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
or extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were then common to most Christians at least as you may see by comparing Gal. 3.2 3. 1 Cor. 12. Act. 8. Rom. 8 9 c. 2. There were but two Messengers more than those that dwelt together and met ordinarily And 1. The Apostles themselves had not such present command of the Spirit as excluded the need of consultation 2. And no doubt but the doubtful Christians abroad did more reverence the consent of all than one alone What therefore they did as consenting inspired infallible persons will not prove a soveraignty in all the Bishops of the World in a Council to decide Controversies by Sentence and Command No doubt but the Assembly at Nimeguen Munster Francfort c. may decide Controversies between Princes but not by soveraignty over each other but by consent To their Subjects it 's reverenced as a consent of Princes but to each others it 's the consent of Equals I have said that Archbishop Vsher said to me That Councils were but for Concord and not for Government the Major Vote of Bishops being no rulers of the Minor nor of the absent Obj. But all Pastors are related to the Vniversal Church Answ. As a Licensed Physitian is related to all the Kingdom that is he may be Physitian to any that desire him How strictly do the Canons forbid Usurpation in other Mens Dioceses The English Ordainers say Take thou Authority to Preach the Word of God and Administer the holy Sacraments where thou shalt thereto be lawfully called A general Ordination maketh none a Governor of other Mens Flocks § 4. Dr. S. The Apostles to give Example how Controversies should be ended in future Ages did not decide it by their infallible Spirit only but proceed in an ordinary Method plainly countenancing the Authority of Councils and intimating to us that all Christian People ought to submit to their Decrees Answ. 1. They did decide it by their Infallible Spirit else they had not fathered all on the Holy Ghost But not only by that Spirit for it was also by their Vnderstandings and their Tongues Even so they did not write the Gospel only by the Spirit but also by their Reason and their Pens But they decided it not without that Spiritual infallible Inspiration which your Councils have not You may as well say when Act. 6.2 the twelve called the Multitude c. that there was a General Council that spake not only by the Spirit And Act. 11.2 Peter pleadeth his Cause before the Apostles and Brethren who were satisfied by his Reasons This was such another General Council But who doubteth but the Apostles had Reason as well as the Spirit and used the gift of the Spirit in the use of Reason and not only in Extasies And therefore Consultation and the Spirits infallible Inspiration may go together 2. We deny not the use of Consultation and the Consent of many as a help to incline mens Minds to Satisfaction But only infallible Men can by infallible Authority decide Controversie sententially And if Pope or Councils have such Infallibility they have done ill that they would use it no better than the Multitude of their Contradictions manifesteth And if they were Infallible the Peoples actual Faith is never the more infallible unless they themselves were infallible also Are all the believers of Popes and Councils themselves infallible or not If yea then are all herein equal to the Pope and Councils If not then the Laity know not but they may be deceived in thinking the Pope and Councils infallible 3. I have truely recited the doleful decision of Controversies which they have made They have raised abundance of Controversies which have torn the Church into pieces as I have fully proved whether Mr. Maurice will or not 4. It would have been a Service to the World indeed if Pope or Councils would to this day after 1500 years Controversie vouchsafe to end them and not tell us that they are appointed to end them and yet will not Why are there still Cart loads of Books of Controversies among Papists and Protestants and all and yet no Council doth decide them Even the Catalogues of Heresies given us by Ephinanius Philastrius Augustine c. are few of them medled with in your six Councils It is the Controversies about the sence of Scripture which is most talkt of which Councils must decide And of the many hundred or thousand Controverted Texts how few have Councils ever Expounded to us How great is their guilt if they are bound to do it and will not 5. But you do but speak darkness and no satisfaction to us to tell us that all Christian people ought to submit to their Decrees till you tell us Whether it be to All their Decrees or but to some and to which and how known The Case may be I About points absolutely necessary to Salvation or points not so necessary II. About points plainly exprest in Scripture or points there darkly exprest I. As for points absolutely necessary sober Papists themselves confess that they are all plainly exprest in Scripture Else it were no perfect Doctrine or Law of God if a Council contradict any Article of the Creed must we receive its Decrees Sure Councils have no power to judge that there is no God no Christ no Scripture no Heaven Nor must we believe them if they should so do And if they have power only to tell us that There is a God a Christ a Heaven Scripture hath told us this already and we need not that a Council tell it us If we believe it as of God it is a Divine Faith if as of Man it is but a Humane Faith 2. But if it be only points not Necessary a Council cannot make that necessary which God made not so And it 's a great wrong to the World to increase the difficulty of Faith and Salvation by making more necessary to it than God hath done II. And whether they are necessary or not if they are plainly exprest in Scripture what need we a Council to say the same again Is not Gods plain words intelligible as well as theirs And must we not believe Gods plain words till a Council repeat them How many things then must we refuse to believe which are plainly exprest in Scripture But if they be things not plainly exprest in Scripture it 's like they are not Necessary to Salvation If they be they are such deductions from plain Scripture as are obvious to a sound understanding or not If yea then every sound understanding may know them Or if Men be ignorant either Councils or single Pastors may teach them But that is by opening the evidence of truth and not by commanding Men to believe it Teaching and not Magisterial determining begeteth rational belief But if they are not such obvious deductions we cannot be sure that Councils rightly collect them But we are sure they have no power to command us believe without giving us convincing proof
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
Gods 3. Mutable Things are not of Universal Need or Use These By-Laws like those of Corporations are only the Work of particular Churches or Countries E. g. One Translation of Scripture one Metre or Tune of Psalms c. will not fit all the World that have several Languages c. Upon the whole I am more confirmed by longer Considerations 1. That to assert a Soveraign Vicarious Church-Power over all the Christian World is to make a Church which Christ never made 2. And Treasonably to set up an Usurpation of his Prerogative 3. And to plead for that which de facto never was in being 4. And to lay the Ground of heinous Schism and Persecution by prosecuting impossible Terms of Concord and Communion 5. And to make this the necessary Medium of our believing in Christ or knowing his Word and Will is to subvert the Christian Faith and Scripture 6. And as one Pope cannot possibly through Natural Incapacity Govern all the Earth in Religion one Collective and Aristocratical Soveraign of all the Bishops on Earth is so incomparably more uncapable that I wonder that any Considerate Man can believe it Pighius well tells us of the Novelty and Vanity of Heading all the Churches by General Councils 7. And if the French and the Councils of Constance and Basil and Cassander and Grotius and such Papists as set Councils over the Pope had not taken in the Pope as the ordinary Governing Executive Head to Rule by the Councils Laws they had been far more gross and incredible than the Italian Papists who prefer the Pope 8. And that Civil Government may so much easier be exercised by Officials than the Spiritual that a Civil Monarch of all the Earth is far more congruous and possible than a Humane Visible Church-Head under Christ Personal or Collective 9. That if this was the Principle from which you disputed at the Savoy and in the Convocation and from which our late Changes and the silencing of Two Thousand Ministers have been made it 's no wonder that the Effects were such But if ever we be healed it must be by other Terms and Hands R. B. Jan. 12. 1679. This Feb. 13. Being with the Bishop again he disclaimeth the Names of Supreme Summa Potestas Vicaria as Invidious and chuseth the Name of a Ruling Collegium Pastorum Ministerialium who are the Church which is the Mother which all must receive their Faith from and obey and so must know their Consent Chap. XVIII The Fourth Letter to Bishop Guning To the Lord Bishop of Ely Dr. Guning My Lord THough I intended to trouble you no more by Writing yet observing how apt you are to mistake me and because time streightened our Discourse Lest I be mistaken and consequently mis-reported I thus send you the sum of what I said to your last as far as it concerned me I. Whereas you are offended at my Applicatory Conclusion I must still say it that ☞ If these were the Principles upon which our Changes were made by your Endeavour 1661 and 1662. it is no wonder that Two thousand Ministers were Silenced and Cast out And is it more offence to you to hear what you did towards it than to them and their Flocks to suffer it Is this impartiality II. My naming Holden as saying what you say was not invidiously to intimate that you differ not from him in any thing else but to tell you that these thoughts are not new to me and that even a Papist pleading rather Historical Natural-Evidence in Vniversal Tradition than judicial Authority in this is further from the common Papists than you III. You are offended at my comparing Bishops to Kings only in this respect that they both govern only their proper Provinces and neither are Rulers of all the World And your reason is because it intimateth that Bishops rule like Kings Who can Dispute on these terms Did I not in the stating of our Question agree that it is not the Power of the Sword but only Ecclesiastical Power of the Word and Keys that we Dispute of Did I not still profess to you to speak only of this And doth comparing Princes Coactive Government with it only in the extent neither of them being over all the World contradict this or wrong you by unjust intimations IV. You take the words Aristocratical-Supream Vicarious under Christ Legislative to be invidious and you disown them 1. Because they intimate a forcing Power like Princes 2. Because Christ only is Supream But 1. It is not de nomine that we dispute but de re and I understand all this while that we had no other question to debate 2. I desired still nothing more than that you would state your assertion in your own words that I might use no other You tell me your own words are Collegium Pastorum I tell you again that nameth only the subject Matter of the Power where our question is de formâ what is their Power which we must obey You next tell me It is a College of Pastors having a Ministerial Ruling Judicial Power over the Vniversal Church I take up with your own words Only remember that before you asserted a Legislative Power of mutable Laws and now it is but judicial If so then we owe no Obedience to their Laws but to their Sentence according to Christ's Law How then is obeying them the only way of Concord But say you It is but mutable Laws that they make Answ. And are mutable Laws no Laws And is he no Legislator that maketh but mutable Laws Neither King nor Parliament will believe this But you say Canons are not Laws I thank you for that Concession So saith Grotius de Imp. sum Potest If so then they are but either Counsels or Agreements Contracts It is not de nomine that we contend A Law saith Grotius is Regula actionum Moralium More fully A Law is the signification of a Ruler's Will making the Subjects Duty If a Canon be none then Literae formatae are none And where there is no Law there is no Transgression Then no Obedience is due to the Laws of the College of Bishops And then obeying them is not the only way of Concord Authoritas imperantis est objectum formale Obedientiae you disown also the word Pars imperans I take your own Pars Regens which to me is of the same Signification as to Ecclesiastical Power Jus regendi is that which I mean by Authority and Debitum Obediendi by Subjection But I think that indeed authorized Pastors may make proper Laws e. g. At what Places and Hours to meet what Translations Version Metre and such Orders to use but only to their proper Subjects and not to all the Christian World V. You Copiously blame us for denying that Obedience to the Universal Church which we give to every single Pastor and thought that I owned no Power but Parochial I tell you still 1. I maintain that there were in the first Age and perhaps
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
of the truth For instance The first General National Council determineth that Christ is God of God Light of Light Very God of Very God I believe they meant the truth But these words are so far from making me a new Article of Faith or making the point plainer than Scripture made it that they are to me much darker than many Scripture words That Christ is God even One God with the Father and that he is the Eternal Word and Son the only begotten of the Father the Scripture plainly tells us And that the Person of the Son is of the Father For the Persons being three it is meet to say that one is of the other But God of God and Very God of Very God is of harder understanding and hath tempted mistakers to say it is Godhead of Godhead as if the Essence as well as Persons were many Creeds must be supposed to speak properly And denominations formal are most proper The Tritheites take advantage of this and say It is not said that the Person of the Son is of God the Father but the Godhead as such God of God being twice said say they signifieth two Gods They misinterpret it But the Scripture speaketh plainlier The same I say of Light of Light a Metaphor in a Creed And they that put substare accidentibus into the definition of substance and when they have done say that God hath no accidents do not by the Word substance add any plainness to the Scripture phrase And how little the Council at Constantinople and Chalcedon did to end the Controversies of Prelates and unite the Church by setting Constantinople and Rome in mutual Jealousies and Competition the World knows And what the Councils at Ephesus and Chacedon did to end the Controversies about the Nestorian and Eutychian points or that at C. P. against the Monothelites or that under Justinian de tribus capitulis Mr. Morice and you cannot keep the World from knowing nor yet what all the Councils about Images some for them and some against them have done Are they the only means of ending Controversies 1. Who do end none 2. Who have most increased them 3. Who are the greatest Controversie themselves The World will never be agreed which are to be taken for General Councils Authoritative and which not nor can you give us any thing that hath the shadow of reason to satisfie any impartial Man And no wonder when indeed there never was an Universal Council in the VVorld All true Christians are agreed in all that constituteth Christianity And it is not the Authority of Councils that made them Christians and so agreed them And to dream of ending all Controversies about lesser matters as long as men are so ignorant and imperfect as all are in this VVorld is the part of no Man in his VVits § 5. Page 345. Dr. S. Accordingly the Christian Church has challenged such an Authority and has held such Assemblies as occasion did require and six such have been approved and received generally i◠the Church and no more Ans. In all this matter of fact I think there is not one true word 1. The Christian Church did never challenge such an Authority unless you mean the Papal Church as in Council to have a Legislative and Judicial Soveraignty over the whole Christian VVorld 2. Never such an Assembly was call'd or held as I have fully proved 3. The six you mean we honour and are of the same Faith as they were but how far all the Christian World hath been from receiving them all I have elsewhere shewn and so hath Luther de Conciliis and many Protestants 4. That there were no more approved and received as these were is unproved § 6. Dr. S. As for Mr. B 's exception why we do not own the second of Eph. and second of Nice for General Councils also I answer because they were at the time they were first held and many years after accounted no General Councils and not received for such by the Church And page 346. Mr. B. demandeth how shall any Mans Conscience be satisfied that just these six had a supream c. Ans. By the publick Acts of the Church as we are satisfied of our Acts of Parliament For there are no more generally received and these are Ans. 1. I will not stand here on many previous questions How we shall know that a Council not General binds us not as much as a General if they have as wise Men and as strong Evidence And whether any Council be General which carrieth it but by a Major Vote where a few turn the Scales and the rest dissent But 2. If there be in this decision of this great point one word that should satisfie any Mans Conscience which will not be satisfied with meer noise or the VVriters Authority I confess I cannot find it 1. Either the Decrees of the said Councils are obligatory by their Soveraignty before the diffused Church receiveth them or not If yea then that obligation must be first known yea and it is known and the Council known by those that are nearest before all the Church on Earth can know it If not then it is not the Council but the Receiving-Church which hath the obliging Soveraign power And this is indeed to make Soveraign and Subjects to be the same This is like Mr. Hooker's Principles and many Politicians that the Legislative Power is really in the people by Natural right and it 's no Law which hath not common consent And if so no Man can tell how to date your Church Laws They did not begin to be Laws when the Council made them but when all the Church on Earth consented But we have need of the Decree of a General Council for no Dr. is sufficient to tell us when all the Christian VVorld consenteth for if every Christian must travel all over the VVorld to know it will be a vagrant Church And if he must send he cannot be sure that his Messenger saith true And a thousand Messengers may all differ And who can bear their Charges And if a Council tell us when the VVorld consenteth to former Decrees we must know also the worlds consent to that Decree before we can be sure it 's true And 2. VVhether the Church diffusive give authority to the Decrees or only be the Promulgators whose reception must be our notice it is a contradiction to say I know it first because all the World of Christians receive it For that 's all one as to say Every single Christian knoweth it because all Christians know it first That is All know it before they know it The parts are in the whole 3. Hath God laid the Salvation of all the Millions of Men and Women Learned and Unlearned upon such acquaintance with Cosmography and History as to know what Councils past 1000 years all the Christian World receiveth Or whether the greater part be for them or against them Is there one of a hundred thousand that knoweth it
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
decoy and divert Men from the state of our chief Controversie to hide their Design 2. Because it seemeth to me to be of no use He that will not read impartially what we say as well as they will never be cured of his Errours by any thing that we can write And he that will impartially read but my first Plea for Peace Apology and Treatise of Episcopacy and take this Book to be a Satisfactory answer shall never be troubled by my Replyes no more than the distracted § 20. This much I shall presume to say lest he expect some account of his Success upon my self I. That when he tells the Reader at last of my Concessions as if I scarce differed from them save by not giving over Preaching when forbidden they do but shew how charitable and humble they are in their Domination who yet can hardly suffer such Men alive out of Jail much less to preach who come so near them II. That when he tells us that the Presbyterian Cause is given up and yet their Party make the name of Presbyterian odious to them but not to us the Engine of their reproachful malice this seemeth not to me to come from the Spirit of Christ. III. That when this whole Book pretendeth to confute us and scarce once that I find in all the Book truely stateth the case of our difference but still silenceth or falsly representeth the points which we judge sin yea heinous sin such a Deceiving Volume seemeth not to me to beseem a Bishop or his Amanuensis or Chaplain IV. That when he tells us what pitiful proof he hath for the justification of their Silencing and Ruining ways and yet how extream confident he is it maketh me wish Christians to pray yet harder that Christ would save his Church from such Bishops I will now stay but to instance in that which they say the Bishop hath some peculiarity in viz. Our Assent to the Rubrick about the Salvation of dying Baptized Infants Reader I have reason to believe that it is the Bishop as well as Dr. Saywell that speaketh to me And 1. He dealeth more ingenuously than they that on pretence of Assenting to the use say that we are not to Assent to the Truth of this as a Doctrine of Religion He professeth the contrary and that Assent to this is required as well as to the Catechism 2. He seeketh not their Evasion that make not the phrase Vniversal but Indefinite For he knew 1. That in re necessaria which he takes this to be an Indefinite is equal to an Universal And 2. That a quatenus ad omne valet consequentia And the assertion is of Infants quâ Baptized 3. It is a certainty mentioned by Tautology that must be by every Minister professed It is certain by the Word of God that they are undoubtedly saved Here we ask them two things or three 1. VVhether none should be a Minister of Christ who cannot truely profess this undoubted Certainty 2. VVhether almost all the Learned Writers and Ministers of the Reformed Churches should be Silenced that hold the contrary 3. But specially what be the words of God here meant which express this undoubted certainty They confess that God saith Deut. 12.32 Thou shalt not add thereto nor take ought there-from and concludeth the Bible with If any Man add to these things God shall add to him the Plagues that are written in this Book We tell them we dare not venture on such a dreadful Curse This cannot be one of their things indifferent Therefore before we profess our Assent that this is undoubtedly certain by the Word of God they will shew us so much compassion as to tell us where to find that Word of God And after all our intreaty even my own to the Bishop he giveth us by his Chaplain but this one Text of Scripture Gal. 3.27 As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. Reader is here one word of the certain undoubted Salvation of dying baptized Infants without exception 1. Here is no mention of baptizing Infants and it 's usual with this sort of Men to say That we cannot prove Infant Baptism by Scripture but only by Tradition or the authority of the Church 2. This Text most certainly speaketh of the Adult And will not these Drs. believe St. Peter himself who told Simon when he was Baptized Thou hast no part nor lot in this matter For thy heart is not right in the sight of God Thou art yet in the gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity If they say that Simon had been saved if he had died as soon as he was Baptized and that he fell to that false Heart and gall of bitterness after who will take such Drs words in despight of the evident truth His Friend Grotius more modestly expoundeth Gal. 3.27 Sicut à baptismo vesies sumuntur ita vos Promisistis vos induturos Christum id est victuros secundum Christi regulam Do these Men believe that all Infidels and Hypocrites shall be saved if they die as soon as they are Baptized Or do they think that none such may be and are Baptized The very words before the Text are Ye are all the Children of God by Faith in Christ Jesus And Christ saith He that believeth and is Baptized shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be damned And yet they bring us no Text for their new Article of Faith but one which will as much prove the Salvation of all dying baptized Hypocrites and Vnbelievers as of all dying Infants As if none came in without the Wedding Garment or such were in a state of Life I must profess that I cannot see should I subscribe this how I could escape the guilt of Heresie being liable to the foresaid Curse and Plagues of adding to the Word of God by saying that Gods Word speaketh this certain and undoubted Salvation of dying Baptized Infants as such without Exception Yet if we would all conform to all their Oaths Covenants and Impositions besides we must all be cast out and forbid to preach the Gospel if we durst not Assent to this one Article Such is the mercy of these Men And all is justified as for sound Doctrine which we are ignorant of and these Masters are the Judges whom we must believe Yet note that though when he got the Church of England to pass this Article he put not in the least Exception and the Canon forbids the refusing Baptism to any Child that is offered to it yet now he limits it to all Children seriously offered by any that have power to educate them in that profession And as it is not the Parent that must be the Promiser nor is suffered to be so much as one of the Godfathers or Sureties for his Child so by this little limitation what a dreadful brand of perfidious Covenanting with God doth he six on our common English Baptism For sure it is not the confident talk
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-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
Word and Sword 4. And serve the good of the whole as the end of Government Stretch the words on any Rack that is not against reason and besides these four you can never prove one Universal ruling College XI You say God is not the visible Head of the World and Men have access to Kings but not to Christ. Answ. God is the King or Supream Governor of all the World and you have no more visible access to the Father than to the Son And particular Pastors are as accessible as Kings And Church Government which like a Physitian or Tutor depends on personal Skill may much less be performed by absent Men at the Antipodes than Civil Government XII But it 's said It is the whole Churches reception of Canons though Councils be not properly Vniversal tha◠maketh the Obligation Vniversal Answ. If they bind not by the Imposers Power they were not received as binding Universally If Reception be the Obligatory Act Subjection is Government and Lay Men and Women govern by receiving And I have proved how mutable and how uncertain Reception is They say all the Church was against Adoration by genuflexion on the Lord's Day and for Milk and Honey and the white Garment in Baptism And yet particular Churches laid them down before any Universal Judicature allowed it XIII Qu. If you know that all the Bishops of the World receive any Doctrine or Practice as needful or good will not you do so too and do you not so receive the Creed and Bible Answ. 1. I receive the Laws of the Land only as authorized by the Law-givers But I know them to be the same Laws that the King and Parliament made by the concurrent Testimony and Use of all Judges Lawyers and People of the Land and Proclamation by the Proclaimers But I know them not by my obeying all these Judges Justices and People as one authorized College that is under the King to Govern the whole Land So here I know the Writings of Homer Virgil Cicero to be theirs the more confidently by Universal Tradition But not because I believe that all the Witnesses in the World that have so received them are Commissioned to be Rulers or a Judicature to the World I receive Divine Truths as Delivered in the Creed and Scriptures as from Christ and his Apostles especially Commissioned and qualified to teach all Men whatever he commanded them and this by the hand of my Parents and Pastors and since I understood History common consent puts me the more out of doubt of the Matter of Fact that these are their true Writings and Doctrines But not from the Bishops as one College Commissioned to rule all the World or Church on Earth And alas how few are so well verst in History as to know much of this To know what is received now ab omnibus ubique is too hard But to know the semper is much harder especially when the Filioque and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and many such like have had more for them in one Prince's Reign and more against them in another and so off and on and to know which had most was impossible to most Christians How few know at this day whether the Filioque have more for it or against it Not I nor any Traveller that I have spoke with XIV But you would not for a World be guilty of saying what I have written of Councils 1. As if they were to be abhorred for their Faults 2. You say How great Matters the Articles of two Natures and Wills and of one Person are and no small nor wordy difference Answ. 1. I can mention Mens Faults without abhorring them I honour them for their good and am for the use of needful modest Councils of good Men. 2. I doubt not but the Matters determined were weighty But how far Persons wronged and misunderstood one another and strove about words when they meant the same thing I have not nakedly said but proved to you When Theodosius forced by threatning Cyril and Johannes Antioch and Theodoret to agree did they not confess that they had wrongfully anathematized each other and were of one Mind and did not know it Have I not proved to you that Nestorius denied two Persons and that Cyril oft asserteth but one Nature after the Union Do you indeed think that One and Two are words that have but one signification Have I not proved the Ambiguity and the Misunderstanding of each other in too many But O how hard it is to be Impartial and to Repent when Contentious Bishops in Councils have notoriously torn the Churches drawn streams of Blood Cursed and Reproached one another and Cursed that Cursing it self and their Party the next change and have overthrown the Empire and set up the Pope by striving about Jurisdiction and hard words who shall be greatest and wisest must not this which cannot be hid be lamented If Cyril were but half as bad as Joh. Antioch Theodoret Isidore Pelusiota Socrates and Sozomen c. make him how partial were his Admirers But I see it is as hard for Bishops to repent as other Men when their Self-esteem and Dignity seemeth to themselves to entitle them to the reputation of Sanctity and Innocency And if they divide the Christian World as wofully as the West and East and the Abassines Copties Jacobites Nestorians Armenians Protestants c. are divided at this day or should they Silence Thousands of Faithful Ministers of Christ for not Sinning or for Nothing and bring thereby Confusion and Schisms among serious Christians to the hardening of the Prophane and Hereticks it will seem to some a more heinous Sin to name their Sin and call them to Repentance than in them to commit it And yet one may name the Sins of a Thief or Drunkard and call him to Repentance without blame But have I said half so ill by them as they said by one another They anathematized each other but so do not I by them What say I worse of the first and best of your Six Councils than Eusebius and Constantine said of them when he burnt their accusing Libels against each other 2. What say I worse of the first Council at Constantinople than Greg. Nazianzen saith I do but recite his words and the History Did they not set him up in the beginning and pull him down at the end and for what 3. What say I of the first Ephes. Council but what the recorded Acts do tell us How they divided into two Parts and each Excommunicated the Leaders of the other and the Orthodox Part fought with the other notwithstanding the Endeavours of the Emperor's Lieutenant to have kept the Peace and yet when they had done found that they had been of one Mind and knew it not except Nestorius And how much hand a Woman had in it against him the History tells us 4. Have I said so much against that at Chalcedon as the many Councils that anathematized them did or more than they
the Universal Church And so it is not only Bishops that have every one a Charge in his Place to promote the Universal welfare but every Presbyter and every Christian in his Place Therefore that Bishops are related to the whole Church no more proveth that they have as a Senate a summa potestas or any Universal Government over it as one College than it will prove it in all other Christians who are all related to the whole Nor no more than the Members of the Body do make one natural Governing Part by Consent XXX This Communion of Christians in the Church as Catholick is essentiated by the Essentials of Christianity and Ministry for Christians as Christians with Christ the Head do constitute the Catholick Church in its first being as in fieri And Christians as Christian Ministers of Christ and private Disciples do constitute the organized Body which with Christ the Head make an organized Catholick Church XXXI The Integrals of Christianity Communion are not necessary to the Essence of the Church but to the Integrity Much less the Accidents XXXII The Christian Churches through the World have Communion in all these things following at this day 1. They are all Baptized with the same Baptism in Essence and so are all Christians Particularly they all profess to believe in God the Father one Jesus Christ our Redeemer and one Holy Ghost one in Essence with the Father and the Son They all profess the same Creed called the Apostles yea and the Nicene and the Lord's Prayer as the Rule of our Desires and the Decalogue as a summary Rule of Practice They all believe the same holy Canonical Scripture as to as many Books at least as are necessary to the being of Christianity and Salvation They all agree in the Essentials of the Sacred Ministry that such must teach the Infidels of the World and make them Disciples of Christ baptizing them and then must teach them Christ's Commands That they are under Christ's Teaching Priestly and Kingly office to be to the Churches the Peoples Teachers their Guides in Publick Worship and the Rulers of their Communion by the Power of the Keys They agree in the Essentials of the Lord's Supper save that the Papists have corrupted it by Transubstantiation and other foul Abuses The Protestants Greeks Armenians Abassines and all or near all the Parties of Christians in the World are agreed in all this and much more excepting the said Corruptions of Popery 2. Their Religion teacheth them all to Love one another as the Members of the same Body of Christ to do good to all especially to the Houshold of Faith and to Pray for one another and and relieve each other in want and to do to all as they would have others do to them In a word to Love God as God and Saints as Saints and Men as Men and all to seek one Heavenly Kingdom and all fight against the same Enemies the World the Flesh and the Devil And this is Catholick Communion XXXIII The greater Communion they have in all the Integral parts of Christian Faith Worship and Government the more strong and amiable the several Churches are and so is the whole by such Communion But it is not necessary to the Essence It is not the Papists trick of challenging us to name Fundamentals that will cheat men of understanding to confound Essentials and Integrals That which hath no Essence is nothing that whose Essentials are unknown is not knowable nor can be defined Christianity was once known by Baptism and it was once knowable who were to be Baptized and who to be received as Christians into Communion There are multitudes of Divine Truths revealed in Scripture and therefore to be believed which are not essential to a Christian or a Church And so there are Integral Parts of Worship and Discipline He that needs more proof of this is not one of those that I write for XXXIV The Accidents of Christianity and Churches are of two sorts some such as it is desireable that all Churches should agree in though it be necessary neither to their Essence or Integrity And some such in which an Universal Agreement is neither possible nor desireable As it is desireable to comeliness that all men have Hair and Nails c. but not that they all wear Cloaths of the same Stuff Shape or Price or all dwell in Houses of the same materials form or bigness nor all use the same Trade of Life nor be of one Age or Rank c. It is desireable that all the World spake one Language and were of one Judgment in all things of common concernment But it 's hopeless And he would play the hypocritical Devil that on pretence of seeking Unity would destroy or ruin all that agree not in these things so is it as to Church Communion It is desireable that all Christians understood and spake one Language and that we had but one perfect sort of Copy of the Bible without various readings or where Translations are necessary that they were all perfect and agreeable but it 's hopeless As the case is it is not desireable much less necessary that we all Worship God in one Language when all understand it not or that we all use the same Translations Liturgy or words of Prayer or Preaching or all wear the same sort of Garments and an hundred such like And to silence all that do not or reject them from Catholick Communion is the like hypocritical Diabolism and in that way the Devil and the Pope are the greatest Vniters that is Dividers and Destroyers in the World XXXV The Vniversal Church containeth many particular Churches throughout the World This none denieth As a Kingdom hath many Cities and Corporations XXXVI These particular Churches Parts of the Universal have a distinct constitutive Form That is Christ only is Soveraign of the Universal but his Officers are the particular constitutive ruling part of the particular though under Christ. King and Subjects only are Essential to a Kingdom But a Mayor Bailiff or other chief Officer and the common Citizens are Essential to a City And to call a man Chief or Head of a Family or City that is no King is no Treason but to claim the Royalty is XXXVII Therefore there is more necessary to Communion in a particular Church as a Member of it than to Catholick Communion Viz. He must consent to his Relation and Submission to the particular Pastors of that Church and to meet at the same time and place and joyn in all the necessary Parts of Publick Worship with them Else local Communion will be impossible Therefore it is injurious ignorance which maintaineth of late that he that separateth from or is justly cast out of one Church separateth from or is cast out of all For he that will not own the Pastor of that Church cannot have Communion with it as a Member of that Church who can come to School to a Schoolmaster that he consents not to
confirm their Doctrine have none of the extraordinary Apostolical work to do The Commands which Christ gave his Apostles to teach the World are already told us and recorded by the Apostles They left not part of that work undone for others after them to do If they had how could the Bishops have known but from the Apostles themselves what Christ Commanded And what means have they to know it but what all other men have The Scripture now added to the Law of Nature containeth all that can pretend to be an Universal Law For no Law but of a Universal Lawgiver can be Universal And if all Bishops pretend to Apostolick Inspiration they must prove it by Miracles or pass for Fanaticks And methinks those among us who deride even the pretence of Praying by the Spirit when it meaneth no Enthusiasm but the illuminating quickning and sanctifying influx of the Spirit should hardly believe that all or most of the ignorant and erroneous Bishops of the World have Apostolick Inspiration If they have are not their Decrees and Writings God 's Word and equal to the Scriptures God's Law is not so imperfect a thing nor Christ so imperfect a Law-giver as that more and more must be added to it and no man can tell by whom nor when it will be perfect Nothing unnecessary is fit for an Universal Law And all that is Universally necessary Christ hath done already An Universal Law-giver is a Christ If a false pretender he is a false Christ. But all Pastors are Successors to the Apostles as ordinary Ministers in that ordinary part of their work viz. To Preach Christ and make and baptize Disciples and teach them to observe all that Christ commanded the Apostles as Official Guides of their several Flocks And to do this in order decently and to edification And being the Church-Guides it is their Office to judge of their own acts that is when where in what words to Preach and Pray and whom to Baptize and to whom to deliver the Sacraments of Communion c. § 6. III. But the next doubt is of the extent of the Apostles Office and next of the Bishops and ordinary Pastors And 1. It is evident that what the Apostles did in delivering Christ's Commands in writing in the Scriptures though at first and most immediately it was for the use of particular Persons and Churches yet was intended for all the Christian World as being the Word of the Universal Bishop and King 2. But their Personal Vocal Preaching was confined by natural necessity Their Mandate or Commission was but indefinite or limitedly universal Christ never bound them to go to every Nation or Person in the World else how greatly had they sinned They went not into the fourth part of the Earth And in those parts not to one person of many hundred or thousands Yet their Commission had no positive prohibition restraining them from any one place or person But Natural Incapacity restrained them They were to go as far as they could and speak to as many in the World as they could And this Mandate was given to each one nor do we read that ever they went abroad all twelve together nor ever met when dispersed to consult nor ever judged any cause or persons as a College after It was easie for them to meet when they dwelt together and easie to govern all Christians when they were all before them or at hand And easie to record Christ's Laws and Doctrine by which all must be governed to the end being thereunto inspired by his Spirit But as the Church grew greater they increased the number of Pastors but gave them no Universal Soveraignty § 7. And now what pretence can ordinary Ministers or Bishops have for Universality of Soveraignty Legislation and Judgment in an Aristocratical Senate or Council If they were Apostles they must but teach men to observe all Christ's Commands They may do their proper work as far as they have capacity and ability If they can Preach at the Antipodes we shall pray for their success But sure they will not do it as a Senate or Church Parliament To leave them no excuse Christ hath left no Universal Legislation or Judgment to do The continuance of the Question so oft answered How shall Controversies be ended And who shall Judge When they never attempt to confute our answer sheweth that they are so full of themselves that they have not room for the plainest Truth that comes from others Judgment of Controversies is Private or Publick that is either Private Mens Discerning Judgment or Governors Deciding Judgment The Private is either that of each single person for himself and this is every mans as he is a Rational Moral Agent who cannot do his Duty undiscerned or it is for the guidance of Charity to others And that is either the Judgment of an Arbitrator or of a private Instructer or Reprover Hitherto there is no difficulty who shall Judge Publick Judgment supposeth a forum Tribunal and a Ruling Judge And every one is Judge in proprio foro in his own Court The Magistrates in their several Degrees are Judges in their several Courts who shall suffer or be Protected by them And the Pastors in their several Churches who shall be Baptized and used as of their Communion and who not But there is no Vniversal forum or Court to judge all the World but Christs None out of this Kingdom are publick Judges of King or Subjects Other Princes and Prelates all over the World have a judicium privatum whether they will take our King and Kingdom for Christians and Communicate with them or not and such a judgment have we towards any other Nation But a Ruling Publick Judgment none hath out of the Kingdom Civil or Ecclesiastick All Controversies shall be ended by Christ at last It 's Madness to think of ending all till then so that there is no Judgment but Christ's that is Vniversal and Final for the ending of Controversies or deciding any Cause by Government And were there nothing but a double incapacity 1. NATURAL and 2. POLITICAL or Accidental by the restraint of the Princes of the Earth I have oft shewed here that a Dream of an Universal Soveraign Council or Senate yea or Pope is utterly irrational § 8. But if the Apostolick Succession prove not such a Soveraignty will not the Antient General Councils do it No I have oft enough proved that General Councils were but General in the Empire While they kept sober and humble they never claimed more Nor was there any on Earth that had power to call them out of all the World And when they claimed more they broke the Church and by Usurpation brought on Desolation There is neither Scripture nor reason nor obliging example for extending the Ecclesiastick jurisdiction beyond the Civil but much of all these against it § 9. And what man can think that a claim is the proof of a title in those Councils which began to transgress the
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
be by an undeniable Miraclâ— And hath God promised to Govern his Church by constant Miracles yea as many Miracles as there be ignorant and wicked Bishops and that through all Generations Q. 33. Doth it not require great Knowledge of History to be sure what Councils there have been and which were Orthodox and which Heretical which valid and which invalid and what they did and which side had the Major Vote And is all this Historical Knowledge necessary to Salvation in Learned and Unlearned Q. 34. Yea Is there one Priest of many that hath such certainty of such History of Councils when Writers so much disagree Q. 35. Seeing Historians are but like other men and all men are lyars or untrusty and it 's notorious that Ignorance Faction Temerity and Partiality if not Malignity hath filled the World with so much false History that except in Matters of Publick uncontradicted Evidence no man well knoweth what to believe How shall all Christians lay their Salvation on so great knowledge of History as is necessary to certainty herein Q. 36. If the belief of Councils or the College of Bishops as wide as the World be fundamentally necessary to Duty Unity or Salvation Is it not necessary that all know what are their Decrees and Laws And how can they know this when Councils and Decrees are so Voluminous and few Priests know them and when the World is yet disagreed what Canons or Laws are obligatory and what not But they contradict and condemn each others Laws Q. 37. If a Lay-man should know but one part of the Councils Decrees about Faith or Obedience will such a defective half Faith and Obedience save him or must he know all Q. 38. If you say that all this Historical Knowledge is not necessary to the Laity but they must believe herein the Priests or Bishop that is over them 1. How is this then a belief of Councils 2. What shall the poor People do that one of many hundred of them never see their Bishop much less ever spake with him 3. And are their Priests infallible herein or not Q. 39. Doth not this by the deceitful noise of the Catholick Church and Councils and a College of Bishops make every Parish Priest's word the very Foundation into which all mens Faith must be resolved And he that saith I believe the Scripture because the Church and Councils propose it or attest it and I believe that the Church and Council say it because the Priest saith it Doth he not say as much as I believe the Scripture Church and Councils upon the bare word of the Priest Q. 40. Is it not hard for the People that know their Priests to be sottish ignorant prophane drunken malicious men to lay all their Salvation on a supposed certainty that these Priests say true Q. 41. If the Parishioners know also that their Priests never read the Councils and confess that he is ignorant of them and know him also to be a common lyar Can they certainly believe the Scripture and the Councils and the Matters of Faith and duty contained in both upon the word of such a Priest Q. 42. Can they that are unlearned and never see a Bishop tell whether the Parish Priest and the Bishop say the same Or whether their Bishop be of the same Mind with the other Bishops and whether the Bishops e. g. of England be of the same Mind with the Bishops of France Spain Italy Germany Denmark Sweden c. and they of the same Mind with the Greeks c. Q. 43. Is it a Divine Faith that is resolved thus into the meer belief of Man yea of an Ignorant Priest or Prelate or but a Humane Q. 44. If we and all men had no other certainty of the Scripture but the word of such a Priest or the Decree of a Council would it be more or less certain to us than now it is Q. 45. Have none of all those Christians a true Divine Faith who are converted by Protestant Preachers who teach them to believe the Scripture upon other Evidence than a Councils word Q. 46. By what Evidence doth a Council know the Scripture to be God's Word Is it only by the Testimony of a former Council If so How did that former Council know it and so the first Council that had none before to testifie it And what use is there for the assertion of the later Council when it 's done already by a former Q. 47. Why doth not one Council determine of all that is necessary to Salvation but leave it still undone But if it be done must new ones be called to the end of the World to say the same thing over again and do that which others had done before them Q. 48. Is not the Law the Rule of Duty and Judgment and must all Christians be Judged at last by the Bishops Canon Law And seeing Sin is a Transgression of the Law and it 's harder to obey a Thousand Laws than a few Are not they the most Mortal Enemies to Christians who make them so many Laws and make Salvation so hard a work Q. 49. Seeing Christ was above three Years teaching his Apostles before he died and after his Resurrection was seen of them fourty days and speaking of the things pertaining to the Kingdom of God and being assembled together with them commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem but wait for the Promise of the Father even the Spirit to lead them into all truth and bring all things to their remembrance and their Commission was to teach all Christians to observe whatever Christ commanded Act. 1.3 4. Math. 28.19 20. is it to be believed that yet Christ by himself and his Spirit in these Apostles did not make all the Laws that are Divine and enow for the Universal Church to observe as necessary to Salvation and Universal Concord Q. 50. Is it not enough to Salvation and Church Concord for all the Pastors of the Churches to agree 1. In preserving these Laws and Doctrines of Christ 2. And to teach the People to know and obey them 3. And to defend them against Adversaries and 4. To make them the rule of their Communion by the exercise of the Keys 5. And by their own Authority to determine of variable Circumstances of Worship such as the Place of meeting the time the translation the subject for the day c. Is there besides all this a necessity of Universal Laws for the Salvation and Concord of Believers and of a standing Soveraign Power in Priests Prelates or Patriarchs or Pope to make such Laws Q. 51. Have we not better assurance that the foresaid Apostles taught by Christ and inspired by the Holy Ghost had Authority and Infallibility for this work than we can have that Pope Patriarchs Prelates or Priests have it Q. 52. When some English Prelates and Priests tell us that he is a Schismatick that obeyeth not the Universal Church and that Schism is a damning Sin do they not
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