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
have no right to Salvation presently on their Baptism then it is not lawful to say that the contrary is undoubtedly certain by the Word of God But I confess Mr. D's Proposition is false as I have formerly proved to him And perhaps necessity will force himself to deny it as to Baptism though it overthrow his assertion about Ordination Specially if he be for Laymen and Womens Baptizing as the Papists are in case of danger But the Name of the Church will warrant such Lords to prove all such Declarations Subscriptions Oaths not only sinless but necessary to Order Peace Obedience Ministry and I think to Salvation For they make Schism Damning and such Obedience necessary to escape Schism But he hath one cleanly shift Though the Corporation Declaration be that there is no Obligation from the Covenant on me or any other person and a Man think that some are obliged by it against Schism Popery and Prophaneness and to repent of Sin He saith no Man is forced to take these Declarations Vestry Oaths c. For he may chuse and none constraineth him to be in Corporation trust or a Vestry-man and so a Minister so the Act was to appropriate this sweet Morsel of so Swearing declaring c. to themselves And to themselves let it be appropriated for me And yet when all the Corporations Vestries and Ministry are constituted as they are this is the necessary Unity But Obedience to the Church solveth all I once askt a Convocation man what were the Words of God by which this Article was proved and past in the Convocation and he could not name me any Text that perswaded the Convocation to pass it but told me Dr. P. Guning urged it so hard that they yielded to him without much contradiction I was not willing to believe that the Church of England would pass an Article of Faith against their Judgments to avoid striving with one man when in imposing it they must strive against and silence thousands and condemn most of the Reformed Churches but rather that really they contradicted him not because they thought as he And yet I was loth to think them so uncharitable as to put all Ministers to declare such a thing to be in the Word of God and never tell them where to find it Between both what to think I know not But if really Dr. G. was the Church the reverence of his Name Church shall never make me add to the Word of God or corrupt his Ordinance nor subscribe to his Book or to a Foreign Jurisdiction if he Father it on the Church The main strength of all his condemnations of us and justifications of himself is that They are the Church and our lawful Rulers and we must obey and be Sworn never to endeavour any alteration of Church Government not excepting Church depopulation by large Dioceses nor the use of the Keys by Lay Chancellors And if you ask for the proof of all this and that they are not Vsurpers nor Church-destroyers nor Subverters of Episcopacy it self nor grand Schismaticks you must be content with 1. Ipse dixit and 2. Episcopacy is ancient 3. And the people have neither an Electing or necessary Consenting Vote and yet when not only Mr. Clerkson and I but also Dr. Burnet have fully proved that for twelve hundred or thirteen hundred years the peoples Consent was requisite these great dependents on Antiquity and the Church can wash all off with a torrent of words If the Letters in the Caballa and other History be credible how great a hand had G. Duke of Buckingham in making the Church of England in his days Read but what Heylin saith of Bishop Laud's preferment and the Letters of some Bishops to Buckingham in the Caballa and judge what made the Church of England How basely do they sneak and beg of him for Preferment◠e. g. Theophilus Bishop of Landaffe is a most miserable Man if his Grace help him not to a better Bishoprick Mountagues place at Norwich was of little worth since Henry the Eighth stole the Sheep and scarce for God's sake gave the trotters as he saith in his Letter to Laud. And this was the way So the Church of England is Jure Divino made by the Civil Powers But yet a few words can prove just as he proveth all the rest that the Dean and Chapiter chuse the Bishops and not the King As Heathens made Images of the Gods and thought the Gods did actuate them so men make the Images of Bishops and Councils and some Spirits actuate them whatever they be whether those Noble Lords Knights and Gentlemen that at their death lamented that they lived Atheists and Infidels repented that as Patrons they chose Parish Church men I know not But while these Drs know that many Great Councils have decreed the nullity of those Bishops that got in by Secular help and favour and Damned the Seekers and Accepters of it and yet would perswade the Church that all Gods Word is insufficient for Universal Laws without the addition of Soveraign Councils I will regard them as they deserve and not as they expect Why answer they not my late Book of English Nonconformity The True Sum. Popery is I. The turning a National Univerglity or Catholicism of Councils Church Power into a Terrestrial Universality II. Turning Confederacy and Communion into Political Regency III. Deponing Kings and States from their Sacred office of Supream Government and sole forcible Government of the Church or Persons and things Ecclesiastical the Clergy having only the Power of the Keys Word and Sacraments to work on Conscience without corporal face Chap. XV. The first Letter to Bishop Peter Guning upon his sending me Dr. Saywell's Book My Lord I Thankfully received from you by Dr. Crowther Dr. Saywell's Book and a motion for Conference with him which I yet more thankfully accept I read over the Book presently and think it meet to give you this account of the Success I. 1. I perceive that it doth not concern me nor many if any that I converse with For it is Presbyterians Separatists Quakers and Fanaticks that he accuseth and I am conversant with few such 2. And yet the strein of his Book is such as will make Readers undoubtedly think that by Presbyterians and Nonconformists or Conventiclers he meaneth the same Persons and speaketh of the common Case of the present ejected silenced Ministers Of whom I must again and again say 1. That I have had opportunity by Acquaintance and Report of knowing a great part of the silenced Ministers of England and I know but of few of them that are Presbyterians and Judge most of them to be Episcopal Lawyers and Gentlemen indeed incline to place all the Government in the King and Magistrates 2. That in 1661. when we were Commissioned to endeavour Concord with you not only those named in the Commission but all the Ministers of London were invited by Mr. Calamy and Dr. Reinolds and Mr. 〈◊〉 and Dr. Wallis
differences 1. By the Church they mean not the People but the Prelates and Councils headed by their great President 2. They suppose these to be God's Proxies and that God doth what they do and they so oblige God to stand to it and men to take it as God's act 3. They suppose these Prelates and their President alike impowered by God as the Apostles were and therefore God by his Proxies now may undo what he did by his Proxies then Do you now wonder if Pope and Council by Canons have power from God to make new Canonical Scriptures and new Universal Laws for the Church yea and for the World And if these may undo the Scripture Laws and Institutions and make other Sacraments and Worship in their stead But Protestants have long ago proved 1. That there is no Vice-God and that God hath no Proxies or proper Representatives with whom he hath entrusted his Power so as that their word must lead and he will follow But only Embassadors whose Message is prescribed them by God and they are to speak and do only what he bids them and he will own it and not that which they add of their own or which they do against his Word 2. That the present Pastors have not the same power as the Apostles had who were commissioned to deliver Christ's Commands to the World and enabled for it by the Spirit of Infallibility and Miracles Even as the Jewish Priests had not the Power of Moses nor could change a tittle of the Law but only keep it teach it and apply it VII That he and his followers are for a Supreme Governing Visible Humane Power over the Universal Church is a thing that I need not cite their words further to prove Mr. Thorndike Bishop Bromhall Bishop Gunning Bishop Sparrow Dr. Saywell and the rest of that mind are not ashamed of it And it is a General Council that by some of them is supposed to be this Supreme Power And when I have proved against Johnson that there never was a General Council of the Christian World but of the Empire I can get none of them to answer me save that when the Empire was broken some of the pieces came together for a Job at Florence c. But it is the Pope's right saith Bishop Bromhall to be President and Patriarch of the West which Thorndike and others largelier insist on as the necessary Principium Vnitatis which turned poor Grotius to them for Unity But I confess I thought Mr. Dodwell had been more for a Councils Power than I find he is The Protestants believe no Supreme Governor of the whole Church but Christ. Dr. Iz. Barrow of the Unity of the Church hath fully overthrown the fiction of a human Supreme Aristocracy as well as of a Monarchy But an Union of all the parts in one Head Christ we all believe and consequently a Communion among themselves VIII But what Mr. Dodwell's Judgment is of the Power of the Council and whether the Supremacy be in it or in the President I will tell you only in his own words supposing the Reader to know that the Papists so far differ among themselves that 1. Some are for the Pope's Supremacy alone the Council being but his Counsellors as some are for the Kings the Parliament being but his Counsellors 2. Some are for the Councils Superiority over the Pope as some say Parliaments are greater than the King and urge his old Oath to pass such Laws quas Vulgus elegerit so say they the Pope must own those that the Council passeth yea that they may depose him if he deserve it 3. Some say that Universal Legislation belongs only to the Pope and Council agreeing the Pope being to Call and Approve them And this is the prevailing Opinion among them so that the Controversie is much like that which men have raised about Kings and Parliaments Now saith Mr. Dodwell Ch. 24. Pag. 509 c. Even by the Principles of Aristocratical Government no Power can be given validly but to persons who are are at least in conjunction with those from whom they receive their Power Subordinate Authority must be derived from the Supreme No act can be presumed to be the act of the whole Body but what has passed them in their Publick Assemblies in which Body is the Right of Government so it have the prevailing Vote Nay though that prevailing Vote be not the greater part of the Society so it be the greater part present at such Assemblies God himself cannot be supposed to have made a Government even of his own Institution practicable till he have setled these Rules of Administring it As nothing but the Society it self can in justice make a valid Conveyance of its Right so it is not conceivable how the Society it self can do it by any thing but its own act If this be so 1. Mark that this man disclaimeth any other Divine Institution than by the Society 2. The People that have no Power being the greater part of the Society or Church give the Bishop and Pope and Council their Power 3. If the Clergy were all the Church the Presbyters give that Power to the Bishops and Pope which they had not themselves 4. All runs on the false Antimonarchical and Anarchical Principle which I have confuted in Hooker that the Body makes Power by giving up their own Right 5. Then the General Councils and Pope have no Power For the Body of the Universal Church never gave it them but the Emperors save as to Teaching and Arbitrations 6. Then in those Countries where the Body of Clergy and People put down Bishops there Bishops are put down by such as had Power to do it For 1. If man may set up Diocesans Popes and Councils man may take them down Yet the Proteus changeth his face and presently supposeth that the whole Right of these Assemblies could not have proceeded from the bare consent of the Society but from the actual Establishment of God No Assemblies can dispose of the Rights of such Societies but such as are lawful ones according to the Constitutions of that Society As out of Assemblies they have no power to act who might act in them how many soever of the Suffrages and how freely soever they had been gotten so all those Meetings how numerous soever for acts of Government if they be not Legal they add nothing of advantage to the power of particulars singly considered They are not in the Eye of the Law Assemblies but Routs and their concurrence not Consent but Confederacy And as it were Rebellion in particular persons to attempt any thing of that nature concerning the Government without the consent of their present Established Governours so is there nothing in such a Meeting that can give them any Power as united more than they had as singly considered that may excuse them from Rebellion Nay rather by the Principles of all Societies that which had not been Rebellion if done