Against the Revolt to a Foreign Jurisdiction, Chapter 18

Against the Revolt to a Foreign Jurisdiction · Chapter 18

p. 232Chap. XVIII. The Fourth Letter to Bishop Guning.

To the Lord Bishop of Ely. (Dr. Guning.)

My Lord,

THough I intended to trouble you no more by Writing, yet observing how apt you are to mistake me, and because time streightened our Discourse; Lest I be mistaken, and consequently mis-reported, I thus send you the sum of what I said to your last, as far as it concerned me.

I. Whereas you are offended at my Applicatory Conclusion, I must still say it, that [☞ If these were the Principles upon which our Changes were made by your Endeavour 1661 and 1662. it is no wonder that Two thousand Ministers were Silenced and Cast out.] And is it more offence to you to hear what you did towards it, than to them and their Flocks to suffer it? Is this impartiality?

II. My naming Holden as saying what you say, was not invidiously to intimate that you differ not from him in any thing else; but to tell you that these thoughts are not new to me, and that even a Papist pleading rather Historical- Natural-Evidence in Vniversal Tradition, than judicial Authority, in this is further from the common Papists than you.

III. You are offended at my comparing Bishops to Kings only in this respect, that they both govern only their proper Provinces, and neither are p. 233Rulers of all the World: And your reason is, because it intimateth that Bishops rule like Kings.

Who can Dispute on these terms? Did I not in the stating of our Question agree, that it is not the Power of the Sword, but only Ecclesiastical Power of the Word and Keys, that we Dispute of? Did I not still profess to you to speak only of this? And doth comparing Princes Coactive Government with it, only in the extent, neither of them being over all the World, contradict this, or wrong you by unjust intimations?

IV. You take the words [Aristocratical-Supream Vicarious, under Christ, Legislative] to be invidious, and you disown them; 1. Because they intimate a forcing Power like Princes, 2. Because Christ only is Supream.

But 1. It is not de nomine that we dispute, but de re; and I understand all this while that we had no other question to debate.

2. I desired still nothing more than that you would state your assertion in your own words, that I might use no other: You tell me your own words are [Collegium Pastorum] I tell you again, that nameth only the subject Matter of the Power, where our question is de formâ, what is their Power which we must obey.

You next tell me [It is a College of Pastors having a Ministerial, Ruling, Judicial Power over the Vniversal Church] I take up with your own words: Only remember that before you asserted a Legislative Power (of mutable Laws) and now it is but judicial! If so, then we owe no Obedience to their Laws, but to their Sentence according to Christ's Law: How then is obeying them the only way of Concord?

p. 234But say you, It is but mutable Laws that they make? Answ. And are mutable Laws no Laws. And is he no Legislator that maketh but mutable Laws? Neither King nor Parliament will believe this.

But you say, Canons are not Laws. I thank you for that Concession. So saith Grotius de Imp. sum. Potest. If so, then they are but either Counsels or Agreements, (Contracts.) It is not de nomine that we contend. A Law, saith Grotius, is Regula actionum Moralium: More fully, A Law is the signification of a Ruler's Will making the Subjects Duty.] If a Canon be none, then Literae formatae are none: And where there is no Law, there is no Transgression. Then no Obedience is due to the Laws of the College of Bishops. And then obeying them is not the only way of Concord. Authoritas imperantis est objectum formale Obedientiae: you disown also the word (Pars imperans) I take your own [Pars Regens] which to me is of the same Signification as to Ecclesiastical Power. Jus regendi is that which I mean by Authority, and Debitum Obediendi, by Subjection. But I think that indeed authorized Pastors may make proper Laws, e. g. At what Places and Hours to meet: what Translations, Version, Metre, and such Orders to use; but only to their proper Subjects, and not to all the Christian World.

V. You Copiously blame us for denying that Obedience to the Universal Church, which we give to every single Pastor; and thought that I owned no Power but Parochial.]

I tell you still, 1. I maintain that there were in the first Age (and perhaps except two Churches, for the second Age and more) no Bishops distinct p. 235from Archbishops but Parochial, and I described them at large.

2. But though Cyprian and the Carthage Council said, Nemo nostrum se dicit Episcopum Episcoporum; yet I deny not such as may be called Archbishops. Would you but restore Parish Churches, or at least make true Discipline a practicable thing, I should never quarrel against your Government.

3. I still tell you that I am for Councils, and that as large when requisite as they can well be made. And Pastors there agreeing, oblige us to obey their true Authority far before a single Pastor's: For it is Authoritas Doctoris? and it is Discipuli Obedientia that is due: And a Teacher's Authority is founded in his Credibility, and that on his Skill; Oportet discentem credere: And a thousand Historians, Philosophers, Physitians agreeing, oblige me to greater belief than a single one. And a Dissenters singularity obligeth me to suspition and suspension of my belief. Besides, that God bindeth us to do his work in as much Love and Concord as we can: And the Canons or Agreements of Councils when Just do determine the Matter of that Concord.

4. But that which I still repeat to you, is, that I deny the being of any such Church as you tell me I must necessarily obey; That is, one Ruling Ministerial College of Pastors over the whole Christian World. I remember no Protestants that own such a thing but you, and some such of late. Mr. Thorndike and Mr.Dodwell do imply it, but they speak not fully out. What an unedifying way of Discourse is it for you so Copiously to call out for our Obedience, when we only desire you to prove that there is any such Governing p. 236College to obey? I deny the subject of your Question, and you largely prove the Predicate. If you would spend many hours to tell me, I must obey Gabriel the Angel as the Ruler of this Kingdom, I only beg of you to prove that he is such a Ruler, and then to tell me how I shall know his Mind; will your Exhortation to Obedience profit me?

VI. Your Copious instances of difficult Texts of Scripture that need a sure Exposition, are no Proof to me, that Ergo There is a College of all the Bishops on Earth that must be the Expositor. I told you the Eunuch, Act. 8. was not so resolved of the sence of Isai. 53. It was not the Ancient way. A single Teacher may resolve a Doubter by Expository Evidence. An agreeing Provincial or National Council may do more without knowing the Mind of all the World; And many Texts will be difficult when all the World have done their best.

VII. But you urge that no Scripture is of private Interpretation.

A. 1. All is not Private Interpretation, which is made by Persons, Pastors or Councils, which are not a College authorized to Rule all the Christian World (or Church.) If it be, 1. I confess I never received one Article of my Faith, or Exposition of one Text of Scripture aright: For I never believed one of them upon [the Authoritative-Ruling-Judicial-Vniversal Power of all Bishops on Earth as an authorized College.] 2. And I know not one Man living then that expoundeth not Scripture by Private Interpretation; 3. And I know not that any one these Fifteen hundred Years have not done the same.

p. 2372. And it is certain that there is no Commentary on the Scripture yet written by the Universal College of Bishops; And it's harder to deliver it down by Memory than by Writing.

Therefore all Scripture is in this sence of Private Interpretation; yea, such Councils as are called General, have expounded little more than the Articles of the Creed (with sad dissention as to their Votes.)

But I confidently think that you follow a wrong Exposition of the Text, and that it speaketh not of [an Efficient Interpretation] but [an Objective, a Passive, and not an Active] Q. d. you must not interpret Scripture Prophecies narrowly and privately, as if they spake but of such or such a private Person, that was but a present typical object of them: For holy Men spake as moved by the Spirit, which looked farther, and meant Christ to come] e. g. you know how many Prophecies are meant of David and Solomon proximately, and of Christ ultimately. And you know what Grotius thinks of the proximate sence of [A Virgin shall bring forth a Son.] And of Isa. 53, &c. which yet ultimately by the Holy Ghost is meant of Christ; and whether the Prophet himself knew it always, many doubt: Josias or Jeremy may be meant as types, and yet Christ Principal as typified: when David saith, My God, why hast thou forsaken me? They pierced my hands and my feet: They divided my garments among them, and cast lots for my vesture, &c.) and so many Texts cited by St. Matthew, these are to have no Private Interpretation as of the private Persons, only the first Objects; for the Holy Ghost intended them to be Prophecies of Christs] when you bring me any p. 238Literae formatae from all the Bishops on Earth for another sence, the reverence of their Concord will do much to make me forsake this.

Just so the Papists, and too many others distort that 1 Tim. 3.15. (which I wonder that I heard not from you) when the Text plainly calleth the Church, The House of the living God, and telleth Timothy how to behave himself in it, as a Pillar and Basis of the Truth; it is but putting [The Pillar] for [a Pillar] and then saying, that it is not the title of Timothy, but of the Church, and so it becometh useful to some mens Opinions.

Therefore still that which I am more confirmed in by your failing to prove your Affirmative, is [That there never was instituted, and never was existent, and is not now existent in the World any one Ecclesiastical Ruling Persona Collectiva Civilis or Governour authorized by Christ to Rule under him all the Christian World, (that is, all the Church) by Legislation and Judgment, or either of them, and to Constitute the Vniversal Church visible, as one by relation to that One Governour; Especially that all the Bishops on Earth Governing per literas formatas never were, nor are such a Power, nor yet as Congregate in an Universal Council.] If such a College of all Bishops on Earth, ruling all the Christians on Earth by Consent, be the Church which you mean that all must obey that will have Concord, I say, There is no such Church on Earth, nor ever will be before the Day of Judgment.

After all this sure you cannot mistake the Question, 1. It is only of an Ecclesiastical Power by the Word and Keys. 2. It is not whether all Bishops ruling by Parts in their several Provinces, p. 239and keeping Concord in convenient Meetings or Councils may be said to Govern all the Church (as all the Magistrates in England Govern all England in Subordination to the King.) But it is of One Persona Ecclesiastica in whom the Church is relatively called One, as Venice is one Commonwealth with relation to one Supream Senate, which ruleth the whole.

1. Shew me any Literas formatas of all Bishops in the World before the Council of Nice, yea, or ever since to this day?

2. What need the Council meet, if all Bishops could know each others Mind and Consent without it, e. g. Did they all agree about Easter-Day before? Or about the extent of Patriarchs Jurisdictions. 3. There was never a General Council in the World; It was called General only as to one Empire: The Emperors that called them, had no Power elsewhere: The Subscriptions shew you that none other came; yea, and but a part of the Empire. Few out of the West were at any great Councils.

4. Heticks have had as great Councils as ever had the Orthodox, and as much Consenting. And the disallowed have been as great as the approved; Sola navicula Petri, as I said out of Binnius escaped Drowning at Eph. 2.

5. There never must nor will be an Universal Council of all the Church hereafter, as I have elsewhere proved, And is the Universal Regent Ministerial Church extinct these Thousand Years? How can we obey a Power that is not?

6. But you say, I confess that the Roman Empire was seven Parts of the Church: Answ. Your haste overlooked my exception of the Empire of Abassia, p. 240which Brierwood saith, is now as great as Italy, Germany, France and Spain: and was incomparably greater heretofore; And you may gather from Damianus a Goes, Alvarez, and especially Godignuus de rebus Abassinorum, that, they had Christianity from the Eunuch mentioned Act. 8. And it's certain that their case was much unknown to Rome it self, till the Portugals and Oviedo's late access. And though now they give some Preeminence to the Patriarch of Alexandria, that is but since the Banishment of Nestorius and Dioscorus, who thereupon carried the Interest of their Parties without the Empire into other Lands. Of Abassia see more in Ludolphus since come out.

7. Either this Vnum Collegium Omnium Episcoporum must rule the Church Universal by a Major Vote, or by Consent of all Bishops in the World. If the former, where shall they meet to Vote? who shall gather them? how many Years or Ages will it be doing? How shall all Christians know that they are truly gathered? Shall we, till we know the Major Vote of all Bishops on Earth, suspend our Obedience? and have no Faith, no Concord till then? If all must Consent, or almost all, the case will be still harder, how to procure, and how to know it: May the Heretick keep his Heresie till all the Bishops on Earth condemn him per literas formatas, or otherwise? When e. g. the Nestorians or Eutychians or Monothelites have the greater number of Bishops one Year or Age, and the lesser the next; Is Bishops Consent the determining ruling Power?

8. Either this One ruling Church is necessary in all Ages, or only in some, or at least the exercise p. 241of their Power: If in all, the Church is extinct or ungoverned, either these 1500 Years, except during your Six Councils, or all the time that we have had no Universal Government by them: If but in some Ages, why not in the rest as well? And is not the Church still the same thing in specie, and for the same use and ends.

VIII. You say all Heresies are Condemned already. Answ. 1. Yes, Virtually by God's Word, Rectum est index sui & Obliqui. 2. But if you say Actually in their form, How great is your Mistake! The Devil could invent a Thousand more yet. My long Catalogue of Errors to be forbidden in my Book of the Churches Concord will tell you of enow that are too possible.

2. If the use of your Ruling Church ended so long ago, why doth not the Church end? or how are we to be Governed by it, when it doth not Govern? I never heard from it since I was born by any Literae formatae. To say, I must obey the old Canons, is to say I must obey a Government that was, and not one that now is and Governeth. The Pope I could possibly send to: Old Councils I can read: But how to hear▪ from a College of all the Bishops on Earth, that never see or hear of one another or me, and that are broken into so many Sects, I know not. I have my self, with some Wise and Able Divines, Pleaded the Cause that you Plead for, to try what they could say to me: And they answer me with Laughter, as if I were Distracted for talking of all being Governed by all the Bishops on Earth, as one ruling College by Consent or Vote.

IX. You lay much stress on the Church, being (our Mother). And Solomon saying, [Obey the Law p. 242of thy Mother] Answ. 1. You may possibly believe that Solomon by [Mother] meant an universally Governing College of Bishops] but when will you prove it? 2. You cannot name one Text that I know of that calleth the Church [our Mother] except Gal. 4.26. And there 1. You suppose that by [Hierusalem which is above] is meant the Church which is on Earth: which I know many others think: But it is uncertain. 2. And when will you prove that by Hierusalem, is meant your Ruling College. 3. Or that it speaketh of any one Universal Government. The word [Mother] is a Metaphor: And Similitudes prove nothing but the Point of Assimilation. The Text expresly saith that It is called our Mother, because she hath many Children. But these Children are not begotten by All the Bishops in One Voting College, as Universal Rulers, but by particular Pastours. And so that one Church of Christ hath many begotten and ruled per partes.

X. You still lay much on [The Nation that will not serve thee, shall Perish.] And you bring three or four Fathers to prove that spoken of the Christian Church. And you say still the Church is no where taken for Christ.

I answer, 1. As the Kingdom includeth the King and Magistrates as the only Governours, so doth the Church include Christ and his Ministers: 2. I believe that it is meant of the Universal Church: But three Fathers Interpretation or threescore is a Private one compared to your College. 3. All Power is given to Christ: Princes are his Ministers. Infidels that are Converted to serve the Church, must serve Christian Magistrates as well as Bishops. And it's as likely to p. 243be specially meant of Magistrates: For Bishops destroy not the Disobedient, nor so much as Excommunicate the Infidel World: What have we to do to Judge them that are without? But Princes conquer and destroy resisting Enemies. So that this Text will no more prove One ruling College of Bishops over all, than one Monarch or College of Kings to rule all the World; nor so probably.

4. The Nations serve the Church, 1. When they Obey the King of all the Church, 2. and his Universal Laws. 3. And his Officers ruling per partes in their several Provinces by Word and Sword. 4. And serve the good of the whole▪ as the end of Government: Stretch the words on any Rack that is not against reason, and besides these four, you can never prove one Universal ruling College.

XI. You say, God is not the visible Head of the World, and Men have access to Kings, but not to Christ.

Answ. God is the King or Supream Governor of all the World; and you have no more visible access to the Father than to the Son: And particular Pastors are as accessible as Kings: And Church Government, which like a Physitian, or Tutor, depends on personal Skill, may much less be performed by absent Men at the Antipodes, than Civil Government.

XII. But it's said, [It is the whole Churches reception of Canons, though Councils be not properly Vniversal, tha… maketh the Obligation Vniversal.

Answ. If they bind not by the Imposers Power, they were not received as binding Universally: If Reception be the Obligatory Act, Subjection p. 244is Government, and Lay Men and Women govern by receiving. And I have proved how mutable and how uncertain Reception is: They say all the Church was against Adoration by genuflexion on the Lord's Day, and for Milk and Honey, and the white Garment in Baptism: And yet particular Churches laid them down before any Universal Judicature allowed it.

XIII. Qu. If you know that all the Bishops of the World receive any Doctrine or Practice as needful or good, will not you do so too? and do you not so receive the Creed and Bible?

Answ. 1. I receive the Laws of the Land only as authorized by the Law-givers: But I know them to be the same Laws that the King and Parliament made, by the concurrent Testimony and Use of all Judges, Lawyers and People of the Land, (and Proclamation by the Proclaimers) But I know them not by my obeying all these Judges, Justices and People as one authorized College, that is under the King to Govern the whole Land: So here, I know the Writings of Homer, Virgil, Cicero, to be theirs the more confidently by Universal Tradition: But not because I believe that all the Witnesses in the World that have so received them, are Commissioned to be Rulers or a Judicature to the World; I receive Divine Truths as Delivered in the Creed and Scriptures, as from Christ and his Apostles, especially Commissioned and qualified to teach all Men whatever he commanded them, and this by the hand of my Parents and Pastors; and since I understood History common consent puts me the more out of doubt of the Matter of Fact, that these are their true Writings and Doctrines: But not from the Bishops, p. 245as one College Commissioned to rule all the World or Church on Earth. And alas, how few are so well verst in History as to know much of this.

To know what is received now ab omnibus ubi que is too hard: But to know the semper is much harder especially when the Filio que and the foreign, and many such like, have had more for them in one Prince's Reign, and more against them in another, and so off and on; and to know which had most was impossible, to most Christians: How few know at this day whether the [Filio que ] have more for it, or against it? Not I, nor any Traveller that I have spoke with.

XIV. But you would not for a World be guilty of saying what I have written of Councils; 1. As if they were to be abhorred for their Faults. 2. You say, How great Matters the Articles of two Natures and Wills and of one Person are, and no small nor wordy difference.

Answ. 1. I can mention Mens Faults without abhorring them, I honour them for their good, and am for the use of needful modest Councils of good Men.

2. I doubt not but the Matters determined were weighty: But how far Persons wronged and misunderstood one another, and strove about words when they meant the same thing, I have not nakedly said, but proved to you. When Theodosius forced by threatning Cyril and Johannes Antioch. and Theodoret to agree, did they not confess that they had wrongfully anathematized each other, and were of one Mind, and did not know it? Have I not proved to you that Nestorius denied two Persons? and that Cyril oft asserteth but one Nature p. 246after the Union? Do you indeed think that [One] and [Two] are words that have but one signification? Have I not proved the Ambiguity, and the Misunderstanding of each other in too many? But O how hard it is to be Impartial and to Repent, when Contentious Bishops in Councils have notoriously torn the Churches, drawn streams of Blood, Cursed and Reproached one another, and Cursed that Cursing it self and their Party the next change, and have overthrown the Empire, and set up the Pope by striving about Jurisdiction and hard words, who shall be greatest and wisest, must not this which cannot be hid be lamented? If Cyril were but half as bad as Joh. Antioch. Theodoret, Isidore, Pelusiota, Socrates and Sozomen, &c. make him, how partial were his Admirers? But I see it is as hard for Bishops to repent as other Men, when their Self-esteem and Dignity seemeth to themselves to entitle them to the reputation of Sanctity and Innocency: And if they divide the Christian World as wofully as the West and East, and the Abassines, Copties, Jacobites, Nestorians, Armenians, Protestants, &c. are divided at this day, or should they Silence Thousands of Faithful Ministers of Christ for not Sinning, or for Nothing, and bring thereby Confusion and Schisms, among serious Christians to the hardening of the Prophane and Hereticks, it will seem to some a more heinous Sin to name their Sin, and call them to Repentance, than in them to commit it. And yet one may name the Sins of a Thief or Drunkard, and call him to Repentance without blame. But have I said half so ill by them, as they said by one another? They anathematized each other, but so do not I by them; What say I worse of the first and p. 247best of your Six Councils than Eusebius and Constantine said of them, when he burnt their accusing Libels against each other?

2. What say I worse of the first Council at Constantinople than Greg. Nazianzen saith? I do but recite his words and the History? Did they not set him up in the beginning, and pull him down at the end? (and for what)?

3. What say I of the first Ephes. Council but what the recorded Acts do tell us? How they divided into two Parts, and each Excommunicated the Leaders of the other, and the Orthodox Part fought with the other notwithstanding the Endeavours of the Emperor's Lieutenant to have kept the Peace; and yet when they had done, found that they had been of one Mind, and knew it not, (except Nestorius.) And how much hand a Woman had in it against him, the History tells us.

4. Have I said so much against that at Chalcedon as the many Councils that anathematized them did? or more than they said of themselves when they cried Omnes Peccavimus for Voting with Dioscorus and the Eutychians at Council Eph. 2. I would fain know, when as the greater Part of the Empire and Church was against this Council, in the days of Zeno, Basiliscus, and Anastasius, by what means every Christian should then have known the sence of the Universal Church. At Jerusalem the Orthodox rebelliously resisted the Emperor's Lieutenants, and put them to …light in defence of this Council (following a Monk that compared the four Councils to the four Evangelists) and sent the Emperor word that they would spend their Blood for it: And yet even there, before, p. 248the prevailing Part had condemned it. At Antioch the Bishop and Monks fought it out to so much Blood, that the Monks Carcasses could have no Grave but the River Orontes: At Constantinople and Alexandria the Matter oft was little better. Are these things indifferent or jesting Matters of small Infirmity?

5. And the 5th General Council Const. 2. was thought long by a great Part of the Church to have contradicted the▪ 4th de tribus Capitulis, and was so much disowned, that even Venice, Liguria, Istria, &c. renounced the Pope and Roman Primacy for Owning it, and chose a Patriarch at Aquileia to be the Primate instead of Rome; which long continued, till Sergius reconciled them.

6. And that Concil. Trullanum called Quino-Sextum which you own as the same with the Fifth, is disowned by the Roman Party to this day, and accused by them to have been Monothelites. (Vid. Binnium) And yet said to be the same Men who were the Second Const. Council: And so they make that Second also to have been Monothelites.

6. And the next, Const. Third were condemned by the Seventh General at Nice, as heinous Sinners for condemning Church Images, and even Helvicus, with other Lutherans, call it Synodum Iconoma…hicam quam O…cumenicam dici voluerunt. And I think that the Church of Rome disowneth the Doctrine both of it and the Second of Nice, which hath agreed that Christ's Body is not flesh in Heaven.

Now I would know while these Councils thus anathematized each other, or lamented their own former Errors, as Voting by Fear or Mistake, p. 249and while most of the Bishops declared against any of them as they oft did, and when Heraclius, Philippicus or other Emperors were Monothelites, and the Major part of the Bishops followed them, how common Christians should know whom to Obey.

XV. I remember that you also pleaded Christ's words, Hear the Church] But he saith also, [Tell the Church] even the same Church which we must Hear. And verily here I am utterly at a loss. Christ I know and Paul I know should be heard, but who are this one Universally ruling College for me to to hear? yea, the Pope may be told and heard; but how to tell or hear a College that dwell all over the Earth, I know not, I cannot hope to live long enough to send to, or hear from Abassia, Armenia, Syria, Mengrelia, Georgia, Circassia, and all the Greek Churches, and to Mexico, and perhaps the Antipodes; nor do I think our Salvation lyeth so much on our Skill in Geography, that we must know that there are any such Countries in the World, nor a Rome or a Constantinople, &c. And I cannot think that most of the World, will ever hear that there is such a Man as I in being; nor that one of a thousand of the Bishops ever hear the Names, or know the Opinions of all the rest, or of the one half of them: And if I were rich enough to hire a Messenger to go all over the Earth, and were so foolish as to hope to live till he returned, I must take their Votes on the Credit of the Messengers Word, which is a sandy Ground for Church-Communion and Salvation. Nay, I cannot hope to live to see a General Council, much less to see the end of it, p. 250and to be certain of their Votes and Sentence: And if I knew that I had all the Bishops on Earth for one Opinion, I am not certain whether most of the Presbyters (being an hundred to one) be not against them; and in England the Presbyters are part of the Convocation, which is the Representative Church. Had I lived on Earth when the Council of Nice was contradicted at Sirmium, Ariminum, Tyre, Milan, and the World groaned to find it self turned Arrian: Or when they were Anathematizing each other, and fighting at the first Eph. Council: Or when the 2d Nicene were condemning the second Const. Or when Vigilius was dragged by a Rope at Const. by Justinian's Command, and the Patriarch of Aquileia set up against Rome; or when the Trull. Canons were made by Men now called Monothelites; or when innumerable Monothelite Bishops met under Philippicus, &c. I could not possibly have told how to know the Governing Judgment of the College of Bishops that live all over the Earth. Nay, when you own no Council since the Sixth, why will no Importunity intreat you to tell me, whether for these Thousand Years last the Universal Church was Governed by one College, and what Governing Act this Colledge hath so long exercised over all the Christian World? And how it was known? And whether their Literae formatae are to be found written? And where? Or are only transmitted to all the World by Memory? and by whose Memory? and of whom we may all enquire of them with certain Satisfaction? Or whether the Church hath been this Thousand Years no Church, or Ungoverned.

You say the Council at Frankford condemned that p. 251at Nice: How shall I know which the College owned at the time of the sitting of each Council? How few Councils were ever so great as that at Basil? Can you tell me how to be sure whether the College be more for it or against it at this day?

Bear with me for telling you, that if I had not found that you are a Man of strong Passions, & full of your self, and of undoubting Confidence in your Apprehensions, I should wonder how so Studious, Learned and Sober a Man could possibly take either Union, Communion, or Salvation, to lie upon Mens Belief of, and Obedience to such a College as all the Bishops on Earth: And if you take the Creed to mean this as the Holy Catholick Church, I shall not wonder if you take me, [and almost all the Protestants that ever I knew or read,] for Hereticks; and having twice admonished me, and not convinced me, if you avoid me, and should not only Seventeen Years silence me, but banish or burn me, if you are for such execution upon Hereticks; or at least take me, and all such as I, to be intolerable, and use us accordingly.

XVI. I will sum up the Difference between you and me in a Similitude. All Power in Heaven and Earth, and all Judgment is given to Christ. The Creator's Government by Civil Rulers he changeth not, but is now their Soveraign King. His Church he Governeth as a Saviour and a Teacher, and their Heavenly High Priest: It is his School, and we are his Disciples; I suppose that God the Father and Christ is the only Rightful, Universal, Civil and Church-Monarch, and none else can give Laws, or exercise Judgment over the whole Earth; but that Magistrates and p. 252Pastors are Commissioned by God to their several Provinces, Governing the whole only per partes between them; and God, as the Monarch, maketh them such Universal Laws as they must Rule and be Ruled by. And that there is no more proof of one Ecclesiastick Humane Judicature to Rule all the World, than of one Civil one, and less probability: But that Princes and Pastors must do all by the best Advantages of Unity, Love and Concord, and keep such Synods and Correspondencies as are necessary to that end; I suppose that every Kingdom hath its own King and Inferiour Magistrates Ruling by their several Courts and Circuits, and by the Kings Laws; but not Ruling all the Kingdom as one College of a Voting Synod of Judges, Justices and Majors. If Senates have any where a Supremacy, it is from the peculiar Constitution of that Commonwealth; and there is no Institution of a College of Kings (or one Monarch) to Rule all the Earth: But their Unity is centred in God that is one.

I suppose that the King hath ordained that all Free-Schools in England, Scotland and Ireland, shall have each their proper Schoolmasters, one to a small School, and to a great one a Chief Master, with under Schoolmasters; and he hath made an Order that they shall teach E. g. Lilly's Grammar, and faithfully perform their Trust, or be put out by them that have the Power: And if any School-Difficulty occur, they may do well to consult for their Mutual Help.

But you seem to add, g. d. as if, 1. All the World is one Humane School, though under several Kings. 2. None is a Member of this School that is not under the College of Schoolmasters p. 253that dwell all over the World, and never know one another, and that doth not live in Obedience to that College. 3. All these Schoolmasters of the whole World must meet by themselves or Delegates in General Councils. 4. All Schools must receive Canons from these Councils, and be judged by them, and bring their Accusation (at least Appeals) to them, from all Nations of the Earth. 5. All the Schoolmasters of the several Kingdoms must hold National Assemblies in those Kingdoms [or Provinces] as a College of Governors to the whole Land. 6. A Thousand, or many Hundred or Scores Local particular Schools must be Schools but equivocally so called, and have all but one proper Schoolmaster, who alone must have the Keys of them, and judge of each Scholar that is, 1. admitted, 2. corrected, 3. or put out. 7. All these Schools under this Diocesan Schoolmaster shall have his Ushers, (and no proper Schoolmasters) who shall have Power to teach those that will learn, and to tell the proper Schoolmaster, (perhaps One Hundred, Eighty or Twenty Miles off) of every Boy that deserveth to be corrected or put out. But none of these Ushers shall have Power, 1. To judge whom to take or refuse, or what Boys to correct, nor to correct them till commanded by the Diocesan Master: 3. Nor to put out any till he bids him: 4. Nor to forbear correcting or casting out any when commanded, though he know them to be the best.

I think this, 1. Deposeth all the Inferiour Schools, and robs them of proper Schoolmasters, which are their due. 2. And deposeth the Ushers, that should be mostly Schoolmasters. 3. And maketh School-Government an impossible thing, p. 254while one only in a Diocess is to use that which he cannot do. 4. And thereby overthroweth Learning, and introduceth Barbarousness. 5. And bringeth in a new sort of Diocesan Schoolmasters, who will undo the Scholars and themselves by undertaking Impossibilities.

But I disallow not, 1. A Chief Schoolmaster in each School. 2. Nor needful Overseers or Visitors to see that all Schoolmasters do their Duty. 3. Nor that the King and Justices keep them all to their Duty, and make Laws that they truly teach the Sacred Scriptures, and correct those Schoolmasters who by their Insufficiency, or Unfaithfulness deserve it.

Again, I tell you, 1. Make us no Universal Governor but Christ. 2. And restore the Power of necessary Discipline to the Parish-Churches, or at least make Christs Church-Discipline a possible practicable thing, and you will reconcile many Nonconformists to you. But to say only one Schoolmaster, with meer Teaching-Ushers, shall Govern many Hundred Schools, or one Bishop many Hundred Churches, or rather Oratories and Chappels that are made but parts of one true Church infimae specici; this is in English to say, that there shall be no considerable Government of such Schools or Churches at all, and to put it down on pretence of having the Power to do it. And yet by the Charity and Justice of many that now Write and Preach against us, we are all unruly, intolerable, rebellious Schismaticks, and against Bishops, for desiring more Bishops, at least one to every foreign ▪ or Corporation, that Discipline might be a possible thing, I have in many Years (of Liberty) tryed without Rigour so much p. 255as all Church-Canons agree to be necessary, in a Congregation that had not Three Thousand Souls, and was unable for it with the assistance of Three Presbyters, when one Parish about London hath Thirty Thousand, and Forty Thousand, if not Sixty Thousand Souls, and most, or many, far less Governable.

XVII. The Essentials of the Sacred Office are, 1. Power or Right; 2. Obligation to; 3. The Work. 1. The Work, you say, is to Rule the Church Universal on all the Earth, not only separately per partes, but as Vnum Collegium, which is Vna Persona Politica. 2. The Power is Jus Regendi. 3. The Obligation maketh it their Duty.

The Apostles were sent first to Preach the Gospel to every Creature, or all Mankind, and make them Christians; and after to Teach them all Christs Doctrine and Law, and to Rule them by Pastoral Guidance thereby.

2. If the College of Bishops be their Successors, are they bound to that Work in uno Collegio, which the Apostles did each one apart? That is, deliver Christs Commands, and guide the Churches. If, yea, are they not bound in uno Collegio, to Preach to all the Heathen World? And then, are they not guilty of the Damnation of most of the World for not so Preaching to them?

3. If you say that it is only a Regiment that they must do in uno Collegio, or per Literas formatas, do you not make the whole Pastoral Church guilty of perfidious Negligence, (as a Pastor would be, that never guided his Flock) for not at all performing any such Government? What one Act of Government hath the College performed in our Age? or in the Age foregoing? or in any Age according p. 256to your self since Constant. Pogonatus his sixth (or seventh) Council? And was it only the Church of those Ages that was bound to Govern? Then it was they only that were Authorized, or had the Office and Power: For Obligation to the Work (though not ad hic & nunc) is Essential to the Office as well as Authority: Or will the Performance of the Bishops of the Fourth and Fifth Centuries excuse all that succeed them to the end of the World from any Performance? Why then not from all Pastoral Guidance? And are they not then degraded?

XVIII. We are against Singularity in Matters of Faith: We believe that all Christs Church shall never err from any one Essential of Christianity or Communion; else it would thereby cease to be a Church: But we believe General Councils (such as the Empire had) have erred so far as to condemn each other of Heresie. We perswade all Men to believe as the Church believeth; that is, to receive that from the Apostles, quod ab omnibus ubique & semper receptum fuit, which the Church received and delivered as from them with known common Consent, and to suspect odd Opinions, Novelties and Singularities.

But Protestants against Papists commonly use these Distinctions: 1. Authority of a Governor by Legislation, and Judgment, or either, is one thing. 2. Doctoral Authority (like a Philosopher in a School of Consenters) is another. 3. The Authority of Witnesses (which is their Obliging Credibility) is another. 4. The Authority of a Steward, or Keeper of Records, is another. 5. The Authority of a Herald, or Cryer, or Messenger, (to publish Laws) is another. 6. And the Authority of p. 257Contractors in Mutual Self-Obligation, is another.

Accordingly they hold, 1. That there is no one Universal Head, Governour, or Summa Potestas Ecclesiastica, to Rule the whole by Legislation or Judgment, Personal or Collective, but Christ.

2. That there is no one Person, Natural or Political, that is bound or authorized to be the Teacher of the whole World or Church; but that all Pastors must Teach and Guide in their several Provinces.

3. That the larger and more uncontrouled the Testimony is, the greater is the Credibility and Authority of the Witnesses: And therefore if all the Churches in the World, as far as we can learn, agree, de facto, that these are the Books, Doctrines, and practised Ordinances which they received; and especially when Hereticks or Infidels, and Enemies that would gainsay it, cannot with any probability, we thus receive the said Books and Practices, (as Baptism, &c.) ex Authoritate Testium, and not ex Authoritate Judicis Regentis; or else Lay-Men, (such as Origen, when he was a more credible Witness of the Text than an Hundred unlearned Bishops, and such as Hierom, that was no Bishop, of whom I say the same) yea, and Women, yea Hereticks and Infidels, (such as Pliny, &c.) would be Church-Rulers.

4. All Pastors being by Office to Preach Christ's Word, and Ministerially Officiate accordingly, are thereby especially intrusted with the keeping of these Sacred Records, as Lawyers while they daily use them, are with the Laws, and the Universal Testimony of such Officers is the most credible part of the Witnesses Work; or if not Universal, p. 258the more the better. 5. Every Pastor is as a Cryer to proclaim Christ's Laws. 6. And in Circumstances left to Mutable Humane Determination, the more common Consent (Caeteris paribus) the better. And this is the use of Councils; this is enough: But the Protestants that I have known and read, do make it our first Controversie with the Papists, Whether Christ ever Instituted any one Head or Ruling Power over all the Church, under himself? And, 2. Whether Pope or Council be such? Both which they deny.

XIX. If you have not read it, I intreat you read in the Cabal-Supplement King Henry the VIII's Letter to the Archbishop and Clergy of the Province of York, where you will find, ☞ 1. Your cited seeming Contradictions of Scripture, answered by use of Speech and Reason, without any Universal Judicature. 2. That Dic Ecclesiae cannot be meant of the Church Universal. 3. That the Universal Church hath no Head or Governor but Christ, but the Clergy subserve him, as Ministers by whom he giveth Spiritual Grace, and quae Spiritu aguntur libera sunt, & nulla Lege astringuntur; and if the Teachers do their Office with scandal, Magistrates must punish them, and that it is the Ecclesia quae non Constat ex bonis & malis, which the King is not the Head of: But that in Spirituals, as the word signifieth Spiritual Persons and their Goods and Works, and the enforcing the Observances of Gods Laws, the King is Head: And the reason of the word [Head] notably vindicated, with much more.

XX. I crave your Pardon both for the Prolixity and Boldness, while I add this Question▪ (not as accusing you of Popery, Perjury or Disloyalty;) p. 259How can I be cleared from the guilt of Perjury, and Disloyalty, if having taken the ☞ Oath of Supremacy, and subscribed according to the Canons, &c. I shall plead for the subjecting of the King and all Subjects to a Foreign Power in Spirituals? when the Oath disclaimeth it, and the Can. 1. saith, That [all Vsurped and Foreign Power hath no Establishment or Ground by the Law of God, and is for most just Causes taken away and abolished, and therefore no manner of Obedience or Subjection within His Majesties Realms and Dominions is due to ANY SVCH Foreign Power.

And all Ministers subscribe Can. 36. against all Foreign Power, as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Things or Causes, as Temporal.

And Articl. 21. General Councils may not be gathered together without the Commandment and Will of Princes: (And when will all Princes, Orthodox, Heretical, Mahometan, Heathen, Enemies in VVar, &c. agree to gather them out of all the VVorld?) And when they be gathered together, (for as much as they be an Assembly of Men whereof all be not Governed with the Spirit and Word of God) they may err, and sometime have erred even in things pertaining to God; wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to Salvation, have no Strength nor Authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of the Holy Scriptures. (And doth Church-Unity, Concord, and Salvation, lie on things not necessary to Salvation?) If you say, that none of this speaketh against Foreign Ecclesiastical Power, such as the Apostles had; I answer, 1. Not against a Foreigners Preaching and Baptizing, and Celebrating the Lord's Supper, if he be where we are, (and there he is no Foreigner:) But against all Foreigners p. 260proper Government of Men as their Subjects. The Apostles Commission in that was extraordinary, and yet they Ruled Doctorally none but Voluntary Consenters. 2. The Law, Oath, Canon and Articles disclaim such Power as the Pope claimeth here: But the Pope claimeth proper Ecclesiastical Government, and most English and French Papists (and half the rest I think) claim for him only the power of the Word and Keys, and not any forcing Power by the Sword.

XXI. As hence, I wonder not that Mr. Thorndike threateneth England, unless we right the Papists by altering the Oath of Supremacy; so I conclude with another Request, That seeing Dr. Heylin, and many others of you, honour Melanchthon, you will read his Epistle to King Henry the VIII. Epistolarum Vol. 1. per Pencer. Edit. Anno 1570. pag. 59.60. &c. But especially Ep. de Ratisb. act. p. 188. &c. & de Wormat. Colloq. p. 201. &c. where he speaketh against Eccius and other Papists overvaluing Councils, and making them Legislators and Judges to us, and tying the Church to the ordinary succession of Bishops, and Obedience to their Laws, and imagining the Church to be like Civil Polities, Pag. 191. [1. Humano more Constituit in Ecclesia Potestatem interpretationis, propemodum ut de praetoria potestate interpretandarum Legum Jurisconsulti Loquuntur. 2. Addit amplius non licere privatis, non paucioribus reprehendere judicia Majoris partis seu dissentire à suffragiis plurimorum. 3. Majorum Synodorum sententiis & decretis parendum esse, &c. — In Ecclesia longe alia res est. — In hoc coetu non potest as alligata est certis personis aut certae multitudini, sed donum est aliquorum piorum: Id est, lumen divinum, quo intelligunt sapientiam in Evangelio p. 261traditam, quae est supra rationis humanae judicium Posita. Pag. 195. addit Vinculum dilectionis à Paulo Vocari Obedientiam Praestandam Episcopis Ordinaria successione regnantibus & eorum legibus,— Yet Synods and Discipline he was for, by present faithful Pastors.

And Luther, Lib. de Conciliis, speaketh (as was his way) more sharply of Councils, telling us what their Work is, and is not; and that one Augustine hath taught the Church more than all the Councils that ever were, yea one Catechism: And that before the Council of Nice, Arianism was but a Jest in Comparison of what it grew to afterward, (though doubtless the Council did well in condemning it) and he justifieth Nazianzen's Words of Councils: And except the undeniable Evidence of David Derodon, he saith more than I have seen in any to vindicate Nestorius, as certainly holding one Person and sound Doctrine in sense, but for want of Learning, taking it for an improper Speech to say that God was begotten of Mary, killed, risen, &c. And that the Controversie of the Ephes. Council and him was but about Words. And I think he that readeth but Derodon's Citations of the Words of Cyril, will think me rather charitable than injurious, for saying that though his Words were Eutychian, he meant also better than he spake.

Ri. Baxter.

p. 262REader, The Bishop's repetition in Conference (before and with Dr. Beveridge and Dr. Saywell) occasioned my over-tedious Repetitions: But you may perceive they have not been wholly in vain, while at the last the Bishop was forced, I. To deny Canons to be Laws: And then what is their Churches Legislative Power? and how can we obey a Law that is no Law? And why are we called to Swear Canonical Obedience? or why are we called Schismaticks for not obeying them? And if they might be called Laws to their proper Subjects, can Usurping Foreigners therefore make us Laws?

II. He is put to disown the Names of Vniversal Soveraignty, and Summa Potestas, but only as Invidious, that is, as opening that which they would hide by other Names fitted to deceive: And yet maintaineth the thing, and calls them Rectors and Vniversal Governors: As if Jus regendi in Supream Rectors were not the same thing, and that which he knew we were to dispute.

III. When he hath oft pleaded for Obedience to the Vniversal Church and its Laws, and made Law-making its work, he is fain at last to reduce it almost to Sentence and Execution. And in his many instances of such Judging Powers to name not one that requireth an Universal Human Judge.

IV. He was angry at the Argument fetcht from the incapacity of an Universal King or Civil Senate; But why? Only, as invidious? that is, As detecting their Error; And saith, that it intimateth that they claim a Kingly forcing Power, p. 263whereas he knew that I profest the contrary of them, and only brought a comparing Argument. But if they had claimed no forcing Power, or made Princes believe that they were bound to be their Hangmen or Executioners, the World had suffered less, and they know that their Curses would have been despised as bruta fulmina, and Protestants would have said Procul à Jove Procul à fulmine.

V. He could never be got to give up the least shew of a Satisfactory account, where his Collegium Pastorum out of Councils was to be found, or whom it consisted of? They dare not go to Patriarchs whatever they think, as knowing how farr, and where they long have been, and most against them.

VI. Nor could he be got to answer my instances of the incapacity of Councils; nor my proof that they were not of terrestrial, but only of National (Imperial) Universality.

VII. Nor would he answer my proof of the utter incapacity, either of one Man, or one College; for Universal Government of all the World.

VIII. Nor to answer my proof that his Universal Soveraignty is the most essential Point of that which Protestants call Popery.

IX. Nor my Reasons that a Pope's Headship is not so impossible as this same, tho' both are impossible.

X. Nor the plain Evidence, that this way must needs bring us under the Government of the Pope himself, and every King and Kingdom under the Government of foreign Subjects, and of those Princes whose Subject-Bishops make the greatest Number in Councils.

p. 264XI. And we cannot be informed how their Form of Government differeth from the French, and that the French are no Papists. And that they that since Laud's time have studied a Coalition, would not receive them to our cost.

XII. Nor yet how the Nation and Clergy shall be saved from Perjury that are all Sworn against all Foreign Jurisdiction.

For it is a vain Argument that saith, The Oath of Supremacy renounceth no Jurisdiction but what the King owneth: But the King disowneth Ecclesiastical Spiritual Jurisdiction.

For, 1. Ecclesiastical and Spiritual Jurisdiction are expresly named. 2. The Oath renounceth it as Foreign, because it is against the King to be under the Power of Foreigners. The King chooseth his own Pastors, and Ruleth them by the Sword, (as he doth his Physitians) though he profess not to be a Pastor himself, nor to Administer the Word, Sacraments or Keys.

And the new Oath, called the Test, expresly abjureth the Foreign Jurisdiction of any Prince, Prelate, &c. Spiritual and Ecclesiastical.

It's ludicrous jesting with Oaths for any to say, by [Prelate] is not excluded [Many Prelates in a College or Council, but some one]: If One, much more many; as Prince and Potentate excludeth many. And all our present Clergy that are in the Parliament and Convocation, have taken this Oath or Test: and they call themselves the Church-representative: And if after this they should be for a Foreign Jurisdiction (and specially Universal) in a College, or a Council, or a Pope, or a Council and College under the Pope as President, their Subscription to our Articles, and their usage p. 265of Oaths, would be no invitation to Dissenters to imitate them, or Conform.