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 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 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 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 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
of Foreign Jurisdiction is Hostility against Kings and States III. That Foreign Councils of Bishops and Dyets of Soveraign Princes are Authorized for 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 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 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 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 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
this Land 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 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 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 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 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
part of it and the Parliament another part 3. And one whose Laws are for Popery or his power above Laws used by Commission and one who ruleth by Protestant Laws And so 1. A Kingdom under a total Popish Soveraignty ruling by Popish Laws or Mandates above Law is no Political Protestant National Church tho all the Clergy were Protestants The form that denominateth is Papal And yet it is not a Papal Church or Kingdom Because the matter is essential and its disposition without which non recipitur forma It is a Christian Church neither Protestant save equivocally nor Papist but mixt But if Bishop Morley and those Conformists that give the total Legislation and Soveraignty to the King alone be not in the right nor they that make it traiterous to suppose that the Kings Authority speaking by Law may be set against his Personal Will Word and Commission then the Parliament and Laws remaining Protestant the Kingdom and Church may ye be so called though not in the fullest sence Foâ— then the Laws being the Kings publick voice aâ—d the effect of a Power above his own alone 〈◊〉 them tho' he be a Papist he Ruleth as a Protesâ—ant But it is otherwise if his Commissions e. â— to the French or Irish to Invade the Land be â—bove Law and may not be resisted on any pretence whatsoever So great a stress lieth on this poiâ—t of Conformity § 14. But I will leave another case to the consideration of others â—f Metropolitans or Primates if Diocesans or Convocations be the summa Potestas Ecclesiastica and a Church be truly Societas Politica or governed Qu. Then what Religion was the Diocesan Church of Gloucester while Godfrey Goodman was Bishop Or the Diocesan Churches of Eli of Norwich of Oxford c. while Dr. Guning Dr. Sparrow Dr. Parker c. were Bishops Or the Church of England and Ireland while Dr. Laud Dr. Neale were here the Metropolitans and Dr. Bromhall Primate of Ireland § 15. As to the Learned Dr. now Bishop Stillingfleet that maketh the Church of England to have no visible Informing Constitutive Head or Soveraign but to be Governed by meer Consent of men Agreeing in a Convocation representing the whole body I am sorry I have said heretofore so much against it as if the Consent of all Writers of Politicks regardable had not been answer enough who agree that all Politick bodies are essentiated by the Pars Imperans or summa Potestas and the Pars subdita as the Materia disposita And I so much honour the National Church of England as that I shall not yet grant till it is further deformed That It is no Political Body but a meer Confederating Community likâ— a Confederacy of Kingdoms But if ever it come to that you may say that when the same Land hath many sorts of Confederate Clergies it hath as many Churches and which is the best I think is not known in France or Spain or Italy or here by the Major Vote nor hath Nature put a Ruling Authority in Major Votes of Lay or Clergy as born with them before Contract give it them by Political Constitution All 's well in Heaven The Lord fit us for it March 30. 1691. Since the writing of all this I have read Bishop Stillingfleet's excellent Charge to his Clergy which would give me hope not only of the continuance of the Protestant Reformation here but also of such a further Reformation as may procure our Concord or at last move the Law-makers so far to amend the Act of Uniformity as may procure it were it not that the deluge of the wickedness in City and Countrey and the paucity of Men qualified for his described Work and the Power and Number of the Enemies of it maketh me fear that it will die as unpracticable singularity But I humbly recommend to the Clergy the regard especially of these passages in it I. Pag. 12. Those that have the smallest Cures are called PASTORS and Linwood notes that Parochialis Sacerdoâ— dicitur Pastor and that not only by way of Allusion but in respect to the Cure of Souls but we need not go so far back What are they admitted to Is it not ad Curam Animarum Ask Dr. Fuller Dean of Lincoln then Whether it be Ministerial Truth to publish that Parochus was never called Pastor till the deliraâ—ion of this and the former Age. II. Pag. 25. I hope thâ—y are now convinced that the Persecution wâ—ich they complained lately so much of was carried on by other Men and for other designâ— than they would then seem to believe I am glad that you are convinced of it You are mistaken in us we believed it ever since 1660. But we know that it was Sheldon Morley Guning Hinchman Sparrow and many more such that were the great Agents of it in Court Convocation and Parliament I thank you for disowning it III. I rejoice to find it proved Pag. 37. that The Bishop is judge of the fitness of any Clerk presented to a Benefice which as it puts us in some faint hopes for the future so for the time past it tells the Bishops whose the guilt is of the Institution of all the uncapable Clergy IV. Pag. 40. He proveth that Visitations should be Parochial V. He comfortably purposeth to reduce Confirmation to its true use And tells Ministers their Duty of Certifying the Receivers fitness VI. In a word I intreat the Reader to compare this Charge with the Visitation Articles of Bishop Wren Pierce and such others and the Charge against them in Parliament and observe the difference and be thankful for so much April 3. 1691. FINIS (a) So they are even of that one Body of which Christ is Head (b) 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 (c) Nor in Kingdoms neither under one Man or Senate But they have a better Union (a) 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 (b) How much that is see in their Patriarch Jeremias and in the Council at Florence (c) 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 (d) Did the third tye us to the fourth (e) That was well put in But by whom Convocated (f) Over Councils (g) 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
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 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 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 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 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
whole Church under 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 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 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 quateâ—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 Itaque legantur Concilia quidem cum honore Christiana reverentia sed interim ad Scripturarum piam certam rectamque 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 aâ— Regiam personam but no further Vid. de Eccles. c. 10. de Episc. Potestate Et pag. 190. Rex tam in Archiepiscopos Episcopos Clericos alias Ministros quà m in Laicos intra sua regna dominia plenissimam jurisdictionem tam civilem quà m 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 Provinâ—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 â—o peruse that notable Letter of King Henry the â—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 â—or the Subsidy 3 Jacobi of the Clergy And â—ure they that took him for Antichrist thought 〈◊〉 not that as Pope or Patriarch he had any ruling â—ower here IX The Apology of the Church of England â—n Jewel's Works ordered to be kept in all the â—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 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.
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 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 she hath Authority to Command their Obedience in things that belong to Peace and Holiness Ans. I confess Campanella de Reâ—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 iâ— 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 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 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 theiâ— 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 Hâ—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
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 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 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 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 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 own them nor ever will be A thousand Years sure
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 a visible Society and constituted a visible Government in it 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 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 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 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
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 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 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 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 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
Extra-Imperial Churches had Bishops in those Councils or were there represented yea or ever called Doth he prove a word of this Not one word but saith The Ethiopians now submit to them Ans. 3. The Question is not what they do now but what they did then Christian Reader admire the gracious Providence of God The Custom then was for the Major Vote of the Bishops in Council when they anathematized any as Hereticks to get them banished Many of these banished men enlarged the Church and encreased the numbers of Christians where they came but they propagated a Condemnation of the Councils that condemned them Nestorius but specially Dioscorus and Jacobus Syrus and many of the Eutychians turned multitudes in the East and South and some in Tartary to their minds herein Among others the Abyssines were taken with the Reverence and Authority of Dioscorus condemning the Council at Chalcedon and the rest that were against him And all the Extra-Imperial Churches honoured those of the Empire above themselves living under Infidels except Abassia and rejoyced in the Power of the Christian Empire but never joyned in their Councils nor received them as their Laws but rejoyced as Consenters to all that they thought good He cannot prove that before Dioscorus Banishment the Abassines obeyed Alexandria And to this day their Abuna is chosen by the Monks at Jerusalem say some but say others chosen and confirmed by the titular Patriarch of Alexandria and ruleth Abassia himself and they all condemn the foresaid Councils and the Pope Godignus tells you and Ludolphus more fully what respect they have for the Pope and our Councils Ans. 4. The truth is all that ever I heard yet that can be said for the Subjection of the Abassines or other Exterior Churches to the Council even of Nice or the Patriarchs before is but a Word in the Canons lately Divulged by Pisanus which are novel of no Authority nor to be Credited by any that Credit not the Roman Forgeries And it 's contrary to the true Nicene Canon that saith Egypt only is Subject to Alexandria when this Forgery addeth Ethiopia And yet it 's said of Trajan that he went far into Ethiopia to Enlarge the Roman Power So if the Romans had any skirt there as they had oft in Persia and Scythia that 's nothing to the Abassines nor proveth any Exteriors much less all represented in the General Councils of old Ans. 5. Many Countries and Parties did for Concord and some Advantages put themselves under particular Patriarchs and also profess their voluntary consent to the Nicene and some other Councils Canons or Creed who yet never took a General Council for the Rightful Soveraign of the Christian Churches through the World At this day one Sect obeyeth only the Patriarch of Constantinople and rejecteth all the rest and another the Patriarch of Alexandria and three others the three pretending Patriarchs of Antioch rejecting the rest and they reject as aforesaid some of the four first Councils and all that followed By which it appeareth that they take not the four or five Patriarchs Essential to Catholick Unity nor General Councils to have a supream Regiment over all Most Protestants receive the four first General Councils saving some mutable accidentals And yet they hold not their Universal Soveraignty L. It is neither lawful nor possible to call a Vniversal Council to Exercise Vniversal Soveraignty nor ever like to be I have fully proved this in the Second part of my Key for Catholicks Consider 1. It must be Grave Experienced Men who are fit to be trusted in so great a Matter And such are Aged and usually weak 2. From Abassia Mexico Armenia c. they must be a year or near in receiving the Summons and as long in preparing and coming to Europe if this be the place 3. They must it's like be some years absent at the Council 4. They cannot if they are sufficient Representatives come all into one Room to hear Debates 5. They cannot most of them understand one anothers Language 6. They will hardly live to bring back the Decrees 7. There is no Person or Senate in the World that hath an obliging Authority to call them 8. It is not like that they will ever agree Voluntarily to meet in one place without such Authority The Abassines Armenians Syrians c. will think we should come to them and we shall think they should come to us 9. If possibly they should agree a Mans Age is little enough to go all over the World to Sollicite and bring them to such Agreement 10. Who and how many will undertake that task 11. How few can bear the Charges of all this 12. It were sinful Cruelty to Separate the Wisest Men so long from their Charges to the Peoples loss as well as by the Voyages and Journeys to kill them 13. It is certain that most of the Princes on Earth under whose power the Bishops live would not give leave to go out of their Dominions to such Synods most being Infidels many Heterodox and many in Wars or Enmity with each other and almost all in Jealousies and without their leave they cannot come 14. The great Numbers of the nearer Bishops and the paucity of the most remote would make it no true Representative as to Votes 15. There is no one on Earth Antecedently Authorized to be their President what ever the Papists pretend And to choose a President it 's like so many such would hardly agree 16. It 's already known that they account one another Hereticks or Schismaticks or Usurping Tyrants before hand Some are called Nestorian Hereticks some Eutychian or Jacobite Hereticks some Melchites some one thing and some another and most take the Papists for Tyrants and Hereticks both And will all these ever meet in Council 17. Men are naturally so much for their own ease and so much against Works of so vast difficulty charge and hazard that a competent number of fit Men would never undertake it it being almost equal to a Martyrdom which even the best Men will not undergo till they are better Convinced of the Duty and Necessity than any Man can truly be of such Universal Councils 18. It 's known that all the Protestants if not allmost all other Christians save Papists do believe no such Councils to be necessary no nor lawful but to be usurping Tyranny as challenging the Universal Church-Government as a Senate So that as there never was so there never will be must be or can be such a Council unless which God forbid all the Church should be again Reduced to a narrow Room LI. They that would make such Councils possible by pretending that a few Patriarchs and such Bishops as they will bring with them are the Sufficient and Authorized Representers of all the rest do but more grossly deceive and abuse the Christian World For 1. They never proved nor can prove that ever Christ Authorized such Patriarchs much less to such a Power 2. And whereas Arch-Bishop
Bromhal saith that God doth it by the Law of Nature enabling Men to do it and to deny this is to overthrow all Government I answer 1. We know of no such Law of Nature nor that he is a Credible Expositor of it We take the Law of Nature on the Reasons before and after mentioned to be plainly against the very being of such Councils and especially against such trusting our Religion with them and supposing them to be the Governors of all the Christian Princes and People on Earth 2. What Men be they that have given these Patriarchs this Power If Men dead 1300. years ago they have no Authority now Dead Men have no ruling Power The Laws of the Land bind us not now by any power that the Dead Kings and Parliaments have over us But though made by them they bind us now only as the Laws of our present Governours By the Constitution the Successive Kings are still by consent to make them Their Laws till by consent of King and Parliament they are Dissolved Unless some present power over us make them Their Laws no old Church Canons can bind us 3. If they say that God binds us to stand to what our Ancestors did I want the proof of that If we will have the benefit of our Ancestors Contract we must stand to them else we may choose A Father cannot bind his Child to his hurt but only to his Benefit Let them prove the Obligation 4. But we deny that any made those Patriarchs who would have had any power over us had we been then alive The Subjects of one Prince made them in his Empire and he Confirmed them But neither that Prince nor his Subjects were our Rulers here what if the King or Convocation make Canterbury and York Metropolitans Doth it follow that they have Church-power over other Lands 5. These Patriarchs had never the Government of any given them by the old Councils but within the Empire And after of some Volunteers that for Advantage chose it 6. Who be these Patriarchs they talk of Are they not all turned into Names and Shadows Condemning one another and must these five fighting Shadows Represent and Rule the Christian World 7. To return to the twelve Apostles is Impertinent The Apostles were prime Ministers and more Represented Christ than the Church The Church chose them not Christ made them Foundations Bases and Pillars in his Church but not Representatives of it And if he had they chose none to Succeed them as Apostles But as ordinary Ministers all Ministers Succeed them and as Superior Ministers some say Bishops Bellarmine confesseth and proveth that the Apostles as such have no Successors and that the Pope Succeedeth not Peter as an Apostle but as he Dreams as an ordinary Supream Pastor Had the Apostles setled twelve or thirteen Successors or appointed any Churches to be Rulers of the rest we must have obeyed these Rulers But who have called them a General Council None but Rome Antioch and Alexandria claimed Succession from the Apostles and all these claimed it but from one Apostle Peter Rome and Antioch as his pretended Seats and Alexandria that he set St. Mark over them sure the Apostles rose not from the dead to make Constantinople and Jerusalem Patriarchates And if they had four of the five Patriarchs are all now Subjects to the Turk And experience telling us what Power Princes have in the Choice and Ruling of the Clergy All this doth but say that the Turk is the Chief Governour of the Religion and Consciences of all the Christian World If they plead for new Power to make Patriarchs let them prove who hath that Power over all the World and how they came by it and how they now use it Will all the Christian World who fear the guilt of obeying Usurpers and disobeying Christians ever unite in the obedience of Patriarchs who cannot be known by the wisest much less by all to have any Authority to command them LII The Pope hath done much of his mischiefs to the Church and World by the Councils of Bishops They have been his Army and he their General Without them he could have done little or nothing By them the most of Church Corruptions have been made Laws By them Emperors have been deposed Rebellions maintained the Pope enabled to give away their Kingdoms absolve Subjects from their Oaths to make it a Heresie called Henrician to be Loyal to dig dead Bishops out of their graves as Hereticks that were for Loyalty Yea the Councils of Bishops without if not against the Pope deposed the good Ludovicus Pius and have done much to the corruption and confusion of the Churches as I have elsewhere proved LIII General Councils are not the authorized or lawful Supreme Government of the Universal Church nor have an Universal Legislative or Judiciary Power This many Protestants and after all Dr. Barrow have unanswerably proved Arg. 1. If there never was nor must be nor can be a true Universal Council then such a Council is not the Churches Supreme Governour But the antecedent I have before proved Arg. 2. That Government which the Church was without for three hundred years is not the just Supreme Government of the Universal Church For the Church is not the Church without its Supreme Government But the Church was without a General Council at least for three hundred years Arg. 3. That Government which rarely existeth and hath not existed near an hundred years or as some of our Adversaries say a thousand is not the Supreme Government of the Church For then the Church would be dead and no Church in all that time of vacancy for the Species depends on the Supreme Government But the Church hath so rarely had that which our present Adversaries themselves take for a true General Council If the Council of Trent were any they have had none since Yea Bishop Guning owneth but the six first Councils called General And if there were none since then the Church hath had no Supreme Council just a thousand years And was it this thousand years no Church or of another Species Or can the Church be a thousand years without its Supreme Government Arg. 4. If General Councils be the Supreme Legislative Power then the Church hath had no such Councils-Laws for all the foresaid vacancies 300 years first and since 601 a thousand years after But the Adversaries will not allow the consequent that all the Canons of General Councils were no Laws so long But the antecedent is proved from the definition of Laws which are the signification of the Soveraigns Will to be the Rule of the Subjects Right actions and dues There is no Law which is not the Rulers Law and if the Ruler be dead the Law is dead For a dead man hath neither Authority nor Will. Obj. Our Laws die not with the King nor at the dissolution of Parliaments Ans. 1. The Law saith Rex non moritur As soon as he is dead the next Heir
to him after 3. Between a Bishop whose revolt is professed and one that denieth it or keeps it secret 4. Between living peaceably and owning the Right of the Bishops Authority 5. Between obeying him as a Magistrate and as a Church Pastor 6. Between obeying him as a meer Bishop and as the Subject of a Foreign Power 7. Between obeying such a one when the Church accepteth him or when he is but an intruder against their consent 8. Between subjection in necessary cases where no better can be had and in cases unnecessary where we may have better § 6. And I shall speak my thoughts as in a dreadful case in these Conclusions I. If the Bishops revolt to a Foreign Jurisdiction be unknown it maketh not that Obedience to him unlawful which was his due II. If a few Bishops revolt to a Foreign Usurper it 's easie to see that no one should follow them against the contrary judgment of all the rest in the Nation and so forsake the National Concord III. If one or more Bishops be known to revolt to a Foreign Soveraign a Minister is not bound therefore to renounce Communion with all the Christians or Churches in his Diocess who are innocent No nor with all that renounce not Communion with him For we know not whether they know his case and have had means to understand and do their Duty IV. So far as a Bishop exerciseth the Power of the Sword as an Officer of the King we must obey him though he be a Papist in all things which he hath true power to command V. One that was Ordained by him before his revolt may go on with his work and live peaceably and not openly renounce the revolting Bishop till he have a particular Call for the Churches safety or the preservation of his own innocency VI. If a man be necessitated to live where no other Ministry or Christian Communion can be had one that renounceth the Bishops Subjection to an Universal Usurper may yet be subject to him and receive Baptism from him or administer it and other Ordinances of God in his Diocess and acknowledge his Office so far as it is described by Christ and conveyed by just means and hath the consent of the Church A man may have two Commissions to one Office of which one is currant and the other null If one that hath Christs Commission shall also take one from a Forreign Usurper the latter is void and the taking of it is his heinous sin but it doth not nullifie all his Administrations to the Church because his better Commission may so far stand good as that his Baptizing Ordination and other Administration of Gods own Ordinances shall not be null And therefore we use not to Rebaptize such as Papists Baptize nor Re-ordain all that they ordain to the Ministry in general VII But it is rather a Duty to forbear all Church Assemblies where no other can be had than to profess conâ—â—nt to a Foreign Usurpation or pretended Universal Soveraignty For no sin must be done on pretence of necessity nothing being indeed necessary which must be got by sinful means VIII If a Nation as France be subject to the Usurpers of an Universal Soveraignty or if a Nation shew themselves to be designing such a Subjection or if one Bishop or more declare themselves for it It is the Duty of Ministers openly to disown and oppose such attempts and ordinarily to disown the proper Church Government Ordinations and Communion of such Bishops And it is the peoples Duty to disown the Pastoral Conduct of such Ministers as openly follow them For 1. The design of this Universal Usurpation is Treason against Christ by setting up men to possess his Prerogative and pretend to be his Vicars or Chief Substitutes without his Commission And it is a design to divide all the Churches by false means of Union and so to cast them all into that miserable War which the Romanists these Thousand years have done And consequently to introduce an intolerable corruption of Discipline and Worship Doctrine and Life And no man may lawfully join in so wicked a design nor be so much as neutral If with single Fornicators Railers Drunkards c. we may not eat in familiarity much less with such Subverters of the Christian World 2. And no Christian is actually a Church-member under any one as his Pastor without mutual Consent And it is not lawful to consent to take a Traytor against Christ and the Church for our Pastor He that is no Pastor should not be taken for a Pastor But if he either want any Essential Qualification as to be Christs Minister for the Churches good or the Consent of the Flock he is no Pastor to them 3. The resolution of the Case against Martial and Basilides by the Carthage Council with Cyprian fully decideth the Case proving by Scripture and Reason if the people forsake not an uncapable Bishop though other Bishops are for them they greatly sin against God And those that were but Libellatick came far short of the guilt of the Universal Usurpation 4. And it is not the danger of suffering that will justifie Subjection to such Designers For suffering must not seem intolerable to Believers None are true Christians but dispositive Martyrs 5. Many old Canons were made against Presbyters Swearing or Promising Obedience to Bishops as a thing dangerous to the Church much more is it sinful to do it to such Church Enemies 6. And Magistrates commands will not excuse it because it is a thing forbidden of God and which no Man hath right to command IX The restriction of in licitis honestis maketh it not lawful to Swear or Promise Obedience to such 1. Because even to subject our selves to Usurpers is not licitum aut honestum tho' they command nothing else but good 2. A Lawful Ruler must be obeyed only in licitis honestis And a Usurper must not be as much owned as a Lawful Ruler If an Usurper should set up in England and should falsly pretend the Kings Commission and should sollicite the Kings Army to take Commissions from him a Loyal Subject might be deceived by him believing that he had the Kings Commission when he had none And might at once be true to the King in Heart and do the things that Traytors do But if he know that he hath none of the Kings Commission but raiseth Arms against his Will and Law to strengthen himself every Subject ought to renounce him and to renounce the Commanders that follow him and neither to Swear Obedience to them in licitis honestis nor yet to bear Arms under them And this is as true of a Parliament or any Senate as of a single Usurper should they falsly pretend that the King or Law doth make them the Governors of the Kingdom and so Usurp the Kings proper Power And specially if the Total Legislative and Judicial Supreme Power be absolutely in the King alone as it is in God
bounds of Civil jurisdiction The many Councils which have been for Arians Eutychians Nestorians Monothelites Adoration of Images Papal tyranny c. and the many that have contradicted and condemned them tell us that the Right of Councils must have a better proof than their own affirmation And the far greater number of Christians that have approved or received the Erroneous tell us that they need a better proof than the reception of the greater part How great a part received Greg. 7th dictates and the Councils that Hereticated Royalists as Henricians But that proved not that these things were just Pope Vrbans Letter to King Lewis 13th of France 1629. in the 2d part of the Cab. p. 213. saith Your Ancestors have ever born as much respect to the exhortations of Popes as to the Commandment of God But do these words prove that this is true No more doth it that Leo the first was Caput Ecclesiae Vniversalis because he so called himself The Grand Signiour in his Defiance of Maximilian the Emperor ibid. p. 12. calls himself God in Earth Great and High Emperor of all the World the Great Helper of God King of Kings the only Victorious and Triumphant Lord of the World and of all Circuits and Provinces thereof And more Persons are Mahometans than Christians and more Heathens than either or both and yet none of this proveth Truth and Right § 10. I have marvelled that Carol. Boverius should think it a fit Argument to move our late King Charles 2d in Spain to turn Papist that Monarchy is the best Government in the State Ergo the Papal Monarchy in the Church Did he think the King so dull that he could not distinguish Particular Kingdoms and Monarchs from Vniversal How would the King have taken it if he had said Sir an Vniversal Monarchy is the best humane Government therefore you must subject your self and Kingdom to one Vniversal Monarch But the pretence of an Universal Democracy Aristocracy or Church-Parliament is more absurd and worse as I have proved § 11. Do our Changers of Government think that it is a small matter of which King and People will take no notice but be decoyed into by degrees in the dark to make King Lords Bishops and all the Kingdom the Subjects of a Foreigner and of a Parliament of Prelates who are themselves the Subjects of a Multitude of Foreign Princes Mahometans Heathens Greeks Papists c. As the Child said My Mother ruleth my Father and I rule my Mother and my Father ruleth the City Therefore I rule the City So we may then say the King ruleth England and a Council of Foreign Prelates rule the King and Heathen Mahometan Moscovian Armenian Papist c. Princes rule most of the Bishops in Council Ergo these Princes rule the King Do they know what it is for Pope or Prelates abroad to be made Judges Ecclesiastical of all persons and causes here and to have Power to Excommunicate King and Lords and depose Bishops and silence Ministers and Hereticate Dissenters and Interdict the Kingdom c. Again and again I say that I wonder if those men that have promoted so many Oaths and Promises in the Acts of Corporations Uniformity Vestries Confinement Conventicles Militia never to endeavour any alteration of Government in Church or State can possibly blind the Nation to think it no alteration to Subject King Church and Kingdom to a Foreign pretended Universal Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction Whether it be Perjury or Treason is no debate for me but I am sure that in ordine ad Spiritualia great temporal power will follow and Excommunicating and Anathematizing Kings and People hath not hitherto been a Toothless thing But quos perdere vult Jupiter hos dementat § 12. And what if they had found Ancient Councils Excommunicate some men without the Empire What pitty is it that any where Lords yea Bishops and Clergy men should be bred up in such Ignorance as to think that all Excommunicating is an act of Government I said before any Neighbour Prince Nation or People any number of Bishops when they hear another Nation turned notorious Hereticks may renounce Communion with them and declare the reason of it because they have made themselves uncapable Governing Excommunication per judicium publicum id est per personam publicam seu Rectorem is one thing and a declared renunciation and refusal of Communion per judicium privatum that is by an equal or private person is another thing I am not bound to stay till Turk or Pope is Excommunicated by their Governours before I renounce Christian Communion with them Paul's charge 1 Cor. 5. With such a one no not to eat and Tit. 3.10 A Man that is an Heretick after the first and second admonition avoid and St. John's Bid him not good speed c. may bind equals that have but judicium privatum discretionis when no Superior Ruler Excommunicateth the Sinner Chap. X. Some Questions about General Councils to be resolved before all the World can subject Kings Kingdoms Souls and Scripture to their Government or Decrees and take them for the Vnifying Ruling-Power over the Vniversal Church NOthing can be more necessary to all Christians Learned and Unlearned than to be sure of the truth of that which must be the foundation of all our obedience and our hopes And therefore if it be the General Councils Actual or Virtual in the chief Patriarchs and Metropolitans or supposed College of Bishops which is the Unifying or Constitutive Regent part of the Universal Church and on whose credit we must take the Scripture to be God's Word and from whose Judgment we must not appeal to Scripture or to God it 's the primum necessarium that we be sure of the Authority and Infallibility or Credit of such Councils And first we are to consider the matter of their Determining Power 1. There are Things 2. Words 3. The signification of words to be judged of 2. There are Truths of Natural and of Supernatural Revelation to be judged of 3. There are the Essentials of Christianity the Integrals and the Accidents to be judged of 4. And the Judgment is 1. Witnessing 2. Teaching 3. Or judicially Deciding We must first know who are the Judges 2. What is their work 3. How certain they are Qu. 1. Did not Apostles and other Preachers singly convert men even thousands before there was any General Council and that by such evidence as the single Preacher brought Or was it by the Argument of Universal Consent that every one then was converted e. g. the Eunuch Act. 8. The Jailor and Lydia Act. 16. Cornelius and his house Act. 10. The three thousand Act. 2.37 c. Q. 2. Did none that St. Paul wrote his Epistles to believe them till they were told that all the Teachers and Bishops of the Churches gave them their Authority Were the Gospels written by Matthew Mark Luke and John received only by the Argument of the Councils or Colleges Authority Q.
be by an undeniable Miraclâ— And hath God promised to Govern his Church by constant Miracles yea as many Miracles as there be ignorant and wicked Bishops and that through all Generations Q. 33. Doth it not require great Knowledge of History to be sure what Councils there have been and which were Orthodox and which Heretical which valid and which invalid and what they did and which side had the Major Vote And is all this Historical Knowledge necessary to Salvation in Learned and Unlearned Q. 34. Yea Is there one Priest of many that hath such certainty of such History of Councils when Writers so much disagree Q. 35. Seeing Historians are but like other men and all men are lyars or untrusty and it 's notorious that Ignorance Faction Temerity and Partiality if not Malignity hath filled the World with so much false History that except in Matters of Publick uncontradicted Evidence no man well knoweth what to believe How shall all Christians lay their Salvation on so great knowledge of History as is necessary to certainty herein Q. 36. If the belief of Councils or the College of Bishops as wide as the World be fundamentally necessary to Duty Unity or Salvation Is it not necessary that all know what are their Decrees and Laws And how can they know this when Councils and Decrees are so Voluminous and few Priests know them and when the World is yet disagreed what Canons or Laws are obligatory and what not But they contradict and condemn each others Laws Q. 37. If a Lay-man should know but one part of the Councils Decrees about Faith or Obedience will such a defective half Faith and Obedience save him or must he know all Q. 38. If you say that all this Historical Knowledge is not necessary to the Laity but they must believe herein the Priests or Bishop that is over them 1. How is this then a belief of Councils 2. What shall the poor People do that one of many hundred of them never see their Bishop much less ever spake with him 3. And are their Priests infallible herein or not Q. 39. Doth not this by the deceitful noise of the Catholick Church and Councils and a College of Bishops make every Parish Priest's word the very Foundation into which all mens Faith must be resolved And he that saith I believe the Scripture because the Church and Councils propose it or attest it and I believe that the Church and Council say it because the Priest saith it Doth he not say as much as I believe the Scripture Church and Councils upon the bare word of the Priest Q. 40. Is it not hard for the People that know their Priests to be sottish ignorant prophane drunken malicious men to lay all their Salvation on a supposed certainty that these Priests say true Q. 41. If the Parishioners know also that their Priests never read the Councils and confess that he is ignorant of them and know him also to be a common lyar Can they certainly believe the Scripture and the Councils and the Matters of Faith and duty contained in both upon the word of such a Priest Q. 42. Can they that are unlearned and never see a Bishop tell whether the Parish Priest and the Bishop say the same Or whether their Bishop be of the same Mind with the other Bishops and whether the Bishops e. g. of England be of the same Mind with the Bishops of France Spain Italy Germany Denmark Sweden c. and they of the same Mind with the Greeks c. Q. 43. Is it a Divine Faith that is resolved thus into the meer belief of Man yea of an Ignorant Priest or Prelate or but a Humane Q. 44. If we and all men had no other certainty of the Scripture but the word of such a Priest or the Decree of a Council would it be more or less certain to us than now it is Q. 45. Have none of all those Christians a true Divine Faith who are converted by Protestant Preachers who teach them to believe the Scripture upon other Evidence than a Councils word Q. 46. By what Evidence doth a Council know the Scripture to be God's Word Is it only by the Testimony of a former Council If so How did that former Council know it and so the first Council that had none before to testifie it And what use is there for the assertion of the later Council when it 's done already by a former Q. 47. Why doth not one Council determine of all that is necessary to Salvation but leave it still undone But if it be done must new ones be called to the end of the World to say the same thing over again and do that which others had done before them Q. 48. Is not the Law the Rule of Duty and Judgment and must all Christians be Judged at last by the Bishops Canon Law And seeing Sin is a Transgression of the Law and it 's harder to obey a Thousand Laws than a few Are not they the most Mortal Enemies to Christians who make them so many Laws and make Salvation so hard a work Q. 49. Seeing Christ was above three Years teaching his Apostles before he died and after his Resurrection was seen of them fourty days and speaking of the things pertaining to the Kingdom of God and being assembled together with them commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem but wait for the Promise of the Father even the Spirit to lead them into all truth and bring all things to their remembrance and their Commission was to teach all Christians to observe whatever Christ commanded Act. 1.3 4. Math. 28.19 20. is it to be believed that yet Christ by himself and his Spirit in these Apostles did not make all the Laws that are Divine and enow for the Universal Church to observe as necessary to Salvation and Universal Concord Q. 50. Is it not enough to Salvation and Church Concord for all the Pastors of the Churches to agree 1. In preserving these Laws and Doctrines of Christ 2. And to teach the People to know and obey them 3. And to defend them against Adversaries and 4. To make them the rule of their Communion by the exercise of the Keys 5. And by their own Authority to determine of variable Circumstances of Worship such as the Place of meeting the time the translation the subject for the day c. Is there besides all this a necessity of Universal Laws for the Salvation and Concord of Believers and of a standing Soveraign Power in Priests Prelates or Patriarchs or Pope to make such Laws Q. 51. Have we not better assurance that the foresaid Apostles taught by Christ and inspired by the Holy Ghost had Authority and Infallibility for this work than we can have that Pope Patriarchs Prelates or Priests have it Q. 52. When some English Prelates and Priests tell us that he is a Schismatick that obeyeth not the Universal Church and that Schism is a damning Sin do they not
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 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 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 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 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
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 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 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 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 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
Rule delivered by himself and by the Council of Trent c. 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 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 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 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 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 solosque clericorum mores degeneres schismati dedisse locum Adferebatque 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 Deumque ex
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 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 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 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 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 makes them Hereticks to the Church that Communicate with Hereticks and Schismaticks that Communicate with Schismaticks 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 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 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 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 Pag. 28. The promise of Baptism is not available 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 the World 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 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 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 Councilâ— which they call 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 tâ—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 neâ—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 faâ—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 them for it and then there is no reason why one Man should be censured and many go frâ—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 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 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 Univeâ—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.
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 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 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 § 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 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
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 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 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 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 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
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 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 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 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 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 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 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-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 Revâ—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 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 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
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 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 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 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 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
Sects were at first Members of these Episcopal Churches 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 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 2. They have actually received from their Superiors nothing but what their Superiors did actually intend to give them One would think this should be very clear 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 they must not judge of the Intention of the Bishop by the real 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 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 â—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 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 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 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 Readers you see here the Core of the Churches disease and chief of our
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 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 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 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 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 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 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
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 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 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 worâ—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 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 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.
And yet he may own most or all other Pastors of the Catholick Church as such He that thinks the Subscriptions Forms or Ceremonies of the Greek Roman or English Church unlawful doth not therefore think Christianity or Catholick Communion unlawful XXXVIII All Christians are not bound to be fixed Members of particular Churches subordinate to National but those that can enjoy it ought The Negative I have so fully proved against Dr. Stillingfleet that for Dr. Sherlock to go on to harp on the same string and give no answer to it doth but tell us with what Men we have to do I will not repeat the Proofs I gave that some Ambassadors some Merchants some wandering Beggars or Tradesmen some Travellers and some where no Churches yet are gathered some Soldiers and some in times of Confusion are not obliged to be fixed Members of any particular Church but only to be Christians in Communion with the Church Catholick and to hold transient Communion with the Churches where they come He that yet will deny this words will not make him see it XXXIX Many of these Churches in one Kingdom have so great advantage by the Unity of Soveraignty civil Interest and Laws to be strengthening helpers to one another that they should accordingly associate and live in as much concord as their various conditions Auditors and Imperfections will allow And accordingly as Neighbours owe some more Charity to each other than to Strangers so Christians under the same Prince united by Civil Government Laws and Interest should be so far from persecuting and destroying each other for that which in various Kingdoms is allowable in Religion that they should exercise more love compassion and forbearance of one another XL. Christian Princes are true Parts of the Kingdom of Christ and eminent Integral Parts of the Universal Church as well as Pastors And are bound by Christ to do their best to make all their Kingdoms the Kingdoms of Christ that is to bring all their Subjects to consent to be Christians and to live in concordant Obedience to the Laws of Christ. And so all Nations should be discipled as far as they can procure it And such National Churches that is Christian Kingdoms we must all desire XLI Supreme Christian Princes or States are authorized and obliged to drive on by just means all Pastors and People to the Duties of their several Places and correct them for their Crimes XLII Christian Princes and States being Members of the Universal Church are bound to contribute their best endeavours to its welfare And therefore so far to Unite and Agree as is necessary to their mutual strengthening for the Universal good XLIII Therefore so far as Civil Councils or Dyets of many Princes or their Delegates or Ambassadors are necessary to this Concord for the common good they are bound by God to keep such And where Meetings cannot be kept to use all meet correspondency by Ambassadors and Letters for the same End So that this is no duty proper to Bishops but common to Christian Princes And if their sinful omission make it strange it is nevertheless their duty as God will make them know XLIV Thy Synods of Pastors duly ordered are of great use for their mutual advice strength and concord in order to the universal good So far are we from being against them that we think the right use of them of great importance That they may keep a right understanding of the Faith which they agree in and bear down Heresies the better by their joynt opposition and may keep up Christian Love and work out the disaffections which strangers and the calumnies of backbiters are apt to breed And even in Integrals and meet Accidents may do as much in Concord as they can XLV The Obligation which lieth on Particular Pastors to observe the Agreements of such Synods is from the general command of Love and Concord and the means thereto And he that stands not to such Agreements as make for the Strength and Concord of the Churches violateth this Common Law But such Agreements of Synods as make not for this common end but are against it no man is obliged to observe For it is no means that is not for the End but against it Therefore every Canon which enjoyneth sin or is not to the Churches good but hurt must not be kept XLVI It is not true that the Diocesan is by Office the Representer of the whole Church in Synods and Presbyters have no place or decisive Votes Protestants have at large confuted this in their Confutations of Popery and so have many French Papists and some others The Convocation in England hath a lower House of Presbyters Else in Abassia one Bishop were instead of all the Clergy of the Empire And two or three were a National Synod in a Nation that hath no more Diocesses They can shew no Commission for such a Representative Power therefore they have none such XLVII Much less have five Patriarchs and a few Metropolitans or such near them as they will call Authority to pass for the Representatives of all the Christian World and to constitute a General Council XLVIII No Pastors or Churches can give power to any to represent them absolutely but only limitedly to lawful things for common good And to oblige them no further or longer to stand to what they do than the common good requireth it What a man may not do himself he may not authorize another to do for him And no man may himself oppose Truth or Duty or cross the common good or assert any falshood or consent to any sin And that which accidentally maketh for the common good in one Age or Countrey may be against it in the next And then we are obliged against it whatever our Delegates Ancestors or selves did for it before XLIX There was never in the World a General Council of all the Bishops on Earth nor of the Representatives of all the Churches Even the six or eight or more old Councils now most honoured were General but as to One Empire yea far from that and not as to all the Christian World This I have fully proved in my second Book against Johnson 1. From the Subscriptions to the said Councils 2. From the Authority of the Emperors that called them 3. From the rest of the History and Acts 4. And from the Testimony of the Historians of those Times Yet A. Bishop Bromhall with the Papist Priest Johnson maintaineth the contrary pag. 110. saying This Exception was made in the dark c. and saith it abounds with Errours and that the Abuna of Ethiopia submitteth to the Patriarch of Alexandria and they all acknowledge the Pope the first Patriarch c. Ans. 1. If such a cant as this go with any man for a satisfactory answer to the full proof aforesaid which I have given and my Confutation of ten times more of Johnsons I have done with that man Ans. 2. Our Question is Whether any or all the
unlimited Monarch we will speak according to common use and let them speak as their Interest dictates to them but remember that the Controversie is but about the Name and not the Thing We take the French Church for Papists If they will call them Protestants they are free But if we are agreed what a Pope is the case is plain as followeth I. Mr. Dodwell their most Learned defender if number of words or greatest self-conceit be the chief strength tells you that if the Council be not lawfully called it obligeth you rather to bring them to Punishment as a Rout or Rebels than to obey them And that none but the President hath Power to call them And remember yet that this good Man is no Papist And indeed who else but the Pope should call Universal Councils The King in Scotland may call a Scotch General Assembly and in England a Convocation and Parliaâ—ent And 1. The Emperor of Rome or Constantinople might call such Councils in the Empire as were then called General and did so But who now shall call one out of France Spain Portugal Italy Germany Britain Denmark Sweden Poland Moscovie the Turkish Empire Armenia Georgia Mengrelia Tartary Abassia Mexico Peru China c. We are awake and therefore cannot Dream of Princes doing it by Agreement We are yet out of Bedlam and cannot conclude that all the Bishops in the World will come together by common consent or as the Atomists say the World was made by a fortuitous concourse of Atomes 2. How shall lawful Councils be known from unlawful if none have Authority to call approve and difference them If only ex factis by their good or bad Deeds half the World will Judge as they have done and do one Council to be spurious which another obeyeth 3. What order shall be kept among them if none have Authority to appoint the Place the Time to Preside and Moderate and to dissolve them and who pretends to this but the Pope 4. When Councils Contradict Condemn and Curse each other who shall tell us which of them to receive believe and obey II. And if we must have a visible Supreme Power we must have one that successively existeth that the Church be not dissolved And none pretendeth to this but the Pope III. And if all National Patriarchal Churches be but Parts of a visible Catholick Church with a Humane Supremacy then there must be some Power still existent to give Patriarchs and Metropolitans their Power Mr. Dodwell saith it overthrows all Government to appeal to Scripture as a Charter or Law of Christ None hath more than the Giver intended him None can give that which he hath not to give The Inferior hath not Power to give to the Superior Who then but a Pope can give Patriarchs and Metropolitans their Power If for want of Authoritative Collation of Power all the Presbyterian Ordinations Sacraments and Covenant-hopes of Salvation are Nullities and Sins against the Holy Ghost as Mr. Dodwell and his Tribe say what better are all the Bishops and Archbishops for want of a Superior conferring Power which none pretendeth to but the Pope IV. And who else shall judge Patriarchs Metropolitans and National Churches when they prove Hereticks or Schismaticks Their Heresie and Schism is far more heinous and dangerous than single Persons or Congregations And Councils are not extant And we cannot send all over the Earth to gather Bishops Votes against them unheard It must be a Pope or no body on Earth that must by Governing Authority Judge them V. And who else shall be the stated Judge of new started Controversies You say such there must be shall they be undecided till the World have a true general Council VI. And who shall an injured Person appeal to from a Tyrannical Metropolitan or National Church but to the Pope Many more clear Necessities there will be of a Pope on their Principles I blamed the Author of the Divine Hierarchy for naming such without an Antidote lest it should make men Papists But I understand he is a worthy Protestant But verily there is no avoiding a Pope by any that assert an Vniversal humane Church Supremacy VII And indeed I must not suppose them so immodest as to deny it For it is but the Pope's Absolute Power above the Councils and their Laws and not Simple Popery or the Pope's limited Power that they deny 1. They confess that they hold Rome for the Mistriss Church as Grotius calls it 2. And that the Pope is Patriarch of the West and the prime Patriarch 3. And that he is Principium Vnitatis to all the Church on Earth And if so they are out of the Church which is One that deny this 4. That he is authorized to call General Councils 5. And to be their President 6. And to be the chief Governor when there are no General Councils and that is indeed always 7. And that they are all Schismaticks that do not thus far submit to him And how much more Mr. Dodwell giveth the President I have shewed you in his own words VIII As Mr. Thorndike threateneth England with God's Judgments if they do not amend the Oath of Supremacy by making it acceptable to the Papists that renounce not a foreign Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction so others labour to prove that the meaning of it is only to renounce the Pope's Jurisdiction here in Temporals which belongs to the King and not a Papal and Foreign Jurisdiction properly Ecclesiastical by the Keys As you may see partly in Mr. Hutchinson's alias Berry's Book who on that Supposition took the Oath as many do and publickly profest himself of the Church of England IX In the Description of the Reconciliation with the Pope endeavoured by Archbishop Laud in Heylin's History of his Life Pag. 414 415 c. All that the Pope was to abate was 1. That the Oaths of Supremacy and Fidelity may be taken I told you in what sense 2. And that the Pope's Jurisdiction here but no where else be declared to be of Humane Right that is say ours by the Fathers in General Councils not without the Apostles by whose Church-Laws we are all bound 3. That all should be really performed to the King so far as other Catholick Princes usually enjoy and expect as their due and so far as the Bishops were to be independent both from King and Pope but not from subjection to either This saith he no man of Learning and Sobriety would have grudged to grant him 4. Marriage permitted to Priests 5. The Communion in both kinds 6. The Liturgy in English I ask any sober man now Qu. 1. Whether the Pope did himself think that by this bargain he ceased to be Pope and all Papists to be Papists 2. Whether if the King had been thus far equalled with other Catholick Princes the Pope would not have supposed him and his Bishops and Church to be of the same Roman Catholick Church as they 3. Whether in all this here be any
all true Christians have still agreed Quod ab omnibus ubique semper receptum fuit as Vincent Lerinensis speaketh The Baptismal Profession and Covenant expounded in the Creed the Lord's Prayer as the Rule of our Desires and Hope the Decalogue as the sum of Duty with the History of Christ's Incarnation Life Death Resurrection and Doctrine in the Gospel-writers the practice of Baptism and the Lord's Supper with Church-Assemblies for Teaching and Learning Praying and Praising God and this under Elders called thus to Guide their Flocks with the belief of all the rest of the Sacred Scriptures which are brought to our knowledge This hath been ab omnibus ubique semper receptum All Christians agree herein And in the observation of the Lord's day as a separated time for Sacred Assemblies And some Ceremonies and other little things most of them agreed in but not as necessary to their Unity or Communion but such as some differed about without violation of Christian Love and Peace as Socrates and Sozomen shew in divers Instances and of divers Countreys At this day All the Churches agree in these And this much constituteth men true Christians And Christ hath commanded all Christians to Love one another and Live in Peace and the strong to receive the weak and not offend the least Believers nor to please themselves but others to their edification The Kingdom of God which is his Church is not meat and drink but Righteousness Peace and Joy in the Holy Ghost and he that in these things serveth Christ pleaseth God and is or should be approved of men I have proved all this so fully in my Book called The true and only Way of the Concord of all the Churches that I here dismiss it § 3. But when this pretended Universal Humane Jurisdiction was set up it quickly divided the Catholick Church by making new Laws and Constitutions as if Christ's Laws had not been sufficient for Universal Concord and as if he that made Ministers the Teachers and Expounders of his own Laws had given them his Prerogative of Universal Legislation and Judgment And ever since then the Church hath been torn into those fractions which continue our shame and grief to this day Those that were ready to receive any Law from Christ by his Apostles would never all agree in Humane pretended Universal Jurisdiction nor in the Laws which such pretenders make Mutable Local and Temporary determinations of useful Circumstances by their several Guides suited to the time and place for Edification they submit to But Universal Law-makers they will never all acknowledge and own And their Canons are swell'd to so great a bulk and are so confounded with contradictions and uncertainties that they are Racks and Engines to tear the Church but utterly uncapable of being the Rule of Unity and Universal Concord § 4. The thing which Paul feared hath been our Ruine The Serpent which beguiled Eve by pretence of advancement and greater knowledge hath turned us from the simplicity that is in Christ. The primitive Unity is overthrown by departing from the primitive Purity Simplicity and Love of all And they that will ever hope for Universal Concord must endeavour the restoration of the Universal Terms and Temper Nothing next to fleshly and worldly lusts hath done so much to cut the Church into all the Sects which now remain as in a Religious War as this same pretended Universal Jurisdiction which our new Church-men mistake for the only cure Which I have fully proved in my Breviate of the History of Bishops and Councils and in the Vindication of it against the Accusations of Mr. Morrice § 5. Obj. The Scripture giveth but general Rules that all be done to edification decently and in order but there must be Laws of Discipline to determine in Specie what is for edification decency and order Ans. There are three sorts of these determinations 1. Of things necessary or meet for all the Christian World to be obliged to 2. Things meet for some Countreys to be obliged to 3. Things variable which Congregations may use variously and also change as occasion changeth It grieveth us to read how some Learned men that write on this Subject abuse the World by confounding these The first Christ hath determined sufficiently in the Scripture and no mortal men have any power to make Laws Ecclesiastical or Civil to bind all the World The second of these the King may determine by the Counsel of fit men who understand the case e. g. what Translation of the Bible in the English Tongue is fittest to be commonly used in the Publick Churches And if the King determine it not the Pastors in Synods may do it by way of voluntary consent but not as having as a Major Vote the Regiment of the Minor and of the absent or dissenters The third belongeth to every Pastor over his own Flock and may be altered as there is occasion viz. At what hour to meet how long to Pray and Preach in what words and variable methods what person to admit to Baptism as fit and to Church-Communion and what individual to Reprove Exhort Catechize Excommunicate c. A General or Provincial Council need not be called for any such thing as these § 6. Saith Dr. Beveridge Proleg That which Right Reason gathers from Scripture is of God for Right Reason is of God Ans. True But to gather it as Governours of all the World or of other mens charges as if the Right Reason of the King of France would give Laws to the King of England is one thing and to gather it by a discerning Judgement to teach our Flocks as Expositors or to guide our own Practice is another thing § 7. The Instance which he addeth of the Trina Immersio in Baptism sheweth that such things were never made Laws for the Universal Church for the Church never used them universally nor continued them but quickly changed them § 8. Ibid. Saith Dr. Beveridge General Councils are those to which all the Bishops of the whole World were called It 's not necessary that they be all there but that all be called and may come if they will But the five Patriarchs must be there or send their Letters There was no General Council which was not called by the Emperors command Ans. 1. All the Bishops of the World were never called to any Council nor near all 2. What Authority had the Roman Emperors to call Bishops out of other Princes Dominions 3. There is no Historical proof that ever they did any such thing 4. The Subscriptions of the Councils shew that the Bishops were only out of the Roman Provinces except some odd person as Joannes Persidis at Nice which no man can give account of 5. Half the Bishops of the Empire were not at the Councils 6. If calling them make a Council General though they come not then calling a Congregation though they come not maketh it a Congregation What if none come What if few come
3. Did not Christ that sent out his Preachers by two and two and bid them shake off the dust of their feet as a Witness against those that did not receive them expect that they should be received and believed without the Authority of a Council Q. 4. Did Christ or his Apostles ever institute a General Council or Unifying College of Bishops to be the standing Aristocratical Government of all the Universal Church as one Q. 5. Would not this have been plainly done if the certainty of Scripture and Salvation and the Churches Unity had been founded on it Q. 6. If thousands were then made Christians without the knowledge of Councils or College may they not be so now Q. 7. Was the Church no Church or ungoverned for the first 300 years when there was no General Council Q. 8. And were not Christians all that while sure that the Scripture was true And were they not of the same Faith as now Q. 9. Was it not Constantine that called the first General Council at Nice and had he any Authority to call any but his Subjects Q. 10. Do not the Subscriptions of the Antient Councils shew that they were General only as to the Roman Empire and not to all the World Q. 11. How shall we be sure that the Council of one Nation or Empire is Ruler of all the other Kingdoms of the World Q. 12. When Councils of equal number and called by equal Authority of Emperors condemned one another in the days of Constantius Valens Valentinian Gratian Arcadius and Honorius Theodosius senior and junior Martian Zeno Basiliscus Leo Philippicus Anastasius Justinian c. how were all men and women sure which was of Conciliar Power and which not As to their faulty carriage each accused other Q. 13. Seeing so many then erred and are called Hereticks at this day as the Councils of Tyre Ephes. 2. Arimin Sirmium Milane Constantinople Alexandria Antioch Jerusalem Rome c. how shall we now be sure which err not Q. 14. If we must believe Scripture on the credit of Councils must we not also believe which Councils are true upon the credit of Councils And if so is it on the Authority of that same Council or another If of the same then must every Council even the Heretical be so believed or which and how known If of another must the Church suspend its belief of one Council till anoâ—her is called to attest it And on what account is that other to be believed And what if the later condemn the former and the next condemn that as Florence and Pisa Constance and Basil Q. 15. Is it all the Council agreeing or the major Vote against the rest that hath the credit or authority aforesaid Q. 16. How shall we be sure that the minor part are not in the right Q. 17. How shall all the distant World be sure the Votes were truly taken Q. 18. Why was the major Vote counted invalid if the Patriarchs were against it And are those Patriarchs of Divine Authority infallible Q. 19. What if one or two Votes turn the scales for a majority and what if afterward more come in on the other side and turn it back the other way as the Constantinopol Council did in Nazianzens case are both the sides infallible or authoritative So at Eph. 1. Q. 20. Who must call a valid Council What if the Pope call one and the Patriarch of Alexandria another and the Emperor another which is valid Q. 21. Is the Church no Church in the long intervals of Councils Q. 22. If it be where is the Visible Constitutive Supremacy or Power If in the Patriarchs and Metropolitans they are divided and account each other sometime Hereticks and sometime Schismaticks Q. 23. Who hath Authority to make Patriarchs now or Metropolitans for all the Christian World Q. 24. Must we now obey the major part of the old Patriarchal Seats Q. 25. If it be in all the Bishops of the Earth 1. Who shall go to them all over the World with all our Church cases 2. Who shall judge which of them are Hereticks while they hereticate each other 3. Who shall assure us that their Votes are truly gathered 4. Who shall bring them from all over the Earth to the person to be judged 5. Can they judge truly without hearing the accused and their witnesses 6. Where at this day may we find their Decrees by which they Rule except in Councils Q. 26. Must a General Council or this College consist of all the Bishops of the World or but of part Q. 27. If of all is such a Council possible or lawful Q. 28. If of part who shall chuse them And seeing undoubted experience tells us that most of the Clergy every where in such cases obey the Power that hath the Sword whether the choice that is made in the Turks Empire will not be made by the Turk and in other Kingdoms of Heathens Infidels Papists Hereticks by their several Kings and Magistrates And can we be sure such are infallible Q. 29. If the Empire of Abassia have but one Bishop the Abuna shall that Empire have but one Vote in Councils and be ruled by the rest And is it not certain that those next the Antipodes and remotest Kingdoms can send but few and must they therefore be ruled by those near the place who will be many Q. 30 Yea is it not wickedness or madness to attempt to call aged Bishops or any from all the Christian World to displease prohibiting Princes to hazard their lives in travel many years to forsake their Flocks so long and by differing Languages not able to understand each other nor like to live long enough to bring home the Decrees when perhaps they must sit so many years in Council as they did at Trent wearing out the lives of many Popes And what is the necessity of all this Q. 31. If those few that are sent do that which the rest at home dissent from is it valid e. g. King James chose Six to go to the Synod at Dort and most then consented and most now dissent The Parliament chose a Synod of one Mind and the King by his Clergy one of another And how shall we know that the Churches own the Acts of their Delegates and dissent not as the Greeks did after the Council of Florence Can all Men and Women rest on things no better known to them Q. 32. Seeing that it is notorious that the Bishops of almost all the Christian World except part of Europe are very unlearned ignorant Men Armenians Georgians Iberians Mengrelians most of the Greeks Moscovites and the numerous Easterns called Nestorians and Jacobites and Copties c. and abundance of the Papists also in Europe How shall we be sure that so many Ignorant Men and too vicious will do the work of Wise or Infallible Judges of the Christian World if they do but meet together in Council much less as scattered and called a College Must not this
Preach meer desperation to all that have not more knowledge than I have who cannot possibly find out a Governing Universal Church nor its Laws though I would willingly find it and obey it Q. 53. Do they not Preach common desperation who say that Schism is a damnable Sin and he is in that guilt who suffers himself to be Excommunicated by Prelates for not obeying them in any unsinful condition of Communion as H. Dodwell speaketh Do not such Carnifices animarum make it necessary to Salvation to know all the unsinful things in the World which a Prelate may impose to be unsinful And is any man on Earth so Skilful How many indifferent things are there which the wisest man may doubt whether they be indifferent Of old it was thought enough to know the few things which God made necessary and now these Tormenting Uniters make it necessary to know the multitude of things indifferent to be such Q. 54. Must we needs know what sense perceiveth by the credit of a General Council or all the Bishops of the World As whether I see the Light or Colours What taste my Meat hath c If not why may I not take Bread to be Bread and Wine to be Wine on the credit of my senses though the Bishops or Council say the contrary Q. 55. Must I have the Authority of a Council or College of Bishops to believe that there is a God and that he is most Great and Wise and Good most Holy Merciful True and Just or to know that there is a Life to come and the Soul Immortal or that men must not hate the Good and love the Evil as such nor live in Murther Theft Adultery Perjury c. Doth not the Law of Nature bind men without a Council of Prelates And can they null that Law by their pretended Soveraignty Q. 56. Must every man have the Sentence of a General Council or College as wide as the Christian World to satisfie him of the truth of Christianity before he is Baptized and made a Christian Q. 57. Must we know what the Council or spacious College saith before we believe the Creed Lord's Prayer and Ten Commandments or did the ancient Christians receive them only on such Authority Did not every Baptizer expect a Profession of the Creed Q. 58. Was not the Bible received before there was a General Council Q. 59. Have not Councils differed about the Canonical Books of Scripture See Bishop Cousins of the Canon Compared with the Council of Trent Q. 60. Must we have new Councils to deliver us again the same Creed and Bible Q. 61. Is it not a reproaching of Christianity to tell the World that after 1691 Years it is not yet fully known what it is but we must have new Councils to tell it us and to make it up Q. 62. Did Councils only receive the old Apostles Creed when they made so many new ones or added so many Articles Q. 63. Was the Primitive Church of the same Species with the present Romish and Imposing Church when he was then a Christian who profest belief of the Creed as the Christian Symbol and to desire according to the Lord's Prayer and Practise according to Christ's Commands And now so many other things are made necessary hereto Q. 64. Do not those men deal falsely who subscribe the 39 Articles of the sufficiency of the Scripture as to all things necessary to Salvation and yet say that it 's necessary to Salvation to obey the Bishop of the place in all unsinful things and consequently to Believe them all to be unsinful Q. 65. Is it by the Divine Authority of a Council or Mundane College of Prelates that we know which are the true Writings of Ignatius Irenaeus Clemens R. Alex. Tertullian Cyprian Hierom Augustin c Or do their Critical Writers send us to the College or Council to know If not why may not the Canon of Scripture be known yea much better by meer Historical Tradition and inherent Evidence Q. 66. Is it not by History and not Church Power that we know what Popes have been at Rome what Councils have been called and what they decreed And may not the same way secure us of the Matter of Fact about the Scripture Q. 67. Hath any Council or College yet Decreed which are the true and current Copies of the Original of the Scripture and which of the various Lections are true If they had agreed but of the vulgar Latin would Sixtus 5th and Clemens 8th have Published Editions so vastly different If they never did it yet when will they do it Q. 68. Did ever Council or College determine which is the truest Translation Q. 69. Did ever Council or College give the Church a Commentary on the Bible Q. 70. Did they ever write a Decision of the multitudes of Controversies about the meaning of several Texts and the multitudes of Doctrines which are yet controverted among Papists themselves and all the World Q. 71. Is it a Satisfaction or a gross Cheat to tell us of a necessary Church Power to Expound Scripture and Judge of Controversies who yet will not do it but leave all unexpounded and undecided Q. 72. Was Gregory Nazianzen a Fool that spake so much of the hurt that Councils do and resolved never to go to more Q. 73. Can I know that Pope or Council have Authority given them by Christ before I believe that Christ is Christ and had Authority himself Q. 74. Can I know that Christ's Promise to Pope Council or Prelate is true before I know that the Promise of Justification Adoption and Salvation are true that is Before I am a Christian Q. 75. Can I believe the Promise of Pardon and Salvation or the Promise made to General Councils or Prelates without knowing the meaning of those Promises And can I believe the Churches Power from God without believing the Promise of it And if I can understand all these Promises without a Council why may I not understand more And how then do I receive all Scripture from a Council Q. 76. Do those that Preach to convert Infidels in Congo China Japan Mexico among Turks c. Preach first the Authority of General Councils or a Mundane College as the Primum credendum upon whose credit Christianity is to be received Hath this been the way to Convert the World Q. 77. If Paul curse an Angel from Heaven if he bring another Gospel and Paul charge Timothy to see that men Preach no other or new Doctrine must there be Councils or a College to make either a new Gospel or a new Doctrine or Universal Law Q. 78. If men were saved without believing the Canons and Decrees of Councils before they were made even by simple Christianity is it not necessary Mercy to let men be so saved still Q. 79. If it be not a new Gospel but mutable Accidents which the Church Laws do determine of what need there an Universal Power or Soveraignty or an Universal Law
Legislative and Judicial Power be not an Alteration of the Government of Church and State I know not what is Nor what is National Perjury if the National Endeavour or Consent to such Subjection be not such Add to all this the unavoidable effects of this Opinion of the Universal Soveraignty viz. 1. It engageth the Owners of it to condemn all the Protestant Churches because they own no Universal Soveraign nor the Pope as Patriarch or Principium Unitatis yea and to disown almost all the Churches of the World besides the Papists as Schismatical 2. They must Condemn all the Protestant Martyrs who rejected the Pope absolutely as dying for Rebellion 3. They must needs censure their own Princes and States as Rebels who subject not themselves to this Usurped Soveraignty 4. They will pervert all the Scriptures for Unity and Peace and Obedience and interpret it as meaning this Usurpation 5. They will think it their Duty to use their best Endeavour to subject all Men to the Usurpers 6. They will lose their due Charity to all that Consent not to this Subjection taking them for Enemies to the Churches Unity and Peace and Rebels against this Soveraign Power 7. No wonder if such become grievous Persecutors and stir up Princes and Rulers against such Christians as Schismaticks and Enemies of Peace And as Dr. Saywell and Bishop Guning tell the World that the meeting of such in worshipping God are the Conventicles of Schismaticks and the Cause of all our Plots and Divisions And if Obedience to this Vniversal Soveraignty be as they say the only Cure of Schism they must hold all our Parish Assemblies too to be Schismatical Conventicles whose Pastors own not the Usurpation 8. Thus as the Pope hath been the grand Divider of the Christian World by setting up a false Head of Union so will these Men destroy all Unity quantum in se by setting up a Usurped Soveraignty and a false Principium Vnitatis and will be the grand Schismaticks to cure Schism 9. They will by a false uncertain Universal Law-making not only make Christ's Laws insufficient but make Christianity a mutable growing uncertain thing when no man shall be able to know which are the Church Laws and when the Volumes of them will be perfected and no more added 10. When the Churches are thus Divided and Persecuted and sound Preachers Silenced the Persecutors will be hardened in impenitency fathering all their Mischiefs on Christ which they do against him and making Christian Fidelity odious as Rebellion and Schism And they will never be able in their way so much as to satisfie impartial men how true Bishops may be known and who ad esse must be the Choosers of them much less prove their Universal Soveraignty Chap. VI. The Grand Consequential Case Whether it be lawful for the Presbyters to swear Obedience to those Bishops who profess Subjection to the Foreign Jurisdiction of a Vniversal Soveraignty or for the People to live in Obedience and Communion with the Presbyters that do so § 1. I Wish this Case about such Subjection and Communion may never make the second breach between Conformists and Nonconformists much wider than the first is made I. Suppose the French Bishops will abate Idolatry Owning Transubstantiation Adoration of the Host and of Saints and Images Latin Service will allow the Cup in the Sacrament Priests Marriage leave indifferent all other things that are not above Four hundred Years old Qu. Whether is it lawful for the Protestant Ministers and all the rest to Swear Obedience to these Bishops and to the Protestant Laity and all others to joyn in their Communion II. Suppose Archbishop Bromhall profess subjection to General Councils called and moderated by the Pope as President and to the Pope as Principium unitatis Vniversalis and Patriarch of the West Or the Bishop of Eli profess subjection to a Foreign Universal Jurisdiction Is it lawful for the Bishops to Swear Obedience to that Archbishop or the Presbyters to such a Bishop and for the People to be subject to such Presbyters in Communion III. Suppose such Bishops would abate the Presbyters a while till they are strengthened the Oath or Promise of Obedience is it lawful to receive Ordination from such Bishops and live in subjection to them and Communion § 2. The Case is of great moment and very tenderly and warily to be handled I. On one side If no Promise or Oath be required nor any practice in it self unlawful many will think it hard that they must separate from a whole Nation or Diocess for another man's Sin which they consent not to specially if it will cast them out of their Ministry and Maintenance They will think his guilt lyeth only on himself Else one man may over-turn the Liberties of a whole Diocess or Land by his own proper sin II. Yea if the Oath or Promise be put on them for Obedience but in licitis honestis they will think the case doth little differ as long as they consent not to a Forreign Jurisdiction § 3. On the other side If all men must or may obey them that profess Obedience to a Foreign Universal Jurisdiction may not one or two or a few Bishops subject the Kingdom to Foreigners at their pleasure And that the more dangerously because without any noise or notable alteration and so without resistance It is but the Primate or Archbishops or Bishops professing subjection to the Pope or Foreign Soveraign and the thing is done The Bishops being subject to the Pope or other Usurpers and the Priests to the Bishops and the People to the Priests are they not all then subject to the Foreign Usurper If the Kings Army in the days of H. 5. or Ed. 3. in France were to be hired over to the King of France what need he more than that the General or Field Officers Swear fidelity to him And that the Captains be subject to the Colonels and the common Soldiers to them When the Kingdom was in continual War between King Stephen and Maud the Empress and between the Houses of York and Lancaster the people were not usually Sworn on either side But the Bishops and the Barons did Swear and Unswear and Forswear and Change sides as their Interests led them and this was the misery of the Land § 4. And yet the Case would be much easier if only the King e. g. of France should subject himself to Foreigners and forbid all to preach and publickly Worship God that will not Swear Allegiance to him and obey him as their King § 5. In these dreadful cases we must distinguish 1. Between such a Bishop as is a Member of a Protestant Nation and who turneth against the Law of the Land and the Consent of other Churches and such as would draw the whole Land with him or is but one in a common Revolt 2. Between a Minister who was Ordained and subject to the Bishop before he revolted and one that is Ordained and subjected