Against the Revolt to a Foreign Jurisdiction, Chapter 16
Chap. XVI. The Second Letter to Bishop Guning, after our first Conference.
My Lord,
I Much desire some further help for my Satisfaction in the Three things, which we last Discoursed of. 1. Whether I mis-recited or misapplied the Case of St. Martin's Separation? 2. Whether by foreign, in Ignatius be not meant One material Altar or Place of ordinary Communion of one Church? 3. What are the true terms of Universal Christian Concord? But the last is to me of so much greater Importance than the rest, that I will now forbear them, lest by diversion from this, my expectation should be frustrate. And seeing I profess in this to write to you with an unfeigned desire to learn, and also to take the Matter to be such as my very Religion and Church relation lyeth on; I beseech you either by your self, or some other whom you direct to speak your sense, to endeavour my better information.
The only terms or way of Vniversal Christian Concord you say is, Obedience to the Vniversal Church: and the Pastors are the Church: And he is not a true Member of the Church that doth not obey it: And this Church to be obeyed is not only a General Council, but also a Collegium Pastorum who rule per literas formatas, being Successors to the Apostles, who had this Power from Christ.
This is the Substance of what I understood from you. Here I shall first tell you what I hitherto held, and next tell you wherein I desire Satisfaction.
I. I have hitherto thought, 1. That only Christ was a Constitutive Head of the Church Universal, and had appointed no Vicarious Head or Soveraign, either Personal or Collective, Monarchical, Aristocratical, or Democratical. 2. Therefore none but Christ had now an Universal Legislative Power? nor yet an Universal Judicial and Executive. 3. And that this is the first and fundamental difference between us and the Church of Rome. 4. But I doubt not but that all the Pastors in the World may be intellectually thought on in an Universal Notion, and we may say with Cyprian, Episcopatus est unus, &c. as all the Judges and Justices and other Officers are Universally All the Governing Power of the Kingdom under the King; and as all the Individuals are the whole People as Subjects. 5. And I doubt not but each Pastor is in his place to be obeyed in all things which he is authorized to Command. 6. And these Pastors must endeavour to maintain Concord as extensive as is possible; to which end Councils and Communicatory Letters are to be used: And that the individual Pastors and People are obliged by the General Law of endeavouring to maintain Love and Concord, to observe the Agreements of of such Concordant Councils in all things Lawful belonging to their Determination. 7. And I doubt not but while there were but twelve Apostles, those twelve had under Christ, the Guidance of the whole Christian Church on Earth (which for a while might all hear them in one place;) and were to do their work in Concord: and had the Unity of the Spirit thereto, by which they infallibly agreed in that which was proper to them, (and they had no Successors in) even, though they were never so distant, as well as when they were together, Act. 15. though in other things Peter and Paul, and Paul and Barnabas disagreed. And as in the recording of Christ's Works and Doctrine, in infallible Scriptures, so also they agreed in their Preaching it, and in the Practice of all that was necessary either to Salvation, or to the forming or Communion of the Churches. 8. But I supposed that none but those who were called to it immediately by Christ, or endued with the gift of Infallibility therein, were to be as his Mouth and Hand, in so delivering the Gospel, and writing the Holy Scriptures, as should be his Word, or Law to all the Christian World, and to all future Generations. 9. But as Prophets of old were the bringers of all new Revelations, and the Priests were but the Preservers, Expounders and Appliers of the Word which the Prophets had brought; So the Spirit in the Apostles, Evangelists and Prophets infallibly delivered that Word and Law, which all succeeding Pastors must Preach, Practise, and Rule by; as the only Universal Law.
This being hitherto my Judgment, if you are not mistaken, I am no Member of the Universal Church, and so no Christian, and therefore am uncapable of Communion, and have not Christ's Spirit, nor title to Salvation, and therefore it concerneth me speedily to try, and receive Instructions: However we are of two Religions and Churches if you are in the right.
II▪ That which I have hitherto denied herein, is, 1. That there is any Vicarious, Constitutive or Governing Head of the Church Universal, or Soveraign Power, Personal or Collective, having Supream, Universal, Legislative, Judicial and Executive Power under Christ, which all Christians are bound to be Subjects of, and to obey.
2. That Obedience to such an Universal Church-Soveraign or Power is not the necessary means or terms of Universal Concord or Communion:
1. Because there is no such Power.
2. If there be, it cannot be Universally known by Christians, 1. That it is, 2. What it is, 3. And in whom it is.
3. Nor can the Measure of Obedience to such Power necessary to Concord and Communion of all, be Universally known. 4. And de facto, there is no such Concord or Communion Universal in the World, nor ever was, at least since the Apostles days. Of these in order.
I. If there be any Vicarious Universal Supream Power that all must obey that will be Members of the Church, the Institution of it is to be found in Scripture, or in some other Divine Record: But no such thing is found in either, we have no other Divine Record that notifyeth this: and Scripture doth not. It is the Apostles Power that is the thing hence alledged. But, 1. While they were near the whole Church in its Infancy or small Number, Men could have sent to them for their Judgment: But so they could not, had they lived to see the Church in its present extent: If the twelve Apostles were now at Jerusalem, and we doubted of the Nestorian, Eutychian, Monothelite Controversies, and the rest in Epiphanius and Philastrius Catalogue. Could all the Christians in America, Africa, Asia and Europe know that the major Vote of the Apostles met at Jerusalem had thus or thus decided? How few would live long enough for that Satisfaction. 2. The Apostles singly by an infallible Uniting Spirit were the Mouth of Christ to deliver obligatorily his Laws and Doctrine, without meeting to Consult and Vote it. Paul professeth Gal. 1. that he received not his Gospel from the Apostles, but from Christ: And his Epistles need not a proof of their Authority from the Votes or Consent of the rest; but were otherwise received: And so of other parts of Scripture. 3. The Apostles were to be dispersed about the World, and not to stay long together to Govern the World as a College: And while they stayed at Jerusalem, we read not of their doing any thing in a College and Conciliar way, save that Act. 15. & 11. which was, 1. No General Council from all the Churches: 2. Nor done by Apostles only▪ but the Elders and Brethren also of the Church at Jerusalem. 3. And was not laid on the Authority of a major Vote, but on the Apostolical Spirit of Infallibility and their special knowledge of Christ's mind, in which they all concurred.
2. Therefore their Authority of Teaching the World all Christ's Commands M-28-20. being proper to them by these two advantages (being chosen Ear-witnesses, and having the Spirit to guide them into all truth) in this they have no Successors though they have in the continued parts of their Work. They were Christs Instruments in Universal Legislation, and the Scripture written by them is his Word and Law, and they were accordingly enabled to Seal it by Miracles, and giving the Holy Ghost by Imposition of their Hands: This Law of Christ all Christians own: But if in this they have Successors, 1. The Church hath a larger Law than we have thought on, and Gods Word is a greater Volume. 2. And Miracles are as necessary to Seal the new Word as to Seal the old.
II. The Scripture denieth a Vicarious summam potestatem, or Soveraignty over the Universal Church having a Legislative Power. 1. In that it saith that There is One Law-giver, Jam. 4.12. that is, But One. 2. In calling Christ only the Head, Lord and King, and calling Apostles but Members, 1 Cor. 12.27. and Stewards and Ministers by whom we believe. 3. Baptizing us only into the Name of Christ, and not of the Apostles; and Baptism is Christening, and sheweth all that is necessary to make us Members of the Church and Body which Christ is the Saviour of. 4. Paul decryeth it as Carnality and Schism to think of Men above what is written, as if they had been Baptized into the Names of Men. 5. The Apostles did not Convert Men by preaching up themselves as Soveraign, but Christ, only professing themselves Witnesses and Messengers of his Words and Deeds: The Eunuch Acts 8. was Baptized by Philip upon his bare believing in Christ, without hearing the …ote of a Colledge of Apostles. Nor did the Preachers that Converted Men do it by the Argument of the Authority of such a Colledge. As Dr. Hammond saith on 1 Tim. 3. [And such are all particular Churches of the whole World considered together, under the Supream Head Christ Jesus, dispensing them all by himself, and administring them severally not by any one Oeconomus, but by the several Bishops as Inferior Heads of Unity to the several Bodies, so constituted by the several Apostles in their Plantations, each of them having an foreign, a several distinct Commission from Christ Immediately and Subordinate to none but the Supream Donor or Plenipotentiary.]
(Neither to a Personal nor Collective Soveraign Power.)
The Judges of England have a Power which limitedly in their several Courts and Circuits respecteth all the Kingdom. But, 1. They have no Legislative Power. 2. Nor are they Constitutive Essential parts of the Kingdom: It would be the same Kingdom were their Power changed. 3. Therefore the Constitutive Oaths or Bond is only between King and Subjects, and we are not to Swear Allegiance to any other than the King. 4. Nor are they Judges out of their several Courts and Circuits. 5. Much less in other Kingdoms. 6. Nor is any a Judge to all the World, so is it in the Case in question, yet were they Apostles to the Universal Church, that which none are since their time.
III. If there be such a Vicarious Governing Soveraignty over the Universal Church, it is either the Pope, or a General Council, or some Colledge of Pastors: But it is none of these.
1. As to the Pope you say that he is so far from being Head of the Church that he is not a Member: So that I need not say more of this to you.
2. That General Councils are no such Soveraign Power which all must obey that will be Christians or in a Church, seemeth to me past doubt for these Reasons.
1. Because there is no such thing in the Creed, though the Catholick Church and Communion of Saints be there. But it would be there were it. of such necessity to Christianity.
2. Because there is no such thing said in all the Scripture, which would not omit so necessary a point. What is said from Acts 15. is answered before; it was no General Council: A General Council was not then the necessary means of Concord or Communion.
3. There never was one General Council representing the Universal Church in the World. I have fully proved in my second Book against Johnson, that the Councils called General were so only as to the Roman Empire, (and few if any so General,) and that the Emperor called all the Chief Councils who had no Power without his Empire, nor called any that were without.
4. I have oft proved the unlawfulness of calling General Councils now, as the Church is dispersed at such distances over the Earth, and under Princes of so contrary Interests and Minds.
5. I have oft proved the Impossibility of such a Councils meeting to attain the ends of Government in question; being to pass by Sea and Land from all quarters of the World, by the Consent of Enemies that rule them, and through Enemies Countreys, and Men of Age, that must have so long time going, and sitting and returning, and of divers Languages uncapable of understanding one another, and a number uncapable of present Converse, with other such insuperable difficulties.
6. If such Councils be necessary to the Being of Christianity, Church or Concord, at least the Church hath seldom had a Being, or Concord; it seldom having had such a Council in your own esteem: And you cannot say that it ever will have any.
7. If General Councils have Supream Government (visible) it is, 1. Legislative. 2. Judicial. 3. Executive.
But I. If Legislative, then 1. Their Laws are either Gods Infallible Word, or not: If not, all Men must disobey them when they err: If yea, Gods Word is not the same one Age as another, and is Crescent still; and we know not when it will be perfect.
2. Their Laws will be so many that no Christians can know them, obey them, and have Concord on such terms.
3. If they could agree who should call them, and whither; yet the Prince whose Countrey they meet in would be Master of the whole Christian World, and so of other Christian Countreys by Mastering them.
4. Princes would be Subjects, 1. To Foreign Powers. 2. Yea to the Subjects of other Princes. 3. Yea of their Enemies. 4. And to such Pre…ates as they are uncapable to know whether they are truely called to their Office. 5. Or whether they are erroneous or sound in Faith.
5. And then the Ecclesiastical Laws of all National Churches and Kings might be destroyed by such Councils as Superior Powers.
6. And no Princes or Synods could make valid Laws about Religion, till they knew that no Law of any such Council were against them.
7. The Laws of Christ recorded in Scripture would by all this be argued of great insufficiency: …f more were Universally necessary, he that made the rest would have made them, whose Authority is to the Church unquestionable.
8. The Christian World is divided so much in Opinion, that except in what Christs own word containeth plainly, they are in no probability of agreeing. So much of Legislation.
II. As to Judgment. 1. To judge the sence of a Law (Scripture or Canon) for the common Obligation of the Church, is part of the Legislative Power, and belongs to the Law-makers. 2. To judge the Case of Persons, e. g. whether John, Peter, Nestorius, Luther, Calvin, &c. be a Heretick, an Adulterer, a Simonist, &c. requireth that the Accuser and Accused, and Witnesses of both be present and heard speak: But he that would have all Hereticks, Criminals, Accusers, Witnesses, travel for a Tryal to Jerusalem, Nice, Constantinople, Rome, even from America, Ethiopia, &c. will not need any Confutation.
III. The same I say of Executive Silencing, Ejecting, Excommunicating, &c.
II. A Soveraign Power that cannot be known, is not necessary to Christianity, or the Constitution, Communion or Concord of the Church. But General Councils so impowered cannot be known.
I. I have shewed that it cannot be known by ordinary Christians that there are any such Authorized by Christ. I know it not, nor any that ever I was familiar with: The main Body of the Reformed Churches know it not; for they ordinarily deny it as the prime point of Popery. They cannot prove it, who affirm it: Therefore they know it not, as others may judge. Millions are Baptized Christians that never knew it.
II. It is not to this day known which were true General Councils that are past: Some say those were Latrocinia and Conventicles that others say were Lawful Councils. Some are for but four; some for six; some for eight; some for all so called; there is no agreement which are true and obligatory. Grotius is for Trent and all; which others abhor.
2. It is not known who hath Power to call them, and whose call is valid.
3. Nor what Individuals or Particular Churches are capable of sending and chusing, and obliged to it. Almost all the Christian World is judged uncapable by the most of Christians. The Papists are so judged by the Greeks, Protestants, &c. The Eastern and Ethiopian Christians, are excluded by the Papists, Greeks, &c. as Jacobites, Nestorians, Schismaticks, &c. The Greeks are excluded by the Papists and others as Schismaticks and Erroneous. The Protestants are judged Hereticks and Schismaticks by the Papists and many Greeks, &c. How Lutherans and Calvinists, Diocesans and Presbyterians, &c. judge of one another, I need not tell. And can all or any of them know which of these must make up a Legislative Council of the whole Church on Earth?
4. It is not known how many must Constitute such a Council, nor in what proportions. If there be innumerable Bishops under Philippicus for the Monothelites out of the East (as Binnius saith) and few out of the West, was that a true General Council? If at Nice, Ephesus, Constantinople, Chalcedon, there be not one out of the West to twenty or forty, or a hundred others, is it a true representative of the whole Church? If there be two hundred at Trent, or a thousand at Basil out of the West, or some few parts of it, and few from the East, and none from Ethiopia, Armenia, America, and many other Churches; are these a true Universal Council? And can we all be here resolved?
The Countrey where the Council meeteth, and the Prince who is for them, will have more Bishops there, than any, if not all the rest; when remote parts, and the Churches under Enemies, or dissenting Princes will have few.
5. The same Councils that had most for them under one Prince, have had most Bishops against them under the next, and so off and on for many Successions: We know that the Council of Nice was mostly for the truth, because we try it by the Word of God: Else how should it be known after; when under Constantius and Valens most of the Bishops by far, in Councils and out, were Arrians? The World groaned to find it self grown Arrian. The Council of Constantinople, in the beginning set up Greg. Nazianzen, and in the end was against him? Which part was the Universal Governor? The first Council at Ephesus was against Nestorius till Joh. Antiochenus came; and then it divided into two, which condemned each other; and after by the Emperors threatening was united: The Chalcedon Council carried most while Martian Reigned; and after most condemned and cursed it; and then again most were for it, and under other Emperors most cursed it again; and under Zeno the most were for Neutrality or Silencing the difference. The Eutychians had far most at Ephes. 2. and a while after under Theodos. 2. and Anastasius, &c. And under others (and most Princes) most were against them, and called Eph. 2. Latrocinium. And yet most of the East have been for Dioscorus ever since, saving the Greeks. The Monothelites had far most (innumerable Bishops out of the East, saith Binnius ut supra) under Philippicus in a Council, yea, saith Binnius, the Council at Trullu in Constant. were Monothelites, and yet the same Men that were at the foregoing approved fifth General Council at Const. And over and over most Bishops were for one side, and most for the other, as Princes changed afterward. Under Justinian most seemed for the Phantasiastae against the Corrupticolae: VVhichWhich yet are since (with Justinian) accounted persecuting Hereticks. The approved Council at Const. de tribus Capitulis had some time most Bishops for it, and sometime most-against it: Insomuch that it occasioned much of Italy it self to renounce the Popes-headship and set up the Patriarch of Aquileia as their Chief. The Council at Nice 2. and others for Images, and so others against them, have been so oft and notoriously under one Emperor owned by most, and under another condemned by most, yea by the same Bishops owned and after disowned, that no Man can tell which of them to take for the Universal Legislators or Rulers of the Church by the number of the Bishops, but only we must know which of them were sound by the VVord of God. And since them what Council ever was there that could be so known by numbers to be of Authority? Constance and Basil that had the greatest numbers are condemned by Florence, and by the most of the Roman Church. No Man can tell us of all that are past, what Councils are of obliging Authority and must be obeyed by any outward Note, but only by trying them by the VVord of God.
6. And what wonder, when there is no other certain Note by which an obliging Council can be known from others? (And he that knoweth what God saith without the Council needs it not.) The Papists have no Note of difference but the Popes Approbation. And Protestants know that this is no proof of their Authority. At Eph. 2. Bellarmine and Binnius tell us that the consent was so general, that only St. Peter's Ship escaped drowning. At Const. 1. they confess that the Pope had not so much as a Legate: By what Note shall we know the true and Authorized Councils from the rejected, when part of the Christian VVorld is for one and against another, and the other part contrary?
III. And there is no Agreement in what the Power of such Councils materially doth consist, and what it is that they may command us, and what not.
IV. Nor is there any Agreement which and how many are their true Obligatory Laws, when we have such huge Volumes of Decrees and Canons; woe to us if all these must necessarily be obeyed to our Concord or Salvation. And if not all, how shall we know which?
V. Nor do we know how we must be sure that all these Canons indeed were Currant and had the Major Vote; or many be Counterfeit; when the Africans had then such a stir with the Pope about the Nicene or Sardican Canon; and when to this day the Canons of the Laterane Council sub Innoc. 3. are justified by most and denied by many.
VI. If this could be known to a few Learned Men, it is certain that to most Christians, yea Ministers it cannot: To me it is not. And it's certain that all Christians, nor all Ministers are not obliged to so great a task as to search all the Councils, till they know which they be, and which the Laws which they must obey.
III. And as the Power and Laws cannot be known, so it is certain that Obedience to these is not the necessary means of Christianity, Concord or Communion, because the necessary measure of such Obedience cannot be known to such a use; Christ in his Institution of Baptism and other ways, hath told what he hath made necessary to be a Member of the Universal Church, and how all such must live in Love and Peace, in obeying the rest of his Word so far as they can know it. But you that make Obedience to a visible Power over the Church Universal, necessary to our Membership, can never tell us which is the necessary Degree! If it be all the Canons and Mandates that must be so obeyed, no Man can be saved: much less can the Churches all have Concord on such terms! yea, every Christian: If it be not all, who can tell us which be the necessary Canons, and Acts of Obedience, and distinguish Essentials from Integrals, unless you will return to the Word of God, and say that The Covenant of Grace is Essential, which we may know without these Councils Laws. The Ministry of Councils teaching us how to know God's Word and Laws is one thing, and their own pretended universally obliging Legislation is another.
Of all this I have said much in the second Part of my Key for Catholicks, and in my foresaid Rejoinder to W. Johnson.
II. But you tell me of another Church Power which all must obey that will have Communion and Concord, which you call Collegium Pastorum.
If none be Church Members or Christians that understand not what this is (much less do obey it) I doubt the Church is still a little Flock indeed: For I understand it not, nor know one Man that I think doth.
1. Is this College of Pastors to Rule while General Councils sit, or but in the intervals? If sedente Concilio, which of them is Supream? If only between Councils; have they a Legislative Power, or only the Judicial and Executive? If the former, where are their Laws to be found? that all the Church may know them? And I ask all the Questions before askt of the Laws of Councils: How shall we know which be Current? and necessary? and which are not?
If not, then they are no Supream Rulers that have no Legislative Power?
2. Who be these Men that make this College? we cannot obey them till we know them; Are they all the Bishops in the World, or but part? If but part, which part, and who, and where shall we find them? I know you will not say they are the upstart College of Cardinals, nor the Roman Clergy only: And I never heard of any others besides Councils that pretended to it: viz. To be Universal Governours.
If it be All the Bishops of the World; 1. Do they meet to Consent, or do they not? If they do and must, when, where, how? was there ever such a meeting which was no Council? No, you say, It is per literas formatas.
2. Are these Literae formatae, Legislative, Judicial or Executive? If none of these, they are no Acts of Government. And I asked, where shall we find them if they are our Laws? If they be Judicial and Executive, whither is it that the Accusers, Accused and Witnesses must come to be heard speak before the Sentence was passed per literas formatas: e. g. Theodoret, and the rest de tribus Capitulis, when it must be judged, 1. Whether they wrote such words? 2. What the sence was? 3. Whether they were Heretical? 4. Whether they repented, and must we go to all the Bishops in the World one by one for tryal? or be judged without being ever heard?
3. I cannot imagine what can be here said, unless it be that some Bishops first do the thing, and then others do per Literas consent. But, 1. Do some Bishops first make Laws for all the World, and then the rest consent, or only for their own Churches? By what Authority do they the first?
2. Or do some Bishops try and judge a Man, e. g. in this or that Country and Parish, and then all the rest in the World consent, that never hear them, or hear of them? Every Man (nor any) is not Excommunicated per Literas formatas, by all the Bishops in the World, or most. 3. But it is not the Executive or Judicial Acts that our Question is concerned in, but the Rule of Obedience, which is a Law. As it was never known that Men must not be taken in by Baptism, or cast out by Excommunication, till all the Bishops on Earth agree to it; so no Universal Laws are extant that were made by such Letters.
4. And how can this be the Rule, and Test of Christianity, or Church-membership or Concord, when no Christians, much less all, can possibly know that all or most Bishops have per Literas, consented to such obliging Laws? 1. How can we prove that ever any went over all the World to them? (Drake or Candish did it not.) 2. And that they opened the Case aright to them? 3. And that these Laws had the Major Vote? 4. And that they are not forged or corrupted since? 5. And that these were true Bishops themselves that did it in America, Ethiopia, Armenia, Greece, &c. out of our reach?
6. Yea, What possibility is there of any such known Agreement, when it's known that almost all the Christian World is divided into Parties, which disagree and censure one another? The English Diocesans and Church differeth from the Roman, and the most, or many of the Reformed. The Lutherans from the Calvinists; The Papists from us all, and from the Greek, and the Greek from them and us; and all from the Abassines, Copties, Syrians, called Jacobites, Nestorians, &c. and from the Armenians, Georgians, Circassians, Mengrelians, Russians, &c. How shall I, and all the Ministers on Earth, yea, and all Christians, know that all these have per Literas formatas, made Laws which all must necessarily obey?
But if it be only the Sound Part that hath this Universal Government, how can I, and all Men know which, and who that is? Hearsay of Adversaries report will not tell us; and almost all on Earth are condemned or accused by the rest, or most, or many. And we must hear them (that dwell at the Antipodes or Jerusalem, &c.) before we judge them, so far as to exclude them from the Sacred Power.
If it be said, That it is not the making of New Laws, that is done by this Collegium Pastorum all over the world, but their Consent to those that Councils made: I answer, 1. Are they not Valid upon the Councils making them? Then Councils have not Legislative Power. 2. If it be left impossible to most to know which were true Councils, and which are their Valid Laws, when the present Assemblies have best opportunity to signifie Consent, how impossible will it be to know which Councils and which Laws (and in what sense) are approved by all the Bishops in the World, or by most? And that the Votes were faithfully gathered? And by whom? And that the Major part are the Rulers of the Minors.
Will. Johnson saith, That it is a General Judicial Sentence, De Speciebus, and not De Individuis, that Councils use; E. g. [We Anathematize all that hold or do this or that.] But, 1. It's known that they Anathematized many Individuals. 2. No Man can be bound by it, till it fall upon Individuals. Condemning Arrians, proveth no Man to be an Arrian: Forbidding us to hear Hereticks, obligeth none not to hear him that is not proved a Heretick: Judgment must be of Individuals before it can be executed.
He that must obey the Universal Church, must be commanded by the Universal Church, and must know that they command him, and what they command him; which is to me, and to most impossible.
4. William Johnsons and his Parties last Answer is, That the People must Believe their own individual Pastors, telling them what the Universal Church commandeth: And indeed there is no other way practicable; But then, 1. This is but a trick to make every Pastor the Lord of our Faith and Souls; on pretence of obeying the Universal Church. And if this be your sense it will amount to this [No man is a Christian that believeth not his Pastor telling him what the Vniversal Church commandeth.]
2. But I find most Teachers are as ignorant as I am, who know not such Universal Authority or Laws.
3. Archbishop Vsher, and many other Bishops, thought that General Councils were not for Regiment, but Concord: And he that believeth no such Governing Power, cannot declare it to his Flock, nor obey it.
4. By this way, most Christians shall be bound on pain of Damnation to believe Untruths, and things contrary to what others must believe, e. g. In Abassia, Egypt, Syria, &c. they will be bound to believe one thing▪ and at Constantinople another, &c. Those called now Nestorians, are by Travellers said to own none of that Heresie, but to Condemn the Council of Chalcedon and Eph. 1. for wronging Nestorius, as Innocent did them that condemned Chrysostome: Those called Jacobites and Eutychians are said to have no more of the Heresie, but to condemn the said Chalcedon Council for wronging Dioscorus, and to own the second Ephesine Council: some will be bound to be for Images in Churches, and some against them; some for Constantinople, and some for Rome's Supremacy, (and all in their Countries to be Papists) for their Pastors tell them that the Catholick Church is on their side: yea, in the same Country (as in England) some must be for Arminianism (as it is called) and some against it; some for the imputation of Christ's righteousness, and some against it; some for free Prayer in the Pulpit, and some against it, &c. For on both sides their differing Pastors plead the Authority of the Church: Few Christians can thus agree in any thing but Christ's plain Laws, which I shewed are the terms of Concord.
If we must appeal from particular Pastors, to whom is it? If to Councils, to whom must we appeal from disagreeing Councils? If to the whole Church on Earth, how shall we hear from them and know their mind? I never saw, nor knew any Man that saw any literas formatas subscribed by all Bishops scattered through the Earth.
5. You that are Zealous against Popery, I presume would not have me be a Papist: But I cannot avoid it if I receive your Doctrine (that there is a Church-Power in a Council or College of Pastors, to Govern the Universal Church: and that none are in the Church, nor have the Spirit that obey not this Universal Church of Pastors, and that to obey them is the only means, or terms of Concord.]
For, 1. I then yield them the fundamental difference. That there is one Universal summa Potestas, or Visible Head (Collective) under Christ. 2. And if so, I cannot deny it to be the Pope as the Principium Vnitatis, and the Chief Executor of the Laws, and the first Bishop in Councils. For Councils are rare, and the Church is a Church when there are no Councils: And the Pope is a known Person, and Rome a known Place, and accessible, and no other pretendeth to this Power that I know of: And the Executive Power must be Constant: And any other Supream accessible College is unknown to me and all that I can speak with, and I can no more obey them, than a College of Angels unknown to me. If the Church have a visible Vicarious Supream, the Pope is likest to be he, as to the constant Executive Power, and the President of Councils. I suppose you take the Councils of Constance and Basil, and the French for Papists; though they set a Council above the Pope.
6. The World hath no Universal Civil Government under God; neither a Monarch, nor a College or Council of Kings. All the World is Governed by Men per partes in their several Dominions, as all England is under the King, by all the Mayors, Bailiffs and Justices: But there is no Council of Justices that are One Vniversal Governour Collective: Nor is the Dyet of Princes, or any Council of Kings one Supream Government of the Earth. A Logical universality there is, as all Rulers considered notionally rule all the World by Parts, but no Political Head or Universal Governour over the whole, whom all the Parts must obey.
I. If now I am in the right, and you mistaken, then you wrongfully deny the Spirit, Church-Membership, and consequently Salvation as well as Concord, to all Protestants that ever I knew or read, who deny a visible Universal Church Head, Personal or Collective; And I think to most in the World. And what Schism that is, I need not say.
II. If I am in the wrong, I am no Christian, nor Church Member, nor can be saved (For you say, [This Body so governed only hath the Spirit]: And I cannot help it; not knowing possibly how to know, 1. Who this College is? 2. What Councils. 3. Or which be the Laws which I must obey, 4. Nor with what degree of Obedience. 5. Nor that they have such Power. How great need have I then earnestly to beg your speedy help for my Information: Which will oblige
Your Servant Ri. Baxter. Decemb. 27. 1679.