the King to be a Heretick But Protestants deny that any Council hath a Judicial Power so to judge him though all Men have a Discerning Power to judge with whom they should hold Communion But if our Defenders of a Forreign Power say true then the Universal Judge Pope or Prelates may Judge and Excommunicate Kings who they think deserve it And if so not only Justice but Humanity requireth that such Kings be first heard speak for themselves and answer their Accusers Face to Face And this can seldom be well done by proxy as the Prelates will not Excommunicate the Proxies or Advocates only And must all Emperors and Kings travel no Man knows whither or how far to answer every such accusation and that at the Bar of a Priest that 's Subject to another Prince perhaps his Enemy And if it be at an Universal Council the King of England may be Summoned to America or Constantinople at nearest if they must be indifferently called together XVIII The Church of England is not for Popery but against it But the Doctrine of an Universal Church Soveraign under Christ is Popery by the Confession of Protestants and Papists I. Protestants ordinarily rank the Papists into these sorts differing from each other 1. Those that place the Universal Supream Power in the Pope alone which are most of the Italians that dwell near him 2. Those that place it in a Pope and General Council agreeing which are the greatest number 3. Those that place it in a General Council as above the Pope especially if they disagree 4. Those that place it in the Universal Church real or diffusive See Dr. Challoner in his Crede Ecclesiam Catholicam describing these four sorts of Papists II. And the Papists themselves number all the same differences as you may see in Bellarmine at large Of the first Opinion is Valentia in Thom. To. 3. Disp. 1. p. 7. § 45. and divers others both Jesuits Friars and Seculars And Albert. Pighius hath written an unanswerable Book against the Supremacy of Councils But Bellarmine himself saith of this way Vsque ad hanc diem quaestio superest etiam inter Catholicos Lib. 2. de Concil c. 13. And they that have different Soveraigns have different Churches Of the second Opinion are the greatest number of their Doctors Of the third Opinion for a Councils Supremacy above and against the Pope in case of disagreement were the Councils of Constance and Basil And saith Bellarmine Joh. Gerson Petr. de Alliaco Card. Cameracensis Jacobus Almanius Card. Nicol Cusanus Card. Florentinus Panormitanus Toslatus Abulensis and multitudes more with Oviedo Okam c. and the Parisians and French Church And the Pope and Jesuits will not say that all these are Protestants or none of the Roman Church And the Church of England never took them for any other than Papists XIX The small Book called Deus Rex which is approved by the Church of England may give the Reader satisfaction herein XX. The common strain of the most approved Doctors of the Church in their Licensed Books against the Papists disclaimeth all Forreign Jurisdiction of Pope or Prelates 1. Bishop Jewel I before cited 2. Bishop Bilson is too large to be recited Of Christian Subj p. 229. To Councils saith he such as the Church of Christ was wont by the help of her Religious Princes to call we owe Communion and brotherly Concord so long as they make no breach in Faith and Christian Charity Subjection and Servitude we owe them none See more p. 270 271 272 273 c. of the Errours and Contradictions of General Councils and how the major Vote obligeth us not to follow them And pag. 233. The Title and Authority of A. Bishops and Patriarchs was not ordained by the Commandment of Christ or his Apostles but the Bishops long after when the Church began to be troubled with Dissentions were contented to link themselves together in every Province to suffer one to assemble the rest Pag. 261. The Bishops speaking the Word of God Princes as well as others must yield Obedience But if Bishops pass their Commission and speak beside the Word of God what they list both Prince and People may despise them 3. Dr. Fulke on Eph. 1. § 5. sheweth that the Church hath no Head but Christ and no man can be so much as a Ministerial Head 4. Dr. Reynolds against Hart proveth that none but Christ can be the Head of Government any more than the Head of Influence 5. Dr. Whitaker against Stapleton de sacra Script pag. 128. He sheweth his Ignorance as worthy to sit among the Catechumens that instead of Believing that there is a Catholick Church puts believing what the Catholick saith and believeth sic tu ut novam tuam fidem defendas nâ—vos articulos condis etiam non haeresis sed perfidiae Magisteres I believe that there is a holy Catholick Church but that I must believe all that it believeth and teacheth I believe not Augustine appealed from the Nicene Council to the Scripture We receive not the Baptism of Infants from the Authority of the Church but from the Scripture And pag. 103. he sheweth that Councils have erred and corrected one another and are more uncertain than the Scripture And pag. 50. The Peace of the Church is better secured by referring all to the Scripture than to the Church Pag. 501. The Catholick Church in the Creed is invisible and known only by Faith 6. See Bishop Hall's No Peace with Rome and his Letter to Laud. It is tedious to cite all in Willet Slater Prideaux Abbot Marton Crakenthorp Challoner White and the rest to this purpose It is most notorious that the Church of England was against all Forreign Jurisdiction of Pope or Prelates as over this Land To cite a multitude of such Testimonies would but needlesly swell the Book and weary the Reader Chap. II. The whole Kingdom and Church is sworn against all Forreign Jurisdiction and all alteration of Government in Church and State And ought not to be stigmatized with PERJURY § 1. THat the whole Church and Kingdom is under such Oaths is visible I. The Oath of Supremacy before cited against All Forreign Jurisdiction is put upon all the Land II. The Oath called Et caetera 1640. is against Change of Government and was taken by many III. The Act of Uniformity obligeth the whole Ministry to subscribe against all endeavours to alter the Government IV. The Oxford Act of Confinement sweareth all Nonconformists and more never to endeavour any Alteration of Government in Church or State V. The Vestry Act sweareth all the Parish Vestries to the same VI. The Corporation Act sweareth all the Cities and Corporations of England to the same that is All in Power and Trust as to Government VII The Militia Act sweareth all the Souldiers of the Land to the same So that it is undeniable that all the Kingdom is sworn never to endeavour any Alteration of Government in Church or
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
Supremacy in these parts of Christendom which I conceive no man of Learning and Sobriety would have grudged to grant him It was also condescended to in the Name of the Pope that Marriage might be permitted to Priests that the Communion might be administred sub utraque specie and the Liturgy be officiated in the English Tongue And though the Author adds not long after that it was to be suspected that so far as the inferior Clergy and the People were concerned the after-performance was to be left to the Pope's discretion yet this was but his own suspicion without any ground at all And to obtain a Reconciliation on these Advantages the Archbishop had all the reason in the world to do as he did in ordering the Lord's Table to be set where the Altar stood and making the accustomed reverence in all approaches towards it and accesses to it and in beautifying and adorning Churches and celebrating Divine Service with all due Solemnities in taking Care that all offensive and exasperating Passages should be expunged out of all such Books as were brought to the Press and for reducing the extravagancy of some Opinions to an evener temper His Majesty had the like reason also for tolerating lawful Recreations on the Sundays and Holidays the rigorous restraint whereof had made some Papists think those most especially of the vulgar sort whom it most concerned that all honest Pastimes were incompatible with our Religion And if he approved auricular Confession and shewed himself willing to introduce it into the use of the Church as both our Authors say he did it is no more than what the Liturgy commends to the care of the Penitent though we find not the word Auricular in it and what the Canons have provided for in the point of security for such as shall be willing to Confess themselves But whereas we are told by one of our Authors that the King should say he would use force to make it be received were it not for fear of Sedition among the People yet it is but in one of our Authors neither who hath no other Author for it but a nameless Doctor And in the way to so happy an Agreement though they all stand accused for it by The English Pope p. 15 Sparrow may be excused for Pleading for Auricular Confession and Watts for Pennance Heylin for Adoration towards the Altar and Mountague for such a qualified Praying to Saints as his Book maintaineth against the Papists If you would know how far they had proceeded towards this happy Reconciliation the Pope's Nuntio will assure us thus That the Universities Bishops and Divines of this Realm did daily embrace Catholick Opinions though they professed not so much with Pen or Mouth for fear of the Puritans For example they held that the Church of Rome is a true Church that the Pope is Superior to all Bishops that to him it pertaineth to call General Councils that it 's lawful to Pray for the Souls of the Departed that Altars ought to be erected of Stone In sum that they believed all that is taught by the Church but not by the Court of Rome Another of their Authors tells us that those among us of greatest Worth Learning and Authority began to love Temper and Moderation that their Doctrines began to be altered in many things for which their Progenitors forsook the visible Church of Christ As for example The Pope not Antichrist Prayers for the Dead Limbus Patrum Pictures that the Church hath Authority in determining Controversies of Faith and to interpret Scripture About Free Will Predestination Universal Grace that all our Works are not Sins Merit of good Works inherent Justice that Faith alone doth not justifie Charity to be preferred before knowledge the authority of Traditions Commandments possible to be kept that in Exposition of Scripture they are by Canon bound to follow the Fathers And that the once fearful Names of Priests and Altars are used willingly in their Talk and Writings In which Compliances so far forth as they speak the truth for in some Points through Ignorance of the one and Malice of the other they are much mistaken there is scarce any thing which may not well consist with the established though for a time discontinued Doctrine of the Church of England the Articles whereof as the same Jesuit hath observed seem patient or ambitious rather of some sence wherein they may seem Catholick And such a sence is put upon them by him that calls himself Franciscus à Sancta Clara as before was said And if upon such Compliances as those before on the part of the English the Conditions offered by the Pope might have been Confirmed who seeth not that the greatest benefit of the Reconciliation must have redounded to this Church to the King and People His Majesty's Security provided for by the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance so far as it concerned his Temporal Power The Bishops of England to be Independent on the Pope of Rome The Clergy to be permitted the use of Marriage the People to receive the Communion in both Kinds and all Divine Offices officiated in the English Tongue no Innovation made in Doctrine but only in qualifying some Expressions and discharging some Outlandish Glosses that were put upon them And seeing this what Man could be so void of Charity so uncompassionate of the Miseries and Distractions of Christendom as not to wish from the very bottom of his Soul that the Reconciliation had proceeded on so good terms as not to magnifie the Men to succeeding Ages who were the Instrument Authors of so great a Blesâ—ing So far Dr. Heylin who was the Archbishop's Intimate and Agent Archbishop Laud's own words as laid down in his Book defended by Dr. Stillingfleet § 1. The Archbishop disclaimeth the Divine Institution and the Infallibility of General Councils But he thinks we must allow them external Obedience and that honour and priviledge which all other GREAT COURTS have that there be a Declaration of the invalidity of their Decrees as well as of the LAWS of other Courts before private Men can take Liberty to refuse Obedience Part. 3. c. 2. And page 540. It doth not follow because the Church may erre that therefore she may not govern For the Church hath not only a Pastoral Power to Teach and Direct but a Praetorian Power to controul and censure too where Errors and Crimes are against fundamental Points or of great Consequence Thus the Archbishop It is the Universal Church and Councils that he speaks of But 1. There is no such thing on Earth as he calls the Church that is One Universal Aristocracy that hath Power of Governing all the Christian World in one Council or otherwise as one Supream 2. General Councils of divers Kingdoms o're all the World are no more a Court than the Assembly at Nimeguen was 3. No Obedience is due to them but only consent for Concord so far as their Canons tend to true Concord
it in the Case in question yet were they Apostles to the Universal Church that which none are since their time III. If there be such a Vicarious Governing Soveraignty over the Universal Church it is either the Pope or a General Council or some Colledge of Pastors But it is none of these 1. As to the Pope you say that he is so far from being Head of the Church that he is not a Member So that I need not say more of this to you 2. That General Councils are no such Soveraign Power which all must obey that will be Christians or in a Church seemeth to me past doubt for these Reasons 1. Because there is no such thing in the Creed though the Catholick Church and Communion of Saints be there But it would be there were it of such necessity to Christianity 2. Because there is no such thing said in all the Scripture which would not omit so necessary a point What is said from Acts 15. is answered before it was no General Council A General Council was not then the necessary means of Concord or Communion 3. There never was one General Council representing the Universal Church in the World I have fully proved in my second Book against Johnson that the Councils called General were so only as to the Roman Empire and few if any so General and that the Emperor called all the Chief Councils who had no Power without his Empire nor called any that were without 4. I have oft proved the unlawfulness of calling General Councils now as the Church is dispersed at such distances over the Earth and under Princes of so contrary Interests and Minds 5. I have oft proved the Impossibility of such a Councils meeting to attain the ends of Government in question being to pass by Sea and Land from all quarters of the World by the Consent of Enemies that rule them and through Enemies Countreys and Men of Age that must have so long time going and sitting and returning and of divers Languages uncapable of understanding one another and a number uncapable of present Converse with other such insuperable difficulties 6. If such Councils be necessary to the Being of Christianity Church or Concord at least the Church hath seldom had a Being or Concord it seldom having had such a Council in your own esteem And you cannot say that it ever will have any 7. If General Councils have Supream Government visible it is 1. Legislative 2. Judicial 3. Executive But I. If Legislative then 1. Their Laws are either Gods Infallible Word or not If not all Men must disobey them when they err If yea Gods Word is not the same one Age as another and is Crescent still and we know not when it will be perfect 2. Their Laws will be so many that no Christians can know them obey them and have Concord on such terms 3. If they could agree who should call them and whither yet the Prince whose Countrey they meet in would be Master of the whole Christian World and so of other Christian Countreys by Mastering them 4. Princes would be Subjects 1. To Foreign Powers 2. Yea to the Subjects of other Princes 3. Yea of their Enemies 4. And to such Preâ—ates as they are uncapable to know whether they are truely called to their Office 5. Or whether they are erroneous or sound in Faith 5. And then the Ecclesiastical Laws of all National Churches and Kings might be destroyed by such Councils as Superior Powers 6. And no Princes or Synods could make valid Laws about Religion till they knew that no Law of any such Council were against them 7. The Laws of Christ recorded in Scripture would by all this be argued of great insufficiency â—f more were Universally necessary he that made the rest would have made them whose Authority is to the Church unquestionable 8. The Christian World is divided so much in Opinion that except in what Christs own word containeth plainly they are in no probability of agreeing So much of Legislation II. As to Judgment 1. To judge the sence of a Law Scripture or Canon for the common Obligation of the Church is part of the Legislative Power and belongs to the Law-makers 2. To judge the Case of Persons e. g. whether John Peter Nestorius Luther Calvin c. be a Heretick an Adulterer a Simonist c. requireth that the Accuser and Accused and Witnesses of both be present and heard speak But he that would have all Hereticks Criminals Accusers Witnesses travel for a Tryal to Jerusalem Nice Constantinople Rome even from America Ethiopia c. will not need any Confutation III. The same I say of Executive Silencing Ejecting Excommunicating c. II. A Soveraign Power that cannot be known is not necessary to Christianity or the Constitution Communion or Concord of the Church But General Councils so impowered cannot be known I. I have shewed that it cannot be known by ordinary Christians that there are any such Authorized by Christ. I know it not nor any that ever I was familiar with The main Body of the Reformed Churches know it not for they ordinarily deny it as the prime point of Popery They cannot prove it who affirm it Therefore they know it not as others may judge Millions are Baptized Christians that never knew it II. It is not to this day known which were true General Councils that are past Some say those were Latrocinia and Conventicles that others say were Lawful Councils Some are for but four some for six some for eight some for all so called there is no agreement which are true and obligatory Grotius is for Trent and all which others abhor 2. It is not known who hath Power to call them and whose call is valid 3. Nor what Individuals or Particular Churches are capable of sending and chusing and obliged to it Almost all the Christian World is judged uncapable by the most of Christians The Papists are so judged by the Greeks Protestants c. The Eastern and Ethiopian Christians are excluded by the Papists Greeks c. as Jacobites Nestorians Schismaticks c. The Greeks are excluded by the Papists and others as Schismaticks and Erroneous The Protestants are judged Hereticks and Schismaticks by the Papists and many Greeks c. How Lutherans and Calvinists Diocesans and Presbyterians c. judge of one another I need not tell And can all or any of them know which of these must make up a Legislative Council of the whole Church on Earth 4. It is not known how many must Constitute such a Council nor in what proportions If there be innumerable Bishops under Philippicus for the Monothelites out of the East as Binnius saith and few out of the West was that a true General Council If at Nice Ephesus Constantinople Chalcedon there be not one out of the West to twenty or forty or a hundred others is it a true representative of the whole Church If there be two hundred at Trent or a thousand at
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
except two Churches for the second Age and more no Bishops distinct from Archbishops but Parochial and I described them at large 2. But though Cyprian and the Carthage Council said Nemo nostrum se dicit Episcopum Episcoporum yet I deny not such as may be called Archbishops Would you but restore Parish Churches or at least make true Discipline a practicable thing I should never quarrel against your Government 3. I still tell you that I am for Councils and that as large when requisite as they can well be made And Pastors there agreeing oblige us to obey their true Authority far before a single Pastor's For it is Authoritas Doctoris and it is Discipuli Obedientia that is due And a Teacher's Authority is founded in his Credibility and that on his Skill Oportet discentem credere And a thousand Historians Philosophers Physitians agreeing oblige me to greater belief than a single one And a Dissenters singularity obligeth me to suspition and suspension of my belief Besides that God bindeth us to do his work in as much Love and Concord as we can And the Canons or Agreements of Councils when Just do determine the Matter of that Concord 4. But that which I still repeat to you is that I deny the being of any such Church as you tell me I must necessarily obey That is one Ruling Ministerial College of Pastors over the whole Christian World I remember no Protestants that own such a thing but you and some such of late Mr. Thorndike and Mr. Dodwell do imply it but they speak not fully out What an unedifying way of Discourse is it for you so Copiously to call out for our Obedience when we only desire you to prove that there is any such Governing College to obey I deny the subject of your Question and you largely prove the Predicate If you would spend many hours to tell me I must obey Gabriel the Angel as the Ruler of this Kingdom I only beg of you to prove that he is such a Ruler and then to tell me how I shall know his Mind will your Exhortation to Obedience profit me VI. Your Copious instances of difficult Texts of Scripture that need a sure Exposition are no Proof to me that Ergo There is a College of all the Bishops on Earth that must be the Expositor I told you the Eunuch Act. 8. was not so resolved of the sence of Isai. 53. It was not the Ancient way A single Teacher may resolve a Doubter by Expository Evidence An agreeing Provincial or National Council may do more without knowing the Mind of all the World And many Texts will be difficult when all the World have done their best VII But you urge that no Scripture is of private Interpretation A. 1. All is not Private Interpretation which is made by Persons Pastors or Councils which are not a College authorized to Rule all the Christian World or Church If it be 1. I confess I never received one Article of my Faith or Exposition of one Text of Scripture aright For I never believed one of them upon the Authoritative-Ruling-Judicial-Vniversal Power of all Bishops on Earth as an authorized College 2. And I know not one Man living then that expoundeth not Scripture by Private Interpretation 3. And I know not that any one these Fifteen hundred Years have not done the same 2. And it is certain that there is no Commentary on the Scripture yet written by the Universal College of Bishops And it 's harder to deliver it down by Memory than by Writing Therefore all Scripture is in this sence of Private Interpretation yea such Councils as are called General have expounded little more than the Articles of the Creed with sad dissention as to their Votes But I confidently think that you follow a wrong Exposition of the Text and that it speaketh not of an Efficient Interpretation but an Objective a Passive and not an Active Q. d. you must not interpret Scripture Prophecies narrowly and privately as if they spake but of such or such a private Person that was but a present typical object of them For holy Men spake as moved by the Spirit which looked farther and meant Christ to come e. g. you know how many Prophecies are meant of David and Solomon proximately and of Christ ultimately And you know what Grotius thinks of the proximate sence of A Virgin shall bring forth a Son And of Isa. 53 c. which yet ultimately by the Holy Ghost is meant of Christ and whether the Prophet himself knew it always many doubt Josias or Jeremy may be meant as types and yet Christ Principal as typified when David saith My God why hast thou forsaken me They pierced my hands and my feet They divided my garments among them and cast lots for my vesture c. and so many Texts cited by St. Matthew these are to have no Private Interpretation as of the private Persons only the first Objects for the Holy Ghost intended them to be Prophecies of Christs when you bring me any Literae formatae from all the Bishops on Earth for another sence the reverence of their Concord will do much to make me forsake this Just so the Papists and too many others distort that 1 Tim. 3.15 which I wonder that I heard not from you when the Text plainly calleth the Church The House of the living God and telleth Timothy how to behave himself in it as a Pillar and Basis of the Truth it is but putting The Pillar for a Pillar and then saying that it is not the title of Timothy but of the Church and so it becometh useful to some mens Opinions Therefore still that which I am more confirmed in by your failing to prove your Affirmative is That there never was instituted and never was existent and is not now existent in the World any one Ecclesiastical Ruling Persona Collectiva Civilis or Governour authorized by Christ to Rule under him all the Christian World that is all the Church by Legislation and Judgment or either of them and to Constitute the Vniversal Church visible as one by relation to that One Governour Especially that all the Bishops on Earth Governing per literas formatas never were nor are such a Power nor yet as Congregate in an Universal Council If such a College of all Bishops on Earth ruling all the Christians on Earth by Consent be the Church which you mean that all must obey that will have Concord I say There is no such Church on Earth nor ever will be before the Day of Judgment After all this sure you cannot mistake the Question 1. It is only of an Ecclesiastical Power by the Word and Keys 2. It is not whether all Bishops ruling by Parts in their several Provinces and keeping Concord in convenient Meetings or Councils may be said to Govern all the Church as all the Magistrates in England Govern all England in Subordination to the King But it is of One Persona Ecclesiastica
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
for such when divers Churches and Countries may have divers such Accidentals and the same Churches may change them as they see cause Q. 80. If it be not Legislation but Judicature that we must have an Universal Judge or Power for what are the Cases that they must Judge Sure it is not whether John or Thomas shall be judged capable of Baptism or of the Lord's Supper or whether he be an Adulterer a Drunkard and impenitent therein and so to be Excommunicate Must all the World come before all the World Shall Millions of Sinners be unjudged till all the Bishops of the World Judge them If it be Persons accused of Heresie Schism or any Sin that must be judged must they not be heard and their witness heard before they can be judged justly But if they Judge not of Persons but of Doctrines whether they be Heresie or not this will make no Alteration or Reformation till it be judged what persons are guilty of such Errors or Heresies And if particular Pastors on the place must judge all such persons is not the Scripture the Rule of Faith a sufficient Rule to judge of Heresie by Q. 81. If it be whole Churches that are to be judged will not a brotherly power of disowning their Communion serve without a Governing Power Had every one a Governing Power to whom the Apostles commanded with such not to eat nor bid them good speed May not Princes renounce Communion with Neighbour Princes and Nations without being their Governour Q. 82. In conclusion doth it not remain that this pretended Universal Soveraignty Monarchical or Aristocratical is the device of the Prince of Pride a Treasonable Usurpation over all Princes disobedience to Christ Luke 22. and Antichristian Usurpation of his Prerogative and a base Captivating of the Souls and Reason of Mankind to a pretended Power which common sense reason and experience fully proveth to be a natural impossibility or that which in practice no Mortal Man or College is capable of Chap. XI A Breviate of the Papists Faith and Church Doctrine both the Monarchical and Aristocratical sort § 1. WE must believe that Christ hath a Church before we believe that he is Christ the Redeemer § 2. VVe must believe that this Church is Infallible or our Governour before we can believe that Jesus is Christ and our Governour § 3. We must believe that Christ Promised Infallibility or Governing Authority to this Church before we can believe that he is Christ. § 4. We must believe that this Promise is true and shall be fulfilled before we believe the Gospel Promise of Pardon and Salvation that is before we are Christians or believe the Scripture § 5. We must believe that the Pope is Christ's Vicegerent or Vicar General or General Councils at least before we can believe that Christ is Christ. § 6. We must believe that the Words of the Apostles were Intelligible else why did they speak but their Writings are not till a General Council make them so by an Exposition § 7. We must believe that it is intelligible which be true Bishops and Councils and what is the meaning of their Voluminous Decrees but it is not intelligible what is the sense of the Scripture till Councils tell us § 8. We must believe that God is the great Deceiver of the World by sense and things sensible e. g. by sense which takes Bread to be Bread and Wine to be Wine § 9. We must believe that all men are Hereticks who deny not their senses and all that believe sense even of all the sound men in the World shall be Damned That is All that believe God speaking by things sensible § 10. We must believe that God who is the great Deceiver of the World even to and by the senses yet hath given a Spirit of Infallibility to those Popes and Prelates in Council who live in worldliness and wickedness § 11. We must believe that an unlearned Pope and Prelates who never understood the Original Tongue but are ignorant men are by Miracle in Council inspired with the gift of right expounding the Scriptures which they never studied or understood before § 12. We must believe that every Priest how ignorant or wicked soever doth by pronouncing the bare words of Consecration work many Miracles turning Bread into no Bread Wine into no Wine making quantity and other Accidents to exist without Substance c. And that he can work such Miracles every hour of the day and if he can but get into a Bakers Shop or Vintners Celler to say Mass may in malice undo the poor men when he will by turning all their Bread and Wine into none § 13. We must believe that the Roman Empire was all the Christian VVorld or that a Council General as to that Empire was General as to all the VVorld And that the Roman Emperor or the Pope called the Bishops of all the VVorld together And that the humane Primate of one Empire was Governour of all the VVorld § 14. VVe must believe that now that Empire is dissolved the Laws then made bind all the Princes and Churches on Earth viz. that a defunct power still ruleth even those that never owed them obedience § 15. VVe must believe that we in England are rightfully under a Foreign Church Jurisdiction contrary to the Oath of Supremacy § 16. VVe must believe that all Temporal Lords must be sworn to extirpate all Protestants and to perform it if able on pain of Excommunication Deposition and Damnation And that if they do not the Pope may execute this penalty of Excommunicating and Deposing them and giving their Dominion to others and may Absolve their Subjects from their Oaths of Allegiance Concil Later sub Innoc. 3. Can. 1 2 3. § 17. VVe must Swear never to expound the Scripture but according to the Concordant sense of the Ancient Fathers who never expounded much at all much less ever agreed in any Exposition of them all § 18. VVe must believe that God hath given the Church that is the Pope and Councils a Power to Expound hard Scriptures and to end Controversies and that this is a great Blessing to us VVhen yet neither Pope nor Councils will give us a Commentary on the Bible or exposition of hard Texts nor will determine most of the Controversies that now trouble us § 19. VVe must believe that the Governing part of the Church is to be obeyed and Gods VVord received but by their Proposal when yet it is not known who is the Governing part Pope or Council nor which Councils be true and which but false Conventions nor can they assure us how we may ever come to know it § 20. VVe must believe those Councils to be true and credible which contradict and condemn each other and that both are in the right § 21. VVe must believe both that all Gods VVord in the Sacred Scripture is true and that Councils and Popes say Truth when they contradict it § 22. VVe must believe
all Children be taught to read and learn Catechisms and Scripture and use the Lords day in pious Exercises and submit to their Teachers and forbear profane contempt or abuse of Persons or Things I think the whole Matter is decided in these ten Particulars § 4. II. Now de nomine the question is what is to be called the FORM and what but the MATTER of the Church as National For of a Church as Congregational or as Diocesan or a Provincial we have no controversie No more than of a City or School And seeing every Politick Society consisteth of the Pars Imperans and Pars Subdita all grant that the Pars Imperans as related to the Pars Subdita is the Specifying or Unifying Form and Head it is then clear that all the Clergy being but the Pars Subdita under the Government of the summa potestas whether Kings alone or King and Parliament or an Aristocracy they can be but the Matter of the Church as National and not the Formal Head For a Body Politick of one Species can have but one Head of that Species So that to make a Primate or two Metropolitans or a Synod of Diocesans or a Convocation representing all the Clergy to be more than the Matter of a Church as National is to make them the summa potestas or Soveraign and to depose King and Parliament § 5. Obj. But the Regiment being of two Species so is the Policy Society and Supremacy Each is Supreme in sua specie Ans. 1. So then you would have two National Churches and Soveraigns If you 'll extend the Controversie but to the Name it may be the better born But then acknowledge the Equivocation and give us the definition of each Church and use not the Name of the Church of England for your own Form only 2. But a Subject Policy is not the Supreme and denominating Policy It 's private and subordinate as to National The Physicions the Soldiers the Marriners c. though they are in hoc fit to over-rule the King and Parliament are not therefore the Soveraign Power of the National Body Politick § 6. Obj. But their 's are matters of small moment but the Clergy are Rulers in matters of Salvation Ans. Unhappy dividing Rulers they have been here and in most of the Churches But 1. I have proved that Kings are Rulers also in matters of Salvation as great as theirs and over them 2. Was not Moses and David and Solomon and Jehoshaphat and Hezekiah and Josiah c. the Soveraign Rulers of Church and Priests though an Vzziah might not offer Sacrifice or Incense 3. The proper Governing power of Bishops is but over their own Flocks and they may not Rule in other Mens Diocesses much less over King Parliament and Kingdom further than the Soveraign giveth them Political Power § 7. Obj. They may command Kings and Kingdoms in Christs Name to obey God and forbear Sin Ans. True so did every Prophet so may any one Minister Yea a Foreigner a Salvian a Luther c. But this is Gods Government Nunciative and not Political And so if the Metropolitans Diocesans Convocation or a General Council command as in Christs Name and prove their Commission as Messengers from him we will obey Christ in them But if one Man bring better proof from Scripture that he speaketh from Christ he is to be obeyed before a Council that proveth no such thing This sort of Divine Authority lyeth in Evidence which most Bishops on Earth now have not of the truth of their Message and is but Nunciative and worketh only on voluntary Believers and Consenters And if the Controversie de nomine be whether a Christian Kingdom as such may be called A CHURCH what pretence have the deniers Not à notatione nominis The Church in the Wilderness is a Scripture Name And sure the Jews Church was not denominated from the Priests only Moses is ofter named as its Head than Aaron § 8. Obj. But are not Judges and Bishops a part of the Pars Imperans as well as the Soveraign Ans. Only subordinate in their Provinces They are but as the Kings Hands and Tongue They are Subjects themselves and have no Political Power but what he giveth them 2. If you might so far distinguish of them as Imperant under the King and as Subjects as to say that Judges and Bishops are as the Wife in the Family that hath a Governing power over Children and Servants that maketh her not the denominating Head of the Family but a Subject of the highest Rank § 9. Qu. What if a Christian Kingdom had no Pastors Ans. Then they were but an Embrio or half Christian and not materia disposita for a full formation The Matter and Privation that is Dispositio receptiva are Essential to the Body though they be not the Form 10. Qu. But what if under an Infidel King a Christian Nation be confederate under Bishops Ans. They are no Christian Kingdoms but a Christian Nation and are many confederate Churches and may be called One Church equivocally and secundum quid as confederate Kingdoms may be one Kingdom But they are but materia disposita sine forma as to a National Church properly so called and as such § 11. Qu. Are those of the Church of England that are not Conformists Yes if they conform to Christianity and are Subjects of the same King § 12. There is an odd Writer that hath lately published a book to prove that the Act of Toleration freeth not Nonconformists from the guilt of Schism Doleful is the case of such a Church and Land where the Learned men after near thirty years silencing imprisoning and ruining multitudes know not to this day what they are or what they hold and who it is that they do all this against How can such wink so hard as not to know that we took it for no Schism to assemble for Gods Worship before the Act of Toleration while they have done all this against us for so doing Could they think us so mad as to suffer Jails and Ruine and Scorn and Death to many for known Schism And if we took it for a duty before how can we take the Act of Toleration to be it that must justifie us But such men Englanâ— suffers by that cannot distinguish between Foâ—m Divinum and Humanum We believe that Goâ—s Command justifieth us in foro Divino for obeying it But the Law justifieth us in foro humano Gâ—ds Law and Judgment will keep us from Hell aâ—d at last silence our silencers But the Kings Laws bring us and keep us out of Jails and from thâ— Jaws of them that envy our Liberty and Lives § 13. It 's a question considerable whether England be a Protestant Church or not if it have a Papist King To which I say we must distinguish between a profest Papist and a concealed one 2. And between a King that hath the total Soveraignty and Legislative Power and one that hath but
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
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
Communion of the Churches 8. But I supposed that none but those who were called to it immediately by Christ or endued with the gift of Infallibility therein were to be as his Mouth and Hand in so delivering the Gospel and writing the Holy Scriptures as should be his Word or Law to all the Christian World and to all future Generations 9. But as Prophets of old were the bringers of all new Revelations and the Priests were but the Preservers Expounders and Appliers of the Word which the Prophets had brought So the Spirit in the Apostles Evangelists and Prophets infallibly delivered that Word and Law which all succeeding Pastors must Preach Practise and Rule by as the only Universal Law This being hitherto my Judgment if you are not mistaken I am no Member of the Universal Church and so no Christian and therefore am uncapable of Communion and have not Christ's Spirit nor title to Salvation and therefore it concerneth me speedily to try and receive Instructions However we are of two Religions and Churches if you are in the right II That which I have hitherto denied herein is 1. That there is any Vicarious Constitutive or Governing Head of the Church Universal or Soveraign Power Personal or Collective having Supream Universal Legislative Judicial and Executive Power under Christ which all Christians are bound to be Subjects of and to obey 2. That Obedience to such an Universal Church-Soveraign or Power is not the necessary means or terms of Universal Concord or Communion 1. Because there is no such Power 2. If there be it cannot be Universally known by Christians 1. That it is 2. What it is 3. And in whom it is 3. Nor can the Measure of Obedience to such Power necessary to Concord and Communion of all be Universally known 4. And de facto there is no such Concord or Communion Universal in the World nor ever was at least since the Apostles days Of these in order I. If there be any Vicarious Universal Supream Power that all must obey that will be Members of the Church the Institution of it is to be found in Scripture or in some other Divine Record But no such thing is found in either we have no other Divine Record that notifyeth this and Scripture doth not It is the Apostles Power that is the thing hence alledged But 1. While they were near the whole Church in its Infancy or small Number Men could have sent to them for their Judgment But so they could not had they lived to see the Church in its present extent If the twelve Apostles were now at Jerusalem and we doubted of the Nestorian Eutychian Monothelite Controversies and the rest in Epiphanius and Philastrius Catalogue Could all the Christians in America Africa Asia and Europe know that the major Vote of the Apostles met at Jerusalem had thus or thus decided How few would live long enough for that Satisfaction 2. The Apostles singly by an infallible Uniting Spirit were the Mouth of Christ to deliver obligatorily his Laws and Doctrine without meeting to Consult and Vote it Paul professeth Gal. 1. that he received not his Gospel from the Apostles but from Christ And his Epistles need not a proof of their Authority from the Votes or Consent of the rest but were otherwise received And so of other parts of Scripture 3. The Apostles were to be dispersed about the World and not to stay long together to Govern the World as a College And while they stayed at Jerusalem we read not of their doing any thing in a College and Conciliar way save that Act. 15. 11. which was 1. No General Council from all the Churches 2. Nor done by Apostles only but the Elders and Brethren also of the Church at Jerusalem 3. And was not laid on the Authority of a major Vote but on the Apostolical Spirit of Infallibility and their special knowledge of Christ's mind in which they all concurred 2. Therefore their Authority of Teaching the World all Christ's Commands M-28-20 being proper to them by these two advantages being chosen Ear-witnesses and having the Spirit to guide them into all truth in this they have no Successors though they have in the continued parts of their Work They were Christs Instruments in Universal Legislation and the Scripture written by them is his Word and Law and they were accordingly enabled to Seal it by Miracles and giving the Holy Ghost by Imposition of their Hands This Law of Christ all Christians own But if in this they have Successors 1. The Church hath a larger Law than we have thought on and Gods Word is a greater Volume 2. And Miracles are as necessary to Seal the new Word as to Seal the old II. The Scripture denieth a Vicarious summam potestatem or Soveraignty over the Universal Church having a Legislative Power 1. In that it saith that There is One Law-giver Jam. 4.12 that is But One. 2. In calling Christ only the Head Lord and King and calling Apostles but Members 1 Cor. 12.27 and Stewards and Ministers by whom we believe 3. Baptizing us only into the Name of Christ and not of the Apostles and Baptism is Christening and sheweth all that is necessary to make us Members of the Church and Body which Christ is the Saviour of 4. Paul decryeth it as Carnality and Schism to think of Men above what is written as if they had been Baptized into the Names of Men. 5. The Apostles did not Convert Men by preaching up themselves as Soveraign but Christ only professing themselves Witnesses and Messengers of his Words and Deeds The Eunuch Acts 8. was Baptized by Philip upon his bare believing in Christ without hearing the â—ote of a Colledge of Apostles Nor did the Preachers that Converted Men do it by the Argument of the Authority of such a Colledge As Dr. Hammond saith on 1 Tim. 3. And such are all particular Churches of the whole World considered together under the Supream Head Christ Jesus dispensing them all by himself and administring them severally not by any one Oeconomus but by the several Bishops as Inferior Heads of Unity to the several Bodies so constituted by the several Apostles in their Plantations each of them having an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a several distinct Commission from Christ Immediately and Subordinate to none but the Supream Donor or Plenipotentiary Neither to a Personal nor Collective Soveraign Power The Judges of England have a Power which limitedly in their several Courts and Circuits respecteth all the Kingdom But 1. They have no Legislative Power 2. Nor are they Constitutive Essential parts of the Kingdom It would be the same Kingdom were their Power changed 3. Therefore the Constitutive Oaths or Bond is only between King and Subjects and we are not to Swear Allegiance to any other than the King 4. Nor are they Judges out of their several Courts and Circuits 5. Much less in other Kingdoms 6. Nor is any a Judge to all the World so is
know such Matter of Fact better by Universal Consent of all Christians and true History than by such a Judicature of all the Bishops of the VVorld 2. But Protestants do so strongly prove that the S. Scripture is the entire Regulating VVord of God without defect or supplement by Unwritten Tradition as that nothing is left out of it which is of Divine Obligation to all the Christian VVorld in all Ages And therefore that all that the Spirit instituted as Universally Necessary in Church-Government is there 3. If it were not so this Gap of Unwritten Necessary Supplemental Tradition will let in no Man knoweth what besides Church-Power on the like Pretences 4. Tradition hath been oft pretended by General Councils against each other as I undertake to prove 5. All that is not in Scripture of Church-Offices and Government have been so far new or changed up and down as proveth that the Church never took them as Universal Necessary Institutions of Christ delivered by the Apostles I need not instance in Patriarcks and such like nor such difference of Seats as Nazianzen and Isidore Pelusiota wish levelled when if General Councils themselves had been this Necessary Church-Government the Church had not been Three Hundred Years without them yea and to this Day indeed 6. As the King by his Laws and by his Officers Judges and Justices Lawyers c. without another Vicarious Soveraign or Vice-King doth tell the Subjects what is the Constituted Government of the Kingdom and all Official Powers which they must obey so doth Christ by his Written Law and by his Ministers teaching us in their several places tell us what is his Church-Government without an Universal Vicarious Soveraign 7. When Leo the First called himself Caput Ecclesiae Vniversalis and Boniface was called Vniversal Bishop much more long after for many Hundred Years so great a part of the Empire judged the Roman Bishop to be the prime in the Empire and in Councils and Principium Vnitatis as Archbishop Bromhal speaketh as that it seemeth then to have been the Major part of the Bishops of the whole World the Empire being then the far greatest part of the Universal Church And even Salmasius liberally granteth that the Pope was not a meer Patriarch but the Heads of the Patriarchs and Church Universal in the Empire de Eccles. Suburbicar prope fin And I understand not how he is Principium Vnitatis in a Governed Society as such who is not Principium Regens But it followeth not that it was so from the Apostles nor that it must continue so when the Empire is overthrown or the Emperor will change it If most of the Church be in one Empire and the Prince think he should form the Government to that of the State as the Chalcedon Council that magnified Leo yet witnesseth doth this make one of his Subjects Ruler of all other Christian Kings or subject the World to Foreigners Yea and that when the Empire and its Laws are overthrown and most of the Church is without the Empire enlarged more over other Lands Must we turn Papists if they can but prove that once a General Council or the Major part of Bishops was for them by Corruption or Secular Advantage What Changes have the Majority oft made § IV. Your fourth VVork of Universal Supremacy is To declare what Ordinances were received from the Apostles as Imposition of Hands to give the Holy Ghost and such others 1. I acknowledge that Baptism and the Eucharist were known by practice before the New Testament was written and the continued practice hath been as sure a Tradition of the substance of them as the Scripture it self hath had But it is all Christians Lay and Clergy that assure us of this yea Hereticks and Enemies with them by Universal Historical Concord and not the Authority of a Supreme Universal Judicature And yet it was all recorded in the Scripture that without those sure sufficient Records the Tradition might not as Oral or practical only be continued So that all that is Universally Necessary is now in Gods written Law And if it had not been so the Papists changes of the Eucharist which yet Holden with others pleadeth Current Tradition for tell us how little security we should have had of them If there be more Sacraments than two in the Scripture we will receive them Or if more could be proved instituted by Christ and delivered from the Apostles than the Scripture mentioneth we should not refuse them But we are perswaded there is no such proof The Papists plead Scripture for all their seven Sacraments and we quarrel not at the Name but expect better proof of all that is Obligatory to the whole Church on Earth than an unproved Universal Judicature VVhat Confirmation is I now pass by § V. Your fifth VVork for the Soveraign Power is Judicial Sentencing not Individuals ordinarily but by Description such as are to be cast out by Excommunication 1. This is not part of Judicial Government but Legislative To say He that is impenitent in Drunkenness or Heresie shall be cast out is the Penal part of the Law And Gods Law hath already told us who shall be cast out There are Sins enough enumerated to this use 2. If all the Necessary Doctrine and Practice be expressed in Scripture then so is the Necessary Cause of Excommunication For that Cause is bringing other Doctrine or Impenitence in breaking Gods Law But the Antecedent is true Ergo. 3. How happy had it been for the Church if there had been no Hereticating or Anathematizing but for violating Scripture Doctrine and Law impenitently Alas what Work have Hereticators and Anathematizers made in the Church 4. How know we what Curses are valid when General Councils have cursed per Vices almost all the Christian World And the same Bishops in one Council cursed one party and in the next the contrary and cursed their own Councils 5. As there needeth no Vicarious Monarch of the whole World no nor of one Kingdom under the King to tell who shall be Fined or Hanged but the Kings Law as the Rule and the Judges and Justices in their several Limits to pass Sentence in particular Cases so there needs no Church-Vicarious-Judicature of all the Earth to judge who shall be cursed and cast out Christs Laws and the Pastors respectively in the several Churches are enough And in doubtful Cases and for Concord Neighbor-Bishops in Synods must Consult § VI. Your sixth Use of an Universal Supremacy is to make mutable Church-Laws 1. God is the only Lawgiver to all the World Christ to all the Church We deny any such Church on Earth as hath an Universal Soveraign under Christ and can make Laws for all the Christian World 2. How is Gods Law sufficient in sâ—o Genere if it leave out that which is to be commanded to all the World of Christians How is Mans Universal Legislative Power proved any more than an Universal Civil Soveraignty Or how differeth it from
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
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
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
Religion who value it most Dogs will fight for Bones and Carrion and Swine for Draff But Men will sooner fight for Gold and Pearls while Dogs and Swine like peaceable Creatures pass them by or tread them in the Dirt. All true Christians are agreed in all that God hath made necessary to Christianity and Salvation And no men on Earth were ever so wise as to be agreed of the meaning of every word besides in the Bible Much less in all that Usurping Universal Legislators will obtrude What a dismal noise and dangerous rupture doth the Controversie make now about Conformity in Brittain And what is our difference We are all agreed 1. That there is only one God the Governour of all the World and of his Attributes 2. That Man's Soul is immortal and that he hath another life after this to live and Heaven or Hell must be his end 3. That Jesus Christ God and Man is the only Saviour and Lord of all 4. That the Law of God is the chief indispensible Rule of our Faith and Life by which we must be judged 5. That we must live soberly righteously and godly loving God above all and our neighbours as our selves and doing as we would be done by superiours Ruling for God and inferiours obeying them under God but none having power above him or against him 6. That God only is the final Infallible Universal Judge of Controversies That Magistrates are Judges who shall be punished or protected by the Sword And Pastors are Judges who is fit for Communion in the Churches under their over-sight And every man a discerning rational Judge of his own duty 7. That without holiness righteousness and temperance or mortifying the lusts of the flesh by the Spirit no man can be saved 8. That no man should sin wilfully for any price or to avoid any danger even of death 9. That the Soul should be more cared for than the Body 10. That no man can love God and Holiness too much nor obey him too faithfully 11. That we should delight in the Law of the Lord and his Gospel and meditate in it day and night 12. That serious servent and faithful prayer is our daily ordinary duty 13. That we should live as we would be judged and daily prepare for death that we may be found ready 14. That we should use all worldly temporal things for spiritual everlasting ends knowing that else they are but vanity vexation and dangerous snares 15. That we should fetch our joy from the hopes of Heaven more than from all the possessions pleasures and hopes on Earth These and abundance more we are commonly as to Profession agreed on And though this in sincerity will serve for our acceptance with God and our Salvation it will not serve for our acceptance or toleration with some men nor to avoid the cry of scandalous intolerable Schism Disobedience Obstinacy and what men mind to charge upon us Yea though we are agreed that Rulers in their several places must be obeyed in all things that are not against the Law of God in Nature or Scripture But what now is the difference I will add that if every Conformist and Nonconformist in England were of so unattainable perfect knowledge as to be agreed of the sence of every Syllable in the Bible it would not serve to end our Differences nor keep us from Prisons Silencing and the present heavy Accusations Wonder not at it It 's an evident Truth Our Difference is 1. About the meaning of some Oaths Declarations and subscribed Professions and Promises imposed by Acts of Parliament 2. About the meaning of several Rubricks and other Words in the Liturgy and Book of Ordination 3. About the meaning and practice of several Canons Gods Law hath agreed us all that Lying deliberately is a sin and so is Perjury especially of thousands and so is the wilful depraving of Baptism and other Ordinances of God and so is the unjust Excommunicating of the Faithful and denying them Baptism and the Lords Supper and so is Sacriledge and Renouncing the Sacred Ministry when we are Vowed to it and so is Schismatical Dividing Christs Church by needless and unlawful Snares and Engines All these we are agreed are heinous sins not to be done for any Price But we are utterly disagreed whether to Conform would make us guilty of these sins But what Are Learned men such miserable Casuists as not to know what Lying Perjury Sacriledge Profaning Baptism Sinful Excommunicating c. are We differ about the sence of the Words Imposed and of the Law and Canons And then how should we know who is the Sinner But Qu. Who is it that wresteth them from their usual signification And who is it that dare not do it But the Sacred part of the Imposers cry up the necessity of a Judge of Controversies yea an Universal Judge some of them to Expound the Scriptures when men differ about the sence and will not they procure you an Exposition of a few controverted sentences in the Laws or endeavour it if that be necessary to understand or end your Differences Ans. No whatever cometh of it to Bodies or Souls to Church or Kingdom these Expositors of Scripture and Enders of Controversies will not so much as Petition the Law-makers to explain their words Yea though the Conformists are much disagreed about it among themselves Judges will decide particular Causes by the Law But to know the sence of the Law antecedently as our Rule which is required in one that Sweareth and Subscribeth to it can be by no ones Exposition but the makers of the Law Else the Judges were the only Law-makers For the sence is the Law And he maketh the Law that maketh the sence and not they that make the words alone which other men must put the sence on And if Popes or Councils Prelates or Priests could on pretence of a Judicial Expository Authority be Judges to all the Earth in what sence every word of Scripture must be understood it is they and not God that make the Law For God made but the words if this be true and the Bishops make the sence by pretence of judging of it To give an Universal Antecedent Obligatory Exposition is an Act of Legislation and none but the Law-maker himself can do it But to judge by this Law who shall be received and who shut out of their several Churches the Pastors must do that X. Another great deceit is by confounding Communion and Concord with Government and Subjection And arguing that because all Christians must have Concord and Communion therefore they must be under one Supreme Humane Government As if Christian Princes were not as much bound to Concord as any men on Earth Or as if that Concord must be kept by one Supreme Universal Senate or Monarch and mutual Consultation and voluntary Agreement would not serve Obj. But if God bind us to do all things in Concord and General Councils and Patriarchs determine the matter of
a Universal Soveraignty or Legislative and Judicial Power And therefore uncapable of our Coalition more than an Impenitent Murderer is of Church Communion § 2. And there are not a few nor small Matters that are above Four hundred Years old that found Protestants will never Unite with And though Mr. Thorndike give us so much quarter as to say that It is the Authority that must necessarily be owned and not the Canons if that Authority will change them 1. It is the usurped Authority that we most disown 2. And we have no assurance what Canons that Authority will change And Mr. Thorndike's Mr. Dodwell's and such Mens great rule of Unity is that none of us must question whether any of the Canons of that Authority are contrary to God's Word nor appeal to God and Scripture against them Multitudes of Papists themselves renounce such Doctrine § 3. I. And first All this is built on the Sand I have largely proved long ago in several Books that it is impossible for them to certifie us who have this Authority Who it is that we must hear as the Catholick Church and take Universal Laws from when there is no General Council Or what Councils we may be sure are General or what not Besides none were General but of One Empire When they condemn each other and when each call the other Heretical or Schismatical and when as Great a Number were at one as at the other and the same Authority chose and called both sorts How shall we know which we must obey Is it by Scripture Reason or Authority of Councils themselves that we must Judge They cannot tell us § 4. II. The Cause which I am pleading against is exprest by their Champion the Lord Primate of Ireland Archbishop Bromhall in the words forecited viz. To wave their last Four hundred years Determinations is implicitely to renounce all the necessary Causes of this great Schism And to rest satisfied with their Old Patriarchal Power and Dignity and Primacy of Order which is another part of my Proposition is to quit the Modern Papacy both Name and Thing By this we see what the Protestant Church of England must be or else be Schismaticks in the Judgment of these Learned Men. I will here tell you why this will never Unite us and why the old Church of English Protestants could not close with Rome on these mens terms § 5. I. Salmasius de Ecclesiis Suburbicariis circa finem granteth them that by their Imperial Constitutions the Bishop of Rome was not a meer Patriarch but more than a Patriarch a Caput Ecclesiae This was not Christ's Institution but the Emperours and their Clergies in one Empire But call it Patriarchal or what you will it contained such Power as Christ having not given and Dead men of another Kingdom being none of our Rulers we are not obliged to obey nor indeed lawfully can do 1. A Patriarch and Primate hath some degree of Governing Power or else wherein doth his Primacy consist He calleth Councils Precedeth c. And if he cannot command Archbishops how can they command Bishops And if they are not Commanders of Bishops why do our English Bishops in their Consecration Profess Promise and Swear all due Obedience to the Archbishops And 1. We cannot yield to bring England under the guilt and brand of Perjury by submitting to the Foreign Jurisdiction of a Roman Primate or Patriarch contrary to the Oath of Supremacy 2. We know already how many false Doctrines and Practices the Roman Church and Patriarch have espoused And we can no more receive all these Errours from a Patriarch than from a Pope § 6. II. But we will freely confess to you that we neither are nor can be such a sort of Protestants as the Regnant Church of France is which persecuteth the Protestants nor as these Men called the Church of England in such Proposals would have us be I will give you a Catalogue of some Determinations of above Four hundred Years old which the Church of England before Bishop Laud could not receive § 7. I. Mr. Thorndike also consenteth to rest in the Canons sent by Pope Adrian to Carol. M. about An. 773. And C. 23. ex Clem. is That Arch-Bishop Presbyter or Deacon taken in Fornication Perjury or Theft be deposed but not Excommunicate II. Can. 28. is That a Bishop who obtaineth a Church by Secular Power be deposed And yet we are called Schismaticks for not obeying alas I dare not name the things the Bishops that have many Score or Hundred Churches by Secular Power And must we Unite in this III. Can. 11. is Condemned Clerks shall never be restored if they go to the Emperour And must we Confederate against such Bishops in England IV. C. Laodic there recited 33. is that None Pray with Hereticks or Schismaticks When we knowing how the Roman Party are counted at the best Schismaticks by Greeks Syrians and Protestants and all these counted Schismaticks by them it will be but Schism to separate from almost all Christ's Church on Earth as Schismaticks V. Ex Can. Sard. 2. That a Bishop that by Ambition changeth his Seat shall not have so much as Lay Communion no not at the end VI. Ex C. Afric c. 15. That there be no Re-ordaining or Translation of Bishops VII No man must receive the witness of a Lay-man against a Clergy-man VIII The Second General Council at Nice setteth up the Adoration of Images cursing all from Christ with Anathema that are against it or doubt of it IX Even the contrary Council at Constantinople of 338 Bishops anathematizeth all that do not with a sincere Faith crave the Intercession of the Virgin Mary as the Parent of God and Superior to every Creature visible and invisible And all that confess not that all who from the beginning to this day before the Law and under the Law and in the Grace given of God being Saints are venerable in the Presence of God in Soul and BODY and seek not their Intercessions Yet they conclude with the Conc. Nice 2. That Christ's Body Glorified is not proper Flesh Def. 7. X. The said Second Council at Nice saith Every Election of a Bishop Priest or Deacon which is made by Magistrates shall remain void by the Canon which saith If any Bishop use the Secular Magistrate to obtain by them a Church let him be deposed and separated and all that Communicate with him Thus our English Bishops and Parish Ministers are deposed and all their Communicants to be Excommunicated XI Ibid. Can. 4. Those that for Gain or Affection of their own shut out any Ministers or shut the Temples forbidding the Divine Ministry are sharply condemned which would fall on Silencing Bishops XII Can. 15. Forbiddeth one man to have two Churches which would break our Clergy specially the Bishops that have Hundreds XIII Can. 7. Forbiddeth any Temple to be Consecrated without Relicts and ordereth Temples that have no Relicts to be put down XIV A Council
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
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.