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
First I quote this Text I hangred and ye gave me Meat I thirsted c. Mat. 25. If Christ do not Accept of these things He might say indeed That you offered Me Meat but He cannot say that you gave it for a Present is then only to be called a Gift when it is Accepted as his own that takes it And doth He thus accept of Meat and Cloathing and doth he not accept of those kind of Endowments that bring both those to Perpetuity Will He take Meat and refuse Revenues Doth He like can you imagine to be Fed and Cloathed to day and in danger to be Starved to morrow The Men thus provided for He calls no less than His Brethren In as much as you have done it c. Whether those were of those Brethren which He enjoyned to Teach others or of those He would have instructed the Text then doth not decide Without doubt it must be meant of both for 't were a strange thing to Affirm That Christ likes it extream well to be Fed and Cloathed in all those He calleth His but only in the Twelve and Seventy But to put it out of doubt That what is done to these is done to Him too His own words are very clear He that receiveth you receiveth Me you Teaching Disciples in the work of the Gospel when He sends them forth to Preach and that Reception implys all such kind of Provision as is apparent throughout the whole Tenour of that Chapter And again I quote that so well known passage of Ananias and Saphira his Wife Acts 5. His Sin was he kept part of the Price of those Lands he had given to God for the publick use of Christ's Church they were given to God and 't is as plain God did accept them For St. Peter you know thus reproves him why hast thou Lyed or why hast thou deceived the Holy Ghost For so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth properly import why dost thou so cheat him of what is now his proper Right And again Thou hast not Lyed unto Men but unto God ver 4. And is this so strange a thing Are our Lyes to be accounted Sins before God Yes All against God as a Witness and a Judge but not all as a Party And so this is a more remarkable a more signal Lye Thou hast not Lyed to Man a Negative of Comparison not so much to Man as to God what 's done to them is scarce worth the naming But thou hast Lyed to God as a Witness and a Judge and a Party too Thou hast Lyed and robbed God by Lying and so run thy self into a most horrible Sin and it shall appear in God's judgment So the Fathers generally expound the place both of the Greek and Latine Church and affirm his Crime was a robbing of God of that Wealth which by Vow or Promise was now become God's Propriety so the modern interpreters so Calvin Sacrum esse Deo profitebatur and Beza Praedium Dco consecrassent and he that will not believe so universal Consent in the Interpreting of a place of Scripture should do well to consider whether on the same Ground as I told you before he may not be brought to doubt of his Dictionary for that 's but universal Consent he may as well almost doubt whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify God and altogether as well whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify the Gospel The New-Testament will afford more places for that purpose Rom. 2. 22. Thou that abhorrest Idols committest thou Sacriledge 'T is true these words are spoken as to the Person of an unconverted Iew and may be therefore thought to Aim only at those Sins which were against the Law of Moses But do but view St. Paul's way of Arguing and you shall find quickly they come home to us too He there tells the Iew that he Taught others those things which yet he would not do himself and he strives to make this good by three several Instances First Thou that Preachest a Man should not steal dost thou steal Secondly Not commit Adultery dost thou commit Adultery In both which 't is plain that the Iew he dealt with did the same thing he reprehended and straitway the Third comes Thou that abhorrest Idols dost thou commit Sacriledge So that hence will follow if St. Paul's words have any Logick in them that these two Sins are of the self-same nature too and that to commit Sacriledge is a breach of the same Law as to commit Idolatry So that this Crime will appear without all doubt a plain Robbing of God For he that Steals from Men yea though a whole Community of Men yet he Sins but against his Neighbour 't is but an offence against the second Table of the Law But Sacriledge layes hold on those things which the Latine Laws call Bona nullius it strikes down right immediately at God and in that regard no Idolatry can can do it 't is a breach of the first Table of the Law and both these Crimes are equally built on the self-same contempt of God The Offender in both kinds the Idolater and the Sacrilegious Person both think meanly of Him The first conceives He will Patiently look on while His Honour is shared to an Idol the other imagines He will be as unconcerned though His Goods be stolen to His Face This was without doubt the Sence of all the ancient Church for upon what Grounds could they profess they gave Gifts to God but only that they presumed That God was pleased to Accept them So saith Irenaeus We offer unto God our Goods in token of Thankfulness So Origen By Gifts to God we acknowledge him Lord of All. So the Fathers generally So Emperors and Kings So CHARLES the Great To God we offer which we deliver to his Church in his well known Capitulary and our own Kings have still spoken in this good Old Christian Language We have Granted to God for us and our Heirs for ever that the Church of England shall be free and have Her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable They are the first words of our Magna Charta Her whole Rights and Liberties words of a very large Extent that imply far more than Her Substance and yet these and all these Lands Honours and Jurisdictions all these have been given to God yea and frequently confirmed by the publick Acts of this Kingdom And if Ananias might thus promise yet Rob God I beseech you Sir consider whether England may not do so too For the Second 't is plain in the Text That God did as much take the Temple to be His as He did the Iews Tythes and Offerings these last indeed were His by special and express Law and Command 2 Sam. 7. but the Temple was the voluntary design of King David and the voluntary work of King Solomon Nay God expresly tells David That He had been so far from Commanding that House that He had not so much as asked this Service And therefore St. Paul
Church to another upon emergent Occasions which I think they will not deny if so who knows that the Parliament will transfer them to Lay-Lands They profess no such thing and I hope they will not but continue them for the maintenance of the Ministry I conceive the Bishops Answer would be That it is no Sacriledge to transfer Land from one Church to another but yet there may be much Rapine and Injustice the Will of the Dead may be violated and so Sin enough in the Action Men may be injuriously put from the Estates in which they have as good Title by the Law of the Land as these same Men that put them out To say then that the Church Lands may be totally given up because the Epistler hopes the Parliament will commit no Sacriledge is a pretty way of persuasion and may equally work on him to give up his own Lands because he may as well hope to be re-estated again in that the Parliament will do no Injustice And now Sir having thus observed your Commands yet one thing more I shall adventure to crave your Patience in and 't is to let you know That if this Epistler had been right in both his Conclusions That Episcopacy is not of Divine Right and that Sacriledge is no Sin yet if you cast your Eyes upon His Majesties Coronation Oath wherein He is so strictly sworn to defend both the Episcopal Order and the Church Lands and Possessions you would easily acknowledge That the King cannot yield to what this Letter aims at And though I must needs guess and that the Epistler knew well enough his Juratory Tye yet you will the less blame him for his concealment in this kind because he was not retain'd of the Churches Councel His Majesties Oath you may find published by Himself in an Answer to the Lords and Commons in Parliament 26 May. It runs thus Episcopus Sir Will You grant and keep and by Your Oath confirm unto the People of England the Lavs and Customs to them granted by the Kings of England Your Lawful and Religious Predecessors and namely the Laws Customs and Franchises granted to the Clergy by the Glorious King Edward Your Predecessor according to the Laws of God the true Profession of the Gospel established in this Kingdom and agreeable to the Prerogative of the Kings thereof and the ancient Customs of this Realm REX I grant and promise to keep them Episcopus Sir Will You keep Peace and godly Agreement intirely according to Your Power both to God the Holy Church the Clergy and the People REX I will keep it Episcopus Sir Will You to Your Power couse Law Iustice and Discretion in Mercy and Truth to be exeruted in all Your Iudgments REX I will Episcopus Will You grant to hold and keep the Laws and rightful Customs which the Commonalty of this Your Kingdom have And will You defend and uphold them to the Honour of God as much as in You lieth REX I grant and promise so to do Then one of the Bishops reads this Admonition to the King before the People with a loud voice Our Lord and King we beseech You to pardon and grant and preserve unto us and to the Churches committed to our Charge all Canonical Priviledges and due Law and Iustice And that You would protect and defend us as every good King in His Kingdom ought to be Protector and Defender of the Bishops and the Churches under their Government Then the King ariseth and is led to the Communion Table where He makes a Solemn Oath in the sight of all His People to observe the Promises and laying His Hand upon the Book saith The Things which I have before promised I shall perform and keep So help me God and the Contents of the Book In the first Clause it is plain He makes a promissory Oath to the whole People of England a word that includes both Nobility Clergy and Commons That He will keep and confirm their Laws and Customs And in the second He swears a particular Promise to the Clergy That He will keep the Laws Customs and Franchises granted to the Clergy by the Glorious King Edward And again more plain in the fifth Clause he makes the like promissory Oath to the Bishops alone in behalf of themselves and their Churches That He will preserve and maintain to them all Canonical Priviledges and due Law and Iustice And that He will be their Protector and Defender Where since He swears Protection to the Bishops by Name 't is plain He swears to maintain their Orders For he that swears he will take care that Bishops be preserved in such and such Rights must needs swear to take care that Bishops shall first be for their Rights must needs suppose their Essence And where the King swears Defence it must needs be in a Royal Kingly way Tu defende Me Gladio Ego defendam Te Calamo is the well known Speech of a worthy Churchman to his Prince For sure where Kings swear defence to Bishops I do not think they swear to write Books in their behalf or to attempt to make it clear to their People That Episcopacy is Iure Divino But a King whose Propriety it is to bear the Sword swears to bear it in defence of Bishops For though it be against the very Principles of Christian Faith that Religion should be planted and reformed by Blood yet when Christian Kings have by Law setled this Religion and sworn defence of those Persons that should preach it he ought sure to bear his Sword to defend his Laws and to keep his Soul free from Perjury as well to them as the rest of his Subjects And as by Canonical Priviledge that belong to them and their Churches there must needs be implied the Honour of their several Orders as that Bishops should be above Presbyters c. together with all the due Rights and Jurisdictions And the words Due Law and Iustice cannot but import That His Majesty binds Himself to see that Justice be done to them and their Churches according to Law then in force when He took that Oath And the King swears Protection and Defence that Clause must needs reach not only to their Persons but to their Rights and Estates for He swears not only to Men but to Men in such a condition to Bishops of their Churches And whereas He swears to be their Protector and Defender to His Power in the Assistance of God those words To His Power may seem to acquit Him of all the rest if He fall into a condition wherein all Power is taken from Him But Sir I will prove that a mistake for one of the greatest Powers of the King of England Is His Negative in Parliament so that without Him no Law can be Enacted there since 't is only the Power Royal that can make a Law to be Law So So that if the King should pass a Statute to take away the Churches Lands He protects it not