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
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
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
Presbyters chose the Bishop and the Bishop and people consenting chose the Presbyters III. The Magistrate was judge whom he would countenance or tolerate But Gods Law was the Rule which all these were to observe in judging § †But all men are corrupt and some more than others And they like those best that are likest themselves or at least most agreeable to their interest and desires This chain hath been long broken sometimes the Bishop of Rome hath claimed the choice of Bishops and given the Bishops the choice of the Presbyters sometime he hath given the people the choice of their Bishops but claimed to himself the power of investing and instituting them Sometime Emperours and Kings have used this investing power leaving still the people to choose In England now the King really chooseth all Bishops commending them to the Dean and Chapter pro formâ And the Bishop only chooseth whom he will ordain a Minister in specie And one called the Patron chooseth who shall be the Parish Priest and the Bishop must institute and induct him but according to the Law and the choosing and consenting liberty is wholly taken from the people § 5. 1. How the Popes formerly chose and yet choose where it is in their power I need not tell them that know history and the world nor yet what Presbyters such Bishops chose nor is it any wonder that such choosers served their own interest nor that the chosen serve it 2. How Princes and Patrons and Prelates have chosen history tells us And Christ who saith How hard it is for the Rich to enter into the Kingdom of heaven teacheth us to expect that ordinarily Rich men should not be the best to speak softly And the Rich will rule and will choose according to their interests and their appetites 3. And when the people had their choice in some places they chose hereticks or ignorant men In other places they chose vitious men In most places they followed the Court or Great men whenever they interposed and too often divided from each other by disagreement or caused tumults in the choice And then what wonder if the sacred office was corrupted to the doleful detriment and danger of the Churches when the choosers were but such as these § 6. The things necessary to the sacred Ministry Bishops or Presbyters are I. Either to the Being II. Or to the Well-being III. Or to the Exercise § 7. I. To the Being are Necessary I. A true efficient cause II. The true constitutive causes III. A due Terminus or End § 8. I. The true efficient cause here is necessary to the effect it being the Fundamentum of the Relation And this is 1. Primary or Principal which is Jesus Christ the Lord Redeemer and the Churches King and Head 2. Instrumental and that is The Law of Christ which is as a Charter to the Church first telling the Choosers and receiver what to do and then Giving the Power and Imposing the Obligation on the person chosen consenting and ordained § 9. II. The necessary Constitutive Causes are I. Matter or the subject II. The necessary Disposition of that Matter III. The form as in Physical beings it is so so Relations have somewhat answerable § 10. I. The Subject or Matter is A Man II. The necessary Disposition is 1. That it be a Male and not a Woman 2. That he have the use of Reason or natural wit and speech 3. That he be a Christian 4. That he have necessary abilities for the essentials of the office-work And those are 1. The understanding at least of the Essentials of Religion and Ministry 2. A Will to perform the work of the Ministry 3. Ability of utterance to do it and all the necessary executive power § 11. III. The Form of the Office is 1. In general AUTHORITY and OBLIGATION conjunct 2. In special Authority to perform the Office-work and obligation to perform it Which work is 1. To be a Teacher under Christ the chief Teacher 2. To be a Priest or Intercessor to guide the Church in worship and speak in their name and on their behalf to God and intercede for them and as from God to administer his Seals or Sacraments 3. To Rule the Church and particular Believers in things spiritual not by force or sword but by opening and directive applying Gods Word and exercising the Church Keyes as Judges who is to be received or cast out loosed or bound according to the Word of God The Form consisteth of these parts § 12. III. The End or Terminus of the Sacred Office that is of the Authority and Obligation is 1. Proximately the Work to be done 2. the necessary objects of that work 1. Particular persons 1. Infidels and ungodly men to be converted 2. Christians and godly men to be edified 2. Societies 1. The Churchâ—Universal to be increased and edified 2. Particular Churches to be taught and guided and led in worship and discipline 3. The necessary effects here named to be intended All that I have named and no more is necessary to the Being § 13. About all these there are divers errours brought in by the arrogance and ignorance of men which hinder the concord and peace of Christians And I. About the Efficient Cause Too many falsly perswade the world that the ORDAINERS are the efficient Causes of the Power or Office yea that their Intention can alter the species instituted by Christ in the conveyance of it to this or that person As if when Christ and his Apostles have described the office in its parts and commanded that a Bishop or Presbyter be chosen and ordained to such particular work and ends an Ordainer might now give him half this power without the rest And when he maketh Bishops or Presbyters they shall have no more power than the Ordainer was willing or intended or did particularly express Than which nothing is more false For it is Gods Law that is the specifier and donation and the Ordainer doth but ministerially invest and deliver possession of what the Law gave and commanded him to deliver The Kings Law or Charter giveth power to the Citizens to choose a Major and describeth all his power and work and ordereth the Recorder to Swear him and deliver him the insignia Here now 1. The Electors do but determine of the person to receive the power but do not at all give it 2. The King by his Charter as the instrument giveth it It results hence as every Jus à titulo seu fundamento juris 3. The Recorder only Ministerially delivereth possession by investiture Now if the Recorder or Choosers shall say We choose you or deliver you power as Major according to the Kings Charter but you shall have but so much less than the Charter giveth this diminution is a nullity For they have no power to choose another kind of Major than that described in the Charter nor to make his power more or less but he may exercise what the Charter
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
set one Presbyter in degree above the rest Did not all the strife of Emperors for the power of investing Bishops signifie this much against the Popes opposition Both sides granted that the People and Clergy were to be the Choosers of a Bishop And it was the old Canon that no Bishop should remove from Seat to Seat so that only Presbyters and no former Bishops were made Bishops of any particular City or Deacons or Subdeacons sometime at Rome By which it appeareth that the Emperors power of Investiture amounted to a Negative voice in the making of a Bishop The Kings of Israel sent Levites to teach the People and Solomon chose who should be the High-Priest And when the Romans after sold the Office Christ bids the cleansed Lepers Go and shew themselves to the High-Priest and offer c. Sect. XIII The Case of the Reformed Churches nullified by the Papists and whose Ministers Office and Authority is denied by them is as followeth I. The old Bohemians and Waldenses had different degrees of Pastors of which the Superior were called Conseniors and Seniors of one Order who presided among the Elders but took not the Government of the Flocks out of their hands nor ruled without them and were chiefly above others in judging what Elders or Ministers were to be removed from lesser places to greater whose Form of Government most like the Ancients you may see at large in the Descriptions of Lascitius and Commenius II. The Churches called Lutherane Denmark Sueden Saxony c. have for the most part some Episcopacy called Superintendency but their Bishops take not the power of the Keys from the Pastors of the several Parishes And they take not the power of Ordaining to be proper to the Bishops For the Bishops of Denmark were made such by Bugenhagius Pomeranus a Presbyter which they suppose doth null their Successive Power And the English have Diocesane Bishops and Ordination by them and as good a Succession at least of Regular Ordination as Rome hath had III. The Churches called Presbyterian in Holland France Scotland and other Countries have Ordination by a Synod of the Pastors of particular Churches of which some are the chief Pastors of Cities and have Curates or assisting Presbyters and therefore are such Bishops as the Scripture Ignatius Tertullian yea and Cyprian describe so that 1. They think that as in Generation a Man begetteth not an Ape or Dog but a Man and an Horsâ— begetteth an Horse and every thing propagateth its own species And as Physicians make Physicians and Lawyers make Lawyers c. So Pastors make Pastorâ— as far as belongeth to an Ordainer that is preparing and determining the Receiver whom God shall give the Power to and oblige to the duty of that Office 2. But yet in the same Order they think they have a true Episcopacy as to degree first in the foresaid City Pastors that have Curates secondly in the President of the Synod 3. And they think that those Writers Papists and Protestants are in the right who expound the word Presbytery which laid hands on Timothy of a Session of Presbyters and therefore that such have power to Ordain 4. And they think that if after their faithfullest search they should in this be mistaken against their wills God will not therefore disown their Churches Ministry and Worship no more than he will reject the Prayers of private Christians for their Errors and Imperfections IV. Those that at present are called Nonconformists in England who were about 2000 Ejected and Silenced Anno 1662. Aug. 24. 1. Many of them yea most that were above 44 years old were Ordained by Bishops of whom I am one 2. The Generality of the rest lived when by the Rulers that had such possession as they could not resist Diocesane Ordination was forbidden and another set up and we heard not of five Bishops in England that did Ordain and hardly knew how to procure it of these And the Oath of Allegiance might have cost both the Bishop and the Ordained their Lives or Liberties at least in the Times of Usurpation 3. They were Ordained by a Classis or Synod of Ministers of whom some were chief City Pastors that had Curates which saith Grotius de Imper. Sum. Pol. were a sort of Bishops and they had a President 4. Some were not satisfied with this and were secretly Ordained by the deposed Bishops 5. Some desired Confirmation of their Ordination aforesaid by the Synods from such Bishops as owned it and had it from Bishop Usher at least of others I am uncertain 6. The Generality of them that had any Parsonages or Vicarages or any endowed Cures in England from the Year 1646 till the time that the Westminster Assembly was Dissolved had a formal authorizing Instrument of Approbation from the said Assembly or National Synod chosen by the Parliament of which the Catalogue in their Ordinance sheweth us that divers Bishops were by the Parliament chosen Members If any or all refused to be there the Countrey Ministers knew not that but justly took them to be parts of the Synod And though this was not an Ordination by Imposition of Hands they supposed that it was as valid to authorize them as the Acts before-mentioned of some ancient Bishops who ordained absent Men. And the main Body of the late Ejected Ministers very few excepted were thus called confirmed approved and put in having also the Consent or Election usually of the Patron and the People and the then Rulers Sect. XIV And there were many that in those Times were only Ordained Deacons and took the Synods Letters of Approbation for the substance of an Ordination to be Presbyters but wanting the Formality submitted to Diocesane Ordination when the Diocesanes returned of whom Dr. Manton was one Yea divers submitted to be Re-ordained by the Diocesanes that had been Ordained Presbyters before This is the Nonconformists Case except some few Independents that were not for formal Ordination at least so much as the rest yet even of them such as had Benefices in Anno 1646 1647 1648 had the Synods Approbation Sect. XV. To all this I must add That by the Diocesanes Silencing multitudes of those Ministers whom the most Religious accounted the most able holy powerful Preachers in the days of Queen Elizabeth King James King Charles I. besides the 2000 Silenced in the beginning of King Charles II. the People that were most serious in matters of Religion were except a few so alienated from the Diocesanes that most of the stricter Religious Sort would not choose a Minister that was for them and their Ordination and so it would have made a more dangerous Schism than was made Sect. XVI And as to the present state and practice of the Nonconformists premising that I speak only of meer Nonconformists as such and not Men of other Principles and Parties that Conform not as Jews Turks Socinians Papists Familists Quakers c. let it be understood 1. That they take all the Parishes
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
that only Priests should baptize none appropriated it to Bishops some thought Lay-men might baptize in case of necessity and some thought that women also might do it And some thought that though women or Lay-men might not do it lawfully yet factum valet being done such should not be re-baptized And some thought that those that were baptized even by Priests that were Schismaticks or as they called them Hereticks when they separated from common Concord and Communion must be rebaptized And they thought that if they were baptized in such a Schismatical or Heretical society by whomsoever it was not into the true Church In this case Cyprian and the African Bishops with Firmilian and his Collegues were in the wrong when the Bishop of Rome was in the right And the Donatists thought they were but of Cyprians mind For it seems they had there the greater number of Bishops And the greater number went for the Church and the less for hereticks and so they called themselves the Church though out of Africa the number against them or that meddled not in the quarrel was far greater And all this arose but by the contests of two men for the Bishoprick of Carthage some following one and some the other § 2. This errour of Cyprian and the Donatists arose 1. from their not sufficiently distinguishing the Church universal from the Associated Churches of their Countrey nor well considering that Baptism as such is but our entrance into the universal Church and not into this or that particular Church 2. By an abusive or equivocal use of the name Heretick their doctrine being true of Hereticks strictly so called who deny in baptizing any essential part of Christianity but false of Hereticks laxly so called that are only Schismaticks or deny only or corrupt some lower doctrines precepts or practices of Religion § 3. Therefore the Council of Nice truly decided the case by distinction decreeing the re-baptizing of some as such as the Paulinists baptized and not of others That is All that had not true Christian baptism consisting of all the true essentials were to be re-baptized and not others whatever particular Church they were of § 4. Hereupon also among the Roman Doctors it hath been a great debate whether the Priests Intention was necessary to the validity of baptism The true answer to which is this It is one question what is necessary to the justifying of the Priest before the Church and another before God and another question what is necessary to the validity of baptism to the receiver before the Church and another before God And so I answer Supposing that no man shall suffer for anothers fault but for his own 1. If the Priest profess and Intention to baptize in general and express it in the true words of baptism his act ex parte sui is valid coram ecclesiâ though he dissemble 2. If the Priest dissemble his act is a crime and shall be punished by God 3. If he profess not to intend to baptize the person or to intend it in general but to corrupt it in the Essentials it is as a Ministration invalid coram Ecclesiâ and should be done again 4. If the adult person baptized profess baptismal Consent dissemblingly it is valid baptism coram ecclesiâ as to what the Church must do upon it but invalid as to what God is to do as the performer of the Covenant 5. If the person baptized do not so much as profess consent or profess not to consent nor to intend to be then baptized it is no baptism before God or the Church 6. If he profess to be baptized in general but deny any Essential in particular it is not the true Christian baptism but must be better done § 5. When any came in so great errour as that the Church scarce knew whether it was an Essential part of faith and baptism that was denyed it made the Controversie hard about their re-baptizing Many thought that the Photinians and Arians denying Christs Godhead as of the same substance with the father denyed an essential article and were to be re-baptized if they so entred at first Our Socinians are much worse that deny Christs Godhead in a fuller sence And how doth he believe in Christ that believeth him not to be God which is most eminently essential to him § 6. They that are over-bold in altering Christs terms of Church Union and Communion making them less or more or other if they knew what they do would find themselves more concerned in these controversies of baptizing and re-baptizing and consequently greater corrupters than they have thought § 7. To think that Church Vnion is impossible is to deny that there is any Church and consequently any Christ To think that necessary Concord in Communion is impossible is so great a disparagement to the Church as tempteth men by vilifying it to doubt of Christianity For if Christians cannot live in Unity of faith and love and converse what is their Christianity And such despair of Concord will make men suspend all endeavours to attain it For Despair useth no means § 8. And to take into the Church of Christ such as want the Essentials and Christ would not have received is to corrupt his Church and bring in Confusion and such as will dishonour him and will be more hurtful in the Church than they would be without like rebels in a Kingdom or mutineers in an Army or enemies in a Family The nearer the worse § 9. It is for this use especially that Christ hath committed the Church Keyes to the Pastors And the Key of entrance is the Chief Therefore he that judgeth who is to be Baptized exerciseth the chief act of the Church Keyes And he that Baptized was held to have the Power of judging whom to baptize which was never denyed to the Presbyters till after for order some restrained them § 10. It is a strange contrariety of some Pastors to themselves who judge that all Infants of Heathens Jews Turks or wicked men are without exception to be taken into the Church if any ignorant Christian will but offer them and say over a few words and the Adult also if they can but say over the Creed by rote and a few words more and thus fill the Church with Enemies of Christ and yet when they are in deny them Communion unless they will strictly come up to many humane unnecessary impositions as if far stricter obedience to men perhaps in usurpations were necessary than to Jesus Christ § 11. How far Infidels Catechumens or Heretical or Schismatical Assemblies may be tolerated in the world about us by Magistrates is not here to be enquired but hereafter But that the Churches themselves should not corrupt their own Communion by taking and keeping in uncapable persons the nature of the Church and discipline and its ends and the reproof of the Churches Rev. 2. 3. and the judgement of the Universal Church do tell us CHAP. XII The sin and danger of
of such things indifferent as the Church had not setled by any Law and would not so settle but that it 's nothing to such as the Church either hath or will so command This opinion hath carried it in England and other Nations of the world Being once commissioned to plead this cause by his Majesty among others I then presumed to say 1. That St. Paul here writeth not only to the laity but to all the Roman Church That therefore he writeth as Christ Rev. 2. 3. to the Angels of the seven Churches to the Rulers of the Church as well as to the People 2. And therefore he forbiddeth those Rulers what he forbiddeth others and so forbiddeth them the imposing of any thing contrary to this his full determination 3. Yea himself was an Apostle and a Church-Governor of as great authority as those that he wrote to And these his words signified his own judgement and what he would do himself Yea they were as good a Law as any the Romans could make that he wrote to Therefore when an Apostle by the Spirit of God shall write thus plainly and peremptorily to Priests and people thus to tolerate and receive each other he that now expoundeth it with an except the Church otherwise decree maketh this the sence I do by all these great reasons charge and perswade you not to judge despise or reject one another unless you decree to do it or not to make such rejecting Laws unless you make them And the Holy Ghost speaketh not in the holy Scriptures at this rate § 10. Yea I prove from the arguments used by St. Paul that he extended his speech to the Clergy or Rulers as well as to the people and so forbad them making such Laws And indeed the knack of making Church-Laws without the Holy Ghost in Apostolick persons was not as then learnt and used by the Churches 1. Because St. Paul argueth from Universal reasons 2. and from Moral and necessary arguments and 3. Speaketh by the Spirit and Apostolical Authority § 11. I. His reasons touch not only some singular persons and case but the case of all Churches in all Ages He argueth from the difference between well-meaning Christians as Weak and Strong as doubting and as assured as mistaken and as in the right as in danger of being damned if they act doubtingly and of stumbling and being offended c. Now such weak mistake◠Christians in such matters ever have been and ever will be and so the reason from their case and necessity will hold in all Countreys and Ages to the end § 12. II. And many great and pressing Moral reasons that all Christians are bound by are here heaped up 1. One is from Christian Love to brethren 2. Another from humane Compassion to the weak 3. Another is from Gods own example who receiveth such whom therefore we must not reject 4. Another is from Gods prerogative to judge 5. and another from his propriety in his own servants 6. Another is from our having no such judging power in such cases 7. Another is from Gods Love and mercy that will uphold such 8. Another is because what men do as to please God must not be condemned without necessity but a holy intention cherished so it be not in forbidden things 9. Another is that men must not go against Conscience in indifferent things 10. Another is from Christs dreadful judgement which is near and which we our selves must undergo and must be that final decider of many things which here will not be fully decided 11. Another is from the sin of laying stumbling-blocks and occasions of offence 12. Another is from the danger of crossing the ends of the death of Christ destroying souls for whom he dyed 13. Another is that it will make our good to be ill spoken of 14. Another is that the Kingdom of God or the Constitution of Christianity and the Church lyeth in no such matters but in righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost 15. And another that Christ is pleased in this without the other and God accepteth such 16. Another is that such are approved of men that is This righteousness peace and holy joy without agreement in such Ceremonies and by-matters beareth its own testimony for approbation to the judgement of all impartial men humanity and Christianity teach us to love and honour such 17. Another is from our common obligation to live in peace with all 18. Another is from our obligation to do all to the edifying of one another 19. Another is because Gods work else is destroyed by us 20. And our own lawful acts are turned into sin when they hurt another 21. Another from the obligation that lyeth on us to deny our own liberty in meat wine c. to avoid the hurting of another that is weak 22. Another is from the damnation of such as are driven or drawn to act doubtingly 23. Another is from the special duty and mercy of the strong that should bear the infirmities of the weak 24. Another is from the common duty of pleasing others for their good and edifying 25. Another is from the example of Christ himself that pleased not himself 26. Another is from Gods patience to us 27. Another is from our great obligation to imitate Christ 28. Another because indeed this is the true way to Love and unity that with one mind and one mouth we may glorifie God while we lay not our concord on impossible terms 29. Another is in the concluding precept because Christ receiveth us and it is to Gods Glory therefore we must thus receive each other If all these moral arguments signifie no more than this Receive and tolerate such till you make Laws against it I cannot understand the argumentations of God or holy men § 13. III. And to conclude Paul spake by the Holy Ghost and by Divine authority himself and his words recorded are part of Christs Law indited by the Spirit and no man that cometh after him or to whom he wrote had power to contradict or obliterate it All this methinks should satisfie men of the meaning of so full a decision of an easie case about things indifferent which it's strange that so many yet for nothing do oppose And that the authority of an Apostle in Sacred Scripture the peace of the Church and the souls and peace of all dissenters and doubting persons should seem so contemptible to them as not to weigh down their humour and domineering will in an unnecessary and indifferent thing But it is the nature of sin especially Pride to be unreasonable and unpeaceable and the troubler of the soul the Church the world § 14. The same Apostle in the Epistles to the Corinthians 1. c. 1. v. 10. c. importuneth them to peace and unity and sharply reprehendeth their divisions 1. c. 3. He desireth them to be perfectly conjoyned in the same mind and in the same judgement But what are the terms and means of such a
cannot take from them what they never had nor are capable of But we in London never had local Communion with them of Vienna Paris Rome c. nor ever saw them All therefore that they can do is to account those Hereticks or wicked or Apostates whom before they accounted good Christians and to declare that they own them not as fellow Christians and would not communicate with them did they live among them and to warn others that are in danger of them to avoid them and this not as an act of Government over them but of common Christian duty for the honour of our common religion and in charity to others The just renouncing of mental or local Communion by equals or neighbours much differs from a Governing commanding excommunication forbiding other Churches as their subjects to communicate with such on certain penalties which is the usurpation of Popes Patriarchs and some others who claim such governing power without proof CHAP. VIII VI. What is necessary to the Civil Peace and concord of Christians and what is the part of the Christian Magistrate about Religion as to his promoting or tolerating mens doctrines or practices therein § 1. THe contentions of the world here call us to resolve these several doubts 1. Who it is that should have the power of the sword or Magistracy 2. How it is to be used towards all men as men in society 3. How it is to be used for the service of Christ and good of the Church in encouraging some and tolerating others and keeping peace among them all § 2. It is here supposed that the subject is understood and that we are agreed what the Magistrates power is at least de re though not de definitione vel de nomine that is it is the power of Governing by the sword that is of making Laws and judging according to them and executing them by outward force on mens bodies or estates And so it is contradistinguished from the power called Ministerial Pastoral Priestly or Ecclesiastical which is the gathering and guiding of Christian Churches by Gods word preached expounded and applyed The nature of each and their differences I have formerly opened in a small treatise written purposely on that subject to end the Erastian controversie And Bishop Bilson fuily openeth them in his excellent book of Christian Obedience c. The Magistrate hath power forcibly to seize on offenders estates and bodies to imprison mutilate scourge strike and kill them that deserve it and to make Laws and judge men unto such punishments The Ministers of Christ or Pastors of the Churches have no such power but only to declare Gods Laws to the people and convert and baptize the wicked unbelievers and teach them the word and will of Christ and guide them in publick worship and Communion and judge who is capable thereof and to require the people in the name of Christ to love and receive the worthy and to avoid the unworthy and to resolve the peoples particular doubts and by personal application to pronounce and declare Gods acceptance of penitent believers and his promise to save them and his decree to condemn the ungodly unbelievers impenitent and Hypocrites § 3. This difference is commonly acknowledged by the generality of sober Christians But one schismatical Writer against schism will needs call this Pastoral power Coactive coercive or forcing also though he confess that it is not a power to touch mens Bodies or estates that so by casting out all differencing names he may hide the acknowledged difference of the power and execution And his reason for this errour de nomine is because suspension and excommunication are executed on the involuntary and compel those that believe the power and fear them to obey Where 1. The word compel containeth the confusion compelling the mind by meer argument being not the compelling by corporal force which we are speaking of 2. And every man that chideth reproveth or threatneth a sinner usually doth it to the involuntary And if he believe him and yield he will obey And if you argue from his future danger or suffering it is the fear of it that moveth him But the fear of Gods declared threatnings is not the same as the fear of mans stripes imprisonments unless c. 3. And excommunication worketh on no mans body further than it worketh on his conscience to make him a voluntary agent If you denounce damnation against him it moveth him no further than he believeth you as applying to him the word of God If you forbid him to be present or take the sacrament and he refuse to obey you may not forcibly thrust him out without the Magistrates consent but only suspend your own act of delivery or depart If you command the people to avoid him they will no further obey you than they perceive Gods authority in your words and are convinc't in Conscience of their duty And every sermon may thus compel men And all that judge the sentence unjust and powerless will despise it § 4. 1. There are four or five opinions about the possessors of this forcing power by the sword or violence The first of them that say It belongeth to all Magistrates Christian and unchristian The second of them that say It belongeth only to Christian Magistrates The third of them that say It belongeth to Orthodox Magistrates or Catholick only and not to Hereticks The fourth of those that say that the Judicial part in cases of Religion belongeth to the Pope Prelats or Presbyters and the executive only to the Magistrate The fifth of those that say that both judicial and executive belong to the Pope Prelats and Priests I may add a sixth of them that say it is radically in the people § 5. 1. As to the first it is undoubtedly true if you distinguish between the Office Power and the aptitude of the person to perform it The Office of a Supreme Ruler is the same in all but all are not equally capable of performing it That is It is the same as described by Gods command of their performance As he commandeth infidels to believe and communicate with the Church but not to communicate before they believe so he commandeth Infidel Princes to believe and to govern the Christian affairs but to govern them as they are capable The common Laws of nature justice and peace among Christian subjects an Infidel Prince may and must see executed The Laws of Christ revealed supernaturally he ought to understand believe and execute But till he understand and believe them he cannot execute them And therefore wants the disposition and ability to do what he had command and authority to do but to do it only in the due manner to which his sin disableth him and so his Power is in him incomplete § 6. I confess it is a very hard question How an Atheist can be said to have any Governing right from that God whom he denyeth any more than a Constable from the King from whom by
renounce all doctrines and practices of Rebellion sedition or Schism I believe not that subjects may take up Arms or use any force or conspiracy to violate the Rights Authority or Persons of those in supreme Power over them I believe not that by any Laws of God or Man the Bishop of Rome hath the right of Governing all the world or all Christian Kings and Kingdomes nor the King or Kingdome of England in particular in matters secular or religious Nor that it is the duty of this Kingdome or the King to subject themselves unto him and obey him Nor that the said Bishop of Rome hath any true authority or right to impose oaths on Kings or other temporal Lords or otherwise oblige them to judge their subjects to be Hereticks who deny the Popes universal Supremacy over all the Churches on earth or who deny that the universal Church hath any Visible Head but Christ or who believe that the truly consecrated Bread and Wine in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper remain true Bread and Wine after the Consecration or that believe they are not to be adored as their God nor the Wine to be denyed to the Laity communicating Nor may the Pope oblige Kings or any others to exterminate burn or kill or punish any such as hereticks nor excommunicate Kings or temporal Lords for not doing it nor depose them being excommunicated nor give their Kingdomes or Dominions to others nor authorize any to kill them or to raise arms against them and to invade their Countreys by hostility Nor hath he right or authority to forbid Kingdomes or Countreys the publick celebration of Gods worship or holy Christian Communion Nor to oblige any Rulers or others to destroy any as Hereticks or judge them such because they are so judged by the Pope or Councils And I believe not that the Clergy are exempted from obedience to the Secular Powers or from being judged and punished by them by any Laws of God or any valid Laws of man not made or consented to by the said Powers And I unfeignedly believe that if any Pope or Council how great soever do decree or assert any of these things which I have hereby renounced and disclaimed or shall hereafter decree or assert any of them they err and sin against God in so doing and are not to be believed therein nor do oblige any thereby to obey them And all this I profess as in the sight of God my Judge without fraud or dissimulation in the sincerity of my heart THe errours which men should be restrained from preaching or propagating are innumerable and not necessary to be all put into a subscribed or professed renunication so they be actually forborn I will recite part of a Catalogue of false and doubtful dangerous points not fit to be published by preachers I. Of the nature and acts of God 1. The God is corporeal or material 2. That God is essentially only in Heaven or in some finite space 3. That God hath parts and is divisible 4. That God hath the parts or shape of humane bodies head face eyes hands feet c. properly so called 5. That God is the Universe or whole world or that he is meerly or properly the soul of the world as his body and so but a part of the world 6. That God or any essential of God is really new changeable or finite 7. The God can suffer hurt or hath proper real grief and passion 8. That God knoweth not all that hath been is or will be and all that is intelligible 9. That Gods own essential perfection goodness and love is not the ultimate and chief object of mans love to be loved chiefly for himself as most amiable and above our selves and all things created but that he is only or chiefly to be loved as our Benefactor or as good to the creature And so that man is Gods end and his own chief and ultimate end and not God mans chief and ultimate end 10. That God is the first and chief or any proper cause of sin or that God doth by efficient premotion as the first cause predetermine every mans mind will tongue and members to every forbidden act that is done as it is determined to and specifyed by the object with all its forbidden circumstances and modes and so to every lie perjury hatred of God and goodness murder c. that is committed 11. That God ruleth the world only as an engine by physical motion and doth not rule any free agents by moral means as precepts prohibitions promises c. in any acts saving as these are parts of his physically necessitating motion 12. That God may or ever doth lie or by his inspiration or his works of nature or providence necessitate innocent persons de facto or oblige any as a duty to believe that which is false 13. That God hath so committed the affairs of this world to Angels or any creatures or natural means as not to mind them or particularly govern and dispose of them himself 14. That God is essentially or virtually absent from the effects which he causeth 15. That God hath not power to do any more or otherwise than he doth though he would 16. That Gods will is not the fountain and the measure of all created good or that things are not good because they are willed by God 17. That Gods proper and absolute will desire and decree may be disappointed and not come to pass 18. That somewhat of or in the creature may be a true or proper cause of somewhat not only relative but real in God or make a real change on God 19. That God hath no vindictive or punishing and no rewarding justice 20. That God may be formally conceived of and comprehended by man and not only known analogically and as in a glass II. Of the Blessed Divine Trinity 1. That there are three Gods or three divine essences or substances 2. That the Trinity are but Three Names of God or three relations of him to the creature 3. That they are Three parts of God 4. That the three Persons are one God only in specie as Abraham Isaac and Jacob are One man because they have but one humane sort of nature 5. That one person in the Trinity is in time or dignity before or after other or greater or less than other 6. That in the Trinity there are three Fathers three Sons or three Holy Ghosts 7. That the doctrine of the Trinity is contradictory or impossible to be true 8. That it is unnecessary to be believed or preached 9. That there are no Impressions or notes of the Trinity on the soul of man or any other known works of God 10. That the works of Creation Redemption or Sanctification are no more eminently or otherwise ascribed in Scripture to any one Person in the Trinity than to the other That Creation is no otherwise ascribed to the Father than to the Son and Holy Ghost nor Redemption to the Son than to
derogateth from his glory XIV Of Baptism 1. That Baptism was instituted only for the first times or for reception of Infidel countreys when converted and not for to be continued in Christian Countreys and Churches 2. That outward Baptism by water will save the adult that have not true Repentance and faith and sincere consent to the baptismal Covenant 3. That all the children of Infidels Heathens Hereticks or wicked men are certainly saved if they be baptized and have Godfathers professing Christianity though those Godfathers be wicked hypocrites and take not the infants by adoption or otherwise as their own nor really intend to educate them as they promise and if they die before they actually sin and that this is certain by the word of God 4. That all the baptized are delivered from all culpable pravity of soul or inherent sin 5. That it is certain that all baptized Infants of what parents soever have special grace infused into their souls by the Holy Ghost in Baptism 6. That baptism entering all into the Catholick Church obligeth all the baptized to the Bishop of Rome as the supreme head or pastor 7. That the Infants of believers dedicated to God are holy only as legitimate and not bastards but are not as a holy seed under promise to be entered into the Church and Covenant of God by baptism but all baptized in Infancy must be taken as no visible Christians till they are rebaptized 8. That none that sin grosly after baptism are upon their repentance to be received into the communion of the Church 9. That it is not necessary to baptism of the adult that they make any covenant promise or vow to God nor to the baptism of Infants that Parents or Proparents devote them to Christ by entering them into an obliging Vow or Covenant 10. That Baptism was not instituted to invest the baptized in his right to pardon and life but only to enter him into the visible Church where as a disciple he may learn how to come to such right and pardon hereafter 11. That the adult duely baptized have no right to the Communion of the Church though they profess to continue their Covenant-consent and none disprove the truth of their profession unless they have some higher qualification and title XV. Of the Lords Supper 1. That the Lords Supper is but an ordinance for young or carnal Christians but they that have the Spirit must live without it as being above outward signs and ordinances And so of the Lords Day 2. That the Bread broken and Wine poured out to be eaten and drunk are not the representative Sacramental body and blood of Christ delivering us the real benefits of his sacrifice to be received by faith 3. That after the words of Consecration duly uttered there remaineth no true substance of bread or wine but all is turned into the very body and blood of Christ 4. That the wine may justly be denyed the Laity and they be required to communicate by receiving only the bread consecrated or the body of Christ as they call it without the other half of the Sacrament 5. That Christs flesh and blood is really and properly sacrificed by the Priest 6. That ordinarily the Priest is to partake alone and the people only to be Spectators 7. That the consecrated host being Christs body is to be adored as very God 8. That this sacrifice is to be offered by the Priest for the living and the dead and to ease the pains of Purgatory 9. That God himself here deceiveth the soundest senses of all men making that to be no bread or wine which their senses and intellects of things as sensate apprehend as such 10. That it is heresie and deserveth extermination or death to deny these things of the Sacrament and to believe our senses that there remaineth true bread and wine after Consecration 11. That unbelievers and wicked men in the Eucharist truly eat the real body of Christ 12. That the bare receiving of the Sacrament though without true faith and repentance will procure pardon of sin from God and Salvation XVI Of the Church 1. That the Church of Christ as visible is lost or ceased or hath been lost since the Apostles days so that there was a time when Christ had no visible subjects and disciples 2. That the Church differeth from Heathens and Infidels only in opinion and not in real holiness 3. That only the Clergy or Rulers are the Church of Christ 4. That Christ hath instituted a vicarious visible Head of all the world or of all the Church on earth under himself to whom all Christians must be subject as their chief Pastor 5. That this Head or universal Church Monarch is the Bishop of Rome or else a general Council 6. That this Head or chief Ruler Pope Council or both hath universal Legislative power to make Laws obliging the whole world or the whole Church 7. That this Head is made the judge to all Christians what shall be taken for articles of faith and what for heresie and all are bound to believe such judgement or at least to acquiesce in submission to it 8. That no one is bound to believe the Scripture or the Christian Verity but for or upon the proposal of the Pope Council or both 9. That such judgement and proposal is certain and infallible 10. That this Church and its authority must be believed to be given by Christ before men can believe in Christ himself 11. That this Pope Council or both have power from Christ to excommunicate such as deserve excommunication throughout all the world and to judge who deserve it 12. That the Pope hath power to call general Councils out of all Christian Churches or nations on earth and to preside in them and to approve or reject and invalidate their decrees 13. That all Churches are bound to send Bishops or Delegates to â—uch Councils if required by the Pope 14. That a General Council approved by the Pope is infallible in all points of faith else not 15. That the Pope or Council or both may judge all Christian Kings and depose such as they judge deserve it and give their Countreys to others and disoblige their subjects from their Oaths of Allegiance 16. That they may interdict Gods worship to whole Countreys and Kingdomes and the Clergy must obey such interdicts 17. That whom they or the Clergy judge hereticks all are bound to avoid as hereticks be they never so falsly judged such 18. That at least in ordine ad spiritualia the Pope hath power over Princes and their Crowns 19. That the Clergy owe not obedience to Princes nor may be judged by them 20. That the universal Church can have no errour in any point which God hath revealed in his word 21. That the universal Church hath erred or may err in points essential to Christianity or absolutely necessary to Salvation and so become no Church and Christ no King or Head of it 22. That no one is a
Subjects that are not of their religion or may compell all to those ways of worshipping God which they shall judge best be they right or wrong 6. That Gods Laws are not obligatory to Kings and Kingdomes 7. That Princes or people may preferr their worldly interest before the interest of Religion Souls and God or may set them in opposition against it 8. That Princes must imprison or otherwise punish such as are excommunicated and not absolved by the Clergy without knowing whether the cause be just or unjust by their own exploration 9. That Princes may break Oaths and Covenants when their interest requireth it 10. That subjects have no liberty or propriety in any thing either life wives children or estates but what is at the meer will of Princes to dispose of as they please 11. That it is lawful for subjects to disobey the authority and commands of the higher powers because Christ hath freed us from subjection to men 12. That all Governing authority is originally in the people and by them given to Rulers on what terms they please 13. That therefore the people may depose any Princes where they see cause or may call them to their bar and judge and punish them having themselves the highest governing power 14. That if Princes injure the people the people may therefore rebel take arms against them and depose them 15. Contrarily that no people may defend their lives houses or posterity nor the chastity of their wives by resisting any Tyrants or against the will of Rulers that have no true authority to destroy them 16. That subjects may break their oaths of allegiance whenever their own worldly ends require it or if the Pope disoblige them 17. That if one King wrong another the wronged King may destroy all the others innocent subjects 18. That no war is lawful 19. That it is lawful to defame and dishonour Princes if they are sinners though the contempt tend to disable them from necessary government 20. That none but sanctified persons have true Governing power or dominion 21. That children are bound to obey their parents subjects their Princes and servants their Masters in nothing but what they think is wisely or justly commanded them though it be good or lawful in it self 22. That Parents may not teach children forms of Catechism or prayer nor command them any duty which the child will but say is against his Conscience nor restrain him from any sin which he pleadeth Conscience for 23. That Christian Parents in want may â—ell their Children for slaves to Idolaters or Infidels for supply 24. That Children may disobey their parents in any matters of Religion if the Pope Bishop or Priest so command them XIX Of Duties to our equals or neighbours as such 1. That no man is bound to love another but for his own sake and so far as he is beneficial to him 2. That we are not bound to do another a greater good to the least hurt to our selves 3. That men are not bound to love and preferr the common good of multitudes of their Countrey or the world before their own commodities or lives 4. That no killing of malefactors is lawful by laws and judgement 5. That it is lawful to kill our enemies for meer private revenge or to prevent some evil to our selves though they are innocent 6. That it is lawful to have many wives at once 7. That it is lawful to put away wives or for wives to depart whenever their fleshly or worldly interest seemeth to require it 8. That it is lawful to commit adultery at least by the husband or wives consent 9. That fornication is no sin or no great sin 10. That it is lawful when our need doth urge us to rob steal defraud or oppress others 11. That restitution or reparation is no duty 12. That it is no sin to deceive another by borrowing when we are unable and unlikely to repay and do conceal this 13. That it is not a duty for them that are able to labour in some lawful useful calling for their own maintenance and the common good 14. That it is lawful to lie for our commodity when it hurts not others 15. That it is lawful by backbiting slandering and false witness to disgrace our enemies or be revenged on them 16. That it is lawful for Judges knowingly or rashly to pass unjust judgement against the innocent or just and for advocates or others to promote it 17. That it is lawful for the poor to covet other mens goods and for men to desire and endeavour to draw from others whatever seemeth desirable or needful to our selves 18. That it is no sin to love the world flesh and life better than God Christ grace and glory 19. That it is no sin to be discontent and impatient in our sufferings nor a duty to deny our fleshly pleasure profit or reputation and life for God and for spiritual and everlasting benefits 20. That it is no duty to love our enemies forgive wrongs and forbear each other in their infirmities and provocations XX. Of Death Judgement Heaven and Hell 1. That the souls of believers go not to Christ and happiness nor the souls of the wicked to misery before the Resurrection of the body at the last judgement 2. That there is no Resurrection of the body at least of the wicked or of Infants 3. That Christ will not come in glory to judge the world 4. That we shall not be judged according to what we have done in the body 5. That the faithful shall not be justified and judged to life everlasting 6. That the wicked shall not be condemned to hell or everlasting punishment with the Devils but without holiness men may see God and be saved 7. That no man can know that he hath certain right to Salvation 8. That there is a fire of Purgatory where those that after shall be saved must make penal satisfaction for some of their sins and from which the Popes pardons and masses and other mens merits may deliver souls 9. That the justified shall not live in Glory with God and Jesus Christ and the Angels and the triumphant Church 10. That there is an aereal life of trial before the final judgement where the justified and wicked souls shall again live under conditions of yet winning or losing their heavenly glory 11. That the Devils and damned shall all be delivered at last and either be saved or have another life of tryal And the Glory of the blessed also will have an end and they must by revolution be tryed in flesh here again 12. That it is not a duty to seek first the Kingdome of God and its righteousness and lay up a treasure in heaven and there have our hearts and conversations and thence to fetch our motives and our chiefest hopes and comforts under all the sufferings of this transitory life and the expectation of our certain change THis or such a Catalogue of dangerous doctrines is not to be
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