A Key for Catholics, Treatise 2 · Chapter 3

A Key for Catholics · Treatise 2 · Chapter 3

p. 402CHAP. III.

Our Arguments for the Negative.

IN the management of the Arguments for the Negative, I ſhall principally deal with them that would Head the Church with a Council, that is, would make the Church to be autonomicall, and be the Soveraign, or chief Governour of it ſelf, or the Church Repreſentative of the Church reall (as they uſe to call them.) As to them that Head it with the Pope, I have ſaid enough already, and others much more, eſpecially Blondell unanſwerably. Yet I ſhall partly take them alſo in my way, though I deal principally with the other.

And theſe brief Arguments may ſerve to confute the Vice-chriſtſhip or Soveraignty of the Pope.

1. There is no ſuch Head Inſtituted by Chriſt. The Scripture pretenſes for it I have before confuted, and they are ſo poor, that they vaniſh of themſelves.

2. The Popes Soveraignty is againſt the Judgement of the Ancient Fathers, and practiſe of the Primitive Church, as I have proved in this and a former Book.

3. It is againſt Tradition, as brought down to us by the greateſt part of the Church on earth by far, as is before proved.

4. It is againſt the Judgement of the far greateſt part of the preſent Catholick Church, as is proved.

5. It is the the meer effect of pride and tyranny: a plain deſign p. 403to ſet up one man over all the world for his greatneſs, and their hurt.

6. The pretenſe of this Soveraignty is the conſequent only of Romes greatneſs, and the will of Emperours, that to conform the Eccleſiaſtical ſtate to the civil, did give a Primacy to the Biſhop of Rome within the Empire.

7. It is a meer impoſſibility for one man to be the Soveraign of all the Churches in the world, and do the work of a Soveraign for them. He had need of many millions and millions of Treaſure to defray the charge (which Peter had not.) While he pretends to govern all the world, he doth but leave them ungoverned, or not by him. How can he govern all thoſe Churches in the Dominions of Infidels, that will not endure his Government? There are more then all the Papiſts in the world now from under his Government voluntarily, that could not be governed by him if they would.

8. There are yet viſible many great Churches that were planted by the Apoſtles, or in their dayes, and never were under Romes Soveraignty to this day, as the Aetheopians, Perſians, Indians, and moſt that were without the verge of the Roman Empire.

9. There is no uſe for ſuch an Head, as I ſhall ſhew anon, of Councils.

10. There is not ſo much Reaſon for it, or poſſibility of it, as that One man muſt be King or Monarch of all the world. Conſidering that ſpiritual Government requireth reſidency, and can leſs be done by Deputies then temporal: And that Princes are truly Church-Governours alſo in their kind and way.

11. It is an intolerable uſurpation of the Power of all Chriſtian Princes and Paſtors, who conjunctly in their ſeveral wayes are intruſted by God with the Government of the Churches under them.

12. To make ſuch a Soveraign, is to make a new Catholick Church, that Chriſt never made.

13. And its the moſt notorious ſchiſm, dividing themſelves from all the Catholick Church, that are not their ſubjects.

14. And inhumane cruelty to damn all (as much as Heathens at leaſt) that believe not in the Pope, be they never ſo holy.

p. 40415. To ſet up a Vice-god (as Pope Julius paraphraſtically called himſelf) and a Vice chriſt on earth over all the Church (as the Papiſt commonly do, maintaining that the Pope is the Vicar of Chriſt) is to ſet up an Idoll, and a name of Blaſphemy, againſt Jeſus Chriſt, whoſe prerogative it is to be the ſole Univerſal Head; And therefore he muſt needs be an Antichriſt, whether he be The Antichriſt or not. This much to the Pope.

Theſ. The Catholick Church of Chriſt is not one Viſible Political Dr. Hammond on 1 Tim. 3. e. ſaith, [And ſuch all the particular Churches of the whole world conſidered together under the ſupream Head, Chriſt Jeſus, diſſpenſing them all by himſelf, & adminiſtring them ſeverally, not by any one oeconomus, but by the ſeveral Biſhops as inferiour Heads of Unity to the ſeveral bodies ſo conſtituted by the ſeveral Apoſtles in their plantations; each of them having an foreign, a ſeveral diſtinct Commiſſion from Chriſt immediately, and ſubordinate to none, but the ſupream donor or plenipotentiary.]1 Tim 3body, as joyned to one Univerſal Viſible Head or Soveraign, (ſave only Chriſt:) And conſequently it is not the way to heal the Churches diviſions, to draw all into ſuch a body, or endeavour ſuch an Union.

This I make good by theſe following Arguments, which reach both the Italian Papiſts, that would have the Pope to be the Head or Soveraign; and the French and Caſſandrian, who would have a General Council to be the Head, and the Pope only to be the chief Patriarch, and the Principium Unitatis: For if I prove that the Body is not one, as Headed by any except Chriſt, I ſhall ſay enough againſt both theſe opinions: But yet as is ſaid, it is principally againſt the later (who are for the Headſhip of a Council) that I ſhall direct my Arguments; becauſe they are the buſie Reconcilers, and becauſe the reſt are ſo largely confuted already on both ſides.

Argument 1. That which is the true form of the Catholick Church of Chriſt, it retaineth de facto at this day: But it retaineth not a Political Union under a Viſible Terreſtrial Univerſal Head: therefore this is not the true form of the Catholick Church.

Or, what the Catholick Church is quoad eſſentiam, that it is alſo quoad exiſtentiam: But it is not ſuch a Body quoad exiſtentiam; therefore not quoad eſſentiam.

If any will grant the concluſion, quoad eſſentiam vel formam, p. 405and ſay that this Policy, Head and Union are not eſſential to the Church, but ſeparable accidents tending only ad melius eſſe, he will give away his cauſe: For the Pars Imperans and pars ſubdita are the two eſſential parts of a body Politick, or Republick, whether Civil or Eccleſiaſtical, as a ſoul and body are the parts of man: and if it want either part, the eſſence is deſtroyed; It hath loſt its Political form. But I need not ſtand on this, becauſe the caſe is paſt controverſie, and I know not of any that make the objection, or will go on ſuch terms: I am ſure thoſe do not that I have now to deal with. Another thing there may be that is called a Church, without this Form or Head, but not this ſame thing or body that now we ſpeak of.

The Major propoſition I prove thus: The Church of Chriſt is a true Church at this day, or retaineth its eſſential parts: therefore it retaineth its form. If its eſſentials were not in exiſtence, the Church were extinct, or did not exiſt: But that the Church is not extinct or nulled, the opponents will eaſily grant, and the promiſe of Chriſt will eaſily prove; The gates of Hell ſhall not prevail againſt it.

The Minor I prove thus; If the Catholick Church be now Headed with one Viſible Head (beſide Chriſt,) then it is either the Pope or a General Council. But it is neither of theſe. That it is not the Pope, the French will grant. And 1. Its proved at large by many a volume of Proteſtant writers; and 2. By the preſent viſible ſtate of the Church; The greateſt part of the Church on Earth (and all thoſe in Heaven) diſown the Univerſall Soveraignty or Headſhip of the Pope; The Greeks, Abaſſines, Armenians, Proteſtants, &c.

That it is not a General Council appeareth, in that there is no ſuch thing in Natural or Moral Exiſtence. Not in Natural exiſtence; For where is it? when called? how long have they ſate? But this none will affirm.

Not in Moral exiſtence; For there is no ſuch thing pretended, nor poſſible. I confeſs the Common wealth is not diſſolved at the death of the Prince; becauſe a Succeſſor being determined of by Law (as in hereditary Government,) there is one hath preſently right to the place, though he want ſolemn admittance; or if elective, yet Rex non moritur, both becauſe the ſucceſſor hath an Intentional Moral being in the Fundamental Law, and p. 406the Intention of the Electors conjunctly, and they preſently make an actual choice, or elſe the power ſo far as is neceſſary for execution, falls in the mean time into the hands of ſome Truſtees of the Republick, while they are electing, and the ſoveraign is in fieri: Or if it be in ſome diſſolvable body, whoſe actual Seſſion is intermitted, yet they are ſtill in Moral being, and ready to aſſemble, and the Soveraignty for ſo much as is of ordinary exerciſe, even over the Univerſal body, is in the mean time in the hands of ſome other Aſſembly, who therefore may be ſaid to partake of the Soveraignty.

But none of this is ſo in the preſent caſe. Here is no General Council ordinarily in natural being; and therefore in the vacancy not in Moral being: There is none that pretendeth to be in Moral being: For the Council of Trent, which was the laſt pretended General Council, is diſſolved; and the Pope would not take it well if any ſhall call another without him: and no time is appointed for it: The Decennial Council determined of at Conſtance, is an empty name: and that Decree did but ſerve to prove, that really General Councils are not the Supream Governors of the Church: For no one obeyeth them in that. And whether ever the Pope, or any one elſe will call a General Council again, we cannot tell. So that now there is none; nor we know not whether there ever will be. But further.

Argum. 2. That which is the Head, or form of the Catholick Church (or any way Neceſſary to its Being or Unity) hath ever been found in it, or at leaſt within this thouſand years, or at leaſt in the primitive purer ages, or ſometime at leaſt: But a true General Council is not always in being, nor ever was within this thouſand years, no nor in the purer ages, nor ever at all: therefore it is no Head of the Church, nor neceſſary to its unity.

The Major will not be denyed. The proof of any branch of the Minor may ſerve turn: much more of all. 1. That a General Council hath not been this forty years in being, all men will confeſs. If the Church have been Headleſs forty years, or wanted any thing Neceſſary to its Being or Unity, then was it ſo long no Church, or many Catholick Churches, which are known untruths.

2. If the Church have had any General Council within this thouſand years, it was either that of Trent, that of Canſtance, p. 407Baſil, Florence, the Laterane, &c. But none of theſe were ſuch. For 1. there were no Biſhops from the moſt of the Chriſtian world. I have told you before how few at Trent did the moſt egregious parts of their work (few more then forty:) The Churches of Syria, Armenia, Ethiopia, and the moſt of the Chriſtian world, were never ſo much as fairly invited to be there. If at Florence the Patriarch of Conſtantinople, and two or three Greeks more were preſent, what's that to all the Churches of the Greek Profeſſion through the world? beſides all others. The ancient Councils called General, contained All the Biſhops that could and would come. For all were to be there, and not one Biſhop choſen by two hundred, or by a Prince, inſtead of two hundred. But at theſe later Councils were neither all, nor ſo much as any Delegates (though but choſen by hundreds to repreſent them) from moſt of the Churches of the world. Beſides the packing and fore-reſolutions of the Popes, that ruled all, and many other Arguments that nullifie theſe pretended General Councils. I ſay not that all of them were uſeleſs; but none of them were any more like to Oecumenical or Univerſal, then Italy and its few ſervants are like to all the Chriſtian world.

And that the Ancient Councils were not General, I mean, the four firſt, or any like them, I eaſily prove. 1. From the Original of them, and the Mandates, and the Preſidents, and Ratifications, and Executions. It was the Roman Emperors that called them, and that ſent their Mandates to the Lieutenants and other ſecular Officers to ſee to the execution, and to the Biſhops to be there: It was the Roman Emperors that by themſelves or their Lieutenants, were preſent to Rule them all according to the proportion of ſecular intereſt. It was the ſame Powers that Ratified them, and what they ratified went for currant, and their Ratification was ſought by the Biſhops to that end. It was the ſame Power that baniſhed them that obeyed not, and compelled men to ſubmit to them. Now let any man of Reaſon tell me, what Power Conſtantine, Theodoſius, Martian, or any Roman Emperor had to ſummon the Biſhops that were ſubjects in the Dominions of all other Princes through the world? What Authority had they out of their own Dominion?

p. 4082. Yea de facto, the caſe is known, 1. That they did not ſummon the Biſhops of other Princes Dominions. 2. That thoſe Biſhops (at leaſt no conſiderable number were there.) What Mandates or Invitations were ſent to all the Churches of India, Ethiopia, Perſia, or the parts of Parthia, Armenia, Ireland, Scotland, &c. that were out of the Roman Power? Whoever thoſe one or two were that Euſebius calls Biſhops of Perſis, Parthia, Armenia, it's a plain caſe, that there were no due Repreſentatives of all or any of theſe Churches there, that were without the verge of the Empire. No Brittiſh, Iriſh, (that is, then Scottiſh) Biſhops were there, nor any from abundance other Churches. And the other Councils after that at Nice, make leſs pretenſe to ſuch a thing. So that it is moſt evident that General Councils then were but of the Biſhops of the Empire, or the Roman world, unleſs a Biſhop or two ſometime might drop in that lived next them. And was the Church no wider then the Empire? Let Baronius himſelf be judge, that tells you of the Churches planted by the primitive Preachers, in India, Perſia, and many other parts of the world. Let Godignus be judge, that confeſſeth the Ethiopians had the Goſpel ſince the Apoſtles days (and I pray in what age were they Papiſts?) Let Raynerius be judge, that ſaith the Churches of Armenia and others planted by the Apoſtles were not ſubject to the Church of Rome? Let the Antiquities of Brittain and Ireland be evidence. But the caſe is undenyable. All this noyſe then of General Councils comes but from a ſuppoſition that the Roman world was the whole Chriſtian world. A ſmall miſtake! We home-bred Ruſticks may ſhortly be as well able to prove that a London Convocation was a General Council! Pighius pleading for the Pope, ſaith plainly, that General Councils were the deviſe of Conſtantine. And the Popes themſelves do fetch the moſt ſpecious Evidences for their primacy from the Decrees or Edicts of Emperors, Valentinian, Gratian and others. And what power had thoſe Emperors at the other ſide of the world?

3. And then before the Nicene Council, what General Councils were there ſince the Apoſtle days? None doubtleſs that the world now knows of. It's ſenſeleſs enough to think that 350 Roman Biſhops at the ſecond Council of Nice, or the 150 Biſhops in the third Council at Conſtantinople, or the 165 Biſhops p. 409at the ſecond Council at Conſtantinople, or the 150 Biſhops at the firſt there, were the Univerſal Church of Chriſt? But it will be more ridiculous to ſay, that the new-found Concilium Sinueſſanum, imagined without proof to meet in a certain Cave, for the depoſition of an Idolatrous Pope, were a General Council. Where then was the Head, the unity, the form of the Church for 300 years? Was it governed all that time, think you, by a General Council? yea or ever one day ſince the Apoſtles?

Well, but was there ever ſuch a thing at all? Indeed men have a fairer pretence when the Church was contained in a family, or a City, or a narrow ſpace, to call the meetings of the Apoſtles or other Chriſtians then, by the name of a General Council, but they are hard put to it, if this be all. The great Inſtance inſiſted on is the Council, Act. 15. But were the Biſhops of all the Churches there? or ſummoned to appear? Act. 14. 23. they had ordained them Elders in every Church; but few of them were there, Timothy, Titus, abundance were abſent. It's plain, that it was to the Apoſtles and Church at Hieruſalem as the Fountain, and beſt informers that they ſent. Not becauſe theſe were the Univerſal Church, but becauſe they were of greateſt knowledge and authority. If it could be proved that all the Apoſtles were there, it would no more prove them a General Council, then that the Deacons of one Church were ordained by a General Council, Act. 6. And Matthias and Juſtus put to the Lot by a General Council, Act. 1. and that Chriſt appeared to a General Council after his Reſurrection, and gave the Sacrament of his Supper to a General Council before his death. So that it is moſt evident from the event, that Chriſt never made a General Council the Head or Governor of his Church; and that there never was ſuch a thing the world, much leſs continually.

Argum. 3. The form or unity (no nor the well-being) of the Catholick Church, dependeth not on that which is either unneceſſary, unjuſt, or naturally or morally impoſſible: But a true General Council is none ſuch: It cannot be: or if it were it would be unneceſſary and unjuſt. Therefore it is not the Head or Soveraign Governor of the Church, on which its being, unity, (or well being) doth depend.

p. 410I have nothing here to prove but the Minor. And 1. I ſhall prove the Impoſſibility. 2. The non-neceſſity. 3. The unjuſtice of a General Council: and ſo that no ſuch thing is to be expected.

A true General Council conſiſteth of all the Paſtors or Biſhops of the whole world; or ſo many as Morally may be called All. A General Council of Delegates from all the Churches, muſt conſiſt of ſo many proportionably choſen, as may ſignifie the ſenſe and conſent of all, or elſe it is a meer name and ſhadow. Both theſe are Morally, if not Naturally Impoſſible: as I prove.

1. From the diſtance of their habitations, ſome dwell in Meſopotamia, ſome in Armenia, ſome in Ethiopia, ſome in Mexico, the Philippines, or other parts of the Eaſt and Weſt-Indies: ſome at St. Thome's, ſome diſperſed through moſt of the Turks Dominions. Now how long muſt it be, before all theſe have tidings of a Council, and ſummons to appear, or ſend their Delegates? Who will be at the coſt of ſending meſſengers to all theſe? Will the Pope? Not if he be no richer then Peter was. How many hundred thouſand pound will it coſt before that all can have a lawful ſummons? And when that is done, it will be long before they can all in their ſeveral Nations meet, and agree upon their Delegates, and their inſtructions. And when that is done, who ſhall bear their charges in the journey? Alas, the beſt of the Churches Paſtors have had ſo little gold and ſilver, that they are unable themſelves to defray it. A few Biſhops out of each of theſe diſtant Countries, will conſume in their journey a great deal of money and proviſion. To provide them ſhipping by Sea, and Horſes, and all other neceſſaries by land, for ſo many thouſand miles, will require no ſmall allowance.

And then conſider, that it muſt be voluntary contribution that muſt maintain them. And moſt love their money ſo well, and know ſo little of the need of ſuch journeys and Councils, that doubtleſs they will not be very forward to ſo great a contribution.

And it is not to be expected that Infidel Princes will give way to the tranſporting of ſo much money from their countries on the Churches occaſions, which they hate.

But ſuppoſe them furniſhed with all neceſſaries, and ſetting p. 411forward; How long will they be in their journey? Shipping cannot always be had: Many of them muſt go by land: It cannot be expected that ſome of them ſhould come in leſs than three, or four, if not ſeven years time to the Council. And will ever a General Council be held upon theſe terms?

2. Moreover the perſons for the moſt part are not able to perform ſuch journeys. Biſhops are Elders: Moſt of them are aged perſons. The wiſeſt are they that are fit to be truſted in ſo great a buſineſs by all the reſt: And few attain that maturity but the aged: Eſpecially in the moſt of the Eaſtern & Southern Churches that want the helps of Learning which we have. And will the Churches be ſo barbarous as to turn out their aged faithful Paſtors upon the jaws of death? Some of them are not like to live out ſo long time as the journey, if they were at home. They muſt paſs through raging and tempeſtuous Seas, through Deſerts and enemies, and many thouſand miles where they muſt daily conflict with diſtreſs. It were a fond conceit, to think that (without unuſual providences) ten Biſhops of a thouſand …ould come alive to the Council, through all theſe labors and difficulties.

And moreover, it's known how few bodies will bear the Seas, and ſo great change of air: How many of our Souldiers in the Indies are dead, for one that doth ſurvive? And can ancient Biſhops, ſpent with ſtudies and labors, endure all this? Moſt ſtudious painful Preachers here with us are very ſickly, and ſcarſe able to endure the ſmall incommodities of their habitations: And could they endure this?

3. Moreover abundance of the Paſtors of the Churches live under Mahometans and other Infidels, that will not give them leave to travail ſo far into the Countries of Chriſtian Princes on ſuch occaſions. They hate us and our Religion. They are oft at war with us, and then would hang thoſe Biſhops as Intelligencers that ſhould offer to come among us.

4. And they muſt many of them paſs through the Countries of other Princes, that are Infidels, and oft in war with the parts which they come from or go to. And it cannot be expected that in ſuch caſes they ſhould allow them paſſage through their Countries. If one do, all will not: When poor Lithgow had travailed nineteen years, he was tortured, ſtrappado'd and diſjoynted, p. 412and made a cripple at Malaga in the Spaniſh Inquiſition. And thanked God and the Engliſh Embaſſador that he ſped ſo well.

5. Even at home in Europe, the Princes are ſo commonly in Wars (as are France, Spain, Venice, Sweden, Denmark, Poland, the Emperor, Brandenburgh, Holland, Portugal, England, Tranſylvania, &c. at this very day) that there is not the leaſt probability that they ſhould all or half conſent to have ſo many of their ſubjects paſs into their enemies Countries to reſide ſo long. Jealouſies raiſed by particular Intereſts would make it Treaſon.

6. Moreover many Princes underſtand that the Pope hath no power to call ſuch Councils, nor any man elſe: and they know the deſign of the Pope to ſubject the world to himſelf. And therefore they will abhor that their ſubjects ſhould travail ſo far at his call, that hath ſuch deſigns, (or at another mans that hath no authority to call them.) This hath made the Emperor of Habaſſia ſo reſolutely reſiſt the Popes pretenſions (as Godignus, Maffaeus, and others do declare) Few Princes will endure to have their ſubjects brought under a forreign Power.

7. And if you ſuppoſe all the Biſhops come to the Council, the very number out of all the Chriſtian world, (to make any thing like a General Council) would be ſo great, as would be unfit for one, or two, or ten, or twenty Council houſes or Aſſemblies.

8. And they would be uncapable of conferring, through diverſity of languages. Few of the Abaſſines, Egyptians, Syrians, Armenians, or of moſt of the world, underſtand and ſpeak any language that would commonly be underſtood and uſed in a Council. Nor is it poſſible to do it by Interpreters. For ſo many Interpreters cannot be uſed to tell all that underſtand not, what every man ſaith, and to expound their minds to others. This would waſte an age in a Council; ſo that ſuch a Council would be a very Babel.

9. And Councils uſe to be ſo long, that it cannot be expected that after ſo many years journey, old men ſhould live to ſee the iſſue, or do any great matters there. Eighteen years at Trent would conſume a great many of the Biſhops: How p. 413many even of the Popes own Legates dyed before that Council could be finiſhed?

10. And if they ſhould live to ſee the end, can you dream that they ſhould live to perform the like tedious dangerous journeys and voyages to bring back the Decrees of the Councill to their Churches? Judge now whether ſuch Councils are not Naturally Impoſſible.

I will add but this. No men can be compelled. And to make all the world at once agree to ſo difficult a task, and agree upon the time and place, muſt be a Miracle. One will be for it, and another againſt it. One for one time and place, and another for another, through moſt of the world. We ſee how hardly any two Princes can agree upon times, places, and all circumſtances in their Treaties.

2. Let us next enquire, of what Neceſſity ſuch a Council is. If it be Neceſſary for Church government, it is either to make Laws, or to execute them. But for neither of theſe: therefore they are not Neceſſary.

1. Chriſt hath made us Laws already ſufficient for ſalvation. And I hope he hath not conſtituted ſo looſe a Society, and left his Body to ſuch mutations, as that they muſt ſo frequently have new Laws. And if it muſt, ſure it muſt be from their Soveraign, who hath reſerved the Legiſlative Power to himſelf as his Prerogative. Legiſlation is the higheſt act of Supremacy, and chief flower in the Crown of Soveraignty. The Church is Chriſts ſubjects, and ſhall ſubjects make their own Laws? Scripture is ſufficient. If this be all that we need General Councils for, to make Univerſal Laws to the Church, we can ſpare them as well as Traytors in a Common-wealth.

And for Execution of Laws, it is either Magiſterial, by force of the Sword; and this they have nothing to do with, it being the Princes right. Or it is for the Excommunicating Church offenders: And to caſt them out of particular Churches is the work of the Paſtors of thoſe Churches. Others cannot know the perſons, and hear the cauſe. If all Churchcauſes ſhould come to a General Council, Millions of men muſt be attending them at once.

And if it be to judge who ſhall be caſt out of the Communion of the Churches, and what Churches themſelves are to p. 414be excommunicated, the Synods of neighbour Paſtors are to do as much of that as is to be done. Where then is the Neceſſity of ſuch Councils at ſuch rates? Auguſtine ſaid that drunkenneſs in his time was grown ſo ſtrong, that there muſt be a Council to ſuppreſs it. Could they do ſuch feats as to cure Drunkenneſs, Whoredom, Covetouſneſs, Pride, I would be for them.

3. If a General Council were called, it muſt be a moſt unjuſt Aſſembly. For, 1. It would be guilty of cruelty and deſtroying the Church of Chriſt, by killing ſo many of the Paſtors as aforeſaid.

2. It would be guilty of cruelty and Church deſtoying by the ſtarving and deſertion of the flocks at home. What will become of the poor peoples ſouls, when they are left to the Wolves, to Hereticks, and Deceivers, and to the temptations of their own fleſh, and the world, being for ten or twenty years, or for ever deprived of their Paſtors under pretenſe of a General Council? Baſil in his ſeventieth Epiſtle tells the Weſtern Biſhops, that they of the Eaſt could not come to ſolicite their own cauſe with them. For, ſaith he, If any one of us (N. B.) do for the leaſt moment leave his Church, he preſently leaveth his people to deceivers. And on this ground he ſhews that they could not ſo much as ſpare Biſhops to be meer Meſſengers to them. Much leſs could they have ſpared a ſufficient number to ſtay ſeven or ten years together. If any think that ſuch Neceſſities are unuſuall, he knows not the world. And Councils are moſt uſefull if ever, when neceſſities are greateſt.

3. In Councils things are carried by Votes: and ſo Abaſſia, Armenia, Mexico, and places ſo remote that they can ſend but one or two, would be out-voted by that corner of the world where the Council is called, that can ſend in proportionably an hundred for one; and ſo under the name of a General Council, a faction might promote any hereſie or carnal intereſt, and no Churches would be ſo enſlaved as thoſe that ſend at the deareſt rates. Italy and a few more parts, at Trent, would over-vote all the Churches of Eaſt and South, and ſet up what intereſt or opinion they pleaſe: And ſo if one corner of the Church can err, all may err, for all the Council: Where there is an equal intereſt, there ſhould be an equal power in Councils: which will certainly be otherwiſe.

p. 4154. If the Pope be he that muſt call General Councils, we ſhall have none, till it will ſtand with his intereſt. And if he have not the power of calling them, no one elſe hath, for none pretendeth to it. And if they muſt be called by univerſal conſent, three hundred years is little enough for all the world to treat of the time, place, and other circumſtances, and conſent.

5. And if the Pope muſt call them, he will eaſily by the very choice of the place, procure the accompliſhment of his own deſigns.

6. Thoſe that think it the Popes prerogative to call a Council, do alſo affirm (as I before ſhewed in the expreſs words of Binnius and others) that a Council hath no more power then the Pope will give them, and that when they are convened by him, and have done their work, it is all of no Validity, if he allow it not: If he approve one half, that half is valid, and his approbation will make their Decrees the Articles of our faith; when as the other half which he diſapproveth ſhall not be worth a ſtraw. And is it not a moſt fooliſh thing for all the world to put themſelves to ſo much charge to defray the expenſes of their Biſhops, and hazzard their lives, and loſe their labours at home for ſo many years, and hazzard the Churches by their abſence, when for ought they know the Biſhops of the whole Chriſtian world do but loſe all their labour, and nothing ſhall be valid if they pleaſe not the Pope of Rome? And is it not moſt abominable juſtice in him thus to put all the world to trouble, and coſt, and hazzard the Churches and the Paſtors lives, for nothing, when if the infallible ſpirit be only in himſelf, he might have done the work himſelf, and ſaved all this coſt and labour.

7. By what Juſtice ſhall all the Catholick Church be obliged by the Decrees of ſuch a General Council? Is it by Law, or Contract? If by Law, it is by Divine Law, or by Humane. If by Divine, let it be ſhewed that ever God made ſuch a Government for the Catholick Church, and then take all. If by Humane Laws, it is impoſſible, and therefore not to be affirmed. For no Humane Soveraign hath power to make Laws for all the world. If you ſay is it by contract, then 1. All thoſe Nations that thought not meet to ſend any Biſhops to the Council, will be free. 2. And ſo will all thoſe be that ſent Biſhops who diſſented from the reſt. For contract or Conſent bindeth none p. 416but Contracters or Conſenters. And ſo England is not bound by the Council of Nice, Epheſus, Calcedon, Conſtantinople, &c.

8. By what Juſtice ſhall any people be required to ſend Delegates, on ſuch terms as theſe to Councils, or to ſtand to their definitions when they have done? When our faith and ſouls are preciouſer things then ſo boldly to caſt upon the truſt of a few Delegates ſo to be choſen and employed? What Biſhops other Countries will chooſe, we know not. And for our own, 1. In almoſt all Countries it is the Princes that chooſe, or none muſt be choſen but who they will, which is all one. 2. If the Biſhops chooſe, its thoſe that are higheſt with the ſecular power that will have the choice, who perhaps may chooſe ſuch as are contrary to the judgement of moſt of that Church that is thought to chooſe them. Moſt Nations have a Clergy much at difference. The Remonſtrants and Contramonſtrants in Holland would not have choſen like members for the Synod. In the Biſhops days men of one mind were choſen here in England to Convocations: The next year we had a Learned Aſſembly that put down the Prelacy, for which a Convocation had formed an Oath to be impoſed on all Miniſters but a little before. And why ſhould the judgment of the Prelates be taken for the judgement of the Church of England, any more then the other, when for number, learning and piety (to ſay the leaſt) they had no advantage (laying aſide ignorant, ungodly men, in point of number.) Till the Spaniſh match began to be treated on, the Biſhops of England were ten, if not twenty to one Auguſtinians, Calviniſts, or Antiarminians: Now the Arminians would be thought the Church of England, and their doctrine, agreeable to the doctrine of that Church. Would they not accordingly have differed, if they had been ſent to a General Council? How bitterly are the Articles of the Church of Ireland decryed by the Arminian Biſhops ſince ſprung up both in Ireland and England? ſo that if Delegates be ſent to any Council, they may ſpeak the minds of thoſe that ſent them, (which perhaps is the King, or a ſmall prevailing party,) but not of the reſt: (which perhaps may the beſt and moſt.) If Jeremiah of Conſtantinople be of a Council, he will go one way. If Cyril be of a Council, he will go another way: And his counterfeit Succeſſor undo what he did.

p. 4179. No Church that ſendeth three or four Biſhops to repreſent a thouſand or two thouſand Paſtors, can be ſure how thoſe Biſhops will carry it when they come thither. For ought we know they may betray our cauſe, and croſs their inſtructions: They may be perverted by the reaſonings of erroneous men, or bribed by the powerfull: And to caſt our faith on ſo ſlender an aſſurance, is little wiſdom.

10. If conſent only bind us to the Decrees of Councils (to ſubmit to them as our Rule,) then is Poſterity bound that did not conſent as their Fathers did, or are they not? If not, we are free? If yea, by what bond? And then why do not the Grotians in Ireland and England obey the Antiarminian Decrees of the Churches in both? Did not the Church of England ſend Biſhop Carlton, Biſhop Hall, Biſhop Davenant (afterward a Biſhop) Dr. Ward. Dr. Goad, and Balcanquall Epiſcopal Divines to the Synod of Dort, and ſo England was a part of that Synod? And yet the Grotians and Arminians think not themſelves bound to receive the Doctrine of that Synod, nor to forbear reproaching it.

11. It is unjuſt that any (eſpecially moſt) of the Churches ſhould be obliged by the votes of others, and oppreſſed by Majority, meerly becauſe their diſtance, or poverty, or the age, or weakneſs of their Paſtors diſableth them to ſend any, or an equal number, or to defray the charge of their abode, &c. Ah if good Pope Zachary, or Archbiſhop Boniface had conſidered that the eſſence or unity of the Church did conſiſt in a General Council, that muſt be fetched partly from the Antipodes, they would have thought better on it before they had excommunicated Virgilius, for ſaying that there were Antipodes, or quod alius mundus, & alii homines ſunt ſub terras. Dr. Heylin tels us in his Geography, Lib. 1. pag. 25. that Bede (de ratione temporum, cap. 32.) calleth it a fable that there are Antipodes, and not to be believed: and adds that Auguſtine, Lactantius, and ſome other of the Learned of thoſe better times condemned it as a ridiculous incredible fable, whoſe words (ſaith he) I could put down at large, did I think it neceſſary.] And did that age dream that the Being or Unity of the Church, or the ſalvation of the Believers ſoul depended on this Article, that a General Council, partly called from the Antipodes muſt be the Churches p. 418Head or Governours? or that the Pope at leaſt muſt be acknowledged and obeyed by every Chriſtian ſoul that will be ſaved at the Antipodes? And Sir Fradcis Drake and Cavendiſh would not have been ſo famous for compaſſing the world, if men had underſtood, that when the Goſpel is ſpread through the earth, ſo many poor old Biſhops muſt ordinarily take half ſuch Journies or voyages to do their buſineſs. If the Decree of the Council of Conſtance had been executed, to have had a General Council evry ten years, many would ſcarce have had time to go and come. But the charitable Church of Rome hath found out a Remedy, not only by the rarity of their Councils (let them decree what they will to the contrary) but alſo by condemning the moſt of the Churches, and the remoteſt, as Hereticks, and ſending them to Hell, to ſave them a journey to the General Council.

12. Moreover ſuch Councils are unjuſt, becauſe of the multi tude of Biſhops that muſt there meet and cannot be heard ſpeak. As the caſe ſtandeth already, there are many more Biſhops in the world then can meet, and ſpeak, and hear in one, or two, or three Aſſemblies: And many thouſand more may be made. If I ſhould ſay that all the Rectors of particular Churches, whom they call Pariſh Presbyters, are Biſhops, and have votes in Councils, they would eaſilyer deny it then diſprove it, or invalidate the proofs already brought: But (to proceed on their own grounds) me thinks they that make him a Biſhop who hath Presbyters and Deacons under him, ſhould admit all thoſe Paſtors of particular Churches that have Presbyters under them, as their Curates, which are many. Or if they ſay that only Cities muſt have Biſhops, yet muſt they on their own grounds admit a Biſhop for each City: And if every City in a few Kingdoms in Europe had a Biſhop in the Council, there would be no room for all the reſt of the world. But how prove they that Countrey Pariſhes may not have Biſhops? Why may not (on their own grounds) every four or ſix pariſhes have one? Hath God forbid it? where? and when? ſure they will not ſay it is of Divine inſtitution that a Biſhop have juſt ſo many Pariſhes and Presbyters under him, and neither more nor leſs. The number is confeſt to be left undetermined. And what if Chriſtian Princes, Biſhops and people agree to ſettle Biſhops in p. 419every ſuch ſmall number of Pariſhes, by what Law can they exclude them from a General Council? If they ſay, by the Canons of former Councils; I anſwer 1. Thoſe Canons are contrary to Scripture. 2. They contradict one another. 3. They themſelves do not obey the Canons of many ſuch Councils. 4. Thoſe Councils have no power to make Laws; much leſs Laws that ſhall reach to this time and place. But they will ſay Pauls command to Titus 1. 3, 5. and the example Acts 14. 23. is only of ordained Elders or Biſhops in every City: therefore they may not ordain them any where but in Cities. But I deny the conſequence. Moſt ancient interpreters by Elders, Acts 14. 23. Underſtand meer Presbyters: And then it would as much follow that Preſbyters muſt be ordained no where but in Cities: What if I can prove that the Apoſtles never gathered a ſolemn Aſſembly of Chriſtians for Divine Worſhip any where but in Cities; or that they never adminiſtred the Lords Supper any where but in Cities? will it follow that therefore we ought not to Aſſemble or adminiſter the Sacrament any where but in Cities? But what if this were granted? they cannot deny but every corporation, ſuch as moſt of our Burroughs and Market Towns in England are, may truly be called Cities in that Scripture ſence. And if every ſuch City had a Biſhop, Even England, France, Germany, and Italy, a little ſpot of the world, would make Biſhops enough for two or three Councils; and more then could Aſſemble and do the work.

Two ſhifts they have againſt the over-greatneſs of the number. One is the courſe now taken: to have but one Biſhop over many Cities, and a very large Circuit of the Countrey.

The other is, to depute one out of many from every Countrey to repreſent the reſt; and ſo it ſhall be a Repreſentative General Council, though not a Real. But for the firſt, 1. Who hath authority to make ſuch diminutions? 2. What if thoſe that are ſuppoſed to have that authority, ſhall be otherwiſe minded? 3. Its apparently againſt the word of God, and tendeth to the fruſtrating of the Office that true Biſhops ſhould be ſo rare. By their own Rule, each City ſhould have one. And let Brerewoods Enquiries, or any ſuch writers help you to conjecture how many that would be.

And for the other way, 1. A Repreſentative General Council is another thing, quite different from a Real. 2. What word p. 420of God have they to prove ſuch a Repreſentative Council? Doubtleſs none: And will they give us a Church form, and center of Unity, meerly of their own brains, upon ſuppoſition that it is prudential? 3. Men are of exceeding different degrees of underſtanding, and of different judgements actually: ſo that if e. g. England ſhould ſend one, or two, or ten men to repreſent the reſt to a General Council, its more then poſſible that they may give their judgements in many points ſo far contrary to the minds of thoſe that ſent them, that twenty or an hundred to one at home may be againſt them. For we cannot ſend our underſtandings and all our reaſons with them to the Council when we ſend them. And ſo no man can ſay that any ſuch Council doth expreſs the mind of the greater part of the Church. 4. By this rule you may reduce a General Council to a dozen men, or to the four or five Patriarks: For all the reſt may chooſe them as their repreſentatives. 5. But its not to be expected that all the Churches ſhould be ſatisfied of the lawfulneſs or fitneſs of ſuch ſubſtitutions and repreſentations: And therefore they will not conſent or elect men for ſuch a power and work: And who may juſtly force them?

13. Moreover ſuch Councils are unjuſt, becauſe there can be no juſt ſatisfaction given by men that live at ſo vaſt a diſtance, that this great number that come thither are truly Biſhops: yea or Presbyters either. Its not poſſible under many years time, ſo much as to take any ſatisfactory account of their ordination, and abiding in that office, and the truth of their deputations or elections. And when (in their elected Repreſentative Councils) there will be perpetual controverſies between ſeveral parties (as there is in Parliaments) whether it be this man or that which is truly elected, in how many years will all theſe be decided, before they begin their work? So that I may well conclude, laying all theſe ſeven conſiderations together, the diſtance of places, the age and ſtate of the Biſhops, the ſtate of the Civil Governments which they live under, their neceſſary labours at home, and the ruine that will befall their Churches by ſo much abſence, the diverſity of their languages, the multitude of the Biſhops, and the difficulty of knowing the Ordination and Qualifications of perſons ſo remote to prove their capacity, I ſay all theſe together do plainly ſhew that ſuch p. 421General Councils are impoſſible and unjuſt: and therefore not the ſtanding Government or form of the Church, or the center of its Unity.

Argum. 4. As the Synod it ſelf is impoſſible, needleſs, and unjuſt; ſo it is Impoſſible that they ſhould do the work of a Head or Soveraign Power, if they could Aſſemble: therefore they are not appointed thereunto.

The Antecedent is partly manifeſt by what is ſaid from their different languages and other conſiderations. Moreover 1. The perſons that will have appeals to them, and cauſes to be judged (if really they will do the work of a Soveraign Power and Judge) will be ſo many millions, that there will be no room for them about their doors, nor any leiſure in many years to hear their It was one of the Reaſons of the Council of Carthage to P. Celeſtine to prove the invalidity of the Papal judgements up on appeals from other Countries, becauſe the witneſs neceſſary to a juſt deciſion could not go far.cauſes. If you ſay, It was not ſo in former Councils, I anſwer, that is becauſe they were not truly General, or were called in ſuch times when the Church did lie in a narrow compaſs, and not in ſuch remote parts of the world; and becauſe they were aſſembled indeed but occaſionally, to adviſe upon and determine ſome one particular mans caſe, or few, and never took upon them to be the Soveraign power or head of the Church, or its eſſential form or Center of Unity. 2. Theſe millions of perſons that have ſo many cauſes, will have ſo far to travail, that it will put them to great coſt and labour to come and attend and bring all their witneſſes. And if they be not ſounder bodyed then our Engliſh Souldiers, the poor people of Mexico and other parts of thoſe Indies (to look no further) will be a great part of them dead by the way before they can reach the General Council. e. g. if it ſhould be in the midſt of Europe. 3. And the Council will not be competent Judges of ſo many cauſes which by diſtance muſt needs be much unknown in many weighty Circumſtances, whoſe cogniſance is neceſſary. 4. And laſtly, ſuch Councils will ſit ſo ſeldom, that the work will be undone.

Argum. 5. If God had intended that ſuch a Council ſhould have been the form of his Church, or the neceſſary Governour of it, he would have acquainted us with his will concerning ſome certain Power to ſummon them, (or would have authorized ſome or other to call ſuch a Council) But he hath not acquainted us with his will herein, nor authorized any to call ſuch a Council: therefore it p. 422was not his intent that it ſhould be the form or neceſſary Governour of his Church.

Either this Council muſt meet by an Authoritative call, or by conſent. If by ſuch a call, who muſt call them? The Popes pretenſe to this Authority is voluminouſly and unanſweràbly confuted long ago; and its well known, what ever Baronius ſay, that the ancient Councils were called by the Emperors; and many ſince have been called by Emperours and Cardinals. And if you ſay that it belongs to the Emperour, I anſwer, what hath he to do to ſummon the ſubjects of the French, Spaniards, Turks, Aethiopian, &c? And by this it appears that we never had true Univerſal Councils: They were but General as to the Roman world, or Empire. For (who ever precided) it is certain that the Emperours called them. And what had Conſtantine, Martian, Theodoſius, or any Roman Emperour to do, to call the ſubjects in India, Aethiopia, Perſia, &c. to a Council? Nor de facto, was there any ſuch thing done. Is it not a wonderfull thing that the Pope and all his followers ſhould be, or ſeem ſo blinded to this day, as to take the Empire for the whole earth, or the Roman world for all the Chriſtian world! yet this is their all. If you ſay that it muſt be done by the conſent of Princes, then either of Chriſtian Princes or of all. If of the Chriſtian only, you muſt exclude the Biſhops that are under Mahometan and Heathen Princes, and then it will be no General Council; eſpecially if it be now as it was in the time of Jacob à Vitriaco the Popes Legate in the Eaſt, who ſaith that the Chriſtians of the Eaſterly parts of Aſia alone, exceeded in number the Chriſtians both of the Greek and Latine Churches. And whether it be all Princes, or only Chriſtian Princes that ſhould conſent, who can tell whether ever it will be? God hath not promiſed to lead them to ſuch a conſent: And they are unlikely of themſelves, as being many and diſtant, and of different intereſts and apprehenſions, and uſually in wars with one another, ſo that if an age ſhould be ſpent in treating of a General Council among them, its ten to one that the treaty will be in vain, and its next to an impoſſibility that all ſhould conſent. Beſides; no man can ſhew a Commiſſion from God to enable them, and only them to ſuch a work.

But if you ſay that it muſt be done by the conſent of the Biſhops themſelves, the Impoſſibility (moral) is apparent, who will p. 423be found that will be at the coſt and pains to agitate the buſineſs among them? No one can appoint the time and place but by conſent of the reſt. Who doth it belong to, to travail to the Indies, Aethiopia, Aegypt, Paleſtine, and all the reſt of the world, to treate with the Biſhops about the time and place of a Council? And how many lives muſt he have that ſhall do it? And when he findeth them of a hundred minds, what courſe ſhall he take, and how many more journies about the world muſt he make, to bring them to an agreement? But I am aſhamed to beſtow more words on ſo evident a caſe.

Argum. 6. The Head or Soveraign of the Church (as of every body Politick) hath the Legiſlative Power over the whole. The Pope or a General Council have not the Legiſlative Power over the whole. Therefore the Pope or General Council are not the head or Soveraigns of the Church.

The Major is of unqueſtionable verity in Politicks. Legiſlation is the firſt and chief work of Soveraignty.

The Minor is proved, 1. Ad hominem by the confeſſion of the The Papiſts confeſs that Pope and Council cannot make new Articles of faith, in ſe, but quoad nos only. And they ſay they have received by Tradition the doctrines which they teach,chief Opponents, Grotius de Imperio ſummar. poteſt. doth purpoſely maintain it: and ſo do others: (See of this Lud. Molinaeus new Book ſuppoſed againſt the Presbyterians: his Paraeneſis.) 2. It is the high Prerogative of Chriſt the true King and Soveraign of the Church, which none muſt arrogate. He was faithfull in all his houſe as was Moſes. His Law is perfect: It is ſufficient to make the man of God perfect: even a ſufficient rule of faith and life: No man muſt add thereto, nor take ought therefrom, but do whatſoever he hath commanded, Deut. 12. 32. To the Law and to the Teſtimony: if they ſpeak not according to theſe, it is becauſe there is no light in them, Iſa. 8. 20.

Object. But men may make By-laws under Chriſt and his Laws. Anſw. True: but as thoſe are in this caſe no proper Laws, ſo no man or men may make them for the Unverſal Church. For the buſineſs of thoſe Laws is only to determine of circumſtances which God hath made neceſſary in genere, and left to the determination of men in ſpecie: And we may well know that there was ſome ſpecial reaſon why Chriſt did not determine of theſe himſelf. And the reaſon is plain; even becauſe that they depend ſo much on the ſeveral ſtates, capacities, cuſtoms, &c. of men, p. 424that they are to be varied accordingly in ſeveral times and places. If one ſtanding Law would have fitted all the world, or all ages in theſe matters, Chriſt would have made it himſelf. For if you ſay he makes ſome Laws, and neglect others that are of the like kind, and might as well have been done by himſelf, you make him imperfect and inſufficient to his work. And if it be not fit that one Univerſal Law be made for the world, then a Council muſt not make it.

And as the ſufficiency of Chriſts law, ſo the nature of the things declare it, that theſe matters muſt not be determined of by an univerſal Law. Should there be an univerſal Law to determine what day of the week, or what hour of the day every Lecture or occaſional Sermon ſhall be on? Or what place every Congregation ſhall meet in? Or where the Miniſter ſhall ſtand to preach? Or what Chapters he ſhould read each day? Or what Text he ſhould preach on? or how long? Whether by an hourglaſs or without? in what habit of apparrel particularly (when many a poor man muſt wear ſuch as he can get) yea or what geſtures or poſtures of body to uſe (when that geſture in one Countrey ſignifieth reverence, which in another rather ſignifieth neglect) with abundance the like.

And the ſame is plain from the nature of the Paſtoral office. Every Biſhop or Paſtor is made by Chriſt the Ruler of the flock in ſuch caſes, and they are bound to obey him, Heb. 13. 17. And therefore a General Council muſt leave them their work to do which Chriſt hath put upon them, and not take it out of their hands: eſpecially when being in the place, and ſeeing the variety of circumſtances, they are more competent judges then a General Council at ſuch diſtance.

The plain truth is, Chriſt hath left them none of that work to do which belongeth to a Head or Soveraign, but they make work for themſelves, that there may ſeem to be a Neceſſity of a power to do it. The Church needeth none of their Laws. Let us have but the Holy Scriptures, and the Law of Nature, and the civil Laws of men, and the guidance of particular Paſtors pro tempore, and the fraternal Conſultations and Agreements of Councils, not to make any more work, but to do this foreſaid work unanimouſly, and the Church can bear no more; there is nothing left for Legiſlators Eccleſiaſtical to do. We can ſpare p. 425their Laws, and therefore their power and work. Their buſineſs is but to make ſnares and burdens for us; and therefore we can live without them, and cannot believe that the felicity, or unity, or eſſence of the Church conſiſteth in them.

Argum. 7. All the inferior officers do derive their power from the ſupream. All the other officers of the Catholick Church do not derive their power from the Pope or a General Council: therefore a Pope or General Council are not the ſupream.

The Major is an unqueſtioned Maxime in Politicks. Its eſſential to the Sovereaign to be the fountain of power to all under him. Yea if it be but a deputed derived Soveraignty, ſecundum quid ſo called, as the Viceroy of Mexico, Naples, &c. yet ſo far he muſt be the fountain of all inferiour power.

The Minor is maintained by moſt Chriſtians in the world. Every Biſhop or Presbyter hath his power immediately from Jeſus Chriſt as the Efficient cauſe, though man muſt be an occaſion, or cauſa ſine qua non, or per accidens. The Italian Biſhops in the Council of Trent could not carry it againſt the Spaniards, that the Pope only as Head was immediately jure divino, and the reſt but mediante Papa.

Moreover it is eaſie to prove out of Scripture that God never ſet up any Soveraign power in his Church (perſonal or collective) to be the fountain of all other Church power, nor ſendeth us to have recourſe to any ſuch for it. Nor can they prove ſuch a power, on whom it is incumbent.

And laſtly its moſt eaſie to prove de facto, that the Biſhops or Presbyters now in the ſeveral Churches in the world, did not receive, and do not hold their power from any ſuch viſible Head, whether Pope or Council. Though the Popelings do, yet ſo do not all the reſt of the Chriſtian world. Who are not therefore no Miniſters or no Church of Chriſt, whatever theſe bare affirmers and pretenders may imagine: Nor are all the Miniſterial actions in the world null, which are not done by a power from him. And even the Papiſts themſelves will few of them pretend to receive their ſeveral powers of Prieſthood from a General Council. This therefore is not the Soveraign power, or head of the Church.

Argum. 8. The Head or Soveraign Power hath the finally deciſive Judgement, and in great cauſes all muſt, or may appeal to p. 426them. A General Council hath not the finally deciſive judgement, nor may all men in great cauſes appeal to them. Therefore a General Council is not the Head or Soveraign power.

The Major is undenyable. The Minor is proved, 1. In that it is not known, nor hath the world any rule or way to know in what caſes we muſt appeal to a General Council, and what not; and what is their proper work. 2. In that an appeal to them is an abſolute evaſion of the guilty, and in vain to the innocent, becauſe of the rarity of ſuch Councils, or rather the nullity. 3. Becauſe the proſecuting of ſuch an Appeal is impoſſible to moſt of the world (as is before ſhewed) and were it poſſible, it would be ſo tedious and laborious a courſe, that its ridiculous in moſt to mention ſuch Appeals.

Argum. 9. The Soveraign or Head of the Church (as of every Body Politick,) hath power to deprive and denude any other of their power. The Pope or General Council hath not power to do ſo: therefore they are not of the Head or Soveraigns of the Church.

The Major is a known principle in polity: He that giveth power, can take it away: And it's confeſſed by the Opponents in this caſe.

The Minor I prove, 1. Becauſe elſe it would be in the power of the Pope or Council, whether Chriſt ſhall have any Miniſtry and Church or not. They may at leaſt make havock of it at pleaſure. But that's falſe. 2. As is before ſaid, we receive not our power from them: therefore they cannot take it from us. 3. The Holy Ghoſt doth make us Over-ſeers of the flock, Act. 20. 28. and lay a Neceſſity on us, and denounce a woe againſt us, if we preach not the Goſpel: and hath no where given us leave to give over his work, if the Pope or a Council ſhall forbid us. 4. And they can ſhew no Commiſſion from Chriſt that giveth them ſuch a power.

Arg. 10. If it were the form or Eſſence of the Church to have a humane viſible Head, then our Relation to ſuch a head would be eſſential to our Memberſhip or Chriſtianity. But the Conſequence is falſe: therefore ſo is the Antecedent.

The falſeneſs of the conſequent is apparent, 1. In that it cruelly and ungroundedly unchriſteneth all that do not believe in ſuch a viſible Head: That is, the greateſt part by far of the p. 427Chriſtians in the world; And 2. By the enſuing argument: And the neceſſity of the conſequence is evident of it ſelf.

Argum. 11. If ſuch a viſible Head were eſſential to the Church, and ſo to our Chriſtianity, then ſhould we all be Baptized into the Pope or a General Council, as truly and neceſſarily as we are baptized into the Church. But we neither are nor ought to be ſo baptized into the Pope or a General Council; therefore they are not eſſential to the Church or our Chriſtianity.

The Major (viz. the Conſequence) is clear, and not denyed by the Papiſts, who affirm that Baptiſm engageth the baptized to the Pope. He that is united to the body, is united to the head: he that is liſted into the Army, is liſted to and under the General. He that is entred into the Common-wealth, is engaged to the Soveraign thereof.

But that we are not baptized to the Pope or a General Council, is proved, 1. Becauſe neither the form of Baptiſm, nor any word in Scripture doth affirm ſuch a thing. 2. No perſons in Scripture times were ſo baptized: Men were baptized before there was a Pope at Rome, or a General Council. And afterward none were baptized to them, at leaſt for many hundred years: otherwiſe then as they were entred into the particular Church of Rome, who were Inhabitants there. 3. Never any was baptized to Peter or Paul, or any of the Apoſtles ſaith Paul, 1 Cor. 1. 13. was Paul crucified for you, or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? They muſt be baptized into the name of no viſible Head, but him that was crucified for them. 4. The Apoſtle fully reſolveth all the doubt, 1 Cor. 12. deſcribing the body into which we are baptized, ver. 13. And he entitleth it from the head, Chriſt, verſ. 12. but acknowledgeth no other head, either co-equal with Chriſt, or ſubordinate: The higheſt of the other members are called by Paul but eyes and hands, and thus Apoſtles, Prophets, Teachers, Miracles, gifts of healing, helps, Governments, are only ſaid to be ſet in the Church, as eyes and hands in the body; but not over the Church as the Head or Soveraign Power: ver. 17, 18, 19, 28, 29. ſo that though he that is baptized into the Church, is baptized into an Organical body, and related to the Paſtors, as to hands and eyes, yet not as to a head, nor as to a repreſentative body neither. And me thinks neither Pope nor Council ſhould pretend to be more then p. 428Apoſtles, Prophets, and Teachers, and Governments. If the form of baptiſm had but delivered down the authority of the Pope or a Council, as it did the authority and name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt, Tradition would have been a tolerable Argument for them, though Scripture had been ſilent. But when the Baptiſmal Tradition it ſelf is ſilent, and it is a doctrine ſo monſtruouſly ſtrange to the Primitive Church, that all the baptized are baptized to the Pope or a General Council, I know no remedy but they muſt both put up their pretenſes.

Argum. 12. The Eſſence of the Church into which they were baptized, was part of the doctrine which the Catechumeni were taught, (and all at age ſhould learn) before their baptiſm. The Soveraignty or Headſhip of Pope or Council was no part of the Doctrine which (by the Primitive Church) the Catechumeni were taught, and ought to learn, before their baptiſm. Therefore the Soveraignty or Headſhip of Pope or Council was not then taken to be of the Eſſence of the Church.

The Major is evident, 1. In that the Catholick Church was in the Creed: and it's eſſentials there briefly expreſſed in thoſe terms [Holy Catholick Church, and Communion of Saints.] 2. In that Church Hiſtory fully acquainteth us that it was the practice of the Catethiſts and other Teachers to open the Creed to them before they baptized them, and therein the Article of the Catholick Church, and the Communion of Saints.

The Minor is proved by an induction of all the Records of thoſe times, which in groſs may now ſuffice according to our preſent intended brevity to be mentioned. There is no one Writer of many hundred years, no not Origen, Tertullian, Irenaeus, or any other that purpoſely recite the Churches belief which the Catechumeni were taught, nor Cyril, (or John) Hieroſol. or any other who open thoſe Articles to the Catechumens, that ever once mention the Doctrine of the Headſhip of the Pope or Council, when they open the Article of the Catholick Church; nor yet at any other time. If they affirm that they did, let them prove it if they can.

Argum. 13. As it is high Treaſon in a Republick to deny the Soveraign, and to be cut off from him, is to be cut off from the Common-wealth; ſo it would be a damning unchriſtening ſin to deny the Headſhip of the Pope or General Council, if they were indeed p. 429the Head of the Church. But it is no ſuch damning unchriſtening ſin: Therefore they are not the Head of the Church.

The Major is plain from the Nature of Soveraignty. The Minor is certainly proved, 1. Becauſe it is never mentioned in Scripture, nor any ancient Writer for many hundred years, as a ſtate of Apoſtaſie, nor as a damning ſin, nor as any ſin, to deny the ſaid Headſhip of the Pope or Council. 2. Becauſe elſe moſt of the Chriſtians of the world at this day are Apoſtates and unchriſtened: Or if that ſeem a tolerable concluſion to the Romaniſts; Yet 3. Becauſe then Chriſt had no Church for ſome hundreds of years, which I know they will not think ſo tolerable a concluſion; For to dream that the ancient Chriſtians did know any Head of the Church but Chriſt, or were engaged in loyalty to the Pope or Council, is a diſeaſe that few are lyable to, except ſuch as are ſtrangers to the writings of thoſe times, or ſuch as read them with Roman ſpectacles, reſolved what to find in them before hand.

Argum. 14. All Chriſtians are bound to ſtudy or labor to be acquainted with the Laws of the Soveraign power of the Church: All Chriſtians are not bound to ſtudy or labor to be acquainted with the Laws of Popes and Councils: Therefore the laws of Popes and Councils are not the Laws of the Soveraign power of the Church.

The Major is proved, in that all ſubjects muſt obey the Laws of the Soveraign power: But they cannot obey them unleſs they know them. Therefore they are bound to endeavour to know them.

The Minor is proved, 1. In that they being written in Latine and Greek which a very ſmall part of the Chriſtians of the world do underſtand, and their Teachers not ſufficiently expounding them, and they being more copious and voluminous, more obſcure and uncertain (of which next) then for all private Chriſtians to underſtand, the people cannot learn theſe, having enough to do to learn Gods Word. 2. The Papiſts that deny the uſe of the Holy Scriptures to the people in a known tongue, and deny the neceſſity of underſtanding them, will ſure ſay the ſame of their Decretals and Canons, unleſs they mean to ſet them up above the Scripture, as well as equal them thereto.

Argum. 15. The Soveraign Head of the viſible Church and p. 430Center of our unity, muſt be evident, that all the Chriſtian world may know it: The Pope and General Council are not ſuch. Therefore neither of them are the Head of the Viſible Church.

The Major is confeſſed by the Opponents; and it's plain, becauſe men cannot obey an unknown power.

The Minor is known by common experience. For many a year together (by Bellarmines confeſſion) learned and wiſe men could not tell which was the true Pope; yea their Councils could not tell. Moſt of the Chriſtian world to this day cannot diſcern his Commiſſion for that power which he pretendeth to. A true General Council now no man can know, becauſe it is a non ens. Their pretended General Councils are ſo ravelled in confuſion, that they are not agreed among themſelves which are indeed ſuch, and which not: but many are rejected, and many ſuſpected (of which Bellarmine giveth us a liſt) and thoſe that one receiveth, another rejecteth; and the moſt by far are rejected by moſt of the Chriſtian world. And when ſome would take up with the four firſt, and ſome with ſix, and ſome with eight, the Papiſts deridingly ask them, whether the Church hath not as much authority now as it had then? And how ſhall the Chriſtian world know whether it were a true General Council or not? Of which ſee the difficulties firſt to be reſolved, which I have recited in my Diſputations againſt Popery.

Argum. 16. The Laws of the Soveraign Power of the Church muſt be certain (or elſe how ſhall we know what to obey) The Laws of Popes and General Councils are not certain: Therefore, &c.

The Minor is proved by experience. The Popes Decretals are many unknown, and many proved forgeries (by Blondell ubi ſup. and many others) beyond all queſtion: and none of them proved Laws to the Church. The Canons of the firſt Council of Nice are not agreed on among the Papiſts. Many others are proved forged: Many are flatly contrary to each other (as I have ſhewed ubi ſup.) and how then ſhall Chriſtians know what to obey? The ancient Canons condemned the geſture of kneeling on the Lords day (and conſequently then at the Lords Supper) the reading of the Heathens Books, and many ſuch things which are now taken for lawful: The later Councils that contradict the former, do ſeem to moſt of more queſtionable p. 431authority then they. And what Councils are to be received and what rejected, they are not agreed among themſelves, nor have any certain Rule to know by on which they are agreed: Nor will their Popes or Councils yet reſolve them this great queſtion. So that Chriſtians are at a loſs concerning theſe Laws, and know not which of them they are obliged by, and which not.

Argum. 17. If the Pope or Council be the Head of the Church, then muſt their Laws be preached to the people by their Teachers. But the Laws of Popes and Councils need not be preached to the people by their Teachers: Therefore, &c.

The reaſon of the Major is, becauſe the Laws that they muſt obey in matters ſpiritual in order to ſalvation, the Miniſters muſt preach to them. But theſe are pretended to be ſuch: Therefore, &c.

As to the Minor, 1. It would be but an unhanſome thing in their own hearing, for Preachers to take their Texts out of the Canons or Decretals, and preach theſe day after day to the people: which yet they have need to do many a year, if the obedience of them be our neceſſary duty. 2. Miniſters are commanded to preach only the Goſpel, and it is ſaid to be ſufficient or able to make us perfect, and build us up to ſalvation. Therefore we need not preach the Canons or Decretals.

Argum. 18. While a Viſible Head cannot be agreed on even by thoſe that would have the Church united in ſuoh a Head, it is all one to them as if there were no ſuch Head, and the union ſtill is unattainable by them. But even among the Papiſts themſelves a Viſible Head is not, cannot be agreed on: Therefore, &c.

What good will it do to ſay we muſt center ſome where, and know not where, and obey ſome body, and know not who? The Italians and Spaniſh make the Pope the Infallible Head, and ſay a General Council without him may err, and is but the body. The French make the Council the Head, and ſay the Pope may err; and that the infallibility (ſuch as they plead for) is in the Council. It is not a Head, but this Head in ſpecie, that is, the form of the Church, if any ſuch be: And therefore they muſt needs (according to their own principles) be of divers Churches, while they place the Soveraignty in ſeveral ſorts and perſons. Till they better p. 432agree among themſelves in their Fundamentals and Eſſentials of the Church, we have ſmall encouragement to think of uniting on any of their grounds.

Argum. 19. The Soveraign Power or Headſhip over the Church is a thing undoubtedly revealeed in the Holy Scripture: (For we cannot imagine that the Scripture ſhould be ſilent in ſo weighty a point, without intolerable accuſation of it.) The Soveraign Power or Headſhip of Pope or Council is not revealed in the Holy Scripture. Therefore, &c.

They have not yet produced a Text to prove either of them. Thoſe produced by the Italians for the Popes Headſhip, are diſclaimed by the French, as meaning no ſuch thing; and our Writers have largely manifeſted their abuſing of the Text. So have they done of thoſe that are brought for the Headſhip of Councils. Theſe texts are ſpoke to ſo fully by Chamier, Whitaker, Ameſius, and abundance more, that I think it in vain to do it here again. That of 1 Tim. 3. 15. that the Church is the pillar and ground of Truth, doth not ſpeak a word of a General Council, nor a word of Headſhip: The whole Church united in Chriſt, is the Pillar and Ground, that is, the certain Receptacle and retainer of the Truth, the Law of Chriſt being written in their hearts.

None ſeems more to favour their concecit then Epheſ. 4. 15, 16. which Grotius faſtens on: But even that is againſt them, and not for them. For 1. It is Chriſt and only Chriſt that is here ſaid to be the head, and all other parts contradiſtinguiſhed, and excluded from Headſhip, and the Body is not ſaid to be united in them. 2. And it is by aſſociation, and mutual communication of their ſeveral gifts, that the parts are compacted together, and edifie the whole; and not by meeting in any one, and deriving from it.

Object. But were not the Apoſtles General Officers, and ſo the Church united in General officers? Anſw. This is little to the Queſtion. For 1. the Apoſtles had one among them to be the Soveraign or Head of the reſt, but were of equal power. 2. Nor did a major part of their whole number make ſuch a Head for the Church to unite in, nor do we read that ever a Major vote carryed it among them againſt a Minor; for they were all guided by the Spirit. Yet its true that they met ofter together then a General Council can. 2. The Apoſtles as extraordinarily p. 433qualified, and as the Secretaries of the Spirit, have no ſucceſſors: But the Apoſtles as ambulatory unfixed Miniſters, had even then many companions: For Barnabas, Luke, Apollo, and abundance more, did then go up and down preaching, as well as the Apoſtles; yet had not any one of them a ſpecial charge of Governing all the Churches: nor yet all of them united in a body: For the Apoſtles called not the Evangeliſts and other fellow workers to conſult in Councils about the Government of the whole; But both they and their helpers, did ſeverally what they could to teach and ſettle the Churches. 3. Who be they now that are the Apoſtles ſucceſſors? If all the Biſhops in the world, the caſe is as we left it. If any ſmall number of Primates or Patriarcks, how ſhall we know which and how many? If they be not twelve, why ſhould one Apoſtle have a ſucceſſor, and not others? But there are no twelve only that lay claim to the ſucceſſion. And if you go further, who can limit, and ſay who, and how many they be, and how far the number may be increaſed or decreaſed, and by whom? In Cyprians dayes he and his fellows in the Council at Carthage declare that all Biſhops were equal, and none had power over other. And ſo thought others in thoſe times. Nor was there then any number of Biſhops that claimed to be the ſole ſucceſſors of the Apoſtles, to rule all the reſt. And if they had, when the Church increaſeth, the Rulers muſt increaſe. But this is not to the main point.

Argum. 20. The Scripture doth appropriate the Univerſal Headſhip to Chriſt only, and deny it to all others: therefore neither Pope nor Council are the Univerſal Head.

Eph. 5. 23. It is the peculiar Title of Chriſt to be Head of the Church, to whom it muſt be ſubject, 1 Cor. 11. 3. The Apoſtle would have us know that the Head of every man is Chriſt, and the head of the woman is the man, and the Head of Chriſt is God. So that there is a particular Head over ſome parcell of the body below Chriſt: but to be the Univerſal Head of every man, is the proper Title of Chriſt. In 1 Cor. 12. the unity of the body and diverſity of the members is more largely expreſſed then any where elſe in Scripture; and there when the ſaid unity of the body had been ſo fully mentioned, the Apoſtle comes to name the Head of that Unity, Verſ. 27. which is only Chriſt. [Now p. 434ye are the body of Chriſt, and members in particular] The Church is never called the body of the Pope, or of a Council, but the body of Chriſt: yea (as was even now ſaid) in the next words the Apoſtles, Prophets, and Teachers are enumerated to the particular members, contradiſtinct from the Head, ſo far are all, or any one of them from being the head themſelves. And in Col. 2. 10, 17, 19. it is Chriſt only that is called the Head, and the body is ſaid to be of Chriſt, and he only is mentioned as the Center of its Unity [And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints, and bands having nouriſhment miniſtred and knit together, increaſeth with the increaſe of God.] And Col. 1. 18. And he is the Head of the body, the Church.] If any ſay that you cannot hence argue Negatively that therefore no one elſe is the Head, I anſwer, They may as well ſay, when it is affirmed that [the Lord he is God] you cannot thence conclude that Baal is not God. The Apoſtle plainly ſpeaks this of Chriſt as his peculiar honour: And he ſpoke to men that knew well enough that natural bodies have but one Head, unleſs they be Monſters: And he would not ſo oft inſiſt on this Metaphor, intending ſo great a diſparity in the ſimilitude, and never diſcover any ſuch intention; So in Epheſ. 1. 22. He gave him to be Head over all things to the Church, which is his Body, the fulneſs of him that filleth all in all.]

And in Epheſ. 4. the Apoſtle purpoſely exhorteth us to the obſervation of this unity; and purpoſely telleth us by a large enumeration wherein it doth conſiſt: but in all he never mentioneth the Pope or a Council: yea he plainly excludeth them, Verſ. 3, 4. &c. [Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace: There is one body, and one ſpirit, even as you are called in one hope of your calling, One Lord, One Faith, One Baptiſm, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all: But unto every one of us is given Grace, according to the meaſure of the gift of Chriſt—He gave ſome Apoſtles, and ſome Prophets, and ſome Evangeliſts, and ſome Paſtors and Teachers, for the perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the Miniſtry, for the Edifying of the body of Chriſt, till we all come in the unity of the Faith, &c.—] ſo then you ſee there is but one Lord of the Church; therefore the Pope or Council is not Lord (in name or deed.) And Apoſtles, Prophets, Paſtors, and Doctors, p. 435are the member contradiſting guiſhed from this One Lord, and whoſe diverſity is purpoſely mentioned, they being the matter or parcels that muſt have their unity in ſome other, but not the Church to be united in them. Here is then no mention among all theſe [Ones] of one earthly Head, whether Pope or Council, not of One Apoſtle that was the Head of the reſt. If ſuch a thing had ever come into the Apoſtles mind, he would ſure have mentioned it on ſuch occaſions as theſe, and not have quite forgotten it; yea and contradict it ſo evidently.

1 Cor. 6. 15, 17. Our bodies are the members of Chriſt, (not of the Pope) and he that is joined to the Lord is one ſpirit (not he that is joined to the Pope.)

Gal. 3. 28. We are all one in Chriſt Jeſus (not in an earthly Head) Many and many times doth the Apoſtle exhort them to be of one mind, and acord, and take heed of ſchiſm, and maintain peace, and he reproveth their diviſions at large: yet doth he never mention ſuch a ſin as dividing from an earthly Head, nor ever once direct them to a Pope or General Council as the Center of their unity, or the neceſſary means of curing diviſions. Peter himſelf exhorteth them to be all of one mind, 1 Pet. 3. 8. but never to be all united in him as their head. The Apoſtle Paul is punctual in deſcribing the Officers of the Church, and the peoples duty to them: But he never deſcribeth a Pope, or any earthly Head of that Church: nor ever telleth the people of their duty to ſuch: And if ſuch a ſuppoſed fundamental ſhould be quite forgotten by men that belieived it, and taught others that which was neceſſary to be believed, it were incredibly ſtrange. That Paul writing to the Romans ſhould never mind them of the honour of their Sea, or their duty to their ſupereminent Prelate, was his forgetfulneſs or unbelief. And ſurely he would never have ſo ſharply reproved them of Corinth for contentions, in ſaying I am of Paul, and I of Apollo, and I of Cephas, and I of Chriſt, if he had thought they muſt have been united in Cephas; without once telling them of ſuch a means of union and reconciliation. He ſaith [Is Chriſt divided?] as much as to ſay, you muſt be all united in him: but he ſaith not [Is Cephas divided?] but plainly makes the exalters of Cephas a party that was guilty of diviſion, and Chap. 3. 3, 4, 5. tells them plainly that this ſhewed that they were carnal. And ſpeaking p. 436of all others in his own perſon and Apollos, ſaith [Who then is Paul, or who is Apollo, but Miniſters by whom ye believed?] They had not then learned to anſwer [Why Cephas is the Head of the Church.] And 1 Cor. 46. He ſpeaks as if it were purpoſely to a Papiſt [All theſe things, brethren, I have in a figure tranſferred to my ſelf and to Apollo for your ſakes: that ye might learn in us not to think (of men) above that which is written: that no one of you be puffed up for one againſt another] What not for Peter? no not for Peter himſelf. And doubtleſs Paul did not believe his ſupremacy, when he ſo preſumed to reprove him to his face, Gal. 2. So 1 Cor. 10. 16, 17. there is mention of our being all one bread, and one body: but thats becauſe we are all partakers of that one body of Chriſt, and not becauſe we are united in the Pope or any other.

Moreover when the Diſciples ſtrove who ſhould be greateſt, Chriſt expreſly rebuketh ſuch thoughts, and inſtead of granting any of them that deſire, he denyeth it to them all, Mat. 22. 25, 26. Luke 22. 26. The Kings of the Gentiles rule over them, and are called gracious Lords, but with you it ſhall not be ſo.] Bellarmine indeed can merrily hence gather that there muſt be one appointed to be the greateſt, becauſe Chriſt ſaith, He that will be Greateſt, let him be the ſervant of all.] This is to make good their charge againſt the Scripture, that it is a noſe of Wax by their preſumptuons abuſe of it; as ſome men would prove the Apoſtacy of the Saints, by their own Apoſtatizing, when yet they prove it not, though they ruine themſelves. Did not Chriſt by theſe words reprehend their ſeeking of a Supremacy? And yet doth he grant it?

Oh but it is only Tyranny that Chriſt forbiddeth them. Anſw. That which Chriſt acknowledgeth in the Kings of the Nations, without reprehenſion, that is it which he denyeth to his Diſciples. But it is not Tyranny but Dominion which Chriſt thus acknowledgeth in, and alloweth to the Kings of the Nations: therefore it is not Tyranny but Dominion which he forbiddeth to his Diſciples; That which Chriſt here ſpeaketh of the Kings of the Nations, is ſomewhat common to all Kings, and ſo as Kings. But Tyranny was not common to all Kings, nor to them as Kings: therefore it is not Tyranny that he ſpeaks of. Moreover its plain that it is a Greatneſs in Deſire and Affectation that is the ſubject of p. 437Chriſts ſpeech, and not an allowed ſupremacy, and that he forbids this Supremacy in the following words, [Let him be the ſervant of all] q. d. [I allow in my Kingdom to the Preachers of the Goſpel no other Greatneſs or ſuperiority above others, but what conſiſteth in holineſs, and humility, and doing good, and ſo in diſclaiming of Ruling Greatneſs.] In Luke 9. there's mention of [him that was leaſt, &c.] It follows not thence that one was appointed to be the loweſt. And if the will of Chriſt were known to them that one ſhould be the Supream, and this was Peter, what need they ſtrive any further about it; or why doth he not rebuke them for reſiſting their Supream?

Again I ſay, that I cannot ſee how it can ſtand with the wiſdom or goodneſs of Chriſt the Law-giver of his Church, or the perfection of his Laws, or how it can be any way probable, that he ſhould be wholly ſilent of ſo great a point as the Headſhip and Center of the Churches Unity; never giving us either the Name or Titles of ſuch a Head, nor the ſeat of his Empire, nor appointing him his work, nor directing him how to do it when he hath the greateſt work in the world to do (as theſe men ſuppoſe) and ſuch as ſurpaſſeth the ſtrength of man, yea of a thouſand men; never giving him any advice and direction for the determining of his very many occurrent difficulties; nor once giving us any of his power, nor telling us of his prerogative, nor telling us what officers he ſhall appoint under him, and how; nor once telling any man of his duty to obey him; never telling us any thing of the ſucceſſion of this Soveraign in whom it ſhall reſide; nor once telling us hiſtorically of the exerciſe of any of his power: I ſay that not a word of this ſhould be mentioned by Chriſt or his Apoſtles, even when there was ſo great occaſion, when Peter was among them, when there was ſtriving for ſupremacy, when the Churches were lamentably contending about the preheminence of their teachers, and ſome were for one, and ſome for another, and ſome for Cephas himſelf; and when ſo many hereſies aroſe, and hazzarded the Churches, as among the Corinthians, Galathians, and others there did; This is a thing ſo hard to be believed by one that believeth the wiſdom and love of Chriſt, that I muſt ſay for my part, it ſurpaſſeth my belief. Eſpecially (as is ſaid) when alſo ſo much is ſaid againſt the Supremacy contended p. 438for. All this I ſpeak of any earthly Head, whether Pope or Council.

Object. But (ſay the Papiſts) you can allow Princes to be the Heads of the Church: why then not a Pope? Anſw. We acknowledge Princes and Paſtors over parts of the Church, but not over the Church Univerſal. Every Corporation may call the Major or Bayliff a ſubordinate Head of that Corporation, but not of the Kingdom.

Object. There may be a Prorex, a Viceking: and why not then a Vicarious Head of the Catholick Church? Anſw. 1. Becauſe a Kingdom is not ſo big as all the world, or all that is and may be Chriſtian. 2. Becauſe a King having Dominion, hath power of doing all that by others that he cannot do himſelf: But a Paſtor being a Miniſter, hath no ſuch power given him, but muſt do his work himſelf. 3. Becauſe the work of the Miniſtry requires far more labour and attendance. So that it is an utter Imopſſibility that any man ſhould be able to do the work of a ſupream Ruler of all the Chriſtian world, yea or the hundreth part of it, as it muſt be done. 4. And laſtly, becauſe Chriſt hath made no ſuch Prorex, or Vice-head: and none can have it without his commiſſion.

Object. But the Civil power hath been exerciſed by an Emperour over more then all the Chriſtian world: And why then may not the Eccleſiaſtical? Anſw. 1. Its notoriouſly falſe that ever Emperour had ſo extenſive a Dominion. 2. The Goſpel muſt be preached over all the world; and therefore we muſt conſider the poſſible future extent of the Church, and not only the preſent exiſtent ſtate. 3. There are many millions of Chriſtians mixt in the Dominions of Infidel Princes among other Religions, which makes the Government of them the more difficult. 4. I ſhewed before from the nature of the work many other difficulties, which make a difference.

Object. Monarchy is the beſt Government; therefore the Church muſt have it. Anſw. The Monarchy of God is beſt: but among men it is according to the ſtate of the Rulers and ſubject. One way is better in ſome caſes, and another in others. 2. For one man to be Monarch of all the Chriſtian world, is not beſt, when by taking a thouſand times more upon him then he can do, he will ruine inſtead of ruling well. 3. You may as p. 439well ſay, An Univerſal Civil Monarch over all the world is beſt; therefore ſo it muſt be: but when will you prove that? But if I miſtake not in my conjecture, it is the thing that the Jeſuites have lately got into their heads, that the Pope muſt have the Univerſal Soveraignty Eccleſiaſtical and Civil; that ſo an Univerſal peace may be in the world.

Obj. There was but One High Prieſt before Chriſt. Anſw. 1. No more there was but one Temple; Will you therefore have no more? Nor but one civil Monarch in that Church: Would you have no more? I partly believe it. 2. It was eaſie for one to Rule ſo ſmall a Nation as Judaea in compariſon of all the world. 3. Prove you the Inſtitution of your Supremacy, as we can prove the Inſtitution of Aarons Prieſthood, and the taking of it down again, and we will yield all. 4. That Prieſthood was a Type of Chriſt the Eternal Prieſt, and is ended in him, as the Epiſtle to the Hebrews ſhews at large.

Object. There is a Monarchy among Angels and Devils. Anſw. 1. Its a hard ſhift when you muſt go to another world for your pattern: But for your Argument fetcht from Hell, I will leave it with you: but for that from Heaven, I ſay, theres no proof of it. And if there were, till you can prove that our work and fitneſs for it is the ſame as Angels, and that the Lord hath appointed the ſame form here, you have ſaid nothing.

But becauſe this Queſtion is largely handled by abundance of our Learned Writers, I ſhall ſay no more to it here, but conclude, that by this which is already ſaid in brief, it is manifeſt, that The Catholick Church of Chriſt is not one Viſible Political Body, as joined to any One Univerſal Viſible Head or Soveraign, beſides Chriſt.

If any being driven from this hold, ſhall ſay, that yet there are ſeveral Patriarcks that Govern the ſeveral Provinces of the Chriſtian world, though there be no head but Chriſt. I anſwer. 1. If there be no earthly Head and Center of unity, then I have the main cauſe. Theſe Patriarcks may and do at this day, unreconcilably diſagree among themſelves. This therefore will not ſerve for a unity. 2. When (as is aforeſaid) you have well proved the Inſtitution of theſe Patriarcks, and how many they be, and who, and the power of Princes to make new ones, p. 440(and not to forbear it, and to pull down the old ones:) and when you have anſwered the foregoing Arguments, as many of them as extend to Patriarchal power alſo, as well as Unverſal Headſhip, then we ſhall take this further into conſideration. In the mean time, I ſuperſede, as having done that which I think neceſſary to take off men, from inclining to Rome, and reproaching of Churches, upon the erroneous Conceit of the Nature and unity of the Catholick Church; as if it were One, as under One Earthly Viſible Head.