If the Ordination of Papist Bishops be valid much more is the Ordination of English Preâ—byters so but the Antecedent is true in the judgement of those against whom we dispute therefore the Consequent must be granted by them on that supposition Sect. 33. The reason of the Consequence is because the Popish Bishops are more unlike to the Scripture Bishops and more uâ—capable of ordaining then the Presbyters of the Reformed Churches are For 1. The Papist Prelates profess to receive their Power from a Vice-christ at least quoad exercitium media conserendi which Protestant Presbyters do not 2. The Papist Bishops profess themselves Pastors of a new Catholick Church which is headed by the Papacy as an essential part and which Christ will not own as such But so do not the Protestant Presbyters 3. The Papist Prelates Ordain men to the false Office of turning Bread into the Body of Christ by the way of Transubstantiation in their Consecration and offering it as a Sacrifice for the quick and dead and delivering this as the very Body of Christ and not Bread to the Communicants and perswading them that it is such and holding and carrying it to be Worshipped by them with Divine Worship and the like But the Protestant Presbyters are Ordained and do Ordain others to that true Office of a Presbyter or Pastor or Bishop which Christ hath instituted 4. The Papist Prelates have abundance of false doctrines and practices in Worship which the Protestant Presbyters have not 5. And they have no more to shew for a Power of Ordination then our Presbyters have so that these with many the like considerations will prove that if the Papists Ordination be Valid that of the Protestant Churches by Presbyters is so much more And doubtless they that plead for a succession from the Papist Prelates do hold their Ordination Valid Sect. 34. Argument 13. If the Protestant Churches that have no Prelates be true Churches in a Political sense and the Ordinances among them valid and to be owned and received then are the Pastors of those Churches true Pastors though they have no Ordination but by Presbyters But the Antecedent is true therefore so is the Consequent The reason of the Consequence is clear and granted by them that we have now to do with Because the Pastors are essential to the Church as Political and the said Ordinances of Publike worship as the Lords Supper and Government cannot be allowable without them nor such as the people should submit to or receive This therefore we may take as granted Sect. 35. And for the Minor that the Protestant Churches are true Churches that have no Prelates 1. There are so few of them that have Prelates that he that will unchurch all the rest I suppose when he playes his game above board would take it for an injury to be accounted a Protestant himself 2. If the Churches of the West called Papists and the Churches of Africa Asia and America be true Churches of Christ and have true administrations then much more confidently may we affirm that the Protestants are so too But the Antecedent is maintained by those that we now dispute against excepting the Papists who yet maintain it as of their own Church therefore c. Sect. 36. The reason of the Consequence is because the Papists Greeks Armenians Georgians Syrians Aegyptians Abasines c. have much more to be said against them then we have And if the lesser or supposed imperfection of the Protestant Churches do unchurch them for wanting Prelates then the many great and real defects of the other Churches will unchurch them much more Especially this holds as to the Church of Rome which yet is taken by the Dissenters to be a true Church and by some of them at least denyed to be the seat of Antichrist Their Vicechrist and usurping head and all the Ministry that hold by him afford us other kind of Arguments against their Church then want of Prelates can afford them or others against our Churches Sect 37. And if any will deny the Antecedent so far as to unchurch all the Churches in the world that are more defective then the Protestants he will blot out of his Creed the Article of the Catholick Church and being a Seeker or next one to day is like to be an Infidel ere long as I shall further shew when I speak of the sinfulness of such Sect. 38. Argument 14. If the Administrations of a Usurping Presbyter to an innocent people are Valid and not Nullities then the Ordination of an Usurping Ordainer to an Innocent expectant is Valid and consequently the Ordination of Presbyters is Valid if they were Usurpers as they are unjustly said to be But the administrations of usurping Presbyters to an Innocent people are Valid therefore c. Sect. 39. The Antecedent is granted by Bellarmine himself in the place before cited who saith that no more is required to oblige the people to obey him and submit then that he be reputed a Pastor And all must say so 1. That will not rob the Innocent of the Benefit of Gods Ordinances because of an usurpers fault 2. And that will not leave the people almost commonly in an utter uncertainty whom they should take for a Pastor and obey and when the Ordinances are Valid for their good Sect. 40. The Consequence is made good by the Parity of Reason that is in the two cases If usurpation cause not a Nullity invalidity or unprofitableness in one case to the innocent receiver no nor make it his sin to receive no more will it in the other For there is no Reason for any such difference Nay iâ— it be a duty to submit to an unknown usurper in several cases in receiving the Sacraments hearing praying c. so is it a duty in such cases to receive Ordination Sect. 41. Object But the usurping Presbyter doth nothing but what belongeth to the office of a Presbyter but the usurping Ordainer doth that which belongs not to the office of a Presbyter and therefore his action is a Nullity as being extra proprium forum Sect. 42. Answ. 1. It is proved before to belong to the office of a Presbyter to Ordain 2. But suppose it were not yet the objection is vain because it is the office of a Bishop that the Ordaining Presbyter doth pretend to and which you imagine that he doth usurp They say that subject Presbyters quoad ordinem vel Officium are no creatures of Gods appointment and therefore they renounce that Office and claim that office which you call Episcopacy and hath the Power of Ordination The quarrel between us is not about meer Bishops such as Dr. H. H. describeth as aforesaid These are not denyed but the Parish Ministers profess themselves such Bishops But it is about the other sort of Presbyters subject to Bishops that the quarrel is For they say that the Church should have none such and Dr. H. H. saith there is no Evidence that any such
sort of Bishops it is that they mean And most of them are unable to give me a rational answer to either of the Questions But some that are wiser though they know no more sorts of Bishops but one yet they can say that by a Bishop they mean an Ecclesiastick Governour of Presbyters and the people And if so then why do they vilifie Bishops under the name of Presbyters I have here shewed you that if this be all then every Parish hath a Bishop where there is a Pastor that hath Chappels and Curates under him Or any two Ministers that will subject themselves to a third do make a Bishop You delude your selves and others while you plead only in general for Bishops We are all for Bâ—shops as well as you All the Question is What sort of Bishops they must be Whether only Episcopi gregis or also Episcopi Episcoporum gregis and if so Whether they must be Bishops of single Churches as our Parishes are or a multitude of Churches as Diocessâ—s are And if the last were granted Whether these be not properly Archbishops In all other parts of the Controversie I find that the followers of each party go much in the dark and take much upon trust from the Teachers whom they value and little understand the true state of our differences So that it is more by that common providence commonly called Good luck that some of them are Protestants or Christians then from any saving grace within them Had Papists or Mahometans but as much interest in them as the Bishops it is like they would have been as much for them As for those of you that know your own Opinions and the Reasons of them you must needs knâ—w that the Divines called Episcopal in England are of two sorts that very much differ from one another And therefore supposing you to be the followers of these differing Divines I shall accordingly furtheâ— speak to you as you are I. The Bishops of England and their followers from the first Reformation begun by King Edward the sixt and revived by Queen Elizabeth were sâ—und in Doctrine adhering to the Augustinian Method expressed now in the Articles and Homilies They differed not in any considerable points from those whom they called Puritans But it was in the form of Government and Liturgy and Ceremonies that the difference lay II. But of late years a new strain of Bishops were introduced differing much from the old yet pretending to adhere to the Articles and Homilies and to be Fathers of the same Church of England as the rest I know of none before B p Mountague of their way and but few that followed him till many years after And at the demolishing of the Prelacy they were existent of both sorts Would you know the difference If you have read the writings of B p Jewel Pilkington Alley Parry Babbington Baily Abbot Carlton Morton Usher Hall Davenant with such like on one side and the writings of the New Episcopal Divines that are now most followed on the other side I need not tell you the difference And if you will not be at the labour to know it by their writings its like that you will not believe it if I tell you For if you will take all on trust I must suspect that you will put your trust in them to whom you are addicted The New party of Episcopal Divines are also subdivided some of them are if their Defence of Grotius and Grotius his own Profession may be believed of Grotius his Religion that is Papists Others of them though they draw as neer the Grotians as Protestants may do yet own not Popery it self So that we have three notable parties of Episcopal Divines among us 1. The old Orthodox Protestant Bishops and their followers 2. The New Reconciling Protestant party 3. The New Reconciling Papists or Grotians A brief taste of the difference I will give you 1. The Old Episcopal party as I said in Doctrine agreed with the Non-conformist and held that Doctrine that now we find in the Articles and Homilies and in the Synod of Dort where B p Carlton B p Hall B p Davenant and three more Divines of this Nation were and had a great hand in the framing of those Canons and by consenting did as much to make them obligatory to us in England as commonly is done in General Councils by the Delegates of most Nations But the New Episcopal Divines both Protestants and Papists do renounce the Synod of Dort and the Doctrine of our Articles and Homilies so far as it is conform thereto in the points of Predestination Redemption Free-will Effectual Grace Perseverance and Assurance of Salvation following that Doctrine which is commonly maintained by the Iesuites and Arminians in these points 2. The Old Episcopal Divines did renounce the Pope as Antichrist and thought it the duty of the Transmarine Churches to renounce him and avoid communion with his Church as leprous and unfit for their communion But the New Episcopal Divines do not only hold that the Pope is not Antichrist but one part of them the Protestants hold that he may be obeyed by the Transmarine Western Churches as the Patriarch of the West and be taken by us all to be the Principium unitatis to the Catholick Church and the Roman Determinations still may stand except those of the last four hundred years and those if they obtrude them not on others So B p Bramhall and many more And M r Dow and others tell us that the Canon Law is still in force in England except some parts of it which the Laws af the Land have cast out And the Grotians teach that the Church of Rome is the Mistris of other Churches and the Pope to stand as the Head of the Vniversal Church and to Govern it according to the Canons and Decrees of Councils and they receive the trent-Trent-Creed and Council and all other Councils which the Pope receives excepting only against some School-points and abuse of manners among the Papists which their Canons and Decrees condemn 3. The old Episcopal Divines did take Episcopacy to be better then Presbyterian Equality but not necâ—ssary to the Being of a Church but to the Better being where it may be had But the New Prelatical Divines of both sorts unchurch those Churches that are not Prelatical 4. The Old Episcopal Divines thought that Ordination by Presbyters without Prelates was valid and not to be done again though irregular But the New ones take it to be No Ordination nor those so ordained to be any Ministers but Lay-men 5. And accordingly the Old Episcopal Divines did hold the Forrein Protestant Churches of France Savoy Holland Geneva Helvetia c. that had no Prelates as true Churches and their Pastors as true Ministers of Christ and highly valued and honoured them as Brethren But the New sort do disown them all as no true Churches though they acknowledge the Church of Rome to be a true Church and their Ordination
sort with theirs for ours is of the first sort and if theirs be of the same we are both agreed And that the Lord Jesus Christ should settle one kind of Government de facto during Scripture time and change it for ever after is most improbable 1. Because it intimateth levity or mutability in a Law-giver so suddenly to change his Laws and form of Government either something that he is supposed not to have foreseen or some imperfection is intimated as the cause Or if they say that it was the change of the state of the body Governed viz. the Church I answer 2. There was no change of the state of the Church to necessitate a change of the kind of Officers and Government for as I shall shew anon there was need of more Elders then one in Scripture times and the increase of the Church might require an increase of Officers for Number but not for Kind There was as much need of assisting Presbyters as of Deacons I may well conclude therefore that he that will affirm a Change of the Government so suddenly must be sure to prove it and the rather because this is the Bishops own great and most considerable Argument on the other side when they pâ—ead that the Apostles themselves were Rulers of Presbyters therefore Rulers over Presbyters and many Churches should continue as Gods Ordinance many on the other side answer them though so do not I that this Ordinance was temporary during the Apostles times who had no Successors in Goveâ—nment to whâ—ch the Prelates reply that it s not â—â—agiâ—abâ—e that Christ should settle one sort of Church-Governmeâ—t for the first age and another ever after abolishing that first so soon and thaâ— they who affirm this must prove it For my part I am overcome by this Argument to allow all that the Apostolical pattern can prove laying aside that which depended on their extraordinary gifts and priviledges but then I see no reason but they should acknowledâ—e the â—oâ—ce of their own Mediâ—m and conclude it s not imâ—ginable that if God setâ—led â—ixed Bishops only over particular Congregations without any such order as subject Preâ—byters in the first age he should change this and set up subject Presbyters and many Churches under one man for ever after If they say that this is not a change of the speâ—ies but a growing up of the Church from Infancy to Maturity I answer It is a plain change of the Species of Government when one Congregation is turned into Many and when a new order of Officers viz. subject Presbyters without power of Ordination or Jurisdiction is introduced and the Bishops made Governours of Pastors that before were but Governours of the People this is plainly a new Species Else I say again let them not blame us for being against the right Species 3. The third Reaâ—on is this They that affirm a change not of the Governours but also of the very nature or kind of a particular Governed or Political Church from what it was in Scripture times do affirm a thing so improbable as is 〈◊〉 without very clear proof to be credited But such are they that affirm that Congregational Bishops were turned to Diocesan therefore c. The Church that was the object of the Government of a fixed Bishop in Scripture times was A competent Number of persons in Covenant with Christ or of Christians co-habiting by the appâ—intment of Christ and their mutual expressed consent united or associated under Christs Ministerial Teachers and Guides for the right worshipping of God in publick and the Edification of the Body in Knowledge and Holiness and the maintaining of obedience to Christ among them for the strength beauty and safety of the whole and each part and thereby the Pleasing and Glorifying God the Redeemer and Creator Iâ— would be too long rather then difficult to stand to prove all the parts of this Definition of the first particular Political Church That part which most concerneth our present purpose is the Ends which in Relations must enter the Definition which in one word is The Communion of Saints personally as Associated Churches consisting of many particular Churches are for the Communion of Saints by officers and Delegates And therefore this communion of Saints is put in our Creed next to the Catholick Church as the end of the combination I shall have occasion to prove this by particular Texts of Scripture anon A Diocesan Church is not capable of these Ends. What personal communion can they have that know not nor see not one aonther that live not together nor worship God together There is no more personal communion of Saints among most of the people of this Diocess then is between us and the inhabitants of France or Germany For we know not so much as the names or faces of each other nor ever come together to any holy uses So that to turn a Congregation into a Diocesan Church is to change the very subject of Government Obj. This is meer independency to make a single Congregation the subject of the Government Answ. 1. I am not deterred from any truth by Names I have formerly said that its my opinion that the truth about Church-Government is parcelled out into the hands of each party Episcopal Presbyterian Independents and Erastian And in this point in Question the Independents are most right Yet I do dot affirm nor I think they that this one Congregation may not accidentally be necessitated to meet in several places at once either in case of persecution or the age and weakness of some members or the smalness of the room But I say only that the Church should contain no more then can hold communion when they have opportunity of place and liberty and should not have either several settled Societies or Congregations nor more in one such Society then may consist with the Ends. And that these Assemblies are bound to Associate with other Assemblies and hold communion with them by the mediation of their Officers this as I make no doubt of so I think the Congregational will confess And whereas the common evasion is by distinguishing between a Worshipping Church and a Governed Chuch I desire them to give us any Scripture proof that a Worshipping Church and a Governed Church were not all one supposing that we speak of a settled society or combination I find no such distinction of Churches in Scripture A family I know may perform some worship and accordingly have some Government And an occasional meeting of Christians without any Minister may perform some Worship without Government among them But where was there ever a Society that ordinarily assembled for publick worship such as was performed by the Churches on the Lords dayes and held communion ordinarily in worship and yet had not a Governing Pastor of their own Without a Presbyter they could have no Sacraments and other publike Worship And where was there ever a Presbyter that was not a Chuâ—ch Governour
any melodious tune to help us or whether we shall use or not use a Musical Instrument or the help of more Artificial singers or choristers These are left to our reason to determine of by general rules which nature and Scripture have laid down § 23. 15. In Civil actions that are Religious only finally and by Participation and not any acts of special worship it is lawfull to use Symbolical Rites that are in their kind neer of kin to Sacraments in their kind and may be called Civil Sacraments such 〈◊〉 the sealing and delivery of Indentures or other Covenant writings and the delivery of Possession of a house by a Key and of the Temple by a Book and Bel-rope and of Land by a twig and turf and of Civil Government by a Crown or Scepter or Sword c. And such is the use of a Ring in Marriage § 24. 16. Though God hath commanded that certain persons thus and thus qualified shall be elected and ordained Ministers of Christ and separated to the Gospel of God yet hath â—e not nominated the individual persons but left it to man to choose them according to the directions that he hath given them Prudence therefore is here the judge § 25. In all these cases it is no usurpation nor addition to the word or institution of God for man to determine It is but an obeying of Gods commands All these are Necessary in their Genus and commanded us of God and the Species or individuals in the last case no where by the word of God determined of so that if we must not determine of them our selves the Scripture should contradict it self or oblige us to natural impossibilities Had God said Thou shalt Pray at some Time Place in some Habit Gesture c. but neither I nor thou shall determine what this had been no better § 26. Most of these forementioned particulars are but abusively or improperly called Ceremonies they being only the determination of Circumstances and Modes and subservient common helps which are Religious only Relatively and by Application being in themselves but such common modifications as are necessary in Civil and Common moral actions Yet because the word Ceremonie is an equivocal let them be so called § 27. Though all these things are left to humane Determination and so are Indifferent in themselves before yet may they become Accidentally Necessary or unlawfull And though man must Determine of them yet not as he list without a Rule but by those sufficient General directions which God hath given in Scripture and the End and Nature of the work And to cross these directions is a sin in him that doth determine § 28. Though all these are left to humane Prudence yet not alwaies to the Governors to be passed into Laws and forced on the subjects Most of the points forementioned ought not to be statedly determined by Law but left to him that is upon the place to determine of according to variation of occasions of which anon § 29. Yet if just Authority shall injuriously determine of them it may be the subjects duty to obey except in some cases to be after mentioned Because they are not matters aliene to their Power and without their line but only its an imprudent over-doing in a work that is belonging to them in its manner and season to be done § 30. Having shewed you what man May determine of in worship I shall next shew you what he may not determine of or what is exempted from his power And 1. Some things as to the Substance 2. Other things only as to the Manner are out of mans power § 31. 1. No man may bring a New Revelation which he received not from God whether it be about greater or smaller points and say to another or himself This you or I are bound to believe by a Divine faith For nothing but a Divine Revelation can be the material object of a Divine faith § 32. 2. And as far is it from the power of this man to say I received not this from God but yet you are bound to believe it as from me with a faith as certain and confident as a faith Divine For this were to equall man with God § 33. 3. And far is it from the power of man to obtrude at all upon another any supernatural matters and Command him to believe them though but with a humane faith when he cannot prove that the things are committed to him nor give men an Evidence of their Credibility He may not say Though God revealed not these supernatural matters to me yet hath he given me Authority to command you to believe them or made it your duty to believe them when I speak them though without Evidence of Credibility So that here are three sorts of things about matters of Belief that man may not do The first is that he may not Counterfeit a Divine Revelation and the 2. is he may not command men to believe his lawfull humane testimony with a faith equall to Divine and 3. he may not command so much as a humane faith to supernatural assertions which he had no authority to utter I speak this about mens power in matters of faith as preparatory to that about worship § 34. In like sort 1. Man may not say This God hath commanded you in or about his worship when it is not so For this were to belie God and to add to his Law as if it said that which it doth not say Here none I hope will gainsay me § 35. And 2. No man may of his own head Command any thing in or belonging to the worship of God but he must have either a Special or General warrant and command from God himself to do it Gods Law must either make the thing Necessary in specie and so leave man nothing about it but to second it by his Law and see it executed or else Gods Law must make the thing Necessary in genere and so leave man to determine of the species as is oft said But where neither of these are done by God man hath no Power for the imposing of that thing § 36. More particularly 1. God hath not left it to the Power of man to add to the ten commandments any universal precept for obedience 2. Nor to add to the Lords Prayer and other holy Scripture any general article of request to God 3. Nor to add any officers to his Church that are strictly Divine or for Divine uses 4. Nor to add any substantial ordinance of worship 5. Nor to add any substantial part of holy Discipline 6. Nor to institute any new Sacrament in the Church or any thing that hath the Nature of a Sacrament though it have not the name § 37. It seemeth to me that Mystical signs stated by man in Gods publick worship directly to work grace on his soul from God and that as instituted and also to oblige man to God again are unlawfully brought into the Church § 38. By