The True Way of Concord of All the Christian Churches, Part 2 · Chapter 4
CHAP. IV.
II. What are the terms neceſſary for the continuance of Church-Communion? and what are the lawful Cauſes of abſciſſion or Excommunication?
§. 1. IT is granted that as there is ſomewhat more neceſſary to the continuance of our pardon, juſtification and right to glory, than was to our firſt reception, ſo alſo to our continuance as members of the Catholick Church: That is, the bare profeſſion of faith and conſent and ſubjection, or Covenanting with Chriſt for future ſincere obedience, is enough to our firſt reception by baptiſm: But ſome performance of this Covenant is neceſſary to our continuance.
The reaſons are, 1. Becauſe the Covenant or promiſe is neceſſary, not meerly for it ſelf, but for the performance-ſake, to engage us to do what we promiſe. 2. And as a known falſe Covenant is null as to the benefit of the Covenanter, though not as to his obligation, ſo at the entrance a mans word is his credible profeſſion; but if he by notorious wilfulneſs violate this word or promiſe in any eſſential point, he then ſo far nullifieth his verbal profeſſion as to his benefit, and proveth his Covenanting to be falſe. And therefore all diſciplined Churches do caſt out groſs impenitent violaters of that Covenant, in ſuch eſſential parts.
§. 2. But what is ſuch violation, and for what fin men are to be caſt out, is a difficult queſtion in ſome inſtances.
1. I take it for a ſure rule that no man is to be further cut off from the univerſal Church by ſentence, than he firſt morally departeth or cuts off himſelf. For the Paſtors have not their power for deſtruction but for edification: And their office is ſubſervient to Chriſt, who came not to deſtroy mens lives but to ſave them, even to ſeek and to ſave the loſt. They are not to be hurtful but helpful to mens ſouls.
§. 3. 2. He therefore that apoſtatizeth or denyeth any one eſſential article of Chriſtianity, cuts off himſelf firſt, and is to be declared by the Churches ſentence to have ſo done, if he repent not: If he timely repent, it muſt prevent the ſentence.
§. 4. 3. Whatever ſin amounteth to an evident refuſal of promiſed ſubjection to Jeſus Chriſt, cuts off the ſinner morally from Chriſt, and if he prevent it not by repentance, he is to be ſentenced accordingly by the Church; who do but thus declare who depart from Chriſt and cut off themſelves.
§. 5. 4. Every ſin is not a renouncing of our allegiance or ſubjection to Chriſt, nor to be cenſured by excommunication.
1. There are ſins of meer infirmity or imperfection in duty; as imperfection of ſincere faith, love, hope, obedience, prayer, &c. 2. There are ſins of ſudden paſſion and ſurprize which the will habitually abhorreth, and the ſinner quickly repenteth of. 3. There are ſins of ignorance which a man knew not to be ſins. 4. There are ſins of meer forgetfulneſs. 5. Yea it is not all preſumptuous ſin that is a renouncing of our ſubjection: A faithful man knoweth that the leaſt ſin ſhould be avoided, and he may know that vain jeſting or idle words are a ſin; And he may be often guilty of theſe by ſome degree of preſumption, that is, he may be tempted to think that all men being ſinners, ſuch a ſin may ſtand with grace, and for want of due excitation not fear it or fly from it becauſe it is a little one, as he would do from perjury, murder or ſome greater ſin: No ſmall evils or danger doth ſo much ſuſcitate the ſoul to reſiſt and avoid it as a greater doth: no man is ſo careful to avoid the prick of a pin as of a ſword: This want of ſuſcitation through the ſmallneſs of the thing, maketh leſs reſiſtance and ſo ſome degree of preſumption in all men.
§. 6. 5. No one Act of ſin ſufficiently repented of, is matter for a juſt excommunication, be the ſin never ſo great; For the penitent are pardoned: If the Repentance be before the excommunication, it preventeth it: For the firſt part of diſcipline is to perſwade the ſinner to repentance, as being intended for his recovery and ſalvation: and excommunication is never juſt but when the ſinner will not repent. As under the Law of Innocency death was the wages of any ſin, but under the Goſpel faith and repentance are the remedying conditions; ſo accordingly though Adam was caſt out of Paradiſe for the firſt ſin, none are to be caſt out of the Church for any ſin meerly as a ſin, but as not repented of by a believer. I ſay not that this is the Magiſtrates rule in puniſhing the body, but the Paſtors in excommunicating.
§. 7. 6. Yea the time and means of admonition for bringing the ſinner to repentance muſt be competent, and ſuch as are ſuitable to a rational hope of his repenting, and not as ſome Lay Chancellors do, if a few rough words make them not repent, preſently excommunicate him; nor pro forma to ſay thrice I admoniſh you, I admoniſh you, I admoniſh you] and then [I excommunicate you.] It is not a jeaſting matter, nor to be paſt as haſtily as angry word. The ſinner muſt be gravely and ſeriouſly told of the evil of his ſin, and if it be ſomething which he taketh for no ſin, he muſt be convinced by Scripture proof, and muſt be heard ſpeak for himſelf with patience; and if he hear not a more private admonition, he muſt be reproved before the Church, that many may conſent for the more authoritative conviction, and for the warning of others, and that the Church may thereby clear themſelves as not conſenting to the ſin, 1 Cor. 5. And the excommunication is only to paſs at laſt, when repentance juſtly ſeemeth hopeleſs.
§. 7. But yet there is much difference herein to be made in reſpect of the difference of ſins and of perſons: 1. A ſin of errour or ignorance, or controverted, as alſo a ſmaller ſin, requireth a longer time of patience for the ſinners conviction before he be judged to be impenitent: But a notorious ſin againſt the light of nature, or plaineſt proof, and of moſt ſcandalous conſequence, muſt have ſhorter time of patience: yet ſo much as that the ſinners paſſion may be over, and he may have leiſure well to conſider of the evil, and of the Churches reproof.
§. 8. As gravity, convincing reaſon, compaſſion and patience are certainly neceſſary, ſo it ſeemeth very convenient at leaſt that when the ſinner is admoniſhed before the Church, the Congregation joyn with the Paſtor in earneſt Prayer to God for his conviction and repentance, and if that prevail not at once, in tolerable caſes to do it again, before the ſinner be caſt out: Ye ought to mourn, ſaith St. Paul, 1 Cor. 5. Men will not cut off a corrupt member of the body haſtily, nor till flat neceſſity, nor without ſenſe of pain.
§. 9. It is not every ſin that a man repenteth not of, that is a juſt cauſe of excommunication: For there is no man living that hath not ſome ſins which he no otherwiſe repenteth of, than as in general he hateth all ſin ſo far as he knoweth it: For every man hath ſins of ignorance, and every man hath ſome degree of errour, and ſome faithful men have more than others, and take ſome ſins to be duties or no ſins; and ſome have darker minds than others that are hardly convinced and cannot perceive the force of an argument againſt the prejudice before received. And ſome are educated where ſome ſins are praiſed, and converſe with ſuch perſons as by their parts and intereſt in them harden them in their errour; How many thouſand zealous Papiſts, Neſtorians, Eutychians, Greeks take others for hereticks by miſtake, and perhaps by words and actions wrong or perſecute them, and never repent of it, becauſe they err? How many Lutherans ſlander Calviniſts, and they the Lutherans, and Papiſts and Proteſtants oft make each others matters ſeem otherwiſe than they are; Yea ſo do Conformiſts and Nonconformiſts, Anabaptiſts and Padobaptiſts and moſt that diſagree, and yet repent not, thinking that to be true that is not, and ſo that they do well?
§. 10. Therefore two things muſt concur in the ſin that deſerveth an Excommunication from Catholick Communion. 1. That it be ſuch as ſome call a Mortal ſin, that is, Not a ſin of meer infirmity and ignorance, which may conſiſt with ſincere Love to God and holineſs, and ſubjection to the Government of Chriſt, but a ſin which in an impenitent perſon proveth the abſence of ſuch Subjection and Love: And the mark of this is, That it be a ſin which is ſo much in the power of the Will, that no one can keep it that is ſincerely willing to leave it, and which muſt be known to be ſin by all that are truly willing to know it: A ſin that men may know if they are willing, and had rather keep than leave. 2. And that it be unrepented of, and ſuch as due information and perſwaſion with patience, do not bring the ſinner to repent of. A heinous, mortal, wilful ſin unrepented of.
§. 11. By this it appeareth, who is to be ſentenced cut off from the Catholick Church, and who not. None but thoſe that firſt really depart, becauſe the ſentence muſt be true and juſt: And this departure is either direct, by Apoſtaſie, renouncing God the Father, the Son or the Holy Ghoſt, or ſome eſſential part of Godlineſs or Chriſtianity: 2. Or indirectly, when men deny not any of theſe in words, but in works do that which is evidently inconſiſtent with them, and may be ſo diſcerned by any willing mind.
§. 12. And hence it appeareth, 1. that the number of theſe is greater than the Paſtors that caſt off true diſcipline do acknowledge. That is, All thoſe that are guilty of living in ſuch ſins as the common light of nature detecteth to every willing mind, (ſuch as are fornication, adultery, drunkenneſs, perjury, malignity, perſecution, ſlanderous preaching or ſpeech, hating others, eſpecially for good, &c.) and are obſtinate in refuſing to repent and amend. And, alas, how great a number live in our Churches never excommunicated nor publickly admoniſhed who lye in ſuch ſins and will not repent? The Papiſts Prieſts themſelves conform by unjuſt oaths and profeſſing to aſſent and conſent to many Decrees and Canons of Councils which are falſe and ſinful, and by many other ſinful practices. Their very perſecution of men better than themſelves on falſe pretences of hereſie and ſchiſm, is a crime that many were they truly willing might ſoon know. Drunkenneſs, whoredom, lying, perjury, prophane ſwearing, curſing and ſlandering, covetous and proud oppreſſing, and many ſuch like, yea even profeſſed Saduceiſm and infidelity and deriding ſerious Godlineſs, are all too common in the world; Yet few of all theſe are ever excommunicated.
§. 13. 2. Yet hence alſo it is plain that the commoneſt ſort of Excommunications for theſe thouſand years at leaſt have been but the acts of carnal tyrannical uſurpation like a plague or publick war or fire to the Churches.
Viz. I. Anathematizing men for a dark ambiguous word or phraſe, though inept, and though in the obvious ſence by undiſcerned conſequence it might be inconſiſtent with the eſſentials of Religion, is tyrannical and unjuſt.
§. 14. 1. When the words only are bad, and the man doth not ſo mean them, this is no hereſie in the man. If that word which ſignifieth God, or Heaven, ſhould in another language, or by miſ-information be uſed to ſignifie, Satan or Hell, and ſo have opprobrious epithers annexed, this were no blaſphemy or errour in the man. For he uſed the words as ſignifications of his mind: And they are not Natural but arbitrary ſigns. Elſe all unskilful ſpeakers would be hereticks: Yea all men would be damned; For there are few words but are ambiguous, or of many ſenſ… and are good in one ſence and bad in another.
§. 15. 2. And as Ameſius hath well noted, there is ſo harmonious a connexion between all the Moral parts of Religion, that if you deny any one, by conſequence it will overthrow the reſt: and every errour (though not in Hiſtory, topography, Genealogy, Chronology, &c. yet) in morality wrongeth yea ſubverteth the foundation.
§. 16. 3. And (not only Davenant, Morton, Hall, but) all peace-making Divines are agreed that unſeen conſequences are not to be taken for a mans judgement, rather than the contrary truths which he profeſſedly owneth.
§. 17. For inſtances, I will over-paſs the word foreign, and not reſolve the Controverſie whether Euſebius Caeſarienſis proved by D. Petavius and others to have been indeed an Arian, after all his great labours in his Hiſtory, his Praeparatio & Demonſtratio Evangelica, ought to have been cut off from the Catholick Church: or whether Conſtantine juſtly chid Alexander as well as Arius for their contention? Nor whether Hilary juſtly blamed the making of New Creeds, beginning with the Nicene; Nor whether Juſtin and all the reſt of the Ancient Fathers whoſe words Petavius citeth as ſpeaking as the Arians, ſhould have been Excommunicated. Doubtleſs the denyal of Chriſts Godhead is the denyal of his Eſſence. But there be ſubtile School-men that think the word [ſubſtance] is ſpoken of God but equivocally or metaphorically, yea ſome and no ſmall men or number ſay the ſame of Ens it ſelf, which yet the Scotiſts contradict them in: And many chooſe rather to call God A Pure Act, than a ſubſtance: And theſe men think that they that know not what ſubſtance meaneth as ſpoken of God, ſhould not excommunicate men for denying Chriſt to be [of the … ſubſtance] unleſs they better underſtood the ſubject: And they think that Damaſcene that ſubtilly calleth God [foreign] muſt needs be as guilty as they that denyed Chriſt to be [foreign]; and that where there is no ſubſtance, there is no [ſame ſubſtance] And therefore thinking that ſome men mean the ſame word heretically, and ſome well, they wiſh that the word had never been put into a Creed, which muſt be the teſt of all Church-members: Though the word be true.
§. 18. But there are abundance of other hereſies that I may ſafely inſtance in,See what I have recited out of Philaſtrius in my book againſt Johnſon called [Which is the true Church] in the end. as Philaſtrius * yea and Epiphanius have deſcribed them. I am aſhamed to mention ſome ridiculous hereſies in Philaſtrius, (as calling the ſtars by the names of living Creatures, and other better.) And divers in Epiphanius are not much worſe. But I will ſpeak only of three or four that have made the greateſt diviſions in the Church.
§. 19. I. Cyprian with his African Councils with Firmilian judging for the re-baptization of thoſe baptized by hereticks, was judged a hereſie, which their Countreymen the Donatiſts followed: Yet Auguſtine ſaith that Cyprian was no heretick for it. And indeed, it had been but juſtly diſtinguiſhing of men called Hereticks, as I before ſaid the Council of Nice did, naming the Pauliniſts, and all had been ended. But if not, this was no ju… cauſe of Excommunication.
§. 20. II. The ſame I may ſay of the unhappy Controverſie of the time of Eaſter; about which Victor and Polycrates ſtrove; wherein Irenaeus ſo much reproveth Victor, as moſt wiſe and good men ever ſince have in their judgements done.
§. 21. III. And truly I think on ſeveral accounts that the Novatian hereſie was not ſuch as deſerved Excommunication from the Catholick Church, though they ſinfully ſeparated from thoſe concordant particular Churches, which by advantage got the name of the Catholick. For 1. wiſe men are not agreed what the hereſie was: But the skilfulleſt agree that it was not a denyal of pardon before God in another world, to the penitent, but only of Church-pardon and admittance to Communion: And ſome of their accuſers told them that their firſt founders denyed ſuch Church-pardon only to thoſe that denyed Chriſt or lapſed againſt Chriſtianity in time of perſecution (good Chriſtians that came out of priſons being too unwilling to receive thoſe when the ſtorm was over, that had ſaved themſelves by denying the faith), and that the denyal of it to other criminals came in after by degrees on ſuppoſed parity of reaſon. 2. And I find it confeſſed by their adverſaries that the wicked lives of the Catholicks occaſioned this addition; and that the Novatians were otherwiſe Orthodox, and of better lives than moſt of the Orthodox. 3. And I find that the proudeſt and worſt Biſhops (ſuch as Neſtorius) were their ſharpeſt Adverſaries, and that the beſt lived lovingly and as brethren with them: Chryſoſtom once threatned their Biſhop in Conſtantinople, but went no further, and recalled it at the next word. Atticus and Proclus kindly kept peace with them. And though Socrates and Sozomen are by many accuſed as being Novatians, for ſpeaking well of them, I ſee no reaſon to believe it; unleſs every man that chooſeth rather to ſpeak truly of diſſenters, than maliciouſly and ſlanderouſly, be therefore of their opinion. But if it were ſo, it would be ſo much the greater honour to the Novatians, with them that diſcern, that we have no ancient Church-hiſtorians that write more credibly than Socrates and Sozomen; or in whom the footſteps of veracity may by a ſtranger be eaſilier diſcerned: If their hiſtorians are trueſt, it's like they were not the worſt men. And to ſay, [Let men be never ſo pious, ſuch an opinion cuts them off from Chriſt] deſerveth indignation rather than confutation.
§. 22. IV. Neſtorius himſelf was ſo turbulent an enemy to hereſie and toleration, that while he would needs be an Orthodox perſecutor he fell under the reputation of being a moſt damnable heretick: His zeal aroſe againſt the ſuppoſed hereſie of calling Mary foreign, the mother or parent of God; But he never denyed that ſhe was the mother of him that is God: Hereupon Cyril (as turbulent a man and more, if Iſidore Peluſiota and other good men ſay true) charged him with aſſerting two perſons in Chriſt, as well as two Natures: which his own expreſs words deny: And who beſt knew his own opinion but himſelf? On the other ſide the Neſtorians accuſed the Cyrilians of hereſie, as confounding the two Natures, and blaſphemouſly making a Creature God, and ſaying that God was but ſo many months or ſo many years old. Though the extraordinarily Learned David Derodon have written to prove Neſtorius Orthodox, and Cyril an Eutychian heretic… yet truly it is evident in the hiſtory and their … that they meant the ſame thing, and ſtrove but about words, and skilful ſpeaking, in which Cyril carryed it by his greater learning, and by Neſtorius his ſucceeding St. Chryſoſtome in the hatred of the Court.
Plainly, One ſpake of the concrete, and the other of the abſtract: One of Him that was God, and the other of the Godhead, and both true: Neſtorius ſpake formally (that is, ſtrictly, for denominatio eſt à formâ) and Cyril Materially: Neſtorius ſaid, Mary was not the Parent of the Deity or of Chriſt as God, but only of the humanity and partly of the Union; and therefore was not aptly to be called The Mother of God, but of Chriſt, who is God]: Cyril ſaid that Mary was not the Cauſe or Parent of the Godhead, but yet becauſe of the Union of the two Natures was to be called The Mother of God: And is it not evident that they ſtrove but about words? which Sophronius in Council after plainly opened, and could not be heard. O doleful! that two mens ſinful ſtriving who ſhould be judged to ſpeak beſt, while they meant the ſame thing and did not know it, ſhould ſet moſt of the Chriſtian world under Anathema's and in a flame of wrath and mutual condemnation to this very day! But ſuppoſe ſome difference had been in their ſence, was it any renouncing of Chriſtianity and ſuch as cut them off from Chriſt?
§. 23. V. Cyril ſo carryed it by wit and Grandeur, and the countenance of the Court that all went for right that he had ſaid. And he had ſaid (as is yet viſible in his writings largely cited by Derodon,) that Chriſts Natures were two before the Vnion (as if the humane had exiſted before) and afterward but one. Eutyches imitated him, and was accuſed for it otherwiſe: Dioſcorus honouring his predeceſſour Cyril took his part, thinking … which carryed it then would carry it now: But the Court and ſtream was changed and he was deceived: and when they had fought it out and Flavian Biſhop of Conſtantinople was mortally hurt, Eutyches went for the heretick, and yet the name of Cyril was honoured ſtill as Orthodox. And now that Church war was revived, which drew ſtreams of conſecrated blood, and ſhook the Empire, and dolefully continueth to this day. The baniſhed Eutychians prevailed in the Eaſt and South, and even beyond the Empire as far as Ethiopia; and the Abaſſines, Copties, and others are called by many Eutychian hereticks, who know not what that hereſie is, but only honour the names of Cyril and Dioſcorus, and condemn thoſe that condemned them; and being now, from a later propagater of the party called Jacobites, are the greateſt number of Chriſtians in thoſe Countreys. And thus the pride and contention of Prelates under pretence of zeal againſt hereſie and errour, have ſet the meer names of differing leaders to be the means and marks of Schiſm to this day.
§. 24. And that ſtill it was the ſame thing that they meant, will appear to a diligent reader of the hiſtory, and the contenders words: The undenyable truth is (as Nazianzene before lamented) few Biſhops were learned underſtanding men, but ſuch as the more ignorant ſort of our Curates, and too many of them worldly, proud and factious, following the Court and thoſe Patriarchs that were moſt able to promote or eject them, after Chriſtian Emperours had once made them the Rulers of the Countreys and the Judges of all Chriſtians even in ſecular affairs: And when one Sophronius or few others opened the caſe rightly to them, they either underſtood it not, or bawl'd it down and ſet up a cry, Away with the Hereticks. The Eutychians following Cyril ſpake u…ntly; and ſaid [Chriſt had two natures before the union and but one after, becauſe united, and union maketh one of two.] But it is apparent (as Derodon hath proved) that Cyril (and ſo his ignorant followers) did not think that Chriſts humane nature did exiſt before the union, and ſo that ever they were divided, but that in order of nature the exiſtence is intelligible before the union, and ſo that they were but one as being undivided, not denying them to be ſtill diſtinguiſhable, and ſo to be what Neſtorius and the Orthodox meant by [two] as being diſtinct but not divided.
§. 25. And Derodon hath alſo proved that Cyril (and ſo the Eutychians) when they called them [One] did mean [One perſon] miſtaking the ſenſe of the word [Nature] and meaning by [Nature] the ſame that the Orthodox meant by [Perſon]. And ſo the opening of two words, would have ended all their Controverſie, and proved that they meant the ſame thing and knew it not; that is, 1. diſtinguiſhing between [One undivided] and [One undiſtinguiſhed]. 2. Opening what they meant by Nature and Perſon: But, alas, this was no work for thoſe famous General Councils, but to cry out [Anathema to Neſtorius, Anathema to Eutyches, Anathema to Dioſcorus; Holy Leo, Holy Cyril, &c.] theſe were their arguments. And Dioſcorus as bad as his adverſaries or worſe, excommunicated Leo the Biſhop of Rome, and went the Anathematizing way: And ſo much of Religion was placed in curſing one another, that there were ſcarce any Biſops in the world that were not curſed by one another.
§. 26. VI. And the difference between the Greeks and Latines about the words [hypoſtaſes & Perſonae] had almoſt come to the ſame extremity: When Hierome himſelf that liked …ot [three hypoſtaſes] was accuſed of hereſie, and was fain to fly to his baptiſmal Creed for refuge, and to prove that he was a believer becauſe he was baptized. But*Greg. Nazianzene. one wiſer than the reſt had the unuſual good ſucceſs as to convince them that by the two words it was the ſame thing that they meant, and did not know it.
§. 27. VII. The next calamitous Anathematizing fell out about the owning or diſowning of the Council of Chalcedon, becauſe of the foreſaid Neſtorian and Eutychian quarrels: And ſo doleful was the caſe, that it became the teſt of the Orthodox in one Countrey to Curſe or Anathematize that Council, and in another to Curſe all that did not receive it. Eſpecially when one Emperour was for one ſide, and the next for another, the Curſing varyed accordingly, for the moſt part.
§. 28. But that which added grievouſly to the Calamity was, that the ſame Biſhops that under one Emperour curſed the Council, under the next curſed thoſe that owned it not, and thus moſt ſcandalouſly anathematized themſelves, even one party this year, and another the next. I ſay nothing but what Binius and Baronius and ſuch others ſay.
§. 29. VIII. The next ſad Anathematizing was about the Monothelites: They that ſaid that Chriſt had but One Will and One Operation were curſed as Monothelite hereticks, and they that ſaid He had two were curſed by the Monothelites: And theſe were no narrow petty Sects, but Emperours and great General Councils were for them. Binius ſaith, that the Council of Conſtantinople called Quin ſextum that made the Trull Canons, were Monothelites, and yet that they were the ſame Biſhops that had conſtituted the fifth Council, ſo that thoſe alſo were Monothelites; And in the reign of Philippicus he ſaith a Council of the Monothelites was ſo great that there were beſides the reſt Innumerable Biſhops out of the Eaſt. And theſe and their adverſaries kept on the curſing trade of Religion, one ſide curſing under one Emperour, and the contrary under the next.
§. 30. And (O doleful caſe) even theſe alſo ſeem fully to me to contend about nothing but bare words, and really agreed and did not know it, partly following the ſtream for worldly intereſt, and partly having not skill enough to explicate ambiguous words and ſtate the Controverſie. Who knoweth not that ever read any Metaphyſicks, how many ſenſes the word [One] or [Vnity] hath? and how the ſame thing in ſeveral reſpects may be ſaid to be One or Two? And was this diſcuſſed in any of theſe Councils? Which? where? and when? 1. Two things may concur to one effect, where, ſay the ſubtileſt Philoſophers, materially they are two cauſes, but formally and properly but one; All ſet together make but one cauſe (being ejuſdem generis) and are but many parts of that one cauſe, though many things: And ſo ſome called Chriſts Wills One as being but One cauſe in theſe School-mens ſenſe of the ſame effect. For the Deity operateth only per eſſentiam and hath no effect in God himſelf. 2. And as Voluntas and operatio ſignifie the Internal principle of the effect, no one can doubt but Chriſt had two; for the Divine eſſential Will, and the humane faculty or Act, were not the ſame principle or thing: But Objectively they are One; that is, The Divine Nature or principle and the humane do will the ſame thing, and contradict not one another. 3. And the Controverſie is the ſame as the former with the Eutychians: Chriſt hath but One Will as oppoſite to Diviſions; One as not divided: but Two as intellectually diſtinguiſhable. Two as denominated à principiis from two natures; one as 1. from One perſon, and 2. as undivided, and 3. as terminated on One object. I doubt not but had this been thus opened to them, all the ſober men would have ſaid, we are all agreed in it. And yet this wordy difference maketh the name of an Anathematized hereſie to this day.
§. 31. IX. The next curſing difference aroſe about … queſtion whether Chriſts body on earth was corruptible or no? O the unhappy ſpirit of ſelf conceited anathematizing Prelates! The affirmers were called corrupticolae and reproached as blaſphemers of the Chriſt, and the worſhippers of that which was corruptible. The denyers were called Phantaſiaſticks and made hereticks, the affirmers getting the laſt prevailing vote; And alas, the Emperour Juſtinian out of his great zeal for the honour of Chriſt, proved one of the hereticks, and is ſo branded to this day; yea and perſecuted the corrupticolas as hereticks. Where will hereticating, curſing and perſecuting ſtop or end? And yet one word of juſt diſtinction had ended all this, had it been duly uſed and received. Chriſts Body was potentially and as to the natural quality of fleſh lyable to or capable of corruption: But not actually corrupted, and not corruptible in reſpect to Gods decree, that it ſhould not actually corrupt. And yet even holy Hilary Pictav. held not only this errour but ſomewhat more; His words are ſo bad I am loth to cite them.
§. 32. X. The next lamentable Schiſm and Curſing aroſe from the Decree of the Conſtantinopolitan Council de tribus capitulis. The Curſing one another for owning or not owning the Council of Chalcedon ſtill continuing; and Learned Theodoret with Theodore of Mopſueſt and Ibas having been formerly by Dioſcorus Epheſine Council condemned and depoſed as Neſtorian hereticks, and the Council of Chalcedon having reſtored them upon their juſt ſubſcriptions, a crafty Eutychian perſwaded the Emperour, that he might reconcile all the Eutychians to the Council of Chalcedon, if he would but condemn ſome ill words in the writings of theſe three Biſhops; which the Emperour called a General Council together preſently to do. The one half the Biſhops abſent thought this was a condemning in part of the Chalcedon Council; And Vigilius Biſhop of Rome being then at Conſtantinople refuſed to ſubſcribe, and after excommunicated Menna the Patriarch; The Emperour cauſed him to be dragg'd through the ſtreets by a rope, to reconcile him: The flames of the Church were by this Council much increaſed, and by condemning three dead mens writings, the living were more engaged in a doleful war. At laſt Pope Vigilius conſented to the Council; whereupon a great part even of the Weſtern Churches and Italy ſeparated from and renounced the Pope, and choſe them another Patriarch (at Aquileia) to be their chief Church-Ruler in his ſtead. And this continued about an hundred years, till Sergius reconciled them: ſo far was the univerſal Church even then from taking the Pope or Church of Rome for the Head, or any eſſential part of the Church-Univerſal. And all this was about the Expoſition of ſome doubtful words in three mens writings: And can any ſober man now think that the right or wrong Expoſition of every mans, or thoſe three mens writings, was a thing that ſalvation lyeth on? or that theſe are the terms of Chriſtianity and Church-memberſhip?
§. 33. It would be but matter of ſhame and ſorrow to go on, and add the later and more ſhameful inſtances of Anathematizing, eſpecially about Images, ſeveral Emperours and Councils hereticating each other. What an Engine the Pope and Prelates made Curſing men from Chriſt, to get dominion over Emperours and Kings, to ſubdue Kingdoms, and to turn Love and peace into wrath and wars and bloodſhed and pernicious diviſions: To recite their damning of Loyalty under the name of the Henrician hereſie: their damning all that (about Tranſubſtantiation) renounced not the belief of all their ſenſes and rational perception of ſenſate things; and that renounced not alſo the belief of all the ſound mens ſenſes in the world, and conſequently the belief of God: as he is the God of Nature, making his revelation to our underſtandings by our ſenſes; making it neceſſary to ſalvation to take God for the deceiver of the ſenſes (or apprehenſions by ſenſation) of all the world. How they have decreed the burning or exterminating of all others, that do not thus believe Tranſubſtantiation, and depoſing temporal Lords that will not exterminate them, and abſolving their Subjects from their Oaths and Allegiance, and giving their dominions to others. Did I but recite to you how ridiculouſly they hereticated Gilbert Porretane and ſome other learned men, and how ſuch expoſed the Councils of Biſhops to ſcorn by detecting their ignorance by ſome queſtions which they could not anſwer; ſhould I tell you what work their long and numerous Schiſms, and two or three Popes at once made for the great Councils of Conſtance and Baſil; and alſo what work thoſe Councils made themſelves, it might melt the heart of a lover of Chriſtianity into grief and tears.
§. 34. I conclude this, that the hereticating and Curſing men for doubtful words, or want of skill in aptneſs of expreſſions, yea or for errours which conſiſt with ſaving faith in Chriſt, is ſo far from being a means of the Churches good, that it hath been the grand engine of Satan to exerciſe Tyranny, excite hatred and Schiſm and Rebellions, and do moſt lamentable miſchiefs in the world, and therefore carefully to be avoided.
§. 35. II. And what I have ſaid of words, I may partly ſay of actions: Anathematizing men for doubtful actions, or for ſuch faults as conſiſt with true Chriſtianity, and continued ſubjection to Jeſus Chriſt, is a ſinful Church-dividing means.
§. 36. More particularly I ſhall ſhew after in the third part of this book, that it is not all the ſame things that make a man uncapable of preſent Communion in this or that ſingle or particular Church, or in a compound Church, Dioceſane, Metropolitane, Provincial or National (or Imperial) which make him uncapable of continuing in the Univerſal Church. Much leſs doth every continued diſobedience to a Biſhops or Councils Canons or Commands make him Excommunicable from the Church Univerſal.
§. 37. But moſt abominable was it in the Roman Popes and Prelates, to ſhut up all Churches, interdict whole Kingdoms, and excommunicate the innocent people, becauſe a King diſpleaſed them, or denyed them ſubjection or obedience. And as old Robert Groſthead Biſhop of Lincoln in his Epiſtle to Pope Innocent IV. recorded by Matth. Paris, truly tells them, It is the work of Satan, and next Antichriſtianity one of the greateſt ſins in all the world, thus to ſilence Chriſts Miniſters, and hinder the preaching of the Word of God, and the exerciſe of his publick Worſhip: Which it concerneth all unjuſt Silencers to conſider.
§. 38. But yet ſomewhat more tyrannical and abominable is it, for one man, the Biſhop of Rome, to damn all the Church of Chriſt on earth that will not be his Subjects as the Vicar-General of Chriſt, and own his Uſurpation, and ſo to cut off and damn the far greateſt part of the Chriſtian world. But the beſt is procul à Jove, procul à fulmine, the remote Churches feel it not, and do but deride it, and to the nearer parts his thunderbolt doth not kill all ſo many nor kindle ſo many fagots as once it did; nor is any one ever the more condemned by God for ſuch Papal condemnations.
§. 39. But when I ſpeak of particular Church-Communion, I ſhall ſhew, that there is ſome lawful ſuſpenſion (called by ſome the Minor excommunication) which cuts not a man off from Communion with any Church, much leſs from the univerſal or from Chriſt.
§. 40. Not approving of or practiſing a doubtful or indifferent humane form of Liturgy, or ceremony or circumſtance or mode, is no juſt cauſe of cutting off a man from the Univerſal Church▪ Becauſe notwithſtanding that, he may be a true Chriſtian and a member of Chriſt and his Church, and therefore muſt not falſly be declared to be none.
§. 41. Not taking this or that man to be ones Biſhop or Paſtor who is obtruded, yea or juſtly ſet over that Church, nor yet particular acts of diſobedience to him meerly as ſuch, are no good proofs that a man is no true Chriſtian or member of Chriſt and his Church; and therefore are no juſt cauſe to ſentence or declare him none: For the ſentence muſt be true. Many things in ſuch caſes may cauſe a man to err, which do not unchriſten him or cut him off from Chriſt.
§. 42. The diſowning and refuſing ſome humane forms of Profeſſion of faith, called Creeds, or ſome doubtful (though lawful) ſubſcriptions, promiſes, declarations, Covenants or oaths (much leſs falſe ones) are no juſt cauſes of Excommunicating that man who profeſſeth all the eſſentials of Chriſtianity, and whatever is neceſſary to ſalvation.
§. 43. The condemning of ſome ſuch humane Creeds, Articles, Forms, Covenants, promiſes or oaths, though unjuſtly, is no juſt cauſe of ſuch excommunication; becauſe all men being known to be fallible, a good Chriſtian may miſtake another mans (or many mens) words: And the miſunderſtanding of a man (or many men) may ſtand with Chriſtianity, piety and ſalvation.
§. 44. It is not all that maketh a man uncapable of local Communion with this or that particular Church which unchriſteneth him, or maketh him uncapable of continuing in the Church-univerſal, as ſhall be after proved.
§. 45. Nay a man may be a Chriſtian in the Univerſal Church, who is a member of no particular Church, as is before ſhewed: As 1. ſome newly Baptized, as the Eunuch, Act. 8. 2. Some Chriſtians that live among Infidels, where is no Paſtor or Church: As if one were now Converted in any Heathen Land, or caſt there after; or called as an Embaſſador or Merchant to live there. 3. Some poor vagrant perſons that have no dwelling; as Pedlars, Tinkers, and ſuch others that go from place to place: and ſome others.
§. 46. Therefore if a man ſhould ſo far err as to think that he were not bound to be a member of ſome particular Church, it may conſiſt with his being a member of the Univerſal Church.
§. 47. Some few brethren called Independents, think that none are members of the Church-Univerſal but thoſe that are members of ſome particular Church: But it is but few of them, and they are miſtaken: As Corporations are the moſt regular parts of the Kingdom, but not the whole Kingdom; ſo particular Churches are the moſt regular parts of the univerſal Church, but not the whole: as hath been proved by inſtances.
§. 48. Yea (though we need lay no ſtreſs on this) I doubt not but in caſes of neceſſity an open profeſſion of Chriſtianity, and entring into the Covenant of God, doth make a man a Chriſtian even without baptiſm it ſelf. As if a Bible or good book or ſpeech convert a man among Infidels where there is no one to baptize him: St. Peter ſaith, It is not the outward waſhing that ſaveth, but the anſwer of a good Conſcience to God (in the holy Covenant.) And it is a diſhonourable doctrine againſt God and Chriſtianity to ſay that God layeth his love and mans ſalvation ſo much on a Ceremony, as to damn or deny an upright holy ſoul for want of it, or to give grace to none but by that Ceremony, though it be of Gods inſtitution. I am ſure St. Paul ſaith, Elſe were your Children unclean, but now are they holy, 1 Cor. 7. 14. And if Holy before baptiſm, (becauſe the Parents are ſo and do devote them to God and God accepts them) then baptiſm doth but ſolemnize this dedication and inveſt them. It is the ſolemn Covenanting with God, that is the chief part of baptiſm, and is it which the ancient Churches meant, when they pleaded for the neceſſity of baptiſm to ſalvation; Though it is, no doubt, a duty, where it may be had; and the thing ſignified is neceſſary to ſalvation.
§. 49. The Keyes of Admiſſion and excluſion as to the Church univerſal, and ſalvation are not given abſolutely to the Paſtors, but only to exerciſe on qualified perſons: And every man herein hath more power as to his own entrance or ejection than the Paſtors have: They do but judge a man to be what he is, according to Chriſts Law, and not what he is not: no man can make a man a Chriſtian without himſelf, nor unchriſtian him without himſelf: nor can all men and devils do ſo much to it as himſelf: God hath not put our ſalvation or damnation ſo much in any ones power as our own.
§. 50. A falſe and unjuſt ſentence of excommunication doth no more to damn a man than a falſe abſolution doth to ſave him: But till the falſhood is known, others for order ſake muſt avoid the perſon, if it be done by a juſt power, and not notoriouſly abuſed to the ſubverſion of order or the Church; otherwiſe not. But the injured perſon is ſtill a member of the Catholick Church; And is not diſobliged from his Communion with it, and publick worſhipping of God, becauſe a Paſtor unjuſtly forbiddeth him: Though he muſt give all due ſatisfaction, and ſeek his right in a regular way.