Against the Revolt to a Foreign Jurisdiction, Part 2 · Chapter 6
Chap. VI. The Grand Consequential Case, Whether it be lawful for the Presbyters to swear Obedience to those Bishops, who profess Subjection to the Foreign Jurisdiction of a Vniversal Soveraignty? or for the People to live in Obedience and Communion with the Presbyters that do so?
§ 1. I Wish this Case about such Subjection and Communion may never make the second breach between Conformists and Nonconformists, much wider than the first is made.
I. Suppose the French Bishops will abate Idolatry, Owning Transubstantiation, Adoration of the Host, and of Saints and Images, Latin Service, will allow the Cup in the Sacrament, Priests Marriage, leave indifferent all other things that are not above Four hundred Years old, Qu. Whether is it lawful for the Protestant Ministers and all the rest to Swear Obedience to these Bishops, and to the Protestant Laity and all others to joyn in their Communion?
II. Suppose Archbishop Bromhall profess subjection to General Councils called and moderated by the Pope as President, and to the Pope as Principium unitatis Vniversalis and Patriarch of the West; Or the Bishop of Eli profess subjection to a Foreign Universal Jurisdiction, Is it lawful for the Bishops to Swear Obedience to that Archbishop, or the Presbyters to such a Bishop, and for the People to be subject to such Presbyters in Communion?
III. Suppose such Bishops would abate the Presbyters (a while till they are strengthened) the Oath or Promise of Obedience, is it lawful to receive Ordination from such Bishops, and live in subjection to them and Communion?
§ 2. The Case is of great moment, and very tenderly and warily to be handled.
I. On one side, If no Promise or Oath be required, nor any practice in it self unlawful, many will think it hard that they must separate from a whole Nation or Diocess for another man's Sin, which they consent not to? specially if it will cast them out of their Ministry and Maintenance. They will think, his guilt lyeth only on himself. Else one man may over-turn the Liberties of a whole Diocess or Land by his own proper sin.
II. Yea if the Oath or Promise be put on them for Obedience but in licitis & honestis, they will think the case doth little differ; as long as they consent not to a Forreign Jurisdiction.
§ 3. On the other side, If all men must or may obey them that profess Obedience to a Foreign Universal Jurisdiction, may not one or two, or a few Bishops subject the Kingdom to Foreigners at their pleasure? And that the more dangerously, because without any noise or notable alteration, and so without resistance? It is but the Primate or Archbishops, or Bishops, professing subjection to the Pope or Foreign Soveraign, and the thing is done. The Bishops being subject to the Pope, or other Usurpers, and the Priests to the Bishops, and the People to the Priests, are they not all then subject to the Foreign Usurper?
If the Kings Army in the days of H. 5. or Ed. 3. in France, were to be hired over to the King of France, what need he more than that the General or Field Officers Swear fidelity to him? And that the Captains be subject to the Colonels, and the common Soldiers to them?
When the Kingdom was in continual War between King Stephen and Maud the Empress, and between the Houses of York and Lancaster, the people were not usually Sworn on either side: But the Bishops and the Barons did Swear and Unswear, and Forswear, and Change sides as their Interests led them, and this was the misery of the Land.
§ 4. And yet the Case would be much easier if only the King e. g. of France should subject himself to Foreigners, and forbid all to preach and publickly Worship God that will not Swear Allegiance to him, and obey him as their King.
§ 5. In these dreadful cases, we must distinguish, 1. Between such a Bishop as is a Member of a Protestant Nation, and who turneth against the Law of the Land and the Consent of other Churches, and such as would draw the whole Land with him, or is but one in a common Revolt.
2. Between a Minister who was Ordained and subject to the Bishop before he revolted, and one that is Ordained and subjected to him after.
3. Between a Bishop whose revolt is professed, and one that denieth it, or keeps it secret.
4. Between living peaceably, and owning the Right of the Bishops Authority.
5. Between obeying him as a Magistrate and as a Church Pastor.
6. Between obeying him as a meer Bishop, and as the Subject of a Foreign Power.
7. Between obeying such a one when the Church accepteth him, or when he is but an intruder against their consent.
8. Between subjection in necessary cases where no better can be had, and in cases unnecessary where we may have better.
§ 6. And I shall speak my thoughts as in a dreadful case in these Conclusions.
I. If the Bishops revolt to a Foreign Jurisdiction be unknown, it maketh not that Obedience to him unlawful which was his due.
II. If a few Bishops revolt to a Foreign Usurper, it's easie to see that no one should follow them against the contrary judgment of all the rest in the Nation, and so forsake the National Concord.
III. If one or more Bishops be known to revolt to a Foreign Soveraign, a Minister is not bound therefore to renounce Communion with all the Christians or Churches in his Diocess, who are innocent: No nor with all that renounce not Communion with him: For we know not whether they know his case, and have had means to understand and do their Duty.
IV. So far as a Bishop exerciseth the Power of the Sword as an Officer of the King, we must obey him though he be a Papist; in all things which he hath true power to command.
V. One that was Ordained by him before his revolt, may go on with his work and live peaceably, and not openly renounce the revolting Bishop, till he have a particular Call, for the Churches safety or the preservation of his own innocency.
VI. If a man be necessitated to live where no other Ministry or Christian Communion can be had, one that renounceth the Bishops Subjection to an Universal Usurper, may yet be subject to him, and receive Baptism from him, or administer it and other Ordinances of God in his Diocess, and acknowledge his Office so far as it is described by Christ, and conveyed by just means, and hath the consent of the Church.
A man may have two Commissions to one Office, of which one is currant and the other null: If one that hath Christs Commission, shall also take one from a Forreign Usurper, the latter is void, and the taking of it is his heinous sin; but it doth not nullifie all his Administrations to the Church; because his better Commission may so far stand good, as that his Baptizing, Ordination, and other Administration of Gods own Ordinances shall not be null. And therefore we use not to Rebaptize such as Papists Baptize, nor Reordain all that they ordain to the Ministry in general.
VII. But it is rather a Duty to forbear all Church Assemblies where no other can be had, than to profess con…nt to a Foreign Usurpation, or pretended Universal Soveraignty. For no sin must be done on pretence of necessity, nothing being indeed necessary which must be got by sinful means.
VIII. If a Nation (as France) be subject to the Usurpers of an Universal Soveraignty, or if a Nation shew themselves to be designing such a Subjection, or if one Bishop or more declare themselves for it, It is the Duty of Ministers openly to disown and oppose such attempts, and ordinarily to disown the proper Church Government, Ordinations and Communion of such Bishops: And it is the peoples Duty to disown the Pastoral Conduct of such Ministers as openly follow them.
For, 1. The design of this Universal Usurpation is Treason against Christ, by setting up men to possess his Prerogative, and pretend to be his Vicars or Chief Substitutes without his Commission: And it is a design to divide all the Churches by false means of Union; and so to cast them all into that miserable War which the Romanists these Thousand years have done: And consequently to introduce an intolerable corruption of Discipline and Worship, Doctrine and Life. And no man may lawfully join in so wicked a design, nor be so much as neutral: If with single Fornicators, Railers, Drunkards, &c. we may not eat in familiarity, much less with such Subverters of the Christian World.
2. And no Christian is actually a Church-member under any one as his Pastor, without mutual Consent: And it is not lawful to consent to take a Traytor against Christ and the Church for our Pastor: He that is no Pastor should not be taken for a Pastor: But if he either want any Essential Qualification (as to be Christs Minister for the Churches good,) or the Consent of the Flock he is no Pastor to them.
3. The resolution of the Case against Martial and Basilides by the Carthage Council with Cyprian, fully decideth the Case; proving by Scripture and Reason if the people forsake not an uncapable Bishop, though other Bishops are for them, they greatly sin against God: And those that were but Libellatick, came far short of the guilt of the Universal Usurpation.
4. And it is not the danger of suffering that will justifie Subjection to such Designers: For suffering must not seem intolerable to Believers: None are true Christians but dispositive Martyrs.
5. Many old Canons were made against Presbyters Swearing or Promising Obedience to Bishops, as a thing dangerous to the Church; much more is it sinful to do it to such Church Enemies.
6. And Magistrates commands will not excuse it, because it is a thing forbidden of God, and which no Man hath right to command.
IX. The restriction of [in licitis & honestis] maketh it not lawful to Swear or Promise Obedience to such. 1. Because even to subject our selves to Usurpers is not licitum aut honestum tho' they command nothing else but good. 2. A Lawful Ruler must be obeyed only [in licitis & honestis] And a Usurper must not be as much owned as a Lawful Ruler.
If an Usurper should set up in England, and should falsly pretend the Kings Commission, and should sollicite the Kings Army to take Commissions from him, a Loyal Subject might be deceived by him, believing that he had the Kings Commission when he had none: And might at once be true to the King in Heart, and do the things that Traytors do. But if he know that he hath none of the Kings Commission, but raiseth Arms against his Will and Law to strengthen himself, every Subject ought to renounce him, and to renounce the Commanders that follow him, and neither to Swear Obedience to them in licitis & honestis, nor yet to bear Arms under them. And this is as true of a Parliament or any Senate as of a single Usurper, should they falsly pretend that the King or Law doth make them the Governors of the Kingdom, and so Usurp the Kings proper Power? And specially if the Total Legislative and Judicial Supreme Power be absolutely in the King alone, as it is in God and Jesus Christ; which I add because some think they may lawfully be subject to those Bishops that are subjected only to Universal Councils or Church Parliaments so they do but disclaim the Roman Papacy.
X. Though some may think that subjection to a pretended Universal Council may stand with. Loyalty to Christ, because such a Council is a Chimera, or Non Ens, and never will be in the World, and so can do no harm, (as one may be true to the King, who yet Sweareth Obedience to an Assembly of Mortal Angels,) yet the case is otherwise. For, 1. These Men that profess Subjection to Councils, cannot be supposed to take such Councils for Chimera's or things impossible, without being taken for mad Men. Therefore it is not a true General Council, but something possible that they mean: And they use to say themselves, [or as General as can be well had.] So that such a one as that at Trent, or as they will call General (as they do the old Imperial Councils) will serve their turn.
2. And let them disclaim Popery never so loudly, they mean still that the Pope must be the ordinary Caller and President of these Councils, and the Chief Patriarch and Principium Vnitatis Vniversalis: And so all will come but to a limited Pope instead of an Absolute One? And is he not a Monarch though he must Rule by Law? For they intend not that there be no Catholick Church all the time that there are no Councils; and therefore they intend some Unifying, Constitutive, Executive Supreme.
XI. Obj. But if we may not own a Bishop that subjecteth himself to the Pope or other Foreign Vsurper of Vniversal Government; then if the King be a Papist it will follow that we must not be subject to him: Which all Protestants confess to be false: Ergo, so is the Antecedent as of Bishops.
Ans. I deny the Consequence, speaking only of such a Kings Religion. Nero was a Heathen, and it was lawful for Christians to be subject to him, for Conscience sake: But it was not lawful to subject themselves to Heathen Bishops (a contradiction.) A Heathen may be Gods Minister to preserve the common Peace, and Execute the Laws of God in Nature, and the Just Subordinate Laws: But the Office of a Bishop consisteth in another matter, viz. In teaching the true Doctrine and Laws of Christ; and guiding the Church by them, and keeping out all that is against them. And therefore no other man can be a Bishop that doth not this as to the Essentials. If the King command us to be Papists we must disobey him: But if he command us to do things good and lawful, we must obey: True Christianity is Essential to a Bishops Office, but not to a Kings, as King.
But if any put the Question, [Whether a Ruler of a Protestant Kingdom, who taketh himself bound by the Laterane or other Council on pain of Damnation to destroy all his Kingdom that will not forsake their Religion, be Publicus Hostis? And whether by the Law of Nature every Nation have a right of self-defence against open Enemies? I meddle with no such Cases as these.
XII. To conclude, I advise all Christians to live peaceably in their places, but to take care whom they trust with the Pastoral Conduct of their Souls; and not to be seduced to enter into a Confederacy, against Christs Prerogative by any pretences of Humane Authority, or Catholick Vnity, which really are against Divine Authority, and the true Unity of the Church in Christ: For a thousand years experience (even by our Bishops confession who own but the Six first Councils) have told us by the sad confusions of the Christian World, that such Pretenders to Unity in a Humane Universal Soveraignty have but [caused divisions and offences contrary to the Apostolical Doctrine, not serving Christ, but their own bellies, and by good words and fair speeches deceived the hearts of the simple.
Our Unity consisteth in One Head Jesus Christ, One God, one Body or Church of Christ, one Faith, one Baptism, one Hope, one Gospel and Universal Law of Christ; and that we live in Love, and Peace, and Order, in Learning and in Worshipping God in several Congregations under their respective Guides, as consenting Volunteers; and that the conjunction of such under Christian Kings, makes Christian Kingdoms; where by the Counsels of Pastors in their own Dominions, they may keep that Church-Peace and external Order, which is left to the trust of their determination; and that in cases of need, the Counsel and Help of Foreign Churches be desired; and that Communion in Christianity be professed with all the true Christian World; and that we wait for perfect Unity in Heaven. But that Princes and Kingdoms be not brought under a Foreign Jurisdiction, (specially if pretended Universal) instead of Foreign Counsel, Communion, Peace and Aid.