ask what better way there can be for interpreting Texts than that very same means whereby I know Text to be Text to wit The Consent of the Church Shall I believe and yet disbelieve that self-same Consent which is the best ground of my belief This is as 't were to say that I believe such a tale for the Authors sake who hath told it and yet now I do hold the self-same man to be a Lyar. Men do believe the Testimony of Universal Consent in the sense it gives of Singular terms and why not in the sense it gives of Sentences and Propositions Without the help of this Consent which indeed is the ground of our Dictionaries how shall we know that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the Resurrection of the Body which the Socinians at this day deny And I know no such way to confute their Errour as by the Authority of this Consent Admit then of that Rule that Consent Universal is the best interpreter of the Text and then I am sure that it is as clear as true that Episcopacy is of Divine or Apostolical Right And that Proposition There can be no Ordination without the hands of a Bishop will clearly appear to be as well grounded as this There can be no Baptism without a Lawful Minister which yet is good Divinity amongst our new Masters in Scotland and antiquity allowed it Extra casum necessitatis For I ask upon what Text do they ground this Rule I suppose they will say upon our Saviours Words Go teach all Nations and Baptize them but in the Institution of the Eucharist he spake those words too but only to the Twelve Drink c. Mat. 26. I demand then how shall we know that when our Saviour spake those words to the Eleven he spake them only as to Lawful Ministers but when he spake the other to the Twelve he spake them at large as to them that did represent all Christian men So that though only Ministers may Baptize yet all Christians may receive the Cup Perhaps they l say that this general receiving the Cup is manifest from the 1 Cor. 11. and I think so too where St. Paul seems to chide the whole Church for their irreverence at the Sacrament But if a quarreller should reply that he there speaks but of the Presbitery only whereof many were at that time at Corinth as when in Chap. 5. he seems to chide the whole Church for not Excommunicating the Incestuous Person yet t is plain that he means none but the men in Government as sure all Presbyterians will allow me I know not what could be said but to make it appear out of the Fathers and others that the whole Christian Church never took the words in that sence And if to stop the mouth of the contentious we must be constrained to quote the Authority of Universal Consent and of the common practise of Christs Church then you 'l easily see that those two Propositions named do stand fast on the same bottom There can be no Baptism without a lawful Minister extra casum necessitatis for so the Practise and Consent of Universal Church have still interpreted that Text. And again 't is true there can be no Ordination without the hands of a Bishop for so those Texts out of Timothy and Titus have been understood and practised for One thousand five hundred Years together by the Consent of the whole Church of Christ. 'T is true that this precept of Christ Go ye teach all Nations and baptize them runs not in exclusive words ye Apostles or ye lawful Ministers and none else yet extra casum necessitatis none was allowed but a lawful Minister so that though those commands Lay hands suddainly on no Man and do thou Ordain Elders in every City run not in Verbis exclusivis thou and none but thou or men of thine Order only yet the Church understanding and Preaching them in an exclusive sense no man for One thousand and five hundred Years in any setled Church was held rightly Ordained without the hands of a Bishop Nay that there is something Divine in the Episcopal Order will appear clearly by this That immediately from the times of Christ and his Apostles yea within the reach of those times it was Universally spread throughout the whole Church so that no man can name a Nation that was once converted to the Christian Faith but he shall soon find there were Bishops So that there must needs have been an Universal Cause for an Effect that was so Universal General Council there was none about it at which all Christians might have met and might thence have obeyed their directions Nor can any name a Power to which all Christians would submit for they were soon fallen into factions but either the Authority of Christ or his Apostles from them then must needs flow the Episcopal Order and at that Fountain I shall leave it I say within the reach of the Apostles times for before St. Iohn dyed there are upon good Church Records above Twenty-eight Bishops appointed to their several Sees as at Ierusalem Alexandria Antioch Rome Ephesus Crete Athens Colosse and divers others a Catalogue whereof I shall be ready to attend you with when you shall be pleased to command it And hence it will be plain how great a Corruption nay how flat a sin is brought into Christs Church when Episcopacy is thrown down and so where Ordination is performed by any hands without theirs 't is as gross as if the Laymen should be allowed to baptize where a Presbyter stands by Nay more 't is as bad as if the Order of Presbytery should be thrown down that Laymen might Baptize What is this but wilfully to run into necessity which may thence create an Apology 'T is a Corruption far worse than if a Church should audaciously attempt to put down the Lords day since the Observation of that time is neither built on so clear a Text nor on the help of so Universal consent as is the Order of Episcopacy So that if men can think it sinful to part with the Lords day though the Institution of it be merely Apostolical they must needs confess that there is at least as much sin nay indeed more in parting with their Bishops And then the Oxford Doctrine he abuses and talks of as Transmitted for Orthodox Truth will it seems prove no less in earnest Secondly For the point of Sacriledge and the better to clear this I must premise these directions 1. That God accepts of things given Him and so holds a Propriety as well in the New as Old Testament 2. That God gets that Propriety in those things He holds as well by an Acceptation of what is voluntarily given as by a Command that such things should be presented unto Him 3. To invade those things be they moveable or unmovable is expresly the Sin of Sacriledge 4. That this Sin is not only against Gods positive but plainly against the Moral-Law For the
of abuse the Reformation was but lately countenanced and yet I take it for an unquestionable truth that the Laity ought to have the Cup And though I was not desired to reform the Epistlers Errors yet in charity I shall tell him he is out when he affirms that this opinion was but of late countenanced in the Church as I could shew out of Archbishop Whitgift by Bishop Bilson and divers others And since perhaps he might think these to be men of the more Lordly Clergy I shall name one more who may stand for many and who wrote forty years since that most excellent man Mr. Hooker a Person of incomparable learning and of as much modesty who I dare be bold to say never once dreamed of a Rochet he avers in clear terms There are at this day in the Church of England no other than the same degrees of Ecclesiastical Order Namely Bishops Presbyters and Deacons who had their beginning from Christ and his Blessed Apostles themselves or as he expounds himself Bishops and Presbyters are and by Christ himself in the Apostles and Seventy and then Deacons by the Apostles I may add Bucer too no man I am sure of the Lordly Clergy who though he was not English born yet he was Professour here in King Edwards time and wrote and dyed in this Kingdom Bishops saith he are ex perpetua Ecclesiarum ordinatione ab ipsis jam Apostolis and more visum est Spiritui sancto and surely if Bishops be from the Apostles and from the holy Spirit himself they are by Divine Ordination Nay what think you if this Tenent be approved by a plain Act of Parliament I hope then it wants no Countenancer England can give it and it needs not fly for shelter under the wings of the Lordly Clergy You have these words in the Books of Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops which is confirmed by Parliament It is evident to all men reading holy Scripture and Ancient Authors that from the Apostles time there have been these orders of Ministers in Christs Church Bishops Priests and Deacons And again the prayer in the form of Consecrating Bishops Almighty God giver of all good things which by thy holy Spirit hast appointed divers Orders of Ministers in thy Church Mercifully behold this thy Servant now called to the Work and Ministry of a Bishop And in the Question to the Person to be consecrated Bishop Are you perswaded you be called truly to this Ministration according to the will of the Lord Iesus Christ c. I beseech you Sir consider whether these words or the Prayer could fall from any man not possessed with this Tenent that Episcopacy is of Divine Right For if the three Orders may be found by reading Scripture together with antient Authors if men are taught to pray That God by his Spirit hath appointed divers Orders in his Church and this made the ground of praying for the present Bishop If the Person to be consecrated must profess that he is called according to the Will of our Lord Jesus Christ either all this must be nothing but pure pageantry and then the Parliament mocked God by their Confirmation or else Episcopacy is grounded on Scripture is appointed by the Spirit of God is according to the Will of our Lord Jesus and all this hath not been said of late and countenanced only by some c. And we have the less reason to doubt that this Tenent was countenanced in this Church of ours because we find it desired in those parts that have lost Episcopacy For we are told by Doctor Charelton after Bishop of Chichester one that writ against the Arminians more than twenty-five years since That sitting at Dort he there protested in open Synod that Christ ordained no Parity but made twelve Apostles the Chief so under them the Seventy Disciples then Bishops succeeded the Twelve and Presbyters the Seventy Disciples He affirmed this order had still been maintained in the Church and then challenged the Judgment of any learned man that could speak to the Contrary Their answer was silence which was approbation enough But after saith he discoursing with divers of the best learned of the Synod He told them how necessary Bishops were to suppress the then rising Schisms Their answers were That they did Honour much Reverence that good Order and Discipline of the Church of England and with all their hearts would be glad to have it established amongst them but that could not be hoped for in their Estate their hope was that seeing they could not be what they desired God would be merciful to them that did what they could If they hoped for mercy to pardon what they did sure they must suppose that what they did was sinful nay they thought their necessity it self could not totally excuse that sin for then in that particular there had been no need of mercy Nor could they well think otherwise for being pressed they denied not but that Episcopacy was of Christs own Institution and yet they were not Lordly Clergy Nor do I well see how either by charitable or civil men they can at all be taxed either for want of Reason or Honesty But this Londoner goes on and proves this Tenent could not be here countenanced for we alwayes allowed the Protestants of Germany the Low Countrys c. part of the Reformed Catholick-Church though they had no Bishops The Reformed Catholick Protestant-Church a pretty expression just like that so well known the Roman-Catholick Church which we were wont to call a Popish Solecisme an Universal particular But wee 'l forgive him this Slip Suppose his Sence be well worded yet he has as ill luck in his Argument as his Expression For though we do maintain that Episcopacy is of Divine Right i. e. of divine Institution does it then follow That Germany and the Low Countrys are no Protestant Churches or no part of the Catholick Church I could almost believe that the Author of this Letter writ from London indeed for sure Oxford makes no such Arguments No it must be a Crime of most horrid Nature that makes a Church run in non Ecclesiam For though that of the Iews was bad Idolatrically bad yet God seriously professes He had sent Her no Bill of Divorce Nay no Learned Man of Judgment durst ever yet affirm That the Romaen Church her self was become no true part of the Church Catholick and yet She breaks a flat Precept of Christs Drink ye all of this And shall we be thought to deny the same right unto Christians without Bishops when they brake but Christ's Institutions No! Churches they are true parts of the Catholick Church but in point of Ordination and Apostolical Government they are not And to affirm this will I hope he thought I am assured by Learned Men neither irrational nor unhonest He goes on I am certain the King would never have have way for Extirpation of Bishops in Scotland had he conceived them to be Jure Divino
Grant it were so yet of all mankind are Kings only bound that they must not change their opinions or if perhaps they have done ill must they for their Repentance be far more reproached than Subjects for their Crimes The King would not have given way to Presbyterians and Independents to exercise Religion here in their own way as by his late Engagement when such a Toleration in the face of a divine Law must needs be sinful There is a great mistake in this Argument for to Tolerate doth not at all signify either to approve or commend Factions neither of which the King could at all do to gross Schismatiques without sin But it meerly implyes not to punish which Kings may forbear upon just reason of State as David forbare the punishing of Ioabs Murther I say in Person he forbare though he bequeathed it to his Son And we our selves in our English State have no punishment for all kind of lyars and yet their sin is against a flat Law divine and we should not be still vexed with so much Poetical-News had we Sanction made that might prohibit and punish them And now Sir I conceive you think that what the Londoner hath said in this point amounts to just nothing yet since you would needs enjoyn me to acquaint you with the state and grounds of the Tenent he is pleased to deride I shall readily obey you For truly Sir I have ever held you a Gentleman of a pious Inclination and am confident you will welcome Truth for his sake who is Truth though it should cross both your gain and peace Indeed this Tenent of Divine right of Episcopacy hath been long since and of late much years opposed as on the one side by the Pope and his party in the Council of Trent and after that by some warmer Iesuites so on the other side by Schismatiques and Sectaries that call themselves of the Reformation And I remember You and I were oft wont to say that commonly the truth our English Churches Tenents lay in the midst between those and did seem the more Christian because they were Crucified oft between two such kind of Thieves We affirm then Episcopacy to be of Divine Right i. e. of Divine Institution and that must needs imply a Divine Precept too for to what end are things instituted by God but that it is presumed it is our part to use them To what end should some men be appointed to teach and to govern but that it is clearly implyed there are other men too who ought both to hear and obey them He that erects a Bridge over a broad swelling Stream needs not you will think add any express command that men should not hazzard drowning by going into the water Thus when our Blessed Saviour made his Institution of that great Sacrament the Eucharist he gave command indeed concerning the Bread Do this in remembrance c. And concerning the Cup Drink ye all of this but he gave no express command to do both these together and yet his Institution hath been ever held to have the Nature of a Command and so for One Thousand Years the whole Christian Church did ever practise it save only in some few cases in which men supposed a kind of necessity I say then Episcopacy is of Divine Right Instituted by Christ in his Apostles who since they took upon them to Ordain and Govern Churches you need not doubt they received from their Master an Authority to do both for sure men will not think they will break their own Rules No man takes this upon him but he that was called of God as was Aaron Episcopacy then was Instituted in the Apostles who were Bishops and aliquid amplius and distinguished by Christ himself from the Seventy who were the Presbyters so the most antient Fathers generally Or if you will take St. Ieroms opinion who neither was a Bishop nor in his angry mood any good friend to that order they were Instituted by the Apostles who being Episcopi Amplius did in the latter time formalize and bound out that Power which we do still call Episcopacy and so these received opinions may well stand together for Episcopatus being in Apostulatu tanquam Consulatus in Dictatura as the latter and Subordinate Power is alwayes in the greater we may truly say it was instituted by Christ in his Apostles who had Episcopal Power and more and then formalized and bounded by the Apostles themselves in the Persons of Timothy Titus and others so that call the Episcopal Order either of Divine Right or Apostolical Institution and I shall not at all quarrel with it for Apostolical I hope will seem Divine enough to Christians I am sure Claudius Salmasius thinks so a sharp Enemy to the Episcopal Order If saith he it be from the Apostles it is of Divine Right Thus we find the Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction to be given to those men alone for then that Power is properly Episcopal when one man alone may execute it So St. Paul to Timothy Lay hands c. in the singular Number Against an Elder receive not an accusation under two or three witnesses 1 Tim. 5. 19. And then the Text is plain he and he alone might do it So to Titus For this cause left I thee in Crete that thou and thou alone shouldest set in order the things that are wanting and Ordain Elders in every City Where plainly these two Powers are given to one Man of Government and Ordination so St. Iohn to the Seven Churches of Asia Rev. 14. where he presumes all the Governing Power to reside in the Angels of those Churches and in them alone as all the Antients understand it And hence it is plain that though we should yield that the Apostles only did institute Bishops Yet in this Revelation Christ himself immediately in his own Person and the Holy Spirit withall did both Approve and Confirm them And the Bishops of those Sees are called Angels by St. Iohn who was born a Iew because in Palestine their Chief Priests were there called their Angels and so this Appellation was taken up by the Apostle in that place because those were the Chief of those Churches This truth appears not only from cleare Texts but from the Universal Consent and Practise of more than One thousand five hundred Years space of all the Christian Churches So that neither St. Ierom nor any other Ancient did either hold Orders lawfully given which were not given by a Bishop nor any Church-Jurisdiction to be lawfully Administred which was not either done by their hands or at least by their Deputation I know there are men lately risen up especially in the last Century who have collected and spread abroad far other Conclusions and that from the Authority of Text it self But as it is a Maxime in Humane Laws Consuetudo optima legum interpres So no rational man but will easily yield it as well holds in Lawes Divine For I would gladly
Law than can the Sins of the Layety yet I could name you Churchmen of great Note who totally refused to be preferred by that Queen to any Bishoprick at all because they would by no means submit their Conscience to the base Act of such Alienations and one of them was Bishop Andrews I could tell you too that those long Leases he speaks of had one cause more than the Marriage of the Clergy for when they saw a Stool of Wickedness set up of sacrilegious Wickedness that imagined Mischief by a Law some not the most Men thought it fit to make those long Leases that the Estate of the Church might appear more poor and so the less subject unto Harpies and then their hope was that at the length at least after many Years spent it might return whole unto the Successors He goes on But to deal clearly with you Sir I do not understand how there can be any Sacriledge properly so called which is not a Theft and more viz. a Theft of something dedicated to Holy Vse a Communion Cup for instance or the like and Theft you know must be of things moveable even by the Civil Law and how Theft can be of Lands or Sacriledge by alienating Church-Lands I pray ask your Friend Holborne and his Fellow-Lawyers for ours here deride us for the Question It seems they are very merry at London or at least this Epistler thinks so for being Winners he might perhaps conceive they make themselves pleasant with a Feather and that this Argument is as light a thing appear'd before by my 3 d Answer For can any man think in earnest that 't is Sacriledge and so a Sin to take away a Cup from a Church but 't is none to take away a Mannor As if Ahab had been indeed a Thief had he robbed Naboth of his Grapes But Elijah was too harsh when he talked to that good King because he only took away his Vineyards Indeed there is such a Nicety in the Civil Law that Actio Facti lies only against him that hath stolen Rem Mobilem for Iustinian it seems in the Composition of his Digests which he took from the writing of the old Iuris Prudentis thought it fit to follow Vlpian's judgment and yet Sabinus in his Book de Furtis a Man of Note amongst those Men was known to be of another Opinion Non tantùm rerum moventium Sed fundi aedium fieri Furtum I would gladly know of this Epistler whether he thinks all Men both Divines and others bound to frame all the Phrases of their Speech according to the Criticisms of the Civil Law as it is now put out by Iustinian If not why may not some use the word Furtum in Sabinus's sense as well as others may in Vlpian's and then Sacriledge may be properly a Theft and as properly in immoveables or if we must needs speak in your sense whom Iustinian hath approved I do not well see how a Man can spoil the Church of her Lands and at the Civil Law 'scape an Action of Theft for it lies against him that takes the Trees Fruits and Stones And I am confident there 's no Church-Robber but he intends to make use of those kind of Moveables otherwise what good will his Church-Land do him And if he make this use a Thief he is in the Civil Law Phrase and then in the sense of this Epistler himself he is without doubt a sacrilegious Person But where I wonder did the Londoner learn that Furtum strictè Sumptum was that genus of Sacriledge So that where there is no Theft in the Civil Law sense there is none of this kind of Sin I am sure 't is neither intimated by the Greek nor Latine word nor I believe delivered by any learned Author on this Subject So that I must set down an Assertion and I conceive well grounded too point blank against this Londoner and affirm there may be a Sacriledge properly so called whch is not a Theft in the Civil Law sense which has been proved in the 3 d Affertion and need not trouble Sir R. Holborne that learned Gentleman may have other business nor his Fellow-Lawyers For I doubt not there are enough besides who will here smile at this passage and will think that this Epistler hath met with a Civil Law Quirk which he knew not well how to wield But to say truth he deals clearly with the Doctor and tells him that for his particular he doth not yet understand which for my part I do believe and do only wonder that he would laugh at another in a Point he could no better satisfie him in He goes on The hyre of a Labourer at most as sitting maintenance is all that can be challenged But the Maintenance must be honourable or else we Christians use God like no other Men far worse I am sure than do Pagans And when such a Maintenance hath been once given in Lands the Acceptation of it will soon make the Gift immoveable so that it signifies little to say the Apostle had no Lands for they who had the Money for Lands sold might no Man will doubt have still kept the Lands had they liked them But the Church being in Her Persecution the Disciples were to flie and Lands we know are no moveables And 't were very strange if not ridiculous to affirm that Ananias and his Wife sinned in taking back what they had promised but if in Specie they had given those Lands they might have revoked that Gift without Sacriledge He proceeds Which I mention to avoid the groundless Arguments upon the Lands and Portions allotted to the Tribe of Levi by God's appointment to whom our Ministers have no Succession Our Ministers challenge nothing which belonged to the Tribe by Levitical Right but where things are once given to God for the use of his Ministers they there get a moral interest and what we read of this kind in the Old Testament doth as much oblige Christians as if it were in the New And then 't will follow that they enjoy your Lands by the same Law of the State as others do and must be subject to that Law which alone gives strength to their Title Out toto Coelo Have Churchmen no Title to those Possessions they enjoy but by the Law of this Land alone Yes besides these they have Christ's Acceptation and so they are become theirs by Law Evangelical their Lands are God's own Propriety and so they hold them from him by the Law moral too And therefore though by the new Constitution of the Laws of the Land they hold Estates in Fee simply and so may alienate without punishment from the Law of England yet they cannot do it without guilt of Sin as being a breach of the Law Evangelical and Moral except then only when they better themselves by some gainful at least not hurtful Permutation Besides were this Argument good it would only follow that the Clergy by their own