Ordination is void Surely S. Paul that commands Christians to be without offense to the Jews and Gentiles as well as to the Church commands them also to be without offense to Papists And will not we have those that would be inabled to consecrate the Eucharist by such a Law to shew us how to satisfie the Papists that such Orders are good At least those that by their sufferings have preserved Ordination by Bishops Let them at least be satisfied of the Validity of Ordination without Bishops At least let no man impose upon them that they cannot yield the Forbearance which S. Paul requires for tender Consciences unless they receive the Sacrament consecrated by Lay-men That is by those whose Ordination they believe to be utterly void CHAP. XV. That the Orders of the Reformed Churches are not void because these are NOw I am to look an Objection in the face which at a distance seems to admit of no Answer but if it be a little considered will appear to have neither Reason nor Religion at the bottom of it It is said that hereby we shall make void the Ordinations of the Reformed Churches of France and others Reformed according to Calvin And so make them no Churches Here we agree that it was necessary for the French as well as for our selves to Reform themselves That it was necessary for all to Reform themselves unto the Form of the Primitive Catholick Church I say not we do agree I say that till we do agree there remains no hope of Unity because no Rule for Reformation in the Church But to the Objection Who hath the Conscience to think or the Face to say that if Ordinations made by Presbyters against their Bishops be void Then Ordinations made by Presbyters where they could not be had by Bishops are void For that is the difference of the Cases It is manifest that the Bishops of this Church when they Ordain Presbyters Ordain them to Minister their Office according to the Laws That is under their Bishops And can any man imagine that hereby they give them Power to Ordain others to Minister their Office by what Laws they please themselves And had the French demanded of their Bishops to Ordain them Presbyters that should Minister their Office according to the Reformation does any man think they would have done it So the necessity of Reforming which we all agree in made the Ordinations of the Reformed Churches The Pride and Presumption which causeth all Heresie and Schism usurping Authority never received made the Ordinations of our Presbyters And shall they be as valid as those All that can be questioned is how it may appear that it was not of choice but of necessity that they imbraced that way of setling and propagating their Reformation which they imbraced And for that we have sufficient Presumption from the Albigenses Who secretly Reforming themselves under the See of Rome did certainly do it by the Authority of Bishops who propagated their Order by Ordinations This may be proved by other testimonies if need be But it is sufficient that the Case of the Bohemians is so well known They having resolved exactly to Reform themselves and having chosen the Persons whom they would have for their Bishops were at a stand how to compass their succession from the Apostles by having them Ordained by Bishops In this nonplus they understood that there were in Austria of the Albigenses that kept secret Communion among themselves under their Bishops notwithstanding that publickly to avoid the Laws they went to Mass To them they sent their Bishops elect protesting against their dissembling but desiring Ordination for their Bishops which thus were propagated And this may well seem to be the Reason why they that Reformed in the Empire according to Luther in the name of whom Melancthon hath offered to be subject to their own Bishops admitting the Reformation set up such a Form of Episcopacy as they could of themselves For they had cause to think that the Bohemians had not advantaged themselves enough by that Ordination which they had been able to procure For it is to be noted that they the Bohemians had sent all over the World to learn how to get such Ordination as might authorize their Ministry according to the Reformation which they pretended And are not we hereupon to presume that the French by these degrees finding a necessity of balking the Authority of the Episcopacy which they were under did think themselves thereupon free to cast themselves into that Form which they use For if it be said That by this time they had profited beyond their Predecessors in discovering the Whore of Babylon that they found Episcopacy to be the Body of Antichrist and therefore renounced it It will appear by many Reasons that this cannot serve the turn First how can the common sense of men endure to believe that the Pope is Antichrist by reason of that Greatness which it is certain and evident that he hath attained by Usurping the Rights of his inferiour Bishops And yet those inferiour Bishops be the Body of Antichrist by suffering those Usurpations which they cannot help Secondly it is manifest that they who should hold this Plea could not pretend by virtue of their Orders received from the Bishops of this Church to Ordain Presbyters Unless they would say that they may have their Authority from Antichrist This Plea therefore must remain for the Independents to authorize them that think themselves in the State of Grace before they are members of the Church to make their their Congregations Churches and Usurp the Authority of Apostles in Ordaining their own Ministers Lastly it appeareth sufficiently that very many learned and religious persons of those Churches have not only approved the Episcopacy here setled But have wished the benefit of it to themselves Whereby it is manifest that those Churches cannot owne this Reason when another so far from it is owned by their principal Members I have another Reason to alledge which weighs as much with me as all these And that is the Communion which hath always been used between this Church and the Reformed Churches For should they hold Communion with us and yet think our Ordinations authorized by Antichrist how could they expect to be believed so grosly contradicting themselves And therefore though I must not take upon me either to justifie or to condemn their Ordinations Averring on one side that they are not according to Rule Seeing on the other side that they are owned by my Superiors yet I must acknowledge that there are very great Reasons to hope and to presume that God accepteth of their Ordinations though not made according to Rule In consideration of the necessity that drove them to it and of the Reformation which they were used to propagate Whereas those that Vsurp the Power of the Keys and the Consecrating of the Eucharist by virtue of Ordinations made in despite of those Bishops from whom they have all the Authority which
to be Christians Which cannot otherwise oblige all Clergie-men to be Subjects upon the same terms as they should be if their Soveraigns were not Christians but that it must oblige all Publick Powers to maintain the Clergy in the same Rights which they had and must have had over Christian People did not the Publick Powers profess the Faith And therefore though I do claim that the Synods of the two Provinces and their Decrees ought to be confined within the bounds so oft said yet I do demand of All especially of those that may have made the Oath of Canonical Obedience to their Bishops how they can profess to owne Episcopacy especially according to their Oath that pass over this Right of the Synods For that which is done without or against their Consent shall make them no Bishops That must receive Law from their Clergy if the Secular Power make their sense of the Scripture Law to the Kingdom Whereas I that take the liberty to prove all this without their Authority can clearly Profess that I think it a point not subject to Canonical Authority which I plead for And that otherwise I should think it inconsistent with the Oath of Canonical Obedience which I have made CHAP. X. The Case in which S. Paul forbears the Weak COme we now to that Scripture of S. Paul to the Romans upon which the whole Plea for tender Consciences is grounded and to state the Case in which he prescribeth And see what forbearance it will inforce in our Case S. Paul having shewed the Romans who before they were converted to be Christians had been some Jews some Gentiles that Righteousness and Salvation comes only by Faith or by Christianity and not by the Law or by Judaism also proceedeth in the fourteenth Chapter of that Epistle to Order them to forbear one another The Jews not to censure the Gentiles for not observing the Law The Gentiles not to scorn the Jews if not understanding the freedom of Christians they lived as Jews in all or in some things It is manifest who are the strong and who are the weak with S. Paul in that he is one of the strong where he says XV. 1. We that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak They that understand how Righteousness and Salvation comes only by Faith notwithstanding that it was to be had under the Law as well as afore the Law these are the strong One man believes he may eat any thing though forbidden by the Law but he that is weak and sees nothing else on the Table but that which the Law forbids eats herbs One man makes difference of a day above a day according to the Law another esteems every day alike XIV 2 5. These two instances are put for all indifferent things prescribed or forbidden by the Law He that understood the purpose of God in giving the Law which he intended to make void or rather to fulfil in due time So that Salvation came not by it when it was to be had under it He is the strong with S. Paul He that understood it not and yet continued a Christian that he might come to understand it the weak Let no man marvel that the Romans who took S. Paul for an Apostle should not understand that which S. Paul had proved by this whole Epistle For he proveth it by the Mystical sense of the Old Testament Which they who had submitted to the Faith could not owne nevertheless until they understood the reason why God gave the Law with an intent to bring in the Gospel by it Let no man think that they were not fit to be baptized for such were they all to whom S. Paul writes that understood not this belonging to the Foundation of Faith Baptism maketh all Disciples of Christ and therefore findeth them not so It is necessary that he who is baptized should undertake all that which he shall come to learn that Christ hath taught It is not necessary that he should know what it is knowing that Salvation is not to be had without doing all that whatsoever it is which it shall appear that Christ hath taught CHAP. XI Compared with his Orders at Corinth and elsewhere BUt seeing S. Paul forbiddeth the Corinthians to scandalize the weak in eating meats that had been sacrificed to Idols we must not state the Case of the Romans without considering how the Case of the Corinthians may concern it Here S. Paul distinguishes scholastically that such meats might be eaten either as Gods Creatures materially or formally as meats sacrificed to Idols which Idolaters feasted upon after their Sacrifices in honour of their Idols as we see by his words 1 Cor. X. 7. Nor be ye Idolaters as some of them were As it is written The people sate down to eat and drink and rose up to play And Dan. V. 4. They drunk wine and praised the Gods of gold and silver of brass of iron of wood and of stone S. Paul then resolveth that Christians may eat meats sacrificed to Idols as Gods creatures and that they cannot be polluted by being sacrificed to Idols which are nothing But that when there may be occasion for Christians to think that a Christian eats them as Idolaters did as eating them in an Idol-Temple or being invited home by an Idolater in such Cases it was necessary to forbear for Christian Charities sake least a weak Christian seeing a strong Christian eat them should think he eat them as Idolaters did and doing so himself should fall into misprision of Idolatry 1 Cor. VIII 7 10. X. 27 28. And by this example we may gather by the way what S. Paul means Rom. XIV 15 20. Destroy not him with thy meat for whom Christ dyed For meat destroy not the work of God He means that the danger was no less if the Gentiles should not forbear the Jews but despise their weakness that could not see themselves free of the Law then that they should fall into dislike with the Faith and return to the Jews Religion again So the danger at Corinth was Idolatry at Rome Apostasie S. Paul then forbids the Corinthians to make inquiry for conscience sake 1 Cor. X. 25. whether that which is sold in the shambles had been sacrificed to an Idol or not But Daniel did make inquiry for conscience sake when he resolved not to be polluted with the Kings meat Dan. I. 5 8. taking all of it to be dedicated to Idols in the first-fruits of it For this being the custom of the Heathen made all their meats suspicious as dedicated to their Idols Tobit is not Canonical Scripture But it is as Old as the Old Testament in Greek The Author of it relates for his commendation that he kept himself from eating the bread of the Gentiles when his Brethren and kindred did eat of it Tobit I. 10 11 12. because he remembred God with all his heart This signifies that the more Religious did observe it though not commanded by
they can challenge by their Orders what pretense is there to imagine that there can be any such Crime as Schism if this be not it That God should bless that which is done by such gross Vsurpation as this is And when all this is said it remains free for me to say That there is no other way to restore and to preserve Vnity within the Reformation but by establishing and maintaining Episcopacy in that Authority which it hath always had for the determining of differences Nor maintain that Authority but by confining it within the Bounds which the Faith and the Laws of the whole Church do limit As for the Fanaticks which make our Orders void because the Pope is Antichrist and the Mass Idolatry whence our Bishops received and where they exercised their Orders I will only consider the Case of the Donatists forejudged by the whole Church They pleaded in point of fact that Caecilianus was Ordained by Apostates A thing which the Church was so clear in that the African Bishops offered to give up their Sees if it were proved But besides in point of Right had it been proved and Caecilianus owned by the Church because it did not appear or because they thought the Canons ought to be dispensed with for Unities sake those that Ordained Caecilianus having repented of their Apostacy shall we imagine that the Church was lost by owning those that had been Apostates and their Ordinations The Donatists are branded for Hereticks and Schismaticks maintaining all the Laws of the Church but that of Unity And shall Lay-Christians presuming to authorize Lay-Christians to consecrate the Eucharist and set up Churches be esteemed less then Hereticks and Schismaticks Let those that pretend to Unity find that Forbearance which a favourable construction of their actions signifies But Charity to the sound obligeth to take the profession of Schismaticks in the worst sense which if we do the making of Independent Congregations Churches will be the denying of One Catholick Church and the making of them Hereticks that do it CHAP. XVI That changing the Laws for the Weak is not Forbearance BUt if it be a thing absurd in common sense to allow them their Orders much more absurd will it be to change the Ecclesiastical Laws of the Land for their sakes Which is nothing else but to purchase their Ministry at the price of our Religion which the Ecclesiastical Laws contain Here we must distinguish two questions For it may be lawful for Christian people to live by those Laws which it was not lawful for Superiors in Church and State to make A thing evident to all that believe that it was possible for our Ancestors before the Reformation to be saved under the abuses of the Church of Rome But our question is whether or no the Laws of Superiors injoyn that which Gods Law forbids Inferiors to do Otherwise it is pernicious to all Government that Inferiors should take upon them to judge the Acts of Superiors But if the matter of the Law be within the Power that makes it to require an Exception for tender Consciences is to say that there is no Power in the World to give any Law to those tender Consciences Was there ever any Heresie any Schism any Religion pretending Christianity that did not alledge Scripture for themselves Did ever any man alledge it that would not be thought to be touched at the heart with it What is there for a Christian to doubt at where the Exception of tender Consciences lyes not Or how shall we that agree against the See of Rome but agree not in the terms and grounds of Reformation be tryed in the sense of the Scripture Can any man imagine that S. Paul intended to destroy his own Authority of giving Law to the Church which he exercised when he ordered the Jews and Gentiles at Rome to forbear one another Or is this Authority dead with the Apostles What Church then can there be alive if there be no Authority deriyed from the Apostles to give Law to it But the Authority is not questioned so it provide for weak Consciences Episcopacy will be owned if the Secular Power will force it to take them for their Presbyters whose Ministry they cannot give account to God of Being both authorized and exercised by Laws made without and against their Authority This no Christianity can justifie Christianity maintains the Estates of the World in all the Right they had when they became Christians And cannot justifie it self to the World otherwise How should the World receive it upon other terms But if the World stand upon the same terms having received Christianity as afore then must Christianity and the Church continue in the same Rights which it had before the World received it No exception to be allowed but as afore If it appear that the Faith and Laws of the Primitive Church be decayed Not if it seem to private Spirits that the Scripture is not fulfilled In the mean time is it for the honour of the Religion we profess that Weakness which at the best is negative ignorance in truth perhaps wilful ignorance should give Law to it Is it reason that they who have failed to destroy both Church and Kingdom should give Law to both As if a Child should govern the House because he will be framfold and disquieted otherwise Surely it is that which the Emperor said to his Niece Put as tibi injuriam fieri nisi imperas But is that the way to have Peace in Religion When Inferiors shall be made to tread upon the necks of their Superiors they will be so modest for the future as to stay there They will be content to have their Doctrine regulated by them as the Law of the Kingdom requires Or they will think fit that the Bishops be content with their Revenues and leave them to Preach what they please Surely they that can carry the dispute of a hundred years wherein the Bishops had so visibly the better that Club-law was found requisite to get the advantage will not lay down the Cudgels here So they that agree in conforming to the Laws differing every day in that which the Law determines not the Recusants on both sides may make hay in the heat of our Contentions and profit more by such a Law then by the War which destroyed this Church But especially the Atheists who have profited so well under these Contentions as to make that visible which was but foreseen under the Usurper That no Religion would in time stand to be the Religion of the Kingdom They having the Priviledge of the Laws and not liable to any Infamy when the differences maintained make Religion contemptible shall have cause to thank all that shall have done their work by solliciting such Laws CHAP. XVII Of the Opinion of Regeneration by Baptism ONe point I must not pass over in silence which hath been named for a point to be changed That all passages seeming to determine the Opinion of Baptismal
can have Power to introduce any thing for Reformation in the Church but that which the Consent of the Whole Church either injoyneth or alloweth Not as if the least Tittle of Scripture were not enough to warrant that which it injoyneth to be the Reformation of the Church But whereas the sense of the Scripture is that which remains questionable not the Authority of it that nothing can be the true sense of the Scripture which the Consent of the Whole Church contradicteth And therefore that though there be an appearance of truth in such a sense yet it is not for a Christian Kingdom to inact it for Law till it be duely debated And that being done it will infallibly appear in all which in most things appeareth already that the Consent of the Whole Church cannot contradict the true sense of the Scripture And that it is nothing else but not knowing the one or the other that makes it seem otherwise If the Scripture it self is not nor can be owned for Gods Word but by the Consent of Gods people from the beginning attesting the Motives of Faith related in the Scripture to have been infallibly done by submitting to the Faith which they inforce Then must the same Consent be of force to assure common reason that the Faith and the Laws wherein the whole Church agrees came from the Authority setled by God not by any Consent of all Christians to fall from that which they Profess And therefore though a Kingdom may force the Subjects thereof to call that Reformation which they inact yet they can never make it Reformation in that sense which the Salvation of Christians requires if it be not within these bounds It may be called Reformation to signifie a New form but it can never be Reformation to signifie that form which should be unless it signifie the form that hath been in Gods Church For that being One and the same from the first to the second Coming of Christ can authorize no other form then that which it may appear to have had from the beginning CHAP. IX That it cannot be done without the Synods of this Church ANd therefore it being granted on both sides that the Soveraign Power of Christian Kingdoms and States proceeding duely obligeth the Subjects to submit to the Reformation of the Church and cannot exact Legal Penalties of them which refuse upon any other Terms I do except in the second place that it ought to proceed in all Reformation by and upon the Authority of this Church That is of the Synods For what doth the whole Church agree in so Visibly as in this That the Authority which God hath instituted in his Church should give Laws to his Church And how can a Christian Kingdom promise themselves Gods blessing upon such Acts as they have no Power nor Right from God to do For granting there is such a thing as a Catholick Church it is not possible that any Christian Kingdom which must be a part of it should have Power to inact any thing Prejudicial much less destructive to the Whole to the Visible Being which is the Visible Communion of it And therefore the Faith and the Laws of the whole being the Condition under which the parts are to communicate no Christian Kingdom can have Power from God to give New Laws in Religion to the Subjects thereof which the Church of the Kingdom warranteth not to be according to the Laws of the whole Church If any thing may appear to have been in force in the Primitive Church and by the abuse of succeeding times to have become void I do not deny that the Secular Power may Reform the Church by restoring it though the Church should refuse their Consent to it The reason is because the Church would be without help if there were no Lawful way to restore the decays of it Which we agree have come to pass without the consent of them that are chargeable for the decay of it Now the Faith and the Laws of the Catholick Church are the Birth-right of all Christians Purchased by undertaking to Profess one Catholick Church at their Baptism And Christian Powers are to protect their Christian Subjects in their Birth-right And the Authority of the present Church is not seen in the Faith and the Laws of the Whole Church For it is meer matter of Fact what they are The evidence whereof praeexistent to the Authority of the present Church cannot be understood to require or to presuppose it And therefore the Authority of the Church cannot be violated by reducing the Faith and the Laws of the Primitive Church into force Nevertheless in regard that which is decayed can seldom be restored without determining new Bounds which the present state of the Church requires It is manifestly the Office of the Church to determine the same Nor can it be done by Christian Powers of this World without assuming to themselves that Authority in which they are to maintain the Church For though Soveraign Power hath Soveraign Right in all Causes and over all Persons Ecclesiastical yet is it capable of no Ecclesiastical Power or Right But is to maintain those that have it by the Laws of the Church in the use of it If any thing were done at the Reformation setting aside the Synods of this Church which I am here neither to deny nor to acknowledge it must be justified upon this Account that they refused the Authority of the Whole Church in authorizing the Reformation of this Church If any thing now may appear to be demanded upon the same Account let the Authority of the Synods be passed by for their punishment if they hinder the Reformation of the Church by refusing it But that cannot appear till it may appear First that the matter demanded ought to have the force of Law in the Church having been of force and since decayed by the injury of time or corruption of men Secondly that it is of such weight that Religion is like to have more advantage by restoring it then the Vnity of the Church shall suffer by violating the Regular Authority of the Church What thanks I shall have of my LL. the Bishops for this I know not For I deny that they themselves can have any Authority in the Case that shall not be confined within the same bounds But it is not possible for him that is the most jealous of the Rights of the Crown in Church-matters to say what danger there can be to this Crown in securing the Conscience of the Kingdom by the Authority of the Church For the acknowledging of those Bounds which the Authority of the Church is confined to as well in respect of Soveraign Power in the Dominions whereof it subsisteth as of the rest of the Church leaveth no Plea for it to Vsurp either upon the Crown or upon the Christian Subjects of it And all this I claim by S. Paul where he commandeth all Christians to abide in that state in which they are called
Conscience should be pretended when the question is whether to turn Christian or not Is it possible that there should be such a doubt in that point that a man to whom the Reason why he ought to be a Christian is sufficiently proposed can be said to be under a light that convinceth him not Which if it be true then is there nothing in Christianity which there is not a sufficient light to convict that man of to whose Office it belongs Otherwise it could not being to his Office not being able to discern the Obligation of it It is therefore a horrible reproach to Christianity to say that any doubting Conscience is not under a light sufficient to resolve it Scruples of Conscience there may be which may eternally have recourse and that no disparagement to the Faith Because the Faith provides a Resolution that they who have scruples in Conscience are bound in Conscience to lay them aside Nay to act positively against them But he that says that being a Christian he is not under a light sufficient to clear him in any doubt of Conscience says that the Faith obligeth him to sin Whereas it is not the Faith but the want of it which obligeth not the erring Conscience to sin but intangleth him so that he must sin if the obligation of acting fall out before the errour be removed Suppose the Jews convict by the Epistle to the Romans that Salvation comes only by Faith and not by the Law also And you suppose them under a light that neither the Law nor any Ordinance then standing by virtue of the Law could oblige But suppose them in love with themselves and with their Ancestors and to have such an Opinion of Salvation intailed upon them and their issue by the Law as to think that they could not have it by God that gave the Law if the Gentiles might have it as well as themselves and they might very well for consequence of Reason though very ill for their own account oversee the light they were under Suppose we now those that make this Plea not to believe one Catholick Church and one Baptism for the remission of sins But had rather gratifie the Socinians and deny that any Christian can be obliged to any thing that appears not to his own Reason out of Canonical Scripture Then imagine he should gratifie the Papist if he should grant that Catholick Communion always made the Catholick Church Suppose them not to believe that the Faith which only saveth includeth Baptism in the Catholick Church And that this Church is not Reformed unless it be restored to the same form I say supposing them possest with such prejudices as these and marvel not to see them eternally doubting whether or no it be lawful for them to obey the Laws which this Church and Kingdom is able to make Nay to see them break out into Schism as all Parties now seem to do rather then obey them when they shall be out of hope to give their own Law to the Kingdom Never forecasting how it may appear to continue a Church when they have given such Laws to it CHAP. XIV That it is not Forbearance to allow their Orders I Suppose they who make this Plea will not grant that they are in any errour so near the Foundation as these which I name Nor do I think that those Christian Jews at Rome that doubted of transgressing the Law when they knew that Salvation comes only by Faith did deny the Foundation of Faith For as long as they lived in the Church they were in the way to learn and understand how both were true Neither will I say that any of those who desire Forbearance for the weak are in any errour destructive to the Foundation of Faith and the hope of Salvation till they break out into Conventicles When that is done I am thenceforth bound to charge them with all the Error which the Title of their Schism can signifie And therefore I charge them with Hypocrisie when they pretend to Forbearance because they are weak and yet break out into Conventieles when they do so then they can be counted no more the weak among Christians then those Jews which S. Paul will have to be forborn as the weak among Christians supposing them to have renounced the Faith afterwards rather then continue in the Church And therefore the Plea of weak Consciences cannot be allowed those that ingage in Conventicles They have cut themselves off from it by leaving the Church Let them return and then make the best of it As to them the Church is under a new Precept of S. Paul which says A man that is an Heretick after the first and second admonition avoid Knowing that such a one is out of the way and sinneth being condemned by himself Titus III. 10 11. Because saith S. Hierom after S. Cyprian Whereas other sinners are put out of the Church by those that manage the Keys of the Church Hereticks and Schismaticks put themselves out of the Church Therefore Titus that is all Titus his flock are to avoid them for Excommunicate persons who do Excommunicate themselves As for those that continue in the Church though with a pretense of giving such Laws to the Church as no man knows how soon they may unchurch it let them make their best of it But being grounded at least upon a pretense of weakness there can be no question made but some errour must be granted for the ground of this weakness Let themselves at their leisure assign what errour they will acknowledge if they like not that which I have assigned Only let them shew the world that is the Legislative Power of this Kingdom what errour it is that they have hitherto had which being avoided for the future all those difficulties will cease which this Discourse pretendeth cannot be met with but by bounding the Reformation within the Faith and the Laws of the Catholick Church In the mean time let me go on to shew that those who were Ordained in and for the late Schism composed by the Laws at his Majesties Return by Presbyters against their Bishops cannot claim by virtue of it to be owned for Presbyters Or in the terms of the Ancient Church to be received in their own Orders A thing which there can no question be made in by any body that understands what the Church or what a Schism signifies And it is marvel how they that would be thought to allow Episcopacy should question it To acknowledge the Authority of giving Orders in the Bishops according to the Laws by which we both maintain this Church to be Reformed and yet to allow those that are made Presbyters by those Bishops not to Ordain others but to Minister the Office of their Order according to the Reformation setled in this Church I say to allow them to Ordain others to Minister their Office by other Laws not only without but against the consent of the Bishops from whom they have their
Orders is nothing else but to imagine that God hath given Power to divide that is to destroy his Church For what is setting up Altar against Altar but to Usurp Power to Consecrate the Eucharist and give the Communion of it in despite of them whom they allow to have Power to do the same because they do it by Authority received from themselves In all the Records of the Church there is but one Case expresly remembred in which it can be said to have been done That fell out in Aegypt at the time when the Church was divided between the Arians and the Catholicks But before that trouble there was another division on foot about receiving back into the Church those that had fellen from the Faith in the persecution of Diocletian For Meletius Bishop of Lycopolis had proceeded to Ordain Bishops in as many Cities as he could in opposition to those Bishops that stuck to the See of Alexandria In these distractions Coluthus one of the XII Presbyters of Alexandria became the Head of a Party by himself and to propagate his Party took upon him to make Ordinations of Presbyters to Minister to those of his Sect. Aerius is the man that maintained the Authority of Bishops and Presbyters to be all one Yet do I not remember that it is any where said that Aerius took upon him to Ordain Presbyters being himself one Much less that he was able to hold up a Sect by such Ordinations Audius was a Presbyter that became the Father of one of those Sects that Epiphanius writes against But Epiphanius says expresly that he had Bishops that imbraced his Opinion and propagated his Sect by Ordination Tertullian became the Father of a Sect which continued at Carthage till S. Austines time by whom they were reduced to the Church And truly it is to be presumed that the Father of the Sect did propagate it by Ordinations made of his own Head For what should he stick at that takes upon him to divide the Church and to set up Altar against Altar But I have not found it said that he did do it Nor have I found that any Presbyter did ever undertake to do it but Coluthus At the Council of Nicaea to unite the Meletians to the Church the Bishops Ordained by him were allowed to succeed when the present Bishops should dye yet so as to be then lawfully Ordained though they had been Schismatically Ordained afore But when the Coluthians pretended the same priviledge Athanasius pleads for himself that all Coluthus his Ordinations were made void Which is thought to have been done by that Synod at Alexandria which Hosius was present at with Commission from Constantine This is the only Example of Presbyters Ordained by a Presbyter without and against his Bishop All the rest are meer conjectures which cannot stand unless we suppose the Canons of the Church were not observed because it is not recorded how they were observed Whereas all reason requires us to suppose that they were observed because they might be observed and because there followed no dissension upon their not being observed Such Ordinations then being meer nullities as presumed to be done by them that never received Authority from the Church to Ordain do further induce Irregularity by the Canons of the Church And who can deny that all reason and Conscience requires it For who can believe his Creed professing one Catholick Church and not think the Church more disobliged by Schism then by any other Crime that renders a man uncapable to be promoted to Orders Certainly if Rebellion be the Crime that is hardest to be reconciled to Civil trust then is Schism hardest to be reconciled to trust in the Church Nevertheless because Unity is to be preferred before Discipline and because experience shews that when men are taken off from an ingagement in division they prove the more trusty the more weary they were of their ingagement it hath been often practised by the Church to receive not only Schismaticks but even Hereticks also That is such as had received Orders of those that parted from the Church upon an errour in Faith in their respective Orders But always upon condition of renouncing the cause of their division Whereupon they were to receive the Blessing of the Church by Prayer with Imposition of Hands The reason was because neither is Baptism in Schism effectual to Salvation nor Ordination in Schism effectual to Grace by the Ministry of any Office in Schism But being renounced there remains no Cause why their Ministry should not be effectual to their people Their Baptism and their Ministry to their own Salvation supposing it sincerely renounced Therefore the Reason why they who are Ordained by Presbyters cannot be received in their respective Orders is peremptory Because the Schism consisting in Ordaining against Authority cannot be renounced unless the Ordination be voided For so long as the Ministry may be usurped upon such Ordination so long is the Schism on foot I do very well know that the Ordinations of Arians were allowed by S. Athanasius in a Synod at Alexandria who had made the Ordination of Ischyras by Coluthus void And I remember the high acclamation which S. Hierom applauds his Act with That thereby the world was snatched out of Satans jaws But I read that the Tertulliniasts were received into the Church not that they were received in their Orders I find difficulty made by Forreign Churches of receiving the Donatists in their Orders Notwithstanding the complaints of the African Bishops that without them they had not Clergy enough to serve the Church Hereby it is to be judged how severe this Church was with them that had received Ordination by Presbyters The Canon of the whole Church makes all Irregular Ordainers and Ordained Because they had concurred to bring back his Majesty Which was the restoring of the Laws and so of the Church the forfeiture was wholly passed by and nothing required of Ordainers more then of the Clergy Which is an utter Oblivion of the attempt made by those Ordinations And is not that a very great degree of Forbearance in our Case S. Paul when he injoyns Forbearance doth he injoyn that those who did not understand how men were saved by Faith alone that were saved under the Law should be promoted to Orders indifferently with those that did profess it That were indeed something like that which hath been demanded that Weakness should intitle to the Clergy which orderly supposes strength But does he injoyn farther that they should Minister without Orders That continuing Lay-men they should commit the Sacrilege of Usurping to Celebrate the Eucharist That if their Ordination be void by the Law of the Land there should be a new Law made to make their Ordination good and valid which was void when it was made Then must he injoyn that it be lawful for every Lay-man to celebrate the Eucharist Forasmuch as every Lay-man hath as much to do to celebrate the Eucharist as he whose