Against the Revolt to a Foreign Jurisdiction, Chapter 23 – Part 2
Chap. XXIII. Postscript to the Reverend Dr. Beveridge.
SIR,
§ 1. THough you were Bishop Guning's Witness (with Dr. Saywell his Chaplain) when he conferred with me, I was not willing to believe that you were of his mind for a Foreign Jurisdiction, either Aristocratical or Democratical, or Monarchical, but to my grief am now convinced of it, by your published Convocation Sermon: Having too copiously here and elsewhere confuted it (specially in my two Books against William Johnson alias Terret the Papist) I shall go on the supposition that you will there take notice of it: Especially of these two Reasons against it.
1. That the Kingdom and Church is sworn against it.
2. That a pretended Universal Humane Soveraignty or Legislative and Judicial Power over the whole Church on Earth, is the Grand Usurpation of Christs Prerogative; which no Mortal Men are capable of: And if this be not Popery, there is no such thing as Popery: And if the Pope be justly called Antichrist, or at least a Trayterous Usurper against the Right of Christ and Kings, it is by this: And if such a Power be really given to any, the Pope cannot be excluded, at least from the Universal Primacy.
§ 2. I doubt not but the Love of Unity and the sense of the woful case of the Church by Sects, and sad Dissentions, engaged Bishop Guning and you in the Opinions you took up: And no doubt but the Consciencious part of the Learned and Religious Papists are fixed by the same Motives in their way: I may say [fixed and very confident, or else they durst not carry it on as they have done in France and all other Popish Countreys. And I can say that I have not fixed on the denial of a Humane Universal Jurisdiction, without thinking seriously Forty years of what I could find said for it as well as against it; nor out of an inclination to any contrary extreme: Could I have found but any Humane capacity in One or Many for such a Soveraignty, Legislative and Judicial, and but a possibility of such a thing, and any probability that it was of Christs Institution, the Love of Unity, and Hatred of Unruliness and Divisions, and their Effects had long ago made me a hot defender of it. But the contrary Truth, had contrary Effects.
§ 3. That you may not think that I differ from you more than I do, I here premise, I. That I doubt not but that the Universal Church visible is One Body or Society of professed Christians: As the Universal Church as Regenerate and Spiritual is One Body of sincere Christians.
II. That the Unity and Concord of it as Professors, and as sincere, must be maintained to the utmost of our power by all due lawful means.
III. That a wise Correspondency between all those Churches, which by nearness are capable of Acquaintance and Communication is a due means to preserve their Love and Concord.
IV. That seasonable and duly chosen Synods of many conjunct that live within the reach of such Acquaintance and Communication may in case of true need be a fit means of such Concord.
V. That where such Synods cannot be had with due equality, Letters and Messengers from the several Nations or Provinces, or Churches may be used to that end.
VI. That the General Law of Christ commanding Love, Concord and Edification, maketh it a sin for any to affect causless singularity, and to chuse any way which tendeth to Division: And that where there is an Equality, and no Regent power; yet just Contracts for Concord ought to be observed.
VII. That if in National Churches (that is, Christian Kingdoms or Commonwealths) the Soveraign Power give one Seat or Bishop a Primacy or peculiar Priviledge, in the Circa Sacra, the Circumstantials of Sacred Offices, which are within the Magistrates Power, it ought to be obeyed.
VIII. If I had lived in the Christian Empire, when it sometime gave the Bishop of Rome, and sometime the Bishop of Constantinople this preheminence of degree, and the other Patriarchs (of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem) their several Priviledges and Powers, not contrary to the Word of God, I would have obeyed that which the Emperor by his Law preferred.
IX. The Roman Empire was so great a part of the known Civilized World, and so Potent, that I quarrel not with the Titles of [Orbis Romanus] and [Ecclesia Vniversalis] given to that Dominion and Church which was meerly National or Imperial; so be it, we understand the true meaning.
X. Had the Empire continued one Polity, and had made the Bishop of Rome the Primate as to his Seat in Councils, and the said Bishop had been a capable Person, and had not Challenged the Government or Primacy in order of Regiment over the whole Christian World but in the Empire only, as the Archbishop of Canterbury doth in England, I would have been none of his opposers: All this I grant you.
§ 4. But (premising for the Explication of Terms, that we take the words [Regiment, Laws, Authority, &c. in the proper political sense, and not equivocally for meer advice or consent) I add as followeth.
1. That as the Universal Church on Earth, hath but one Soveraign Jesus Christ, so it is one Body Politick, in relation to no one Vnifying Head but Christ, and hath no one Substitute Vicarious Christ, or Substitute Soveraign Government, Monarchical, Aristocratical, Democratical or Mixt.
II. The Soveraignty of one Christian King, Emperor or Senate, (in Aristocracy) over an United or Confederate Christian Clergy and Laity as Subjects (each keeping to their own Place and Work) is the Unifying Headship of a National Church, which is nothing but such a Christian Kingdom or Republick: And that Christ hath owned such National Church Power, and hath instituted and owned no Power of Humane Government over it on Earth: And therefore as pretending to Universal Jurisdiction is Treason against Christ, so the claim of Foreign Jurisdiction is Hostility against Kings and States.
III. That Foreign Councils of Bishops and Dyets of Soveraign Princes are Authorized for Communion for mutual Counsel and Concord by Contract and Agreement, and have no just Jurisdiction or Political Regiment over particular Soveraigns or their subject Congregations: Though in Councils they retain their proper Power at home.
IV. The Foreign Councils agreeing on things profitable to the common benefit of all, Gods own Law of Love, Unity, Concord, Edification and publick Regard and Peace, forbiddeth the particular Bishops and Churches causlesly to dissent and affect singularity: But if they agree on things hurtful and dangerous to any of the particulars, they are not to be obeyed, nor yet if they claim Jurisdiction instead of Communion and Contract: But every Prince and Pastor must Rule their own. As Kings will not own a Foreign King or Council of Kings, who shall Usurp a Soveraignty over them, much more if over all.
V. That all Forcing Power that the Clergy can claim by Canons or Mandates in Christian Kingdoms, is only from the Prince (or State) as they are authorized by him as his Officers, who only hath the power of the Sword; and not at all any part of their Pastoral Office. And therefore (as Grotius in that excellent Book de Imperio sum. Potest. circa Sacra hath shewed) Clergy-Canons are no Laws, but directing Agreements.
VI. The Canons of the Greatest Councils called General, were Laws to none without the Empire, unless Foreign Princes or Pastors made them so: Nor to any within the Empire, but by the Soveraigns Act as they are forcing, and the particular Pastors as Directing.
VII. Before the Division and Ruine of the Empire, the Name of a General Council signified but an Imperial or National Council. They being called by the Emperors who had no further power, and only out of the Imperial Provinces, unless any odd Person came voluntarily in for help and advantage; which was rare. This I have at large proved in my two Books against W. Johnson alias Terret.) And, Ecclesia Vniversalis usually signified no more than Vniversal, National or Imperial. Leo meant no more when he called himself Caput Ecclesiae Universalis, nor Phocas when he gave Boniface the Title of Universal Bishop: And when the Empire was divided it was the Treasonable Erection of Popery to feign that Orbis Romanus was Orbis Universalis, and that Concilia Generalia, and Ecclesia Vniversalis, meant extra Imperial and Vniversal Over-foreigners, and all the World: And this is still as the Foundation of Popery, so the common Cheat that pleadeth for Foreign Jurisdiction.
VIII. Though Rome was a meet Seat for Imperial Church Primacy while Emperors would have it so; as it hath no just pretence to the Government of Foreigners, so it is of all others most unfit for a Primacy or Presidentship in the Councils of Foreign Confederate Princes and Churches, because it claimeth so much more, even Foreign and Universal Regiment: Nor are Councils of such Bishops or Princes to be trusted with General Contracts, who claim such Jurisdiction.
A Primacy in Lawful Councils of Confederates would strengthen their claim of an Universal Jurisdiction till they openly renounce it.
And so would the use of a Senate or Council that pretendeth to the like power.
IX. Patriarchs and Metropolitans, and Provincials or Diocesans in one Empire or Kingdom, can for Number, Seat or Precedency, justly claim no power of Governing Foreigners; nor subject Bishops of that Nation, but from the Soveraign.
X. Legislation is the first Essential power of Regiment: Therefore none can be an Universal Legislator that is not an Universal Rector.
XI. As an Universal Monarch (Ecclesiastical or Civil) is the absurd claim of an Impossible thing, and open Hostility to all Christian Kings and Churches, so an Universal Aristocracy in Councils or Patriarchs, and Bishops, is yet more absurd, as claiming a more notorious Impossibility than the Pope doth.
XII. An Universal power of Expounding or Judging of Christs Laws by Regent Authority, or of being such Keepers of unwritten Laws, seemeth the most Eminent part of Legislation; it being more to be Judge what is Law, and to make or determine of the sence, than to make the bare words: And so the Bishops should have a higher Regency than Christ: Official Judges Expound the Laws only in their limited Provinces, and for the deciding of particular Cases; but not to be the Universal Determiners of the sence to all others: None but the Law-makers can make an Universally obliging Exposition.
XIII. The instance of the Apostles power will not prove an Institution of a stated Universal Legislative Aristocracy, or Monarchy. For, 1. It is evident that Christ first chose and instituted them, as his National Ministers, by the number of Twelve related to the Twelve Tribes; and by the keeping up just that number after the coming down of the Holy Ghost: And by his special Mission of Paul, Barnabas and others to the Gentiles, distinguishing their Apostleship from Peter's and the rest to the Jews.
2. When Persecution and the fall of the Jewish state, made the Apostles Office more Extensive, it was rather Indefinite than Universal: They were to go as far as they were sent, and were able.
3. The Church was then in so narrow Bounds as made that Extent easie, when now an Universal Humane Regiment is of Natural Impossibility, and so past rational Controversie.
4. Their power was not any further Legislative, than as they were Promulgators of Christs Laws, and Determiners of mutable undetermined Circumstances or Accidents.
5. They have no Successors in those extraordinary parts of their Office, which looketh like any part of Legislative power. Which parts are, 1. Being Eye and Ear-witnesses of what Christ did and said committed to their Testifying and Predicating Trust. 2. Having a special Commission to teach all Nations his Laws, or what he commanded as the prime Promulgators. 3. As having the promise of the Spirit to Teach them all things, and bring all to their remembrance. 4. And having the Miraculous Gifts of the Holy Ghost to attest their Witness: As Moses had Successors in Executive Regency, but not as a Mediatorial Deliverer of Gods Law, which Aaron, Samuel, David and Solomon must obey and rule by, but had no power to alter words or sence, nor add any thing but undetermined Circumstances.
Yet as the Laws of Christ promulgate by the Apostles bind all Nations to whom they are revealed; so we grant that the same Laws of Christ declared by Councils, or Preached by any single Minister, bind all to whom they come: And that every Minister (and Christian) being a Member of the Church Universal, his Doctrine tendeth to Universal Benefit which yet giveth him no Universal Regent Jurisdiction.
As I remember I have said all this before in my Letters to Bishop Guning when you were his Second or Witness of our Conference: But the Invitation of your Discourse, which I shall now give you my thoughts of, maketh me think that this repetition is not unnecessary. If you will read Mr. Th. Beverley's whole Duty of Nations, you may see more of my Judgment.
Supposing your Book to be in the hands of the Reader, I shall forbear transcribing, and only tell you what I dissent from, and the pages where it is contained.
I. I dissent from your Opinion of a Humane Soveraignty as over the Universal Church on Earth, (whether you feign it to be Monarchical, Aristocratical, Democratical or Mixt, I matter not.)
II. Consequently I deny your Doctrine of such an Universal Legislative power in Man, and of any Humane Universal Laws.
III. And I deny all Foreign Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, that is, That the Clergy of any one or many Foreign Kingdoms have a Legislative Regent power over any other King and Nation which give them not that power by a voluntary Subjection.
All these denied Doctrines you own, pag. 28. l. 7, 8, &c. p. 24, 25, 26, 21, 23, 19, 13, 14, 15.
My Reasons against the first are so many before repeated, that I must not again do that which is so oft done. Prove you a Universal Humane Polity (by Kings or Clergy) and I will easily prove that Aristocratical is worse than Monarchical, and less practicable: And if you think Popery an unfit Name for it, I will prove it Antichristian, as the Treasonable claim of Christs Prerogative may be so called.
The Second Error falls with the first: For Legislation is the most Essential part of Soveraign power.
Your Third denied Opinion I hope all Protestant Kings and Kingdoms will continue to renounce. And seeing you know that this whole Kingdom is Sworn against it, (even all Foreign Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Jurisdictions as well as Civil,) in the Oath of Supremacy, (besides the many Oaths against alteration of Church and State Government) I hope you would not have the Nation stigmatized with the brand of PERJURY. If the Law for taking the Oath of Supremacy be repealed, the Law of God against Perjury is not repealed.
And whether it be Treason in it self against King and Kingdom, to set up the claim of a Foreign power over them, without their consent, the Judges know better than I. But I know that there be some wise men that cannot yet prove K. James his Self-deposing, if this will not prove it, that he openly endeavoured to settle the Kingdom under a Foreign Jurisdiction against the Laws and against their Wills, and so to alienate the prime part of Soveraignty.
And should a Foreign Jurisdiction be asserted, we should all be confounded by the Impossibility of knowing where to find it, or how to use it, if it be Aristocratical: Where the Pope is may be known: But where to find a General Council of all the Christian World, or an Ecclesiastical Parliament or College, or the Major Vote of all the Churches we know not.
And seeing Bishops are all (save one) the Subjects of other Princes, blame not Kings to be unwilling to be their Subjects, when thereby they will be subjected to those Princes that Rule them, or can sway them by Preferments.
IV. And I believe not your Doctrine that the Major part must go for this Governing Church.
For, 1. It will never be agreed who be the Nations or Persons that are to be accounted Parts; all will claim a Right that are called Christians. And can all Christians or Ministers judge of their pretensions?
2. It is certain that the Greater part have often erred in Counsels, and out of them: The Case of the Arrians proveth it: And the Greater part of the Bishops have been sometime on one side, and sometimes of another, and have turned and returned in the same Age; as is notorious in the Cases of the Nestorians, Eutychians, Monothelites, the Council of Chalcedon, owned and disowned, the Tria Capitula, the Case of Images, and others.
3. It is known that most of the Christian World at this day have no small number of Errors; the Greeks, Moscovites, Armenians, Abassins, Coptis, Syrians, Jacobites, Nestorians, Maronites, Georgians, &c.
4. It is to be expected that the Countries nearest the Councils, and that have most numerous Bishopricks will have the Major Vote, when those far off, and that have large and few Bishopricks will have few Votes.
5. It is known that three of the five old Patriarchates have many Errors, yea, four of them differ from all the Western Churches, Papists and Protestants.
5. And it's certain that as we cannot be sure of the Major Vote all over-the World, so God never gave the Major part the Soveraignty.
V. And your Foundation for all this in Politicks is intolerably false, viz. [pag. 13. In omnibus hujusmodi Societatibus pars omnis toti suo congrua, & pars minor majori consentanea esse debet. Hoc ratio suadet: Hoc jus naturale edicit: Hoc Communis hominum Consensus necessarium esse statuit. Adeo ut si quid à majori, multo magis quod à maxim… cujusvis Societatis parte constituitur eodem pars reliqua constringatur, illud que observare necesse habeat, si membrum manere & privilegiis illius Societatis gaudere velit. Quod cum in omnibus cujuscunque generis Societatibus valet, multo magis in Ecclesia valere debet, quam omnium ornatissimam esse decet.]
I am loth to English it, 1. I confess I find the like in Archbishop Laud, and R. Hooker: So Nonconformable to each other is the Conforming Clergy. But it's downright Popularity or Democracy of the worst sort; And can such men cry down Republicans? yea, and raise a suspicion of Nonconformists as Republicans? O what a vafricious sort of men do sometime appropriate the Name of the Church?
2. It is true of no sort of Political Society in the World, but only of ungoverned Communities or Confederacies, except those by Contract turned a meer Community into the worst sort of Popular Politie: And in Aristocracies it is not the Major Vote of the whole Society that Ruleth, but of those few who make up One Political Person or Power. And yet could you appeal to Reason, Nature, and common Consent?
3. It is against the Essence of the Government of this Kingdom? Shall Kings, Parliament and Magistrates be bound to obey the Major part of the Kingdom? No, nor King and Lords to obey the Major part of the House of Commons? Nor Mayors and Bailiffs be bound to obey the Major part of the Cities and Corporations?
4. It is contrary to God's Law of Nature and Scripture. God hath anticipated humane popular pretences of being either naturally Rulers, or the Fountain of Governing Power: For God hath instituted in Nature, the Genus of this Power, and so much of the Species as is to execute God's Laws: He hath made the Fifth Commandment: and as he alloweth not the Major part of the Children to govern Father and Mother, or of Scholars to rule their Masters, so neither of Subjects to rule the Soveraign or the Minor part.
5. It is contrary to Oaths that are taken by the Subjects of this Land.
6. It is contrary to the subscribed 39 Articles, that tell us of the Errors and Fallibility of Councils.
7. It is contrary to the Canons, especially those of 1640. that determined Kingly Power to be of God's Institution.
8. It is contrary to all the Writers and Fighters that were against Parliaments resisting the King. Michael Hudson hath most strongly wrote against it. Dr. Hammond against John Goodwin hath proved that the People have neither ruling Authority to Vse nor to Give. How far then were Bishop Morley and such others from your Mind, who write that the Parliament themselves have no Essential part in Legislation, but only to prepare Matter which the King only maketh to be a Law? All the Clergy have subscribed to the King's unresistible Power, and a Law made to that purpose by the Parliament that setled your Conformity and Church.
9. Do you take the Major part of your Congregation to be your Governours? Or the Major part of the Diocess to Rule the Diocesane? Or are these no Societies?
10. Is it not contrary to the Oath of Canonical Obedience?
11. Are our Universities of this Mind; when Oxford burnt my Political Aphorisms, and Dr. Whitbye's Book, and Mr. I. Humfrey's, as derogating from the Regal Power, when yet I abhord such a derogation as your Majority of the Society?
12. In a word, it is destructive of all Government: For the truth is, that Democracy in a large Kingdom is an Impossibility: The People cannot all meet to try who hath the Major Vote: They can but choose their Governours, though called Representatives: And that is an Aristocracy: For to choose Governours is not to Govern. Even Rome was not a true Democracy: For the People had but a Negative part in Legislation, S. P. Q. R. conjunct having the Supremacy: And what were the People of one City to the whole Empire, which was the Politick Body?
But how shall we know who constitute this Voting Society which you call the Church? I know that the Papists appropriate that title to the Clergy? But when it cometh to Practice (in Councils or out) how small a part have any but the Bishops? Our Canons condemn those who deny the Convocation to be the Representative Church? Who are the real Church which they represent? Do they represent the Laity? Or are they none of the Church? How can they represent those that never choose them? Patrons choose the Incumbents; and the People choose neither Bishops, Deans, Arch-deacons or Proctors. Is it the King and Parliament that they represent? I confess the King that chooseth Bishops may most plausibly be pretended to be represented by them. But are they indeed his Rulers and Lawgivers, and he their Subject? Was Moses so to Aaron, or Solomon to Abiathar? The King chooseth Justices, and Constables (mediately) but not to be his Governours but his Ministers. Or is the King and Parliament no Part of the Church of England? Say so then, that we may understand you.
But if indeed you confess the Laity … be of this Voting Church (whose Major part by Nature, Reason, and the Consent of all the World must Govern us) I beseech you help us at last (after all our lost importunity) to know which of the Laity it is. Is it all that are in the Parishes? I doubt then that the Atheists, Papists, Sadduces, Deists, Hobbists, Ignorant, Irreligious Debauchees and Lads, will be our Rulers.
Is it only Communicants? Then the Parish Priest of one place will have a Church of one sort, and another of another sort? And how knoweth he in great Parishes who are his Communicants, when he knoweth not who or what they are? or whence they come, nor whether ever they came before? The Law is the likest test, which obligeth all to Communicate that will have a License to sell Ale or Wine, or, that will not lie in Jail; a place that few Love, and many would avoid at so cheap a rate as eating a bit of Bread, and drinking a little Wine. And shall the Majority of these be Rulers of Kings, Bishops and Pastors?
But what if you mean but the Major Vote of Bishops? (which it seems our Lower House of Convocation mean not). Verily, Sir, you must not too sharply blame the King of England, Sweden, Denmark, &c. if they be loth to be Subjects in so great a Matter as their Religion to the Clergy of Italy, France, Spain, Poland, Germany, Moscovy, Constantinople, and Asia, Africa, &c. while we know what Power their own Princes have over them?
And do not we know that there is no one common Language which they can use to understand one another as a College? Even of our great Learned Schoolmen few understood Greek: And few of the Greeks understand Latin (or true Greek either) And few Abassines, Armenians, Syrians, Moscovites, &c. understand either. If Christ hath been so defective a Legislator as to leave us to a necessity of Universal Humane Legislation, O let us not have them made by such Babel Builders. Let us have those that can meet together in less than an Age (whether their Princes will or no) and can learn in an Age to speak to one another.
Or if you first prove that Mortal Men are capable of such an Universal Government, try it first on Kings, and settle one King, or Senate of Kings to Rule all the World by Legislation and Judgment: For verily more of Sword-Government may be done per alios—than of Priestly Government (else you may appoint Presbyters to Ordain, and Lay-men to celebrate the Sacraments.) And if we must have a Vice-Christ, let him be a Monarch that we may know where to find him, and not a Chimera called a Collective Person, or College of Bishops: Or at least if it must be Patriarchs, let us know who shall make them, and where they are, and what we shall now do, when of five so called Four are called Schismaticks and are under the Turk: Christ hath instituted National Church Politie: Prove more if you can.
VI. And I should rejoyce if you could prove what you affirm, that the Major part of the Church, even in Rites and Discipline, is guided by the Spirit of God. 1. It was not so in necessary Doctrine in the Arians reign. 2. If it be so at this day, England is Schismatical. 3. If it be not always so in General Councils (as the Articles of our Church say) how much less in the diffusive Body of People or Clergy? 4. It is not so in any one Kingdom or National Church yet known in the World, no not the World; And what is the whole but the Parts Conjunct? Dr. Dillingham in a late Book against Popery concludeth, that there was never yet any Kingdom known where the tenth part were truly Godly: And I think you take the Church of England to be the best in the World: And how many Thousands would rejoyce if you could prove that the Major part even of their Teachers were guided by the Spirit of God? And is it better with the Papists, or Greeks, or Moscovites, that cannot Preach at all! O how happy a Church do you Dream of?
VII. And it is yet more incredible that this popular Majority should be so right in such small Matters as Rites and Ceremonies and Discipline, as that their Practice should be a Law to all the rest of the Christian World: And that the Unity or Concord of the Universal Church must be built on such Sand as cannot so much as be gathered into one Heap? And all must be Schismaticks, and so far separate from the Church that obey them not: I remember when Dr. Hammond proceeded Dr. I heard Dr. Prideaux in the Chair argue against the Churches Infallibility, that John, and Thomas, and so every Individual was fallible: Ergo a company of fallibles were not infallible. Especially in such Matters as a Ceremony. Those that Paul wrote to Rom. 14. & 15. were not taken for infallible or Legislators by him.
VIII. And you no where prove that Paul meaneth by [the Churches have no such Customs] that none in the World had any other, nor must have any other; but only that what Garb and Habit the Custom of all those Countries had placed Decency in, the general Rule of Decency would oblige all to in the solemn Assemblies, as it obligeth us to be uncovered. You must needs know that by your Exposition and Inference you Condemn your own Church that hath the contrary Custom. Especially your noble Patrons that wear Periwigs.
IX. And how impossible a work do you set us all as a Law, to know what these Ceremonies are without which we separate as Schismaticks. 1. Must all good Christians be so great Historians as to know what Ceremonies have been used in all Ages by the Major part? 2. Must they be so Skill'd in Cosmography, as to know what Countries make the Major part? 3. Must they have so good intelligence of former Affairs, as to know who have now the greater Vote in Councils and out of them? 4. But you say, It must be of such Rites as ab omnibus, ubi que & semper have been used: we like Vincentius Liri's rule well as to things necessary, that may aliunde be so proved. But how shall any man know that ab omnibus & ubi que without more Knowledge of the World than Drake or Candish had, or any Traveller? Except Negatively, that we must not affect causeless Singularity from the most of the Godly, as far as we can know them. And how shall we understand the semper? Must it respect all time to come? Then, none can know his Duty till the End of the World? If it be only as to time past, then how knew they that lived in the first Age, how long their Customs would continue? And then all the after Changes (which were many) were Schismatical.
X. Do you not too hardly censure the Church of England as Schismatical? You know Epiphanius hath a peculiar Treatise to tell us, what then were the Customs and Ceremonies of the Universal Church? And how many of these are forsaken by us, yea, and by almost all the Churches? Do you now clothe the Baptized anew in White? Do you dip them over head in Water? Do you anoint them as they did, and cross them with the Ointment? Do you give them to taste Milk and Honey? Do you exorcise them? Do your Bishops only make that Chrysme? Do all here and in other Churches worship only versus Orientem? Do you all forbear, and forbid Adoration Kneeling, on any Lord's Day, or any Week Day between Easter and Whitsunday? What! when you cast out of the Church those that will not Kneel at the Sacrament? You know that the Council of Nice, and that at Trull, and the Fathers commonly make this a Rite of the Universal Church: And Dr. Heylin saith, that Rome it self kept it for a Thousand Years, and it was never reversed by any other General Council. Do you keep the Memorial of Martyrs at their Graves as then they did? Do you use their Bones and relicts as they did? Twenty more you may see in Epiphanius and others.
O condemn not the Church of England, as separated from the Universal Church. (And our Reformers too.)
XI. What a case would you bring this Church and Kingdom to, by your Law of the Custom of the Major part? Must we have all the Opinions, Rites or Ceremonies which the Greeks, Moscovites, Armenians and Papists have many Hundred Years in their Ignorance and Superstition agreed in as to the Major part? Must we be able to confute their pretensions of Antiquity and Custom as to all these? He that readeth the Description of their Customs, methinks, should be loth that we should be such.
XII. And your Doctrine of Traditions as certainly received from the Apostles, when the Majority use them, is so much against the Church of England's Judgment, and so copiously confuted by the whole stream of Protestant Bishops and Drs. and foreign Divines, that I will not stay now to repeat that work: were all the Traditions forementioned since laid by, received from the Apostles? (About Genuflexions, Milk and Honey, Chrysme, the white Garment?)
You instance in Synods meeting and making Laws. To meet for worship or necessary consultation and Concord, is no unwritten ceremonial Tradition, but the obeying of Christ's written Law, which requireth such mutual help, and that we do all to Edification, Concord and Peace. But Communion of many Nations is one thing, and a Government over all is another thing. It was the Emperor's Commission and Power that made Canons to be Laws.
And do you not here write against the King's Commission by which you sit, which declareth from that Act of H. 8. that your Canons are no Laws, till King and Parliament make them so? Ask the Lawyers. Were not the Canons of 1640. cast out even by your own long Parliament?
XIII. But the worst is, that while you set us a new Universal Church Legislative and Judicial Soveraignty, you deny the sufficiency of Scripture, if not the Soveraignty of Christ himself, while you feign unwritten Universal Laws, as part of Christ's Law, & a supplement to the Scripture, & give Christ's Prerogative to a Usurping Soveraignty, utterly uncapable of that Office? Scripture we know where to find; but where to find your Universal Additional Laws, and your Church Senate or College, they must know more than I that know. But so much is written against the Papists (as aforesaid) for Scripture sufficiency, that I refer you thither, and to the Articles, Homilies and Ordination Books which this Church subscribeth to. Alas Sir, is not the whole Bible big enough to make us a Religion?
XIV. As to your definition of the Church, P. 12. It is tolerable if you make no Head but Christ; and set up no Vicarious Head Monarchical or Aristocratical, and instead of Provincial parts, put National and Congregational; or confess that you describe but the Imperial-National Church, which was made up of Roman Provinces. And gratifie not the Fanaticks by making the Holy Ghost to be the authoriser of the Majority for Government: For they will think that they have more of the Holy Ghost than you, and therefore must Govern you. I would all Rulers had the Holy Ghost; but it's somewhat else that must give them Authority.
XV. Your instance of the Easter Controversie is against you. The difference undecided for 300 Years, and Apostolical Tradition urged on both sides, tells us that it was no Apostolick Law; And Socrates and Sozomen tell us, that in that and many such like things … Churches had freely differed in Peace▪ … you seem to intimate contrary to them and to Iren…us, that the Asians were Schismaticks till they Conformed.
And why name you Asia alone? Were our Brittish Churches, and the Scottish no Churches? Or do you also Condemn them as Schismaticks for about 300 Years after the Nicene Council? What could the Papists say more against them?
XVI. How impossible a thing do you make Church Union to be? while the Essentials or great Integrals of Religion are made insufficient to it, and so many Ceremonies and Church Laws are feigned necessary, which no man ever comes to the true knowledge of, that he hath the right ones and all?
XVII. If the Patriarchs must be the Soveraign College, I beseech you give us some proof (in a Case so weighty) 1. How many there must be? 2. Where seated? 3. Who must choose and make them? 4. And quo jure? 5. And whether we have now such a College; or is there no Church?
XVIII. What Place will you give the Pope in the College? I suppose with your Brethren you will call him 1. Principium Vnitatis? But that's a Name of Comparative Order? what is his work as such a Principium? How is he the Principium, if he have no more Power than the rest? Must not he call the Councils? (Though our Articles say General Councils may not be gathered without the Will of Princes). Shall he not choose the Place and Time? Tell us then who shall? Must he not be President? Must he not be Patriarch of the West? And so Govern England as our Patriarch, and Principium unitatis Vniversalis also?
XIX. I pray tell us whether the French be Papists? And how their Church-Government (as Described from themselves by Mr. Jurieu) differeth from that which you are for? Tell me not of their Mass, and other Corruptions? It is Government that is the Form of Popery. And they will abate you many other things: And must we be Frenchified? If the French restore those that we called Papists, will disowning the Name, and calling them the Church of England (chosen by Papist Princes) make us sound and safe? And when we find Arch-Bishop Laud, Arch-Bishop Bromhall, Bishop Guning, Bishop Sparrow, Dr. Saywell, Dr. Heylin, Mr. Thorndike, Bishop S. Parker, and many more were for a Foreign Jurisdiction, can we think if the French bring in the late Governours, that such Churchmen would not embrace the French Church Government, and call it the Church of England, when since Lauds days▪ they have endeavoured a Coalition? If they be Defeated, we may thank King James, who could not bear delays, and would have all or none, when Grotius way would have been a surer Game.
XX. You tell us of Penalties made by Church Laws? Deposing Ministers, and Anathematizing the Laity? But while the Clergy hath no power of the Sword, who will feel such Penalties? When Rome Excommunicates the Greeks, the Greeks will Excommunicate them again: What Penalty is it to Protestants to be Excommunicated by the Pope or his Council? How commonly did they that were for, and against the Chalcedon Council, Excommunicate each other: And those that were for and against Images? And for Photius, and for Ignatius? Cheat not Magistrates to be your Lictors, and Cursing will go round as Scolding at Billingsgate? Who is hurt by a causeless curse, but the Curser? I confess that Dr. Saywell sayeth well; If single persons must be punished, shall not Nations also? Yes: But by whom? By God the Universal King, and not by an Universal Human Soveraign; whether a King or Pope, or a Senate of Foreign Subjects:
XXI. We are promised by a trifling Pamphleteer (that some of you are answering Mr. Clerksons two Books about the Primitive Episcopacy and Liturgies: I pray you procure them also to answer my Treatise of Episcopacy, (and my English Nonconformity) and not with the Impudent Railing Lyars, to say it is answered already, while we can hear of no such thing. And see that they prove that all these things following, are Traditions of the Vniversal Church, received from the Apostles, and used, ab omnibus, ubique & semper.
1. That most particular Churches for two Hundred or three Hundred years and so down, consisted of many Congregations that had no personal presential Communion.
2. That Churches infimi ordinis were Diocesan, having many Hundred or Score Parishes under them.
3. That these Diocesans, undertook the sole Pastoral Care of all these Parishes, as to Confirmation, Censure, Absolution, and the rest.
4. That all these Parishes were no true Churches, as having no Bishops, but the Diocesans, and were but Chappels, or parts of a Church.
5. That the Incumbents were no true Pastors or Bishops, but one Bishops Curates: And that there were not then besides Diocesan Arch-Bishops in each single Church, Episcopi Gregis and Episcopi praesides.
6. That Bishops Names were used by Lay-men that had the Decretive Power of Excommunication and Absolution.
7. That such Secular Judicatories, far from the Parishes, rather than the particular Pastors Tryed and Judged the unknown people.
8. That Parish Ministers Swear Obedience to the Diocesans, and they to Metropolitans.
9. That all People that would have Licenses to keep Ale-houses or Taverns, or that would not lye in Jail, were Commanded to receive the Sacrament as a Sealed Pardon of their Sins.
10. That from the beginning, all Churches were forced to use the same form of Liturgy, and not every Church or Bishop to choose as he saw Cause.
11. That Kings chose Bishops and Deans without the Consent of the Clergy and People.
12. That all Ministers were to be Ejected, and forbidden to Preach the Gospel, that durst not Subscribe that there is nothing contrary to Gods Word in such as our three imposed Books.
13. That all Lords, Magistrates, Priests and People that affirm the contrary, be ipso facto Excommunicate.
14. That Lay-Patrons that are but Rich enough to buy an Advowson (how Vicious soever) did choose all the Incumbent Ministers, to whom the People must commit the Ministerial Care of their Souls.
15. That they that dare not trust such Pastors as are chosen by Kings (though Papists) and such Patrons, and dare not Conform to every imposition like ours, must live like Atheists, in forbearance of all publick Worship and Church Communion.
16. That all may Swear that an Oath or Vow of Lawful and Necessary things, bindeth not our selves or any others, if it be but unlawfully imposed and taken, and had any unlawful part of the Matter.
17. That the Church ever held it unlawful for a whole Kingdom to defend it self against a Prince that would deliver up half the Government to a Foreiner, and force them to a Religion which requireth them to be Damned (or to Dye:) When the Clergy and Church at Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, Rome, &c. did so oft by force and Blood, resist even Christian Emperors, such as Theodosius II. Zeno, Anastasius and many others.
18. That all the Churches held it lawful to Swear and Covenant, never to endeavour any Amendment or Alteration of any such as the forementioned Church Government.
If all these things be contrary to the constant judgment or practice of the Church, Quaere whether Dr. Beveridge and his Approvers, pronounce duplicate page duplicate page not the Church of England Schismatical, as so far separated from the Church Universal?
But again I conclude, O! What, must the Christian World suffer even by Learned, and I hope pious Doctors?
I. Because they will not distinguish National or Imperial Vniversality of Church and Councils, from those of the whole World.
II. Nor Communion from Regiment, nor Contracts from Laws; nor a Regent Excommunication from a Renunciation of Communion by Equals.
III. Nor Divine Obligations to Concord, and human demands of obeying Usurpers, or the hurtful Agreements of an injurious Majority of equal Votes.
IV. And by their Deposing Christian Kings and Magistrates from their Sacred Power over Bishops in Church-Government, and for Mens Souls; as if they were made only for the base things of the World and Flesh, and Priests only were trusted with Religion and Souls: And Kings were not Heads of National Churches.
V. And their shameless calling them Adversaries to Episcopacy, that would have one Hundred Bishops for one, and are for the old three sorts, Episcopi Gregis, Episcopi praesides, and Arch-Bishops, and calling those the Episcopal part, that put down all the Bishops in a Diocess save one; As for your self, I profess to be so far from Censuring any thing of you, save these Mistakes, that as I have long, so I do still, Love and Honour you as a Man fearing God, and of a good and blameless Conversation, as far as ever I Credibly heard: And I thought the like of Bishop Guning, though (as it is with many Religious Papists) his Opinions more prevailed against his Charity, for that Mischievous hurtfulness, in which he served the Subtilty of Sheldon, and the fierceness of Morley, and the Designs of Papal Courtiers: But I hear that your Piety and Charity prevaileth against the evil tendency of your mistaken Doctrine: Though Mr. Thorndike threaten England, unless they Reform the Oath of Supremacy, I confess I wish it restored, and am Displeased with those Scots that have causelesly quarrelled with it; and so helpt to open a Door to a Foreign Jurisdiction, which the Kingdom is Sworn against.
Since the writing of all beforegoing, I first read your two great Volumes of Canons, and your Answer to Dallaeus. In the Prolegomena of the first, to my Grief I find you more express for an Universal Legislative Power and Foreign Jurisdiction than in your Sermon: And yet not at all telling us, where to have access to this Universal Soveraignty for Judicature, out of the times of General Councils, nor how to know but by believing your bare word, what Councils are our Universal obliging Laws, when you confess the vast difference of the Eastern and Western numbers, nor how to know what our Religion is, while we know not what be our Laws: Nor how to know whether the Church be extinct, when it hath no human Head, by the Cessation of such Councils; nor who must call them, nor whence, nor what is their Constitutive Matter; only you say, they must be called out of all the Christian World: But need not all be there? And will a Call make a General Council, if the Men come not? And can they come from all the Dominions of the Abassines, Armenians, Turks, Persians, Muscovites, &c. And who hath right to call them? hath the Pope? Or our Emperors or Kings? what power hath he over all other Princes Subjects? You confess they were called out of the Imperial Provinces? And how few (if any) other Names are Subscribed? But I am sorry that you still, so contrary to all Evidence, take National or Imperial Universality for Terrestrial Universality of Church and Councils: I beseech you, if we must be Papists, let us be of the more reasonable sort, that know where to find a Papal Monarch, or Vice-Christ; and not sent to seek a Church-Parliament Universal, or Universal Aristocratical College, that is no where extant in the World, nor can be, especially now the five Patriarchs are what and where they are. How much more Rational to be Governed by the Pope as Patriarch of the West only, till we can find out the Aristocratical Head.
But since the Empire was turned into many Kingdoms, who can prove that those many must have all one Human Head.
But I am yet more sorry that you joyn with Hildebrand, in making Princes to be but for the Body and Civil Peace, and Bishops and Priests to be the Church, and for the Soul: Which (God willing,) as I have oft done, I shall fullier Confute, in a Treatise for true National Churches, proving that Christ hath made no Higher Visible Humane Church Power or Form: And that Christian Kings are as Sacred Persons, and Ministers of Christ as Bishops; and Superior Heads of National Churches, though the Power of the Keys belong only to the Clergy; And that a true National Church, is but a Christian Kingdom, as such, the King being the Head, and Confederate Pastors and Churches the Subject Body.