Against the Revolt to a Foreign Jurisdiction, Chapter 14

Against the Revolt to a Foreign Jurisdiction · Chapter 14

p. 131Chap. XIV. Dr. Saywell's Arguments for a Foreign Jurisdiction considered.

§ 1. THis Dr. (who I may well suppose speaketh his Lord and Masters sence) is so open as to let us know, 1. That it is the Popes Power above General Council…, which they call p. 132Popery. 2. And that they join with the conciliar Party in point of Church Government, and so take not them for Papists, who hold not that Soveraignty of the Pope, but only his Primacy. 3. That it is but the Jesuited Party of the Church of Rome, which they renounce. 4. That they also renounce all Nonconforming Protestants as a Jesuited Party. So that he would tempt us to believe what some affirm that their design hath long been to subdue the Jesuits and Reformed Churches (or rather destroy these) and to strike up a Union with the French, and maintain that they are no Papists as to Government. But though the Power of old Protestants in England were never so much subdued to them, methinks the Jesuits Interest in France should resist them, unless the Jesuits themselves be (as some vainly think) faln out with the Pope, and then it will be the Jesuited Party which these Men will own.

§. 2. But to his Arguments, [Page 342. Mr. B. saith, I have earnestly desired and searched to know t…e proof of such a Legislative Vniversal Power, and I cannot find it. But if Mr. B. would seriously consider these Texts, he might find that obedience is due to the Church, Mat. 18. If he neglect to hear the Church let him be to thee as an Heathen Man and a Publican. Now as one private Man may ne…lect to hear the Episcopal Church to which he belongs, so the Episcopal, Provincial and National Church may also prove Heretical, and neglect to hear the Catholick Church; but the Vniversal Church can never fa…l, for the Gates of Hell shall never prevail against it. And if more Persons, or particular Churches give offence by Heresie, Schism, &c. the Church Vniversal, or the rest of the Bishops may reprove p. 133them for it, and then there is no reason why one Man should be censured and many go fr…e; and consequently our Saviour hath established the Authority of his Church over all Christians, as well particular Churches as private Men.

Ans. 1. Let us try this Argument by the like. (God hath commanded obedience to Kings, and said, He that will not hear the King and Judge, shall be put to death. But Kings and their Kingdoms may be Criminal: And if private men must obey Authority▪ or be put to death, so must Kings and Kingdoms? Why should they escape? Therefore all Kings and Kingdoms must obey One Universal Humane King or Kingdom under Christ.] Do you think this is true? No; There is no such Universal Humane Empire. Monarchical or Aristocratical. No Mortal Men are capable of it, any more than of Ruling the World in the Moon, or the Fish in the Sea, (but of a part only.) So there is no such Universal Church Power; but particular there is.

As to your reason, I answer, God is the Universal King▪ and he only is the punisher of all Soveraign Powers, whether Monarchs, Aristocracies or Mixt. (which I have ever asserted, though the Lying Spirit hath feigned the contrary.) God hath several ways to Rule and Judge them here, and his final Judgment is at hand. And the case is like with National Churches, save that their own Princes may punish offending Clergy-men.

2. One Person or Nation may renounce Communion with another as Heretical, without any Ruling Power over them: And the other may do the same by them (deserving it) Am I a Governor or Legislator over every one that I may p. 134refuse to eat or pray with as a Brother.

3. That there is no Humane Universal Church which hath power to Govern a National Church, as the Bishops may their Flocks, is proved. 1. They cannot have the Authority who have not so much as a Natural Capacity: But none have a Natural Capacity to Govern all the Christian World: Ergo none have such Authority.

2. They have not the Authority who have not the Obligation to use it in such Government. (For an Office containeth Authority and Obligation.) But none are obliged to Govern all the Christian World: Ergo, &c.

For the Minor, 1. None are obliged to Impossibilities: But, &c.

2. None are obliged without some obliging Law: But there is no Law obliging any to Govern all the Christian World: Ergo.

3. If they are obliged, they are condemned if they do it not: But none do Rule all the Christian World: He confesseth none have done it since the sixth General Council, that is, these thousand years (and more by one.) And doth he not Damn the Bishops of all the World then for neglecting their great Duty a thousand years together?

If he say, that Others made Canons enough before, I answer, 1. If they have had no such work to do these thousand years, then there was no Office, or Obligation or Power to do it.

2. It was then only those that made the Laws that had that Soveraignty. The Dead are no Rulers; and so the Church hath had no Soveraign since.

2. If he say, They since Ruled by the old Laws, p. 135I answer, 1. That was not by Legislation, but Execution. 2. They never Ruled the Universal Church as one Soveraign Power by the old Laws, but only per partes in their several Provinces, as Justices and Mayors Rule the Kingdom, without Soveraignty.

Arg. 3▪ That which never was claimed till the Papal Usurpation, was not instituted by God: But a Soveraign Government of the Unive…sal Church on Earth was never claimed till the Papal Usurpation: Ergo.

That Councils were only General as to one Empire, and called only in one Empire, and pretended to Govern that Empire, and not all the World, I have fully proved against Johnson.

Arg. 4. Those that must Rule all the Christian World, must teach them. (For the Pastoral Government is by the Word.) But no one (Person or Aristocracy) are the Teachers of all the World. Who have pretended to it but the Papacy?

Arg. 5. If any Soveraign may Rule England and all other Churches as a Bishop ruleth his Flock, then that Soveraign Power, may when they judge it deserved Excommunicate the King and all the Kingdom, and silence all the Bishops and Ministers, and forbid all Church Communion (as Popes and their Councils have done.) But the consequence is false— Ergo —

Arg. 6. If any have such power, they must be such as people may have access to, to decide their Causes, and may hear their Accusations, Defences, Witnesses: But so cannot the Universal Church of Bishops: They confess these thousand years they met not in Council; and whither else p. 136should we carry our Witnesses? and where else should we expect their sentence? Paul's charge was, 1 Thes. 5.12, 13. Know them that labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you, and esteem them very highly in Love for their work sake — But we cannot know all the Bishops over the Earth, that never were among us.

An unknown Judge cannot be obeyed: That is, One whom we cannot know to be indeed our Judge: But it's impossible for us now to know what number of Bishops, and who, must be called the Universal Judge.

And an unknown sentence cannot be obeyed; but it's impossible for us to know the sentence of the Majority of the Bishops on Earth, about any case to be judged by them these thousand years.

But enough is said of this already: And Dr. Barrow hath utterly confounded your pleas for Foreign Jurisdiction.

Pastors and Churches may Reprove one another, who Govern not one another.

And do you think we are so sottish as not to see, that your Colledge and Council must have some to call them together, or to gather Votes, and preside, and approve? And that the question will be only of the Degree of the Popes power, and whether the French sort of Popery be best?

§ 2. Dr. S. addeth, p. 343. [So the Scripture plainly tells us elsewhere that Churches of Kingdoms and Nations have a Soveraignty over them, to which they must yield Obedience, Isa. 60 12. where the Prophet speaking of the Christian Church saith, The Nation and Kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish, yea those Nations shall be utterly wasted. If Nations and Kingdoms must serve the Church, then p. 137she hath Authority to Command their Obedience in things that belong to Peace and Holiness]

Ans. I confess Campanella de Re…no Dei doth thus make the Papacy the Fifth Monarchy, and confidently brings many such Texts for their Clergies Universal power. But, 1. Is it the King of the Church or the People that must be obeyed? The people have no Ruling Power. And if it be the Soveraign the question is, Who that is? Protestants say, It is only Christ: And the Text plainly meaneth, [The Nation that will not serve Christ the Head of the Church for the good of his Body, shall perish.] But the Italians say, It is the Pope and Council, and the French, That it is the Council and Pope (as President and Prime Patriarch) that is here meant.

2. This may be discerned by considering, Who it i… that is to destroy such Nations: It is Christ as the second Psalm sheweth; If it were the Pope and Council you threaten all Nations as terribly as Bellarmine doth.

3. And what is the perishing and wasting here meant? No doubt, their Souls that rebel against Christ shall perish, and he will also punish Bodies and Kingdoms as such. Put doth any of all this belong to the Bishops? None of it. 1. Excommunicating is their destroying work: But the Heathen and Infidel Nations are not to be Excommunicated? What have you to do to judge them that are without? Will you cast them out that never were in? 2. And destruction by the Sword is no Bishop's Work.

4. And when is it that all Nations that obey not shall utterly perish? We see that 19 parts in 30, saith Brierwood, of the World are Heathens and p. 136duplicate page p. 137duplicate page p. 138Mahometans, and yet prosper: Ever since Abraham's days till now the Church is a small part of the World. And it is not by any Power of the Church Governours that the Souls of Infidels perish, but by themselves. And their Kingdoms are unlikely to be destroyed till Christ's second coming. And if it be his destroying them at his Judgment that is meant, that proveth no Power in the Church against them.

But I confess you tell us what to fear: and whence it is that the French Protestants suffer. They must utterly perish that obey not a Governing Universal Soveraignty? Nay, not only French Subjects by their Lawful King, but Protestants States and Kingdoms that thought they had no Soveraign but their own proper one and Christ▪ But this is in Ordine ad Spiritualia. Yet, O you intend no Cruelty.

§. 3. Pag 344. He tells us of the Churches Power to decide Controversies, and of the Council, Act. 15.

Answ. A multitude of Protestant Writers have long ago answered all this. 1. The word [Church] is ambiguous. When Christ and his twelve Apostles were on Earth, they were the Church (as to Rule.) And then the Vniversal Church met in a House together, celebrated the Sacrament together, &c. Must they do so now? It was no General Council that met, Act. 15. unless you will say that there dwelt a General Council at Jerusalem as long as the Apostles dwelt there. None of the Bishops of the Churches planted by Paul, Barnabas and others about the World are said to be there, nor any at all but the Inhabitants of Jerusalem, save Paul and Barnabas who were sent as p. 139Messengers, and were not the Men sent to. And you now say, that none but Bishops have decisive Votes.

2. And there are more ways of deciding Controversies than one. We doubt not but every Pastor may decide them by Evidence of Scripture and Reason. And many assembled may contribute their Reasons and be helpful to each other, and may see more than one, if they be meet Men. And Pastors thus by Teaching Evidence do that as Authorized Officers (as Tutors and Schoolmasters) which Private Men do but as Private Men, and not as Officers: so that even thei… Teaching Decision is an act of Authority as well as of Skill. And so far as Humane authority must go, the concurrent Judgment of a multitude of Divines, as of Physitians, Lawyers, &c. Cateris paribus deserveth more reverence than a singular opinion. But for all that, 1. An Assembly of Lay Men have no Authority but from their Evidence and Parts. 2. An Assembly of Bishops have no deciding Authority but by an office by which they are entrusted as fallible Men to teach others what they know themselves, by the same Evidence which convinced them; and to guide their particular Congregations in mutable Circumstances. 3. But an Assembly of Apostles had Power to say, It seemeth good to the H…ly Ghost.

Obj. 1. There were the Brethren also. 2. Single Apostles had the Holy Ghost, yet they did it in an Assembly.

Answ. 1. The Inspiration 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. p. 1402. 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 p. 141proceed 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 p. 142infallible, 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.

p. 143I. 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 p. 144them: 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 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 p. 145of [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 p. 146Church 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: p. 147And 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 p. 148to 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?

It's like you will say, They must take their Teachers, or Bishops words. Ans. If so, those in Italy, Spain, Portugal, Poland, Germany, and all the Papists are bound to believe that you and all of your mind are Liars, for saying, There are but six such approved Councils; for their Bishops tell them of very many more. And then the Eastern Christians are bound to take you for Liars, whose Bishops tell them there were not so many. And the Protestants are bound to dissent, who generally hold that there never was one such General Council as had a Universal Jurisdiction over the Christian World. How then shall the people know what Councils as such are so received?

4. Yea it is a thing that neither you nor the p. 149most Learned Man can know. Were you ever in Ethiopia, Syria, Armenia, Georgia, Circassia, Mengrelia, and in all the Greek Churches? If it be Travellers that you trust to, they give you no credible notice of any such thing: And you lay our Salvation on the avoiding of Schism, and this upon our obedience to the Universal Jurisdiction, and so you lay all our Salvation on the Testimony of Travellers, who of all Men are most. susspected of a liberty to Lie.

5. But the plain truth is, that notice which we have by Travellers and Historians of the mind of most of the Christian World, assureth us that a very great part of it receiveth neither your six Councils, nor your first four, and the rest receive many more; If you have read Brocardus and Jacobus de Vitriaco, who dwelt both at Jerusalem, and Haitho and others in the Novus Orbis that describe Tartary and Armenia, and Leo Afer, and Paulus Venetus, and Boterus, and Godignus, and Ludolphus of Abassia, &c. you may perceive how great a number of Christians there be who own not so much as your four first Councils, some abhorring that at Ephesus, and some that at Chalcedon. And you know that both Greeks and Papists receive more than six.

6. And I crave your answer to the Question which I put to your Bishop and you, How could Christians know which were the true Soveraign Councils, when the far greatest part of the Bishops disowned them? I will not censure you to be so ignorant of History as not to know that the far greatest part of the Church renounced the Council of Chalcedon in the Reign of divers Emperors? And the Council of Nice in the Reign of p. 150Constantius and Valens. How then could they be known by your Rule?

But you say, [We may know it by the publick Acts of the Church as we know the Acts of our Parliaments.]

Ans. I desire no better proof; how we know them I have oft mentioned. But here you leave us utterly in the dark: What mean you here by [the Church] and what by [its publick Acts?]

1. If by the Church you mean, 1. All Christians of this Age, we are sure they agree not of it.

2. If you mean the Greater number, we are uncapable of gathering the Votes or knowing it: But I have shewed you that we have reason to conjecture that most are against you: Vast numbers rejecting some, and the rest receiving more, and the Protestants (nor any but the Papists that I know of) receive not any as Universal Soveraign: And the Papists also are divided about it, as Pighius and many more will shew you.

3. If you mean it of the most in former Ages, I still say, one Age hath had most for the Council of Nice, Chalcedon, Constantinople second and third, and another Age most against them.

4. If you go the only way that's left you, and with the Papists call only those the Church who are of your mind, unchurching the most of the Church on Earth, then I confess you may say that the Church receiveth them and only them. But few wise Men will reverence a Church so described.

II. And what the Acts of the Church are which give us such assurance as you mention, I cannot imagine: As to our Statutes I have proved a Physical p. 151Evidence of the certainty of their being what they pretend; even such a consent of Men of cross Interests and Dispositions in the compass of a Land where the fact may be known, as cannot be counterfeited or false. But about Councils the case is quite otherwise. I. The most of the Church do not so much as think that there are any such Councils, or at least never did hold it till the Papal Usurpation, that they had a Soveraignty over all the Earth.

II. They are utterly disageerd how many and which are to be received.

III. They are disagreed which be their Canons? Even of the first at Nice, how long did three Popes contend about it with the African Bishops? And since Pisanus and Turrian bring us forth 80 Canons instead of 20, which the unlearned Africans receive.

IV. They are not agreed which of their Canons still bind, and which not: nor which are de fide, and which not: Many (as the 20th at Nice) are laid by without any Councils repeal.

IV. And the World is so much bigger than Britain, that it is not so easie to be sure of the sence of all Christians about the Matter. And how should it when it was never agreed on from the first?

If by the Church Acts you should mean the Decrees of later Councils, that is to prove ignotum per ignotius. How know we which Councils to believe when so many condemned one another? And if the Sixth was the last, there came none after to notifie the reception of it.

And whereas you say that those of Eph. 2. and Nice 2d, were when they were held, and many Years p. 152after accounted no General Councils, nor received as such by the Church.

Answ. The Mystery lyeth in some Sectarian Notion of the Church that you have: you mean some Party; but it's hard knowing what. For, 1. Bellarmine himself saith, that the second Ephes. Council wanted nothing to make it as true a General Council as the rest, but the Approbation of the Pope's Legates. It was called by the Emperor, the Number greater than many others: the Consent so great, that he saith that they decreeing Heresie, sola navicula Petri evasit. 2. It had not only the Consent of the present Bishops as much as other Councils, but was as commonly received by the prevailing majority, while the Emperor seemed to be for that way.

2. And the second Council at Nice was taken for as consenting a General Council during the Reign of Irene, and after under the Emperors that were for Images; yea, and by the Pope himself, and all his Party in the West: But it's true that when the Emperors were against Images it was abhorred: And so one Council was for Images, and another against them; (as one for Photius and another against him) by turns, for too long a time, as the Emperors were affected: But for the time, they were all called General, as that at Nice is by the Romans yet.

2. But if this had been true (as it is not) which you say, How shall all Christians know it to be true? When such as I with all our searching cannot know it? yea are past doubt that it is false? It's like you'll say, It is our obstinacy: And so all shall be Schismaticks and condemned with you, whom you are pleased to call obstinate, for escaping p. 153that Ignorance which would better serve your Ends.

§. 7. Dr. S. [But Mr. B. objecteth, That the Nestorians, Jacobites, Abassines, &c. renounce some of the six Councils (yes, three of the six) They had a personal Veneration for the Persons of Nestorius and Dioscorus, and did believe them when they said that the Councils were mistaken in Matter of Fact, and Condemned them for Opinions, which they did not own, and thereupon did reject those Councils: But they did not then, nor do not at this day reject the Catholick Faith, and the Rules of Christian Unity, which are contained in the six General Councils. So that in effect they own them; For the principal thing required is to profess the true Faith, and hold the Vnity of the Spirit in the bond of Peace and Righteousness, which those Churches do, in that they own the Nicene, and C. P. Councils, and deny not the Doctrine of the other four.

Answ. Do you think that none of your Readers will see how much you here overthrow or give up your Cause? 1. If holding the Unity of the Spirit in the bond of Peace and Righteousness will serve, while they renounce the Councils as erroneous and tyrannical, and holding the same Faith and Doctrine will serve, what have you been Pleading for? we are for all this as well as you? 2. And if the Council may erre in Matter of Fact, which may be known by common sence and reason, how much more may they erre in matter of right and supernatural Revelation, as the Articles of the Church of England say they have done.

3. You confess here that Men may reject three or four of your six Councils, and yet be no Schismaticks, p. 154but hold Faith, Unity and Peace. And are the other two more necessary than all the rest? You say, They hold the two first. Answ. They hold not the Infallibility of Councils, nor that they may not be rejected when they erre, nor that we may not be discerning Judges when they erre: For all this is renounced in their renouncing all save two or three.

4. You say, They reject not the Rules of Christian Vnity. Answ. Therefore they judged not the Decrees of Councils to be that necessary Rule: Else the Decrees of those renounced by them would be as necessary as the rest.

5. It's apparent by this that they held the same with those Councils, not because of the Authority of those Councils, but on other Grounds: For it is not possible that they who renounced the Councils, should believe the Christian Faith, on their Authority. They believed it as a Divine Revelation fide Divina, and so do we.

6. And dare you say that a Man that believeth the same things because they are revealed by God in his Word, shall be damned unless he believe them fide humana, because a General Council decreed them.

7. Did your other Councils add any Decrees to the first? If not, what need of believing any thing as theirs? If yea, then receiving the Decrees of the two first is not a receiving the Decrees of the later.

8. And on whose Authority did Christians believe the first 300 years before there was any General Council?

§. 8. Dr. S. P. 346. [Obj. Did the Catholick Church die or cease after the sixth General Council? p. 155Answ. The Essence of the Catholick Church doth not consist in the being of a Council.—Their meeting is but an external means for better declaring the Catholick Faith, and holding mutual Correspondence between the several Churches.

Ans. 1. Still you are constrained to destroy your own Cause. You confess then that Councils are no constitutive Governing part of the Church as a Governed Society. And if so, it hath some other Humane constitutive Regent part, or none. If none, we are so far agreed: This is it that we contend for. If any other, you must come to your Lords College of the diffused Pastors; who never made Law, never heard a Cause, or judged out of Council, to this day, nor possibly can do.

2. What is this that you call an external means of Correspondence? Is it a necessary Supream Legislative and Judicial Power? or not? If it be, it must be a constitutive Essential part of the Church as Political. For every Politick Society is informed by such. And you argued before that Nations must be under such as well as Dioceses under Diocesans. If not, habetur quaesitum.

3. And because your former words assert an Vniversal Soveraignty, I wonder how any of common reason can think this necessary to the whole Christian World, during the few Years that those two or six first Councils sate, and never before nor after? Are dead Men our Governors? VVill a Power of Governing never exercised serve for a Thousand Years last, and 300 before, and not for the other 300? Or hath the Church had one Form of Government for 200 or 300 Years, and another for all the other 1300? And when you tell us that Kingdoms must be judged as well as p. 156single Persons, did those first Councils judge all the sinning Kingdoms since. If you own no Councils since the first Six, all Kingdoms that have sinned these 1000 Years had no such Judges. And what Councils or other Church Power save the Popes, judged the many Southern and Eastern Countries that revolted? Or the Western Nations in their various Changes and Crimes? Must we have such an Uuniversal Judge now, who never judged any these 1000 Years.

4. Your Lord saith at last that they are Mutable Laws which Councils make. If so, why must we needs obey the six Councils that were 1000 Years ago, under another Prince? May not 1000 Years time, and another King's Government make a Change in the Matter and Reason of the Law? If you say, it stands till another General Council change it; I answer, 1. VVhat Council abrogated the 20th Nicene Canon against Kneeling on the Lord's Day in adoration? and many such other. 2. Then if ever there was a General Council it's Decrees are immutable (and so you contradict your selves) For it's certain there never will be a General Council to abrogate what is done, till all the VVorld be under one Christian Monarch.

5. The Laws of England bind us not now as the Laws of the Kings and Parliaments that are dead; that is, not by Virtue of their Authority (though made by them) But as the Laws of the present Legislative Powers who own them and rule by them, and can abrogate them when they will. And when the Canon-makers are dead 1000 Years ago, where now is the Ruling Power whose Laws those are? There is no General Council to p. 157own them, nor ever will be! A thousand Years sure is time enough to prove the death of a Power never since exercised: were there a Seminal Virtue of Universal Regiment in the diffused Church, a Thousand Years Sleep in reason must pass for a Death.

6. Yea, the diffusive Church hath since disowned the Universal Obligation of those same Councils, and doth disown them to this day. For it is not near half the Christian VVorld that own them; yea, none but Papists that I could ever be certified of do receive any such Councils at all, as Legislators and Judges to all the Christian World; but only as Reverenced Rules of Concord made by Contract. And if Constantine, Theodosius, Martian, &c. called their Subjects to Councils 1000 Years ago, why is our King and Kingdom now any more subject to the Subjects of those Emperors than to them?

But if you were content to endure us to unite in Christ, and take his Laws for our Rule and bond of Peace, and stay till the next General Council, be against us, we desire no more.

§. 9. P. 347. Mr. B. saith, [It is a doleful thing to think on what account all these Men expect that all Christians Consciences can be satisfied, &c.] D. S. answereth, [It is a doleful thing indeed to think how they should be satisfied that set up a Pope in every Congregation, and follow him in opposition to the Catholick Church and General Councils.— Mr. B. knows he does this, and deludes the poor People, &c.

Answ. 1. If I know it, methinks I should know that I know it. Which if I do, it's I that am the Impudent Liar: If not—Somebody is mistaken. p. 158Qu. Whether a Council of such Bishops be infallible, or can make us a better Rule than the Scripture.

2. Readers, here you see that it is no wonder that these Reverend Fathers renounce Popery. You see what a Pope is in their account: It is a Minister of a single Church, who taketh not their Lordships or Councils to be Law-givers and Judges over all the Earth. We poor Protestants took him for a Pope that claimed such an Universal Rule alone, or as the President of Councils: But these Men take him for a Pope that denieth Popery, and pretendeth to no Government beyond his Parish. Yea, not only so, but in our Parishes we oblige none to take up any of their Religion (Faith or Duty to God) on our commanding Authority, but to learn by the Evidence which caused our own Faith, to believe by a Faith Divine.

3. I have oft said that the Catholick Church is such by Faith and Subjection to Christ, which I own and daily Preach: But that there never was a General Council of the Christian World, nor is there any such thing as a Catholick Church in the Popish sence, that is, having one Political humane Soveraignty. And how did the Man make himself believe that I knowingly opposed that which my whole Writing labours to prove never had a being. Reader, Lament the Case of the Church on Earth, when the most studious Leaders are so dark and rash and bad, as either I, or these Reverend Fathers are, setting the World into ruinating Divisions by words of such a Dialect as is harsh to name.

§. 10. P. 348. Dr. S. pretendeth to some Scripture Proofs, viz: 1 Cor. 14.32, 33. The Spirit of p. 159the Prophets are subject to the Prophets. For God is not the Author of Confusion, but of Peace, as in all the Churches of the Saints.]

Answ. Reader, Do you think this proveth that the whole Church on Earth is under one humane Soveraignty that hath a Legislative and Judging Power. 1. This Text speaketh only of the avoiding Disorder in particular Assemblies by the means which they had present there among them. To keep them from speaking two at once, and such like Disorders: As the Archi-Synagogoi were used to do in the Jews Synagogue. And must a Council from all the Earth be gathered to that Assembly to rebuke such Disorder? If it must be but to make a General Law to forbid it, that's done already in Scripture and in Nature: And must the World meet to do it again?

2. Their Dr. Hamond saith, that this Text speaketh of the Spirit in each Prophet being subject to himself, that is, to his own reason, and that the Spirit moveth them not to speak irregularly and confusedly: And what's this to the Power of Councils?

3. If it were spoken of the other present Prophets, what's this to Men that are no Prophets, and that are dead 1000 Years ago? Are not present Pastors fitter Moderators of their Assembly, than a General Council of dead Men?

§. 11. Next he that so condemneth me as an Opposite, citeth my words as granting his Cause; yet this reconcileth him not: I am not so idle as to write him a Commentary of my own words; for, I can devise no plainer. Only I may tell him that he too quickly forgot that God is not the Author of Confusion: and therefore it is not lovely: p. 160A Law should not be confounded with a Contract or amicable Agreement; nor a Soveraign Government with a Peace-making Assembly of Equals; nor a possible Council of those within reach with an impossible Council out of all the World. Neither the King of France or of England were Subjects to the Assembly at Nimeguen.

§. 12. P. 351. He saith, he could give numberless Quotations of Protestants, Melanchthon, Bucer, Calvin, Bishop Andrews, K. James, Spalatensis, Casaubon, Bishop White, Bishop Mountague, Archbishop Dr. Hamond, Dailee, &c.

Answ. I cannot answer what you can do, but what you do. But the Reader may know how far to believe you, that will but search these few. 1. Read what I have cited out of Melanchthon to Bishop Guning, or rather his own Epistle of the Conference at Ratisbone, and that to King Henry the 8th.

2. Read Bucer de Regno Dei, and the rest of his Opera Angl. and judge as you see cause.

3. I am ashamed to cite any words of Calvin, to confute our Drs. intimation.

4. Whether Spalatensis was a Protestant I dispute not, but read his own words cited by me in my Treatise of Episcopacy, and then read him of Councils, and judge.

5. Bishop Vsher, as I have oft said, told me himself, That [Councils are not for Government of the absent or the particular Bishops, but for Concord.]

What Mind Dr. Hamond was of I determine not: But of the rest you may judge by these.

The Matter is, All Protestants hold that we must Serve God in as much Concord as we can: p. 161And that the Meeting of Pastors is a means of Concord: And that it was the true Christian Faith which the Councils which he nameth owned; and we are of the same Faith: and therefore they reverence these Councils: And they hold that still Concord being much of the Strength and Beauty of the Churches, when there is any special reason for it, (as several Princes assemble by themselves or Messengers at Munster, Ratisbone, Francfort, Nimeguen) so Pastors even of several Kingdoms, 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.]

p. 162Answ. 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 p. 163and 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.

p. 164§. 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 p. 165only 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:

p. 166I. 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: p. 167He 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?

p. 1681. 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 p. 169of 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 of such Writers that makes any English Man ignorant, 1. That our Godfathers commonly are not once desired by the Parents to Educate their Children in that Profession. 2. Nor ever give them the least reason to expect it. 3. Nor ever perform it. 4. Nor have any power so to Educate them, because the Parents never purposed so far to commit their Children to them, nor they themselves never dream of any such power or undertaking; except only such as adopt a Child, or take an Orphan or Grand-child as their own. I have lived almost sixty seven years, p. 170(now near seventy four) and never knew one Godfather Educate the Child, (save the Parent that is forbidden to be Godfather) or that it was ever expected from him by the Parents. It seems the Poor never came to Bishop Guning as they have done to me, to beg Money to pay the Curate and Clerk, and to hire some poor Man to be Godfather, or else their Children cannot be Baptized: So that he that can get but Twelve pence a day by hard labour, may get on the Sunday Twelve pence for standing an hour at the Font as Godfather, and perhaps half a Crown; and so it's become a Trade, of such as never mean to see the Child again. Though none but the poor thus hire Promisers, yet the Nation commonly never give them power to Educate their Children. And thus while the Bishop first must force us to profess the certain undoubted Salvation of dying Baptized Infants without exception he comes himself with an exception which shuts out all that ever I knew conformably Baptized in all my Life; and maketh the common Baptism of the Land to be perfidiousness: The Anabaptists will not be converted by such Doctors.

And it's known how much these Men are for tying us to deliver no Doctrine from any Text but what the Fathers have thence gathered: And Augustine de Baptis. Cont. Donat. li. 1. c. 11, 12. at large expoundeth this single Text of the Dr. by Simon's case, and supposing the Donatists to say that Simon was pardoned in Baptism and lost it by his next sin, he saith, c. 12. [Quid si ad ipsum baptismum fictus accessit? Dimissa sunt ei peccata, an non sunt dimissa? Eligant quod volunt — si dimissa dixerint, quomodo ergo spiritus sanctus disciplinae effugerit p. 171fictum? Si in isto ficto remissionem operatus est peccatorum? — fateantur vero baptismo Christi baptizari posse hominem, & tamen cor ejus in malitia vel Sacrilegio perseverans peccatorum abolitionem non sinere fieri. At que ita intelligant in communionibus ab Ecclesia separatis posse homines baptizari, ubi Christi baptismus eadem Sacramenti celebratione datur & sumitur, qui tamen tunc prosit ad remissionem peccatorum cum quis reconciliatus unitati, sacrilegio dissensionis exuitur quo ejus peccata tenebantur, & dimitti non sinebantur. Sicut enim in illo qui fi…lus accesserit, sit ut non denuo baptizetur, sed ipsa pia correctione & veraci confessione purgetur, quod non posset sine baptismo, ut quod ante datum est, tunc valere incipiat ad salutem, cum illa fictio veraci confessione recesserit —

Thus Gods Word must by ten thousand Ministers be said to affirm that certainly and undoubtedly, which he brings but one Text for grosly abused, contrary to the Doctrine even of Augustine who laid too much on Baptism, and contrary to the very Law of Christ, which saith, He that believeth not shall be damned, not excepting the Baptized, Mark 16.16.

Obj. But yet all Baptized Infants may be saved? Ans. The question now is, Whether that Text Gal. 3.27. prove it, or any Word of God.

He must be supposed to know that there are many Opinions among the most Learned Divines about the Case of Baptized Infants Salvation, (ten I have elsewhere named.) And must every Minister in England determine which of all these is right, because it's Dr. Guning's Opinion?

Many Nonconformists hold that the Covenant of Grace, doth certainly put all true Christians Infants into a state of Pardon and Salvation, (calling p. 172them Holy) which is to be openly done by Baptismal Investiture. But that the Children of all the Atheists, Infidels, Idolaters, or wicked men on Earth are in such a state, and certainly saved so dying, if any Christian will but stand as in England as Godfather, and if a Band of Soldiers can but take up thousands of them, and so Baptize them, and that the Salvation of them is undoubtedly certain by Gods Word, to every one that must be tolerated to be a Minister; this is our present way of Church Concord, but not Christs way.

And if all the Infants on Earth have right to Salvation if they can but be Baptized, why should they not have it Unbaptized, when it is none of their fault it being not in their power? It is his own argument when we question the undoubted certainty affirmed, p. 162. [To say the unworthiness or the sin of the Godfather or Father can deprive the Baptized Child of the benefit of Gods Ordinance, is a monstrous Opinion.] And whose sin is it but the Fathers that depriveth all Infidels Children of Baptism, and so of the benefit of it? Will all England believe that God layeth the Saving or Damning of Millions upon the bare act of outward Baptism, while the Children have equal antecedent right?

The Bishop and his Chaplain Dr. refer me to Mr. Dodwell for part of my answer: And Mr. Dodwell is so much of the Bishops mind, that I may suppose the Bishop to be much of Mr. D's mind. I will urge him therefore ad hominem with one argument from Mr. D. against Conformity; let him answer it without condemning Mr. D. if he can.

p. 173In Sacramental Investitures no Man receiveth more right than what the Invester intendeth to give him, or at least not that which he declareth that he doth not give him. But multitudes of Baptizing Ministers in England and all the Reformed Churches declare that they intend not to give by Baptismal Investiture a present right to Salvation to all Baptized Infants, (if they so die.) Ergo all Baptized Infants receive not by Baptism a present right to Salvation.

The Major is Mr. D's about Ordination. The Minor is notorious in the known Writings and Doctrines of such Ministers; some holding that only the Children of true Christians are by Baptism stated in a certain right to Salvation; some holding it only of the Elect; some holding it only of professed Christians Children; and almost all denying it of the Children of Atheists and Infidels. When Dr. Cornelius Burges did but write that all the Elect, though they lived wickedly after till Conversion, received a Seed of Regeneration in their Infant Baptism, what abundance of Dissenters, yea how few Consenters did he find in England? When yet he affirmed this of none but such as are after saved.

And if for want of the Baptizers Intention, thousands in England 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 p. 174Baptizing 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 p. 175Reformed 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 p. 176Bishop 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, p. 177into 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.)