denieth § 7. I. If he deny that God hath Instituted the Office of the sacred Ministry and Pastorship in his Law 1. The Scripture will shame him to all that believe and understand it 2. And if it be not divinely established men may alter it and what is all this stir about to keep up their Domination § 8. II. If he think that God hath only Instituted Teachers or Rectors in genere but not in Specie then I give him the same answer as before Scripture will shame him and men may make new Species of Church-Pastors and unmake or alter them and how many or how oft who knows And who be the men that have this Office-changing-power that we may know whether and how far and how long we are bound to obey them § 9. III. If he think that Gods Law hath not described the Essential Qualifications of the Recipient then Prelates may make Pastors of Infidels Mahometans Bedlams or Blasphemers if not of Horses or Dogs § 10. IV. If he think that Gods Law hath determined of no way of Election Approbation or judging who is capable then every man may make himself a Bishop or Priest and the Turk may make Bishops for Christians or a company of Lay-enemies and persecutors may do it and then the Bishops Judgment and Ordination will have no Divine Authority § 11. V. If when the Recipient is duly qualified and chosen and capable he does not think that Gods Law or Grant is a sufficient signification of his Donative will and a fundamentum juris and an obliging instrument 1. He must deny the very nature and force of Gods Law and Grant And 2. He maketh it less effective than the Laws Charters and Donations of men are For which he cannot have the least shew of true reason § 12. VI. Can he devise any other sort of power in the Ordainers than I have named What is it If he say that they give the Office-power I ask Is the controversie about the word Give or the Act If that which I have named be called giving let him use his liberty and call it how he will 1. But as to the Thing what is it more than I have described It is God and not man that made the Office in genere specie Did our Bishops make the universal Law which stablisheth the Office in the world 2. And the Bishop never had that power and therefore cannot give that which he had not It 's Dr. Hammond's reason against Presbyters ordaining Nâ—mo dat quod non habet The word Office or Power and Duty signifieth an Accident which cannot transire a subjecto in subjectum The Ordaâ—ners have their own power but they have not another mans 3. Do they give it as Masters and Owners or only as the Donors Ministers No doubt they will say as his Ministers And do I need to prove to Mr. Dodwell that servants are not the Donors and give not their own but deliver their Masters Stewards themselves are but entrusted with the performance of their Masters will in delivering his Goods as he requireth them § 13. And this is so evident a truth that the Papists themselves who would fain have all power flow from the Pope are yet forced to plead for it as you may see in W Iohnson's alias Terret's answer to my first because else they cannot defend the Papal Power For the Pope hath been sometimes chosen by the Roman people sometime by the Roman Presbyters sometimes by people and Presbyters sometime by the Italian Bishops sometimes by Emperors and now by Cardinals and none of all these were Popes nor had Papal power and if they were the givers must give what they never had Whereupon the Papists are foâ—c't to grant that the Electors do but determine who shall be the Recipient but that the power floweth to him â—mâ—ediâ—tely from Gods Law or Institution § 14. And the Prelatists must needs say the same or else grant that Inferiors that never had Superior power may yet give it others for how else shall the supreme Ecclesiastical power in every National Church be given If it be in a Primate or a Synod those that have not the supreme power must give it for there is none above them or equal to do it And so Archbishops are chosen and Councils called § 15. And thus almost all Societies by contract are formed e. g. The King giveth Commission to several men to List voluntary Souldiers and be their Captains and command them Every Souldier chooseth his own Captain and thereby subjecteth himself to him but it is not by giving him his power for that floweth immediately from the Kings Commission but by making himself a subject to it and so maâ—ing the Captain Relatively a Recipient of power from God and the King over this particular man for the Soldiers have no governing-governing-power to give nor are superiors to their Captain § 16. And thus Servants impropeâ—ly only make men their Masters not by giving them a Domestick Ruling-power which they never had themselves but by making themselves the Correlate Subjects and so putting their Masters into the Relation to which Gods Lâ—w immediately giveth the Ruling-power All the power is from God and God doth not first give it the Servant Souldier c. to give the Master or Captain but the Servants or Souldiers consent is a Causa sine quae non disposâ—tiva Recipientis to make the Receiver capable of it from God § 17. And indeed all Kings and Soveraigns thus hold their Soveraignty from God Though God hath not made the form in Specie necessary all power is of God and the Soveraignty from him by no mediate Efficient below his Law It 's a falshood in politicks to say that the people as such efficiently give the Soveraign his power and that he is universis minor in Authority though he is not universis melior and therefore their common good is more than his the finis regiminis Nor is it true that Richard Hooker saith that in defect of Heirs it escheateth to the people but only that it belongeth to the people to choose a new Recipient to whom the power shall flow from Gods Law and not from them I do not think that the King of France Spain or England will believe that their power is given â—fficiently by and floweth from their People Parliaments or the Prelate that Crowneth them And the case is evidently the â—am as to the Ministry § 18. And the French Papists by some called Protestants who are for the Ecclesiastical Soveraignty of General Councils above the Pope do not believe that the Pope giveth them their power though he may call them But whoever calleth them or chooseth them they suppose that God only giveth them their power § 19. And in all these cases it is notorious that an interrâ—ption of due Election and Investiture hindereth not the restoration of interrupted power If the Law say whoever is thus and thus chosen to be Lord Chancellor Lord
the wisest and best man had right to the Crown or Church-power If copious discourses to the contrary will not hinder such busie disputers from such inhumane slanders are they meet to be disputed with I have over and over said that 1. Gifts or the best abilities 2. And due election or approbation of the Ordainers 3. And the peoples election and consent all set together do but make up the Qualification or Receptive disposition of the Recipient 4. Yea and his consent conjoined and that where all these in the necessary degree concur the power resulteth to that capâ—ble person from none of them all but immediately from God Law which is his instrument giving power to persons so qualified And that besides all these Ministerial Investiture for Orders sake when it may be had should introduce him into possession yea and the Magistrate must be judg whom he will countenance protect or tolerate But the case of Ordination and Investiture are necessary only where they may be had lawfully and without crossing their end as sacrifice was compared with mercy and the Rest of the Sabbath compared to works of charity and necessity § 43. And as it is the trick of such dealers p. 81. he must have Governours to do his work and therefore must not leave out that which may make us odious to them but tells men that our Hypothesis is unreconcilable with government in this life in that it permits persons to assume Authority and to extend it as far as they think fit by appealing to Writings against the sense of all the visible authority of this life Ans. 1. But â—f this Hypothesis be none of his Adversaries but come out of the Meal-Tub or forge of Inventers what shall such men be called 2. We permit no person to assume Authority But Writings are not so contemptible to us in comparison of that which you take to be all the visible Authority of the Church It is your Richard Hooker that saith that the Law maketh the King and giveth and measureth his power and that it's usurpation which obligeth no mans Conscience when power is taken and usâ—d which the Law never gave What I think of this I have elsewhere shewed The Statutes are not so contemptible in this case but the great Lawyers think they may be appealed to from visible Rulers in several cases And you must talk at other rates than you have done in your tedious fallacious Vagaries before wise Christians will believe that we may not appeal from Prelates to the written Word of God when the power used by them is justly questioned If not how caâ—e the Reformed Churches to justifie their Reformation Was it not by appealing to Scripture against the visible Church Rulers that were commonly against them Were not Pâ—pes Council Prelates and Priests against them for the far greatest part Did it overthrow all Government of the world to appeal from these to the â—cripture I hereby undertake to prove that neither Popes Prelates or Priests have any Church-Authority bâ—t what God hatâ— given them by his Word And is it not thâ—â— necessary to try it by that Word Must we take thâ—â—r own words for all that Popes or Prelates câ—â—im And it will put the Pope and Council hard to it to prove any Authority from God if the Scripture do not give it them And if it give it them it may give it others § 44. And whâ—n 〈◊〉 done we are far from granting that we have lesâ— to shâ—â— for our succession from the Apostleâ— than Popes or 〈…〉 have 1 We are 〈◊〉 that we have the same â—aptism Eucharist Creed Lâ—â—ds Praâ—â—r Dâ—calogue and Scriptâ—re delivered down from the Aâ—ostles 2. We are sure that we have a Ministry of the same species which Christ and his â—pirit in the Apostles instituted 3. We know that our Churches and Worship and Doctrine are the â—ame that are described and setled by the Apostles 4. We know that our present Ministers are qualified as the Apostâ—â—â— requiâ—ed 5. And that they are Elected or 〈◊〉 to by the 〈◊〉 is the Apostles required 6. And that they have as good an Ordination and Investiture as the Apostles ever made necessary to the Ministry That is 1. They have the Approbation of senior Pastors and many of them of Diocesans All that were put into any places by the Parliament when the Bishops were down were to have the Westminster Assemblies Approbation under their hands And that Assembly as called consisted of many Diocesans with many score grave Eminent Divines though the Diocesans were not actually present And a signed Approbation and Allowance hath the Essence of all that is of absolute necessity in Ordination 2. They were Ordained by true Bishops 1. All true Presbyters are Episcopi gregis and joyn in Ordination here in Enggland 2 The chief Pastors of City-Churches having Curates under them are Episcopi Eminentes vel Praesides such as Ordained for above Two hundred years after the Apostles And 3. The chosen Presidents of Synods were such Bishops But all these concurred in the Nonconformists Ordinations when the Diocesans were down They were Ordained at and by a Synod of Presbyters in some great Town or City where the Moderator and the chief City-Pastors were part 3. Many of them were Ordained by Diocesans 4. Many Ordained as aforesaid were after approved by Diocesans some by Imposition of Hands and all by Word or Writing for Archbishop Vsher did in my hearing by Word and in Writing more publickly declare his opinion of such Presbyters Ordination as valid â—though he excused not such as deposed the Diocesans from the guilt of Schism and so did the many other Bishops whom I formerly cited yea even Bancroft himself And surely all this hath all that is essential to Ordination 5. And we know that such a Ministry hath continued to propagate the Church and Gospel in the world since the Apostles days But we confess 1. That we cannot prove that such Ministers have still succeâ—ded in the same Towns 2. Nor that no one from whom their Ordination came down from the Apostles did pretend to have Orders or Authority when he had none 3. Or that no one of them in 1660. years was an Heretick or a Schismatick or a Papist 4. Or that no one Ordained in wrong words 5. Or that no one Ordained contrary to the Canons out of his own limits or without three Bishops or without the Presbyters 6. Or that no Competitors were Ordained by several Bishops Mr. Dodwell is a great Historian when he hath proved all this of all or any of his Clergy-friends he hath done something more than multiply words § 45. But on the other side we can easily prove and have proved 1. That our Diocesans are not of the same species with those of old 2 That the Apostles did not make them I think Mr. Dodwell will say that the Presbyters first made them by consent the Children begot the Fathers 3 And Dr. Hammond will defend it that
excommunications Why then are the openly wicked so numerous 2. Do you think men can change their judgment meerly because they are commanded or excommunicated If a man study and pray and endeavour to the utmost to know the truth and you say that yet he erreth will a censure cure his understanding E. g. a Nestorian a Monothelite an Anabaptist c. much less when a man knoweth that he is in the right and the censurer fighteth againd truth and duty Men in some diseases will rage at the sight of certain things which would not much trouble them if the disease were cured Macedonius and Nestorius that were judged Hereticks themselves could not bear the Bishops and meetings of the Novatians But Atticus could and they lived together in Christian Love I know those places now in England where a Conformable and Nonconformable Minister live in so great love and the latter go still to the Parish-Churches and the former sometimes come to them as that no considerable trouble ariseth by their difference And I know other places where the publick Ministers cannot bear any that hear not themselves yea or that constantly hearing them hear any other that dissenteth But they seek to win Dissenters as Fowlers would bring Birds to the Net by showting and throwing stones at them and Anglers would catch Fish by beating the Waters VI. I will tell you also that I much dissent from you in that when I told you that the Tyranny of Prelates hath done more hurt than the disobedience and discord of the People towards them you said you do not think so Qu. Do you think that Thieves have killed as many men as Wars have done If it be true that Iulius Caesar and his Armies killed 1192000. persons besides those that he slew in the Civil Wars That Darius lost at once 200 000 and abundance of such instances in lower degrees may be given sure poor Thieves and Murderers come far short of this account And so it is in the present case Gregory Nazian was a wise and good man who saith the people were factious and too unruly but at Const. were honest and meant well But how sadly doth he describe the Bishops as rageâ—ing even in their Councils and as the far greater causes of all calamity Judg by the Twenty instances that I before gave you about their excommunication How few Heresies or Schisms were there of old that the Bishops were not the notorious causes of The Samosatinians Apollinarians Macedonians Nestorians Acephali the Monothelites yea the Donatists Novatians the Phantasiasticks and almost all The Arrians began by a Presbyter but if Petavius cites them truly as he doth too many Bishops led him the way and most of the Bishops followed and were the men that kept up and increased the Heresie far beyond the people or the Presbyters Eutychus a Monk began his Cause but he was quickly contemned by his followers and did little in comparison of Dioscorus Severus and many hundred more Bishops And is it the People or the Bishops that now keep East and West in mutual damnations Have the Peoples divisions done more harm than the Papal Schism and Usurpations and Cruelties killing about 2000000. as is said of Albigenses and Waldenses the Inquisitions bloody Wars against the Germane Emperors and many English Kings the Rebellion against the Greek Emperor Leo Isaurus and destruction of the Eastern Empire our Smithfield Bone-fires and innumerable other Cruelties Desolations Heresies and Schisms Are all these less than the abuse of Liberty by Inferiors in Praying Preaching or Disorders Judg Hale saith That he had a friend that stored a very great Pond of Three or Four Acres with a great number of Fish and at Seven years end only put in Two very small Pikes and at the draught of his Pond there was not one Fish left but the Two Pikes grown to an excessive bigness and all the rest with their millions of fry devoured by the pair of Tyrants Hale of the Orig. of Man Sect. 2. cap. 9 pag. 208. The Block had been a better Ruler The Lord forgive the Presbyterians their over-keenness against Sects before the Pikes have made an end of them Pardon truth to Your Servant Ri. Baxter For the Learned Mr. Henry Dowell after a personal Conference with him SIR COncord and Peace are so very desirable to the ends of Christianity that I am glad to hear you speak for them in the general though I take your way to be certainly destructive of them and because you think the like of mine and so while we are agreed for the end we greatly differ about the means I shall here perform what I last offered you viz. I. An explication of my own sense of the way of Church-concord because you said I am still upon the destructive part viz. 1. My fundamental Principles 2. The way of concord which I suppose to be sufficient and only likely as appointed by God to attain that end II. The reasons of my utter dissent from your way III. A Proposal for our further debating of these differences I. I hope if you are a man of charity or impartiality it will be no hard matter to you to believe that I am willing to be acquainted with healing truth that I say not as willing as you and if I be unhappy in the success of my Enquiries it is not for want of searching diligence And your parts assure me that it is so with you But it is the usual effect of one received error to let in many more and it is so either with me or you And lest it should prove my unhappiness I shall thankfully accept your remedying informations 1. The Principles which I presuppose are such as these 1. As God as Creator so Christ as Redeemer is the Universal King and Head over all things to the Church which is his body Ephes. 1.22 23. Ioh. 17.2 c. 2. He hath made Vniversal Laws to be means of this Universal Government 3. His Universal Laws are in suo genere sufficient to their proper use 4. There is no other Universal King or Ruler of the world or of the Church whether Personal or Collective And therefore none that hath power of Universal Legislation or Jurisdiction 5. Much less any that hath a superiour power to alter Gods Universal Laws by abrogation subrogation suspension or dispensation Nor will God himself alter them and substitute new ones As Tertullian saith We at first believe this that no more is to be believed 6. These Laws of our Universal Governour are partly of natural Revelation and partly of Supernatural viz. by himself and by his Spirit in his Apostles given in an extraordinary measure to this end to lead them into all truth which is delivered to us in their Scripture-records 7. Some local precepts whose matter was narrow and temporary even the mutable customs of that time and place were also narrow and temporary as the washing of feet anointing vailing women the kiss of peace c
of Salvation such could not be brought to Faith Holiness and Salvation for want of teaching it is yet my sin to preach to them and my duty to let them rather be damned if I have not the Bishops consent to teach them and that because it is the Bishop and not I that shall answer for their damnation VIII That it is disputable with you whether those to whom Church power is given viz. Diocesans may not change not only the local temporary circumstances but the very Church-forms and suspend Laws of Christ. IX That Baptism entreth the Baptized into some particular Church and consequently under this fore-described Church-Government X. That in the case of Preaching the Gospel Ministers may in many cases do it though Emperours and Kings forbid them as in the days of Constantius Valens yea and better men but not if the Bishop forbid them or consent not XI That circa Sacra if the King command the Churches for Uniformity one Translation of the Bible one Version or Meter of the Psalms one Liturgy one Time or Place of Worship c. and the Bishop another we ought to obey the Bishop against the command of the King XII That the required Subscriptions Declarations Rubricks and Canons are primarily the Laws of the Church which the King and Parliament do confirm by their Sanction and therefore the Church is the Expounder of them These are some of your Assertions which I cannot yet receive I. My Reasons against the first are these 1. Because this maketh Gods of men and so is Idolatry giving them Gods proper Power and Prerogative 2. Yea it taketh down God or his Laws and setteth them above him For there cannot be two Absolute Governors that have not one Will. If I must not appeal from them to God then I must appeal from God to them that is I must break his Law if they bid me or else they are not Absolute 3. This maketh all Gods Laws at the will of maâ— as alterable or dispensible Man may forbid all that God commandeth and I must obey 4. Then all Villanies may be made Virtues or Duties at the will of man If they command us to curse God or Blaspheme or be perjured or commit Fornication Murder or Idolatry it would become a Duty 5. Then the Power and Lives of Kings would be at the Clergies mercy For if their power be Absolute they may make Treason and Rebellion a Duty 6. And all Family-Societies and Civil Converse migbt be overthrown while an Absolute Clergy may disoblige men from all duty to one another 7. Then the Council at Lateran which you have excellently proved in your Considerations to be the Author of its Canons doth or did oblige Princes to exterminate their Reformed Subjects and disoblige Subjects from their Allegiance to Princes that obey not the Pope herein and are excommunicate So of Greg. 7 th's Council Rom. 8. Then did the Church or Kingdom of England well to disobey or forsake the Roman Power that was over them 9. Were not our Martyrs rather Rebels that died for disobeying an Absolute Power 10. How should two contradicting Absolute Powers viz. General Councils be both obeyed E. g Nicen. 1. and Arimini Sirm. and Tyr. or Ephes. 2 and Calced 11. How will this stand with the Judgment and practice of the Apostles that said Whether it be meet that we obey God or man judg ye 12. How will it stand with Conformity to the Church of England that in the Articles saith that General Councils may err and have erred in matter of Faith c. 13. Is it not against the sense of all mankind even the common Light of Nature where utter Atheism hath not prevailed Say not that I wrong you by laying all this odium on your self I lay it but on your words And I doubt not but though disputing Interest draw such words from you on consideration you will re-call them by some limitations II. My Reasons against your second must pre-suppose that we understand one another as to the sense of the word Diocesan Church which being your â—erm had I been with you I must have desired you first to explain The word Diocess of old you know signified a part of the Empire larger than a Province and that had many Metropolitans in it I suppose that is not your sense Sometimes now it is taken for that space of ground which we call a Diocess sometimes for all the people in that space And with us a Diocesan Church is a Church of the lowest Order containing in it a multitude of fixed Parochial Congregations which have every one their stated Presbyter who is no Bishop and Vnum altare and are no Churches but parts of a Church and which is individuated by one Bishop and the measuring-space of ground whose inhabitants are its Members Till you tell me the contrary I must take this for your sense For you profess to me that you speak of such Diocesan Churches as ours and they have some above a thousand others many hundred Parishes and you say our Parishes are not Churches but Parts of a Church and so Families are 2. Either you mean that a Diocesan Church is the first in order of Execution and Existence or else in order of Intention and so last in Existence and Execution I know not your meaning and therefore must speak to both I. That a Diocesan Church is first in Intention is denied by me and disproved though it belong to you to prove it 1. Intentions no where declared of God in mature or supernatural Revelations are not to be asserted of him as Truths But a prime intention of a Diocesan Church is no where declared of God Ergo not to be asserted of him as truth 2. It is the end or ultimum rei complementum which is first in intention where there is ordo intentionis But a Diocesan Church is not the end or ultimum rei complementum Ergo not first intended The Major is not deniable The Minor hath the consent as far I as know of all the world For they are all either for the Hierarchy or against it They that are for it say that a Metropolitan is above a Diocesan and a Provincial above a Metropolitan and a Patriarchal above a Provincial and a National which hath Patriarchs as the Empire had above that and â—ay the new Catholicks an humane universal above a National Church as the complement or perfection and therefore must be first intended But those that are against the Hierarchy think that all these are Church-corruptions or humane policies set up by Usurpation and therefore not of prime Divine Intention 3. If you should go this way I would first debate the question with you how far there is such a thing as ordo intentionis to be ascribed to God For though St. Thomas as you use to call him assert such intentions it is with many limitations and others deny it and all confess that it needeth much Explication to be
perceive from whom they come when the damnation of poor people must be so easily submitted to if the Bishop do but command the means Methinks you wrong the Bishops by such odious Suppositions and Assertions as if you would make men believe that they are the Grievous Wolves that spare not the flock and the thorns and thistles that are made to prick and rend the people But I believe that the Bishops faultiness in mens damnation would be no exeuse to me if I be accessory 4. And I doubt not but if you unjustly ipso facto Excommunicate men it neither depriveth them of the right nor absolveth them from the duty of publick Worship and Church-Communion And I am ashamed to read and hear Preachers publickly reproaching them for not holding constant Communion with the Parish-Churches when it 's notorious that the Canon hath thus Excommunicated them yea though it were their duty sometime to intrude And I beseech you judg as a Christian or a man whether you can think such Arguments should draw the people themselves to be of your mind Go to them and speak out Neighbours I confess that while you live in ignorance and sin for want of teaching and publick worship you are in the way to damnation but it is the Bishop and not the silenced Preacher that shall answer for it Will they not reply And shall not the Bishop then he damned instead of us as well as instead of the silenced Preacher VIII Your doubt about mens power to change Christs setled form of Church-government is but a consequent of your first of mens absolute power But 1. if they change Gods Laws or instituted Church-forms or Government may they not change their own And if so there is some hope of a Reformation But why then did the Canons of 1640. in the Et caetera Oath swear the Clergy never to consent to change And why are we now to swear in the Oxford Oath That we will never endeavour any alteration of Church-Government tho' the keys be in the power of Lay-Chancellors and tho' the King may command us to endeavour it must the Nation or Clergy swear never in their own places to endeavour any alteration of the Bishops Institutions as you take them and yet may the Bishops alter the very Form of Government and Churches made by our Universal King 2. What an uncertain mutable thing may Christs Laws or Church-Government prove while mutable men may change it at their pleasure 3. To what purpose is Antiquity and Tradition so much pleaded by Hierarchical Divines as if that were the Test to know the right Government and Church if the Bishops may alter it 4. If thus much of Christs Laws and Institutions may be altered by Prelates how shall we be sure that all the rest is not also at their will and mercy or which is it that they may alter and which not 5. Doth not this set man so far above God or equal with him as will still tempt men to think that more are Antichristian than the Pope If you say that it is by Gods own grant I wait for your proof that God granteth power to any man above his Laws Those that he made but Local or Temporary himself are not abrogated or changed by man where they bind not for they never bound any but their proper subjects e. g. The Iewish Laws as such never bound the Gentile world and the command of washing feet bound only thâ—se where the use of going bare-leg'd with Sandals in a hot Country made it an office of kindness and so of other Temporary precepts 6. How contrary is this to the common Christian Doctrine that we must obey none that command us to sin against God For by the first assertion and this it seemeth that it cannot be a sin which the Bishops command 7. I pray you put in an exception for the Power and Lives of Kings and the Laws of the Land and the Property and Liberty of the Subjects and one word for the Protestant Religion For we English-men think God to be greater than the King or St. Patrick and Gods Laws to be firmer than the Statutes of King and Parliament And yet I doubt that the King and some Parliament will be angry if you do but say that the Bishops by consent may change their Statutes or lawful Officers and Powers And Bishops if you say that Episcopacy may be changed IX Baptism as such entereth not the Baptized into any particular Church but only into the Vniversal headed by Christ yet a man may at the same time be entered into the Vniversal and into a particular Church but that is by a double consent and not by Baptism as such In this I know none that agree with you but some few of the Independents in New-England and some of the Papists I confess Bellarmine saith That by Baptism we are virtually obliged to the Pope being baptized by a Ministry and into a Church of which he is the Head But the contrary is proved 1. From the express form of the Baptismal Covenant which only tyeth us to Christ and his Universal Church and maketh us Christians But to be a Christian dedicated to the Father Son and Holy Ghost is one thing and to be a part of the Pastoral Charge of A. B. or N. N. is another thing 2. What particular Church was the Eunuch Act. 8. baptized into Not that of Ierusalem for he was going from it never like to see it more Not that in Ethiopia for there was none till he began it If you say of Philips Church 1. I pray you where was that 2. And how prove you it 3. Specially if it was Philip the Deacon that had no Church being no Bishop 3. May not men be baptized in Turkey or among other Infidels or Indians where there is no Church And is the first baptized man among them a Church himself Paul thanketh God that he baptized no more of the Corinthians lest they should think that he baptized into his own name And doth every Baptizer baptize to himself or to his Bishop A man may baptize out of all Diocesses or in another's X. As to your next Assertion I grant that when a Bishop or a beggar speaketh the Commands of God and a King speaketh against it we must follow that Bishop or beggar rather than the King because this is but obeying God before men But supposing that it is a thing indifferent and but circa sacra and not a proper part of the Agent Pastors Office I confess to you I will obey the King before the Bishop 1. Because it is a thing that is under the Power of the King to command and if so the King is the Supreme and not the Bishop 2. Bishops themselves are Subjects of the King and owe him obedience Therefore rule not over or before him in matters belonging to his Office 3. Bishops are chosen by the King for I suppose no man takes the Dean and Chapters choice for
judgers of the personal qualifications and that ordinis gratia ordinarily their approbation choice or consent shall be a relative part of their Receptive qualification 6. God himself giveth all the personal qualifications 7 He is ready to help the approvers and chusers to discern all these and to judg aright of them 8. The person being thus made a capable Recipient by personal qualifications and relative due Approbation Election and Consent God's Donation or Law doth give him Right and oblige him to the office-work And the Electors Approvers and Consenters are none of the proper efficient Donors or causes of this right and obligation but only efficient causes of his relative receptive capacity 9. That therefore the right and obligation is immediately from Gods Law by resultancy as the established medium of Gods conveyance but not immediately without any means of his receptively to make him materiam dispositam 10. That all this is true both of Soveraign Civil Power and of Church-power in Bishops and Pastors 11. That yet besides Approbation and Election God hath for the publick notice and order of the Church appointed a Regular Ministerial Investiture by which the Approved shall be solemnly put into possession as Kings are crowned and Ministers instituted and Ordination usually containeth both the approbation part of the election and the investiture 12 But this Investiture being but a Ministerial delivery of possession proveth not the Investor to be any Donor of the Power to the King or to the Bishop or Pastor 13. Nor is it necessary save ordinis gratia and in foro ecclesiae to avoid intrusion and confusion but not when it is set against the end or the end may and must be sought without it 14. Who it is that hath the power of this Ordination Approbation and Investiture is much of the controversie of these times some say it is the Magistrate but those that say it is the bishops are not agreed what species of bishops it is whether the chief Pastors of each particular Parish true Church or only a Diocesan that is the sole bishop of many parishes that are no true Churches or only Diocesans that are Archbishops over many true Parish-churches and bishops 15. But the Fundamentum juris being Christs Statute-Law or Grant and all that is left to man being but qualitatively or relatively to make the person an immediately capable Recipient and ministerially invest him therefore it follows that if at Alexandria Antioch Ierusalem Cesarea Constantinople London all the old bishops were dead or hereticks a just title may be restored without the ordination of one that had successive canonical ordination because there needeth no efficient donor but Christ and his Law and the receptive capacity may be without such ordination where it is not to be had as among Papists that will not ordain one on lawful terms c. for Order it self is but for the thing ordered and not against it And I will have mercy and not sacrifice â—morals before rituals and all power is to edification c. are certain rules And God never made men judges in partem utram libet whether there shall be Churches and Pastors and Worship or none or whether there shall be Civil Government or none no nor of what the species the Church-Offices shall be 16. I use to explain this by many expository similitudes 1. If the Laws of God authorize Soveraignty and the Constitution of the Kingdom say it shall be Monarchy were it Elective the Electors are not Efficients of power but determiners of the Recipient And if it be Hereditary or Elective the Investers by coronation are no efficients of the power but Ministerial deliverers of possession and that but necessary ad ordinem and not ad esse potestatis 2. If the King by a Charter to the University state the power of the Chancellor Vicechancellor Proctors and all the Masters of Colledges and then tell them who shall be capable and how chosen and how inveâ—ted here his power is immediately from the Kings Charter as the efficient Instrument and all that others do is but to determine of the Recipient and invest him 3. So it is as to the power of the Lord Mayor of London and the Mayors and Bailiffs of all Corporations 4. So it is in the essential power of the Husband over the Wife the woman chuseth who shall have it and the Parson that marrieth them investeth him in it but God only is the efficient donor of his Law 17. Therefore it is not in the power of the Electors Approvers or Investors to alter any of the Power established by God If both the woman and the Priest say that the man shall be her Husband but shall have no government of her it is a nullity Gods Law shall stand If the City and the Recorder say You shall be Lord Mayor but not have all the power given by the Kings Charter its vain and he shall have all that the Charter giveth him If the A Bp crown the King and say You shall be King but not have all the power stated by the Constitution on the King this depriveth not the King of his power unless he give away that which God hath not stated on him but men so if an Ordaining Prelate Patron or Parish say This is a true Parish Church and we choose and Ordain you the true Pastor of it but you shall have but part of the true Pastoral Power stablished on the office by God it 's null Gods Institution shall be the measure of his power 18. But I confess that if God had left Church-Officers as much to the will of men as he hath done the Civil the case had been otherwise for Monarchy Aristocracy and Democracy are all lawful And the King or other supreme power may make new Species of Judges and Magistrates and Officers and alter them as they see cause And it would have been so in the Church if as the Italians at Trent would have carried it Christ had immediately Instituted only the Papacy and left it to the Pope to make Bishops and to Bishops to make Priests And yet I would not wrong the worst I cannot say that they would have empowered the Pope to change the Species of Priests or Bishops But God hath fixed the Species by making a setled Law for all the work and all the Authority to do it though Accidentals may be altered in work and Office § 6. This is the clear state of my assertions which how grosly Mr. Dodwell hath falsified in his forged description I will not stay to open But it is a great stress and fabrick that he layeth on the contrary supposition that his Species of Bishops are the givers of the Powers and so we can have no other or more than they are willing to give us And let him that thinks he spoke a sentence of truth and sense to prove it enjoy his error I would quickly prove the contrary to him if I knew what he
Chief Iustice Lord Admiral c. shall have such and such power and be thus and thus invested in the place if there were an intercision of an hundred yâ—ars the next person so chosen will from the Law immediately receive his power And the Investiture is but for publick Order and the Investers regular succession no nor the act it self never necessary ad esse where it cannot be had as I proved against Mr. D. in my Book of Concord The Archbishops succession that Crowneth him is not necessary to the power of the King § 20. And obligation to the Office-work is as essential to the Officer as is the power to do it And it is only the Governours that lay on another an obligation to duty except what by contract a man layeth on himself and none are the obliging Governours of the highest Powers Civil or Ecclesiastical but God therefore theirs must flow only from God Therefore the thing is not unusual And if Bishops were as much superior to Parish-Pastors as the Lord Chancellor is to a Constable yet they were but Governours of them in tantum quoad exercitum and not Donors of their power The Constables power is immediately from the Soveraigns Law and so is the Ministers from Christ for he is the only universal Soveraign § 21. Mr. Dodwell saith These are bare similies Ans. These are plain explications of the conveyance of power from the Soveraign of all He saith That the power is not properly given by the Ordainer is but begged by me Ans. A begging affirmer may easily write Books at that rate But saith â—e They connot give an instance from humane Charters where the acts of men not invested are valid in Law Ans. 1. Will you tell the King so to his saace that before his Coronation no act is valid that he doth 2. No doubt but as publick Matrimony after secret Marriage is necessary in foro civili ordinis gratiâ where it may be had and yet when it was done by a Justice without a Priest yea or by the persons publick contract only it was no nullity no nor coram Deo before so to regular order the most orderly Investiture is needful but not ad esse much less that all the Investers circumstances also and all his predecessors have been regular 3. Investing here is the act of a servant only solemnizing the entrance or delivery of possession But such a servant is not the Owner and Donâ—â— of thâ— power 4. The Papists and Protestants confess that the power of Invâ—sting is so humane and mutable that it cannot be necessary ad esse potestatis I told you how oft the power of choosing â—nd investing Popes hath beeen changed And the old Canons make the Act of three Bishops necessary to Invest or consecrate one But did God determinâ— of three Or can you prove onâ— Bishops Ordination a Nullity 5. In the Civil State some Officers are made without any Investiture as Constables Headboroughs Church Wardens and others and some the Charter imposeth Investiture on But whether if Recorders Stewards Town Clerks that by Charter are to Invest be dead or refuse their Act the Mayor Bayliff or other Officers be therefore none and the Government be dead let Lawyers tell you 6. Sure I am that Hen. 4. and the rest of the Germane Emperors who fought and strove so long against Hildebrand and his Adherents for the Investing-power were no Bishops and all the Councils of Bishops who stood for the Emperors never took them for Bâ—shops and therefore thought not that Ivesting was an Act proper to Episcopal-power 7. I have before proved that ancient Writers and Papists and many Protestants agree that Baptism is valid administred by Lay-men that I say not women 8. Mr. Dodwell self-condemningly saith that a presumptuous Ordination of the Priest serves to the validity of Sacraments though indeed he were not Ordained and that God is bound to make such Acts to the people good 9. Mr. D. must beg belief instead of proving it if he tell us that the stated teaching of Gods Word to a Church is not as truly the work of the Pastor as is the Admistring the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lords Supper It is one of the principal of the Jesuits jugglings to make the people think that till they can prove their Teachers the rightly Ordained Ministers of Christ they are not bound to hear them or believe them Our Parents mostly were never Ordained Bishops or Priests Must not Children therefore hear them and believe them fide humanâ And hath not that God who appointed Parents to teach his Law to their children lying down and rising up and to educate them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord thereby signified that Parents instruction is the first ordinary means appointed by God for the conveying of saving knowledg and faith And if the help of Parents though unordained be Gods ordinary means of the first saving faith shall We say with such men as Mr. Dodwell that we have no Covenant right to salvation till we have the Sacrament from the hand of a Minister that had a regular Ordination uninterruptedly down from the Apostles 10. Did the Three hundred Act. 2. and the Eunuch Act. 8. refuse Baptism till they were satisfied by proof that the Baptizers were rightly called Ministers Paul tells those that questioned his Apostolick power that he was an Apostle to them whatever he was to others and that they should know first whether Christ were in them and so whether he were not a true Minister and not begin at the trying of the Ministry 2 Cor. 13.4 5 6 7. Gal. 3.1 2 3 4. c. 11. The Acts of the Parliament called irregularly by General Monk were they that restored King Charles the 2 d and were confirmed by him as valid through the defect of a Regular Summons and by necessity 12. I have fully proved in my Treatise of Episcopacy that the Species of Bishops which Mr. Dodwell pleaded for is not the same which the Churches had for 200. or 300. years And then where is his regular succession from the Apostles § 22. He saith also p. 37. They cannot give an Instance of any power setled by Charter whereupon the Acts of any persons lawfully Invested though confessedly less qualified are not thought valid A plain sign that their Investiture doth properly confer such power Ans. Words fitted to deceive 1. He that is unqualified is not lawfully Invested and yet the Act of the Invester may be right had the Recipient been lawful 2. He saith Less qualified when he knew that our question is of the unqualified 3. Investiture giveth it as the Act of the Power and Donor by a servant delivering orderly possession but doth not make or prove the Investing Minister the Owner or Donor no more than he was that from the Emperor Henry delivered the Bishops the Staff and Ring or the Priest that Marrieth the persons 4. Burroughs and Cities choose and return Burgesses for
Parliament by Charter yet if they are unqualified when they come thither the choice is judged null If a City choose and Invest a proclaimed Rebel for Mayor I will believe it null or invalid though Mr. D. will not And if he write Forty Books with such streams of confident words to prove that the Election and Investiture of the dâ—â—lared Heretick Bishops at Alexandria Antioch Constantinople and most of the Empire in many Ages Arrians Eutichians c. were yet judged valid by the Councils of the Orthodox no man that ever read the Councils will believe him 5. Nor will I believe him that any Bishops Ordination can make a true Bishop or Priest of a Woman an Infant or a professed Heathen Infidel or proper Heretick or any uncapable person any more than he can make a Woman to be a Husband or a dumb man the University Orator § 23. He saith They cannot give an Instance of any Power setled by Charter whereupon a failure of all who are by the Charter empowred to dispose of Offices the power must devolve to those who are not by the Charter empowred to dispose of them and where such a Charter is not thought in Law to fail by becoming unpracticable till the supreme power interpose c. Ans. Still the same fraud If all empowred to dispose of Offices is an ambiguous word The Prince disposeth of them by giving the Power and the Electors by choosing the Receivers and the Minister by delivering the Insignia If Electors and all die indeed there are none to determine of the Receiver And yet if the Plague kill most of the Electors at Age and leave not a due number when the rest left come to Age and choose the Charter will renew the Office-power 2. But if it be only the Ministerial Invester that faileth the sense of the Lawgiver must be judged of by the words and by other notices and the light of common Reason e. g. Whether it be the meaning of the Charter which saith that the Recorder shall give the Oath or the former Mayor shall deliver the Insignia that if the Recorder or Mayor be dead or sick or mad or wilfully refuse the City shall have no Mayor or if no Priest will Marry folks all England must live unmarried or if the Archbishops and Bishops will Ordain none but Hereticks all the Churches must have no other Ministers And here Nature and Christ teach us that the Means is only for the End and Order for the thing ordered and God will have us understand his own Laws so as that Rituals give place to Morals I will have mercy and not sacrifice And sure if the King of Spains Charter for the making of Governours at the West Indies should not express or reasonably imply a Remedy in case of the failure of circumstances of meer Order his Countrey might be lost before they could send to Spain for a new Charter or new power And Mr. D. saith Which is the very case impugned by me of the Nonconformists And so judg whether he must not turn a Seeker and say that all Ministry Churches and Sacraments cease till a new Commission comes from Heaven upon the failure of every such circumstance yea when almost all the Churches charge each other with failures and intercisions and the very species of the Ordainers is so much altered If the King send his Army into the Indies or his Navies and mention no power but the Generals as chief or no way of choosing a new General but by the Field-Officers choice and giving him an Oath by the Secretary c. yet no man doubteth but it was his meaning that if the General die or turn Rebel yea and the major part of the Field-Officers or the Secretary the Army should choose another General rather than perish and the Kings service miscarry § 24. He addeth They cannot give an Instance of any humane Charter that ever allows any person empowered to extend his own power by a private exposition of the Charter against the sense of all the visible supreme powers of the society Ans. This opens the Core of the Aposthume 1. We deny as confidently as any French or Italians affirm that there is any such thing at a supreme visible power over the universal Church under Jesus Christ and therefore none such is disobeyed or contradicted 2. And we maintain That by Divine appointment there is no visible National supreme Church-power but that of the Civil Christian Soveraign and therefore none such disobeyed 3. And we hold that no man can extend his own power further than Christs own Law extendeth it False expositions give no power 4. And therefore we prove by your own Rule that Christ being the only supreme universal Ruler and having described and specified the Office of a Pastor and order of a Church no Bishops can by their private exposition turn a single Church into a Diocesan or a Presbyter of Christs description into an half Presbyter of their own making But if they make a man a Pastor his power and work shall be what Christ saith and not what the Ordaâ—ner will Investing-Ministers Acts are null if they contradict the Order of the Donor If the King give you a Parsonage of 300. l. a year and the Instituter say you shall have but 100. l. out of it it 's vain he instituteth you but as the Donors instrument in the same Benefice and power given by him § 25. He addeth p. 38. Where can they find such a Charter for the power of Presbyters in Scripture as they speak of Ans. Nay then we are far from agreeing if you think that the very Species of a Pastors Office is not found in Scripture as of Christs institution Thâ—n it seems the Bishops make the very Species The Italian Bishops at Trent scarce gave so much to the Pope Then why may not the Bishops put down Presbyters if they make the Species or make as many Species as they please Indeed Dr. Hammond thought that there was no evidence of the Order of Subject Presbyters in Scripture-times And if God instituted none let us have none But I have told you before and often where in Scripture the true Pastors Office is described § 26. He adds They may find some actual practices but will they call that a Charter Ans. This is indeed to strike at our foundation If we prove not Christ to be King and Lawgiver and that his Laws or Governing-precepts were partly given by himself and partly by his Spirit in his Commissioned Apostles and these Recorded Sealed and Delivered in Scripture If we prove not that these as the authorized Agents of Christ delivered his Will by words and practice in setling and describing the Pastors of his Churches then take the Ministry and spare not for mans invention I cited you before the Texts that are our proof But if the Office which you call Priestly be of mans making in specie I doubt the Diocesans will prove so much more
work that God hath â—ade Officers to do already And then we need not say â—that Orders are Iure Divino if the Bishop may make more at his pleasure but quo jure and what shall set his bounds and end This seemeth more in kind than the Italians at Trent would have given to the Pope over Bishops Anâ— if they do not themselves also that same Essential part of their Office which they give to others they degrade themselves For the ceasing or alienation of an Essential part changeth the specieâ— But I suppose you will say 〈◊〉 is Preâ—byters to whom they may delegate this work And 〈◊〉 either it is a worâ— which God hath made part of the Presbyters Office or not If it be then that Presbyter doth his ow◠〈◊〉 appointed him by God and not another 〈…〉 not 〈◊〉 he maketh a new Officer who is â—either 〈…〉 But the 〈…〉 the Office 〈◊〉 that it may not be 〈◊〉 thoâ—gh Bishop may Ordain men to an Office of 〈…〉 the King or Church may make new Officers 〈…〉 Clock keepers Ostiaries c. 〈…〉 and obligation to personal duty to be done 〈◊〉 personâ—l abiâ—â—ty as is the Office of a Physician a Judg a School 〈…〉 a Pilot c where he that Authorâ—zeth and obligâ—th another statedly to do his work doth thereby make that other a Physician Judg School-Master Pilot c. This is but Ordinâ—tioâ— And if a Bishop be but one that may appoint others to do the Episcopal work then 1. Why is not every King a Bishop for he may appoint men to do a Bishops work And why is he not also a Physician Musician Pilot c. because he may do the like by them 2. And then the Bishop appointed by the King is no more a Bishop indeed than one appointed by a Bishop is But this delegation that I speak against is a smaller sin than such men choose To depute others to exercise Discipline whom God appointed not de specie thereto is but Sacriledg and Usurpation by alienating it from the true office and setting up a false one But yet the thing might some how be done if any were to do it But the almost total deposition and destruction of the Discipline it self and letting none do it by pretending the sole authority of doing it is another kind of sin Now to your answer from the similitude of Civil Monarchs I reply It is no wonder if we never agree about Church-offices if we no better agree of the general nature of them and their work Of which if you will please to read a sheet or two which I wrote the last year to Ludov. Molinaeus of the difference of Magistracy and Church-power and also read the Lord Bacons Considerations you will excuse me for here passing by what is there said I. The standing of the Magistrates Office is by the Law of Nature which therefore alloweth variety and mutations of inferior Orders as there is cause But the standing of the Clergy is by Supernatural Institution Our Book of Ordination saith there are three Orders c. Therefore man may not alter them or make more of that same kind II. Kingly power requireth not ad dispositionem materiae such Personal ability as the Pastoral-office doth A child may be a King and it may serve turn if he be but the head of power and give others commission to do all the rest of the Governing work But it is not so with a Judg a Physician an Orator or a Bishop who is not subjectum capax of the essence of the office without personal aptitude III. God hath described the Bishops office in Scripture as consisting of three parts viz. Teaching Priestly or about Worship and Sacraments and ruling as under Christs Prophetical Priestly and Kingly Office And he hath no where made one more proper to a Bishop than another nor said this is Essential and that is but Integral Therefore the Bishop may as well allow a Layman to administer the Sacraments c. as one not appointed to it by God to Rule by the Keys IV. The Bishops Pastoral Rule is only by Gods word upon the Conscience as Bishop Bilson of Obed. sheweth at large and all Protestants agree and not by any mulcts or corporal force If he use the sword or constraint it is not as a Bishop but as a Magistrate But the Kings is by the sword And will it follow that because the King may appoint another to apprehend men and carry them to prison c. that therefore a Bishop appointed by God to Preach Worship and Rule and therein to draw the Impenitent to Repentance by patient exhortations and reproofs c. may commit this to another never appointed to it of God V. Either it is the Bishops work as was said that is delegated by him or some other If properly his own than either he maketh more Bishops and that 's all we plead for or else a Presbyter or Layman may do a Bishops proper work And then what need of a Bishop to pass by the contradiction VI. But my chief answer to you is the King as Supreme Magistrate doth appoint and rule by others that are truly Magistrates They have every one a Judicial power in their several places under him even every Justice of Peace But you suppose the Bishop to set up no Bishops nor no Church-Governours under him at all A King can rule a Kingdom by Supremo Judgment when he hath hundreds of Judges under him who do it by his authority And if this had been all our dispute whether a Patriarch or Archbishop can rule a thousand Churches by a thousand Inferior Bishops or Church-rulers you had said something But doth it follow that your Church Monarch can over-see them all himself without any sub-oversees or rule them by Gods word on the Conscience without any sub-rulers You appropriate the Decretory Power to your Monarch and communicate only the executive Hold to that The whole Government is but Legislatio Iudicium Legislation now we meddle not with yet our Bishops allow it to the Presbyters in Convocation for they take Canons to be Church-Laws It is a lower power that is denied to them that they grant the higher to Bare execution is no Government A Hangman is no Governour A Governour may also be Executioner but a meer Executioner is no Governour The People are Executioners of Excommunications while they withdraw from the Excommunicate and with such do not eat c. as 1 Cor. 5. And the Parish-Priest is an Executioner while he as a Cryer proclaimeth or readeth the Chancellors Excommunication in the Church and when he denieth the Sacrament to those that he is bid deny it to I grant you that this is Communicated But it is the Judicial power it self which I have been proving the Bishop uncapable of Exploration is part of the Judicial work I know you include not that in execution which follows it If you did it would be a sad office for a Bishop to
understood II. But if it be a priority of Existence in order of execution that you mean it disproveth it self For 1. It is contrary to the nature of production that two or twenty or an hundred stated Congregations should be before on t as it is that I should write a page before a line and a line before a word and a word before a letter 2. It is contrary to the Scripture-History which telleth us that Christ called his Disciples by degrees a few first and more after and that the Apostles accordingly converted men from the number of 120 they rose to 3000 more and after to 5000 c. And that ordinarily the Churches in Scripture-times were such as could and often did meet in one place though that be nâ—t necessary as I said before hath so copious evidence as that I will not here trouble you with it 3. Either the Apostles Ordained Bishops before subject Presbyters or such Presbyters before Bishops or both at once If both at once as two Orders it 's strange that they called both Orders promiscuously by the same names sometimes Bishops sometimes Presbyters and sometimes Pastors and Teachers without any distinguishing Epithete or notice And it 's strange that we never find any mention of the two sorts of Congregations one the Bishops Cathedral and the other the Parish Presbyters Congregation If you say that they were the Bishops themselves and first Ordained only subject-Presbyters under them that cannot hold For doubtless there were more than twelve or thirteen Churches the number of Apostles in their times nor were they fixed Bishops but indefinite gatherers and edifiers of the Churches And either those Elders first Ordained by the Apostles were Bishops or else there were Churches without Bishops for they Ordained Elders in every City and in every Church And either the Elders first Ordained by the Apostles had the power of Ordaining others or not If they had then either they were Bishops or else subject-Presbyters were Ordained to be Ordainers yea to Ordain Bishops if such were to be after ordained And so indeed it would be suitable to your conceiâ— that the inferiour order of Diocesans do by consent make superior Metropolitans Provincials Nationals and Patriarchs to rule them and with Hieromes report ad Evagr. that the Alexandrian Presbyters made the Bishops as the Army doth a General But this making of Children to beget Fathers is so commonly denied that I need not more dispute against it 3 But I think most of the Hierarchical way will say that the Apostles first Ordained Bishops that those Bishops might Ordain subject-Presbyters And if so the Churches could be but single Congregation at the first till the subject-Presbyters were Ordained Yea Dr. Hammond as aforesaid asserteth in Act. 11. and in Dissert c. that there is no proof there were any of the Order of subject-Presbyters in Scripture-times and he thinketh that most of his party were of his mind and that the name Bishop Elder and Pastor in Scripture signifie only those that we now call Bishops And in this he followeth Dion Petavius and Fr. a Sancta Clara de Episcop who saith that it came from Scotus And if this be so then in all Scripture-times there was no Church of more than one worshipping Congregation For we are agreed that Church-meetings were for the publick Worship of God and celebration of Sacraments and exercise of Discipline which no meer Lay-man might lawfully guide the people in and perform as such assemblies did require And one Bishop could be but in one place at once And if there were many Bishops there were many Churches So that according to Dr. Hammond and all of his mind there was no Church in Scripture-times of more than one stated ordinary Worshipping Congregation because there were no subject-Presbyters If you say that yet this was a Diocesan Church because it had a Diocesan Bishop I answer why is he called a Diocesan Bishop if he had not a Diocesan Church If you mean that he was designed to turn his single Congregation into many by increase 1. That must not be said only but proved 2. And that supposeth that his one congregation was first before the many And I hope you â—ake not Infidels for parts of the Church because they are to be converted hereafter Those that are no members of the Church make not the Church and so make it not to be Diocesan One Congregation is not an hundred or a thousand because so many will be hereafter If you mean that such a space of ground was assigned to the Bishops to gather and govern Churches in I answer 1. Gathering Churches is a work antecedent to Episcopacy 2. The Ground is no part of the Church It is a Church of men and not of soil and houses that we speak of 3. Nor indeed will you ever prove that the Apostles measured out or distinguished Churches by the space of ground So that the first Churches were not Diocesan III. As to your Third Opinion 1. Officers are denominated from the work which they are to do There are works to be done circa sacra about the holy Ministerial works as Accidental as to 〈◊〉 to Church buildings Utensils and Lands to Summon Synods and Register their Acts to moderate in disputations and to take votes c. These the Magistrate may appoint Officers to peâ—â—orm and if he do not the Churches by his permission may do it by consent And there are works proper to the Magistrate viz. to force men to their duty by mulcts or corporal penalties I deny none of these But the works of Ordination Pastoral Guidance Excommunication and Absolution by the power of the Keys are proper to the sacred Office which Christ hath instituted And I shall not believe till I see it proved that any men have power to make any new Order or Office of this sort which Christ never made by himseelf or his Spirit in his Apostles much less that Inferiors may make Superior Offices For 1. It belongeth to the same power to make one especially the Superior Church-Office which made the other of the same General nature If without Christs institution no man could be Episcopus gregis and have the power of the Keys over the people then by parity of Reason without his institution no man can be Episcopus Episcoporum and have the power of the Keys over the Bishops 2. Dr. Hammond's argument against Presbyters Ordination is Nemo dat quod non habet which though it serve not his turn on several accounts both because 1. They have the Order which they confer 2. Because Ordination is not giving but Ministerial delivery by Investiture yet in this case it will hold For 1. This is supposed to be a new institution of an Office 2. And that of an higher power than ever the Institutors had themselves The King giveth all his Officers their power but all of them cannot give the King his power The Patriarch cannot make a Pope nor the
Metropolitans a Patriarch that shall have a power over them which they never had themselves And what I say of Superior Orders and Offices I say of Synods For whether the power be Monarchicaâ— or Aristocratical or Democratical there is need of the same power in the Cause that maketh it No man can give that which he hath not to give If you should fly to such popular Principles as the Episcopal Champion Richard Hooker doth and the Jesuites in their Politicks and many yea most other Writers of Politicks and say That as the people are the givers of power to the Soveraign though they are no Governours themselves so the Bishops give power to the Episcopi Episcoporum personal or Synodical I answer The Principle is false about Civil Policy as I have proved against Mr. Hooker in my Christian Directory and as Dr. Hammond hath proved in the Kings Cause against Iohn Goodwin The power every man hath over himself doth so specifically differ from the power of Governing-Societies that the latter is not caused by all mens Contribution of the former and much more in Church-Government which God hath left less the Will of man as Mr. Dan. Cawdrâ—y hath proved To conclude I grant the Superiority of Magistrates and of their Officers circa sacra but not that Inferior Clergy-men may by consent make a Superior Species of Rulers or Episcopos Episcoporum by the Keys in eodem genere But I confess that how far Christ himself hath made Apostolick Successors or Archbishops as to the ordinary part of governing many Churches is a question to me of much more difficulty and moment As for the Patriarchal and other Superior Church-power in the Roman Empire that it was made partly by the Emperors themselves as the instances of the two Iustiniana's and many others shew and partly by Councils Authorized thereto by the Emperors is past all doubt IV. As to your fourth Opinion I include the reason of my denial of it in the description of it Whether you confess particular worshipping Churches that have each unum altare to be of Divine Institution I cannot tell but that you take the Diocesan to be so Divine you have told me and that you take the Superior Ruling-Churches to be made by them Now that Churches of mans making Universal or National or Patriarchal c should be the rightful Governors by the Keys over the Churches of Gods making must be either jure Divino or humano not jure humano For 1. Man cannot give the power of the Keys without God 2. And mans grant cannot over top Gods Indeed there is no power but of God 2. Not jure divino For if God give them the power God maketh that Species that containeth that power For God not to make the Office and not to give the power is all one 3. At least what satisfying proof you will give us that indeed God giveth power to Church-Officers of his own making themseves to make nobler superior Officers or Churches than themselves I cannot foresee And till it 's proved it is not to be believed 4. Yea it confoundeth the Inferiours and the Superiors For the Diocesans are so far the Superiors to the Provincial National Patriarchal c. in that they make them or give them their power and yet inferior in that they are to be subjects to them More Nonconformists do deny the power of men to make new Species of Churches and Church Rulers than their power to make new Ceremonies V. Your next mention'd Opinion that it is a sin to preach and congregate people within the local bounds of Diocesan or Provincial or other superior Jurisdictions without their consent falleth of it self if those foregoing fall which it is built upon 1. If it prove true that they that made these superior Jurisdictions had no power to make them but gave that which they had not to give then your foundation faileth 2. If it be proved that neither Christ nor his Apostles ever made a Law that Bishops Jurisdictions shall be limited measured and distributed by space of ground as our Parishes and Diocesses are so that all in such a compass shall be proper to one Pastor much less did ever divide our Diocesses or Parishes which me thinks none should deny then Preaching in that space of ground is no sin against such an Order of Christ. 3. If it be proved as I undertake to do that this distribution by spaces of ground is a work that the King and his Officers are to do or the Churches by his permission by way of contract if he leave it to them and this in obedience to Gods General Laws of Order Peace Concord and Edification then these things will follow 1. That if the King give us Licenses to Preach within such a space of ground we have good Authority and break not the restraining Law And yet such as you accused us of schism as well when the King Licensed us as since 2. That this Law of local bounds doth bind us but as other humane Laws do which is say many Casuists not at all out of the case of scandal when they make not for the bonum publicum But say others more safely not when they notoriously make against 1. Either the bonum publicum which is finis regiminis 2. Or the general Law of God which must authorize them being against edification peace c. 3. When they are contrary to the great certain and indiâ—pensible Laws of God himself And that in such cases patient suffering the penalty which men inflict is instead of obedience to the prohibition and as in Daniels case Dan. 6 and â—he Apostles c. Therefore I am 〈…〉 to give you 1. My Concessions in what cases it 〈…〉 to 〈◊〉 the Magistrate in Preaching where he forbiddeth 〈◊〉 2. 〈◊〉 in what cases it is a great duty But to say that it is a sin because that the Clergy forbiddeth it must have better proof â—â—an I have seen even 1. That such Clergy-men are truly called by God 2. And that they have from him the assignation of this space of ground And 3. are by him empowered to forbid all others to preach on their land 4. And that even when Gods general Laws do make it our duty that they can suspend the obligation of such Laws even the greatest I am ready upon any just occasion to prove to you that I were a heinous sinner if I should have ceased such Preaching as I have used upon all the reasons that you alledg against it And wo to them that make our greatest and dearest duties to pass for sin and our greatest sin Isa. 5.20 Were it but one of the least commands I would be loth to break it and teach men so to do much less one of the greatest when men whose consciences tell them that they are totally devoted to God as Christians and as Ordained Ministers deny their worldly interest and preferments and serve him in poverty beholden for their daily bread and to
more than a Ceremony that knoweth it if the King command me to Preach at one hour or one place and the Bishop at another or to use for Uniformity such a Translation Metre Liturgy Utensils Garments c and the Bishops others I will obey the King before the Bishop But if either or both command me to sin I will obey neither so and if they would take me off from that which Christ hath made a real part of my own Office as commanding that I shall preach and pray in no words but such as they prescribe c. I think neither hath power to do this But Bishop Bilson of Christian Obedience and Bishop Andrews in his Tortura Toetis and Buckeridg of Rochester and Grotius de imprrio sum Potest circa Sacra have said so much of the Power of Kings about Religion as that I think I need not add any more And by the same Arguments that you will absolve me from obeying if the King forbid me to Preach by the same you absolve if the Bishop forbid me If I may disobey Constantius and Valens I may disobey Eusebius Nicomed Theognis Maris If I may disobey Theodosius junior Anastasius Zeno Iustinian I may disobey Petrus Moggus Dioscorus Severus c. But you will much cross your â—nds if you tell the Londoners that they may preach and worship God though the King forbid them but not at all if the Bishop forbid them For he that exalteth himself or is sinfully exalted by others shall be brought low If the reverence of the King were not greater in England than of the Bishops the consciences of many thousands would stick but little at disobedience There are so many cases first to be resolved As 1. Whether such Diocesans deposing all Parochial Churches and Bishops and reducing them to Chappels or parts only of a Church be not against Christs Law 2. Whether they destroy not the ancient order of particular Churches Bishops and Discipline 3. Who made their office and by what power 4. Who chose and called them to it 5. Whether their Commands be not null as contrary to Gods 6 How far Communion with them that silence hundreds of faithful Ministers and set up in their stead c. is lawful Many such questions the people are not so easily satisfied in as you are XI And the three last all set together look with an ill design The Preface to Dr. Rich. Cousins Tables tells the King That the Church-Government here is the Kings or derived from him and dependant on him and Grotius de Imperio sum potest proveth at large the Power of Kings circa sacra as doth Spalatensis and many more and that Canons are but good counsel till the King make them Laws And we know no Law-makers but the King and Parliament But if the Church be the Expounders of the Liturgy Rubrick and Canons Articles and Acts of Uniformity and out of Convocation-time the Bishops be the Church and the Archbishops be the Rulers of the Bishops that swear obedience to them this hath a dangerous aspect For then it is in the power of the Bishops if not of the Archbishops only to put a sense upon our 39 Articles Rubricks c. consistent with Popery or Heresie and so to change the Religion of the Kingdom without King or Parliament or against them at their pleasure And thus Officers of mans making who become a Church of mans devising may have advantage by this and the former Articles to destroy Godliness Christianity and Humanity Indeed by the Preface to the Liturgy the Bishop is made the Expounder of any thing doubtful in the Book and by the Index the Act of Uniformity is made part of the Book But this affrighteth me the more from declaring 1. Because I must consent to all the Penalties and Impositions of the Act it self 2. And the Bishop Exposition is limited so that it must be contrary to nothing in the Book Thus I have given you the reasons of my destructive Conference If I had been with you and we had been to enter upon any dispute that tendeth to satisfaction I would have endeavoured to avoid the common frustraters of Disputes 1. By ambiguous words 2. And subjects that are no subjects Therefore if you desire any such dispute I. I intreat you to write me down your sense of some terms which we shall frequently use and I will do the like of any at your desire As what you mean 1. By the word Bishop 2. By a Church 3. By a particular Church 4. By a Diocess and Diocesan Church 5. By a National Church 6. By the Vniversal Church 7. By Church Government and Iurisdiction 8. By Schism I shall dispute no terms unexplained lest one take them in one sense and the other in another and so we dispute but about a sound of words II. I desire that the denied Subject of the Question may not be taken for granted instead of being proved On these terms supposing the common Laws of Disputation especially avoiding words that have no determinate sense I shall not refuse whenever you invite me and I am able to debate with you any of these points that I am concerned in especially whether my Preaching Christs Gospel as I do be my sin or my duty And if our great distance in Principles put either of us upon râ—â—sons that seem dishonouring to the person opposed we shall I hope 〈…〉 that it is the opinion only that is directly intended But 〈…〉 opinion is the persons opinion if it be bad is a dishâ—nâ—â—r whiâ—â— the owner only is guilty of and the opponent caâ—not 〈…〉 must not forbear to open the evil of the cause for avoiding the dishonour of the owner but must the rather open it in hope that the owner will disown it when he understandeth truly what it is For I suppose it is evidence of Truth that we desire In Conclusion remember I pray you 1. That it is not the ancient Episcopacy which was in Cyprians days yea which agreeth with Epiphanius's Intimations and Petavius excellent Notes thereon in Haeres 69. which I deny And I conjecture that at this day in England there are more Episcopal than Presbyterian silenced Non-conformists 2. That what sort of Prelacy or higher Rulers I dare not subscribe to yet I can live quietly and submissively under though not obey them by sinning against God or breaking my Vows of Baptism or Ordination and perfidiously leaving souls to Satan Nothing more threateneth the subversion of the Church-Government than swearing men to approve of all thâ—t's in it Many can submit and live in peace that dare not subscribe or swear Approbation It was the caetâ—ra Oath 1640 that constrained me to thâ—se searches which 〈◊〉 me a Nonconformist It is an easie maâ—â—er for Overdoers to add but a claâ—se or two more to their Oaths and Subscriptions which shall maâ—e almost all the conscionable Ministers of the Kingdom Nonconformists 3. Whenever notorious necessity ceaseth by the sufficient number and qâ—ality of Conforming Preachers I will cease Preaching in England But death is liker first to silence me Though I take my Conforming to be a Complex of heinous sins should I be guilty of it yet till I am called I perswade none to Nonformity for fear of casting them occasionally out of the Ministry preferring their work before the change of their judgment till such endeavours are clearly made by duty But all your endeavour as far as ever I perceived is not so much to draw us to Conformity as to persuade us to give over Preaching Christs Gospel so contrary are our designs 1 Thes· 2.15 16. Methinks is a fearful Text. And so are the words of the Liturgy before the Sacrament If any of you be a hinderer of Gods Word repent or take not this Sacrament lest Satan enter into you as he did into Judas and fill you c. FINIS This was written long ago The Earl of Orery ☜