CHAP. III. Our Arguments for the Negative

CHAP. III. Our Arguments for the Negative

CHAP. III. Our Arguments for the Negative.

I n 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 autonomical, and be the Sovereign, or chief

Governor of itself, or the Church Representative of the Church real (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 Sovereignty 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 Sovereignty is against the Judgment of the Ancient Fathers, and practice 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 Judgment of the far greatest part of the present Catholic Church, as is proved.

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

6. The pretense of this Sovereignty is the consequent only of Rome's greatness, and the will of Emperors, 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 mere impossibility for one man to be the Sovereign of all the Churches in the world, and do the work of a Sovereign 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 days, and never were under Rome's Sovereignty 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 a Head, as I shall show 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-Governors 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 ways are entrusted by God with the Government of the Churches under them.

12. To make such a Sovereign, is to make a new Catholic Church, that Christ never made.

13. And its the most notorious schism, dividing themselves from all the Catholic 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.

15. 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 Idol, 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 Catholic Church of Christ is not one Visible Political body, as joined to one Universal Visible Head or Sovereign, (save only Christ:) And consequently it is not the way to heal the Churches divisions, to draw all into such a body, or endeavor such a 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 Sovereign; 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 busy Reconcilers, and because the rest are so largely confuted already on both sides.

Argum. 1. That which is the true form of the Catholic 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 Catholic Church.

Or, what the Catholic 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, and 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 Republic, 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 controversy, 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 Catholic 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 Universal Sovereignty or Headship of the Pope; The Greeks, Abyssinians, 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 sat? 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 the 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 meantime into the hands of some Trustees of the Republic, while they are electing, and the sovereign 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 Sovereignty 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 Sovereignty.

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 Supreme 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 Catholic 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 denied. 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 anything Necessary to its Being or Unity, then was it so long no Church, or many Catholic 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, Basil, Florence, the Lateran,

&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 nullify these pretended General Councils. I say not that all of them were useless; but none of them were anymore 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?

2. 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 British, 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 than 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 Britain and Ireland be evidence.

But the case is undeniable. All this noise then of General Councils comes but from a supposition that the Roman world was the whole Christian world. A small mistake! We home-bred Rustics 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 at 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 pretense 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 Jerusalem 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 Catholic 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 Sovereign Governor of the Church, on which its being, unity, (or well-being) doth depend.

I 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 signify the sense and consent of all, or else it is a mere 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 than 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 forward; 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 and 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 should 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 Soldiers 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 scarce 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 Mohammedans 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 disjointed, and made a cripple at Malaga in the Spanish Inquisition. And thanked God and the English Ambassador 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 man's 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 foreign Power.

7. And if you suppose all the Bishops come to the Council, the very number out of all the Christian world, (to make anything 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 Abyssinians, 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 many even of the Popes own Legates died 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 Council 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 inquire, 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 Sovereign, 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 Sovereignty. The Church is

Christ's 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 Traitors 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 Church causes 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 be excommunicated, the Synods of neighbor 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 destroying by the starving and desertion of the flocks at home. What will become of the poor people's souls, when they are left to the Wolves, to Heretics, and Deceivers, and to the temptations of their own flesh, and the world, being for ten or twenty years, or forever 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 solicit 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 shows that they could not so much as spare Bishops to be mere 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 unusual, he knows not

the world. And Councils are most useful if ever, when necessities are greatest.

3. In Councils things are carried by Votes: and so Abyssinia, 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 heresy 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.

4. 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 shown in the express words of Binius and others) that a Council hath no more power than 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 hazard their lives, and lose their labors at home for so many years, and hazard the Churches by their absence, when for ought they know the Bishops of the whole Christian world do but lose all their labor, 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 hazard 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 labor.

7. By what Justice shall all the Catholic 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 Human. If by Divine, let it be shown that ever God made such a Government for the Catholic Church, and then take all. If by Human

Laws, it is impossible, and therefore not to be affirmed. For no Human Sovereign 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 but Contractors 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 judgment 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 judgment of the Church of England, any more than 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 decried 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.

9. 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 powerful: 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, merely 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 Zacharias, 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 tells us in his Geography, Lib. 1, p. 25, that Bede (de ration temporum, c. 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 Head or Governors? Or that the Pope at least must be acknowledged and obeyed by every Christian soul that will be saved at the Antipodes? And Sir Francis

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 Journeys or voyages to do their business. If the Decree of the Council of Constance had been executed, to have had a General Council every 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 Heretics, and sending them to Hell, to save them a journey to the General Council.

12. Moreover such Councils are unjust, because of the multitude 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 easilier 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 Country 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 confessed to be left undetermined. And what if Christian Princes, Bishops and people agree to settle Bishops in every 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 Paul's command to Tit. 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 anywhere but in Cities. But I deny the consequence. Most ancient interpreters by Elders, Acts 14:23. Understand mere Presbyters: And then it would as much follow that Presbyters must be ordained nowhere but in Cities: What if I can prove that the Apostles never gathered a solemn

Assembly of Christians for Divine Worship anywhere but in Cities; or that they never administered the Lord's Supper anywhere but in Cities? Will it follow that therefore we ought not to Assemble or administer the Sacrament anywhere 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 sense. 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 Country.

The other is, to depute one out of many from every Country 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 of God have they to prove such a Representative Council? Doubtless none: And will they give us a Church form, and center of Unity, merely of their own brains, upon supposition that it is prudential? 3. Men are of exceeding different degrees of understanding, and of different judgments 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 than possible that they may give their judgments in many points so far contrary to the minds of those that sent them, that twenty or a 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 Patriarchs: 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 labors at home, and the ruin 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 show that such General 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 itself is impossible, needless, and unjust; so it is Impossible that they should do the work of a Head or Sovereign 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 Sovereign 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 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 someone particular man's case, or few, and never took upon them to be the Sovereign 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 labor to come and attend and bring all their witnesses. And if they be not sounder bodied then our English Soldiers, 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 cognizance 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 Governor 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 was not his intent that it should be the form or necessary Governor 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 unanswerably confuted long ago; and its well known, whatever Baronius say, that the ancient Councils were called by the Emperors; and many since have been called by Emperors and Cardinals.

And if you say that it belongs to the Emperor, I answer, what hath he to do to summon the subjects of the French, Spaniards, Turks, Ethiopian, &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 (whoever presided) it is certain that the Emperors called them. And what had

Constantine, Martian, Theodosius, or any Roman Emperor to do, to call the subjects in India, Ethiopia, Persia, &c. to a Council? Nor de facto, was there any such thing done. Is it not a wonderful 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 Latin 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 show 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 be 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, Ethiopia, Egypt, Palestine, and all the rest of the world, to treat 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 journeys 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 Sovereign of the Church (as of everybody 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 Sovereigns of the Church.

The Major is of unquestionable verity in Politics. Legislation is the first and chief work of Sovereignty.

The Minor is proved, 1. Ad hominem by the confession of the 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 Sovereign of the Church, which none must arrogate. He was faithful 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.

Obj. 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, that 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 Christ's law, so the nature of the things declare it, that these matters must not be determined of by a universal Law. Should there be a 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 apparel 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 Country 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 Sovereign, 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 their 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 supreme.

All the other officers of the Catholic Church do not derive their power from the Pope or a General Council: therefore a Pope or General Council are not the supreme.

The Major is an unquestioned Maxim in Politics. Its essential to the Sovereign to be the fountain of power to all under him. Yea if it be but a deputed derived Sovereignty, secundum quid so called, as the Viceroy of Mexico, Naples, &c. yet so far he must be the fountain of all inferior 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 easy to prove out of Scripture that God never set up any Sovereign 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 easy 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 Sovereign power, or head of the Church.

Argum. 8. The Head or Sovereign Power hath the finally decisive Judgment, and in great causes all must, or may appeal to them. A General

Council hath not the finally decisive judgment, nor may all men in great causes appeal to them. Therefore a General Council is not the Head or Sovereign power.

The Major is undeniable. 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 shown) 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 Sovereign 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 Sovereigns 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 havoc 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 nowhere given us leave to give over his work, if the Pope or a Council shall forbid us. 4. And they can show 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 human 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 Christians in the world; And 2. By the ensuing argument: And the necessity of the consequence is evident of itself.

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 denied 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 entered into the Common-wealth, is engaged to the Sovereign 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 entered 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, ver. 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 Sovereign 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 Apostles,

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 itself is silent, and it is a doctrine so monstrously 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 Catechumen were taught, (and all at age should learn) before their baptism. The Sovereignty or Headship of Pope or Council was no part of the Doctrine which (by the Primitive Church) the Catechumen were taught, and ought to learn, before their baptism.

Therefore the Sovereignty 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 Catholic Church was in the Creed: and its essentials there briefly expressed in those terms [Holy Catholic Church, and Communion of Saints.] 2. In that Church History fully acquainteth us that it was the practice of the Catechists and other Teachers to open the Creed to them before they baptized them, and therein the Article of the Catholic 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 Catechumen 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 Catholic 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 Republic to deny the Sovereign, 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 the 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 Sovereignty. 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 Apostasy, 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 liable 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 beforehand.

Argum. 14. All Christians are bound to study or labor to be acquainted with the Laws of the Sovereign 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 Sovereign power of the Church.

The Major is proved, in that all subjects must obey the Laws of the Sovereign power: But they cannot obey them unless they know them.

Therefore they are bound to endeavor to know them.

The Minor is proved, 1. In that they being written in Latin 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 God's 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 Sovereign Head of the visible Church and Center 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 Bellarmine's 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 raveled 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 Sovereign 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 shown ubi sup.) and how then shall Christians know what to obey? The ancient Canons condemned the gesture of kneeling on the Lord's Day (and consequently then at the Lord's 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 authority 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 unhandsome 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 such 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 somewhere, and know not where, and obey somebody, 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 diverse Churches, while they place the Sovereignty in several sorts and persons. Till they better agree 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 Sovereign Power or Headship over the Church is a thing undoubtedly revealed 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 Sovereign 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, Ames, 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 favor their conceit then Eph. 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 edify the whole; and not by meeting in any one, and deriving from it.

Obj. 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 Sovereign 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 carried 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 qualified, 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 Patriarchs, 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 days 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 than 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 parcel 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 than anywhere 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, ver. 27, which is only

Christ. [Now ye 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 ministered 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 honor:

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 Eph. 1:22. He gave him to be Head over all things to the Church, which is his Body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all.] And in Eph. 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, ver. 3,4. &c. [Endeavoring 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, are the member contradistinguished 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 accord, 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 people's 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 believed 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 honor 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 shown that they were carnal. And speaking of 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 myself 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 expressly rebuketh such thoughts, and instead of granting any of them that desire, he denieth it to them all, Matth. 22:25,26; Luk. 22:26. The Kings of the Gentiles rule over them, and are called gracious Lord's, 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 presumptuous abuse of it; as some men would prove the Apostasy of the Saints, by their own

Apostatizing, when yet they prove it not, though they ruin 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 denieth 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 Christ's 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 Luk. 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 Supreme, and this was Peter, what need they strive any further about it; or why doth he not rebuke them for resisting their Supreme?

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 anything of the succession of this Sovereign 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 preeminence of their teachers, and some were for one, and some for another, and some for Cephas himself; and when so many heresies arose, and hazarded the Churches, as among the Corinthians, Galatians, 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 for. All this I speak of any earthly Head, whether

Pope or Council.

Obj. 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 Bailiff a subordinate Head of that Corporation, but not of the Kingdom.

Obj. There may be a Prorex, a Vice-king: and why not then a Vicarious Head of the Catholic 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 labor and attendance. So that it is an utter Impossibility that any man should be able to do the work of a supreme Ruler of all the Christian world, yea or the hundredth 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.

Obj. But the Civil power hath been exercised by an Emperor over more than all the Christian world: And why then may not the Ecclesiastical?

Answ. 1. Its notoriously false that ever Emperor 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 mixed in the Dominions of Infidel Princes among other Religions, which makes the Government of them the more difficult. 4. I shown before from the nature of the work many other difficulties, which make a difference.

Obj. 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 ruin instead of ruling well. 3. You may as well say, A 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 Jesuits have lately got into their heads, that the Pope must have the Universal Sovereignty Ecclesiastical and Civil; that so a 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 easy for one to Rule so small a Nation as Judea in comparison of all the world. 3. Prove you the Institution of your Supremacy, as we can prove the Institution of Aaron's 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 shows at large.

Obj. 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 fetched from Hell, I will leave it with you: but for that from Heaven, I say, there's 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 Catholic Church of Christ is not one Visible Political Body, as joined to any One Universal Visible Head or Sovereign, besides Christ.

If any being driven from this hold, shall say, that yet there are several Patriarchs 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 Patriarchs 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 Patriarchs, and how many they be, and who, and the power of Princes to make new ones, (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 Universal

Headship, then we shall take this further into consideration. In the meantime, 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 Catholic Church; as if it were One, as under One Earthly Visible Head.

↑ Back to top