Against the Revolt to a Foreign Jurisdiction, Chapter 19

Against the Revolt to a Foreign Jurisdiction · Chapter 19

p. 265Chap. XIX. Mr. Henry Dodwell's Leviathan further Anatomized.

§. 1. I Have already elsewhere (in two Books) detected the Schismatical and Tyrannical Doctrine of Mr. Dodwell in his tedious voluminous Accusation of the Reformed Churches as damnable Schismaticks, that Sin against the Holy Ghost, and have No right to Salvation by Christ. I recite now a few Passages that shew the Constitution of the Church he Pleads for.

Pag. 73. The Essential work of the Ministry according to my Principles, is to transact between God and Man; to Seal Covenants on behalf of God, and to accept of those which are made by Men, and to oblige them to perform their part of the Covenant by otherwise authoritatively excluding them from God's part.(a)(a)Paul saith, I was not sent to Baptize, but to Preach the Gospel of Christ, Mat. 28. And Paul to Timothy tell us of other parts as Essential: They can include or exclude none but those that include and exclude themselves, which shall be effectual whatever the Priest say or do; He is but a Minister, Invester and Declarer of it.Matt 28 Hence results the whole Power of Ecclesiastical Government. And for this, No great Gifts and Abilities are Essential. All the Skill that is requisite essentially, is only in general to know the Benefits to be performed on God's part, and the Duties to be performed on Mans, and the Nature p. 266and Obligation of Covenants in general, and the particular Solemnities of Ecclesiastical Covenants; And of this how any Man can be uncapable, who is but capable of understanding the common Dealings of the World—(b)(b)Then a Moscovian Priest may serve, or such as Optandus Bishop of Geneva was, illiterate: and one may be taken from any Shop or Cart that understands the Dealings of the World. But how much more requireth Paul to Timothy, and Chrysostom, &c. 2. And yet I, and all of my Degree, yea, all the Ministers or the Reformed Churches that disown his Leviathan, are uncapable of Ministry or Christian Communion by our ignorance. 3. But is the Nature of the Covenant-Benefits, Duties, &c. so easily known as he talks? And yet must we Perish for not knowing them.

Pag. 72. He sheweth that Immoralities of Life are not sufficient to deprive them of this High Power.

And of the Power it self he saith, Pag. 80, 81. It is not stated in Scripture, but to be measured by the Intention of the Ordainers, and that the Hypothesis (of God's setling in Scripture) is irreconcileable with Government in this Life, by permitting Men to appeal to Writings against all the visible Authority of this Life. (c)(c)Note here, that tho' his Priesthood have the Power of saving or damning Men; yet he confesseth the very office in Specie is not of God's making. For if it be not stated in Scripture, it is not in the meer Law of Nature; And our Church-Changers are no Prophets: And if God made not the office, then the arrogated Power is not his Gift.On the contrary (saith he) Our Hypothesis obliging inferiour Governours to prove their Title to their office, and the extent of it from the intention of their Superiour Governours, doth oblige all to a strict dependance p. 267on the Supreme visible Power, so as to leave no place for Appeals concerning the Practice of such Government (which as it lasts only for this life, so it ought not to admit of Disputes more lasting than its Practice) from them, and that upon rational and consciencious▪ Principles: for how fallible soever they may be conceived to be in expounding Scripture, yet none can deny them to be the most certain as well as the most competent Judges of their own Intentions: As certainly therefore as God made his Church (d)(d)Note that he speaketh of God's Church in the singular Number, and not of national Churches which are many.a visible Society, and constituted a visible Government in it, (e)(e)He hath constituted a Species of visible Governors over the several Parts, but no one (Personal or Collective) over the whole.so certain their Hypothesis is false.

P. 83. How can Subjects preserve (their due Subordination to their Superiours) if they practice differently? They may possibly do it notwithstanding Practices of Humane Infirmity, and disavowed by themselves; But how can they do it while they defend their Practices, and pretend Divine Authority for it? Yea, and pretend to Authority and Offices unaccountable to them; which must justifie a whole course of different Practices.

P. 84. If their Authority be immediately received from God, and the Rule of their Practices be taken from the Scriptures, as understood by themselves what reason can there be of subjection to any humane Superiours.(f)(f)Is it no Obedience unless it be absolute? Is none due to God above Man? Must not his Law be undorstood?

p. 268I Must intreat the Reader that he will not call any of these men Papists till they are willing to be so called: You are not their Godfathers: Do not then make Names for them. But I must confess that once I thought the stablished French Religion had been Popery, and I see no reason to recant it: But if Brierwood's Epistles mis-describe them not, Mr. Dodwell is not so much of their Mind, for the Supremacy of a General Council, as I thought he had been: Will you know my Evidence? It shall be only in his own words.

I. Separation of Churches, &c. Pag. 102. [The Church with whom this Covenant is made, is a Body Politick as formerly, though not a Civil one] and God hath designed all Persons to enter into this Society.

Pag. 98. Faith and Repentance themselves, on which they so much insist, are not available to Salvation, at least not pleadable in a Legal way, without our being of the Church: And the Church of which we are obliged to be, is an external Body Politick: (So that it's clear it is the Universal Church, and a visible Humane Politie which he meaneth.)

Pag. 107. [The design of God in erecting the Church a Body Politick, thus to oblige men to enter into it, and to submit to its Rules of Discipline however the secular State should stand affected— It is more easie for the vulgar Capacity whatsoever, to prove their interest in a visible Church, than in p. 269in an invisible one, consisting only of elect Persons.

In these, and many places of both his Books, he tells us, that the Catholick Church is One Body Politick, and hath on Earth a Supreme humane Government, which I have noted in his words in my Answer to him.

II. Pag. 488. Only the Supreme Power is that which can never be presumed to have been confined. (Of which more in his words which I have confuted.)

III. That the Intention of the Ordainers is the true measure of the Power of the Ordained, he copiously urgeth (and proveth as much as the Ringing a Bell will prove it, by loudness and length) Pag. 542. [Therefore the Power actually received by them, must not be measured by the true sence of the Scripture, but that wherein the Ordainers understood them.] Now the Ordainers of the first Protestants never intended them Power to abrogate the Mass, or Latin Service, or Image-worship, or to renounce the Pope, or gave them any Power but what was in Subordination to the Pope, but bound them to him and his Canons, and to the Mass, and the other parts of Popery. To prove this, he saith, [Pag. 489. It is very notorious that at least a little before the Reformation, Aerius and the Waldenses and Marsilius of Padua and Wickliff were Condemned for Hereticks, for asserting the Parity of Bishops and Presbyters: And it is as notorious that every Bishop was then obliged to Condemn all Heresies, that is, all those Doctrines which were then censured for Heretical by that Church, by which they were Ordained to be Bishops—Our Protestants themselves do not pretend to any Succession p. 270in these Western Parts, where themselves received their Orders, but what was conveyed to them even by such Bishops as these were.

And Pag. 484, 485, 486. he sheweth at large, [That All the Authority which can be pretended in any Communion at the present, must be derived from the Episcopal; especially of that Age wherein the several Parties began.—Within less than Two Hundred Years since, there was no Church in the World wherein a Visible Succession was maintained from the Apostles, which was not Episcopally Governed. And the first Inventers of the several Sects were at first Members of these Episcopal Churches **Or Papal, say others., and received both their Baptism in them, and all the Orders they received.—There was then no other Communion that could give this Authority.— Our Adversaries will not deny,— but that their Orders were received by them, were actually received by their Forefathers in the Episcopal Communion**And the Papal..—They have actually received no more Power from God, than they have received from their Ordainers;— For their Ordainers, are they, and they alone, who have represented Gods Person in dealing with them **Representing his Person is a high word. But he never enabled them to change his Laws, or Church-Offices; but only as Servants, to deliver that same Power by way of Investiture, which he had instituted and described in his Law, and was in their Commission: As the Londoners may not change the Lord Mayor's Office, but put him in that which the Charter maketh..— 2. They have actually received from their Superiors nothing but what their Superiors did actually intend p. 271to give them. One would think this should be very clear (a)(a)Yes: If the Bishops had been Makers of the Office, and Donors with absolute Power, and not only Servants entrusted to deliver their Masters Gifts and Offices..

To the Objection, that [They ought to have given more Power,] he answers, That only proveth that we have no more, if they wronged us.] Where now is all the Reformers Power? Did the Pope or his Bishops intend them any against himself?

IV. But yet he perceived that some might say, Particular Ordainers might have singular Intentions. (And I cannot tell him that as Richardus Armachanus, and abundance more thought Bishops and Presbyters to be ejusdem Ordinis, so did Jacobus Armachanus of late, and Bishop Downame and many other Bishops, and declared that Presbyters had Power of Ordination, but for Order sake it should not be without the Bishop, save in cases of necessity.) To this he saith, [That the Ordainers must be presumed to do according to the common sense of the Church and Canons.] But what if they declare the contrary? As Bishop Edw. Reinolds openly declared that he Ordained Presbyters into the same Order with Bishops, who were but the prime Presbyters; and that he was of Dr. Stillingfleet's Judgment, that no Form of Government was Jure Divino necessario.

Saith he, [Pag. 487. The Law is alway charitable to presume that every Man intends as becomes him to intend: (Very good.) But it's prudent to presume his actual Intention not from what others do think will become him, no nor from what will really become him in the Judgment of God.— Therefore p. 272they must not judge of the Intention of the Bishop by the real Will of God **I am wholly of your Mind, specially as to the Pope and his Bishops: But I'll judge of their Power by the Will of God..

Supposing us to be [Proud of the Suffrages of the Schoolmen, pag. 492.493. He suspecteth, It was rather Picque than Conscience that brought them to it. (Alas! Were not the Schoolmen Prelatical enough? Many of them were Bishops, and one was a Pope at least.)

And the Council at Basil that allowed Presbyters deciding Votes, and St. Jerome, and the Reformers, all fall under his Censure for the like; viz. That Necessity put them on it as a Shift, or else the Pope by the Vote of Bishops would have carried it; and he justifieth not the Necessities choice, but concludeth, Pag. 496, 497. If it be suspicious whether the Men who then followed these Principles did embrace them out of a sincere sense of their Truth, then they cannot be presumed to have been Principles of Conscience. Which if they were not, this is sufficient to shew that they are not fit Measures of the Power that was actually given by the Bishops of that Age.] I confess, I had thought that the Papist Bishops Intention had not been the Measure of the Power of Bishops or Presbyters: And that Mr. Dodwell had not been so much against the Council of Basil as unjust Conspirators by ill means to overtop the Pope.

He saith truly, Pag. 505. [Most certainly they who were of this Opinion, (the Papists) could not intend to follow the Doctrine of the Wicklefists and Waldenses, who had been lately censured for maintaining the Equality of Bishops and Presbyters.] No p. 273nor the Doctrine of Luther, Cranmer, or such as the Church of England hath held.

V. Yet being forced to confute himself, he saith, p. 52. [It is sufficient for my purpose that Ecclesiastical …ower be no otherwise from God, than that is of every Supreme Civil Mugistrate. It is not usual for Kings to be invested in their Offices by other Kings, but by their Subjects. Yet when they are invested, that doth not in the least prejudice the Absoluteness of their Monarchy, where the fundamental Constitutions of the respective places allow to them.] (And hath not God's fundamental Law as much Power?) much less doth it give any Power over them to the persons by whom they are invested.

If the Power of Episcopacy be Divine, and all that men can do in the case be only to determine the Person, not to confine his Power, &c. (what kept the man from seeing how great a part of his Book he here confuteth?) Doth he not confess now that God's Law may give the Power, which men may not alter, but only determine of the Person to receive it? In the case of the Presbyters Office he will have it otherwise, because the Bishops are, forsooth, not only the Investers, but the Donors, who give just what they please; and he proveth it fully, by saying it confidently and copiously: Because God giveth it not immediately: Yes, he immediately by his Spirit in the Apostles, instituted the species, though he do not immediately chuse the Receiver. But who giveth the Bishops their Power? The Council is above them: Do they give them their Power? Who giveth them theirs? And who giveth the Pope his Power? If his may be given by Divine Charter without a Humane Donor, but a meer Invester, why may not a Presbyters?

p. 274VI. But it is the Vicedeity that is his great foundation. Pag. 543. saith he, [Nor is there any reason for them to oppose God and the Church as they do on this and other occasions **The Church is the Bishops and Council, the Pope being President.If the Churches Authority be received from God, then what is done by Her, is to be presumed to come from him, the same way as what is done by any man's Proxy is presumed to be his own act: And as what is done by an Inferior Magistrate by virtue of his Office, is presumed to come from the Supreme.]

This is in Answer to an Objection, That [the Powers united by God are inseparable by any Humane Authority: But the Power of Ordination is by God united to the other Rights of Scripture Presbyters, &c.] He answers [If our Adversaries mean, that those Presbyters who had both those Powers united in them by God, could not be deprived of the one without the other, nor of any by any Humane Authority; this, if it should prove true is a case wherein our present Ordinations are not concerned, which were not received in those times, wherein our Adversaries pretend to prove that these two Powers were inseparably united **That is, in Scripture times. Dr. Hammond confesseth the same: And yet we are all no Ministers, and have no Sacraments, nor right to Salvation, if we have not uninterrupted successive Episcopal Ordination from those times.. They may be separated de facto, tho' they who separate them be to blame for so doing.—If they were then united by God, because they were united by the men who represented God, why are they not disunited by God now when men alike impowered by him have disunited them? Why should they not oblige God in one case as well as the other?

p. 275Readers, you see here the Core of the Churches disease, and chief of our differences: 1. By the Church they mean not the People, but the Prelates and Councils headed by their great President. 2. They suppose these to be God's Proxies, and that God doth what they do, and they so oblige God to stand to it, and men to take it as God's act. 3. They suppose these Prelates and their President alike impowered by God, as the Apostles were; and therefore God by his Proxies now may undo what he did by his Proxies then. Do you now wonder if Pope and Council by Canons have power from God to make new Canonical Scriptures, and new Universal Laws for the Church; yea and for the World? And if these may undo the Scripture Laws and Institutions, and make other Sacraments and Worship in their stead?

But Protestants have long ago proved, 1. That there is no Vice-God, and that God hath no Proxies or proper Representatives with whom he hath entrusted his Power so, as that their word must lead, and he will follow: But only Embassadors, whose Message is prescribed them by God, and they are to speak and do only what he bids them, and he will own it, and not that which they add of their own, or which they do against his Word.

2. That the present Pastors have not the same power as the Apostles had; who were commissioned to deliver Christ's Commands to the World, and enabled for it by the Spirit of Infallibility and Miracles: Even as the Jewish Priests had not the Power of Moses, nor could change a tittle of the Law, but only keep it, teach it, and apply it.

VII. That he and his followers are for a Supreme p. 276Governing Visible Humane Power over the Universal Church, is a thing that I need not cite their words further to prove. Mr. Thorndike, Bishop Bromhall, Bishop Gunning, Bishop Sparrow, Dr. Saywell, and the rest of that mind, are not ashamed of it. And it is a General Council that by some of them is supposed to be this Supreme Power: And when I have proved against Johnson that there never was a General Council of the Christian World, but of the Empire, I can get none of them to answer me (save that when the Empire was broken, some of the pieces came together for a Job at Florence, &c.) But it is the Pope's right, saith Bishop Bromhall, to be President and Patriarch of the West; (which Thorndike and others largelier insist on as the necessary Principium Vnitatis, which turned poor Grotius to them for Unity. But I confess I thought Mr. Dodwell had been more for a Councils Power than I find he is.

The Protestants believe no Supreme Governor of the whole Church but Christ. Dr. Iz. Barrow of the Unity of the Church, hath fully overthrown the fiction of a human Supreme Aristocracy as well as of a Monarchy: But an Union of all the parts in one Head Christ, we all believe, and consequently a Communion among themselves.

VIII. But what Mr. Dodwell's Judgment is of the Power of the Council, and whether the Supremacy be in it, or in the President, I will tell you only in his own words; supposing the Reader to know that the Papists so far differ among themselves, that 1. Some are for the Pope's Supremacy alone, the Council being but his Counsellors, as some are for the Kings, the Parliament being but p. 277his Counsellors. 2. Some are for the Councils Superiority over the Pope, as some say Parliaments are greater than the King, and urge his old Oath to pass such Laws quas Vulgus elegerit; so say they, the Pope must own those that the Council passeth; yea, that they may depose him if he deserve it. 3. Some say that Universal Legislation belongs only to the Pope and Council agreeing, the Pope being to Call and Approve them: And this is the prevailing Opinion among them; so that the Controversie is much like that which men have raised about Kings and Parliaments. Now, saith Mr. Dodwell,

[Ch. 24. Pag. 509, &c. Even by the Principles of Aristocratical Government, no Power can be given validly, but to persons who are are at least in conjunction with those from whom they receive their Power— Subordinate Authority must be derived from the Supreme. No act can be presumed to be the act of the whole Body, but what has passed them in their Publick Assemblies, (in which Body is the Right of Government) — so it have the prevailing Vote: Nay, though that prevailing Vote be not the greater part of the Society, so it be the greater part present at such Assemblies **What an happy advantage hath the Pope, that can get forty Italians together at Trent, seven years before he can send to, and they come from Mexico, Abassia, Armenia, and all the World. There is an Art in all things, and men live by their wits., God himself cannot be supposed to have made a Government, even of his own Institution, practicable, till he have setled these Rules of Administring it ††Sir, God will not learn of you: But God hath made no such Government at all, Monarchy or Aristocracy.. As nothing but the Society it self can in justice make a valid Conveyance of its Right, so it is not conceivable how the Society it self can do it by any thing but its own act.

p. 278If this be so, 1. Mark that this man disclaimeth any other Divine Institution than by the Society. 2. The People that have no Power, being the greater part of the Society or Church, give the Bishop and Pope, and Council their Power. 3. If the Clergy were all the Church, the Presbyters give that Power to the Bishops and Pope, which they had not themselves. 4. All runs on the false Antimonarchical and Anarchical Principle, which I have confuted in Hooker, that the Body makes Power by giving up their own Right. 5. Then the General Councils and Pope have no Power: For the Body of the Universal Church never gave it them, but the Emperors, (save as to Teaching and Arbitrations.) 6. Then in those Countries where the Body of Clergy and People put down Bishops, there Bishops are put down by such as had Power to do it. For 1. If man may set up Diocesans, Popes and Councils, man may take them down.

Yet the Proteus changeth his face, and presently supposeth [that the whole Right of these Assemblies could not have proceeded from the bare consent of the Society, but from the actual Establishment of God.— No Assemblies can dispose of the Rights of such Societies, but such as are lawful ones according to the Constitutions of that Society.—As out of Assemblies they have no power to act who might act in them, how many soever of the Suffrages, and how freely soever they had been gotten; so all those Meetings, how numerous soever, for acts of Government, if they be not Legal, they add nothing of advantage to the power of particulars singly considered. They are not in the Eye of the Law, Assemblies, but Routs, and their concurrence, not Consent, but Confederacy: And as it p. 279were Rebellion in particular persons to attempt any thing of that nature concerning the Government without the consent of their present Established Governours;—so is there nothing in such a Meeting that can give them any Power as united more than they had as singly considered, that may excuse them from Rebellion **A General Council meeting without the Call of the Pope their Established Governour, are Rebels.. Nay rather, by the Principles of all Societies, that which had not been Rebellion, if done singly, is counted so, if it be done in unlawful Assemblies. And sure none can think it reasonable to ratifie the acts of Rebells. — And if the Society be not represented by unlawful Assemblies, how can it in justice be obliged by them? How can any of its Rights be disposed of by them who are not its Legal Representatives **1. Hath the King no power but as a Representative? If yea, why not others? 2. Who made Pope or Prelates the Representatives of those that never consented to them?. —P. 513. The most natural way is by abrogating the acts of such Assemblies. Therefore the Jurisdiction of the Assembly by the President, is a right consequent of the Office of a President, as a President, and a circumstance requisite to make the Assembly it self lawful—specially where no certain places or periods of times are agreed on for the keeping of any **Now we know what Councils have Authority: Only those appointed by the President.. There must be some who have the power of Assembling them, when they judge it convenient for the publick, and who may be allowed for competent Judges of that convenience.— Every one is not permitted to judge of the occasion.— But there is none concerning whom this Power can so probably be presumed—None to whom all undisposed p. 280Power, does by the common Rules of all Societies, so naturally Escheat, as the President of the Assemblies. Even in the Assemblies a Veneration is due to him, for his Office above all other Members, but much more so out of the Assemblies, where none is in a likely way to be able to oppose him. He who calls an Assembly must have some advantage over all the Members called by him, that he may oblige them to convene, and it is necessary to the Publick that they be obliged to meet when they are so called, that is, when the IVDGE of Circumstances thinks it necessary, &c. But there is none who can pretend to this advantage, I do not say, of Jurisdiction, but even of Authority and Reverence, above his fellow Members, besides the President.

Besides, the Power of such Assemblies expires with the Assemblies themselves: so that in the intervals of Assemblies there remains no more of that Power, &c. But the Convening of Assemblies is an act of Authority, in that very interval, and therefore cannot agree to any but the President, whose Authority alone can be antecedent to the meeting of the Assemblies; so that if it be the right of any it must be his, because none besides him is capable of it.

Answ. 1. Did Hosius of Corduba, or Eustathius Antiochenus, or Cyril Alexandr. Anatolius Const. &c. call the Councils of Nice, Ephesus, &c. or had an Antecedent right to it? 2. Hath no King or Parliament a right to call a Convocation in England? 3. Have not K. James, Jewel, Crakenthorpe, Buckeridge, Bilson, Carlton, Abbot, Field, Andrews, and other English Bishops and Divines, and Chamier, Sadeel, Chemnisius, and the rest abroad, fully proved that the Emperors called the General Councils, as did the Spanish and French Kings, and the Emperor Provincial ones. 4. Doth not p. 281every Conformist Subscribe to the Articles of Religion, which say, that General Councils may not be called but by the Will of Princes? Though Mr. Dodwell have the plain Honesty not to be Ordained or Subscribe these English Articles, Mr. Thorndike, Bishop Bromhall, Bishop Guning, Dr. Saywell, Dr. Parker, &c. I suppose did; But let us hear him further.

And this is more certainly true of him who has a right to preside in Assemblies when they are convened by Virtue of his General Right to preside over the whole Society, as well when Assemblies are not Convened as when they are, than of him who is chosen by the particular Assemblies for their particular Occasions. And he who has his Precedency not by virtue of any particular Election, but for term of Life, must have such a Presidency as I am speaking of. Not only the Assemblies convened by him are in this regard lawful; but also no Assemblies are lawful but what are called by him, because there is no other way of making them lawful, but the lawfulness of their Call; nor any Power to Call them distinct from that of such a President.

Do you wonder that this Man Conformeth not? Or do you not wonder that those Subscribe and are called Protestants that are of his Mind? If they can answer the Articles, the King and Parliament, that say the King hath Power to call Synods, what do they make of their Readers that obtrude such Baronian fictions on us, without once attempting to answer Protestants, who with all credible Historians, prove it past all modest Contradiction that Emperors were the ordinary Callers of the General Councils, and not the Presidents or Pope.

p. 282Pag. 516, 517. He goeth on asserting Assemblies called without the President to be unlawful, nullities, and by the highest common interest to be punished (so far must we think the Councils of Nice, Ephesus, &c. to be from binding us) and saith, [Indeed the Bishops could not renounce this Power without dissolving the Society by making the Exercise of Government unpracticable, or without changing the whole frame of Government; For— who must have it? If none had had it, how could the Society be secured, that Assemblies should meet if none had Power to oblige particular Members to be present at them when called? If at any time no meeting were ascertained, the Government would be dissolved?

Ans. 1. Did this reading Man never hear of the Claim of Princes to call Councils in their Dominions? Did he not know where he lived? Did he never read the late Act of Parliament in Scotland, that asserts all Church-Power in Exteriors to be in the King? Nor any of the Protestants Confessions or Divines? Should I think he had quite forgotten all this? or that he had the craft to take no notice of it, as that which was too hot to handle?

2. And was it not a piece of Wit to take it for granted that such Assemblies (as he calleth the Councils) are so Essential to the Church, that the Government and Society is dissolved without them, or without a Ruling Presidents Power to call them? And the Pope must have a Power to oblige all particulars to come when he calleth them? And no wonder when (unless Men be Cheaters) the whole Power Escheateth into the Presidents hands when the Council is dissolved; which is p. 283when ever his Holiness please: And long enough may you Petition him for these Church Parliaments, when to call them, is to surrender part of his Power.

Answ. 3. But what if all these Church Councils as such have no Governing Power at all over any of the particular Bishops, any more than a Synod of Schoolmasters have over each others Persons and Schools, but meet only by Christ's general Obligation to do all their work with greatest Prudence for Mutual Help and Concord? He hath been told on both Ears oft enough that this is not only his Adversaries Judgment, but such great Bishops as I have oft named: yea, and of Grotius his Friend, when he wrote de Imp. sum. Potest. And where do you find this Disputant once attempt in all this begging presuming Volume to prove any Regent Power in such Councils (but what the Magistrate giveth them.)

Monstra mihi, inquit Hieron. quisnam Imperatorum celebrari id Concilium jusserit? saith Grotius, (ib. P. 168.) Non ideo convocari Synodum quod in ea pars sit Imperii, satis jam demonstratum arbitror: Finis ergo, ut Episcopus Wintoniensis recte notat, hic est, ut ad veritatis & Pietatis amplificationem Consilium Principi praebeant; hoc est, Praeeant ipsi judicio directivo— & ut per Synodum stabili…i testata que fieri possit Consensio Ecclesiae.— Omnium autem horum finium nullus est necessarius simpliciter. Ne que Synodus simpliciter ad illos fines necessaria. This he goeth on to prove, and more than so, that Synods are oft hurtful (as well as unnecessary, Cum potius, saith August. rarissimae inveniantur haereses propter quas damnandas necessitas talis exstiterit.) I will not repeat, saith Grotius, the Complaint of almost all Ages, that the p. 284chief Diseases were brought into the Church à Sacerdotibus: citing Nazianzen, he addeth, Ne que agit de Arianis duntaxat Synodis, sed de omnibus suorum temporum, praecipue quibus ipse interfuit (Mr. Morrice might easily know this)—Nec pauca referri possunt si opus sit infoeliciorum conciliorum exempla, quale fuit sub Constantino Antiochenum, Caesariense & Tyrium, cujus conventus Episcopis scribens Constantinus, nihil ait ab illis fieri, nisi quod ad odia & dissensiones serendas, ad perniciem deni que humani generis faciat.—Zanchy's way cited by him, is oft better than Councils, that the Magistrate command Ministers in Controversies, 1. Vti non suis sed Scripturae vocibus, 2. Et à publicâ damnatione abstinere.

And Pag. 209. saith Grotius, The Church hath no Legislative Power by Divine Right—What was written in Synods before Christian Emperors for Order and Ornament, are not called Laws but Canons, and have either only the force of advice, as in things which rather belong to singular persons than to all; or they oblige by way of Agreement, &c. But some Legislative Power may be given by humane Laws.—

But perhaps some will say that Mr. Dodwell speaketh only of National, or Provincial, or Diocesane Councils, and not of General ones, and therefore by the fixed President, meaneth not the Pope.

Answ. 1. I would he were willing and able to tell what he meaneth. But he felt what a fine advantage he had under the Name of Bishops Presidency to please a Party, and say more than every one of them shall at first perceive. But he expresly maintaineth that the Universal Church is one Political Society, and hath a visible Supreme humane p. 285Government that is Absolute, and from which there is no appeal: And that this Society hath Legislative Power, and is bound but by the Laws made in its own Assemblies: And that these Assemblies are Rebels, and punishable if not called by the President: And though Mr. D. had the Prudence to use the word President rather than Pope, if ever he speak intelligibly it's here. And Mr. Thorndike (whom he valueth as a sound Protestant) Archbishop Bromhall, and the rest of the Tribe, do openly assert the due Presidence of the Pope, as Principium Vnitatis and first Patriarch.

Saith Mr. Dodwell further, Pag. 522, 523. [Supposing those Presbyters that chose the President had invested him in his Office by Prayer and Imposition of hands, and no Bishops had any more to do in his Consecration, than Kings have in the Inauguration of our ordinary Kings—it will not follow that those Presbyters who chose and consecrated him, must have any more Power over him—Nor is it only true that this way may be so—but indeed it must be so; whenever the Person so invested is supposed to be invested in the Supreme Power, and whenever the Society over which he is placed is also Independent on other Societies [As the Universal Church is] Such a Person can never be placed in his Power, if not by them who must after be his Subjects, unless by his Predecessor, which no Society can safely depend on for a constant rule of Succession. (And doth any but the Pope pretend to this Soveraign place)? In his own Society he can have none of his own Order that can perform the Ceremony to him, because we suppose Him to be Supreme; and there cannot be two such in one Society. (True: And you make it your fundamental that the Catholick Church is one such Society; and so must have such a Supreme).

p. 286And it's worth the noting which he adds [And therefore I, for my part, am so little solicitous for any consequence that may be hence inferred to the prejudice of my Cause, as that I am apt to think that this must have been the way at first in the making of Bishops, how Absolute soever I conceive them to have been when they were once made.—

Ans. Are we not beholden to the Universal Presidentship for this concession? I forced Johnson, alias Terret to the same: And yet both these men cry down a Power resulting from God's Law or Charter to the person duly receptive, when yet the Instance of the Papacy constraineth them to make it their foundation. Why then must Presbyterian Ordination be Nullity, if Inferiors only chuse and Consecrate the Pope, and Presbyters only at first chose and Consecrated Bishops?

Obj. The difference is, that such Inferiors are but Electors and Investing Ministers, and not Donors of the Power, but Popes and Prelates are Donors.

Ans. 1. Then no Prelate could be such but by the Popes or Councils donation. 2. Doth not Mr. D. oft say, that the Body is the seat of Power, and so giveth it? 3. But why should he think that we must take his word for this difference and the Prelatical Donation instead of Ministry? Do not the Papists themselves more commonly hold that the Presbyters (or Priests) Office is of fixed Divine Institution, and more unalterable, than that the Bishops is? The latter is disputed; the former undisputable. (It may be Mr. D. will thus prove that he is no Papist: But I had rather he be one than worse.)

Nay, what will you say if after all he be half an Independent?

p. 287P. 523. saith he, [This seems best to agree with the Absoluteness of Particular Churches, before they had by compact united themselves under Metropolitanes and Exarchs into Provincial and Diocesan Churches.—And this seems to have been fitted for the frequent Persecutions of those earlier Ages, when every Church was able to secure its own Suecession by its own power withoue depending on the certain opportunities of the meeting of the Bishops of the whole Province. And the alteration of this practice, the giving the Bishops of the Province an interest in the Choice of every particular Colleague, seems not to have been so much for want of power in the particular Churches to do it, as for the security of Compacts, that they might be certain of such a Colleague as would observe them. — And he thinks [it probable that it was in imitation of the Philosophers Successions, that these Ecclesiastical Successions were framed.— And when the Philosophers failed to nominate their own Successors, then the Election was in the Schools.]

Ans. What could be said more gently by such a man? 1. Then the first Churches were like Philosophers Schools; very good; not many score or hundred Schools as the first and least Order. 2. The Government of Churches was much like that of Philosophers in their Schools. 3. Bishops (and much more Presbyters) might be made then without Bishops, by the Election and Consecration of Presbyters. 4. This was the old way in time of Persecution. 5. This alteration was not for want of Power in the Particular Churches, &c. 6. But it was made to secure Observance in the Colleagues. 7. And Church Successions framed in imitation of Philosophers.

p. 288We shall in due time enquire whether we are all bound to stand to these changes, on pain of all the scorn and sufferings that the followers of them will lay upon us.

Will you know more of this Self-confutation? In his Preface he saith, [P. 4. I suppose all Churches Originally equal, and that they have since submitted to prudential Compacts.

But are not all we (poor nothings then) obliged on pain of damnation to stand to all that our Fore-fathers did? And must we not take the Imperial Subjects of Asia, Africa and Europe, (we know not who) for our Fore-fathers in Brittain? and be of that Heathens mind that drew back from Baptism, when he heard his Fore-fathers were in Hell, and said, that he would be where they were? No, this moderate man tells you, [Though they may oblige them as long as the reason of these Compacts lasts, and as far as the equity of those Compacts may hold, as to the true design of those that made them, and as far as those Compacts have meddled with the alienable Rights of Particular Churches; yet where any of these Conditions fail, there the Particular Churches are at liberty to resume their Antient Rights.

Obj. Yea, but who shall judge when any of of these Conditions fail?

He answers next [And I suppose the power of judging when these Conditions fail to be an unalienable Right of Particular Churches, and not only to judge with the Judgment of private discretion, but such a Judgment as may be an authentick measure of her own practice.

We thank you Sir, that you give us so fair quarter: But if you had not, had we known p. 289where, we should have commenced a Suit for our Native and Christian Birth-right, and put you to prove quo jure John, Thomas, Peter, &c. meeting a thousand years ago we know not why, nor when, nor by what Authority, did give away the Birth-right and the Souls of an hundred millions not then in being, that never consented or heard of their names, nor were bound to know that there was such a City as Rome, Nice, &c. or such men as Leo, Tharasius, &c. in the World. And if you had answered us according to the Roman genius with Gaols, or Fire and Faggot, we would have appealed to God whether you and all such will or not; and when God judgeth, do your wor…t.

But would you think what a stress this Humane Catholick layeth on innovating Prelates Compacts? He adds after all this,

P. 6. Whoever they were that nominated the persons, whether the People, the Clergy, or the Prince, or the Pope; yet still they were the Bishops that performed the Office of Consecration; which was that which was then thought immediately to confer the Power.

Ans. You were not then in being, and therefore did not then think it.—And you know mens thoughts so long before you were born no better than others; Oportet fuisse memorem. Had you not memory enough to make your Preface meet with your Book, where you say that Presbyters did Consecrate Bishops, and yet did not give them the Power? and say that as to the Supreme President, (we know his name) it must still be otherwise.

Yet this fundamental Humanist concludeth, p. 11. [They must be guilty of disobedience to the Divine Government, — Guilty of giving or abetting a Divine Authority in Men to whom God has never given p. 290such Authority, nay in opposition to all the Authority, he has really established among men. They must be guilty of forging Covenants in Gods Name, and counterfeiting the great Seals of Heaven in ratification of them. And what can be more Treasonable by all the Principles of Government? What is more provoking and more difficultly pardonable — They must be guilty of sinning against the Holy Ghost, and unto Death, and of the sins described in the passages of the Epistle to the Hebrews, with which none do terrifie the Consciences of ignorant unskilful persons more than they do. They must be guilty of such sins which as they need pardon more than others; so do they in the nature of the things themselves more effectually cut off the offender from all hopes of pardon in an ordinary way. By being disunited from the Church, he loses his Union with Christ, and all the Mystical benefits consequent to that Vnion. He has therefore no Title to the Sufferings, or Merits, or Intercession of Christ, or any of those other blessings which were purchased by those Merits, or which may be expected from those Intercessions. He has no Title to pardon of sin, to the gifts and assistants of the blessed Spirit, or to any Promises of future Rewards, though he should perform ALL OTHER PARTS OF HIS DVTY, besides this of uniting himself again to Christ's Mystical Body in a VISIBLE COMMVNION: Till then, there are no promises of acceptance of any Prayers which either he may offer for himself, or others may offer for him. And how disconsolate must the condition of such a person be!

And pag. 20. Suppose I were mistaken—why should they take it ill to be warned of a danger?—

Ans. 10. What harm was it for those, Act. 15. to say, Except ye be circumcised and keep the Law of p. 291Moses, ye cannot be saved? And yet did Paul rail when he said, Beware of evil-workers, beware of Dogs, beware of the Concision? What Sect cannot easily without a Doctors degree thus dispute? You are all damned that be not of our mind or Sect. But the Devil hurts those most whom he least affrighteth.

Ans. 2. What if we put this to wise men to tell us, 1. How he can prove that all the Christian World agreed to the Compacts that bring us under these hellish consequences. I provoke him again to answer my proof against Terret, that they were the Compacts but of one Empire?

2. How proveth he that we Brittains are under such Compacts, when our Ancestors (and the Scots) renounced Communion with the Romanists?

3. If our Ancestors after turned to Popery or Church-Tyranny, how proveth he that we are any more bound to sin as they did, than if they had turned to Arianism or Turcism? when Ezek. 18. & 33. speak for the clean contrary.

4. What if we prove that Christ hath himself given the Church in the Scriptures, an account of his own Institution of Church-Form and Government, as much as is necessary to its Essence, Unity and Salvation, and that all altering Compacts contrary to this are diabolical: Will Christ damn us for not breaking his Laws, and serving the Devil? Is it the sin against the Holy Ghost, and unpardonable, not to despise Christ's Laws, and not to obey the Devil?

5. What if we prove to him that the very Species of his Prelacy, and specially of a Supreme Catholick Jurisdiction is condemned by Christ, and Treason against him? Are we Traytors for not being Traytors?

p. 2926. What if we prove to him, that according to his very Canons, the Pope and Bishops that he damns us for not owning, are no Bishops, having no true Call and Title to that which they pretend to?

Will you have yet another of his Self-contradictions? P. 7. [I cannot but look on it as an Argument that God never intended to oblige Particular Churches to as great a dependence on other Churches as that is wherein he has obliged Subjects to depend on their own Churches, because by his contrivance of things it does not follow, that Separating Churches must be left as destitute of the ordinary means of Salvation on their separation from other Churches, as particular Subjects are on their separation from their own Churches— Abating what obligations they have brought on themselves by their own Compacts, God has made them equal.—There is no way of judging who is in the right, but by the intrinsick merit of the Cause. I really believe that the true original design of those Compacts whereby particular Churches have voluntarily submitted to restrictions of their original Power, was ONLY that every particular Church might have her Censures confirmed in all other Churches in reference to those who were originally her own Subjects; not to gain a Power over any other Subjects but her own; nor to submit to any other Power, &c. Alas! And have Compacts by we know not who brought us all into the snare of the unpardonable sin? Though Christ died for the World, he saveth none but Consenters: And can Men in Asia, in Towns whose Names we poor Countreymen never heard of, make Laws to Damn all to the Worlds end, that obey them not; and this without our own Consent?

p. 293To conclude, this Gentleman hath yet an easie remedy against all this: He doth indeed frequently prove (if you will believe him) that though you have Faith that works by Love, and do all other duty, (that is in Love to God and Man) you cannot be saved without external Communion, that is, subjection to this humanly compacted Catholick Church; so said Pope Nicholas long ago, yea and Aeneas Sylvius when Pius 2d, that all other Graces and Duties will not save a Man that is not subject to the Bishop of Rome: But saith this Man, p. 13. They may easily avoid the danger only by returning to the Catholick Vnity. Mark Catholick Vnity. National Unity will not serve: We grant it. But what Catholick Vnity is, and whether Catholick Councils with a Catholick President that hath an Antecedent Power to call and oblige them, without which they are null, rebellious and punishable, and to whom all Power escheateth in the Intervals of Councils, whether I say, this be necessary to Catholick Unity, or to Antichristian Church Tyranny is the doubt.

I will conclude this with Dr. Iz. Barrow's Theses, p. 255.

1. Patriarchs are an Humane Institution.

2. As they were erected by the Power and Prudence of Men▪ so they may be dissolved by the same.

3. They were erected by the leave and confirmation of Princes, and by the same they may be dejected, if great reason do appear.

4. The Patriarchate of the Pope beyond his own Province or Diocess doth not subsist upon any Canon of a general Synod.

5. He can therefore claim no such Power otherwise than upon his Invasion or Assumption.

p. 2946. The Primates and Metropolitans of the Western Church cannot be supposed otherwise than by force or one of fear to have submitted to such an Authority as he doth Vsurp.

7. It is not really a Patriarchal Power, (like that granted by the Canons and Princes) but another sort of Power which the Pope doth Exercise.

8. The most rightful Patriarch holding false Doctrine, or imposing unjust Laws, or Tyrannically abusing his Power may and ought to be rejected from Communion.

9. Such a Patriarch is to be judged by a free Synod if it may be had.

10. If such a Synod cannot be had by consent of Princes, each Church may free it self from the mischiefs induced by his perverse Doctrine and Practice.

11. No Ecclesiastical Power can interpose in the management of any Affairs within the Territory of any Prince without his Concession.

12. By the Laws of God, and according to ancient Practice, Princes may model the Bounds of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, erect Bishopricks, enlarge, diminish or transfer them as they please.

13. Wherefore each Prince having Supream Power in his own Dominion and equal to the Emperors in his, may exclude any Foreign Prelate from Jurisdiction in his Territories.

14. It is expedient for the publick peace and good that he should do thus.

15. Such Prelate according to the Rules of Christianity, ought to be content with his doing so.

16. Any Prelate Exercising Power in the Dominion of any Prince, is eatenus his Subject; as the Popes and all Bishops were to the Roman Emperor.

p. 29517. Those Joints of Ecclesiastical Discipline Established in the Roman Empire by the Confirmation of Emperors, were (as to necessary continuance) dissolved by the dissolution of the Roman Empire.

18. The Power of the Pope in the Territories of any Prince did subsist by his Authority and Favour.

19. By the same Power as Princes have curbed the Exorbitancy of Papal Power in some Cases, (of entertaining Legates, making Appeals, disposing of Benefices, &c.) by the same they might exclude it.

20. The practice of Christianity doth not depend on the subsistence of such a form instituted by man.

As to Mr. Dodwell's fundamental Opinion (that the Minister can have no Power which the Ordainer intended not to give him) He overthroweth by it all the Reformation and all the English reforming Ministry, as derived from the Roman Ordination: For it's certain that the Roman Bishops intended not to give them Power to reform, or to Worship God as they have done.

And the Protestants are against him: Saith Dr. Challoner (in his Credo Eccles. Cath. p. 95.) However the Priest at the Baptizing, or the Bishop at the Ordination, had another meaning, yet the words wherewith they Baptized and Ordained being the words of Christ, are to be taken in Christs meaning; in as much as he which receiveth from another, is to receive it according to the intention of the Principal Giver, and not the Instrumental Giver. He which confers Baptism and Orders as the Principal Donor is Christ; the Bishop or Pastor confers them only as his Instruments.] So others.

As all Power is of God and must be obeyed, so Usurpation is of Satan, and the higher the worse; and the word Antichrist is supposed by p. 296many to signifie one that is a Vsurping Christ, that is, a Usurper of Vniversal Soveraignty which none but Christ is capable of.

Mr. Jos. Glanviles Character of Devils or Evil Spirits in his Sadduc…ismus Triumphatus is considerable, p. 33. and 42. Edit. 2. [The meanest and basest in the Kingdom of darkness — having none to Rule and Tyrannize over within the Circle of their own Nature and Government, they affect a proud Empire over us, the desire of Dominion and Authority being largely spread through the whole circumference of degenerated Nature, especially among those whose Pride was their Original Transgression: Every one of these desireth to get him Vassals to pay him Homage. —

The good Angels have no such ends to prosecute, as the gaining any Vassals to serve them, they being Ministring Spirits for our good, and no self-designers for a proud and insolent Dominion over us.

But I think no Devil but Beelzebub the Prince aspireth so high as to be Ruler of all the World or Church: And when Cardinal Bertrand told Philip King of France that God had not been Wise if he had not set up one as his Vicegerent visibly to Rule all the World, I do not find that he set up that Vice-god so far above God himself as to forbid obeying him before his Viceroy, or to deny Gods Universal Laws to be above Mans, and to deny all Appeals to God and his Word, or to say that the President of Counsels must be obeyed without excepting,

If Gods Laws and his be inconsistent.

Since the Writing of all foregoing, Mr. Dodwell hath Published the Second Part of his Leviathan, p. 297called, A Discourse of one Altar and one Priesthood, as against us whom he calleth Schismaticks, and me in particular. It is much of the Complexion of the First Part, (His Schismatical Book) being a Chain of many linked Propositions, of which many are false, and many falsly shaped and applied: But put off with a confident Affirmation that he hath proved them true; And his former Method is defended by as confident an Affirmation, that all that is said against them invalidates not his proof. The shortest way, I confess, of defending himself, and answering others, and saveth the labour of much Writing and Reading: And I think if the tedious Discourses of his two Volumes had been just so abbreviated, it had been a Kindness to his Readers.

§ 2. Whether he reserve his Answer to my last Book against him to another Treatise, or mean to overpass it by saying it is contemptible, I know not, nor much desire to know. I find him here in his Preface doing that which may serve his turn much better than an answer, viz. 1. Many angry Charges that I slander him; 2. An attempt to prove it agreeable to his Method. 3. Confident Affirmation that I write not accurately, nor answer his Proofs. And to those that read his Books and not mine, this is enough.

§ 3. His Proof of my Slander is mostly by way of question; Where did I say this or that? Where, 1. Those things that I spake of others, he feigneth me to say of him: Joyning divers late Writers together, I mention what is said among them, some one part, and some another, and he takes all to himself. 2. When I mention the clear Consequences of his Doctrine. 3. And when in my p. 298Letters I recite his Verbal Discourse with me, he asks, Where have I said it.

Did I not find him a designed Hider, I would not suspect designed Fraud, but should be very glad that he so much as intimateth in his Questions a denial of so many Errors; But who can choose but suspect his Sincerity in such seeming Denials, who findeth some of them unsincere. E. g. He asketh (Pref.) Where did I once call Thomas Aquinas a Saint? This startleth me: Many times have my Ears heard him call him [Saint Thomas] and never once heard him call him otherwise. And doth he now seem to deny it? I never said that he so wrote, but so called him. Had I not reason to believe that when he oft calls (the Church of Christ in the singular Number; One Political Body under One humane Government which all must obey, and not question, whether it's Laws be agreeable to the Law of God] that he meant the Church Catholick, and not a Diocess? There are Thousands of Diocesses; but the Church that he spake of is but One. Had I any reason to believe that when he talkt of the sole right of the President to call Councils or Assemblies to make Church Canons, that he meant only Diocesans? When as a Diocesane hath no Bishops under him to Convocate? And whether it be not Convocate Bishops to whom he appropriateth this Legislation, let the Reader judge as he seeth cause.

§ 4. But I abhor making any Man thought to own what he disowneth. And I gladly receive his intimated Denyals in these Questions; and tender them to the Consideration of all that are for a foreign Jurisdiction.

p. 2991. Mr. Dodwell denieth (by intimation) all humane Vniversal Church Supremacy, and consequently all humane Power of Legislation or Judgment over the whole Church. He denieth the Government of the Catholick Church Collectively ought to be either Monarchical or Aristocratical, in Pope or Council.

2. He denieth the Pope to have any Primacy or Presidentship in General Councils, or that it belongs to him to call them. It was but a Diocesans Power to Convocate his Presbyters that he meant.

3. He taketh the French Church for Papists, while they own the Popish Communion (though many are not so in their Principles: But it is Mens Principles that I spake of, and not their Communion).

4. He denieth Communion with any part of the Roman Church (Doth Dr. Saywell do so?)

5. He taketh the Councils of Constance and Basil for Papists, (and hath no Communion with those that own them as being Papists.)

6. He proveth the French Church guilty of the Hildebrandine Doctrine of deposing Princes (and Aquinas too.)

7. He disowneth the terms of Cassander and Grotius as not sufficient to a lasting Peace.

8. He (odly) dreamed that when I deny a Governing College of Bishops, I thought the Lord Bishop of Ely had meant such as our University Colleges, cohabiting, (this is no Slander in him) yet he declareth that by such a College, he means but Bishops ejusdem Speciei, governing the Church by parts, and not any One Numerical Soveraign Company: But that they should hold all due Communion p. 296duplicate page p. 297duplicate page p. 298duplicate page p. 299duplicate page p. 300(which he may see I still grant.) And he falsly fancies that I am against Cyprian's naming of Colleagues or his sence.

§ 5. But if Mr. Dodwell be sincere, he makes himself one of the greatest Separatists in the World: Consider how narrow his Communion is, and the Church which he owneth:

1. He hath no Communion with the rigid Italian Papists.

2. Nor with the moderate Papists that are for the Councils of Constance and Basil For he takes them for Papists with whom he hath no Communion.

3. Nor with the Church of France, because they have Communion with Papists: Though many of them are no Papists in their Principles.

4. He hath no Communion with any Protestant Churches that have not Bishops.

5. Nor with any Protestants that have Bishops not Ordained by Canonical uninterrupted Succession from the Apostles (at lest presumptively).

6. With none of the Greek Church that have Communion with the Church of Rome, or with any Schismaticks, or that want such Succession, or refuse the Laws of the Church (which is all.)

7. With none of the remote Nations, called Jacobites, Nestorians, &c. Because they are judged Hereticks or Schismaticks, or Communicate with such, or have a notorious interruption of Succession.

8. Not with the Maronites, or any Sect that Communicate with Papists.

9. Not with the Nonconformists of the Church of England, whom he endeavoureth to prove Damnable Schismaticks.

p. 30110. Not with the true and old Church of England, who professed to hold Communion with those Foreign Protestants whom he calleth Schismaticks: Nor with any of the present Bishops and Conformists, who profess the same Communion: For his Rule is, that they are Schismaticks who Communicate with Schismaticks.

Who then hath he Communion with? It seems none but those few new Men in England of his own Mind, who perhaps may call themselves the Church of England.

11. Nay, not with those among them who profess Communion with the Church of Rome, except with the Jesuited part.

12. And with those of them who are for one Supreme Universal Aristocracy, or Legislative College, Council and Judicature over the Universal Church.

And now can you tell which is the Church that he is of: Or is there a more notorious Separatist or Schismatick than he?

§ 6. And now can any Man tell which is that Church which he speaketh such wonderful things of? as the One Body Politick of Christ) with one visible human Government? Which be the Bishops and Church that have all that Leviathan-like Power of Heaven and Hell, which he describeth and asserteth? Is it only the uncertain relicts of all these?

§ 7. Mr. D. hopeth (justly) that none, or few of his friendly Readers will read what I write against him; and therefore when I detect his Fraud and putid Errors, he puts it off with saying, [I do but put many new Questions, and answer nothing accurately.] But, for the sake of them p. 232that will read, I will ask him, 1. Whether his little invisible Church be a Body meet for the Glorious Elogies which he giveth the Church of Christ; I profess I know not one Bishop that is of his professed Principles. Archbishop Laud was not, that took a General Council to be a Court of Pretorian Power to be externally obeyed by all the Church. Bishop Guning is not, as the foresaid Evidence sheweth.

2. And I would ask him whether his Church have all the Power of Heaven and Hell which he describeth, over those that are without the Church, or only over those within? Paul saith, What have we to do to judge them that are without? And if so, how narrow is the Power of his magnified little Church? Let their own Subjects escape their Damning Power how they can; it seems none of all the people on Earth whom he counteth Schismaticks or Hereticks are within their reach: For these with him are all without. If it be said, They were within when they were Baptized, I answer, 1. What they were, and what they are, is not all one. 2. But he saith that the Sacraments are but Sacrilegious Acts and Nullities that are done by such. And if so, they were never Baptized, and so never in the Church.

§ 8. But let us come to his new Book and Method. And first I will tell him once more what our different Church Principles are, that he may not accuse he knows not what.

1. Christ is the only Head, Prophet, Priest and King to the whole Church on Earth; both of Influence and Government, Constitutive, Specifying p. 233and Unifying; and hath no Deputy or Vicar under him, Aristocratical or Monarchical that hath any such Capacity, Power or Obligation.

2. Therefore the Church though Compaginated in all its parts, is only one Politick Body of Christ, and not of Man, and hath no other Soveraign.

3. Therefore neither Pope, Council or College of Bishops have any Legislative or Judicial Power over the whole Church Collective; but only the several Pastors are such to their several Churches.

4. Yet are they obliged to keep the Unity of the Spirit in the Bond of Peace and Love, and to do all in Concordant Observation of Christs Laws. And all Churches and Christians to help others to their Power.

5. And when they afford such Counsel, or help for Concord to other Churches, they do it not as Lay-men, but as Pastors, in the Universal Church, though not as Pastors to other Mens Flocks. As Physicians of several Hospitals, and Judges of several Courts, or Mayors of several Corporations, or Kings of several Kingdoms may advise for Concord, without Usurping each others Government.

6. As God only by Moses made the Jewish Law, and the Priests were not to make more, but only to Rule by it, it being a Prophetical and Mediatorial Work: So Christ only by himself and his Spirit (of Infallibility and Miracles) in the Apostles, made the Christian Universal Law, and no Men are to make more such, but to Rule by that so made.

7. As Gerson truely told the Pope, Christs own p. 304Law is sufficient for the Government of the Church (Universal) else Christ had not been a perfect Law-giver: And they that pretend by Supplements or Emendations to add or do better, are not his Ministers but Accusers.

8. Therefore those Popes and Councils that have presumed to make Laws for the whole Church have Usurped Christs Prerogative, and are false Prophets or Traytors against Christ.

9. Therefore none should own them as such, nor is it Schism, but Duty so far to disown them.

10. Nor should any own these Bishops as such, who own this their Usurpation. As no Soldiers of the Kings Army should follow those Captains who subject themselves to and take Commissions from an Enemy, Usurper or Foreign Princes.

11. The Power of Bishops under Christ as to Laws is only to keep and teach Christs Laws, and Rule by them, and determine themselves of undetermined circumstances or accidents, which vary as time and emergent occasions vary, and are unfit for Universal Obligation; and this Power they have only over their single Flocks, though by contract they may join in such things with others for Concords sake.

12. When the case of many Churches is alike, and their common good requireth Concord in any such accidents, all are bound to observe such Concordant Agreements, by virtue of Christs command for Concord.

13. But if on this pretence Pastors will turn Agreements for Concord into Laws, and make that seem needful to Unity which is against it, and hurtful to the Churches, no Christians should encourage their Usurpation by Obedience, it p. 305being contrary to Christs general Laws.

14. Whatever maketh true Christians maketh Men Members of Christ and his Church? And only the Essentials of Christians go to make true Christians, and the Integrals to make compleat Christians.

15. The Canons of Bishops are not Essential to Christianity, nor the understanding the many Controversies about Diocesans, Patriarchs, Councils, Ordinations, Successions, nor to know which is the true Bishop.

16. Baptism is our Christening, and he that is truely Baptized is a Christian, and a Member of Christ, and hath the pardon of Sin and right to Heaven before he be a Member of a particular Church, or Pastor; as the Eunuch Acts 8. and many converted without Bishops: As the Indians by Edesius and Frumentius, and the Iberians by a Maid, &c.

17. Whosoever truely repenteth and believeth and loveth God as God, and is of a Heavenly Mind and Life, is pardoned before God, before Baptism, and Baptism doth but Invest him in it, and make him a Christian more fully by Covenant and before the Church, and the want of it without contempt will not keep him from Salvation.

18. No one shall be saved by being joyned to a right Bishop, or receiving the Eucharist, who hath not true Repentance, Faith, Love, and the Spirit of Holiness: No Sacrament saveth the unqualified.

19. Thousands live in ignorance and wickedness, in Atheism, Sadduceism, Carnality, Adultery, Drunkenness, &c. that conform to Bishops p. 306and receive the Eucharist. And to tell such they are in a state of Salvation is opposition to Christ, and Damnable deceit of Souls.

20. The Levites and Inferior Priests received not their Office from the High-priest, but by Gods Law had it by Inheritance to which God chose the Tribe of Levi: Nor had the High Priests power to add to, or alter the Laws and Office of the Inferior Priests or their own.

21. Nor was there a necessity of an uninterrupted regular Succession; much was of man's making: Christ owned them that were in possession, though Usurpers, not of Aarons Line, but such as bought the place of the Romans.

22. Seeing the High Priest was a Type of Christ, and the Scripture saith so much of the change of the Law and Priesthood, and Christ hath made sufficient Laws for Church Offices, it is presumption to Judaize, and pretend to any other imitation of the High Priests than Christ hath ordained.

23. No one of the Apostles was an High Priest over the rest, but had equal Apostolical Power.

24. Christ rebuked them for seeking who should be greatest, and expresly forbad that which they sought.

25. Every Pastor or Church-Presbyter hath an Office subordinate to the Teaching, Priestly and Ruling Office of Christ.

26. Every ones Pastoral Office is instituted and described by Christ (by his Spirit in the Apostles) and this specification is Divine, which none may alter, nor make any other such.

27. Therefore (as Papists confess of the Pope) all that men have to do is (not to be makers or p. 307donors of the Office, but) to determine of the persons that shall receive it from Christ's donative Instrument, his Law, and ministerially to invest them (as men Christen, Marry, Crown Kings, &c.)

28. No Minister or Priest representeth Christ simpliciter, but secundum quid, as Embassadors or Justices do the King.

29. Christ's Laws are above mans, and no man's to be obeyed against them. To obey man against God is Idolatry.

30. The Priests or Bishops are under Christ's Laws as well as others, and by them all their true Power is given and limited: And therefore if they go against Christ's Laws, they represent him not therein, nor are to be obeyed, as usurping an unjust Power.

31. Therefore every Christian hath a Judgment of discerning whether Bishops Laws agree with Christ's, and must be governed as reasonable creatures, and not as Infants, Idiots or Brutes.

32. They that deny this, and require absolute obedience in all things, set man above God, and make it the duty of Subjects to be Atheists, Infidels, Idolaters, Mahometans, Murderers, Adulterers, Hereticks, where Kings, or Popes, or Prelates will command it.

33. Multitudes of Church-Canons have been contrary to Christ's Laws, as I have (with grief) proved in my History of Councils.

34. Bishops that deposed Emperors and Kings were not to be obeyed therein.

35. Almost all the Christian World since the use of General Councils are disagreed who are the true Bishops, one Party setting up one, whom p. 308others reject and condemn; so that if it were necessary to Salvation to know who is the true Bishop of the several Churches, few Christians could be saved.

36. Many Canons nullifie the Office and Power of these Bishops who come in by the Magistrate, without the choice or consent of the Clergy and People: And I think Mr. Dodwell professeth Communion with few but such, and so is by Canons condemned.

37. There is no Law of Christ, or unchangeable Law of man for appropriating a certain space of ground to one Bishops Jurisdiction. Grotius and Dr. Hammond thought that at first most great Cities had two Bishops and Churches, one of Jews, and one of Gentiles. And the Apostles never so appropriated any places to themselves, but oft divers in one City were their Teachers.

38. Occupation of a space of ground for Priestly Power is no just Title, and may be altered: And if it were, the Primitive Occupation was contrary to Mr. Dodwells Model.

39. If each City was to have a Bishop, each of our Corporations should have one, being all Cities in that antient sense.

40. It is not necessary to all to be of any fixed particular Church, as I have proved elsewhere (of Travellers, some Embassadors, Merchants, Vagrants, &c.) while they are of the Universal Church, and own Christ, and obey his Law.

41. The Electors do more to the making of Bishops than the Ordainers: Oft-times Bishops have ordained contrary Competitors, some one, and some another; and are oft forc't to ordain whom Princes and Patrons chuse.

p. 30942. Cyprian and his Carthage Council, prove in the Case of Martial and Basilides, that it is the Peoples Duty to forsake those Bishops who are not qualified according to Christ's Law, though Canonically ordained and approved. And Martin separated from such; and Gildas saith he is not eximius Christianus, that owned the Brittish Bishops.

43. Christ hath left sufficient Directions, for the continuation or restoration of the Priestly Office, without Canonical successive Ordination uninterrupted; As well as God hath done for Kings.

44. Seeing Mr. D. saith, A Presumptive title may serve, he thereby confesseth that it is not real Canonical Succession, but the Opinion of it that he makes necessary.

45. The Question is, Who must be the Presenters? When they so greatly differ? Grotius presumed that the Chief Minister of a City or a Church was really a Bishop, though not so called.

46. The Reformed can prove a more probable Succession than the Roman, whose frequent interruptions hath been oft proved.

47. If we must imitate the Jewish High Priesthood, not every City must have one, but every Nation (and so England hath none) or else all the World.

48. Judea being a small Country, all the People at their great Anniversaries might go up to Jerusalem; which in great Kingdoms and Empires is impossible.

49. It is false that we are united to Christ only by the Sacrifice of the Eucharist. Baptism which is no Sacrifice, first uniteth us to him publickly, as Faith and the Spirit do before secretly.

p. 31050. It is a frivolous thing of Mr. D. to write a Book for one chief Altar and Bishop, when the Question is of what Church that one must be: I have proved that Ignatius appropriated them to Churches no bigger than our Parishes, and Mr. Clerkson hath proved more; and the Man confuteth none of this proof.

51. Seeing he disowneth one Universal High Priest, and would have one in every City, or Nation at most, who knoweth not that the City Bishops of the World are now (and have been 1200 Years) in so great dissention disowning each others Communion, that it's hard to know Catholicism by his way of Communion.

52. And who shall Govern these several Bishops, if each one be a Supreme? Have they not as much need of Government as Presbyters?

53. The Eucharist is no otherwise a Sacrifice, than as it is an instituted Symbolical Commemoration of Christ's Sacrifice.

54. The validity of the Sacrament depends not on the uninterrupted Succession of the Priest, nor his Subjection to the Bishop.

55. There are many Cases in which it is a Duty to be ordained, and officiate without the Bishops consent: As in all the Popish Countries where they will admit none without consent to Sin.

56. To make Bishops and all their Curates the absolute disposers of Heaven and Hell, is to set up the highest Papal Tyranny over Kings and Kingdoms, by vile Presumption.

57. His words that the People can better judge of their visible Union with the High Priest and Christ, than of any invisible one, is a pernicious intimation, that this visible Church Union will p. 311save them that have not the invisible Grace of sound Faith, Repentance, and the Spirit of Love and Holiness.

I intended to have proceeded to a distinct Answer to Mr. Dodwell's whole Book, because I take him to be the most injurious and gross Adversary to the true Unity of the Church, on pretence of Pleading for Unity, of any that calls himself a Protestant; and find him not only extreamly self-conceited, loquacious and magisterial (in a lowly Garb) but grosly unsincere, intimating his denial of that in Print, which he often owned to me in Private Conference, viz. for the Nullity of the Protestant Churches, that have not his false Character, for the verity of the French Church, and for the uninterrupted Succession of the Papal Seat; when I undertook to prove it, he told me, It was not for the interest of Christianity to say so; And yet it is for the interest of Christianity for him to Unchurch more Churches, I think than the Papists ordinarily do.

But when I had gone thus far, I was stopt by the Persecutions of his Church-Rulers, and then by Sickness, and after by near two Years Imprisonment for my Paraphrase on the New Testament by a Judicature, as admirably agreeing to his Principles, as if he had been his Disciple (Chancellor Jeffreys lately Dead.) and such others.

Therefore not to tire the Reader with more words to so wordy a Man, I again and again (though I suppose in vain) provoke him and his dividing Brethren, to answer my Treatise of Episcopacy, my first Plea for Peace, my Sacrilegious desertion of the Ministry rebuked, my Apology p. 312for the Nonconformists Preaching, my English Nonconformity, and Mr. David Clerkson's Posthumous Book for the Primitive Episcopacy, against his Fiction of the present Diocesane Episcopacy, as having no Bishops under them. But fraudulent Disputers will dissemble, and silently pass by that which they cannot answer: But will that be Peace to Conscience in the End?

Having said as much as I think needful to satisfie intelligent impartial Readers, against his Schismatical Writings, in my Book of Church-Concord; and here before, I take my self discharged from any Obligation, further to detect or confute his Fallacies. The rather because he can say and unsay, as he finds his Interest lead him: And his Leviathan Church-Vicegod, which he feigns to be God's Proxy to us, from whom there is no appeal to Scripture or to God, will to Men that believe in Christ, I think by his own Description, appear as frightful as Hob's his Leviathan.

(Some of this I wrote long after the most of the Book.)