Which is the True Church, Part 2 · Preface
THE PREFACE.
I Have great reason to suppose, that if I should make this Book as long as it must be, if I repeated and answered all the words of W. I. it would frustrate my writing it, by discouraging Sect. 1.most Readers, whose Leisure and Patience are as short as mine: Therefore I purpose to cull out all which I take to seem his real strength, and of any importance to the understanding Reader, and to omit the Vagaries: And particularly where he and I differ about the words or sense of any Fathers, or Councils; what need I more than to leave that Matter to the perusal of the Reader, who cannot rationally rest in my Yea, or W. I's Nay: For how will either of those tell him what any Book in question doth contain? It is the perusal of the Book it self that must satisfie him. But about the Weight, or Consequence of any such Citations, we may help his satisfaction.
The Churches alas have not been so innocent since Lording was its way of Government, as that all that we can find written or done by any great Patriarchs (Prelates) yea or Sect. 2.Council, should pass with us for proof that it was well said or done: nor can we take one Prelate for all Christs Church, no nor a synod o… the Clergie in the Roman Empire. Nor can we be so void of understanding as to read over the ancient Writers and the Councils, and not to know how much the Major Vote of the Clergie still followed the Emperours Wills, and the Byas of Interest. We cannot lye, or believe evident Lyes, on pretence of honouring them. He that readeth the Stories, and doth not find how much the Will of Constantine prevailed in one Council, and the contrary Will of Constantius in many: What the Will of Valens did with most in the E…st, and the Will of Iovian, Valentinian, and other good Princes did against it: How far the Will of Theodosius went while he Reigued, against the Arrians, to heal what Valens had done: And how much the Will of Theodosius junior did for the Eutythians, (and yet against the Nestorians:) And how far the Will of Martian prevailed against the said Eutychians when he was dead: How much even the Usurper Basiliscus in a year or two could do to strengthen the Arrians and Eutyohians: And how quickly Zeno's Prevalency turned the Scales: I say, he that doth read on such Histories to the end, and yet will think that the Clergie have been still one unanimous Body, of the same Mind and Opinion in all things, and not turned up and down by Princes Power, and their own Interest and fears; I leave such a Reader as desperate, and as one that will be deceived in despight of the clearest Evidence of Truth.
He that doth read these Stories, and doth not perceive the great Corruption of the Clergie, when once their places had a Bait of Wealth and Honour and Dominion, suitable to a Sect. 3.proud, worldly, carnal mind; and what a continual War there was among the Clergie, between a holy spiritual, and a worldly proud domineering unconscionable Party; and how ordinarily, or oft, the carnal worldly Clergie had the major Vote: how the same (e g.) Bishops at the Council of Ephes. 2. could yield to Theodosius and Dioscorus, and condemn the just; and at Calcedon go the contrary way, and cry out omnes peccavimus, and we did it for fear! How the same Council at Constantine, that confirmed Greg. Naz. when some more were added, and got the major Vote, resolved to depose him, and caused him to depart: How the same Peter of Alexandria, (Athanasius's Successour) that first made him Bishop of Constantinople, Vid. Liber. Breviar.for a sum of Money put in Maximus in his place, without once hearing him, or giving any Reason, or re-calling his first Letters; and how the bribed Egyptian Bishops did concur: How Theophilus carryed it with the Egyptian Monks, and against Origen, and Chrysostome, and between Theodosius and Eugenius the Usurper; and how the Synod carried it against Chrysostome; and how Cyril first made himself a Magistrate to use the Sword at Alexandria; and what past between Theodoret, Iohan. Antioch. and him; and how the Bishops and their Synods in Ithacius time carryed it against St. Martin, and against the Priscillianists; and how all this while Rome and Constantinople set and kept the Empire in a Flame, by striving which should be the greatest; and how the Pope on such putid accounts did molest the African Churches, in the days of Augustine himself; and their Writers charge them with Schism to this day: I say, he that can read abundance of such stuff as this, and yet think that any one Citation of the words of a Prelate, Pope, or Council, …is as valid as if it were the word of God, let him go his own way, for he is not for my Company.
Nay if they could prove as much of the Popes Universal Episcopacy within the Empire Sect. 4.under the Christian Emperours, as Salm…sius (I think too liberally) granteth them, (de Eccles. suburbicar. circa finem) it is no more with me than to prove the Power of the Bishop of Alexandria or of An…och in their assigned Patriarchates, which altered at the Pleasure of the Emperours and Synods, (as the division made after between the Bishops of Antioch, Ierusalem, and Cesarea sheweth, and that which was given to Constantinople from Heraclea, Pontus, and Asia.)
Christianity was not unknown till Councils, or altered as often as they made new decrees: Sect. 5.And it is a great mistake of them that think that there was little of Christianity, save in the Roman Empire: The Apostles preached else-where, and they preached not in vain. There were Churches in Ethiopia, the Indies, Persia, Parthia, the outer Armenia, Scythia, Britain, and other parts that were without the Empire; but we have no large or particular Histories of them, partly because that they were not so much literate and given to writing as the Romans and the Greeks were; and partly because they were in Warrs with the Empire, or did not communicate by Correspondence with them; and partly because their Books were not in any Language which the Greeks or Romans understood. How long was it ere the Empire had much acquaintance with the Syriack or Samaritane, Persian, Arabick, or Ethiopick Versions (or Books) after they were extant; and how few of the many Books that by Travellers are said to be in Abassia, Armenia, or Syria, are known to us to this day? How little know we of the old Christians, of St. Thomas, and those parts? And how full and satisfactory a Testimony doth Alvarez profess, that he saw himself (even a large Stone with memorial Inscriptions of it digged up) that the Christian Religion had been in China, when otherwise he could not hear of one word by Tradition or History that could notifie such a thing. How little know we now of the case of Nubia and Tend… while they were great Christian Kingdoms? How little know we at this day of the state of the Armenians, Georgians, Mengr… tians, Circassians, &c. How little was known of the great Empire of Abassia till the Portugals opened the way for Oviedo and his Companions the other day. Iacobus de Vitriaco tells us of more Christians in those parts of the World than all the Greeks or Latines; when he was at Ierusalem, where he had notice of them. Brocardus that lived there, also tells us as of their great numbers, so of their great piety, being better men than the very Religious of the Church of Rome: and yet how little notice was there then of their Writings or them? He saith they were free from the Heresies of Nestorianism and Eutychianism which we charge them with in Europe, and yet the Papists so charge them still, that they may seem to have reason for condemning them, fearing that their non-subjection to the Pope will not seem enough with impartial men.
And as to the great Confidence that they seem to place in their succession to St. Peter, Sect. 6.and Christs words to him [on this Rock I will build my Church] and to thee I give the Keys, &c.] and [feed my sheep.] I have oft answered it more fully than is fit again to recite; but these few hints I would commend to the Reader.
1. That we affirm that Peter was among them as a fore-man of a Jury and no more; and so Christ spake to the rest in speaking to him; and the same power is given to the rest: The Church is said to be built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ being the head Corner-stone] Is not this as much as is said of St. Peter? Christ gave them all the power of Holy Ghost and the remitting and retaining sins, binding and loosing, which is the Keys which he gave to Peter. And they are all sent forth to feed Christs Sheep: Now the Fathers give as high Titles oft to others as to the Pope, yea and to Peter; see what I have cited in my Key for Catholicks, pag. 175. 176. and what Gataker hath cited out of Dionysius, Tertullian, Basil, Ierome, Augustine, Theodoret, Gildas, Nicephorus, &c. Cin. 395. 396.
2. Peter never exercised any authority over any of the rest of the Apostles: He called them not; governed them not; There is mention of Paul's reproving him, Gal. 2. but none of his reproving them. Schismes being among them and greatly lamented, they are never directed to unite in Peter as the way to Concord, nor to have recourse to him to end them. Nay, when the over-valuers of Peter made one party in the Schism among the Corinthians, Paul seeks to take them off that way, and set Peter in the same rank with himself and Apollos, as Ministers only by whom they believed, calling them Carnal for saying, I am of Cephas, never calling them to unite in him as the Head of all: And had this been necessary, what had this been but to betray the Churches?
3. The Apostles were never properly Bishops, but of a higher rank: Bishops were the fixed Over-seers of particular Churches, and no one had many: But Apostles only planted them, and governed them for their Confirmation, and so passed on from one to another, and had care of many such at once. If any one Church might pretend superiority by vertue of succession it would be Ierusalem, and next that Ephesus, where it is said that Iohn the Beloved Disciple was as Bishop, and which hath continued to this day.
4. The Apostles as such had no Successors, nor as Bishops in any distinct Seats: The same Christ that called Peter called the rest, and called especially the Beloved Disciple, to whom, on the Cross, he commended his Mother, when Peter had denyed him; and he promised to be with them to the end of the World: But no Bishops on Earth ever pretended to superiority over any other Churches, as the Successors of the other eleven Apostles. Where are those Seats, or where ever were they? If the Apostles Successors must rule the Churches as such, tell us which be the other eleven, and which be their Diocesses, and of what extent? Nay, it is And in Rev. 21. the new Jerusalem was built on the twelve Apostles as twelve precious stones.considerable, that even in the times of domination, there were but five Patriarchates ever set up, and not twelve, and not one of those claimed Power by vertue of succession from any Apostle. Constantinople never pretended to it: Alexandria claimed the honour of succession only from St. Mark, who was no Apostle: And Ierusalem from Iames, (whom Dr. Hammond laboureth to prove to have been none of the Apostles, but a Kinsman of Jesus:) Only Antioch and Rome claimed succession from Peter, and Antioch as his first Seat; but they did on that single account claim Power then over other Churches. And seeing the Church is built on the Foundation of Apostles and Prophets, and that all the Apostles, 1 Cor. 12. are mentioned equally as the noblest Foundation, Members or Pillars, and the People chidden sharply by Paul for making Cephas a Head; What reason have we to believe that Peter only hath perpetual Successors fixed to a certain City, and that no other of all the Apostles have any such: What word of God will prove that Peter hath left his Power at Rome, and no other Apostles, no not one hath left theirs to any Place or Person on Earth? yea and that he left it more to Rome than to Antioch, when Antioch claimeth the first succession from him, and Rome but the second; and when Nilus and others have said so much to make it probable, that Peter never was at Rome; and when it is certain that Paul was there, and those old Fathers, that from some word of one of Eusebius his doubtful Authors, do say, that Peter was at Rome, and Bishop there, do also say that it was the Episcopal Seat of Paul; and when it is certain that no Apostle was any-where a Bishop, formaliter but only eminenter, as being not fixed, nor fixing their Power to any Seat. And Dr. Hammond giveth very considerable conjectures, That if Peter and Paul were both at Rome, they had divers Churches there, Paul being the Bishop of the Uncircumcision, and Peter of the Circumcision only, (from whence we may see that the Spirit of God in his Apostles judged that there might be more Churches and Bishops in one City than one, (much more over a thousand Parishes) though as the contrary Spirit prevaileth, the contrary Interest and Opinion prevailed with it.
These things premised, the Reader must know, that the state of the Controversie between Sect. 7.Mr. Terret, alias Mr. Iohnson, and me is this. Finding the Church of Rome in possession of abundance of Errours and Vanities, he would not only perswade us that they are of God, and have ever been the same, because it is so with them now, but also concludeth, that these Carbuncles are essential to Christianity and the Church, and that we cannot prove that we are a Church and Christians, unless we prove that we have had from the Apostles a continued succession of their Errours: As if a man could not prove himself to be a man, unless all his Ancestors from Adam had the French-pox or the Leprosie.
On the contrary I maintain that the Church of Christ (which is his Body) is essentiated by true consent to the Baptismal Covenant (which is our Christening) and integrated by all the additional degrees, that this Covenant is expounded in the Creed, Lord's Prayer, and Christian Decalogue. (The Lord's Supper is but the same Covenant celebrated by other signs not for Essence but Confirmation) That all that consent to the (celebrated) Baptismal Covenant heartily, are Members of the invisible Church; and all that profess consent (in Sincerity or Hypocrisie) are visible Members (coram Ecclesia) That the true Church of Christ hath no other Head than Christ himself; no Vicarious Universal Head, Pope nor Council; That the Protestants profess themselves Members of no other Universal Church but that of which Christ only is the Head, and all Christians (at least not cast out) are Members; that this Christian Church hath been visible to God by real consent, and visible to man by professed consent from the first being of it to this day: And when they ask us, Where was your Church before Luther, we say, where there were Christians before Luther. Our Religion is nothing but simple Christianity: We are o… no Catholick Church but the Universality of Christians; We know no other, but lament that the pride of the Clergy growing up from Parochial to Diocesan, and from Diocesan to Metropolitical, and Patriarchal, and thence to Papal, hath invented any other; and that the Serpent that tempted Eve hath drawn them from the Christian simplicity. They deny not the successive visibility of Christianity and the Christian Church: We desire no more; we own we know no other Religion and no other Church.
But the Roman Artifice here comes in, and when their HUMANE UNIVERSAL HEAD hath made the grand Schism of the Christian World; hence they have learnt to Sect. 8.make Christians of no Christians, and no Christians of Christians, as Pride and Ignorance serving this usurping interest please. Their Doctors are not agreed whether any more be necessary explicitely to be believed to Salvation, than that there is a God, and that our works shall be rewarded, without believing a word of Christ or the Gospel; and whether they that believe not in Christ are Christians; or whether being no Christians, yet they are Members of the Christian Church: And the greater part are here on the wider Latitudinarian side; (as you may see in Fr. S. Clara's Problemes, Deus, Nat. Grat. and in the words of this W. I. before answered.)
And yet these charitable men conclude that two or three parts of the true Christian world (Abassines, Copties, Syrians, Iacobites, Georgians, Armenians, Greeks, Moscovites, Protestants) are all out of the Church of Christ, though their own Fryars that have lived among some of them in the East, profess that they are no Hereticks, and are better Men than the Papists are, and none worse of Life than the Roman Party. And whence is this strange difference? Why, it is because that these are none of them subject to the Pope; which it is supposed that those are that believe only that there is a God and a Reward. (But how is this their only explicite Faith, if they must also believe that the Pope is the Vice-Christ.) And some of them tell you further, that he that should so far believe his Ghostly Father, the Priest, Vid. S. Clar. ubi sup.as to hold that he is not bound to love God, because the Priest tells him so, is not only excusable, but he meriteth by it: So much more necessary to Salvation is it, to love the Priest, than to love God.
And yet after all this, their own Leaders confess, that it is no Article of their Faith, that the Pope is Peter's Successour, and that it is not by Revelation that the Church-Governours Sect. 9.must be known; (as I have shewed out of Ri. Smyth, Bishop of Calcedon, and of England; and in the fore-confuted Writings of W. I▪)
The things that I maintain are, I. That the Protestants Religion, and Church, being only the Christian as such, had an uninterrupted succession as such, (which the Papists Sect. 10.deny not.) II. That the Papal Church as such, cannot prove its constant visibility and succession. Nay, (though it be their part to prove it) we are ready to prove; 1. That it is a Novelty. 2. That it hath been often, and notoriously interrupted; and their Papacy hath not had any continued succession of Men truly Popes by their own Laws and Rules, and in their own Account.