II. SECT. and fanatics: [no,] not when they had the ball at their feet? Last of all, do not all pulpits complain, that there is a new religion coming up called no religion at all, threatening to become the most numerous and powerful of all if some better expedient be not found out? For when presby See above in the Letter concerning the Present State of Religion among us, § 1-11. and notes; Epilogue, Conclusion, 9-11, 54; Just Weights and Measures, c. iii. § 7; c. ix. § 1 -3; Disc. of Forbearance or Penalties &c., c. xix. It is obvious by the hideous list of heresies in the Acts of Parliament by which Cromwell established religion in 1654 and 1656, and by the other evidence in the notes to Just Weights and Measures as just quoted, to say nothing of the prolific crop of fanatical sects such as Pagitt reckons in his Heresiography, and of the overpowering of the more sober Presbyterian party by the Independents, that the Presbyterians in the height of their power failed utterly in uprootng heresy, and especially fanatical and antinomian heresy, in the land. At the same time it must be said in fairness, that, however they failed of setting up adequate bulwarks against it, yet both Presbyterians and Independents themselves rejected the distinctive tenet of the Fanatics; scil. absolute predestination to glory irrespective of all conditions except the recognition of such predestination, which is of course simple antinomianism :-although its perpetual intrusion among them shews the tendencies of their views. a. Rutherforth, for the Presbyterians, wrote against it see Epilogue, Bk. II. Of the Cov. of Gr., cc. i. § 8, 9, vii. § 7. note h, xxxi. 2. notes u, x: and so Baxter and numberless others in England. And Thorndike himself especially exempts the Presbyterians from formal misprision of the heresy: see Epilogue, Bk. II. Of the Cov. of Gr., c. xxx. § 11, &c.; and Bk. III. Of the Laws of the Ch., c. vi. § 8, 9; Letter conc. Present State of Religion, §7; and Just Weights and Measures, c. ix. § 2. B. For the Independents, see Mather's Eccles. Hist. of New Engl., of which the whole of chapter iii. Bk. vii. is devoted to an account of the rise and expulsion of fanatical antinomianism among them. Nevertheless, Baxter in his Life of Himself, Pt. i. p. 75, quoting a "little book of Mr. Thomas Weld's of the Rise and Fall of Antinomianism and Familism in New England," when "the Vanists" sprung up there under Sir Henry Vane when he was governor of the colony, and mentioning certain horrors which were regarded as judgments in consequence of the Vanists, adds, that "Mr. Cotton was too favourable to these fanatics, till this helpt to recover him:"-see Cotton's own doctrine, in Mather, as above, Bk. iii. p. 35-and again (ibid. p. 104) he accuses the Independent Confession of Faith, drawn up at the Savoy in October 1658, of "expressly asserting that we have no other righteousness but that of Christ'" (see, however, Neal's commentary on this, Hist. of Puritans, vol. iv. pp. 177, 178). Thorndike also accuses the Confessions of Faith, both Presbyterian and Independent (the latter party indeed adopted the confession of the formersee Epilogue, Conclus., § 11. note t), of insufficiently excluding the fanatical tenet (Epilogue, ibid.; and Just Weights and Measures, c. ix. § 1,2; and Letter concerning the Present State of Religion, § 7). 7. Lastly, that the Acts of Parliament in Cromwell's time did not exclude Fanatics, see the same Letter, 1-4, and notes: although so framed as to exclude Unitarians or Socinians, like Biddle and others, or Quakers like Naylor. See Just Weights and Measures, c. iv. 1: Disc. of Forbearance or Penalties &c., cc. i., xxii. Hobbes, and Lord Herbert of Cherbury, Charles Blount, Toland, Lords Rochester and Shaftesbury, and others, for whom see Leland's View of the Deistical Writers, prove sadly the truth of Thorndike's fears.-Sidney, Henry Neville, Mar. tin, Harington, belong to a different branch of a similar school (see Biograph. Britann., and Wood's Athena). -Compare also the establishment of the Boyle lectures in 1691 by Robert Boyle, whose active life began as early as the Restoration, for the express purpose of opposing the progress of atheism (see Birch's Life of Boyle, p. 293). II. terians shall employ the pulpits they have got in despite of SECT. the clergy, to preach them down, that must not be wanting in their returns (which is the undoubted consequence of the union pretended); shall not independents, Pelagians, atheists, make hay in the sunshine? As for what the presbyterians are like to contribute towards the quelling of this last party of atheists, it will not be possible for them to say; till they suppose the reason and motives to believe the Scriptures and to be Christians, to the dictate of the Spirit which assures them to be God's word. Which if they once suppose, being evidenced by the common reason and consent of all Christians: how will they avoid acknowledging the catholic faith and Church both, being recommended to all upon the same grounds? How will they avoid supposing the sense of the condition of the covenant of grace in the conscience of a Christian, to the sense of God's grace, and the assurance of it, that it is sealed by God's Spirit and not by any other spirit? Which if it be once admitted, there can no cause remain, why the catholic faith should not reunite both parties into one Church. [III.] cure for to enforce laws of the The petitioner demanded no more in the beginning than [The only to be heard. And now, that he finds himself obliged to say disputes in what will serve our turn, because he cannot otherwise be religion is credited that the Act which is demanded will not, he remem- the whole bers himself; and requests no more but the patience of faith and being heard. For he hath nothing to say but that which is primitive already said; that there is no cure for so many and diverse Church distempers but authorizing the whole faith and laws of the within the primitive catholic Church, enacting the same with competent general penalties'. Then shall the papist see, that he is justly pun- councils.] ished for refusing to join with his country in the service of God, reformed from abuses visibly crept in by time and want i. e. place that reason and those motives in combination with, and subordination to, such dictates of the Spirit. See Epilogue, Bk. I. Of the Pr. of Ch. Tr., cc. iii., iv.; and Just Weights and Measures, c. xxi. § 1—5. k See last note. See Just Weights and Measures, c. ii. § 2, and cc. iii, vii., &c.: and below, Disc. of Forbearance or Penalties &c., cc. iii.—v., sq. first six III. SECT. of fidelity in the see of Rome to their trust". Certain it is, that, if this kingdom accept them for idolaters and limbs of antichrist, penalties of a high nature will be requisite, upon the bare account of religion; setting aside the account of the public peace, till it be time to speak to it. But that he leaves to them, that have the conscience to take that for granted, which he cannot do, and yet do not declare what penalties. are competent to idolatry and antichristianism in a Christian kingdom". But having observed, that the [first] six general councils are to be received by the same reason, for which this Church receives the four first; he claims it to be duly consequent, that all heresies declared by the Church within that time be accepted for such by this Church. And there is this particular reason for the sixth, that the consent of this Church to it is still upon record P:—which cannot be said of See ibid. "See Disc. of Forbearance or Penalties &c., c. xxvii. See ibid., c. v.-The State of England has enacted, that "the canonical Scriptures and the first four general councils or any of them, or any other general council wherein" any thing 66 as was declared heresy by the express and plain words of Holy Scripture," shall be the test of heresy: 1 Eliz. c.1. § 36. The Church of England in the 21st of the XXXIX. Articles implies the same thing, by laying down that "things ordained by" general councils necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of Holy Scripture."-The Church of England, further, at the council of Hatfield near Rochester (A.D. 680, ap. Spelman., Conc., tom. i. p. 169), embraced the five general councils that had occurred up to that time (scil. Nice, first of Constantinople, first of Ephesus, first of Chalcedon, and second of Constantinople): see Bramhall, Schism Guarded, sect. i. c. 6, and sect. iv.; Works, Pt. i. Disc. iv. vol. ii. pp. 427, 533.-Field, Of the Church, Bk, v. c. 51. pp. 666, 667, allows six, "as touching matters of faith;" admitting the seventh (viz., the second of Nice, about images), as touching "manners" only. And see Palmer, Of the Church, Pt. iv. c. ix. vol. ii. pp. 171, 172; and the following sections of cc. ix., x. ibid. Hammond, Saywell, Crakanthorp, receive six (Palmer, ibid.) The popes at their election swear to keep the faith of the council of Chalcedon, i. e. of the first four councils (Decret., P. i. Distinet. xvi. c. 8, and Lib. Diurn. Rom. Pontif. c. ii. tit. 9): and also to keep the decrees of the first eight councils (Decret. P. i. Distinct. xvi. c. 8. Sancta octo). The Eastern Church receives but seven, the eighth of the westerns being in fact that which divided Constantinople and Rome (see Palmer as just quoted). Compare also the wellknown saying of Gregory the Great about the first four councils: in his Epistles, lib. i. Ep. 25, and lib. iii. Ep. 10 (Op. tom. ii. pp. 515. B, 632. E). "The fifth" council "condemned some remains of Nestorianism; more fully explaining things stumbled at in the council of Chalcedon, and accursing the heresy of Origen and his followers touching the temporall punishment of devils and wicked cast-aways: and the sixth defined and cleared the distinction of operations, actions, powers, and wills, in Christ, according to the diversity of His Natures" (Field, as above): and both therefore may be taken as "appendances of the fourth" (Thorndike, Disc. of Forbearance or Penalties, c. v.); being simply bulwarks and necessary explanations of the doctrine there laid down respecting the Incarnation. P Scil. the 3rd (general) council of Constantinople, called the sixth general, A.D. 680, which condemned the Monothelites and Pope Honorius. The council of Hatfield (referred to in note o III. the next, called the seventh, but indeed contradicted by the SECT. Churches of Charles the Great's dominion on this side the Alps, together with this; and therefore must be thought to have come in force by the pope's irregular power'. Especially since Gregory VII. took upon him to void the allegiance of subjects to princes excommunicates. Not that the corruption of the Church can be said to have begun then. The beginning of corruption must appear by the evidence of it in each point. But that whatsoever hath been judged and received for heresy within that time, be so accepted here, and made liable to the penalties the law allotteth heresy. This only can make papists inexcusable, and preserve the Church from the itch of novelty; when there is a due cause in force to preserve the faith, and to secure the people in it. As for those, that scorn all religion; what penalty is their due, this is not the place to resolve. The owning of the catholic Church will infer, that, unless they be shut from communion with Christians, no religion, no Church, can stand. And this the lamentable experience of this time evidences. For the owning of one apostate for a Christian, hath not only occasioned others to do open scorn to Christianity, but also opened men's mouths in common companies, to dispute the truth of the Scriptures and of Christianity. But since it must be acknowledge [d], that the faith cannot be maintained but by such a conversation of the clergy, as may distinguish them from the people, as more free from the engagements of the world than they can be"; the laws of the catholic Church above) was called especially in order to ascertain the orthodoxy of the British Churches in the point of Monotheletism, and with reference to the general council held in the same year 680 (see Collier, Ch. Hist. Bk. ii. vol. i. p. 107; and Wilkins, Concil., vol. i. pp. 51, 52; and authorities cited by them): and accepted, with the five general councils already held, also the synod of Rome under Pope Martin held to condemn the Monotheletes. See Epilogue, Bk. III. c. xxxi. § 54-56. See ibid. § 56. See ibid., c. xxxiii. § 11, 38. THORNDIKE, Y Answered, last section; and Disc. of See Due Way of Composing Dif- III. SECT. must also be acknowledged, and own[ed] for a rule of such conversation to the clergy, as may enable it to exact that which is answerable to the same of the people and satisfy the see of Rome, that both clergy and people are indeed reformed, in comparison of that which the laws thereof bring forth. Nor is it for any private person to prescribe herein to the fathers of the Church, whose trust and office it is to judge, with what allowance the canons of the primitive Church are to take place now. It is enough to justify, that it is not the fancy of an idea or commonwealth of Plato; when it is said, that the same visible Church cannot be the same visible Church but by the same visible [laws], [and] that the canons are visible, which the whole Church was ruled by till about the same time of the sixth council: from which time, as it was said afore, the protestation, which the Reformation makes against the irregular power of the pope, and the abuses introduced thereby into the western Church, may evidently take date". If it be said, that this will distinguish the Church of England as well from the rest of the Reformation as from the see of Rome: alas! the mischief is done already", in the schisms between the Calvinists and Lutherans, and between the Remonstrants and Contra-remonstrants (an ugly scar, whereof the United Provinces hear in the conventicles of the Arminians); and is not cured here, so long as this request passes. Had the cure been received at the Reformation (that is, had they limited it within these bounds which the pretence required), these breaches might have been prevented; and not otherwise. Seeing they are not prevented, it is in vain for the Church of England to expect help from them, that are sick of schism themselves. To make the crown of England head of the Calvinists, by an Act comprehending the Presbyterians, is to make the Lutherans as much enemies to it as to the Calvinists; that is, as to the Papists. And, in conscience, were it desirable, that it were head of both? I grant this would be the case, that hath been so long dreamed of;-that the kings shall agree I See Discourse of Forbearance or See Epilogue, Bk. III. Of the Disc. of Forbearance or Penalties &c., cc. iv., v. See Disc. of Forbearance or Penalties &c., c. vii. |