, Crown Kings, &c.)
28. No Minister or Priest representeth Christ simpliciter, but secundum quid, as Embassadors or Justices do the King.
29. Christ's Laws are above mans, and no man's to be obeyed against them. To obey man against God is Idolatry.
30. The Priests or Bishops are under Christ's Laws as well as others, and by them all their true Power is given and limited: And therefore if they go against Christ's Laws, they represent him not therein, nor are to be obeyed, as usurping an unjust Power.
31. Therefore every Christian hath a Judgment of discerning whether Bishops Laws agree with Christ's, and must be governed as reasonable creatures, and not as Infants, Idiots or Brutes.
32. They that deny this, and require absolute obedience in all things, set man above God, and make it the duty of Subjects to be Atheists, Infidels, Idolaters, Mahometans, Murderers, Adulterers, Hereticks, where Kings, or Popes, or Prelates will command it.
33. Multitudes of Church-Canons have been contrary to Christ's Laws, as I have (with grief) proved in my History of Councils.
34. Bishops that deposed Emperors and Kings were not to be obeyed therein.
35. Almost all the Christian World since the use of General Councils are disagreed who are the true Bishops, one Party setting up one, whom [Page 308] others reject and condemn; so that if it were necessary to Salvation to know who is the true Bishop of the several Churches, few Christians could be saved.
36. Many Canons nullifie the Office and Power of these Bishops who come in by the Magistrate, without the choice or consent of the Clergy and People: And I think Mr. Dodwell professeth Communion with few but such, and so is by Canons condemned.
37. There is no Law of Christ, or unchangeable Law of man for appropriating a certain space of ground to one Bishops Jurisdiction. Grotius and Dr. Hammond thought that at first most great Cities had two Bishops and Churches, one of Jews, and one of Gentiles. And the Apostles never so appropriated any places to themselves, but oft divers in one City were their Teachers.
38. Occupation of a space of ground for Priestly Power is no just Title, and may be altered: And if it were, the Primitive Occupation was contrary to Mr. Dodwells Model.
39. If each City was to have a Bishop, each of our Corporations should have one, being all Cities in that antient sense.
40. It is not necessary to all to be of any fixed particular Church, as I have proved elsewhere (of Travellers, some Embassadors, Merchants, Vagrants, &c.) while they are of the Universal Church, and own Christ, and obey his Law.
41. The Electors do more to the making of Bishops than the Ordainers: Oft-times Bishops have ordained contrary Competitors, some one, and some another; and are oft forc't to ordain whom Princes and Patrons chuse.
[Page 309]42. Cyprian and his Carthage Council, prove in the Case of Martial and Basilides, that it is the Peoples Duty to forsake those Bishops who are not qualified according to Christ's Law, though Canonically ordained and approved. And Martin separated from such; and Gildas saith he is not eximius Christianus, that owned the Brittish Bishops.
43. Christ hath left sufficient Directions, for the continuation or restoration of the Priestly Office, without Canonical successive Ordination uninterrupted; As well as God hath done for Kings.
44. Seeing Mr. D. saith, A Presumptive title may serve, he thereby confesseth that it is not real Canonical Succession, but the Opinion of it that he makes necessary.
45. The Question is, Who must be the Presenters? When they so greatly differ? Grotius presumed that the Chief Minister of a City or a Church was really a Bishop, though not so called.
46. The Reformed can prove a more probable Succession than the Roman, whose frequent interruptions hath been oft proved.
47. If we must imitate the Jewish High Priesthood, not every City must have one, but every Nation (and so England hath none) or else all the World.
48. Judea being a small Country, all the People at their great Anniversaries might go up to Jerusalem; which in great Kingdoms and Empires is impossible.
49. It is false that we are united to Christ only by the Sacrifice of the Eucharist. Baptism which is no Sacrifice, first uniteth us to him publickly, as Faith and the Spirit do before secretly.
[Page 310]50. It is a frivolous thing of Mr. D. to write a Book for one chief Altar and Bishop, when the Question is of what Church that one must be: I have proved that Ignatius appropriated them to Churches no bigger than our Parishes, and Mr. Clerkson hath proved more; and the Man confuteth none of this proof.
51. Seeing he disowneth one Universal High Priest, and would have one in every City, or Nation at most, who knoweth not that the City Bishops of the World are now (and have been 1200 Years) in so great dissention disowning each others Communion, that it's hard to know Catholicism by his way of Communion.
52. And who shall Govern these several Bishops, if each one be a Supreme? Have they not as much need of Government as Presbyters?
53. The Eucharist is no otherwise a Sacrifice, than as it is an instituted Symbolical Commemoration of Christ's Sacrifice.
54. The validity of the Sacrament depends not on the uninterrupted Succession of the Priest, nor his Subjection to the Bishop.
55. There are many Cases in which it is a Duty to be ordained, and officiate without the Bishops consent: As in all the Popish Countries where they will admit none without consent to Sin.
56. To make Bishops and all their Curates the absolute disposers of Heaven and Hell, is to set up the highest Papal Tyranny over Kings and Kingdoms, by vile Presumption.
57. His words that the People can better judge of their visible Union with the High Priest and Christ, than of any invisible one, is a pernicious intimation, that this visible Church Union will [Page 311] save them that have not the invisible Grace of sound Faith, Repentance, and the Spirit of Love and Holiness.
I intended to have proceeded to a distinct Answer to Mr. Dodwell's whole Book, because I take him to be the most injurious and gross Adversary to the true Unity of the Church, on pretence of Pleading for Unity, of any that calls himself a Protestant; and find him not only extreamly self-conceited, loquacious and magisterial (in a lowly Garb) but grosly unsincere, intimating his denial of that in Print, which he often owned to me in Private Conference, viz. for the Nullity of the Protestant Churches, that have not his false Character, for the verity of the French Church, and for the uninterrupted Succession of the Papal Seat; when I undertook to prove it, he told me, It was not for the interest of Christianity to say so; And yet it is for the interest of Christianity for him to Unchurch more Churches, I think than the Papists ordinarily do.
But when I had gone thus far, I was stopt by the Persecutions of his Church-Rulers, and then by Sickness, and after by near two Years Imprisonment for my Paraphrase on the New Testament by a Judicature, as admirably agreeing to his Principles, as if he had been his Disciple (Chancellor Jeffreys lately Dead.) and such others.
Therefore not to tire the Reader with more words to so wordy a Man, I again and again (though I suppose in vain) provoke him and his dividing Brethren, to answer my Treatise of Episcopacy, my first Plea for Peace, my Sacrilegious desertion of the Ministry rebuked, my Apology [Page 312] for the Nonconformists Preaching, my English Nonconformity, and Mr. David Clerkson's Posthumous Book for the Primitive Episcopacy, against his Fiction of the present Diocesane Episcopacy, as having no Bishops under them. But fraudulent Disputers will dissemble, and silently pass by that which they cannot answer: But will that be Peace to Conscience in the End?
Having said as much as I think needful to satisfie intelligent impartial Readers, against his Schismatical Writings, in my Book of Church-Concord; and here before, I take my self discharged from any Obligation, further to detect or confute his Fallacies. The rather because he can say and unsay, as he finds his Interest lead him: And his Leviathan Church- Vicegod, which he feigns to be God's Proxy to us, from whom there is no appeal to Scripture or to God, will to Men that believe in Christ, I think by his own Description, appear as frightful as Hob's his Leviathan.
(Some of this I wrote long after the most of the Book.)
Chap. XX. Dr. Thomas Pierce now Dean of Salisbury's Judgment (and Dr. Hamonds.)
§. 1. I Think Dean Pierce is the only Man surviving, who was Commissioned by King Ch. 2. to Treat with us for Concord, as being of the Bishops part, in 1661: And who hath lived to see by near 30 years Experience whether his Zeal against the terms of Concord which we as humble Supplicants offered, hath done more Good, [Page 313] and prevented more Evil, than a Concord on those offered terms would have done. What it hath done on him I know not, but with others Experience hath had as little Success as Reason and Petitioning had.
§. 2. He hath written against me more Book's than one, which no Man hath excelled in insulting and in command of words: His work is to prove Grotius to have been no Papist. Few Men living think highlier of Grotius than I as to what he wrote before his change: Especially his Book De Satisfactione Christi, and that De Imperio Sum. Pot. & de Jure Belli, and his Annot. on the Evangelists. Valesius and Petavius took him to be of their Religion and Church, as did Vincentius, and Saravius. But 1. It is not the Name [Papist] that I regard, but the Thing. 2. Therefore the doubt between Dr. Pierce and me is, What is Popery? He thinks that it is not a proof that he is a Papist to be for an Universal Church Jurisdiction, the Church of Rome being taken for the Mistris of all Churches, and the Pope as Primate, and Patriarch of the West, governing according to the Canons of Councils, and not Arbitrarily; And taking the Articles of Pope Pius, his Creed and Oath added at Trent, which contain the Body of that which Protestants call Popery, to be such as may be Sworn and bear a fair sense. (Though Dr. P. himself cannot subscribe them.) This with all the rest cited by me out of Grotius he taketh to be no proof of a Papist. Let him call it how he please, The French Church Government, or the Protestant or the Catholick, it is the Thing (a Foreign Jurisdiction, and specially an Universal that I deny.)
[Page 314]§. 3. And this he himself owneth, for the proof of which I refer the Reader to his Books; particularly his New Discoverer, Append. P. 206, 207, 208: where he is for one Government of the whole Church: Not in specie only, (for so we are as well as he, each Governing per partes in his own Province, as Kings in their several Kingdoms) but numerically, by one Aristocracy, the Pope being Principium Vnitatis; And Aristocracy is a Government formed and unified in unâ Personâ Politicâ consisting ex pluribus Personis naturalibus; Else it would not make one Soveraignty, nor one Political Church or Society. Therefore his saying P. 206. that the Pope's Primacy as (Universal) and his Western Patriarchate, is no Monarchy, but exactly reconcileable with an Aristocratick Government of the Church] reconcileth not me at all to his Model, who am past doubt that, 1. One Aristocratical College is far more uncapable of Universal Government of the Christian World, than a Pope. [If inter impossibilia daretur Magis & Minus] 2. And that a College of the Subjects of Foreign Kings (e. g. France, Spain, Portugal, Armenians, Abassines, Turks, Moscovites, &c.) are unfitter for Foreign Jurisdiction, and particularly to Govern Britain than a Pope is.
The Confutation of Dr. Pierce is sufficiently done before and after: I now only recite his Opinion: And am sorry that ( he is sure that Dr. Hammond was of the same Religion with Grotius, and for such a Jurisdiction. But if any be for the French Church form of Government, call them Papists or Protestants, as they shall themselves desire; It is the Thing, and not the Name that I oppose. The French know by feeling what that is; God grant we feel it not.
Chap. XXI. That this New sort of Prelatists who were for a Coalition with the French or Roman Church, have been the great Agents of all the Dividing, Silencing, Persecuting Laws, which have brought and kept us these Twenty seven Years in our dangerous lacerated State.
§ 1. THat the Church of England before the days of Buckingham and Laud were quite of another Mind, I have before fully proved: And no reasonable Man can doubt of it, who hath read the Apology of the Church of England, and Jewel's Defence of it, and the Writings of Whitaker, Fulk, Humphrey, Field, Willet, Airy, Bernard, Crakenthorpe, Sutliffe, G. Abbot, Rob. Abbot, I. Reignolds, Morton, Vsher, Downame, John White, Birkbeck, Cook, Perkins, Bilson, Andrews, Hall, Davenant, and many such Bishops, Dignitaries, and other Conformists; besides, Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Hooker, Farrar, Bradford, Philpot, and the rest of the Martyrs. Besides the Nonconformists.
§ 2. And that the true Church of England even in Laud's time and since, have never consented to this Coalition, is evident. 1. In that Heylin confesseth that Laud prevailed but with four or five more Bishops to be so much as Arminians, viz. Neale, Howson, Corbet, Buckeridge, and Mountague: And he that readeth Buckeridge his Book for Kings, and Mountague's Works, will think that even they were against this Coalition.
[Page 316]2. And he confesseth that Laud durst not put his Cause to a Convocation, because so small a Number there were for him.
3. And to this day the Church or Parliament have not revoked the Homilies, Articles, Liturgy, Apology, or any of the Writings of the Bishops and Doctors aforesaid, who have written against Popery.
4. And excellent Writings have all along to this day been Published by the Church Doctors against all such Confederacies with Papists; such as Dr. Stillingfleet, (who though to please his Superiors he defended Laud, yet defended not all that he said or did) Dr. More, Dr. Tillotson, Dr. Tennison, Bishop Th. Barlow, Mr. Wake, yea, even Henry Fowlis, and many more; But above all, Dr. Isaac Barrow of the Supremacy, unanswerably, though S. Parker had Confidence enough to pretend a Confutation.
§ 3. The Endeavours for a Coalition that were publickly attempted in Scotland, Ireland and England, by Laud and his Agents, have been so voluminously written of, Accused and Condemned in Parliaments, and his own Death, and the long Wars and all the Fractures that have followed, were so much of the Consequents, that to say more of this is Vain. Dr. Pet. Heylin's Life of Laud doth acknowledge and justifie all. And Prin's History of Laud's Tryal largely openeth it.
§ 4. When the Parliaments and Scots Opposition, and the ensuing Civil War had broken this Design, and the Bloody Massacre in Ireland had rendred Popery more odious and dreadful than all Arguments could do (before our War here) the Parliament that had before the War, begun to [Page 317] Purge the Church Ministry, of Drunkards, Scandalous, and ignorant incompetent Men, proceeded too far on Civil Accounts, and ejected some for adhering to the King, and being against them in the War (though some of us disswaded them from all such severity.) Cromwell first rebelled against the Parliament, and usurped the Government, and shortly died, and his distracted incoherent Army striving against the Democratical Relicts of the Parliament, dissolved their usurped Government, which Dissolution brought in King Charles II. (by Monk and the Presbyterians, as the Dissolution of the Parliament had brought in Cromwell. And with the King return many of the ejected exasperated Clergy, full of the Desires of Revenge, and of preventing all Danger to their Dignities and Promotions for the time to come; But at first they were diffident of their present Strength, and thought they must execute their Revenge and Mutation by degrees: The Lords, Knights and Gentlemen that had suffered for Fighting against the Parliament for the King, Published many Protestations to draw in the Presbyterians to restore the King, that they would be for Love and Concord, and seek no revenge: Dr. Morley was sent before the King to Cajole the Ministers to believe that the King was a Protestant, and inclined to Moderation; And thereupon a moderate Party of Episcopal Men, met with some called Presbyterians, and declared their desires of Concord on sober terms, ( viz. Dr. Bernard, Dr. Gulston, Dr. Allen, and others such). But Dr. Morley used them to his Ends, and shifted off all discovery of his Designs, still quieting them by general pretences of Moderation, and Treaties. [Page 318] He had the Chief Power over Chancellor Hyde, who ruled the Land; And Sheldon was next him, and Hinchman the third: But under them truckled many of the same Mind.
The King published a Declaration of Liberty for tender Consciences (at Breda), (expounded since by 27 Years barbarous Persecution, laying all on the Protestant Prelatists that would not make a Law for it.)
I was past doubt in 1660. that the King was as he Died, or had engaged himself to promote it here, first by giving them Liberty of their Religion, and afterwards the Power of the Land, in Magistracy, Militia, and the Church. Knowing Men said that Morley, Sheldon, Guning, and the other Chief Agitators, knew this, and thought they had no other way to oblige him to keep up the English Prelacy, but to engage, that they would be firmer to his Absolute Power, and sole Legislation, and for Passive Obedience, and for the Extirpation of Puritans and Parliament Power, than the Jesuites were; and therefore that he should be more for them than for the Jesuites. And withal that they would begin where Laud was interrupted, and would attempt a Coalition; or if that failed, would yield to Liberty for the Popish Religion, (which joined with their power would soon prevail.)
§ 5. At that time Mr. Calamy and I motioned a Treaty with the Prelatists for Union and Concord, with which the Earl of Manchester and the Lord Orery acquainted the King: which he presently accepted as an Opportunity to quiet Men till his Absoluteness was settled. He promised us that the Church Bishops should meet us in the [Page 319] mid-way, if we would come as far as we could without Sin.
The Drs. that were for the nearer approach to Rome, and the defenders of Grotius his design, were the chief Agents Commissioned by the King to Treat with us, viz. Dr. Sheldon, Dr. Guning, Dr. Peter Cousins, Dr. Sparrow, Dr. Heylin, Mr. Thorndike, Dr. Tho. Pierce, Dr. Hinchman, Dr. Lany, Dr. Stern, and such other; but by their Power with the Lord Chancellor Hyde, Dr. Morley, Dr. Sheldon, and Dr. Guning over-ruled all the Work. When we told them how great a number of the most Godly and Loyal people of the Land would be undone for nothing by the Impositions which they seemed to resolve for, and how unavoidable a Division it would cause throughout the Nation, and what Encouragement Prophaneness and Popery would thence take, and what mischievous Effects among the Clergy and People would unavoidably follow, and how easily all this might be by them prevented, and the Love and Honour of their Persons and Order hereby won, Dr. Guning and others told us plainly that they had a greater party than we are to consider, that must not be alienated to please us: And when Dr. Bates said that abundance more of the Popish Ceremonies might be introduced by the same Reasons as were pleaded for those imposed, Dr. Guning answered, They must have more and not fewer. And Dr. Morley told me, That he had good reason to believe that most of the Roman Church on this side the Alpes (that is, France) would have joined with us, were it not for the stumbling Blocks that Calvin had laid in the way. They charged us with Sedition for telling [Page 320] them how many would dissent and suffer, and what a weakening such a Division, and the Penalties that must enforce it, would be to the Protestant Interest and to the Land: And they all agreed (save Dr. Gauden) that they would not abate one Ceremony to prevent all this: Yea lest they should not cast out enough of the Ministers, they put in more and harder Impositions, and made the Terms of Concord and Ministry such as they knew would turn out more; Sheldon and others of them saying, They were afraid too many would Conform, and if this much would not turn them out, there should be more; for Enemies in the Church were more dangerous than without.
§ 6. It is likely that the Drs. and Bishops that had been with him beyond Sea, knew the King's Religion and Designs, and to keep up their worldly Greatness, Dominion and Wealth, resolved to please him that he might please them: What Religion King Charles the Second was of at his Death, his Brother hath told us: And what he was before his Return, I marvel not that Huddleston tells us so obscurely. But I had rather believe his own words and deeds, than the reports or conjectures of others.
It was the Opinion of the wisest Papists that Liberty for all Religions, with the Power of Disposing of all Offices of Government and Preferments, would be enough to bring in Popery, and that there was no other way: And that till the King could safely declare himself for Popery, his way was to do all as a Protestant that might advantage them: Especially to divide and break the Protestants, and root out those of them, who were [Page 321] most unreconcileable to Rome, and to engage the other to persecute and destroy them, that it might not be doneas by the Papists, but they might seem their Fellow-Dissenters, and might come whenever the Necessity of others should open the Door.
The King had the Choice of the Bishops, and Deans and other Church Preferments, and of the Masters of Colleges, and of the Judges, and other Civil Powers and Honours: Accordingly he made those Bishops, Deans, Masters of Colleges, &c. who were known to be the most obedient to his Will, and the greatest Enemies to those called Puritans, and those that Philanax the Papist called Protestants of Sincerity. And by the help of the Lord Chancellor, Morley, Sheldon, and the rest, got the mastery of all the Dependent Clergy, when it was seen that all their preferments came much by their Wills. And that those called Puritans, and Presbyterians might end with that Generation they laboured to place all the Students in the Universities, under such as would possess them with the greatest contempt and hatred of those men, and to perswade them that all that Conformed not to all their Oaths, Covenants and Impositions, were but a pack of Fanaticks, Schismaticks and Rebels. And by their great Industry the Universities, Dignities and Clergy in most Power, were much thus constituted. And the Nonconformists being men who were noted for more seriousness in Religion than the common sort of men, and accordingly for a more serious way of Praying, Preaching, Discoursing and Living than the Multitude of Hypocrites, that are Religious but as far as pleaseth their Bellies, their Purses, and their Masters, [Page 322] it unhappily fell out that the doors of Preferment being open to those that had no Scruple of Conscience against any of the imposed Covenants or Practices, the main Body of those that had truly no Religion, became an engaged Party against the Nonconformists, and took the powerful Bishops for their Captains, and so Prelacy and Hypocrisie, and Prophaneness united their Interests, and became the strength of one another: And this is become the fatal Odium of Prelacy among the most Religious of the Land, and I fear will either finally root it out, or a Worldly Prelacy confederating first with the Prophane, and after with the Papists, will root out from the Publick Churches true serious Religion.
§ 7. From first to last King Charles shewed his own Judgment, I. In his Declaration for Toleration at Breda: II. When he granted us his Declaration about Ecclesiastical Affairs; which was to try whether we would consent to a commoner Toleration: In the Conclusion of the Day, the distaste fell on me. The Lord Chancellor drew out another Paper, desiring a Liberty of Religion for all others that lived peaceably: And said, He knew not what to think of it himself, but desired the Company to speak their Minds: Neither Lords or Bishops, or any of their Drs. said a word to it: After twice or thrice asking, no one answered: Dr. Wallis standing next me, said, [ I pray thee say nothing, It is an odious Business] I forbore, till I perceived that they would take our Silence for Consent, and then I said [ May it Please Your Majesty, This reverend Dr. (Guning) just now accused us, as if we would let in Socinians and Papists: We suppose that this is not intended, as our deed.] [Page 323] The King answered, [ There be many Laws against the Papists] I replyed, [ We understand this to be for a dispensation with those Laws.] There was no more said, and that was the Conclusion of the day.
III. In 1662. came out a Declaration for Liberty of Religion, naming the Papists to have their part in it, but not a Toleration. I was desired to get the City Ministers to Subscribe a Thanksgiving for it: I told them, that it was the King's Work, and not to be done by us; But I knew it was the Bishops design to cast the Odium of a Toleration of Popery on the Nonconformists, while they would gratifie the King, by forcing us to Consent; But they should never do it: They should do it themselves, or it should not be done. And it presently died.
IV. The Lord Bridgman called Dr. Wilkins, and his Chaplain Dr. Hez. Burton, and Dr. Manton and me, and Dr. Bates (after) as by the King's Order, to attempt an Agreement, for a Comprehension to the Presbyterians, and a Toleration for the Independents. We agreed of the Comprehension in terminis, and Judge Hale drew it up into the form of an Act: But when we came to the other part, the form proposed was for a Toleration of all, not excepting the Papists. I told the Lord Keeper, that we could not meddle in measuring out all other mens Liberty, but only to declare what we desired our selves: Others must be consulted about their own concerns, we were not for severity against any: But it was the King's Work, and we unmeet to be his Counsellors in it. And so all was cast off by the Parliament by that means, and the Act forbidden to be offered.
[Page 324]§ 8. At last the King himself broke the Ice, and Published a Declaration for Licensing a Toleration: The Cruelty of the Prosecution of the Nonconformists, being still the seeming Necessity for all: But the Parliament broke it, and it did the Papists much more harm than good; for the Nonconformists continued to Preach though Persecuted.
§ 9. The Clergy now would lay all the Severities on the Parliament, and wash their own hands as guiltless of all. But 1. It was they, even their chief Bishops and Drs. that when the King Commissioned them [ to Agree on such Alterations as were necessary to tender Consciences] after all importunity, concluded that no Alteration was so necessary.]
2. And it was the Bishops and Convocation that altered the Book for the worse, and put in new matter harder than before.
3. And the Bishops in Parliament were the Chief Agents in all the Laws by which we are undone.
4. And it is known that it was the Interest of the Bishops and their Church way that engaged the Long Parliament in all their terrible Acts against us; Viz. The Act of Uniformity, the Acts for Banishment, the Five mile Act, the Corporation Act, the Militia Act, the Vestry Act, and others.
5. And who knoweth not that it is they and their Disciples that make the great stir, against our Healing in jealousie of their Interests, which nothing but their own over-doing is like to overthrow.
[Page 325]6. And when did they ever once Petition any Parliament to reverse the dividing wicked Laws? or to restore the Silenced Ministers? or to free them from dying with Rogues in Jails, or to prefer the Ministers of Jesus, before Barabbas? or to request that the Eminent Ministers of Christ might have no greater Punishment for Preaching Christ, than debaucht Whoremongers, Drunkards, Swearers and Blasphemers usually have in England.
7. Yea, if a Godly Conformist do but write against their Cruelty to the Nonconformists (such as are Mr. Pierce, Mr. Jones, Mr. Bold,) they have for it Persecuted him as if he were a Nonconformist himself. And that you may know that it is not the old Church-men, nor yet a few single Persons, when Dr. Whitby Prebend of Salisbury who had wrote against Popery, did write an excellent Treatise for Peace and Reconciliation, the Oxford University Decreed the Publick burning of it (together with my Holy Common-wealth: The Lord Convert and Pardon them, that they prove not the burned fewel, when Reconciliation and a Holy Common-wealth are prosperous.] &c. God shall judge at last.
§ 10. All this time (from Laud till now), it is a hard Controversie which of the two Parties is to be called, The Church of England? Both Parties pretend to it, and some call both of them, the same Church. But the Infamous Roger L'Estrange set the Name of Trimmers on the old and reconciling Party, pretending that the other were, the Genuine Members of the Church; And was imployed by his Genius, and the Court, and the Papists, and the New Clergy-men, to do a work so truly [Page 326] Diabolical, as I never read of the like in History; even for many Years together to Write and Publish twice a Week a Dialogue called Observations, mainly levelled against Love, Peace and Piety, to perswade all men to hate their Brethren, and to provoke men to destroy them whom he Nick-named Whigs, and to render odious all save the Wolves (whom he called Tories, as if he owned the Irish Robbers); so that a Trimmer with him was the same as a Peace-maker, Blessed by Christ, and Cursed by L'Estrange.
§ 11. But whether the New Clergy or the Old be the Church of England, and whether both be of one Church, remaineth still doubtful: But whoever hath the Name, that one Name is equivocal when applied to Parties contrary and inconsistent. 1. That Church which owneth a Foreign Government and Jurisdiction, cannot be one and the same with that Church which renounceth and abhorreth it, and owneth only Christ's Universal Government, and a Foreign Concord and Communion. But this is the difference between the Old Reformed Church of England, and the New that call themselves the Church. Two Kings make two Kingdoms: For the Form denominateth: And the Relative Vnion of the pars Imperans, and Subdita, is the Form.
That Church which hath a Human Head above National, must have a Form and Name above National: that is, Above a Church of England: which makes them all talk so much of [ The Universal Church] in this false humane Form. An Universal Church hath an Universal Soveraign Power; which is only Christ. If the Pope be Antichrist, it is his claim of this that maketh [Page 327] him so, because it is Christ's Prerogative, which no mortal Man or Council or College is capable of. And if so, is it not a Papal or Antichristian Church that these Foreign Subjects own and are of? whether it be of the French or Italian Form, if one be Antichristian, both are so, when the Claim of Universal Jurisdiction is the Cause.
I have voluminously detected the mistake of these deceived Men, who are deluded by the Name Oecumenical, Catholick and Universal, which they find in the Councils and Fathers; and fully proved to them, that it signified no Councils above the Imperial or National; But distinguished those that were Universal in that one Empire, from the Provincial.
2. The Reformed Church of England taketh the Parish Communicants to be true Churches, and the Pastors to have as much of the Oversight as is necessary to the Constitution of a true Political Church. (Though their Canons sinfully fetter them in the Exercise.) But the Foreigners hold the Diocesses to be the least or lowest Churches, and the Parishes to be no true Churches for want of Bishops in them, but only Parts of a Church, that hath a Bishop over them all.
3. The Old Church of England owned the Foreign Protestant Churches as true Churches, and their Ministers as true Pastors, and own Communion with them. But the Innovators say, that they have no true Bishops, because they have not Diocesans, and are no true Pastors if they have not an uninterrupted Succession of Diocesane Ordination from the Apostles; whereas for some Hundred Years after the Apostles, there was no such Bishops known in the World, as were not either [Page 328] Congregational (Parochial) Bishops, or Apostolick Overseers of such: and no Diocesans over many Hundred or Score Parish Churches, that had no Bishops under them.
§ 12. When you consider what Power the New Foreigners had at Court, and with the Parliament that made the Act of Uniformity, and required Re-ordination, and that made all the other persecuting Acts; and with the Justices that executed them: And when we see how they promoted the Roman Interest; and when we see how potently and obstinately they frustrated all attempts of the Protestant Union here, and read how they reviled the old Reforming Bishops (from Parker to Abbots) and the Parliaments as going too far from Rome; And when we consider that we have not one Bishop but who was chosen by K. Charles II. and K. James, and what Men they may be supposed to choose; we Contradict not these Men when they call themselves [the Church of England] But when we consider that the old Homilies, Apology, Articles, Liturgy, Canons, &c. were never yet repealed, and that they are all Sworn to Endeavour no Alteration of Government of Church or State, we have cause to think that the old Party have more right to be called The Church, the altering Endeavours having not changed its Essentials.
By this much the Reader may Expound whom I speak of in my Treatise of Episcopacy.
§ 13. The Church is nothing, but the Men that constitute the Church: If 1. It be denominated by their Numbers, no man can tell which Party hath the greater Number till they are further put upon the tryal. 2. If they are denominated by [Page 329] Laws, the better part are rather to be called the Church, because the Old Laws against Popery are not yet Repealed; Though yet some late Laws are to the Old, as poyson to a living Man: So if they be Denominated by Power, the Innovators have been the Church at least these 31 Years. For that Party Ruled, and had the Countenance of the Kings, who chose them. And indeed in the Days of the differing Emperors ( Constantine, Constantinus, Valens, Theodosius, Arcadius, Marcian, Leo, Zeno, and the rest) that usually went for the Church or Orthodox party, which the Emperor owned: The uppermost will have the Name.
§ 14. Though the French and English (aforesaid) designed a Coalition, the long possession of their different ways, unavoidably hindered them from an immediate Union; But they were forced to approach by leisurely Degrees: England would not suddenly turn the Liturgy to a Mass-Book, nor France suddenly turn the Mass-Book Corrected into French: But what fair Approaches were made, and what further intended, Grotius his Counsel Magnified by both Churches, and the present practices of the French declare.
The Council of Grotius was to bring down the Pope to Moderation, that he might Rule but by the Canons, and not be above Councils, nor deprive Kings nor Bishops of their Rights, and that the Lives of the Clergy be Reformed, and School Niceties left indifferent, and the Lutheranes as Reconcileable Courted to a Concord, and the unreconcileable Calvinists brought down by force: But the Lutheranes are not so Reconcileable as they imagined; Princes that are once free, are loth to become Subjects to a Foreign Priesthood.
[Page 330]§ 15. And how much the French meant to bring down the Pope, their late Transactions shew a little, but their Doctrines much more: Mr. Jurieu himself in his Posteral Letters ( Engl. p. 216.217.) thus Describeth them.
1. That the Church of Rome is no more than a Particular Church, as other Churches are. 2. That St. Peter had nothing but a Primacy of Order, and Presidence above the Apostles. 3. That St. Peter could give (to his Successor) over other Bishops, no more but that Primacy which he had over the Apostles. 4. That the Bishop of Rome Originally, and by Divine Right, had no Power over the Universal Church. 5. That he did not receive Appeals in the first Age of the Church. 6. That he had no Right to Assemble General Councils. 7. That he could take Cognizance of the Affairs of no other Provinces but his own; no not by Appeals. 8. That he had no Right to take Knowledge of Matters of Faith, to make Decisions therein; which should oblige the whole Church. 9. That before the Council of Nice, and after, he had no inspection over other Churches, but those which were in the Neighbourhood of Rome. 10. That he could not Excommunicate other Bishops, otherwise than the other Bishops could Excommunicate him. 11. That a Man might separate himself from the Bishop of Rome, without being a Schismatick, and out of the Church. 12. That the Pope had no Right over other Bishops. 13. That the Council of Sardica is the Fountain of that Right of receiving Appeals which the Pope claimeth. 14. That the Rights which the Pope hath at this Day, excepting his Primacy, are by Human Laws, and because [Page 331] he hath assumed them to himself, and because they have bin conceded to him. 15. To which they add, he is not Infallible, nor Superior to Councils, nor Master to the Temporalities of Kings.] This is the French Religion, and who would think that this is Popery: No wonder if the Pope be more hearty for other Friends, than for France.
§ 15. Lay all this together, and it's Notorious that (though Whetgift and some other Calvinists were too much guilty of the Persecutions, to keep up the Dominion and Preferments which they were jealous of) yet it was the French Reconcilers that have set, and to this Day kept on foot our present increased Divisions and Dangers: Since Le Strange new-named them, the old Church Protestants are called Trimmers, and are Men that love not Division or Persecution, and would fain see a Coalition of Protestants; though they have not zeal enough (save too few) to put it on openly, lest they provoke the opposites. But the Laudians called Tories, are still as much against the Removal of the Dividing, Persecuting, Snares, and against the Coalition of English Protestants, on any possible healing Terms, as ever, and as fiercely seek the Continuance of our Slavery and Silence.
Chap. XXII. How they have been stopt, and in [...]hat Danger we are yet of those that are for a Forreign Jurisdiction.
§ 1. THe continual Endeavours of Parliaments to Suppress all the Relicts and Advantages of Popery in Queen Elizabeths and King James Days, long kept this Papal inclination from appearing: And when Laud raised it up, and King James and Buckingham Countenanced it, to promote first the Spanish, and after the French Marriage, the Articles of Liberty for Popery, Consented to by King James, and after Ratified by King Charles, greatly Distasted the Nobility and Gentry, and the People much more; so that the Kings and Parliaments were never after easy to each other, till King Charles II. got a Parliament fitted to his turn.
§ 2. The new raised Impositions of King Charles I. and Laud first Exasperated the old conformable Clergy, by [...]uspending and vexing them, for not reading the Book for Sports on the Lords Days, and for Preaching twice a Day, and by Altars and Bowing, and other Innovations: And the Severities against Burton, Prin and Bastwick made a murmuring noise; And the driving many hundred Families of Godly Men out of the Land, much more. And the newly Altered and Imposed Liturgy, Exasperated the Scots, who were Encouraged by the English Discontents: Yet all this had done the less, had not the same Church-Innovaters been against Parliaments, and kept them out, because Parliaments were against them: And [Page 333] had they not Preached for, and promoted the Kings power to Raise Taxes without a Parliament. But this leavened the Nation with an Averseness to the Frenchified Reconcilers. And the Scots knowing all this, began Resistance, which proceeded to a Mutual diffidence of King and People, which brought forth after a Civil-War.
§ 3. While the King and Parliament were Labouring under the Mortal Disease of mutual distrust, the Irish by an Insurrection, Murdered most Barbarously two hundred thousand Protestants, (just the day Twelmonth before Edghil Fight, Dublin escaped:) And this Horrid Cruelty hastened the War in England, and made Popery more odious than ever it was before; and rendered the French Conciliators more distasted.
§ 4. The Conciliators having the chief Ecclesiastical Power under King Charles I. and having too much Modelled the Churches and Universities to their Minds, the Parliament began a Reformation before the War, and carryed it on after, and cast out many Hundred for Insufficiency through gross ignorance, and for Drunkenness, and Vicious Lives: And some for being against the Parliament; and prospering till Cromwell cast them out, and Cromwell going much further against Prelatical Tyranny, and an ignorant Vicious Ministry than they, thirteen or fourteen or fifteen years time, not only stopt the French design of Coalition, but also wore out the chief designers and promoters of it: To which the Death of Laud, with all the Accusations against him, struck deep: (of which see Prins Introductions, and his Canterburies Tryal.) And many old Conformists (which was all the Westminster Assembly [Page 334] of Divines saving eight) were the Men that chose rather to put down the English Prelacy, than to run the hazard of the change of Civil Government and Introduction of Popery. So that both Popery, and the favorers of it, seemed quite cast out in England. But Cromwell and his Armies Usurpation and Treasons so Exasperated the two Kingdoms, both Episcopal and Presbyterians, that after his Death (his Army having cast themselves and the Land into Confusion) they brought in King Charles II. who by his Declaration from Breda, and his Treaty in 61 with the Nonconformists, and his Declaration 1662. (called Bristols) and by his Treaty with us by the Lord Keeper Bridgman, and by his Declaration for Toleration, still laboured so Strenuously to give Popery a Toleration, that discerning Men were satisfied that he was then of the Religion that he dyed in, (if he had any) or at least had engaged himself to introduce it: To which ends. 1. The dividing of the Protestants, 2. The Ejecting, Silencing, Ruining, Imprisoning or Banishing those of them that were most unreconcileable to Popery; 3. The keeping such out by new Impositions of Oaths, Subscriptions, Professions and Practices, were found to be the fittest means: 4. To which was added, the Exasperating the long Parliament (of Men before Exasperated) against them. 5. And the Declaring and Swearing the People against the Lawfulness of any Military Defence of Parliament or Kingdom against any Commissioned by the King. 6. And to bring all those that scrupled such Oaths, under the odious Name of Nonconforming Rebels, (Though they were all against Defensive War by any private Men or Faction; or for any Cause less [Page 335] than the saving of the Kingdom from apparent Ruine, Subversion or Alienation). 7. To which was added, the taking away of all Legislative Power from Parliaments, and appropriating it only to the King (the strenuous Endeavour of Bishop Morley's last Book against me, and of many others. 8. Which were all thought an unresistible force while the King, (of whatever Religion) had the choice of all the Bishops, Deans and Dignitaries, and consequently of that called The Church of England; 9. And also the choice of Judges, and the making of Lords. 10. And the changing of Corporation Charters.
§ 5. To these uses (that we may not accuse the Innocent) it was comparatively but a few men that were the visible prime Instruments, besides the non-appearing Jesuits or other Papists): That is, Chancellor Hide, Dr. Sheldon, Dr. Morley, Dr. Guning, whom not only Dr. Hinchman, Dr. Cousins, Dr. Lany, Dr. Sterne, and several others followed ex animo; but also most of the worldly sequacious part of the Clergy and Laity, for Interest and Preferment sake, when they saw that the Interest of Sheldon and Morley with the Chancellor, was a great and necessary means of obtaining their desires.
§ 6. But the bringing us to French Popery by the Grotian way, proved so slow by many stops, that it hath by God's Mercy been hitherto much frustrate and prevented. For the King must not make professed Papists to be Bishops, Deans and Convocation Men, lest the notoriety of the Design should raise unconquerable Offence and Opposition: The Name of Popery was to be renounced, even by those that were for a Foreign Jurisdiction: [Page 336] And a Government like that of the French Church must be said to be no Popery, but only that which made the Pope Arbitrary, or Supereminent above Councils: And the very retaining of the Name of Popery in their Renunciation, spoil'd their Game: And specially being necessitated to avoid Suspicion, to make divers firm Protestants, Bishops, Deans and Judges. Yet the slow way of K. Ch. II. was like to have been the surest, could their Patience have held out.
§ 7. But God used K. James II. as the great Instrument of frustrating all the Plot (till now); by his and his Instigaters Impatience of this delay, and confidence of a more speedy way of Success: So that he resolved to put it to a speedy upshot, and would have all or none: which brought the Changes which we have since seen.
§ 8. But is the Church of England yet delivered from all the Inclination to a Foreign Jurisdiction, and the French Government? The Oath of Supremacy made it seem hard to perjure the whole Land, that had renounced all foreign Jurisdiction. But many devised an Expository Evasion (that only a Civil Jurisdiction was meant; though the Ecclesiastick also was named). Should there be but a new attempt by such as the former Rulers probably made, is it not like that Men of the French or Grotian Principles will promote it; yea, and be glad of French assistance?
I doubt they that would Perjure the Kingdom by a foreign Jurisdiction, will debate this odd Question.
Qu. Whether all that Profess or Swear that it is Vnlawful on any Pretence whatever to resist the King, or any Commissioned by him in the Execution of that [Page 337] Commission, may resist a French Army if they Invade the Land by K. J 's Commission? (Or will they turn Nonconformists?)
Chap. XXIII. Postscript to the Reverend Dr. Beveridge.
§ 1. THough you were Bishop Guning's Witness (with Dr. Saywell his Chaplain) when he conferred with me, I was not willing to believe that you were of his mind for a Foreign Jurisdiction, either Aristocratical or Democratical, or Monarchical, but to my grief am now convinced of it, by your published Convocation Sermon: Having too copiously here and elsewhere confuted it (specially in my two Books against William Johnson alias Terret the Papist) I shall go on the supposition that you will there take notice of it: Especially of these two Reasons against it.
1. That the Kingdom and Church is sworn against it.
2. That a pretended Universal Humane Soveraignty or Legislative and Judicial Power over the whole Church on Earth, is the Grand Usurpation of Christs Prerogative; which no Mortal Men are capable of: And if this be not Popery, there is no such thing as Popery: And if the Pope be justly called Antichrist, or at least a Trayterous Usurper against the Right of Christ and Kings, it is by this: And if such a Power be really given to any, the Pope cannot be excluded, at least from the Universal Primacy.
§ 2. I doubt not but the Love of Unity and the sense of the woful case of the Church by Sects, [Page 338] and sad Dissentions, engaged Bishop Guning and you in the Opinions you took up: And no doubt but the Consciencious part of the Learned and Religious Papists are fixed by the same Motives in their way: I may say [fixed and very confident, or else they durst not carry it on as they have done in France and all other Popish Countreys. And I can say that I have not fixed on the denial of a Humane Universal Jurisdiction, without thinking seriously Forty years of what I could find said for it as well as against it; nor out of an inclination to any contrary extreme: Could I have found but any Humane capacity in One or Many for such a Soveraignty, Legislative and Judicial, and but a possibility of such a thing, and any probability that it was of Christs Institution, the Love of Unity, and Hatred of Unruliness and Divisions, and their Effects had long ago made me a hot defender of it. But the contrary Truth, had contrary Effects.
§ 3. That you may not think that I differ from you more than I do, I here premise, I. That I doubt not but that the Universal Church visible is One Body or Society of professed Christians: As the Universal Church as Regenerate and Spiritual is One Body of sincere Christians.
II. That the Unity and Concord of it as Professors, and as sincere, must be maintained to the utmost of our power by all due lawful means.
III. That a wise Correspondency between all those Churches, which by nearness are capable of Acquaintance and Communication is a due means to preserve their Love and Concord.
IV. That seasonable and duly chosen Synods of many conjunct that live within the reach of such [Page 339] Acquaintance and Communication may in case of true need be a fit means of such Concord.
V. That where such Synods cannot be had with due equality, Letters and Messengers from the several Nations or Provinces, or Churches may be used to that end.
VI. That the General Law of Christ commanding Love, Concord and Edification, maketh it a sin for any to affect causless singularity, and to chuse any way which tendeth to Division: And that where there is an Equality, and no Regent power; yet just Contracts for Concord ought to be observed.
VII. That if in National Churches (that is, Christian Kingdoms or Commonwealths) the Soveraign Power give one Seat or Bishop a Primacy or peculiar Priviledge, in the Circa Sacra, the Circumstantials of Sacred Offices, which are within the Magistrates Power, it ought to be obeyed.
VIII. If I had lived in the Christian Empire, when it sometime gave the Bishop of Rome, and sometime the Bishop of Constantinople this preheminence of degree, and the other Patriarchs (of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem) their several Priviledges and Powers, not contrary to the Word of God, I would have obeyed that which the Emperor by his Law preferred.
IX. The Roman Empire was so great a part of the known Civilized World, and so Potent, that I quarrel not with the Titles of [ Orbis Romanus] and [ Ecclesia Vniversalis] given to that Dominion and Church which was meerly National or Imperial; so be it, we understand the true meaning.
[Page 340]X. Had the Empire continued one Polity, and had made the Bishop of Rome the Primate as to his Seat in Councils, and the said Bishop had been a capable Person, and had not Challenged the Government or Primacy in order of Regiment over the whole Christian World but in the Empire only, as the Archbishop of Canterbury doth in England, I would have been none of his opposers: All this I grant you.
§ 4. But (premising for the Explication of Terms, that we take the words [ Regiment, Laws, Authority, &c. in the proper political sense, and not equivocally for meer advice or consent) I add as followeth.
1. That as the Universal Church on Earth, hath but one Soveraign Jesus Christ, so it is one Body Politick, in relation to no one Vnifying Head but Christ, and hath no one Substitute Vicarious Christ, or Substitute Soveraign Government, Monarchical, Aristocratical, Democratical or Mixt.
II. The Soveraignty of one Christian King, Emperor or Senate, (in Aristocracy) over an United or Confederate Christian Clergy and Laity as Subjects (each keeping to their own Place and Work) is the Unifying Headship of a National Church, which is nothing but such a Christian Kingdom or Republick: And that Christ hath owned such National Church Power, and hath instituted and owned no Power of Humane Government over it on Earth: And therefore as pretending to Universal Jurisdiction is Treason against Christ, so the claim of Foreign Jurisdiction is Hostility against Kings and States.
III. That Foreign Councils of Bishops and Dyets of Soveraign Princes are Authorized for [Page 341] Communion for mutual Counsel and Concord by Contract and Agreement, and have no just Jurisdiction or Political Regiment over particular Soveraigns or their subject Congregations: Though in Councils they retain their proper Power at home.
IV. The Foreign Councils agreeing on things profitable to the common benefit of all, Gods own Law of Love, Unity, Concord, Edification and publick Regard and Peace, forbiddeth the particular Bishops and Churches causlesly to dissent and affect singularity: But if they agree on things hurtful and dangerous to any of the particulars, they are not to be obeyed, nor yet if they claim Jurisdiction instead of Communion and Contract: But every Prince and Pastor must Rule their own. As Kings will not own a Foreign King or Council of Kings, who shall Usurp a Soveraignty over them, much more if over all.
V. That all Forcing Power that the Clergy can claim by Canons or Mandates in Christian Kingdoms, is only from the Prince (or State) as they are authorized by him as his Officers, who only hath the power of the Sword; and not at all any part of their Pastoral Office. And therefore (as Grotius in that excellent Book de Imperio sum. Potest. circa Sacra hath shewed) Clergy-Canons are no Laws, but directing Agreements.
VI. The Canons of the Greatest Councils called General, were Laws to none without the Empire, unless Foreign Princes or Pastors made them so: Nor to any within the Empire, but by the Soveraigns Act as they are forcing, and the particular Pastors as Directing.
VII. Before the Division and Ruine of the Empire, [Page 342] the Name of a General Council signified but an Imperial or National Council. They being called by the Emperors who had no further power, and only out of the Imperial Provinces, unless any odd Person came voluntarily in for help and advantage; which was rare. This I have at large proved in my two Books against W. Johnson alias Terret.) And, Ecclesia Vniversalis usually signified no more than Vniversal, National or Imperial. Leo meant no more when he called himself Caput Ecclesiae Universalis, nor Phocas when he gave Boniface the Title of Universal Bishop: And when the Empire was divided it was the Treasonable Erection of Popery to feign that Orbis Romanus was Orbis Universalis, and that Concilia Generalia, and Ecclesia Vniversalis, meant extra Imperial and Vniversal Over-foreigners, and all the World: And this is still as the Foundation of Popery, so the common Cheat that pleadeth for Foreign Jurisdiction.
VIII. Though Rome was a meet Seat for Imperial Church Primacy while Emperors would have it so; as it hath no just pretence to the Government of Foreigners, so it is of all others most unfit for a Primacy or Presidentship in the Councils of Foreign Confederate Princes and Churches, because it claimeth so much more, even Foreign and Universal Regiment: Nor are Councils of such Bishops or Princes to be trusted with General Contracts, who claim such Jurisdiction.
A Primacy in Lawful Councils of Confederates would strengthen their claim of an Universal Jurisdiction till they openly renounce it.
And so would the use of a Senate or Council that pretendeth to the like power.
[Page 343]IX. Patriarchs and Metropolitans, and Provincials or Diocesans in one Empire or Kingdom, can for Number, Seat or Precedency, justly claim no power of Governing Foreigners; nor subject Bishops of that Nation, but from the Soveraign.
X. Legislation is the first Essential power of Regiment: Therefore none can be an Universal Legislator that is not an Universal Rector.
XI. As an Universal Monarch (Ecclesiastical or Civil) is the absurd claim of an Impossible thing, and open Hostility to all Christian Kings and Churches, so an Universal Aristocracy in Councils or Patriarchs, and Bishops, is yet more absurd, as claiming a more notorious Impossibility than the Pope doth.
XII. An Universal power of Expounding or Judging of Christs Laws by Regent Authority, or of being such Keepers of unwritten Laws, seemeth the most Eminent part of Legislation; it being more to be Judge what is Law, and to make or determine of the sence, than to make the bare words: And so the Bishops should have a higher Regency than Christ: Official Judges Expound the Laws only in their limited Provinces, and for the deciding of particular Cases; but not to be the Universal Determiners of the sence to all others: None but the Law-makers can make an Universally obliging Exposition.
XIII. The instance of the Apostles power will not prove an Institution of a stated Universal Legislative Aristocracy, or Monarchy. For, 1. It is evident that Christ first chose and instituted them, as his National Ministers, by the number of Twelve related to the Twelve Tribes; and by the keeping up just that number after the coming [Page 344] down of the Holy Ghost: And by his special Mission of Paul, Barnabas and others to the Gentiles, distinguishing their Apostleship from Peter's and the rest to the Jews.
2. When Persecution and the fall of the Jewish state, made the Apostles Office more Extensive, it was rather Indefinite than Universal: They were to go as far as they were sent, and were able.
3. The Church was then in so narrow Bounds as made that Extent easie, when now an Universal Humane Regiment is of Natural Impossibility, and so past rational Controversie.
4. Their power was not any further Legislative, than as they were Promulgators of Christs Laws, and Determiners of mutable undetermined Circumstances or Accidents.
5. They have no Successors in those extraordinary parts of their Office, which looketh like any part of Legislative power. Which parts are, 1. Being Eye and Ear-witnesses of what Christ did and said committed to their Testifying and Predicating Trust. 2. Having a special Commission to teach all Nations his Laws, or what he commanded as the prime Promulgators. 3. As having the promise of the Spirit to Teach them all things, and bring all to their remembrance. 4. And having the Miraculous Gifts of the Holy Ghost to attest their Witness: As Moses had Successors in Executive Regency, but not as a Mediatorial Deliverer of Gods Law, which Aaron, Samuel, David and Solomon must obey and rule by, but had no power to alter words or sence, nor add any thing but undetermined Circumstances.
[Page 345]Yet as the Laws of Christ promulgate by the Apostles bind all Nations to whom they are revealed; so we grant that the same Laws of Christ declared by Councils, or Preached by any single Minister, bind all to whom they come: And that every Minister (and Christian) being a Member of the Church Universal, his Doctrine tendeth to Universal Benefit which yet giveth him no Universal Regent Jurisdiction.
As I remember I have said all this before in my Letters to Bishop Guning when you were his Second or Witness of our Conference: But the Invitation of your Discourse, which I shall now give you my thoughts of, maketh me think that this repetition is not unnecessary. If you will read Mr. Th. Beverley's whole Duty of Nations, you may see more of my Judgment.
Supposing your Book to be in the hands of the Reader, I shall forbear transcribing, and only tell you what I dissent from, and the pages where it is contained.
I. I dissent from your Opinion of a Humane Soveraignty as over the Universal Church on Earth, (whether you feign it to be Monarchical, Aristocratical, Democratical or Mixt, I matter not.)
II. Consequently I deny your Doctrine of such an Universal Legislative power in Man, and of any Humane Universal Laws.
III. And I deny all Foreign Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, that is, That the Clergy of any one or [Page 346] many Foreign Kingdoms have a Legislative Regent power over any other King and Nation which give them not that power by a voluntary Subjection.
All these denied Doctrines you own, pag. 28. l. 7, 8, &c. p. 24, 25, 26, 21, 23, 19, 13, 14, 15.
My Reasons against the first are so many before repeated, that I must not again do that which is so oft done. Prove you a Universal Humane Polity (by Kings or Clergy) and I will easily prove that Aristocratical is worse than Monarchical, and less practicable: And if you think Popery an unfit Name for it, I will prove it Antichristian, as the Treasonable claim of Christs Prerogative may be so called.
The Second Error falls with the first: For Legislation is the most Essential part of Soveraign power.
Your Third denied Opinion I hope all Protestant Kings and Kingdoms will continue to renounce. And seeing you know that this whole Kingdom is Sworn against it, (even all Foreign Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Jurisdictions as well as Civil,) in the Oath of Supremacy, (besides the many Oaths against alteration of Church and State Government) I hope you would not have the Nation stigmatized with the brand of PERJURY. If the Law for taking the Oath of Supremacy be repealed, the Law of God against Perjury is not repealed.
And whether it be Treason in it self against King and Kingdom, to set up the claim of a Foreign power over them, without their consent, the Judges know better than I. But I know that there be some wise men that cannot yet prove K. [Page 347] James his Self-deposing, if this will not prove it, that he openly endeavoured to settle the Kingdom under a Foreign Jurisdiction against the Laws and against their Wills, and so to alienate the prime part of Soveraignty.
And should a Foreign Jurisdiction be asserted, we should all be confounded by the Impossibility of knowing where to find it, or how to use it, if it be Aristocratical: Where the Pope is may be known: But where to find a General Council of all the Christian World, or an Ecclesiastical Parliament or College, or the Major Vote of all the Churches we know not.
And seeing Bishops are all (save one) the Subjects of other Princes, blame not Kings to be unwilling to be their Subjects, when thereby they will be subjected to those Princes that Rule them, or can sway them by Preferments.
IV. And I believe not your Doctrine that the Major part must go for this Governing Church.
For, 1. It will never be agreed who be the Nations or Persons that are to be accounted Parts; all will claim a Right that are called Christians. And can all Christians or Ministers judge of their pretensions?
2. It is certain that the Greater part have often erred in Counsels, and out of them: The Case of the Arrians proveth it: And the Greater part of the Bishops have been sometime on one side, and sometimes of another, and have turned and returned in the same Age; as is notorious in the Cases of the Nestorians, Eutychians, Monothelites, the Council of Chalcedon, owned and disowned, the Tria Capitula, the Case of Images, and others.
[Page 348]3. It is known that most of the Christian World at this day have no small number of Errors; the Greeks, Moscovites, Armenians, Abassins, Coptis, Syrians, Jacobites, Nestorians, Maronites, Georgians, &c.
4. It is to be expected that the Countries nearest the Councils, and that have most numerous Bishopricks will have the Major Vote, when those far off, and that have large and few Bishopricks will have few Votes.
5. It is known that three of the five old Patriarchates have many Errors, yea, four of them differ from all the Western Churches, Papists and Protestants.
5. And it's certain that as we cannot be sure of the Major Vote all over-the World, so God never gave the Major part the Soveraignty.
V. And your Foundation for all this in Politicks is intolerably false, viz. [pag. 13. In omnibus hujusmodi Societatibus pars omnis toti suo congrua, & pars minor majori consentanea esse debet. Hoc ratio suadet: Hoc jus naturale edicit: Hoc Communis hominum Consensus necessarium esse statuit. Adeo ut si quid à majori, multo magis quod à maxim [...] cujusvis Societatis parte constituitur eodem pars reliqua constringatur, illud (que) observare necesse habeat, si membrum manere & privilegiis illius Societatis gaudere velit. Quod cum in omnibus cujuscunque generis Societatibus valet, multo magis in Ecclesia valere debet, quam omnium ornatissimam esse decet.]
I am loth to English it, 1. I confess I find the like in Archbishop Laud, and R. Hooker: So Nonconformable to each other is the Conforming Clergy. But it's downright Popularity or Democracy [Page 349] of the worst sort; And can such men cry down Republicans? yea, and raise a suspicion of Nonconformists as Republicans? O what a vafricious sort of men do sometime appropriate the Name of the Church?
2. It is true of no sort of Political Society in the World, but only of ungoverned Communities or Confederacies, except those by Contract turned a meer Community into the worst sort of Popular Politie: And in Aristocracies it is not the Major Vote of the whole Society that Ruleth, but of those few who make up One Political Person or Power. And yet could you appeal to Reason, Nature, and common Consent?
3. It is against the Essence of the Government of this Kingdom? Shall Kings, Parliament and Magistrates be bound to obey the Major part of the Kingdom? No, nor King and Lords to obey the Major part of the House of Commons? Nor Mayors and Bailiffs be bound to obey the Major part of the Cities and Corporations?
4. It is contrary to God's Law of Nature and Scripture. God hath anticipated humane popular pretences of being either naturally Rulers, or the Fountain of Governing Power: For God hath instituted in Nature, the Genus of this Power, and so much of the Species as is to execute God's Laws: He hath made the Fifth Commandment: and as he alloweth not the Major part of the Children to govern Father and Mother, or of Scholars to rule their Masters, so neither of Subjects to rule the Soveraign or the Minor part.
5. It is contrary to Oaths that are taken by the Subjects of this Land.
[Page 350]6. It is contrary to the subscribed 39 Articles, that tell us of the Errors and Fallibility of Councils.
7. It is contrary to the Canons, especially those of 1640. that determined Kingly Power to be of God's Institution.
8. It is contrary to all the Writers and Fighters that were against Parliaments resisting the King. Michael Hudson hath most strongly wrote against it. Dr. Hammond against John Goodwin hath proved that the People have neither ruling Authority to Vse nor to Give. How far then were Bishop Morley and such others from your Mind, who write that the Parliament themselves have no Essential part in Legislation, but only to prepare Matter which the King only maketh to be a Law? All the Clergy have subscribed to the King's unresistible Power, and a Law made to that purpose by the Parliament that setled your Conformity and Church.
9. Do you take the Major part of your Congregation to be your Governours? Or the Major part of the Diocess to Rule the Diocesane? Or are these no Societies?
10. Is it not contrary to the Oath of Canonical Obedience?
11. Are our Universities of this Mind; when Oxford burnt my Political Aphorisms, and Dr. Whitbye's Book, and Mr. I. Humfrey's, as derogating from the Regal Power, when yet I abhord such a derogation as your Majority of the Society?
12. In a word, it is destructive of all Government: For the truth is, that Democracy in a large Kingdom is an Impossibility: The People cannot [Page 351] all meet to try who hath the Major Vote: They can but choose their Governours, though called Representatives: And that is an Aristocracy: For to choose Governours is not to Govern. Even Rome was not a true Democracy: For the People had but a Negative part in Legislation, S. P. Q. R. conjunct having the Supremacy: And what were the People of one City to the whole Empire, which was the Politick Body?
But how shall we know who constitute this Voting Society which you call the Church? I know that the Papists appropriate that title to the Clergy? But when it cometh to Practice (in Councils or out) how small a part have any but the Bishops? Our Canons condemn those who deny the Convocation to be the Representative Church? Who are the real Church which they represent? Do they represent the Laity? Or are they none of the Church? How can they represent those that never choose them? Patrons choose the Incumbents; and the People choose neither Bishops, Deans, Arch-deacons or Proctors. Is it the King and Parliament that they represent? I confess the King that chooseth Bishops may most plausibly be pretended to be represented by them. But are they indeed his Rulers and Lawgivers, and he their Subject? Was Moses so to Aaron, or Solomon to Abiathar? The King chooseth Justices, and Constables (mediately) but not to be his Governours but his Ministers. Or is the King and Parliament no Part of the Church of England? Say so then, that we may understand you.
But if indeed you confess the Laity [...] be of this Voting Church (whose Major part by Nature, Reason, and the Consent of all the World must [Page 352] Govern us) I beseech you help us at last (after all our lost importunity) to know which of the Laity it is. Is it all that are in the Parishes? I doubt then that the Atheists, Papists, Sadduces, Deists, Hobbists, Ignorant, Irreligious Debauchees and Lads, will be our Rulers.
Is it only Communicants? Then the Parish Priest of one place will have a Church of one sort, and another of another sort? And how knoweth he in great Parishes who are his Communicants, when he knoweth not who or what they are? or whence they come, nor whether ever they came before? The Law is the likest test, which obligeth all to Communicate that will have a License to sell Ale or Wine, or, that will not lie in Jail; a place that few Love, and many would avoid at so cheap a rate as eating a bit of Bread, and drinking a little Wine. And shall the Majority of these be Rulers of Kings, Bishops and Pastors?
But what if you mean but the Major Vote of Bishops? (which it seems our Lower House of Convocation mean not). Verily, Sir, you must not too sharply blame the King of England, Sweden, Denmark, &c. if they be loth to be Subjects in so great a Matter as their Religion to the Clergy of Italy, France, Spain, Poland, Germany, Moscovy, Constantinople, and Asia, Africa, &c. while we know what Power their own Princes have over them?
And do not we know that there is no one common Language which they can use to understand one another as a College? Even of our great Learned Schoolmen few understood Greek: And few of the Greeks understand Latin (or true [Page 353] Greek either) And few Abassines, Armenians, Syrians, Moscovites, &c. understand either. If Christ hath been so defective a Legislator as to leave us to a necessity of Universal Humane Legislation, O let us not have them made by such Babel Builders. Let us have those that can meet together in less than an Age (whether their Princes will or no) and can learn in an Age to speak to one another.
Or if you first prove that Mortal Men are capable of such an Universal Government, try it first on Kings, and settle one King, or Senate of Kings to Rule all the World by Legislation and Judgment: For verily more of Sword-Government may be done per alios—than of Priestly Government (else you may appoint Presbyters to Ordain, and Lay-men to celebrate the Sacraments.) And if we must have a Vice-Christ, let him be a Monarch that we may know where to find him, and not a Chimera called a Collective Person, or College of Bishops: Or at least if it must be Patriarchs, let us know who shall make them, and where they are, and what we shall now do, when of five so called Four are called Schismaticks and are under the Turk: Christ hath instituted National Church Politie: Prove more if you can.
VI. And I should rejoyce if you could prove what you affirm, that the Major part of the Church, even in Rites and Discipline, is guided by the Spirit of God. 1. It was not so in necessary Doctrine in the Arians reign. 2. If it be so at this day, England is Schismatical. 3. If it be not always so in General Councils (as the Articles of our Church say) how much less in the diffusive Body [Page 354] of People or Clergy? 4. It is not so in any one Kingdom or National Church yet known in the World, no not the World; And what is the whole but the Parts Conjunct? Dr. Dillingham in a late Book against Popery concludeth, that there was never yet any Kingdom known where the tenth part were truly Godly: And I think you take the Church of England to be the best in the World: And how many Thousands would rejoyce if you could prove that the Major part even of their Teachers were guided by the Spirit of God? And is it better with the Papists, or Greeks, or Moscovites, that cannot Preach at all! O how happy a Church do you Dream of?
VII. And it is yet more incredible that this popular Majority should be so right in such small Matters as Rites and Ceremonies and Discipline, as that their Practice should be a Law to all the rest of the Christian World: And that the Unity or Concord of the Universal Church must be built on such Sand as cannot so much as be gathered into one Heap? And all must be Schismaticks, and so far separate from the Church that obey them not: I remember when Dr. Hammond proceeded Dr. I heard Dr. Prideaux in the Chair argue against the Churches Infallibility, that John, and Thomas, and so every Individual was fallible: Ergo a company of fallibles were not infallible. Especially in such Matters as a Ceremony. Those that Paul wrote to Rom. 14. & 15. were not taken for infallible or Legislators by him.
VIII. And you no where prove that Paul meaneth by [the Churches have no such Customs] that [Page 355] none in the World had any other, nor must have any other; but only that what Garb and Habit the Custom of all those Countries had placed Decency in, the general Rule of Decency would oblige all to in the solemn Assemblies, as it obligeth us to be uncovered. You must needs know that by your Exposition and Inference you Condemn your own Church that hath the contrary Custom. Especially your noble Patrons that wear Periwigs.
IX. And how impossible a work do you set us all as a Law, to know what these Ceremonies are without which we separate as Schismaticks. 1. Must all good Christians be so great Historians as to know what Ceremonies have been used in all Ages by the Major part? 2. Must they be so Skill'd in Cosmography, as to know what Countries make the Major part? 3. Must they have so good intelligence of former Affairs, as to know who have now the greater Vote in Councils and out of them? 4. But you say, It must be of such Rites as ab omnibus, ubi (que) & semper have been used: we like Vincentius Liri's rule well as to things necessary, that may aliunde be so proved. But how shall any man know that ab omnibus & ubi (que) without more Knowledge of the World than Drake or Candish had, or any Traveller? Except Negatively, that we must not affect causeless Singularity from the most of the Godly, as far as we can know them. And how shall we understand the semper? Must it respect all time to come? Then, none can know his Duty till the End of the World? If it be only as to time past, then how knew they that lived in the first Age, how long their Customs [Page 356] would continue? And then all the after Changes (which were many) were Schismatical.
X. Do you not too hardly censure the Church of England as Schismatical? You know Epiphanius hath a peculiar Treatise to tell us, what then were the Customs and Ceremonies of the Universal Church? And how many of these are forsaken by us, yea, and by almost all the Churches? Do you now clothe the Baptized anew in White? Do you dip them over head in Water? Do you anoint them as they did, and cross them with the Ointment? Do you give them to taste Milk and Honey? Do you exorcise them? Do your Bishops only make that Chrysme? Do all here and in other Churches worship only versus Orientem? Do you all forbear, and forbid Adoration Kneeling, on any Lord's Day, or any Week Day between Easter and Whitsunday? What! when you cast out of the Church those that will not Kneel at the Sacrament? You know that the Council of Nice, and that at Trull, and the Fathers commonly make this a Rite of the Universal Church: And Dr. Heylin saith, that Rome it self kept it for a Thousand Years, and it was never reversed by any other General Council. Do you keep the Memorial of Martyrs at their Graves as then they did? Do you use their Bones and relicts as they did? Twenty more you may see in Epiphanius and others.
O condemn not the Church of England, as separated from the Universal Church. (And our Reformers too.)
XI. What a case would you bring this Church and Kingdom to, by your Law of the Custom of [Page 357] the Major part? Must we have all the Opinions, Rites or Ceremonies which the Greeks, Moscovites, Armenians and Papists have many Hundred Years in their Ignorance and Superstition agreed in as to the Major part? Must we be able to confute their pretensions of Antiquity and Custom as to all these? He that readeth the Description of their Customs, methinks, should be loth that we should be such.
XII. And your Doctrine of Traditions as certainly received from the Apostles, when the Majority use them, is so much against the Church of England's Judgment, and so copiously confuted by the whole stream of Protestant Bishops and Drs. and foreign Divines, that I will not stay now to repeat that work: were all the Traditions forementioned since laid by, received from the Apostles? (About Genuflexions, Milk and Honey, Chrysme, the white Garment?)
You instance in Synods meeting and making Laws. To meet for worship or necessary consultation and Concord, is no unwritten ceremonial Tradition, but the obeying of Christ's written Law, which requireth such mutual help, and that we do all to Edification, Concord and Peace. But Communion of many Nations is one thing, and a Government over all is another thing. It was the Emperor's Commission and Power that made Canons to be Laws.
And do you not here write against the King's Commission by which you sit, which declareth from that Act of H. 8. that your Canons are no Laws, till King and Parliament make them so? Ask the Lawyers. Were not the Canons of [Page 358] 1640. cast out even by your own long Parliament?
XIII. But the worst is, that while you set us a new Universal Church Legislative and Judicial Soveraignty, you deny the sufficiency of Scripture, if not the Soveraignty of Christ himself, while you feign unwritten Universal Laws, as part of Christ's Law, & a supplement to the Scripture, & give Christ's Prerogative to a Usurping Soveraignty, utterly uncapable of that Office? Scripture we know where to find; but where to find your Universal Additional Laws, and your Church Senate or College, they must know more than I that know. But so much is written against the Papists (as aforesaid) for Scripture sufficiency, that I refer you thither, and to the Articles, Homilies and Ordination Books which this Church subscribeth to. Alas Sir, is not the whole Bible big enough to make us a Religion?
XIV. As to your definition of the Church, P. 12. It is tolerable if you make no Head but Christ; and set up no Vicarious Head Monarchical or Aristocratical, and instead of Provincial parts, put National and Congregational; or confess that you describe but the Imperial-National Church, which was made up of Roman Provinces. And gratifie not the Fanaticks by making the Holy Ghost to be the authoriser of the Majority for Government: For they will think that they have more of the Holy Ghost than you, and therefore must Govern you. I would all Rulers had the Holy Ghost; but it's somewhat else that must give them Authority.
[Page 359]XV. Your instance of the Easter Controversie is against you. The difference undecided for 300 Years, and Apostolical Tradition urged on both sides, tells us that it was no Apostolick Law; And Socrates and Sozomen tell us, that in that and many such like things [...] Churches had freely differed in Peace▪ [...] you seem to intimate contrary to them and to Iren [...]us, that the Asians were Schismaticks till they Conformed.
And why name you Asia alone? Were our Brittish Churches, and the Scottish no Churches? Or do you also Condemn them as Schismaticks for about 300 Years after the Nicene Council? What could the Papists say more against them?
XVI. How impossible a thing do you make Church Union to be? while the Essentials or great Integrals of Religion are made insufficient to it, and so many Ceremonies and Church Laws are feigned necessary, which no man ever comes to the true knowledge of, that he hath the right ones and all?
XVII. If the Patriarchs must be the Soveraign College, I beseech you give us some proof (in a Case so weighty) 1. How many there must be? 2. Where seated? 3. Who must choose and make them? 4. And quo jure? 5. And whether we have now such a College; or is there no Church?
XVIII. What Place will you give the Pope in the College? I suppose with your Brethren you will call him 1. Principium Vnitatis? But that's a Name of Comparative Order? what is his work as such a Principium? How is he the Principium, if he have no more Power than the rest? Must not he call [Page 360] the Councils? (Though our Articles say General Councils may not be gathered without the Will of Princes). Shall he not choose the Place and Time? Tell us then who shall? Must he not be President? Must he not be Patriarch of the West? And so Govern England as our Patriarch, and Principium unitatis Vniversalis also?
XIX. I pray tell us whether the French be Papists? And how their Church-Government (as Described from themselves by Mr. Jurieu) differeth from that which you are for? Tell me not of their Mass, and other Corruptions? It is Government that is the Form of Popery. And they will abate you many other things: And must we be Frenchified? If the French restore those that we called Papists, will disowning the Name, and calling them the Church of England (chosen by Papist Princes) make us sound and safe? And when we find Arch-Bishop Laud, Arch-Bishop Bromhall, Bishop Guning, Bishop Sparrow, Dr. Saywell, Dr. Heylin, Mr. Thorndike, Bishop S. Parker, and many more were for a Foreign Jurisdiction, can we think if the French bring in the late Governours, that such Churchmen would not embrace the French Church Government, and call it the Church of England, when since Lauds days▪ they have endeavoured a Coalition? If they be Defeated, we may thank King James, who could not bear delays, and would have all or none, when Grotius way would have been a surer Game.
XX. You tell us of Penalties made by Church Laws? Deposing Ministers, and Anathematizing [Page 361] the Laity? But while the Clergy hath no power of the Sword, who will feel such Penalties? When Rome Excommunicates the Greeks, the Greeks will Excommunicate them again: What Penalty is it to Protestants to be Excommunicated by the Pope or his Council? How commonly did they that were for, and against the Chalcedon Council, Excommunicate each other: And those that were for and against Images? And for Photius, and for Ignatius? Cheat not Magistrates to be your Lictors, and Cursing will go round as Scolding at Billingsgate? Who is hurt by a causeless curse, but the Curser? I confess that Dr. Saywell sayeth well; If single persons must be punished, shall not Nations also? Yes: But by whom? By God the Universal King, and not by an Universal Human Soveraign; whether a King or Pope, or a Senate of Foreign Subjects:
XXI. We are promised by a trifling Pamphleteer (that some of you are answering Mr. Clerksons two Books about the Primitive Episcopacy and Liturgies: I pray you procure them also to answer my Treatise of Episcopacy, (and my English Nonconformity) and not with the Impudent Railing Lyars, to say it is answered already, while we can hear of no such thing. And see that they prove that all these things following, are Traditions of the Vniversal Church, received from the Apostles, and used, ab omnibus, ubique & semper.
1. That most particular Churches for two Hundred or three Hundred years and so down, consisted of many Congregations that had no personal presential Communion.
2. That Churches infimi ordinis were Diocesan, [Page 362] having many Hundred or Score Parishes under them.
3. That these Diocesans, undertook the sole Pastoral Care of all these Parishes, as to Confirmation, Censure, Absolution, and the rest.
4. That all these Parishes were no true Churches, as having no Bishops, but the Diocesans, and were but Chappels, or parts of a Church.
5. That the Incumbents were no true Pastors or Bishops, but one Bishops Curates: And that there were not then besides Diocesan Arch-Bishops in each single Church, Episcopi Gregis and Episcopi praesides.
6. That Bishops Names were used by Lay-men that had the Decretive Power of Excommunication and Absolution.
7. That such Secular Judicatories, far from the Parishes, rather than the particular Pastors Tryed and Judged the unknown people.
8. That Parish Ministers Swear Obedience to the Diocesans, and they to Metropolitans.
9. That all People that would have Licenses to keep Ale-houses or Taverns, or that would not lye in Jail, were Commanded to receive the Sacrament as a Sealed Pardon of their Sins.
10. That from the beginning, all Churches were forced to use the same form of Liturgy, and not every Church or Bishop to choose as he saw Cause.
11. That Kings chose Bishops and Deans without the Consent of the Clergy and People.
12. That all Ministers were to be Ejected, and forbidden to Preach the Gospel, that durst not Subscribe that there is nothing contrary to Gods Word in such as our three imposed Books.
[Page 363]13. That all Lords, Magistrates, Priests and People that affirm the contrary, be ipso facto Excommunicate.
14. That Lay-Patrons that are but Rich enough to buy an Advowson (how Vicious soever) did choose all the Incumbent Ministers, to whom the People must commit the Ministerial Care of their Souls.
15. That they that dare not trust such Pastors as are chosen by Kings (though Papists) and such Patrons, and dare not Conform to every imposition like ours, must live like Atheists, in forbearance of all publick Worship and Church Communion.
16. That all may Swear that an Oath or Vow of Lawful and Necessary things, bindeth not our selves or any others, if it be but unlawfully imposed and taken, and had any unlawful part of the Matter.
17. That the Church ever held it unlawful for a whole Kingdom to defend it self against a Prince that would deliver up half the Government to a Foreiner, and force them to a Religion which requireth them to be Damned (or to Dye:) When the Clergy and Church at Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, Rome, &c. did so oft by force and Blood, resist even Christian Emperors, such as Theodosius II. Zeno, Anastasius and many others.
18. That all the Churches held it lawful to Swear and Covenant, never to endeavour any Amendment or Alteration of any such as the forementioned Church Government.
If all these things be contrary to the constant judgment or practice of the Church, Quaere whether Dr. Beveridge and his Approvers, pronounce [Page 362] [...] [Page 363] [...] [Page 364] not the Church of England Schismatical, as so far separated from the Church Universal?
But again I conclude, O! What, must the Christian World suffer even by Learned, and I hope pious Doctors?
I. Because they will not distinguish National or Imperial Vniversality of Church and Councils, from those of the whole World.
II. Nor Communion from Regiment, nor Contracts from Laws; nor a Regent Excommunication from a Renunciation of Communion by Equals.
III. Nor Divine Obligations to Concord, and human demands of obeying Usurpers, or the hurtful Agreements of an injurious Majority of equal Votes.
IV. And by their Deposing Christian Kings and Magistrates from their Sacred Power over Bishops in Church-Government, and for Mens Souls; as if they were made only for the base things of the World and Flesh, and Priests only were trusted with Religion and Souls: And Kings were not Heads of National Churches.
V. And their shameless calling them Adversaries to Episcopacy, that would have one Hundred Bishops for one, and are for the old three sorts, Episcopi Gregis, Episcopi praesides, and Arch-Bishops, and calling those the Episcopal part, that put down all the Bishops in a Diocess save one; As for your self, I profess to be so far from Censuring any thing of you, save these Mistakes, that as I have long, so I do still, Love and Honour you as a Man fearing God, and of a good and blameless Conversation, as far as ever I Credibly heard: And I thought the like of Bishop Guning, though (as it is with many Religious Papists) his Opinions [Page 365] more prevailed against his Charity, for that Mischievous hurtfulness, in which he served the Subtilty of Sheldon, and the fierceness of Morley, and the Designs of Papal Courtiers: But I hear that your Piety and Charity prevaileth against the evil tendency of your mistaken Doctrine: Though Mr. Thorndike threaten England, unless they Reform the Oath of Supremacy, I confess I wish it restored, and am Displeased with those Scots that have causelesly quarrelled with it; and so helpt to open a Door to a Foreign Jurisdiction, which the Kingdom is Sworn against.
Since the writing of all beforegoing, I first read your two great Volumes of Canons, and your Answer to Dallaeus. In the Prolegomena of the first, to my Grief I find you more express for an Universal Legislative Power and Foreign Jurisdiction than in your Sermon: And yet not at all telling us, where to have access to this Universal Soveraignty for Judicature, out of the times of General Councils, nor how to know but by believing your bare word, what Councils are our Universal obliging Laws, when you confess the vast difference of the Eastern and Western numbers, nor how to know what our Religion is, while we know not what be our Laws: Nor how to know whether the Church be extinct, when it hath no human Head, by the Cessation of such Councils; nor who must call them, nor whence, nor what is their Constitutive Matter; only you say, they must be called out of all the Christian World: But need not all be there? And will a Call make a General Council, if the Men come not? And can they come from all the Dominions of the Abassines, Armenians, Turks, Persians, Muscovites, [Page 366] &c. And who hath right to call them? hath the Pope? Or our Emperors or Kings? what power hath he over all other Princes Subjects? You confess they were called out of the Imperial Provinces? And how few (if any) other Names are Subscribed? But I am sorry that you still, so contrary to all Evidence, take National or Imperial Universality for Terrestrial Universality of Church and Councils: I beseech you, if we must be Papists, let us be of the more reasonable sort, that know where to find a Papal Monarch, or Vice-Christ; and not sent to seek a Church-Parliament Universal, or Universal Aristocratical College, that is no where extant in the World, nor can be, especially now the five Patriarchs are what and where they are. How much more Rational to be Governed by the Pope as Patriarch of the West only, till we can find out the Aristocratical Head.
But since the Empire was turned into many Kingdoms, who can prove that those many must have all one Human Head.
But I am yet more sorry that you joyn with Hildebrand, in making Princes to be but for the Body and Civil Peace, and Bishops and Priests to be the Church, and for the Soul: Which (God willing,) as I have oft done, I shall fullier Confute, in a Treatise for true National Churches, proving that Christ hath made no Higher Visible Humane Church Power or Form: And that Christian Kings are as Sacred Persons, and Ministers of Christ as Bishops; and Superior Heads of National Churches, though the Power of the Keys belong only to the Clergy; And that a true National Church, is but a Christian Kingdom, as such, the King being the Head, and Confederate Pastors and Churches the Subject Body.