The Grotian Religion Discovered, Section 14 – Section 29
SECT. XIV.
YET cannot I consent that these should §. 14.be made the terms of Union that the Bishop here grants. For, 1. If when he excludeth [Ʋniversality of Jurisdiction by Christs Institution] he intend to grant them (which yet I know not) an Universality of Jurisdiction by humane Institution or Agreement, then it would be but to set up an Humane Popery instead of a pretended Divine: But this I charge not on him as his judgement; though some will think it intimated. But 2. that Peter hath a certain fixed Chair to which a Primacy of Order is annexed, and a Head ship of Unity, is not a Truth, and therefore not a Pinciple Necessary to Heal the Church. 3. That the Pope should hold to himself and his Church his [last four hundred years determinations] and so continue such as the Bishop here concludes to be [no Apostolical, Orthodox, Catholick Church, nor to have true Faith] is an unlikely thing to stand with the Unity and Concord that he mentioneth: We shall cement but sorrily with such a Body as this. 4. That the Pope should hold his Patriarchal Power, is a meer Innovation and humane Institution, as is his Primacy of Order, and such Priviledges (the Council of Calcedon averr's it.) And therefore it is no necessary thing to be conceded for the Churches Peace. 5. Multitudes that live in the Western Nations of the world, will still dissent both from the Popes Patriarchal Power, and more from his way of exercising it: and so will be forced to fall under the reproach of Schismaticks by these terms: and that for obeying the Laws of Christ. If the Pope as Patriarck of the West, should impose upon us only, (and not on the East) the Doctrines, and Worship, and Ceremonies which he now imposeth on the Papists, (excepting the excepted before) doth any man of reason think that the Reformed Churches would ever yield to them, or ought to do it? We will Unite on Christs terms, and that will be a sure and more General Union; and not on such humane devices as these. Let those that made the Pope our Patriarck, maintain his Power: For Christ did not. 6. Many things in Doctrine and Worship which on these terms would be imposed both on East and West, and prevail in most of the Churches at this day, are sins against God; and therefore how small soever they may be, are not to be consented to for Unity. 7. The Ethiopian and other Churches that were still without the verge of the Roman Empire, will never acknowledge this much to the Pope; seeing that even those humane Constitutions that gave him his Primacy of Order, determined of no more then the Roman world, and had nothing to do beyond Euphrates; nor did the Popes lay any claim, or meddle any further. And abundance among the Eastern Churches also will deny this Primacy. 8. There is no hope of Uniting the Churches on any terms but what are Necessary and Divine: For its vain to expect that things humane and unnecessary should be consented to by all: Much less things sinful. 9. There is no Union to be had but upon the terms on which the Churches have sometimes United. For a new way of union is not to be expected, or attempted. But never was the Church united on such Concessions as these; and therefore never will be. 10. It would be an exceeding dishonour to God, and injury to the souls of many millions of men, if but under the Popes Patriarchal Jurisdiction in the West, the Papists way of worship were set up, and their Government exercised as now. The good will of Rome, or the name of Peace would not recompence the loss of so many thousand souls as some one of the Papal abuses might procure: For instance, their driving the people from the Scriptures and other means of knowledge. Besides most of the evils that I before charged on the Grotian way, (as Censures, Persecutions, &c.) would follow upon this.
Yet this I shall yield, that if the Papists will Reform what the Bishop requires them to Reform, it will undoubtedly make way for nearer Concord, and make them capable of our more charitable thoughts. But if it be expected also that we yield to them as much as the Bishop yields them, and these be made the terms of Peace or Concord, I dare say that the Churches will never have a general, or safe, or durable Peace or Concord on those terms.
SECT. XV.
BUT though I am thus confident that §. 15.neither the terms of Grotius, Cassander, or this Bishop, will serve for a Catholick Agreement; yet I desire not to make the work seem utterly Hopeless, or take off any mans just endeavours for a general Peace: Nor shall I leave the business thus, and content my self to shew the …mpossibility of other mens terms, lest while I pull down all, and offer nothing in the stead, I be thought to be but an enemy to Peace, while I pretend to love it. In general therefore I say, that the terms of an Universal Concord or Peace, must be Purely Divine, and not Humane; Necessary, and not things unnecessary; Antient, according to the Primitive simplicity, and neither New, nor yet too Numerous, Curious or abstruse. Particularly, Chillingworth hath already told the world the way of Unity. And I have cast in somewhat of my thoughts in another Disputation of this subject, and more in a Treatise against Popery called, A Key for Catholicks, (not yet Printed, but finished, and going to the Press.)
SECT. XVI.
I Have now told you how far I dissent §. 16.from Grotius, and on what accounts, and how far I approve Pacificatory attempts, between us and the Papists, that you may not misinterpret me any more. And now I come to the matter that you call me to, which is to prove that Grotius was a Papist of that strain as I supposed him to be. And I think he would have taken it as an injury from you or me, if while he had lived we had denyed it.
And here it is supposed that you and I are so far agreed what a Papist is, as is necessary to our prosecution of this question. For 1. you'l grant me I doubt not, that the French Church are Papists, though much more moderate then the Italians, and though they deny the Popes superiority over a Council, and so his Infallibility alone. 2. You do grant me (pag. 93, 94.) that Thuanus and Cassander were Papists, and the Emperours Ferdinand and Maximilian (as I understand you) And this much shall suffice us at this time. I would Grotius had gone no further then Maximilian. His mind was to have had the Scripture taken for the only Rule of faith, and to have adjoyned for Church Government that frame of Policy that Grotius was for. But many of Grotius doctrines are not in the Scripture, but against it, and fetcht from pretended Tradition.
SECT. XVII.
IF Cassander was a Papist, then he that §. 17.owns the Doctrine of Cassander, and his way of Discipline and Worship, is so too: But so did Grotius. For 1. He Published his Consultations as the very way to the Churches Peace, professing himself in many writings to own them, and desire their Reception, and making it the very design and business of many writings and of his life. 2. He calls them [Cassandri Veracia scripta] in his Poem before his via ad Pacem. 3. In his Annotations, he approveth of that which you can call Popery in Cassander, but seems to be more favourable to the Papal cause in many points then Cassander was. Read but Cassander of Images (for instance) and Grotius in his Annot. his Vol. & Discuss. and see which of them was neerer, or more favourable to the Papists. If then Cassander be a Papist, and Grotius professedly of the judgement of Cassander, th… Grotius was a Papist. The same I may say of Erasmus (whom Thomas White and many more Papists vindicate, as formerly one of theirs) and Modrevius, and many more whom Grotius owneth and adheres to.
SECT. XVIII.
HE that owneth the Tridentine Creed §. 18.is a Papist. But so did Grotius: For he first printed it in his Via ad Pacem, as that which should be received for the Churches Peace, or which the Augustan Confession must be reconciled to; professing to hold them reconcileable with the expositions and Correctives that Cassander & he have given of this Confession: Not offering the least Corrective for the Trent Creed in order to the Reconciliation. Yea he purposely in divers writings maintaineth the Agreement of them (thus far) and vind cateth the Trent Creed, and the doctrines of it.
SECT. XIX.
HE that is for the Trent Council, and §. 19.all that is determined by it or any other General Council which the Papists own, professing the Agreement of his Tenents therewith, is a Papist: But such was Grotius, as appeareth through his Discussio Apologet. Rivet his Volum, &c. I shall produce some of the particular words anon.
SECT. XX.
HE that purposely & professedly through §. 20.his Books doth call the Papists by the name of the Catholicks, and defend them, and join himself to them as one of them, in opposition to the Protestants, whom he mentions with distaste, as pretended Reformers, and disowneth them that are not reconciled to the Papists, is himself a Papist. But so doth Grotius, as is visible throughout his Discussio Apol. Rivet. still joining himself with the Catholicks, that is, the Papists, in opposition to Reformation it self and to the Protestant Churches and Doctrines. Yea Professing himself openly a Papist. I mean not in the name of [Papist] for so few of the Papists themselves will do, because they like not the name: But that he owned the Thing, I shall now prove from his words.
SECT. XXI.
IN his Discuss. Apologet. Rivietiani p. 255. §. 21.he saith as followeth [Restitutionem Christianorum in unum idem{que} corpus, semper optatam à Grotio, sciunt qui eum norunt; existimavit autem aliquando etiam postquam innotuerat Illustrissimo D. Vairio, incipi posse à Protestantium inter se conjunctione. Postea vidit, id plane fieri nequire; quia praeterquam quod Calvinistarum ingenia ferme omnium ab omni pace sunt alienissima, Protestantes nullo inter se communi Ecclesiastico regimine sociantur, quae Causae sunt cur factae partes in unum Protestantium corpus colligi nequeant: immo & cur partes aliae at{que} aliae sint exurrecturae. Quare nunc plane ita sentit Grotius, & multi cum ipso, non posse Protestantes inter se jungi, nisi simul jungantur cum iis qui sedi Romanae cohaerent; sinc qua nullum sperari potest in Ecclesia commune Regimen. Ideo optat, ut ea divulsio, quae evenit, & causae divulsionis tollantur. Inter eas non est Primatus Episcopi Romani secundum Canones, fatente Melanchthone—] Here you see that Grotius judged that the only way for union was for all Protestants to join with them that adhere to the sea of Rome: And then I hope you doubt not whether Grotius did that himself which he endeavoured to bring all the Protestants to as necessary to their unity; that is, to join with them that adhere to the Pope. If you say that he mentioneth only the Primacy of the Pope at last, I answer 1. He speaks of that only as Melanchthons consession, 2. And he well know knew that the Pope hath not yet given away all save his meer primacy of Order, nor is about to do it, nor is it a thing to be expected: And yet at present Grotius would have all to join with Rome propter commune Regimen; and that is the Papal Regiment; for there is no other. The rest that followeth shall further explaine this; so that here either Grotius calls to us all to become moderate Papists, or else he talks below the rates of a Rational man, about our adhering to the Roman seat.
SECT. XXII.
HEreby we may expound the Beginning §. 22.of his Votum pro Pace, where he tells us his judgement that the Church be one, non an mo tantum, sed & eâ communione quae conspici potest, & maximè conspicitur in Regiminis vinculo.—The ground of our common Divisions is, a conceit that the visible Church must be one visible Political Body having a visible Head, whether Pope, Council or whatever it be; which sets men still a tampering to do a thing neither possible nor desireable, no more then an Universal Civil Monarchy or other form of Government. All the world cannot much better be Governed in Ecclesiast…cals by one Head that in Civils. And if men will lament the state of the world, and cry out, Alas, we are distracted and torn in pieces, till they can get them under one Universal Civil Government, they must permit us to think that the complainers are more distracted then the Church.
So page 7. (voti) he saith of Vincentius his requisites and notes of true Catholicisms, [Videbam ea manere in Ecclesia quae Romanae convertitur] And his way to Peace pag. 9, is aut per Papae eximie boni authoritatem, aut Concilium universale, &c.] And p. 10. He professeth that be doth not novum moliri opus, but add his helps to Cassanders works.
And in his Dissertatio de summo Pontifice, p. 310, 311, 312. In answer to the Question p. 309. Quae sit ratio restituendi sacerdotii Ʋniversalis, & cum eo Sacerdotio unitatis, &c.] He saith [In Gubernatione observandum, eam specie quadam externa posse esse quasi Monarchiam; reipsa autem talem ut plus de Aristocratia trahat.]
SECT. XXIII.
HEnce he saith Discuss. page 2. Quare §. 23.non est Culpandus Duarenus, qui ita Catholicae pacis amantem se ostendit, &c. which Duarenus was a moderate Papist, of whom he saith in the antecedent lines, [ita Romanae sedis fuit communione, ut acerrimè obstiterit iis quae nonnulli sive Romae, sive Genevae, contra Regum aut Episcoporum jura moliuntur. And p. 18. he saith Talem pacem quae Papae Omnipotentiam tribuat, & in Ecclesiae & imperii rebus, sicut Casaubonus non probavit, ita nec probat Grotius, nec qui in Gallia & alibi sunt sapientes Catholici, qui & falli posse Papas putant, & Authoritatem eorum certis finibus contineri: sicut in Florentia Synodo decretum est, Papam esse Principem Sacerdotum, & Gubernatorem Ecclesiae secundum Canones Conciliorum universalium, & salvis juribus Patriarcharum Orientis] Here you see 1. That he is of the French Religion, who no doubt are Papists. 2. That he is for the Popes Universal Principality, yea and Government of the Church, though he will have him Govern according to the Canons & not arbitrarily, & notincroach on the rights of the inferiour Patriarks. 3. That he is for the Power given him in the Council of Florence, which is commonly supposed to set up the Pope above a General Council; Though its like in that Grotius might dissent; yet I think he doubted not but that Council was Papal, for all the compliance of the Greeks there at that season. And 4. Whereas he excludeth the Popes Omnipotency in Civil and Ecclesiastick matters, so do, as he saith, the French and thousands of Papists as well as he, that yet are still Papists.
SECT. XXIV.
TO this purpose Discuss. p. 20. he saith §. 24.[Tryannis Papae metuenda non est, ubi Primatum Metropolitanorum, Episcoporum{que} aliorum jura bene servantur, & ubi Reges in Electionibus Episcoporum pie utuntur eâ potestate quam Siciliae Reges habere se dicunt.—] With these limitations we need not fear, he thinks, the Tyranny of the Pope. And so say thousands of Papists also, that Bishops Rights should be preserved. If all be excluded from the number of Papists that are of this mind, the Kingdom of the Pope is smaller then they will believe, or willingly hear of, especially in France.
SECT. XXV.
HEreupon in the next sentence he addeth, §. 25.Spopondit autem pridem pro Papa Cardinalis Perronius Jacobo Magnae Brittaniae Regi, si cum sede Romana concordiam vellet, nihil ipsi de jure Regio periturum] so that if Perron was no Papist, then Grotius that would have a Pope with the same limitation is no Papist neither: And if Perron was none, its a doubt whether there be any such thing at all as a Papist of the French.
SECT. XXVI.
DIscus. p. 27, 28. he comes to the §. 26.point of Unity, and saith, [Quae ergo via exeundi ex tot scissuris, inter quas cum magno periculo fluctuant populorum animae? An ea quam D. Rivetus indicat, ut Scripturas sequamur solas? At eas, & quidem solas, sequi se clamat Menno, Socinus, Brunus, & alii—Parendum ergo est Traditioni, dummodo bene probetur, id est quantum aequo homini satis esse debet—Ea autem de qua loquor Traditio, colligi quidem potest ex veterum Scriptorum Consensu, sed optime tutissime{que} colligitur in Concilio universali, ubi tot sunt viri Eruditi ut nullus sit liber ignoratus omnibus:—Consensus autem istius qui in veterum Scriptis, maxime{que} in conciliis universalibus apparet, Custodes quidèm sunt Episcopi omnes, sed Authoritatis ad veritatem, unitatem{que} retinendam praecipue Romanus Episcopus, quem Ecclesiae aliae, ad vitanda ex rebus dubiis Schismata, consulere, ex quo Apostoli in terris vivere defierunt, sunt solitae. Et hinc est quod Ecclesia Romana ab antiquis dicitur aliarum Ecclesiarum Magistra.—Corrumpi quidem Mores Romae & alibi passus est Deus: at Doctrina, illis ipsis malis moribus contraria, Deo ita res dirigente, corrupta non est.] Here you see, 1. That the Scripture alone is taken as utterly insufficient to unite in (and then we shall never have Union by all the Devices in the world) but Tradition must be the sufficient means: We are for Tradition as well as Grotius; but its only in subserviency to the Scripture which is sufficient in its kind, and affordeth us matter enough for our agreement, and needeth not Tradition as a supply to its defects for the Matter of our Faith or necessary Concord. 2. You see also that Fathers and Councils are the Collectors of these Traditions. 3. And the present Bishops the Keepers of the Dicisions of these Councils. 4. And the Pope of chief Authority for the preservation of Truth and Unity; so that here is such Authority as is more then Primacy of Order. 5. And that the Churches since the Apostles dayes have consulted with it, for avoiding Schism about doubtful things, which having reference to the said Priority and Authority, is false. 6. And that therefore it is called [The Mistris of other Churches] which also, relating to the Authority mentioned, is false. 7. And that God hath kept this Roman Church from corruption in Doctrine, which is very false. Though he here and oft grant them to be corrupted in manners; (and yet they would be known to be the true Church by their Holiness) If this be not Popery, surely it is the name, and not the thing that we differ about. If Mr. Pierce and the other Patrons of Grotius will tell that they hold all these things themselves that Grotius held, and yet are no Papists, we shall the better know how to understand them hereafter. And yet I am thankful to God, that Popery is so dishonourable a thing among us, that the name is so much disowned as it is: For till men dare openly own the name, they will miss of many advantages to propagate it (though others I confess in secret they may have) we have hitherto taken this for Popery.
SECT. XXVII.
SO Discuss. p. 62, 63. [Pauli locus §. 27.Eph. 4. oftendit Concordiam egere ordine, ordinem gradibus—Nam cum longe lateque disjecti essent Apostoli ad spargendum semen Evangelii, siquid incidisset dubii, ut de Apostolatu Pauli, quo iri potuit nisi ad Petrum?] Peter then must be Judge of Pauls Apostleship? Or they had none but Peter to go to for resolution of such doubts? When Paul was not an Apostle by the will of man, but of God, nor craved or needed the Testimony of Peter, but by signs and wonders, and mighty deeds, the works of an Apostle, and not by the Approbation of Peter, did prove himself to be an Apostle. But how false is all this, and how contrary to Scripture? Why might they not go to James, or John, as well as Peter? Where do we find that he had any more Authority in advising then the rest? He addeth, [Sine tali Primatu exiri è controversiis non poterat: sicut hodie apud Protestantes nulla est ratio qua ortarum inter ipsos controversiarum reperiatur finis. Et hic Primatus post Apostolos mansit in Romana sede.] So that it is a Primacy with Divine Authority, necessary to decide controversies, that Grotius said belongeth to the Pope. And for want of this, there is no ending of the Protestants Controversies. And yet this man is either a Protestant, or no Papist with Mr. Pierce. He adds, [Cypriani locus antehac à Grotio productus, legi tantum opus habet ut appareat ab eo, agnosci Petri Primatum cum Authoritate.] 1. So that its still a Primacy with Authority. 2. Cyprian de Ʋnitate, is basely corrupted by the Papists. Blot out but the corrupt additions (according to Jerom. Stephens Edition out of the Oxford Manuscripts) and leave out but his spurious Epistles (mentioned also out of those M. S. S. by Mr. Stephens) and then the Papists will have small cause to boast of Cyprian. He addeth, [Non male Gelasius—approving his saying of Peters Principality. And I think by this much more its easie to understand Grotius.
SECT. XXVIII.
SO pag. 66. Discuss. he saith, [Inter §. 28.sedes autem illas eminentissimas, ut Primus locus, ita & Authoritas prima fuit sedis Romanae. Et hoc esse quod potentiorem principalitatem dixit Irenaeus, satis apparebit ei qui nullo partium studio infectus eum legerit—] Still here is a Primacy of Authority: And Irenaeus unworthily abused. I dare say I have sine partium studio, with an unfeigned willingness to know the truth, perused that place of Irenaeus long ago, upon the boasts of Bellarmine concerning it. And it seems most plain to me that its the secular Principality occasioning a Concurse to that place that Irenaeus speaks of. And if it were not so, yet is it much more likely that it is an Ecclesiastick Principality, ex nobilitate Materiae, because the Greatness of that City occasioned the gathering of a more numerous famous Church where Apostolical persons were still at hand, and opportunities were greater to preserve Church History, then that it should be any Instituted Principality of office or seat? Nor do Grotius his Arguments do any thing to Prove this Roman Principality which he pleads for.
SECT. XXIX.
HE descants thus on Irenaeus words, §. 29.[Vides agi de Principalitate quae ad Custodiam Traditionis pertinet: eam vero dicit Potentiorem, id est, summae authoritatis.] Here Grotius tells us, it is Potentior Principalitas, id est, summa Authoritas, that he pleads for: So that his meaning is plain. But to his Comment on Irenaeus it needs but a denyal, having no proof; We grant that it is Principalitas quae ad traditionis custodiam pertinet, and yet deny it to be summae authoritatis, or of any instituted formal Authority. The Roman Emperours Authority drawing a Concurse to that City, tended to the Preservation of Tradition. The Churches Eminency on that occasion, ex nobilitate materiae, may be all that he means by the Potentior Principalitas, if it had been spoken as an attribute of the Church: But this is no proof of an Authority, and chief Authority of that Church over the rest of the Churches.