giveth Let them not deceive men by making a Verbal strife of it If they will call either electing or investing a Giving of the Power I will not contend against their liberty of speaking as unfitly as they list if they will but well explain it But the thing is plain and sure that 1. The election doth but determine of the Receiver 2. and that the Investing act is but a ministerial publick delivery of a Right which resulteth immediately from the Charter or Law of Christ If a Bishop say I ordain you to the office of a Presbyter the Scripture must tell us what that is If the Bishop say Take the office of a Presbyter but preach not or only preach and administer the Sacraments or do both but you shall have none of the Church Keyes or power of discipline it is null as to the restraint There is no contract freer than that between a husband and wife as to the choice of persons And yet when a woman chooseth a man for her husband it is not she that properly giveth him the Ruling power she did but choose the receiver God by his Law is the Giver If she bargain with him that he shall not be her Governour it is null because against Gods Law And so it is in the present case If the power of Ordination and Church Government can be proved to be setled by Christ on the Presbyters either conjunct with the Bishop or alone he that ordaineth a Presbyter by virtue of Christs institution cannot deprive him of that power by his own will and act by saying You shall have no such power For God is the describer and the giver § 14. Yea some would perswade men that the very office of Presbyters is of humane institution As some Papists in the Council of Trent would have had it pass that Christ having made the Pope the Pope maketh the office of Bishops and they hold their power from him so some Prelates would have it believed that Christ only instituted the Order of Bishops and that Bishops made the Order of Subject Presbyters and that after Scripture-times there being none till then existent but the word Presbyter in Scripture everywhere signifying only a Bishop Which those that are against the distinct order of Bishops thankfully accept and say that indeed Subject Presbyters having no ordaining power are a humane invention since Scripture-times and that God instituted no such order But the difference is that these say man had no authority to do it and bid the other prove by what authority it was done and where the Bishops had such power given them to make a new species order or office of sacred Ministers But the other say that it was well done But proof is all § 15. And here come in many other Church-distracting contentions As 1. Whether any Bishops Ordination be valid that holdeth not his Power from the Pope 2. Whether he be a true Bishop that is not Canonically ordained by three Bishops 3. Whether he be a true Bishop that is not chosen or consented to by the people and Presbyters of his Church 4. Or if he have but the minor part the rest not being allowed or called to choose 5. Or if the major part be against him 6. Or if three neighbour Bishops be for him and ordain him Bishop and many more be against it or forbid it 7. Whether he be a true Presbyter that is not ordained by a Bishop of distinct and superior Order And whether an uninterrupted succession of such ordination is necessary 8. Whether he be a true Bishop that is ordained only by Presbyters 9. Whether he may be a true Bishop or Presbyter that hath no Ordination 10. Or he that hath no Election but the Kings or the Patrons nor other proved Consent of the people 11. Whether he be a true Bishop or Presbyter that the King alloweth not or forbiddeth 12. Whether the Ordination of hereticks be null 13. Whether the Ordinations of prohibited degraded or excommunicate Bishops be null Abundance of such controversies ignorance and faction have torn the Churches with § 16. I. As to the first I need not answer it to any but Papists and as to them I and others have said enough that is unanswered § 17. II. As to the second where the Churches agree to take none for a Bishop that is not ordained by three four or more that person cannot be the Bishop of that particular Church which by such agreement doth refuse him Not for want of any thing necessary to a valid ordination but for want of the Consent of the people or subjects that are to receive him For he cannot be their Pastor against their will But the Ordination of One may make a man a Minister in the Church-universal unfixed and to a particular Church if the receivers of him do consent § 18. III. As to the third Election oft signifieth the first determining nomination distinct from after consent This is not necessary to the office or power But Consent is necessary at least to the exercise and therefore to the office which is for that exercise If people were as much under Princes for choosing Guides for their souls as a daughter in her fathers house is under her father for the choice of a husband which yet I never saw proved to be so yet as he can be no husband to her without her consent though she culpably deny consent so is it here he can be no Pastor to them till they consent § 19. IV. and V. In all Societies where consent is necessary the consent must be either of All or of the Most or else they will divide § 20. VI. To the sixth The question of the Validity of the Ordination dependeth not on it but on the peoples acceptance and consent If ten Bishops ordain one man Bishop of a Church and three ordain another to the same Church and one a third as sometimes there have been divers ordained Popes that only is the true Bishop whom the Church which he is to be over consenteth to Other decisions will not serve § 21. VII I will answer this largelier by it self in the third part Here I only say 1. so far as any Ordination is necessary the Ordination of a Bishop is necessary But the question 〈◊〉 what a Bishop is If he be defined by the Power of ordaining alone some think there is no such because by the old Canons the Presbyters were to joyn in Ordination Others think that when none else are there any one Presbyter may ordain alone If he be defined by the Power of Ordaining simply or of having a Negative vote in ordaining the doubt is whether every Presbyter have not Power to ordain as in nature the Propagation of its own species is common to all living things Either Ordination is a Governing act of superiority or a propagation of the species If the later Presbyters may do it If the former then Bishops cannot ordain Bishops as such nor
Arch-bishops ordain Arch-bishops nor Patriarchs ordain Patriaâ—rhs nor any one ordain a Pope And yet of old Deacons and Presbyters were made Popes that were not before so much as Bishops Formosus being the first Bishop of Rome that had been a Bishop before and therefore condemned and executed dead the Canons forbidding any to remove from one seat to another saith Arch-bishop Vsher Jerome ad Evagr assureth us that at Alexandria from the dayes of St. Mark till Demetrius the Presbyters made their Bishop ergo they may make Presbyters They that can do the greater can do the less And Dr. Hammond concluding that there is no proof that in Scripture-times there were any subject Presbyters distinct from Bishops maketh it hard to be proved that there should be any such at all and whether the making of a rank of Presbyters that have no power of Ordination be not a changing of Scripture order and a sin Yet even subject Presbyters made since Scripture-time concurred in ordinations and do partly to this day 2. If a Bishop be described by his actual superiority over Presbyters then saith the foresaid Dr. Hammond there was none in Scripture-times 3. If a Bishop be described by being over a Church compounded of divers Parish Churches or Congregations that have Altars there can none such be proved to be in the world for about two hundred years after Christ besides Apostles and Itinerants whose Province was indefinite and not a particular Church not of long after saving at Rome and Alexandria There was none such when Ignatius's Epistles were written 4. But if the chief or only Pastor of a single Church that hath unum altare yea of a City Church be to be called a Bishop then multitudes now called meer Presbyters have been such Bishops and have ordained And as to a Negative Vote in ordaining that if it were proved it self proveth no distinct order or office but for order-sake a prerogative in the same office The question is yet undecided even among Schoolmen and Bishops whether a Bishop and Presbyter differ only Gradâ— as the foreman from the rest of the Jury or a Justice of Quorum or a chief Judge or Justice from the rest or also Ordine or Specie as a Justice and a Constable Saith Arch-bishop Vsher with Bishop Reignolds and many other Bishops Ad ordinem pertinet ordinare and they are ejusdem ordinis which others deny § 22. But not to anticipate my fuller answer to this case I briefly answer that Gods Law or Charter giving the Ministerial power to the duly qualified receiver no Ordination doth more than to determine with the peoples consent who is the qualified receiver and for the sake of Order and the Churches notice to declare his right and solemnly invest him And God hath not appropriated this declaring and investing power so to their Prelates distinct from Presbyters that I ever found as that the Church should receive none but of their ordination What men decree is one thing and what God ordaineth is another Where an order is setled by men according to Gods allowance and general rules there the people should caeteris paribus receive him that is most regularly commended to them But if they receive one less regularly sent them if he want nothing necessary to the Being of the office he is their Pastor who is so received by them When Justices of the Peace did marry the people in England the Marriage was valid before God as truly as when the Clergy did it The same is a sufficient designation of the Recipient person in some times places and circumstances which is not at others And when the Person is but Determined of and consented to Gods word authorizeth him § 23. VIII The answer to the seventh question serveth to the eighth They were true Bishops whom the Presbyters made at Alexandria and those in the North of England who as Beda saith were made by Scots Presbyters § 24. IX He may be a true Bishop or Presbyter that in cases of necessity hath no Ordination at all much more he that is ordained but by Presbyters The proof lyeth in these things set together 1. As is said Gods Law or charter giveth the right or power to the duly qualified determined and chosen person But in cases of necessity a qualified person may be determined of and chosen without any Ordination Therefore he may have the right or authority without 2. Such necessity there may be in several cases As 1. If by good books men be Converted among Infidels where no Bishop or Ordained Minister can be had They must not therefore forbear Church-assemblies and publick worshipping God and baptizing 2. In case that many Christians be banished or cast upon forraign lands where no Minister is to be had 3. In case that persecutors banish or destroy all ordained men and will suffer no other to come among them or them to fetch ordination 4. In case that all the Bishops or Ordainers turn either hereticks or tyrants and will ordain none but on some sinful terms 5. In case that men living under Bishops do forge Orders and pretend that they are ordained when they are not and the people know it not Their acts now are of full authority or validity to the innocent people though God will condemn the pretender for his sin This case I have oft known my self and in my youth lived under such as was after discovered And the opponents themselves here confess that Presumption may serve turn to the people when they cannot detect it And indeed few people in England know any otherwise than by presumption that their Bishops or Pastors are ordained And if it were true that Presbyters Ordination were null yet when the ordained after great study believeth it valid and the people cannot know the contrary here is a Presumed title both to the ordained and the people that is valid administrations and receptions without ordination § 25. 2. And indeed the like cases prove it by parity of reason Ordination to the Ministry is but like Coronation to a King or publick marriage to Consenters or like listing and the sacramentum militare to a Souldier or like publick authorizing to a Physicion a School master c. and not all so much as baptizing to make a Christian But an hereditary or Elected King is a King before his Coronation and marriage privately contracted and publickly professed is valid before God before the solemnization by a Minister and in case of necessity without it And a Souldier may be truly such by contract without Colours or Oaths And a man may be a Lawful Physicion or School-master in case of necessity without a License or publick authorizing Yea one may be a Christian before God yea and before men that openly professeth and Voweth the Baptismal Covenant though in case of necessity when either a Minister or Water cannot he had the washing be wanting And we are not to feign God to make a difference here without proof or to
is not jure Divino § 22. And some called Presbyterians distinguish between a Worshipping Church and a Governed Church and tell us that the lowest Governed Church should consist of divers worshipping Churches It may sometime contein divers subordinate by-meetings as Chapels for them that must needs be oft absent from the full assembly But that it must have many such or that it must or may have many full settled worshipping Churches that personally communicate still distantly only in their several Parishes is contrary to Scripture antiquity and reason and denyeth the first instituted Church form Thorndikes first books which fetch the reason of Church Government from Assemblies were far truer than his later in which he seemed to dream of a humane universal Policy § 23. Either a Bishop as distinct in Order or Degree from Presbyters is necessary to the Being of a Church of Divine institution or not If not then it may be a Church without such a Bishop and have accordingly the rights of a Church in the proper political sense now intended by the word Church And then the old sayings would not be true 1. Of Ignatius that to every Church there is one Altar and one Bishop with his fellow Presbyters and Deacons 2. Of Cyprian that ubi Episcopus ibi Ecclesia 3. Of Hierome and others Ecclesia eft plâ—bs adunat a Episcopo If yea then 1. Our Parish Priests are true Bishops or else the Parish Churches are no true Churches but Chapels as wanting an essential part 2. And then there are no Churches in England of the lowest species for present Communion c. 3. And then it will be hard to confute them that say No form of Church Government is jure Divino or instituted of God 4. And the form of Government being the specifying form of the policy or Church it will follow that God hath instituted no Churches but the universal as headed by Christ 5. And if you will confess to the Separatists that we have no Churches of Gods institution you will never heal their separation § 24. I am therefore past all doubt that if it can be proved that a Bishop is necessary to every true Church that every Parish should have a Bishop and if Arch-bishops be good and meet the Diocesans should be their Arch-bishops And that deposing the Parish Bishops and Churches is a heinous corrupting crime But if Bishops be not necessary to a Church as such the case is otherwise § 25. It is therefore of great importance that single Churches be neither too great nor too small If too small they will want 1. the honour of fulness 2. and the cheering help of praising God in great assemblies 3. and the mutual counsel and vigilant help of many 4. and the safe guidance of many Presbyters or a Bishop and Presbyters which a few people cannot expect And if it be too great it will 1. hinder the comfort of those that want room in the Church assembly 2. or cause the Church to degenerate into another sort of society It is best therefore that it should be as Great as that all the people who are constant worshippers of God on the Lords days may meet in one place where they have liberty Chapels or lesser meetings being allowed to the aged weak sick or very distant yet all that are able coming sometime to the common Church § 26. The first degenerating of single Churches grew 1. out of the ambition of the Pastors to extend their power as far as they could 2. and out of a desire in the people to see their assemblies as honourable for greatness number and concord as they might 3. and out of a conceit that one City should have but one Bishop and so be one Governed Church And hereupon at Alexandria and Rome they began to have several fixed Chapels in the same City and neighbour villages and the Bishop to send Curate-Presbyters to them as he pleased yet so that at first they communicated frequently in the Bishops Church After that these Presbyters were fixed and gave them the Sacraments where they came After that they were tyed to come to the Bishops Church for communion but at Easter Whitsontide or some great and rare seasons After that they were so many and far off that they were no more obliged to come at all or to hear or see the Bishop but only to be distantly ruled by him and their Presbyters Then many Countrey Parishes got Bishops But the City Bishops disagreeing with them long after got them down § 27. Were it true that every City in the old sense should have a Bishop and but one it would follow that every Corporation or great Town or Borough called Market Towns in England should have one the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying such of old And were it so and the Countrey Parishes adjoyning made Chapels and distributed accordingly to the several Towns it would be like the old state of the Church about three hundred and four hundred and five hundred years after Christ and much better than it is though not as it should be § 28. 9. The remote ends are mentioned in the definition viz. the right worshipping and obeying God the welfare of the Church-universal for the parts all contribute to the perfection of the whole and the glory and pleasing of God are the common ultimate end of all § 29. By all this it appeareth what is necessary to make a particular Church and to make a man a member of it And that it is not necessary hereto that the person be a member of a Compound Church Diocesan Provincial Patriarchial National or Papal whatever it be to some of these on any other accounts Nor yet that he make any unnecessary profession promise or Covenant § 30. But to the actual Communion with such a Church in exercise the nature of the thing maketh it necessary that the people consent and be guided by their Pastor in the circumstances belonging to his office which are necessary in genere to be some way determined but not necessary in specie vel individuo this rather than that For instance They that will have communion in publick worship must meet in some capacious place at some day some hour If any one will not come to that place at that time appointed he separateth from that Communion in that act The Scripture must be read in some Translation some order If any say I will not Communicate with you unless you use another translation another order without verses and Chapters or read some other parts he so far separateth from that Church In singing Psalms if he will not joyn in that Version that Psalm that Tune which the Church useth he so far separateth If he will not hear the Preacher unless he change his text his method or use notes or no notes and so in such cases will not follow but lead he separateth so far for all cannot be leaders and be of one mind But if the Minister
us that they were settled only in One Empire and not in the rest of the World 5. And that the Emperour and Councils of that Empire made them 6. And therefore when they were at first but three they added at their pleasure two more Constantinople and Jerusalem 7. And none of all these pretend to Apostolical Institution and Succession but Antioch that claimeth to be St. Peters first Seat and Rome to be his second and that but as Bishops when that also is a frivolous pretense Alexandria claimeth succession but from St. Mark and Jerusalem from that St. James who saith Dr. Hammond and others was none of the Apostles and Constantinople from none at all though above the rest Councils as Constant and Chalced. professing that the Fathers and Princes made them what they were Sect. IV. It is certain that the Christian World is not now united in Patriarchs nor ever was nor ever will be The Patriarchs of the rest of the Empire are all now broken off from the Church of Rome Constantinople Alexandria Antioch and Jerusalem are all against him The East had four and the West but one and are now at odds condemning each other The rest of the world have none and had none And it is commonly confessed that as men set them up so men may pull them down again Yea even in the old Empire many Churches were from under all the Patriarchs as is commonly known Sect. V. And how should these Patriarchs unite all the Church It must be either by meeting or at distance As for their meeting Princes that are some Mahometans and some Christians of divers Interests and Minds will not suffer it And neither by meeting or distance can we be secured that they will agree when even under one Emperour that laboured to unite them they were among their Clergy like the Generals of so many Armies distracting and at last destroying the Empire by hereticating and persecuting one another Those that have divided and undone that Empire are never like to unite the Christian World Sect. VI. And what I say of Patriarchs I say of all humane Forms of Churches or Church-government and so of such an Episcopacy as is not necessary to the being of the Church There are here three distinct questions before us 1. Whether the Pastoral Office be necessary to Church-unity 2. Whether Parochial Episcopacy be necessary to it 3. Whether Diocesan Bishops distinct from Archbishops be necessary to it And you may adde a fourth Whether Archbishops be necessary to it not disputing now the lawfulness of any of all these Sect. VII 1. Of the first I have spoken before No doubt but Christs universal Church hath ever had Teachers and Pastors as the most noble organical part And a Body may as well be without a Stomack Liver or Lungs as the Church be without them And to a particular Church as political organized or Governed they are a constitutive part But I have before shewed reasons to doubt whether yet it be necessary to salvation to every individual Christian to know that the Ministry is an instituted Office and to own such But this little concerneth our Cause Sect. VIII 2. Parochial Episcopacy that is the preeminence and government of one Presbyter called a Bishop over the rest in every single Church was early introduced to avoid the discord of the Presbyters and the Flock In the time when Ignatius's Epistles were written he tells us That every Church had One Altar and one Bishop with his fellow-Presbyters and Deacons Whether this was of Apostolical Institution or a humane Corruption is disputed in so many Volumes by Petavius Sancta Clara Faravia Whitenitto Downham Hammond Hooker Bilson c. on one side And Gersom Bucer Beza Cartwright Salmasius Didoclane Jacob Blondel Parker Paul Baine c. on the other that I think it not meet here to interpose my thoughts But that it is not essential to a Church and that all the Church will not unite in it appeareth as followeth Sect. IX 1. They are not united in it now The Reformed Churches in France Belgia Helvetia and many other parts are against such Bishops as necessary and a distinct Order And in England Scotland and Ireland New-England c. they are by some approved and by others not 2. Former Ages have had many pious Christians against them especially in Scotland and among the Waldenses 3. The School-men and other Papists are not themselves agreed whether Bishops and Presbyters are distinct Orders 4. The Church of England even while Popish denyed it and said they were but one Order as you may see in Spelman Aelfreds Laws or Canons 5. Hierome and Eutychius Alexandrinus tell us how and why Episcopacy was introduced at Alexandria and that the Presbyters made them there 6. The Scots were long governed without them as Major and Beda tell us And their Presbyters made the first Bishops in Northumberland as Pomeranus a Presbyter made those in Denmark 7. Almost all the Churches in East and West as far as I can learn have cast off Parochial Bishops of single Churches and in their stead set up Diocesans over multitudes of Parishes without any Bishops under them but Curats only 8. While there is no hope of all agreeing whether it be a Divine Institution and that of essential necessity there is no probability that ever the Universal Church will unite in them 9. The Diocesans we find will never yield to them 10. The reception of them will not unite the Church were it agreed on it being more and greater matters that they differ about I confess that the ancient reception of them was so general and the reason of the thing so fair that I am none of those that accuse such Episcopacy as unlawfull or Schismatical but rather think it conduceth to prevent Schisms But 1. I am satisfied that it will not be agreed to by all 2. Nor serve for universal Concord were it agreed on 3. And that it is Schismatical to make them more necessary than God hath made them and to cut off Christians or Churches that cannot receive them Sect. IX Diocesan Episcopacy by which I mean a single Bishop over many hundred or score Parishes and sacred Assemblies that have Altars and are large enough to be single Churches or at least Many such without any Bishops under him of those Churches will much less ever unite the Universal Church however it hath obtained over very much of the Christian world For first more Churches by far at this day are against it than against Parochial Episcopacy and more Volumes are written against it and Men have a far greater aversness to it as more dangerous to the Church Sect. X. 2. It is contrary to the Scripture Institution which set up Bishops in all single Churches whether the same with Presbyters I now dispute not but they were such as then were received And those that think such Single or Parish or City Bishops necessary will never agree to put them all
down Sect. XI 3. They turn all the Parish-Churches into Chappels or meer parts of one Church and Unchurch them all in the judgment of those that take a Bishop to be essential to a Church And all will not agree to Unchurch all such Parishes Sect. XII 4. It maketh true Discipline as impossible as is the Government of so many score oâ— hundred Schools by one Schoolmaster or Hospitals by one Physician without any other Schoolmaster or Physician under him but Ushers and Apothecaries which all Christians will not agree to Sect. XIII 5. It is contrary to the Practice of the Primitive Churches and casteth out their sort oâ— Parochial Bishops as I have elsewhere fully proved 1. From the Testimonies of many such as that oâ— Ignatius before cited 2. From the custom of choosing Bishops by all the People 3. And of managing Discipline before all the Church 4. By the custom mentioned by Tertulliâ—â— and Justin Martyr of receiving the Sacrament onely from the hand of the Bishop or when he Consecrated it 5. By the custom of the Bishops onely Preaching except in case of his special appointment 6. In every Church the Bishop sate on a high Seat with the Presbyters about him 7. The Bishop onely pronounced the Blessing 8. Many Canons after when the Churches grew greater command all the People to be present and communicate with the Bishop on the great Festivals These and many more Evidences prove That in the Primitive Times the Bishops had but single Churches and every Altar and Church had a Bishop Sect. XIV 6. The very Species of the old Churches is thus overthrown and the old office of Presbyters therewith which was to be assistant Governors with the Bishop and not meer Preachers or Readers And all these Changes all Christians will not agree to Sect. XV. 7. Especially the sad History of Councils and Prelacy will deter them from such Concord when they find that their Aspiring Ambition and Contention hath been the grand Cause of Schisms and Rebellions and kept the Church in confusion and brought it to the lamentable state in East and West that it is in Sect. XVI 8. And constant Experience will be the greatest hinderance As in our own Age many good Men that had favourable thoughts of Diocesans are quite turned from them since they saw Two thousand faithful Ministers silenced by them and that it is the work of too many of them to cast out such and set up such as I am not willing to describe And such Experience After-Ages are like to have which will produce the same effects When Experience persuadeth Men That under the name of Bishops they are Troublers Persecutors and Destroyers they will account them Wolves and not agree to take them for their Shepherds It will be said That Good Bishops are not such It 's true and that there are Good Ones no sober Man doubteth But when 1300 years Experience hath told Men That the Good Ones are few in comparison of the Bad Ones ever since they had large Dominions and Jurisdictions And when Reason tells Men That the worst and most worldly Men will be the most diligent seekers of such Power and Wealth and that he that seeketh them is liker to find them than he that doth not and so that Bad men are still likest to be Diâ—cesans And when the divided scattered persecuted Flocks find that the work of such Men is to silence the most conscionable Ministers and to be Thorns and Thistâ—es to the People though they wear Sheeps cloathing Men will judge of theâ— by their fruits and the Churches will never be united in them Sect. XVII 9. The greatest Defenders of Episcopacy say so much to make Men against them as will hinder this from being an uniting course I wiâ—l instance now but in Petavius and Doctor Hamâ—â—d who followeth him and Scolus who saith 〈…〉 Clara led them the way These hold That the Apâ—stâ—â—s setled a Bishop without any subject sort of Presbyters in every City and single Congregational Church And Doctor Hammond Annot. in Act. 11. Dissertat adversus Blondel saith That it cannot be proved that there were any subject Presbyters in Scripture-times but that the word Presbyter every where in Scripture signifieth a Bishop And if so 1. Men will know that the Apostolical Form was for every Congregational Church to have a Bishop of its own 2. That no Bishop had more setled Congregations than one For no such Congregation could worship God and celebrate the Sacrament of Communion as then they constantly did without a Minister And one Bishop could be but in one place at once and so without Curates could have but one Assembly 3. And Men will be inquisitive By what Authority Subject Presbyters and Diocesan Bishops and Churches were introduced after Scripture-times in which they will never receive universal satisfaction If it be said that the Apostles gave Bishops Power to make a subject order of Presbyters and to turn Parish or Congregational Churches into Diocesan and so to alter the first Forms of Government when they were dead this will not be received without proofs which never will be given to satisfie all Nay it will seem utterly improbable and Men will ask 1. Why did not the Apostles do it themselves if they would have it done Was not their Authority more unquestionable than theirs that should come after If it be said that there were not qualified Men enow it will 2. Be asked Were there not like to be then greatest Choice upon the extraordinary pouring out of the Spirit 3. Do we not find in Corinth so many inspired gifted persons in one Assembly that Paul was put to limit them in their Prophecying yet allowing many to do it one by one And Acts 13. there were many Prophets and Teachers in Antioch And at Jerusalem more and at Ephesus Acts 20. and at Philippi Phil. 1. 1 2. there were many Bishops or Elders And such Deacons as Stephen and Philip c. would have served for Elders rather than to have none 4. Doth not this imply that after-times that might make so great a change may also do the like in other things 5. And that Diocesans and subject Presbyters be but humane Institutions and therefore Men may again change them 6. Doth it not dishonour the Apostles to say that they setled one Form of Government for their own Age which should so quickly be changed by their Followers into another species All these things and much more will hinder Universal Concord in Diocesans Sect. XIX Yet I must add that there is great difference between Diocesans both as to their Government and their Persons whence some Churches may comfortably live in Concord under them though 〈◊〉 be divided and afflicted under them 1. Some Diocesans have Diocesses so small that Discipline is there a possible thing Others as ours in England have some above a thousand some many hundred or score Parishes which maketh true Discipâ—â—â— impossible 2. Some Diocesans exercise
we relieve not Beggars otherwise But if the Parishes through Poverty or Uncharitableness neglect them the Law of Nature bindeth us to relieve them rather than see them perish All Laws for the meer Ordering of any Duty suppose that the Duty must be done and that as tendeth to its proper end and not that on pretence of Order it be undone If the Coronation of a King be not performed regularly he is King nevertheless by Inheritance or Election and he is King before his Coronation Marriage is valid before God by mutual consent before the Matrimonial Solemnization and where this cannot be had it is no Duty If a Priest would not marry Persons unless they will make some unlawful Promise or do some unlawful thing it is lawful and may be a Duty to marry themselves declaring it publickly to avoid Scandal unless the severity of the Law of the Land do accidentally make it unlawful And in some Countries the sinful course of Priests may make this an ordinary Case And no reason can be given but that here it may be so Sect. XI Many Cases may fall out in which no Ordination by Imposition of Hands or present Solemnity may be necessary to this Office 1. In Case a Company of Christians be Cast upon a remote Island where no Ordainer can be had and yet some of them are qualified Persons It is sinful for them to forbear Gods Publick Worship therefore they must choose the fittest person to perform it viz. Preaching Prayer Praise Baptizing and the Lords Supper And that Election sufficiently designeth the person that from Christs Charter shall receive the Ministerial Power and be obliged to the Duty if he consent 2. In Case the Person be remote and the Ordainers and he cannot meet or Persecutors or Tyrants or other Accidents hinder their Meeting he may be Authorized by Letters without any other Ordination It is well known that this hath of old been practised and Bishops have sent such Letters of Ordination to those absent Persons that have fled from Ordination and so made them Bishops And it being but the designation of the recipient Person on whom Christs Law shall confer the Office that they have to do there is no reason to be given why they may not do it effectually by writing 3. In Case that Death or Persecution hath left none to Ordain that are within reach of the Person to be Ordained If Ordination by Diocesanes were ordinarily necessary yet in those Kingdoms or Countries where there is none it cannot be had as in New-England and lately in Britain in Belgia Helvetia and other Countries Some may say You ought to go for it though as far as from America hither and to seek it Beyond the Seas and in other Lands or stay till it may be had But I answer 1. In some Countries the Governors will not suffer Diocesane Ordination 2. Words are soon spoken but to sail from America hither and that for every Man that is to be Ordained is not soon done some have not health to bear it at Sea some have not money to pay for the Voyage charge 3. It is a sinful loss of a Years time in which they might do God much service 4. A Years Voyage by Sea to and fro may hazard their Lives and so frustrate all their end 5. Some Princes and States forbid their Subjects to be Ordained in Foreign Lands as we forbid Romish Ordination lest it draw a Foreign Power on them 6. It is not lawful to deny God his Publick Worship and our selves the benefit by so long delay 7. It is contrary to the temper of the Gospel which ever subjecteth Ceremony Rites and External Orders to Morals and to Mans good and the great Ends. 8. And it is a wrong to the honour of the Divine Nature for Men to feign that the Great Wise and Merciful God layeth so great a stress upon a Ceremony or Rite or outward Order as to damn Souls and deny his own Worship where it cannot be had 4. And this Ordination is not necessary in Case the Ordainers be grown so wicked or heretical as that they will ordain no good and orthodox Men but only such as are of their own sinful way 5. And in Case the Ordainers require as necessary any one unlawful thing Subscriptions Profession Vow or Practice If any say That God will never permit us to fall under such Necessities they must prove it and Experience disproveth it Sect. XII And if in all such Cases no Ordination be necessary much less is Diocesane Ordination necessary in all Cases and Places As 1. In Countries where no Diocesanes are or are near 2. In Countries where they or their Ordination is not endured by the Governors 3. In Countries where the People being in judgment against it will have no Pastor so Ordained It is not better to have none at all 4. In Countries where Wars do hinder it 5. When the Diocesanes themselves will not venture to Ordain for fear of suffering for it 6. In Countries where the Bishops are so corrupted that they refuse all that are truly fit 7. Or where they refuse all whom the People either choose or will consent to and the Bishops and People cannot agree on the same Man 8. Or wherever the Diocesanes impose unlawful Covenants Promises Professions Subscriptions Vows Oaths or Practices without which they will not Ordain On some or other of these accounts a Romanist would not be Ordained by a Greek or Protestant or Armenian c. and a Greek or Protestant would not be Ordained by a Papist supposing something to be unlawful 9. But when a Parochial Bishop may be the Ordainer in such Cases the Validity will not be denied by most Episcopal Divines 10. And it is truly as valid in such Cases when 1. Senior Presbyters 2. that are authorized by the Magistrate 3. especially that are chief Pastors in Cities and have Curates under them do Ordain though some deny to call them Bishops 11. As the Erastians think that the Christian Magistrate may design the person by the Peoples consent without any other Ordination so Musculus and some other Protestants think that a fit person designed by the Magistrate and accepted by the People need not question his Call to the Office And it 's hard to disprove them 12. If the Opinion of many Papists and Protestants hold true That a Bishop differeth not from a Presbyter in Order or Office but in Degree as the Foreman of a Jury or the President of a Synod 〈◊〉 Colledge or Council of State c. then I see no reason but the Magistrate may make a Bishop of a Presbyter as he may make a President of a Colledge or a Mayor of a Corporation For then the difference being but in the Accidents of the Office and the King being Governor of the Church as far as the Sword is to govern and specially the determiner of meer Accidents and Circumstances circa sacra why may he not
Rector of the Bishops under him and their people but only the Orderer or Guide of the Modes and Circumstances of the Council as such And therefore could the Pope prove a right to preside in General Councils orbis Romani vel orbis terrarum which he cannot it were no proof that he is Regent Head of the Church universal The same I may say of the other Presidents § 13. If it hold that God instituted only Congregational or Parochial Churches as for present Communion then it must needs follow that none of the rest instituted by man have power to deprive such single Churches of any of the Priviledges granted them by Christ And therefore whereas Christ hath made the terms of Catholick Communion himself and hath commanded all such to worship him publickly in holy Communion under faithful Pastors chosen or at least consented to by themselves which many hundred years was the judgement of the Churches no humane order or power can deprive them of any of this benefit nor disoblige them from any of this duty by just authority § 14. Nay seeing that the universal Church is certainly the highest species none hath authority on pretence of narrower Communion in lower Churches to change Christs terms of Catholick Communion nor to deprive Christians of the right of being loved and received by each other or disoblige them from the duty of loving and receiving each other Humane power made by their own contracts cannot change Christs Laws nor the Priviledges or forms of Christs own Churches § 15. They that say that these several Church species are of God must prove that God instituted them and that can be only by Scripture or else that he gave some power to institute them since Scripture times which till they prove none are bound to obey them at least when they over rule Christs own institutions § 16. To devise new species of Churches without Gods authority and impose them on the world yea in his name and call all dissenters schismaticks is a far worse Usurpation than to make and impose new Ceremonies or Liturgies § 17. Dr. Hammond Dissert cont Blond Annot in Act. 11. pass affirmeth that it cannot be proved that the order of subject Presbyters was existent in Scripture times and consequently holdeth that Bishops had but single Congregations as Ignatius speaketh with One Altar Now if Diocesans Metropolitans Provincials Patriarchs or Pope as constitutive of Church-species were made after either these new Churches were made by the Bishops of Parochial Churches or by those that were No Bishops or Pastors of any Churches at all For the Apostles were dead and no institution of these but Scriptural can be truly proved And other Churches besides the Catholick and Parochial or single distinct from a compound of Churches there were then none For the lower to make the higher Churches is that which they will not grant who grant not that Presbyters may propagate their own species and deny that power ascendeth ab inferioribus And that men of no Church made all these new Church species is no honour to them § 18. Two contrary opinions herein now reign One of the Papists that think Christ instituted the Pope with power to make inferiour Church species That other is that Christ or his Apostles instituted Diocesans giving them power both as rulers to make Parish Churches or Chapels under them and by Contract or Consent to make the highest species over them Provincial National Patriarchal and say some Papal But as to the Papists so much is said against their supposition that it 's not here to be confuted And it 's certain that single Church order was constituted by no Pope and that all the Apostles had power thereto And as for the latter which affirmeth the lower degrees to make the higher we still want the proofs of their authority so to do of which more afterwards § 19. As for them that say that it is Magistrates that have power to make new species of Churches I grant them that whatever alterations of Church-Orders may be made Magistrates may do much in them The Power of Princes and the Guidance of Pastors and the Consent of the people have each herein their special place But what these alterations or additions are which they may make is the chief question Both the Catholick Church and single Church assemblies being instituted by Christ are not left to them The circumstantiating of other Assemblies and Associations are left to them to be done according to Gods general Law But that making new Political Societies that are properly called Churches or Religious bodies consisting of the Pars regens pars subdita is left to them by Christ I never saw proved any more than the making of new Sacraments But if that could be proved yet that these humane Churches or their makers may change those that are of Divine institution or deprive them of their priviledges or forbid them commanded duty cannot be proved § 20. And it is certain 1. That if Princes or Bishops or the people did institute Diocesan or Metropolitan Provincial or Patriarchal Churches they may yet make more and other species And who knoweth how many new forms of Churches we may yet expect 2. And they that made them upon good reason may unmake them or alter them when they please § 21. But though the Legislator and not the Subjects be the institutor of the Vniversal and particular Church-policies yet men are the constitutive matter and mans consent and faith is the dispositio materiae without which the form is not received and mans welfare is part of the final cause and Ministers are the instruments and Gods word written and preached for the gathering of Churches by such qualification of the persons and also of revealing the Institution of Christ and investing of particular persons in their Church-relations § 22. By all this it appeareth that as it belongeth to Christ to institute the political species of Churches though circumstantiating may be left to man at least undoubtedly of the Vniversal and of the single species so it belongeth to Christ and not to man to institute and describe their terms of Union For this is the very institution of the species And we are not to receive humane Church-policies without good proof of mens authority to make them and impose them CHAP. XI The danger of the two extreams And first of despairing of any Concord and of unjust Tolerations § 1. SOme men having seen the Christian world so long in Sects and contending parties do think that there is no hope of Vnity and Concord and therefore that all should be left at liberty And others think that there is no hope but on terms so wide as shall take such as Christ receiveth not nor would have us receive And on such accounts there were very early great contentions about the qualifications of the baptizers and baptized and the validity of baptism and about re-baptizing As to the Baptizers some thought
lay more stress or an outward act of man and point of order than he doth § 26. 3. And as to the Nature and Use of the thing Order is for the sake of the thing ordered and the persons for whose good it is And therefore not to be set against them § 27. 4. And Christ himself hath oft taught us this way of judging When he bids us Go learn what this meaneth I will have mercy and not sacrifice And when he oft reproveth Jews and Samaritans for striving about circumstances setting them against spiritual worshipping of God And when he saith The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath And Paul when he saith All things are yours whether Paul or Apollos and Let all be done to Edification All which tell us that the End is a certain Canon to the means and to be preferred and that Morals must be preferred before Rituals and Rituals never set against them And methinks they should be of this mind that deny the Scripture to have unchangeably fixed all Rituals and yet confess that Morals are fixedly determined § 28. 5. And even Popes have been taken for Popes upon Election before Consecration And Arch-bishops with us have no superiours to Consecrate them but such Inferiours as promise them obedience at their own Consecration § 29. X. To the tenth question There be some called Erastians who hold the King to be so mixta persona like Melchizedeck as that he is also the chief Priest and hath the chief power of Ordination and that he might administer the Sacraments if he would and that his Appointment is an Ordination which the people are bound by reception of the person to consent to There are others that think that though the investing act must be performed by a Bishop yet he is bound by the Kings choice and command to do it as a Minister of God and the King But as I never saw either of these well proved so very few comparatively receive them and therefore they will never unite the Churches And Christs giving the power of the Keys himself to the Apostles and their Successours in the Ministry seemeth to me to contradict them Sure I am that Christs Church hath not thus been founded or edified And yet Magistrates have a great and honourable part even in the Government of the Church I speak not for all those Popish Councils and Canons which nullifie all Ordinations of Bishops either chosen or presented by Civil Rulers or Great men that are Secular nor of those that pronounce even a Pope an Usurper that is so introduced But of the Councils and practice of the sounder ages that were still against this 2. However if Clergy and people were proved to be bound to Consent to whomsoever the Prince shall choose yet till they do consent he is no Bishop to them You may could that be proved prove them culpable for not consenting but not prove him their Bishop as the Scripture and all Church custome and Canons and Reason shew § 30. XI To the eleventh case I answer That the Priests or people sin who disobey a lawful command of the King and not otherwise But sin or not sin it nullifieth not the Ordination or Priesthood meerly that it is against the will of the Prince All the Bishops and Priests in the world or most were made against the will of Princes for three hundred years And Christ gave the Keyes to other hands § 31. XII and XIII To the twelfth and thirteenth cases I answer together If a heretick whose denyal of an essential of Christianity is notorious and maketh him equal to an Apostate ordain his Act is null as without all authority And the mans Priesthood or Episcopacy is null if he have not a sufficient cause and proof of it besides or without this The same I say of one excommunicate for such a cause But if the Heresie be only a schism or some lower errour consistent with Christianity and Priesthood or the excommunication only on such a cause then the ordination in sensu passivo is not null meerly on that account that it was done by such a heretick or excommunicate man As is commonly agreed on But yet if this Bishop or Presbyter be ordained by a heretick or excommunicate man of a lower order to this or that particular Church caeteris paribus the people may see reason to refuse him and consent to another that hath a better ordination unless in a Church so corrupted that the Ordainers and Excommunicators authority is not to be regarded and help up which hath too oft faln out But regularly none ought to ordain a man to any Church before the election or consent of the flock though it may serve ad esse officii if the consent come after But if three Bishops ordain one man to be Bishop of such a Church and three others ordain another to the same that is the true Bishop quoad esse which the Church to which he is ordained doth accept by their consent before or after Yea though it were the worser party of Bishops that ordained that man § 32. As to the point of successive-right-ordination uninterrupted from the Apostles I hope afterward in due place to prove that to the Church universal such there hath been de facto in all the necessary parts But that to any particular Church or any individual persons ministry such uninterrupted course of ordination in being notice or proof is utterly unnecessary and that the Papacy hath no such to shew § 33. To conclude To the Being of the true Relation of a Bishop or Presbyter is necessary only 1. The Subject which is a Qualified Christian man sufficiently notified and offered 2. The Fundamentum Relationis Christs Law or Charter giving him his power and obliging him to his work 3. The mutual consent of Pastor and flock in the Relation to a particular Church is partly Dispositio subjecti and partly as it is Gods means a modus fundandi or conditio tituli 4. The Terminus of one ordained to the gathering of Churches sine titulo or not to any particular Church is objectively first men unconverted to be called and next men converted to be edified and as Effects the work to be done and the good to be done by it And in those ordained to particular Churches it is the work and the effect on them 5. The Correlate is 1. Christ to whom we are related as his Ministers as the efficient of our office 2. The people to whom we are related as the end and that 1. we are Ministers to the world to be converted 2. To the Universal Church to be edified 3. and mostly to particular Churches to be guided 6. The Relatum then is such a person Authorized and obliged to Teach Worship and Rule under Christ the Prophet Priest and King of the Church the foresaid flocks or Christians to the foresaid ends § 34. II. So much for what is necessary to the Being of the sacred
member of the universal Church who is not a member of some particular Church 23. That none are in the universal Church who are not the subjects of Diocesan Bishops 24. That a man not baptized by one that hath Ordination from a Diocesan Bishop is no member of the universal Church 25. That a member of the visible Church cannot be certainly known because it cannot be known what is essential to a Christian seeing it depends on the sufficiency of the proposal of truths which cannot be known of many or most XVII Of Gods worship preaching and Ministers and his day 1. That there are more Gods than one and several Countreys may worship their several Gods 2. That if we keep our hearts to God we may bow down before Images as Idolaters do 3. That it is not necessary that we actually love God above once a year or once a month or week at most 4. That if we fear Gods wrath and love one another we may be saved without any other love to God 5. That no higher Love to God is necessary than to love him for our selves and others as a Benefactor and means to the Creatures good 6. That Gods word is not to be trusted as infallibly true 7. That because God will be spiritually worshipped outward bodily worship is not necessary to spiritual persons 8. That he that loveth trusteth and serveth God so as yet he loveth trusteth and serveth the flesh and the world and sinful pleasure more prevalently may yet be saved without more 9. That outward worship without inward love and holiness may serve to Salvation 10. That we may give Divine worship to Angels or glorified souls or to the Cross or Images 11. That if prayer move not or change not Gods will it is needless to use much prayer 12. That it is lawful to require the people to pray and praise God in an unknown language instead of words which they understand and such prayer and worship they must preferr or use if the Pope or Bishops command it 13. That any man may make himself or become a Pastor or Teacher of the Church in office who thinketh himself fit without mans election or ordination 14. That none are true Ministers of Christ who are not sent by the Bishop of Rome or some authorized by him or ordained by such 15. That no Ministers are owned as such by Christ nor are the Sacraments administred by them valid that are not ordained by Diocesans or by such as had an ordination themselves by an uninterrupted succession from the Apostles down by Diocesan Bishops or a Canonical succession 16. That all Ministers ought to cease preaching the Gospel and all Churches or persons publick worshipping God who are forbidden by the Pope as some say or by Bishops as others say or by the King or Magistrate as others 17. That it is sinful for Presbyters to preach say some or to pray say others publickly in any other words save those that are written down for them or prescribed by the authority either of Pope Council Bishops or Civil Magistrates 18. That it is sinful to instruct the people or to pray to God or praise him in a form of words premeditated or prescribed by any other or agreed on in Councils 19. That it is sinful to joyn with any Pastor who speaketh any unlawful words in preaching prayer or other ministration 20. That it is unlawful to hold Communion with any Church where scandalous sinners are present or are tolerated members 21. That men may lawfully change the essential or integral parts of Gods commanded worship by diminution or additions of the like 22. That spiritual men are not bound to be members of particular Churches or put themselves under the guidance of any Pastors 23. That all the people are bound to believe all that to be Gods word which the Bishop or Priests tell them is so 24. That the people are bound to do in Gods worship whatever Bishops or other Rulers command them without examining and judging whether it be agreeable to the Law of God 25. That Pope Bishops or Priests can forgive sin even as to the punishment in another life by immediate pardoning power in themselves and not only by preparing men for pardon and offering and declaring it and delivering it ministerially by application from Gods word and in order hereto judging who are capable of Consolatory and Sacramental applications 26. That God pardoneth in heaven all that the Priest pardoneth on earth though erroneously and by mistake 27. That God will condemn to hell all that an erring or malicious Pope Bishop or Priest condemneth 28. That it is lawful to separate from and disown Communion with all parties of Christians differing in things not necessary to Gods acceptance except that one party which we judge to be rightest or allowed by the higher powers 29. That the first day of the week was not separated to Divine worship in commemoration of Christs resurrection by the Spirit of Christ in his Apostles or is not to be observed to that holy use any more than any other day 30. That it is lawful to swear unnecessarily and to use Gods name lightly and vainly in our talk 31. That perjury is lawful for our safety or in obedience to man 32. That Popes Councils or Bishops can dissolve the obligations of our Vows to God or Oaths of fidelity to Princes though the matter be lawful and good and otherwise God dissolve them not 33. That all Oaths and Vows are to be interpreted as not binding us longer than it is for our commodity or safety 34. That we may take Oaths imposed in words whose common sense is false or sinful though not otherwise expounded by the imposer because in charity we must suppose always that our Rulers mean nothing against Gods word or their own or the peoples good 35. That it is unlawful to break any Vow or Oath which was unlawfully imposed on us by man or unlawfully taken by our selves though the matter of it be good or lawful 36. That no Vow bindeth us to that which we were bound to before That all Vowing is sinful and all swearing when lawfully called for the attesting truth and ending strife XVIII Of our duty to our Rulers and Pastors and their duty 1. That Christianity so nullifieth all natural and civil relations or obligations that Children subjects and servants owe nothing to Parents Rulers or Masters but what they are bound to in meer justice and gratitude to them as benefactors or by voluntary consent and promise 2. That Parents owe nothing for their children but bodily provision and not to educate them in Godly and Christian doctrine and practice 3. That Princes may seek their own pleasure and wealth against the common good or above it 4. That they may lawfully make war upon neighbour Countreys only to enlarge their power or dominions or satisfie their pride passion or wills 5. That they or Bishops may fine imprison banish or put to death all
us the Britains rejected them and the Scots would not eat or converse with them The Abassine Empire was never under them nor those of India and Persia And the Councils in which they had the first seat were but of one Empire as is after proved And as for the first three hundred years under Pagan Emperours their own Writers confess the Church of Rome was little set by that is it had no governing power over the rest nor is there any pretence to think they had The first that talk'd very high was Leo the first who called himself the Head of the Catholick Church But by Catholick was then meant usually the Churches in the Empire only and by Head he meant the prime Bishop in order but not the Governour of all Nor was his claim if he meant any more approved by the Churches in that Age. Though the Council of Chalcedon highly applauded him and his Epistle as an advantage to carry their Cause against Dioscorus who had excommunicated the Pope and took him for the prime member of their Council yet they thought meet in their Canons to declare that it was but by humane mutable right in the Roman Empire Let them shew us if they can when and where the universal Church on Earth ever subjected themselves at all to the Pope Much less can they bring any pretense of it for the first three hundred yeas Had they any Meeting in which they agreed for it Did they all receive Laws Ordination or Officers from Rome or from its Emissaries If we were so foolish as to believe that his precedence in General Councils was a proof of the Popes Monarchy yet it 's easie to prove 1. That for 300 years there was no General Council 2. And that it was not the Pope that presided at Nice 3. And that those Councils were but Imperial and not truly Universal But if all the Church ever had been subject to the Pope as being at first except Abassia almost confined to the Roman Empire it doth not follow that it will ever be so again when it is dispersed into so many Kingdoms of the World The Jesuites at first were all under the King of Spain and the Mahometans at first all under one Prince but they are not so now Is it likely that ever all Christian Mahometan and Heathen Kings will suffer all their Christian Subjects to be under the Government of a Foreign Priest But their own Writers agree that the Apostles at first were dispersed into many Countreys besides the Roman Empire and that Ethiopia was converted by the Eunuch mentioned Acts 8. initially its like before Rome and fullyer by St. Matthew And you may see in Godignus Alvarez Damianus a Goez and others full evidence that they were never Subjects to the Pope of Rome I conclude then 1. That Rome is not owned this day as the head of Unity by all Christians 2. That it never was so taken for the Governing and Uniting Head 3. And that the reason of the thing fully proveth that it never will be so I may adde that indeed it is not known among themselves who are the consenting Subjects of the Pope or Members of their Church It is indeed Invisible or a Church not knowable For 1. They are not agreed nor ever like to be what is the essential qualification of a Member of the Church Or what that Faith is that must make a Member Some say it must be the Belief of all the Creed explicitely others of some few Articles others that no more is necessary ad esse than to believe explicitly that God is and that he is a Rewarder of good works and to believe that the Church is to be believed Of which see Fr. a Sanct. Clara in his Deus Natura Gratia 2. And their forcing men into their Church with Tortures Fire and Sword leaveth it utterly uncertain who are Consenters and who are in the Church as Prisoners to save Limbs and Life And if they ever recover England Scotland Ireland Germany and the other Reformed Churches it must be by the Sword and Warrs and Violence and never by force of Argument And if they should conquer us all which is their hope and trust it will not follow that men are of their minds because they cannot or dare not contradict them no more than because they are dead Experience Reason and Scripture then do fully prove to men that are willing to know the truth that the Universality of Christians will never be united to the Roman Papacy Yea that this Papacy is the greatest of all Schisms 1. By setting up a false Head of Union and 2. By cutting off or renouncing three parts of the Christian World even all Christians except the Subjects of the Pope CHAP. V. The Vniversal Church will never unite in Patriarchs or any other humane Form of Church-Government Sect. I. WHether or how far such Forms may consist with Union is a Question that I am not now debating any further than shall be anon intimated by the way But that they will never become the Bond of Union or be received by all and that to make any such thought Necessary to universal Unity is Schism I am easily able to prove Sect. II. And this needeth no other proofs than what are given against uniting in the Papacy in the former Chapter As 1. Patriarchs and other humane Institutions being not of God but Man the whole Church can never unite in them 1. Because they will never all agree that any men have true Authority given them by God to make new Church-Officers and Forms that shall be necessary to the Unity or Concord of the Church Universal 2. They will never agree who those men are that God hath given such power to if they did suspect that such there are A Prince hath no Power out of his Dominions 3. They will never agree that if man made such Forms or Offices they may not unmake them again if they see cause or that their Acts bind all their Posterity never to rescind or change them 4. They will never find that all the Christian World ever agreed herein and so in all Posterity is obliged by their Ancestors 5. Much less will any ever prove that the Institution was Divine Sect. III. If any say that the Apostles settled this Form by the Spirit the Universal Church will never believe it For 1. No Scripture saith so 2. No true credible History saith so 3. If the Apostles settled Patriarchs it was either as their own Successors or as a new Office And it was either by joynt consent or man by man each one apart But 1. Had they settled them as their Successours they would have settled twelve or thirteen But there were but five settled at all besides some new petty Patriarchs as at Aquileia when they cast off Rome 2. No Writer tells us of any meeting of the Apostles to agree of such a Form 3. No nor that ever they settled them 4. History assureth
the Church Keys of Excommunication and Absolution only themselves Otheâ—â— delegate them to Presbyters and thereby tell the People that Presbyters are capable of them Others which is the Case with us in England do commit them to Lay-Chancellors who Excommunicate and Absolve by Sentence commanding a Priest to publish it 3. Some Diocesans may if they please allow the Parish-Priest to be Episcopus Gregis and to exercise so much of his true office in his Parish as shall keep up some tolerable Purity Order and Discipline themselves receiving Appeals and being Episcopi Pastorum 〈◊〉 this is rare I know none such But they leave the Parish-Priest no power so much as to suspend his own Act in administring Baptism or the Eucharist or pronouncing decreed Excommunications or Absolutionâ— when it is against his Knowledge and Conscience no though the People profess that they take him not for their Pastor or Guide at all or refuse to speak with him in case of Ignorance suspected Heresie or Scandal 4. Some Diocesans are learned good and holy Men and set themselves to promote Godliness and encourage the best Ministers such we have had in England as Grindall Jewel Usher and many more excellent Men. But others in jealousie of their places power and interest suspect and set themselves against painful Preachers and strict Men especially if they dissent from them and take them for dangerous Enemies and persecute them and countenance the ignorant Rabble to strengthen themselves against them So that particular Concord will be promoted by some Diocesans but Universal Concord will never be so attained by them Sect. XX. There are many Learned Divines who think that Forms of Church-Government are mutable and not necessary to all times and places and that as Prudence may change other Rites Circumstances and Orders so it may do this And some Papists are of this mind Read Card. Cusanus de Concordia and Gorson de Auferibilitate Papae And the Italian Bishops at Trent were for the dependance of Bishops on the Pope as the Maker of their Order or Giver of their Power And if so it is not capable of being necessary to Catholick Unity which may it self be changed And most Protestants and Papists hold that Men may turn Diocesan Bishops again into Parochial if they saw cause And all confess that Man may set up Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in every City which in the old sense was in every great Town like our Corporations or Market-Towns which is greatly different from the Roman or the English or the French or the Italian Diocesses Sect. XXI Yea there are very Learned Divines that think no Form of Church-Government is Jure Divino or of Divine determinate Institution so though Doctor Edward Reynolds late Bishop of Nâ—rwich and Doctor Stillingfleet doth not only think so himself but hath cited great and many Patrons of that opinion and brought a great many of Arguments for it in his Irenicon Be these in the right or wrong no Man of this opinion can believe any one Form of Government necessary to the Unity of the Church or fit to be the terms of Universal Concord And it is certain that some will still be of their opinion besides those that account Diocesans unlawful CHAP. VI. The Vniversal Church will never unite in General Councils as their Head or as necessary to Vnion Sect. I. THose that are not for the Absolute Sovereignty of the Bishop of Rome over all the World do yet many of them think that they are very moderate Men if they hold but the Superiority of Councils above the Pope or limit the Popes power to the advice and consent of Councils taking them to be necessary to Unity But the contrary is very easily proved much more their insufficiency Sect. II. 1. It is certain that the Church had Union before there was any General Council The first at Nice was 310 years at least if not more after the Birth of Christ There is none pretended to be before that by any judicious men They that instance in the Consultation of the Apostles Elders and Brethren at Jerusalem Acts 2. may easily see reason to convince them that those were but the Apostles Elders and Brethren that were ordinarily then resident at one City and Church And such as pretended not to be Governours of all the Apostles Elders and Brethren who then were absent about the world The Popes and his Cardinals may say they are a General Council but who will believe them These at Jerusalem were not sent from all the Churches but one of the Churches sent to them as fittest to advise them and as being men most certainly and eminently inspired by the Holy Ghost It 's true that Christ and his Apostles had a Governing power over all the Church And if they will impose on us no other sort of General Councils as so necessary but such as have such office power and infallibility and dwell together in one house or place and are not sent from other Churches as their Representatives and can prove such a Power we shall submit to such a Council Pighius hath said enough of that Novelty and against the Governing power of General Councils That which was not essential to the Church 310 years is not so now Sect. III. 2. If General Councils be the necessary means of Union it is either for their Laws or their Judgment and it is either past Councils or present ones or both 1. If it be the Laws of past Councils then one Council that can make Laws enough at first may serve without any After-Councils And if it be enough that there have been General Councils why is not the Church united by them Then it is no matter if there never be any more And why may not Christs own Laws serve for Church Union 2. But if it be present Councils that are necessary for Laws or Judgment then the Church is now no Church without them Sect. IV. 3. There is now no General Council in the world and yet the Church hath essential Union Nay as it is long since there was one in their own account so we know not whether ever there will be more the Interest of the Pope being against it Sect. V. 4. The great disagreement that is about Councils in the Christian World proveth that they can never be the terms of Universal Agreement 1. It is not agreed who must call them 2. Nor out of what Christian Countries they must come whether all or but some and which the Papists saying that three parts of Christians may be absent or have no right to send being Hereticks or Schismaticks and others think Papists to be Hereticks Schismaticks and Antichristian 3. Nor what Number are necessary to make a Council 4. Nor in what Countrey they must meet 5. Nor what their work is 6. Nor what Power they have 7. Nor how far they are to be believed 8. Nor which are to be taken for approved Councils and which not 9. Nor
what to do if they contradict each other or the Pope or the Scriptures 10. Nor whether any more Councils be necessary than what are past already But the Papists themselves hold That they are not the stated Head or Governing Power of the Church else there were now no Church because there is no General Council but as a Consultation of Physicians in extraordinary 〈◊〉 of the Churches maladies Sect. VI. 5. It is certain That the Univerâ—â—â— Church was never united in their subjection to Councils yea that even at the greatest Councils called General at Nice Constantinople Ephesus and Chalcedon and the rest there were not Delegates from all the Churches without the Empire nor did they all subject themselves unto them yea it is certain That there never was an Universal Council of the Church throughout the World but that they were onely called General as to one Empire and so were but as National Councils This I have elsewhere proved at large in my Answer and Reply to Johnson for the Churches Visibility 1. By the names that did subscribe the Councils One Johan Presidis at Nice is an Exception there easily answered 2. Because the Roman Emperor called them whatever Papists say against it to the Ignorant who had no power but of the Empire 3. Because no Summons was sent to any much less to all out of the Empire as History acquainteth us 4. They were all under the five Patriarchs and the Metropolitanes of the Empire The Abassines subjection to Alexandria was since the revolt of Dioscorus 5. We read of no Execution of their Canons out of the Empire by either casting out Bishops or putting them in 6. Theodoret giveth it as the reason why James Bishop of Nisibis was at the Council of Nice because Nisibis then obeyed the Roman Emperor and not the Persian Hist. Sanct. Pat. cap. 1. 7. The Emperors oft decided their differences and set Civil Judges among them to keep order and determine and corrected them and received Appeals and cognisance of their proceedings All which and more prove evidently that they were but Universal as to that one Empire â—ay rarely or never so much and not as to the world Sect. VII It is probable if not certain that there never will be an Universal Council unless which God forbid the Christian Society should be reduced to a small and narrow compass when we are hoping its increase For 1. The differences who shall call them and the rest before named are never like to be agreed 2. Turks Heathen and Nations in War against other or hating Christians will never all consent and suffer it 3. The jealousie that Christian Princes have of Papal Tyranny will never let them agree to send their Subjects to it The Case of the Abassines Greeks Armenians Moscovites Protestants c. proveth this 4. The distance is so vast that the East and West Indians and Ethiopians cannot come so far to answer the Ends of a General Council 5. Should they attempt it their Number must be so unproportionable to the nearer parts that it would be no true General Council to signifie by Votes the Churches sense 6. They could not all meet and consult in one room if they were truly Universal 7. They could not all understand each other through diversity of Language 8. Their present difference and old experience assureth us that they would fall altogether by the ears and increase the Schism 9. They would not live to get home again so far to bring and prosecute the Concord 10. The People and Priests at home would not agree to receive them Sect. VIII Yea it is certain that it would be a most heinous sin to call a true Universal Council worse than an hundred Murders For 1. If young Men came in no just proportion it would but mock the world and prepare for Heresie or Tyranny If experienced aged Men came from America Ethiopia Armenia c. and the Antipodes the Voyage and Labour would murder them 2. Their Losses would be unspeakable to their Churches 3. Yea their absence so many years would be to their Churches an unsufferable loss 4. The benefits were not like to countervail the loss if they did not hurt by differences or error or tyranny it will be a wonder Sect. IX The sad History of Councils too fully proveth that they have been so far from being the causes of Concord and Preventers or Healers of Schisms that they have been one of the most notorious causes of division and distraction Having proved this in a peculiar Treatise A Breviate of the History of Bishops and Councils I must not here repeat it The Council of Nice did best But as Constantine was fain to keep Peace among the Bishops in person and burnt their numerous Libels against each other so wise men think he might another way have better suppressed Arianism and prevented the many contrary and divided Councils which this one did by one word occasion and have prevented the Persecutions which Valens and Constantius exercised And had the time of Easter been left at liberty perhaps it had as much made for Peace What the first Council at Constantinople did the sad Case and sadder description of Gregory Nazianzene tell us whose character of the Bishops not Arians as some talk should not be read without tears by any whence he learned the danger of Councils and resolved never to come to more What all the Bastard Councils did at Ariminum Sirinium Alexandria Milan c. I need not tell And what Schism and Bloodshed was occasioned by the first and second Council at Ephesus yea what streams of Blood Desolation Schism and many Ages deplorable enmity and confusion were caused by the Council of Calcedon I need tell no one that hath read Church History It is true indeed that the Nestorians and Eutychians were condemned in these and the Mâ—nothelites in many following But whether mutual understanding might not have made a better end I appeal to a Thousand years experience and to the nature of the Heresies there condemned which seem to be much formed in and by ambiguous words which a good Explication might have better healed than Anathema's and Bloodshed Of this I spake before and often The Nestorians said that Mary was not to be called the Mother of God but of Christ The Orthodox said the contrary when the Orthodox never meant that she begat the Godhead and the Nestorians never denied that she begate him that is God Where then is the difference but in words one speaking of the Abstract Deity which the other never meant The Nestorians were charged with holding two Persons in Christ instead of two Natures which yet Nestorius plainly denieth but Cyril charged it on him by consequence because he refused the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on the foresaid account thinking that denomination a ratione formali is most apt And it seems one took Nature in the same sense as others took Person meaning the same thing The Eutychians asserted
Stones or a Wife of a Male â—orma non recipitur nisi in materia disposita As he that must profess Physick or Philosophy or Law or Grammar or Musick must be tolerably qualified to do what he professeth or else he is but equivocally called a Physician Philosopher Lawyer Musician c. whatever Title Licence or Commission he hath so is it here Sect. VI. 3. God hath told us in Scripture that these special qualifications are Christs own Gifts conferred on Men for the work of the Ministery Ephes 4. 8 9 10 c. 1 Cor. 12. And that the qualifying Men thus is Gods calling them to the Office and the Holy Ghost is said to set them over the Church by his special Gifts Sect. VII 4. But for preserving Order and avoiding Usurpation God hath described how these Qualifications shall be discerned and judged of which is called the External Call which is 1. That the Person shall discern them in himself viz. competent Faith and Knowledge Willingness and Desire and Ability for utterance and practice For he that thinketh not himself capable cannot consent and he that consenteth not is no Minister But no Man is to be the sole Judge of his own fitness else the most self-conceited would be the Invaders of the Office 2. Therefore the Senior Pastors are ordinarily to try them and judge of their fitness and by Ordination invest them by delivery with the power 3. The Peoples need of them must make them capable of the Correlation and their consent is necessary to their Reception For no Man can be a Teacher to those that will not hear nor a Pastor to those that consent not to take him for their Pastor Sect. VIII 5. The Person râ—câ—ipient being truly found and determined of Gods own Law doth of a self give him his Power and Oblige him to his work As it is not left to the Ordainers to judge whether the Churches shall have Pastors or nene or what the Power and Works of the Office shall be nor what Qualificaâ—ons shall be necessary to reception but only to discern who are the Men that God chooseth and maketh most receptive and so to discern Gods Will which is the Person and declare it and invest him so it is not the Ordainer nor People that have the Office or Power to give to him that they ordain and choose but it resisteth directly from Christs concession in his Law As a Woman chooseth her Husband and the Minister celebrateth Marriage for Order sake but Gods Law giveth the Husband his power over the Wife And as in a Corporation or City the King by his Charter saith Every Year on such a day such Persons shall Choose a Man thus qualified to be their Mayor and the Recorder shall swear him and invest him and I hereby grant him thus Chosen and Sworn such and such Power and Command him to do thus and thus Here the Electors do but determine of the qualified recipient Person and the Recorder invest him but his Power ariseth immediately from the Kings Charâ—er And if the Choosers or Invester say it shall be more or less or other it is null that they say and shall not infringe or change his Office Sect. IX Now it is supposed that if a point of Order be omitted If the Election day by Fire or Plague or War be overpast If the Recorder be dead or refuse his Office that this doth not totally Null the Charter One chosen a week after in case of necessity may have the Power Or if that Years Election should hereby be made void the Charter is not void but will the next Year authorize the Person chosen Interruption will not hinder this And if one that had not a just Election or Investiture should intrude this Year the Charter will authorize the next notwithstanding Or if the Recorder that invested the last was an Intruder the next may yet be truly authorized Or if the Charter were that every former Mayor shall invest the next it would not hinder a Succession if a former had usurped For the Charter still reviveth it and is supposed to appoint such means as are sufficient if a circumstance fail So is it in the present Case If a Bishop were an Usurper conterfeiting his own Ordination or if a Presbyter pretend himself a Bishop or to have Ordaining Power when he hath not or if an unjust Choice be made the next Man hath still a due way of entrance yea and want of such a point of Order when it is not fraudulently contemned or refused Nulleth not the Office Power Order is for the thing ordered and for the common good and not to be pretended against it If the Pharisees that sate in Moses Chair were to be heard and the High-Priests that were then unlawfully called out of the true line and buying the Office of the Romans for money were to be submitted to in their Office much more a Christian Pastor truly qualified by God and chosen by the Flock and approved by Senior Pastors though there were some point of Order wanting Sect. X. Yea in case of necessity were there no Ordination but just Qualification and Election it wouâ—d not nullifie the Office nor hath God promised that no place shall fall under such necessity For Christ hath taught us That He will have mercy and not sacrifice and that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath and Paul and Apollo are for the Church And as in Physick or Soldiery or Reâ—â— of the Poor that must be done by the Law of Nature which cannot be done according to all the Points of an Ordering Law of Man so is it here It is meet for the safety of Mens Health that none practise Physick but a Licensed Physician But in Cases of Necessity when Physicians are wanting every one that hath skill may use it and an able Man may be a Physician unlicensed rather than see Men perish whom he may help It hath been my own Case In a great and poor Town where was no Physician came an Epidemical Plurisie had they been neglected most had dyed Necessity constrained me to advise them and they all recovered Thereupon their Poverty and Importunity constrain'd me to practise Physick many Years only gratis and God by it saved the lives of multitudes should I think in this case of Necessity that I sinned because I took not a Licence which resolving not to continue the Practice I could not do So I have known some skill'd in Law that have help'd many by Council though they were no Lawyers So none may take up Arms as a Soldier without the King's Commission But in case Traytors and Rebels suddenly endanger King and Kingdoms or Enemies invade the Land every Man is a Soldier by the Law of Nature which also enableth every Man to defend his Life Purse House Parents Neighbors against Thieves and Murderers The Law of the Land ordereth That the Poor be kept by the Parishes from Begging and that
Communion 9. This cannot be from God but by a continued Succession of persons orderly receiving Authority from those who had Authority to give it them viz. Bishops from those first times of the Apostles to ours at present 10. That the Holy Ghost is the Instituter of this Order and to violate it by administring without such Ordination is to sin against the Holy Ghost the Sin that hath no other sacrifice and promise of pardon 11. That the Ordained have no more or other power than the Ordainers intend or profess to give them 12. That it is certain that the Bishops of all former Ages intended not to give Presbyters power of Ordaining or Administring out of their Subjection Ergo they have it not Sect. XXI This and a great deal more to this purpose is his matter To gather all the Confusions Contradictions and Absurdities of that wordy Volume would be tedious and little profitable to the Reader only these three things in general I tell such as may be in danger of infection by it 1. That he never agreeth with his Adversaries of the state of the question nor so much as explicateth the terms nor doth any thing beseeming a Disputant to make himself understood 2. That not only by denied false Suppositions he maketh all his Discourse useless to the Nonconformists but also at the first giveth them their Cause and confirmeth them 3. That while in his Preface he disowneth Popery it is the very sting of their Argumentation which he useth And that which yet by consequence overthroweth not only the Churches Ministery Sacraments and Salvation of the Protestants but of all Christians on Earth and of none more certainly than of the Papists All which I undertake when called to prove Sect. XXII It were tedious to mention all his ambiguous confounding terms For a few 1. He that layeth so great a stress on Episcopacy never tells us what he meaneth by a Bishop when he ought to know that with the chief of his Adversaries the Controversie is very much in that For as Grotius de Imper. Summ. Pol. and many others they take the chief Pastor of every Parish-Church especially that hath Curates under him for a Bishop at least if he be Pastor of a City or Town so called of old 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when others deny him to be a Bishop that hath not many Altars or Parishes under him 2 Some take him for a Bishop that is but the prime Presbyter or different from the rest but Gradu non ordine call'd Episcopus Praeses And others deny him to be one unless he differ Gradu as another Officer in specie 3. Some take him to be a Bishop that hath no Presbyter but Deacons under him and that in a single Assembly as Doctor Hammond on Act. 11. Dissertat Others deny him to be one that is not over Presbyters 4. Some take him to be no Bishop that is not elected or consented to by the people and the Clergy if there be any Others hold him to be one that hath the consent of neither but only the Pope or the Archbishop or the King electing and imposing him and some Bishops consecrating him 5. Some hold him to be no Bishop unless three Bishops Consecrate him Others say one may make him Bishop 6. If three Bishops Consecrate one and 〈◊〉 another he tell◠〈…〉 that Church 〈…〉 see examine◠〈…〉 Church against 〈…〉 Sect. XXIII 〈…〉 repeateth the necessity of being in an 〈…〉 by it when he must need◠〈◊〉 that th◠〈◊〉 or definition of it is the very first point of 〈◊〉 between us and the Papists By the tenor of his discourse the Reader may suspect that he meaneth some Universal Society of Men on Earth under some one visible humane Head either Monarchical or Aristocratical or Democratical a Sovereign who is â—ersona Civilis and Pars Impâ—rans Constitutiva But if so Protestants we at least deny any such thinking this the prime essential difference between us and the Papists the second being whether the Pope or his Council be this Head and he never tells who this supposed Head is So he frequently talketh of necessary Communion with a particular Church and never tells us what he meaneth by it Nor can I gather often whether he means a Diocesane Church or a Provincial or a National But I perceive that he meaneth not a Parochial when yet he knew that the Adversaries take those for particular Churches Sect. XXIV 1. So he oft talks of the necessity of Successive Canonical Ordination and never defineth either Ordination or Canonical Ordination when he must know that some take Imposition of Hands to be essential to Ordination and some deny it and hold that Letters may do it on the absent besides other differences 2. And some take those to be obligatory Canons which others contemn as of no authority The Papists are not agreed what Canons are valid And the Dissenters and this Disputer are not agreed in England Many besides Dr. Heylin say That the Popes Canon Law is yet in force in England except some Particulars that were cast out Others believe not this what is said against the Authority of the English Canons I will not recite 3. And some take it for Canonical Ordination if it be done by one Bishop and Presbyters Others say No unless by three Bishops 4. Some say it is not Canonical without the Clergies and Peoples Election or Consent as aforesaid and others find it necessary to their Cause to deny this Sect. XXV He calls Men oft to Catholick Unity and never tells us what it is or how it may be known Abundance more such Ambiguities make his Disputes to me unintelligible Sect. XXVI Or if he be to be understood in these and such like then he goeth all along by a begging of the questions which are denied 1. He should have rather proved than taken it as granted that those are not Bishops whom we hold to be such 2. And that it is not the Visible Church which we take for such 3. And that it is not a Particular Church which we take for such 4. And that it is no Regular Ordiâ—â—tion which we take for such 5. And that it is no Catholick Unity which we take for such And so of the rest Sect. XXVII 2. He supposeth that there is but one Episcopal Communion in the places where Men live or never tells us if there be divers Bishops which it is whose Communion is so necessary when he knoweth that Grotius thought that of old Churches were formed in imitation of the Synagogues and that one City had divers Churches and Bishops as well as divers Synagogues And Dr. Hammond thought that Rome Antioch and other Cities had two Churches and Bishops one of Jews and another of Gentiles and that Peter and Paul had two Churches at Rome And he knoweth I suppose not only that there were Novatian Bishops in the same Cities with the Orthodox but that oft and long Constantinople Antiâ—ch
Alexandria and many other places had two at once by their Divisions but none of them so long as Rome But perhaps he taketh it to be enough to Catholicism or the Validity of Ordinances if we be subject to the species of Bishops and so to any one that is Consecrated rightly or wrongly and so that in Schisms both are true Bishops But lest he deny this I will spare to recite its Consequents Sect. XXVIII 3. He in his Preface and all along supposeth That no unlawful thing is 〈…〉 the Nonconformists as necessary to their Ministry or Communion which will as much satisfie them as if he had told them That Lying Perjury Covenanting deliberately against Gods Precepts and for the corrupting his sacred Doctrine Worship Order and Discipline are lawful things Did he ever hear them and confute their Reasons Sect. XXIX 4. In short he never proveth but beggeth 1. That when Gods Word describeth the Sacred Ministerial Office yet the Ordainers will and words can alter it 2. That the chief Pastors of particular Churches even Cities that had all of old their several Bishops are not true Bishops unless Men purpose them to be so in Ordination 3. That Presbyters who ordain with Bishops may not in cases of necessity ordain without them or if they do it is a nullity 4. That in Cases of Necessity Ability Consent Election and Opportunity may not design the person that shall receive authority and obligation directly from Gods Law without other Ordination 5. That any Church on Earth can prove an uninterrupted Succession of Canonical Ordination by Bishops themselves so ordained 6. That such a Succession is necessary ad esse Officii 7. That the Covenant of Grace secureth not true penitent Believers of Pardon and Salvation where they cannot have the Sacrament 8. That the Sacrament is null as to Mens Pardon and Salvation if the Priest be not truly called or have not successive Episcopal Ordination 9. That if a presumptuous Title as â—e saith may yet make all valid when Men seem Episcopallâ— dained and are not Whether able godly Men ordained by such like City Pastors or Presbyters in a Synod and chosen by Religious People and solemnly dedicated to Gods Ministery in the face of the Congregation have not a better presumptuous Title than notorious ignorant and vicious Men that say they were ordained by a Bishop when their Orders were forged of which sort there have been many 10. Whether he can prove that it is not Anabaptistry to baptize all again that are baptized in the Reformed Churches that have no Diocesanes 11. Whether he abuse not Gods Word and Churches in feigning all such Reformed Churches to live in the Sin against the Holy Ghost for serving God without a Succession of Episcopal Ordination 12. Why is it that I cannot intreat him to answer Voetius de desperata Causa Papatus that hath long ago confuted Jansenius a far stronger Adversary than he Nor my Dispute of Ordination Twenty Years ago written and yet unanswered when I tell him we have not leisure to write over the same things as oft as Men provoke us to it Sect. XXX I will now cast before him these following Notes 1. What proof hath he of Sacraments besides Sacrifices before Abraham's days And was there then no pardon of sin 2. Were Women damned that were not circumcised Or were the uncircumcised Children in the Wilderness none of the Church 3. Were not Infants in the Covenant of Grace before Circumcision entered them into the Covenant of Israels peculiarity 4. Why did Abraham think there had been Fifty righteous persons in Sodom And in every Nation he that feareth God and worketh righteousness is accepted of him Acts 10. 5. Though Sacraments under the Gospel convey greater benefits can he prove that it placeth greater necessity of them than the Law did 6. Seeing Christ was not baptized till about thirty years old was he not Holy and the Churches Head before 7. Can he prove that the Apostles were ever baptized Or were they not before true Christians 8. The Apostles had not the Lords Supper till near Christs death and yet had part in him before 9. Was Paul of this Mans mind that said He was not sent to baptize but preach and thanked God that he had baptized so few 10. Is not that Promise true That whoever believeth shall not perish but have everlasting life and that the pure in heart shall see God c And will want of a Sacrament then frustrate all 11. He presumeth to say That God is obliged to make good the Sacraments of those that have but a presumptuous Ministery seeming to have Episcopal Ordination when they have not And is not the reason as strong from the Peoples impossibility of avoiding the danger when they can have no Sacraments or none but from Ministers that had not Episcopal Ordination 12. What if the Succession have been interrupted long ago in Armenia Egypt Syria or elsewhere Are all damned that were born since Or which way shall particular persons there remedy it they cannot send to Europe for Ordainers 13. If Laymen as Frumentius and Edesius convert persons in India are they all damned that dye after Conversion for want of an ordained Priest and Sacraments 14. If Baptism give the first sanctifying Grace then none but unholy persons are to be baptized and that is impenitent unconverted Infidels or wicked men 15. It is confessed that the Lords Supper is for Confirming Men in the Faith they had before And are not both the Sacraments of the same general nature one to declare and confirm our initial Faith and the other our progressive 16. The Sacraments are to Christianity what Solemn Matrimony is to Marriage which is valid before God upon private consent but is necessary for order and preventing Fornication to satisfie Men ouâ— Church Title ordinarily depends on Baptism but God knoweth and accepteth heart consent 17. God saith Else were your Children unclean but now are they holy 1 Cor. 7. 14. Therefore it is not the Sacrament that first maketh them holy And the seed of the Faithful have such Promises as we make good against the Anabaptists 18. Children may dye before they can be baptized and are they by that natural necessity damned 19. If a Man live where the Priests will not baptize or give the Lords Supper but on condition that we profess some falshood or commit some sin as in the Church of Rome Must we commit that sin or be damned for want of the Sacrament 20. Doth not this lay a necessity upon all the Protestants in Italy Spain France Austria Batavia Portugal yea Mexico Peru c. to leave their Countries and travel to some Land where they may have Sacraments without sinful Conditions and may have it from Men of right successive Ordination And how shall all these be able so to travel And where will they find that Land on Earth that will answer their expectation and can and will receive them