of Presbyters they are called Bishops Surely these things are as clear proof that Bishops were not a Superior Order as a Negative is capable of and there being no one Text in Scripture that affirms the distinction Semper praesumitur pro negante we must have concluded in the Negative though we had not had these proofs But what is wanting in Scripture they hope to make up out of the Fathers and Councils in behalf of Diocesan Prelacy it is certain they think their greatest strength lies there And we deny not that many of the Fathers seem to make a great difference betwixt Bishops and Presbyters but this does not overthrow our Hypothesis for if they are the same in Scripture the Sayings of the Fathers cannot make them otherwise and yet few or none of the Ancients say that they are distinct Orders much less that they are so by divine right but some of them acknowledge the contrary as we shall presently shew It is not therefore their using the Name of Bishop in a sence distinct from that of Presbyter or requiring Presbyters to be obedient to their Bishop that will prove a superiority of order jure divino for we grant that it was the early Practice of the Church to choose one of the Gravest and Wisest of the Presbyters and constitute him President over the rest and that where there were many Presbyters in a particular Church commonly the Eldest or worthiest was as Pastor and the other his Assistants but still we know the Parson and the Curates are of the same order and every Bishop in England is equal in order to the Archbishop of Canterbury though they take an Oath of Canonical Obedience to him the same we say of the distinction betwixt Bishop and Presbyter in Primitive Times This would be a sufficient reply unto the Antiquities this Gentleman has alledged but lest he should think he has done a mighty feat in transcribing these Passages I shall animadvert more particularly upon them He begins with the Canons of the Apostles but why they should take place of Clemens Romanus and Ignatius I cannot tell unless he has a Mind to cheat us with the Name or was cheated by it himself Dr. Cave reckons them among the Supposititious Works of the First Age and Dr. Beveridge who has laboured so hard to defend them against Daille only contends that they were written by Clemens Alexandrinus near the latter End of the Second Century But what say these Canons why they say Let not the Presbyters or Deacons do any thing without the consent of the Bishop for he hath the People of the Lord entrusted to him and there shall one day be required of him an Account of their Souls Here says the Gentleman the Bishop has the Power of governing the Presbyters and Deacons Concil Carth. c. 23. Cypr. Edit Goul. Ep. 6. p. 17. Ep. 24. p. 55. it is well argued however the Kings of England can make no Laws without the consent of the Lords and Commons have they therefore the power of governing him Cyprian did nothing without the concurrence of his Presbyters nay he determined to do nothing without the consent of his People by our Gentleman's dialect the Presbyters and People had the Power of governing the Bishop And is there one word here to prove that the Bishop was of a Superior Order The Curates of a Church are to have the direction and consent of the Parson and yet the Order is the same And it deserves to be considered whether 't is likely this Bishop the Canon speaks of was any more than the Pastor of a particular Church since he must be supposed capable of giving the Necessary Orders for management of all Affairs and nothing must be done without his consent it would be a Rule hard to be observed as our present Dioceses are Modell'd and if Presbyters must do nothing without the Bishops consent they must do nothing at all the whole time being too little for Travel and Consultation there would be none left for Action unless by consent we must understand a general Permission to do what they please without consulting him at all in particular Matters which would be a very odd Comment upon such a Text and not very well agreeing with the Reason that is added for this consent viz. That the Bishop has the People of the Lord committed to him and shall give an account of their Souls Surtly this requires a more careful and near inspection than to commit the care of all by an Act of general consent to others without ever intending a personal Acquaintance with one of a Thousand Pres Treat of Repentance so solemnly committed to him Dr. Taylor says he is sure we cannot give an Account of those Souls of whom we have no notice The next passage is out of Clemens Romanus his Epistle to the Corinthians a Piece of Antiquity which all the World has a great Veneration for that which the Gentleman thinks is for his purpose he gives us thus The Apostles foreseeing that there would be Contentions about the Name or Dignity of Bishop or Episcopacy they set down a List or Continuation of Successors that when any died such a certain person should succeed him But this place in Clement is very falsly recited and whoever furnished him with it abused him and imposed upon his Ignorance This Translator whoever he be would have us to think that the Apostles set down a List of the Names of those that were to Succeed in the Episcopal See this we cannot admit until he tell us where this List is to be found how far it went It seems it was a Continuation of Successors but it is hard to imagine how they could have the Names of Persons so ready that were yet unborn and unconverted we know an Infallible Spirit could reveal it to them but surely then we should have had it in the Canon of Scripture such a thing would have been of singular Use not only for prevention of Disputes about the choice of Bishops but for the Uncontroulable Evidence of the Truth of Christianity when they were able to produce a Prophetical List with the Names of Persons then unborn and yet all in due time appearing and ascending the Chair according to that Sacred Roll for these Reasons we cannot but reject the Fiction of any such List of Names which when one died declared that such a certain Person should succeed him And I am sure the words of Clement say no such thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Edit Colomes 103. the true English of them is this And our Apostles understood by our Lord Jesus that contention would arise about the Name of Episcopacy and for this Cause being furnished with perfect foreknowledge ordained those before-mentioned and moreover gave 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 order that whensoever they should die other approved Men should succeed and perform their Functions I know there have been great Disputes about this odd word 〈◊〉
not spoken in any such Humour Men of Tender Consciences though under a mistake will conciliate veneration from others The worst I wish them is that God would shew them the evil of their former impositions upon the Consciences of their poor despised Brethren But that which induces me to mention it is I find the Defenders of the Hierarchy confidently assert that there can be but one Bishop in one Church at the same time therefore if the former be not divested of their power I see not how the present Incumbents can have any by their own Rule and so their Ordinations would be Null if the others be still valid The present Bishop of Worcester in his debate with Mr. Clarkson says it was the Inviolable Rule of the Church to have but one Bishop in a City and Church at once and Dr. Morrice labours hard to conquer Mr. Clarksons objection against it which was Def. of the Ans to Dr. St. p. 19. That Alexander was made Bishop of Jerusalem whilst Narcissus lived He says Narcissus took Alexander into the participation of the charge but foreseeing that Mr. C. would reply then here were two Bishops jointly governing one Church contrary to Dr. St's inviolable Rule he adds Alexander was the Bishop Narcissus retained but the Name and Title onely that is was but a Titular not a real Bishop and it seems that was his part of the Charge to have onely the Title and no Charge at all Now whether T.W. thinks the late Bishops are the Titular and the present the Real or on the contrary we will not oblige him to declare onely we guess at his Sentiments by his calling the Late Arch-Bishop the Ruler of Gods People above half a year after he was deprived Perhaps this Gentleman will satisfie himself with saying the late Prelates have the power still but are restrained from the exercise of it But that would be to confront the Act of Parliament which says expressly they are deprived of their Office and distinguishes betwixt being suspended from the exercise of their Office and being deprived of the Office it self if they did not take the Oaths before the first of August 1689. Primo Guliel Mariae they were suspended from the Execution of their Office for six Months and if then they still refused They shall be ipso facto deprived and are hereby judged to be deprived of their Offices Benefices Dignities and Promotions Ecclesiastical What is it then that the Civil Magistrate may not do in the making of an English Prelate I know it will be said he cannot consecrate him and it is the Consecration that gives the Episcopal power but to this I have two things to return 1. According to their own Practice Episcopal Jurisdiction is exercised by persons never so consecrated as by Presbyters and Lay-Chancellors in the cases before mentioned and they have Authority given them to exercise that Jurisdiction and that not by Deputation from the Bishop but by Legal Constitution and what is the Office of a Bishop but Authority to do the work of a Bishop 2. Since the whole Being of Episcopal power is founded upon their Consecration it is very reasonable to demand from them a plain Rule in Scripture for this Consecration of Bishops as distinct from the Ordination of Presbyters If they chuse this Foot to fix their Divine Right upon it is necessary a clear Scripture Canon should be produced for it but it is most certain they may turn over all the Leaves of their Bible all the Days of their Life before they can find any such thing And as the Scripture is altogether silent as to the difference betwixt the Ordination of a Presbyter and Consecration of a Bishop 1 Tit. nay in the Rule for Ordination makes them the same so this Ceremony of Consecration has not been at all times and all cases thought necessary Repertor Canon p. 49. or practised in the making of Bishops Godolphin tells us that antiently according to the Canon Law and where the Popes Spiritual Power and Authority was in force Bishops were not so much by Election as Postulation Sum. Rosel postulat tit si ques Pan. 2. p. 106. and in that case the Elected was a Bishop presently without Confirmation or Consecration onely by the assent of the Superiour And I have recited already the judgment of Mr. Dodwell that every particular Church had a Power to invest its Bishop and that the calling in the assistance of other Bishops was not for want of a right in themselves to do it I hope these Gentlemen will be more cautious how they lay the whole weight of Episcopal Authority upon Consecration which it seems might sometimes be omitted lest thereby they break their Line and the neck of their cause together Upon the whole matter I think it is clear enough that the English Prelaty is a meer Creature of the Civil Magistrate who may make every Parson of a Parish a Bishop if he pleases their whole power as distinct from Presbyters being founded upon the Laws of the Land by the Statute 25 Hen. VIII 19. it is declared That none of the Clergy shall from thenceforth presume to attempt alleadge claim or put in ure any Constitutions or Ordinances Provincial or any other Canons Nor shall Enact Promulge or Execute any such Canons Constitutions or Ordinances Provincial by whatsoever name or names they shall be called in their Convocations in time coming which shall always be assembled by the Authority of the Kings Writt unless the same Clergy may have the Kings most Royal Assent so to do upon pain of being Fined and Imprisoned at the King's will I need not say how severely the Canons of 40 were damned by the House of Commons where it was resolved That the Clergy in a Synod or Convocation Supplement oâ— Bakers Chron. p. 476. hath no power to make Canons Constitutions or Laws Ecclesiastical to bind either Laity or Clergy without a Parliament and that the Canons are against the Fundamental Laws of this Realm against the King's Prerogative Property of the Subjects Rights of Parliament and tend to Faction and Sedition And the Act of Uniformity has not left the Bishops power to add or change one Ceremony without the Consent of Parliament 4. Lastly We plead that the Civil Power has now left us to our Liberty in the case of Conformity and therefore we are not guilty of Disobedience to Authority in what we do I know it will presently be replied That the Act of Liberty only frees Dissenters from the Penalty of the Law not from the Precept of it and there is a sharp thing written it seems by Mr. Norris to prove that the only Change made by the Toleration as he calls it is that the Penal part of the Law is for the present laid aside Charge of Schism continued as for the Preceptive part that stands where it did and obliges under sin though not under Civil Penalty
of God in this Supream Law and therefore cannot in the same thing act with his Authority And if in making such Laws as have no tendency to the publick good they act without Authority it is certain those Laws cannot bind men to Obedience though the publick good and a respect to the Persons and Office of their Governours may oblige them to submit to the Penalty The Authority of God is absolute is originally in himself and from himself and therefore is not under the direction of the publick good of his Creatures but the Authority of Man is derivative and dependant given unto him not for his own sake and pleasure but for the common Interest of Mankind and is wholly directed and limited thereby and therefore he cannot as God make Laws purely positive no way tending to good but meerly to try mens Obedience to his Authority for he has no Authority to command such things and a compliance with such Commands may be submission but cannot be proper Obedience And it is observable that there are many Statutes in England not repealed and yet not regarded because the matter of them is found to be so very trivial that no body thinks Conscience any way concerned in them as the Act for the tire of Wheels that about the Age of all Calves which the Butchers kill another requiring Butts for shooting in every Town another That no Bull shall be kill'd without Baiting That none shall pay above a Penny for a Quart of Ale and such like which are buried and forgotten in their own unusefulness The matter therefore is come to this Issue if those things wherein we dissent from the Episcopal party be naturally and in themselves apt to promote the common good a meer suspension of the Sanction will not excuse us from obedience because the Laws requiring those things are not meer Penal Laws But if they have no such tendency at all then though our Liberty were no more but a suspension of the Sanction yet the Law being purely Penal we are under no manner of obligation to Obedience by it We have therefore these two things to say for our selves under this head 1. That the Act for Liberty amounts to more than a bare suspension of the Penalty for it allows of our Congregations it secures us from disturbance laying a penalty upon all those that shall presume to do it it exempts our Ministers from serving in any Secular Offices which is conferring a kind of reward upon them I cannot but take notice how weak and ineffectual these Gentlemen would now make this Suspension of the Penal Laws to be and how little influence they will allow it to have upon the Preceptive part and yet when it was their Interest in the Late King's Reign to decry the Suspension of them by the Kings Declaration onely They pretend and plead that if that Declaration have any Legal effect it would discharge Ministers and People from attending upon the Publick Service of God thus Sir Robert Sawyer Pleaded in the Bishops Trial Pag. 100 103. When a Law is suspended the obligation thereof is taken away Now my Lord with submission I have always taken it that a Power to abrogate Laws is as much a part of the Legislature as a Power to make Laws A Power to lay Laws a-sleep and to suspend them is equal to a Power of abrogating them for they are no longer in Being as Laws while they are so laid a sleep or suspended c. 2. Though it should amount to no more but a bare suspension of the Penalty yet it is sufficient to excuse us from Disobedience because the Laws hereby suspended are meer Penal Laws that is such as require things that are no way apt to promote the common good those that say they are must prove it however here we remove the Cause out of that Court and must stand or fall by the intrinsick worth and nature of the things commanded CHAP. IV. The Nature and Rule of Decency Dissenters vindicated from the charge of Indecency in Expression Gesture and Habit no positive Decency in the Ceremonies Of Parochial Order A short account of the Reasons of our Non conformity Arguments for the imposition of Ceremonies answered IF we come off clear in these great points of Catholick Unity and Obedience to Superiors we shall more easily defend our selves against the lesser imputations of Indecency and Irregularity We begin with that of Indecency and therein shall enquire first into the Nature and Rule of Decency secondly into the Practice of the Non-conformists and how far it is agreeable to those Rules We fully assent and consent to that great Law of Decency laid down in Scripture and believe the transgression of that as of all other Divine Laws to be absolutely sinful We do not think it an indifferent thing whether we worship God decently or indecently But the question is what may be the Standard or Rule by which Decency is to be measured our thoughts about it such as they are we shall lay down in a few words 1. It must be something Antecedent to the Command of Superiors even the Apostle himself when he commands that all things be done decently supposes that there was a Decent way and method of acting which they could not be ignorant of he does not by his command make the Decency but supposes it and obliges them to the observation of it We therefore conclude Decency is not a thing of meer positive institution nor depends upon the Will and Command of Men but is of higher Original even the Light of Nature and is no other but the Natural decorum of an action To say the Ceremonies of the Church of England are therefore Decent because commanded is as much as to say were there no such command there would be no Decency in them and therefore that the omission of them is guilty of no other indecency than that of disobeying Superiours and where Superiours are pleased to suspend such commands the Worship of God may be performed as decently without them which indeed is to set aside the Argument of decency and to betake our selves wholly to that of Obedience which has been already discussed 2. 'T is therefore Nature or Custom which is a second Nature that is the rule and measure of Decency Vind. of Prot. Prin. p. 100. And Dr. Sherlock argues rationally upon this point when his Adversary would suggest that there is as much necessity of an Oecumenical determination of Decency and Order as of a National one he answers No for Decency of Worship is nothing else but to perform the External Acts of Worship in such a manner as may express our Reverence and Devotion to God therefore since there are no Catholick signs of Decency there can be no Catholick Uniformity in these matters The Decency of Garments Postures Gestures differ in several Countries and so do the expressions of Honour and Reverence and therefore such external Rites being only for external
where we live in its Holy Devotions and so do Dissenters join with the Churches where they live which are as true Churches and their Devotions as Holy as if they were more large and splendid for any thing that yet appears to the contrary In the 60th Page he acknowledges that to have the Government of many Congregations is not essential to a Bishop nor to have Presbyters under him for Milles the Martyr had no Christian in his Diocess But it is Ordination that makes a Bishop If therefore our Ministers have all the Ordination that is necessary to a Bishop by the Word of God they are Bishops though they be but Pastors of single Congregations and now if this Gentleman cannot prove by plain Scripture that a Bishop must have a distinct Ordination from that of a Presbyter Ambrose in 1 Tim 3. Episcopi Presbyteri una Ordinatio est uterque enim est sacerdos to advance him into a Superior Office he has lost the Cause and here we hold it and expect plain and direct evidence to this very point when ever the Reviewing humour returns upon him And if the Pastors of single Congregations have all that is essential to Bishops then our Diocesans are a new Species of Bishops which St. Cyprian disowned in his Prefatory speech to the Council of Carthage And indeed it is liable to very just prejudices for when Bishops have taken away from the Pastors of Particular Churches these Rights and Powers which God hath given them and engrossed all to themselves and their Diocess is become too large for their Personal Inspection and Administration they are forced to set up Officers of humane institution to exercise those powers under them which they have ravished from Gospel Ministers that by numerous Dependencies and large Revenues they may gain that pre-eminence which some Men began betimes to contend for See Mr. Baxters treatise of Episcopacy never yet answered There is nothing more plainly shews these Mens contempt of Antiquity when it speaks not on their side than denying the Peoples power of Election Rational Defence p. 3. Sect. 6. p. 197. which is confirmed unto them by the Canons of divers Councils and Ample Testimony of the Fathers as Dr. Rule has proved And though we will not say such consent is essential to the Ministerial Power yet it is certainly necessary to the Pastoral Relation for the Bishops and Ministers could have no certain cure in such places where the Civil Magistrate does not interpose but by the Peoples consent This Gentleman tells us the consent of the Ministers and People of the Diocess is not necessary but it is left wholly to the discretion of the Church and I wonder what that Church is to whose discretion this is referr'd when the Ministers and People are left out will he say it is in the Power of the Bishops of other Diocesses to impose a Bishop upon any without the consent of Minister and People And must we by the Church understand the Bishops alone without Ministers and People as if they had nothing to do in those matters that are left to the Churches Discretion This lets us see what these Men drive at and how gladly they would enslave the whole World to the humours of a few and those not always the wisest or best of Men. That the Nomination of our English Bishops is vested in the King is very pleasing to Dissenters especially under the Government of one so Wise and Good as ours is But then we must say the Power they receive from the King and Laws is not properly Spiritual Power And we are willing to own them as having Humane Authority over us circa Sacra by the appointment of our Governours as far as by Law we are under their Jurisdiction And certainly many of them are too wise to pretend to any more since our Laws expresly condemn such pretensions as has been already proved by the very Letter of the Law in that case The Gentleman tells us The Vindicator shewed his Abilities in mentioning Ignatius who advises the Bishop to hold frequent assemblies and to enquire after all by their names not despising the Men Servants or Maid Servants and he would fain shew his Abilities in enervating so plain evidence and would impose upon us a great many Negatives and Peradventures which we must help him to prove We must prove That those Assemblies met only in one place that they were no more than ordinary Congregations that the Bishop had no body to assist him in the remoter parts of his charge that no man else acquainted him with the frailties and misdemeanours of particular These and a great many more such Negatives we must prove which we are no way obliged to do we insist upon the plain words of Ignatius and he must prove his peradventures himself or we shall take no notice of them The Author of the Enquiry into the Constitution c. of the Primitive Churches offers to prove that these Diocesses were no larger in the number of Church Members than our present Parishes But whether that be so or no I will not be positive For it is manifest enough the first step towards Prelacy was committing the Government of the Church to one which before was managed by several in common the next was to make that Church as large and great as could be By keeping new formed Congregations under their Jurisdiction and we have early instances of such Incroachments These Men take the Liberty of making words signifie any thing that serves their present purpose If Ireneus say the Presbyters are the Successors of the Apostles there Presbyter must signifie Bishop for fear of spoiling the Plea of Succession Review p. 65 66. If Tertullian say they never receive the Eucharist from any but the Presidents there President must not signifie the Bishop but the Presbyter for it seems in a Bench of Presbyters they are all Presidents though there be a Bishop in Cathedra amongst them Such Men will never be at a loss for something to say Though the Vindicator trusting perhaps to his memory mentioned the Sacrament of the Eucharist instead of Baptism yet it amounts to the same thing for if the Bishop was to take the Confessions of all that were to be Baptised his Diocess could not be of the same Model with ours which such a thing would be altogether impracticable This Gentleman wonders the Vindicator should be so nice in the Notion of Succession p. 19. And afterwards so loose as to make it no more but conformity to the Apostles Model in Government and Worship but the wonder will cease when he considers that in the former place he took Succession in the Sence T. W. used it as that which gives the Bishops their Title to Apostolical Power and here he takes it in the true Sence wherein the Fathers use it whose words will never prove that the Apostles left them their Apostolical Power but onely that ordinary Pastoral
Lords Dit Merc. 18. Feb. 1662. in his Speech to both Houses told them He was willing to set bounds to the Hopes of some and the Fears of others that in his own Nature he was an Enemy to all Severity for Religion and Conscience how mistaken soever it be and wish'd he had a Power of Indulgence to use upon such Occasions The House of Lords ordered a Bill to be brought in to enable the King to grant Licences to such of His Majesties Subject of the Protestant Religion Ibid. Die Veneris 13. die Martii Commons Journal Die Mercur. 25. die Feb. 15 Car. 2. of whose inoffensive and peaceable Disposition His Majesty should be perswaded to enjoy and use the Exercise of their Religion and Worship though differing from the Publick Rule but the House of Commons when it came before them divided upon it No's 161 Yea's 119. and so it was rejected and greater Severity used than before In the Year 1665. That dreadful Plague in London drove a great many Ministers out of the City and left open a Door for some Nonconformists to Preach in their Pulpits and Men being a little startled and their Spirits softened by that Stupendious Judgment of God there was a Connivance and Private Meetings were set up and multiplied greatly In the Year 1667. The King in his Speech to both Houses of Parliament Die Lunae 10 die Febr. thus express'd himself One thing more I hold my self obliged to recommend unto you at this present which is That you would seriously think of some Course to beget a better Union and Composure in the Minds of my Protestant Subjects in Matters of Religion whereby they may be induced not only to submit quietly to the Government but also chearfully give their Assistance to the Support of it But there was nothing done at that time towards it In 1672. The King again gives Liberty of Conscience upon what design Conjectures were various many believed it to be in favour of Popery but others said the Papists had as much Liberty before being generally winked at and the Penal Laws wholly turn'd upon Protestant Dissenters However the House of Commons took notice of it and would not allow the King any Power to Dispense with the Laws and yet were grown so sensible of the Hardships put upon Dissenting Protestants that a Bill was brought in in favour of them and passed the House and was sent up to the House of Lords and it is verily believed had passed them too but for want of time In 1675. The Parliament met again in which the Church and Court Party laid aside their Zeal against Popery and all the Cry was against Dissenters and a Bill that was Voted in the former Session for Marrying our Princes only to Protestants was carried in the Negative by the Unanimous Vote of the Bishops Bench and rejected And a Test brought in requiring all Officers in Church and State and all Members of both Houses to take this following Oath I A. B. do Declare That it is not Lawful upon any Pretence whatsoever to take up Arms against the King and that I do abhor that Traiterous Position of taking up Arms by his Authority against his Commission or against those that are Commissioned by him in pursuance of such a Commission And I do Swear that I will not at any time endeavour the Alteration of the Government either in Church or State The learned and weighty Reasons that were brought against this Bill by the Country Lords as they were then distinguished from those of the Court and Church we have published by one of the protesting Peers in the same Year This lasted five days before it was committed to a Committee of the whole House They Pleaded against it as a Breach of the Privilege of Peerage that it was in Effect to establish a Standing Army by Act of Parliament That if whatever is done by the King's Commission may not be opposed by his Authority then a Standing Army is Law when ever the King pleases That it struck at the very Root of our Constitution obliging every Man to Abjure all Endeavours to alter the Government in the Church without regard to any thing that Rules of Prudence in the Government or Christian Compassion to Dissenters or the Necessity of Affairs at any time may require The Names of those Noble Peers that with so much hazard to their own Persons endeavoured to stem that impetuous torrent are Buckingham Bridgwater Winchester Salisbury Bedford Dorset Denbigh Pagett Hallifax Howard Mohun Stamford Clarendon Grey-Roll Say Seal Wharton Bristol Aylesbury Audley Fitzwater But all was in vain for says our Honourable Author the Earl of Winchelsea put an End to the Debate and the Major Vote Ultima ratio Senatuum Conciliorum carried the Question as the Court and Bishops would have it and all they could do was to enter their Protests against it and were menaced for so doing And thus with Wind and Tide our Church-men bore down furiously upon the Dissenters and all that durst but seem favourable to them for two or three Years together till the Popish Plot broke out in 1678. which gave such an Alarm to the Nation as reduced some Men to their Wits and others to their Wits-end Now the Humour was diverted another way and a year or two spent in searching into the depth of the Design and while some zealous Protestants were diligently employed in tracing out the Plot others that called themselves by the same Name were as busie by their Counter-mines and Counter-paces to spoil the track and make it undiscernable In the mean while the Dissenters were pretty easie the Meetings encreased and were greatly frequented And there being now a Parliament of true Englishmen they ordered a Bill to be brought into the House of Commons for the Uniting of Protestants and in their Journals we have this Resolve That it is the Opinion of this House that the Prosecution of Dissenters upon the Penal Laws is at this time grievous to the Subject a weakning of the Protestant Interest an Encouragement to Popery and Dangerous to the Peace of this Kingdom But as the Plot died Persecution revived New Sham-plots were forged and fastened upon Presbyterians Then was our Land stained with the No blest and most Innocent Blood of Essex Russel Sidney c. whose invaluable Lives were sacrificed to the Lusts of Papists and Tories whilst Ecclesiasticks sung Te Deum and the injured Nation durst scarcely be seen to lament their fall When the Duke of York arrived at the Crown the Stream of Persecution was very strong and violent and all men thought the unhappy attempt of the Duke of Monmouth would have made it rage more furiously when almost all the Gentlemen in England that were counted Whiggs were under Confinement but not long after a Declaration was set forth for a General Liberty of Conscience I am sure it was unexpected by the generality of Dissenters it found some of them in Prison
and like a good Angel made their fetters fall off and the doors fly open others were forced to abscond from their Families and Employments for fear of the Excommunication Writ and these it rescued from impending ruine and indeed it found them all insulted over scorned and trampled upon by the Bigots of the other Party but this Declaration put a respect upon them and gave them the Opportunity of letting the World see they were neither so few nor so bad nor contemptible as their Adversaries had represented them There are two things for which Dissenters are frequently reproached in the late Reign First Their accepting that Liberty with such Addresses of Thanks Secondly Their writing so few Books against Popery I have something to say in their just Defence upon both Accounts As to the First It had been the greatest Madness in the World for them to have refused the Advantages of that Liberty they thought themselves obliged to Worship God according to the Dictates of their Consciences when they run the Risque of Prisons and Banishment for so doing and to neglect it when they were freed from those hazards would have been such a piece of sullen unaccountable perversness as these Gentlemen would soon have upbraided us with I know it is commonly said that Toleration was promoted in favour of the Papists and I believe few of the Dissenters ever questioned it but they knew very well that when it was granted for them to have sate still and suffer'd the Papists alone to enjoy the Benefits of it would have strengthed Popery much more the Papists would have had never the less Liberty though Dissenters had been silent and when they were let loose it was time for all hands to be at work to countermine them and there 's no better weapon to subdue Errour than the Sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God It is objected this Declaration was founded upon a Dispensing Power and to accept of it was owning such a Power But the Dissenters never by Word or Writing ascribed any such Power unto the King as to Dispense with the Laws that are for the good of the Nation indeed they always esteemed the Laws by which they were excluded to be very unjust and unreasonable Edicts contrary to the Law of God and the common Interest and that they ought not to have been made or ever executed when they were made they never thought them binding in Point of Conscience and though they were forced heretofore to submit to the Penalty yet they were not so forsaken of common Sence as to court the Continuance of that Penalty or cast themselves into Prison when the Magistrate did not think fit to do it But the Clergy of the Church of England had often in the Pulpit and from the Press told the King that he had such a Power as the Author of Vox Cleri pro Rege shews us in abundance of Instances And the Judges who were of the Church of England had given it for Law as the other had declared it for Gospel and all the Magistrates in England thought fit to acquiesce in it which surely they would not have done if they had not thought it a just and reasonable thing for indeed the Kings Declaration would have signified little if the Magistrates had put the Laws in Execution still and if they did not think those Laws were really suspended they were bound by their Oaths to have done it and their forbearance was a plain acknowledgment of such a Power at least as to such kind of Laws as were hereby suspended but the Dissenters only persisted to do that which they thought themselves obliged to as they had opportunity by the Law of God any thing in humane Laws to the Contrary notwithstanding And as to their Addresses of Thanks it least becomes the Churchmen of all others to Reflect upon them not only because it was their Cruelty that made Indulgence so very pleasant and Oppression sometimes makes a wise man mad but also because they fall vastly short of those high flights of Complement which these men themselves took in their Addresses of a far worse Nature and Occasion If it be so Criminal to Thank the King for not suffering Protestants to destroy one another what shall we say of those that in the most Luxuriant manner thank'd him for dissolving one of the best of Parliaments E. of W's Speech and as a Noble Peer lately told them Were so forward in the Surrender of Charters and their fulsom Addresses and Abhorrences making no other claim to their Liberties and Civil Rights but Concessions from the Crown telling the King every one of his Commands was stamp'd with Gods Authority c. Besides I am informed by one of those that joined in an Address of Thanks to the King in Cheshire that the Nonconformists never moved in it till the Churchmen had led them the way these Gentleman therefore are too Imprudent to provoke us to Recriminations that will be so vastly to their own dishonour I am sure the Dissenters thank'd the Late King for nothing but what our present King and Parliament have Confirmed to them as the likeliest way to unite Protestants in Interest and Affection as the Preamble of the Act speaks and if there was any thing in that Liberty that was serviceable to the Papists it must be in the manner of giving it not in the thing it self as far as we are concerned in it and if the Episcopal Party had been so wise as to have promoted a legal Comprehension when it was in their Power they had disabled the Papists from serving themselves of any Liberty of ours As to the Second That Dissenters writ so little against Popery in the Late Reign it may be very easily accounted for They have sufficiently demonstrated their Abhorrence of Popery at all times and their Leading Men as Mr. Baxter Mr. Pool and the Preachers of the Morning Lecture have acquitted themselves very well in the Confutation of it and Malice it self cannot really believe that they are in the least favourable to the Romish Heresie the Crime that has been generally objected against them has been their too great aversation and distance from it As for the late Discourses upon that Subject that are so much boasted of it is observable that most of them were begun upon Personal Engagements The Preface to the Exam. of the Council of Trent by Catholick Tradition as one of the Principal Managers thereof acknowledges There is says he a Train in Controversies as well as in Thoughts one thing still giving start to another Conferences produce Letters Letters Books and one discourse gives occasion for another c. Now in such Cases it would not been have decent for a Third Person to have stept in and invaded another mans Province Besides there was no manner of Necessity for it the Papists in England have been a baffled party for some Ages and their Errors so often exposed that it
as the common Sentiments of the Churches of Helvetia Savoy France Scotland Germany Hungary and the Low Countries that Bishops and Presbyters are by Divine Institution the same and though some of those Churches admit a kind of Episcopacy yet they never pretend a Jus Divinum for it but acknowledge it to be only a Prudential Constitution but I know the Humor of some Men has led them to despise the Reformed Churches and to condemn and unchurch them too I shall therefore more distinctly shew what has been the Judgment of our Learned Country Men concerning this Question Caelius Sedulius Scotus who flourished about the year of our Lord 390 falls in with the opinion and the very words of Jerom Expos Tit. cap. 1. and citing Acts 20.17 bids us observe how the Apostle calling the Elders of but one City Ephesus Fuisse Presbyt quos Episc doth afterwards stile them Bishops which thing says he I have alledged to shew that among the Antients Presbyters were the same with Bishops Venerable Bede speaking of these things Alcuine de div Offic. cap. 35. says Conjunctus est gradus in Multis pene Similis in Acta Apost cap. 20. Tom. 5. Col. 657. Anselme Arch-Bishop of Canterbury above 600 years ago a man so Learned that for his Confutation of the Greeks in the Council of Bari in Apuleia he was dignified to sit at the Popes right Foot is wholly with us in this Point Constat ergo Apostolica institutione omnes Presbyteros esse Episcopos Enarr in Ep. ad Philip. and speaks in the Words of Jerom Sciant Episcopi se magis consuetudine c. And before him the Canons of Aelfrick Anno 990. speaking of Bishops and Presbyters say Spelman Concil Tom. 1. p. 570. Unum tenent eundemque Ordinem Rich. Armachanus a Learned Prelate de Questionibus Armenorum cap. 2. affirms that the Degrees of Patriarch Arch-Bishop and Bishop were invented by the Devotion of Men not instituted by Christ and that no Prelate how great soever hath any greater Degree of the Power of Order than a simple Presbyter and in the 4th Chap. he proves by Acts 7.14 1 Tim. 4. That the Power of Confirmation and Imposition of Hands belongs to the Jurisdiction of the Presbyter and declares that Presbyters succeed the Apostles and makes all the distinction betwixt Bishop and Presbyter to be this he that hath a Cure is a Bishop he that hath not is a Presbyter which agrees with Dr. Of the Church l. 15. c. 27. Fields Notion of Episcopal Jurisdiction and also with that of the Impartial Enquirer into the Government of the Primitive Church before mentioned Come we now to our Reformers John Wickliffe called by Mr. Fox the English Apostle speaks thus Some multiply the Characters in Orders but one thing I confidently averr that in the Primitive Church in Pauls time two Orders sufficed the Presbyter and the Deacon then was not invented the distinction of Pope and Cardinals Patriarchs and Arch-Bishops Bishops Arch-Deacons Officials and Deans with other Officers of which there is neither Number nor Order that every one of these is an Order and that in the receiving thereof there is a Character imprinted as ours Babble it seems good to me to be silent because they prove not what they affirm it is sufficient to me if there be Presbyters and Deacons keeping the State and Office that Christ hath imposed upon them Quia certum videtur quod superbia Cesarea hos gradus ordines adinvenit because it seems certain to me that Imperious Pride hath invented these other Orders and Degrees In the Year 1537. The Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and York and the rest of the Bishops and Clergy in Convocation whose Names are all subscribed to their Book intituled The Institution of a Christian Man Dedicated to the King and ratified by the Statute of 32. Hen 8. thus determine The Truth is that in the New Testament there is no mention made of any degrees or distinctions in Orders but only of Deacons or Ministers and of Priests or Bishops and of these two Orders that is to say Priests and Deacons Scripture maketh express mention c. The Judgment of Arch-Bishop Cranmer as Dr. Stillingfleet reports it ex ipso Autographo was that Bishops and Priests were at one time and were not two things but both one Office in the beginning of Christs Religion Irenic p. 392. That Godly Martyr Mr. Bradford in his Conference with Dr. Harpsfield averrs Acts and Monuments Vol. 3. p. 293. that the Scripture knows no difference betwixt Bishops and Ministers that is Priests and when Harpsfield asked him Were not the Apostle Bishops answered no unless you 'll give a new Definition of a Bishop that is give him no certain place Thomas Beacon a Prebendary of Canterbury and Refugee for Religion in Queen Maries Reign in his Catechism Printed at London and Dedicated to both Arch-Bishops puts the Question What difference is there between a Bishop and a Presbyter And Answers None at all their Office is the same their Authority and Power is One therefore St. Paul calls Ministers sometimes Bishops sometimes Presbyters sometimes Pastors sometimes Doctors Dr. Bridges Dean of Salisbury afterward Bishop of Oxford P. 359 360. in his Book called The Supremacy of Christian Princes endeavours to clear Aerius from the charge of Heresie in this matter and thus replies upon Stapleton Jerome who lived in the same Age with Epiphanius will tell you or if you have not read him your own Canons will tell you Idem est ergo Presbyter qui Episcopus antequam Diaboli Studia c. This was the Judgement of the Antient Fathers and yet they were no Arians nor Aerians therefore and then cites Lombard and Durandus and thus summs up the whole That in Substance Order or Character as they call it there is no difference between a Priest and a Bishop That the difference is but of accidents and circumstances That in the Primitive times this difference was not known c. Dr. Jewel Defence of the Apology Part. 2. C. 9. Divis I. That most excellent Bishop of Salisbury brings in Mr. Harding alledging that they which denied the distinction of a Bishop and Priest were condemned of Heresie as we find in Sr. Austixe and Epiphanius and the Council of Constance to which he answers in the Margent Untruth for hereby both St. Paul and St. Jerome and other good men are condemned of Heresie and afterwards says farther Is it so horrible an Heresie as he maketh it to say that by the Scriptures a Bishop and Priest are all one Or knoweth he how far or to whom he reacheth the name of a Heretick Verily Chrysostome saith between a Bishop and a Priest in a manner there is no difference St. Jerome saith somewhat in rougher sort I hear say there is one become so peevish that he setteth Deacons before Priests that is before Bishops whereas the Apostle plainly teacheth us
time a power of installing them themselves when it cannot be done otherwise since naturally that which we have a right to do by another we have a right to do by our selves Nay what if not onely Monsieur Claude but Monsieur Dodwell too that speaking head of our high-flown Clergy acknowledges such a right in particular Societies of chusing and investing their Officers No matter whether it be reconcileable with the other parts of his Scheme or no Dodwel Separat of Churches p. 102. P. 52. In his Separation of Churches he speaks to this purpose The Church with whom God has made the Covenant is a Body Politick though not a Civil one and God has designed all persons to enter into this Society It is sufficient for my purpose that the Ecclesiastical Power be no otherwise from God than that is of every supream Civil Magistrate it is not usual for Kings to be invested into their Offices by other Kings but by their Subjects yet when they are invested that doth not in the least prejudice the absoluteness of their Monarchy where the Fundamental Constitutions of the respective places allow it to them much less doth it give any power over them to the persons by whom they are invested If the power of Episcopacy be Divine all that men can do in the case is onely to determine the person not to confine his power no act can be presumed to be the act of the whole Body P. 509. but what has passed them in their publick Assemblies in which Body is the Right of Government As nothing but the Society it self can make a valid conveyance of its right so it is not conceivable how the Society can do it by any thing but its own Act And when ever a person is invested into the Supream Power P. 522. and the Society over which he is placed is independant on other Societies such a person can never be placed in his power if not by them who must after be his subjects unless by his Predecessor which no Society can depend upon for a constant Rule of Succession I am apt to think this must have been the way of making Bishops at first how absolute soever I conceive them to be when they are once made This seems best to agree with the absoluteness of particular Churches P. 523. before they had by compact united themselves under Metropolitans and Exarchs into Provincial and Diocesan Churches And this seems to have been fitted for the frequent persecutions of those earlier Ages when every Church was able to secure its own succession without depending on the uncertain opportunities of the meeting of the Bishops of the whole Province And the alteration of this practice the giving the Bishops of the Province an interest in the choice of every particular Colleague seems not to have been so much for want of power in the particular Churches to do it as for the security of compacts that they might be certain of such a Colleague as would observe them It is probable that it was in imitation of the Philosophers Successions that these Ecclesiastical Successions were framed and when the Philosophers failed to nominate their own Successors the Election was in the Schools These are his words and they are too plain to need a Comment If every particular Church had Originally a power within it self to chuse and invest its Bishop and the concurrence of other Bishops herein was not for want of Power in that particular Church but only for securing the agreement of Bishops amongst themselves We have done with the necessity of a continued Line of Episcopal Ordinations and there may be true mission without it quod erat probandum But 2dly Should we grant that there is a necessity of an uninterrupted Line and that this as he learnedly speaks is a sufficient proof that there is such a Line yet it must be considered this necessity will onely prove that there must be some Bishops and Churches that are in the Line but it will not prove that they are all so nor that it is the case of those amongst us for though we may suppose that God has had a true Ministry in all Ages and will have that will not demonstrate that he hath such in England and therefore to prove the Ministry of the English Churches true he must have some better Evidence than the necessity of such a Line which will onely prove it is somewhere not that it is amongst us and it is but small satisfaction to us to know that there is a true Ministry some where in the World but no man in the World can tell where it is By this Gentlemans way of reasoning the Papists pretend to prove the Infallibility of their Church first they suppose the necessity of an Infallible Judge and then take it for granted that this Judge is to be found amongst them and truly Arcades ambo The Vindicator put a question to him and we should be glad of a better answer than he has yet thought fit to give us He desired T. W. to tell him whether this Line of Succession might be continued in a Schismatical Church for if by Schism Men and Societies are cut off from the Catholick Church as this Man affirms such Schismatical Churches are indeed no Churches no parts of the Universal Church and so cannot be the Subjects of the Apostolical Power and if this Power cannot be derived through a Schismatical Church then must he grant either that the Church of England has not this Power or that the Papal Churches through which it runs are not Schismatical and if they be not his own Church must be so in separating from them for he holds separation to be utterly unlawful unless it be from a Schismatical Church His answer to this such as it is you have in the 23 page of his reply in these words I cannot understand his Logick in this if by Schism Men and Societies are cut off from the Universal Church then such Schismatical Churches are no Churches But is not the consequence as plain as can be if Schism cut Men and Societies off from the Universal Church then such Schismatical Societies are no Churches Can they be Churches and yet cut off from the Universal Church Can they be cut off by Schism and still united to it He that does not understand the Logick of this does not understand the Logick of Common Sense but has he nothing farther to reply Yes he says Churches they are though Schismatical while they retain the Apostolical Succession But the Question is whether Schismatical Churches can retain the Apostolical Succession Since by Schism he says they are cut off from the Catholick Church and so Unchurched these things will require a second reading and a more direct reply and that I may provoke him to do it I shall lay the case before him in these three points 1. If any Schismatical Societies may still remain Churches then Schism as such does not cut Men and
any way concerned in them And many of those that were at that time most zealous in urging the Covenant and Engagement and Abjuration were the first that turn'd with the Times and became as Troublesome and Vexations on the other Side and yet the instance which this Gentleman brings ought to be a little examined for 't is neither Pertinent nor True as to Matter of Fact It is not pertinent because not appertaining to the ordinary Worship of God that which he calls the Rebellious Covenant was a Solemn Oath whereby Men bound themselves to endeavour in their Places a Reformation both in Church and State according to the Word of God and particularly to preserve the King's Person pursuant to which Clause Thousands of Scotch and and English hazarded all that was dear to them on the behalf of the Royal Family Royal Declar. at Dumferling Aug. 16. 1650. it was deliberately and voluntarily taken by King Charles the Second who professed himself deeply humbled for his Father's Opposition to it and that upon full perswasion of the Justice and Equity of all the Articles thereof he had Sworn and Subscribed it and was resolved to adhere thereunto to the utmost of his Power and to prosecute the Ends of it all the days of his life And it is certain the Restoration of that Prince is very much owing to the Sence which a great many had of the binding Power of that Covenant as Mr. Crofton shews in his Defence of it against Dr. Gauden Now this being a Solemn Oath must needs as all other Oaths require some signal Expression of Consent according to the Custom of all Civilized Nations in some this Consent is signified Viva voce in some by kissing the Book in Scotland by lifting up the Hand and as we had the Covenant from thence so their Signification of Consent was used also being more suitable for the expressing the Joynt Consent of a Multitude than any other but this is nothing to Mystical Ceremonies in the stated Worship of God if no more had been required of us in the late Troublesome Times than to kiss the Book when we were called to take an Oath there would not have been many Dissenters excepting those that scruple Swearing upon any Account Besides it is not true that this Covenant with the manner of taking of it was ever imposed as a term of Communion The House of Commons indeed and the Assembly of Divines took it and most of those that held any Office of Profit or Trust but it was never imposed upon any on Pain of Excommunication or Suspension from the Lord's Supper Rushworth's Coll. Part. 3. p. 475. it was to be tendered to all in general and an Exhortation drawn up for the satisfying of those that might scruple the taking of it but it was forced upon none by any Penalties Corporal or Spiritual if the Ceremonies and Subscriptions had been no otherwise imposed it had been happy for us The Presbyterians neither imposed nor used any Mystical Ceremonies of their own devising in the Worship of God they never tied Men up to the Words of their Directory nor required any to Subscribe to it or declare their Assent and Consent to all things therein contained they never obliged Persons to Swear against endeavouring an Alteration but bound themselves to promote a Reformation of whatever should be found to be contrary to the Word of God and therefore they gave no Presidents for what has been done against them in the late Reigns 2. The Gentleman tells us the Apostles made meer Ceremonies Terms of Communion in their days which is not true and yet if it were would not justifie others in doing so who have not the Commission and Power which the Apostles had The Gentleman instances in having all things Common in their Love-Feasts and in the holy Kiss and affirms that these were meer Ceremonies imposed by the Apostles as terms of Communion but he 's miserably out all along As to the Custom of having all things common nothing more evident than that it was a thing purely voluntary and imposed upon none St. Peter tells Ananias Whilst it remained it was his own Acts 5.4 and after it was Sold it was in his Power he might have done with it what he pleased but the Sin was Lying against the Holy Ghost in pretending they had dedicated the whole to God when part was kept back surely this was more than the omission of a meer Ceremony And he is not more happy in the second instance of the Love-Feasts for as they were no Parts of Religious Worship but either going before or immediately following the Eucharist so it no where appears that they were ever instituted by the Apostles at all much less imposed as terms of Communion and though some Learned Men think the Apostles recommended them to the Churches yet I see nothing in Scripture to ground such an Opinion upon but rather on the contrary for 1 Cor. 11.20 21. the Apostle does not only reprove them for their Disorders in those Feasts but seems to disapprove of the very thing it self and advises them rather to Eat their Meat at their own Houses than to make those Solemn Assemblies Places and Times of such Feasting And the Learned Dr. Lightfoot seems to have a great deal of reason for what he says upon this place viz. That the Jewish part of the Church retained something of the Old Leaven and could not forbear Judaizing in this Ordinance of the Lord's Supper and therefore it must be attended with a Feast as the Passover was And he observes that the Apostle does not only find fault with their abuse herein but with these very Feasts themselves in that they dishonoured the Church by bringing their Meat into it which they should rather have eaten at their own Homes And as ridiculous it is to say that the holy Kiss was imposed by the Apostles as a term of Communion it was indeed the manner of Friendly Salutation a meer Civil Rite used amongst Jews and Gentiles as well as Christians and the Apostles Command relates only to the sincere chaste and honest use of it as became Persons devoted to God and that they should not suffer that Token of Respect to degenerate into an Hypocritical or Lascivious Complement It is so far from being plain that these things were imposed as terms of Communion by the Apostles That it is certain from their own words They determined to lay no burthen upon Christians but necessary things that is things that had some good tendency for that is the softest sence that the word Necessary will bear and our English Ceremonies by the Acknowledgment of all can never come under that Denomination And indeed if the Apostles had made these things terms of Communion in the Catholick Church they must have remained so to this day unless by some latter Apostolical Edict repealed for who will dare to alter the Apostolical terms of Communion and it may be this
about the Year 420. first made Deacon and afterward Priest by his Abbot Paphnutius who was but a Presbyter and all the Schoolmen are not on the Gentlemans side for some of them say that Presbyters by the Popes Dispensation may without the concurrence of a Bishop ordain Deacons He Points at some Canons that forbid Presbyters to Ordain and say every Bishop must be Ordained by three Bishops at least but he that argues from their Canons to their Practice is a meer Sophister as appears by the Concession of Bellarmine just now mentioned and he may as well say no Bishop ever obtained the Promotion Con. Carth. 4. c. 23. by Simony or never Ordiained without his Presbyters for there are Canons against these things as well as the former and he may proceed and say that no Bishops were ever Ignorant Drunken Tit. 1.7 8. Unclean or Quarrelsome because by very Authentick Canons such are declared uncapable of the Office His forty seventh and three following Pages are all built upon a mistake which this Gentleman as well as T. W. fell into I know not how as if the Vindicator ever denied the Validity of the Ordination of Schismaticks whereas he only argues from his Adversaries Assertion that by Schism Men and Societies are utterly cut off from the Catholick Church and have no place nor Interest therein and then I am sure it will follow that they cannot be the Subjects of Apostolical Power which can never be found out of the Visible Church I hope it has been sufficiently proved in this Treatise that this is the just Conclusion from such premises and to talk of a remaining Character that includes the Power of Ordination in those that are utterly cut off from the Church is perfect gibberish and if this Gentleman thinks fit to answer what has been already said to it we shall willingly discourse him further about it In the fiftieth Page he speaks like himself We believe with St. Jerom that the Power of Ordination belongs only to the Bishop and your Ordinations made by Presbyters are void and null and we take you for no more but Lay Intruders We are not much concerned what this Gentleman believes of us nor what he takes us for but he should have been just to St. Jerom though he may think 't is no matter whether he be so to us or no it would be very strange if St. Jerom should say any such thing as he pretends and we should have been glad to have seen the Passage cited if he refers to that Quid enim facit Episcopus excepta Ordinatione quod non facit Presbyter that has been sufficiently explained in these Papers already to intend not any distinct Power that Bishops had by the Law of God but what the Custom and Practice of the Churches at that time had reserved unto them He tells us Review p. 50 51. of some nice Enquiries that have been made into our Mission and that they suspect many of our first Apostles from whom we derive our Orders were never Ordained and supposes the Vindicator had not met with this Observation And it may be he has not and therefore 't is ten to One but it is false for if it were true the Dissenters were much more like to know it than such as he with all his nice Enquiries and Suspicions He wonders the Vindicator should lose so many pages against this Line of Succession which if it would do no good would certainly do no harm Ay but it would do the greatest harm in the World to the Interest of the Church and Christianity to make the Salvation of men depend upon such a Line and that 's the Notion the Vindicator spends some pages upon and he cannot do a better Office to the Church or Protestant Religion than to expose it and if that be not done effectually already by my Consent either he or some Body else shall spend as many pages more upon it We come now to the Vindicators account of Ordination viz. That it is a publick Approbation of Ministerial Abilities by competent Judges This says the Gentleman is such a way of making Clergy men as never was heard of before will a publick Aprobation of a mans Abilities invest him in his Office will a Testimonial from the Inns of Court make a man a Judge without a Commission from the King Now here he confounds Commission and Investiture together as if they were the same thing which 't is certain they are not The Commission always goes before the Investiture and 't is that which gives the Power and the Investiture is only necessary to the regular Exercise of that Power which is given by the Commission If this Gentleman would have the World believe that it is the Bishops that give a Minister his Commission and Ministerial Power as the King gives the Judge his Authority he sets up Episcopacy in the Throne of Christ and is condemned by the Reformed Churches it is Christ alone who grants the Commission in the great Charter of the Gospel wherein he has declared that he will have a standing Ministry and tells us what the Ministerial Qualifications are and has promised to work them by his Spirit in Men in Order thereunto all the Ordainers do is designare personam to Point out the Person that has those Qualifications and this publick Designation with the mans own Dedication of himself to the Work is the Investiture and sets the man apart to the regular Exercise of that Power which Christ by his Charter without and those Qualifications within has given unto him The Case is something like to that of making a Person Mayor of a Corporation the People or Burgesses have the Power of choosing and the Recorder or Steward the Power of Swearing him and yet none of these confer the Authority but only design the Person who receives his Power from the Prince alone by the Charter of the place as his Instrument It is the great command of God to his Church that the Gospel be Preached Religion Propagated Churches Gathered and Governed and Sacraments Administred He has not named the Persons that are to do this but he has described them by their Qualifications and Persons so qualified if they find also a promptitude to undertake the Work which I suppose is that which the Church of England means when she enquires of the Candidates whether they be moved by the Holy Ghost to undertake that Office are to seek for a regular Investiture and the Ordainers are commanded to invest them by a solemn Approbation that is declaring that they find in them those Qualifications by which the Gospel describes a true Minister of Christ We grant that this Investiture is most regularly performed by the Ministers and should not ordinarily be without them which seems to be grounded on this Reason for all Gods commands are highly rational the Ministers are ordinarily to be thought the most competent Judges but as the Investiture it self is not
their Disciples and Followers who refusing to be called of that Sect yet participate too much with their Humours in maintaining the above-mentioned Errors and the King further adds I Protest upon my Honour I did not mean it generally of all those Preachers or others that like better the single Form of Policy in our Church than of the many Ceremonies of the Church of England or that are perswaded that their Bishops smell of a Papal Supremacy No I am so far from being contentious in these things that I equally love and honour the Learned and Grave Men of either Opinion And that those called Puritans at that time in England were not such Persons as are here described appears sufficiently from the earnest Endeavours both of the House of Commons and Lords of the Privy Council on their behalf and the different account they give of them who must needs be acknowledged very competent Judges and it is observable that the Familists in England took notice of this censure of the King 's Fuller Church Hist Book 10 p. 30. and in their Petition to him when he came into England they disown all Affinity with the Puritans and speak reproachfully of them under that Title themselves I hope this will abundantly acquit the Old English Puritans from being the Persons aimed at in those Royal Reflections and therefore notwithstanding any thing in that Book it may be very true that the Bishops flattered that King into an ill Opinion of them That some of our English Prelates endeavour'd to do very ill Offices betwixt the King and Presbyterian Party even before he came into England is most certainly true and it cannot be imagined that they would be less busie when they had him amongst them Bishop Bancroft was more than ordinary active in such Designs as appeared amongst other things by a Letter from one Norton a Stationer in Edenburgh directed for him and intercepted Calderwood's Hist of the Ch. of Scotland p. 248. upon Examination Norton acknowledged that he was employed by Bancroft to disperse certain Questions that tended to the Defamation of the Kirk and Presbyterial Government The same Bishop writ frequent Letters to Mr. Patrick Adamson the Titular Archbishop of St. Andrews which were many of them intercepted wherein he stirs him up to Extol and Praise the Church of England above all others and to come up to London Ibid. p. 259. assuring him that he would be very welcome and well rewarded by the Archbishop of Canterbury This Adamson had composed a Declaration which passed under the King's Name wherein the whole Order of the Kirk was greatly traduced and condemned The Commissioners of the General Assembly complained to the King of the many false Aspersions contained therein which were so shameful that the King disowned it and said It was not his doing but the Archbishops and prudently discarded that great Favourite and gave the Rents of the Bishoprick to the Duke of Lenox The poor Gentleman thus abandoned professes himself to be truly Penitent for what he had done and makes a full Recantation which he Subscribed in the presence of a great many Witnesses and directs it to the Synod conven'd at St. Andrew's Confessing That he had out of Ambition Vain-Glory and Covetousness undertaken the Office of an Archbishop That he had laboured to advance the King's Arbitrary Power in Matters of Religion and Protested before God that he was commanded to write that Declaration by the Chancellor the Secretary and another great Courtier and that he was more busie with some Bishops in England in Prejudice of the Discipline of the Kirk partly when he was there and partly by Mutual Intelligence than became a good Christian much less a Faithful Pastor c. Now although the King fondly adhered to such kind of Men whilst he hoped to advance his Prerogative thereby yet when he began to perceive the ill Effects of such Conduct Ibid. Preface he still deserted them and in those prudent Intervals would freely declare his good Opinion of the Presbytery and their Form of Government particularly in the National Assembly 1590. He thank'd God that he was King of such a Country wherein says he there is such a Church even the sincerest Church on Earth Geneva not excepted seeing they keep some Festival Days as Easter and Christmas and what have they for it As for our Neighbours in England their Service is an ill mumbled Mass in English they want little of the Mass but the Liftings Now I charge you my good People Barons Gentlemen Ministers and Elders that you all stand to your Purity and Exhort the People to do the same and as long as I have Life and Crown I will maintain the same against all deadly Nay Calder p. 473. when he took his leave of Scotland upon the Union of the two Kingdoms he solemnly promised the Ministers of the Synod of Lothian that he would make no Alterations in their Discipline but when he came up to London those who had been tampering with him and his Courtiers before had a fair opportunity to accomplish their Design which was the utter Abolition of the Presbytery in Scotland and the Suppression of the Puritans in England And saith my Author as soon as the English Prelates had got King James amongst them R. Baylie's Vindication and Answer to the Declarat p. 11. they did not rest till Mr. Melvill and the Prime of the Scots Divines were called up to London and only for their Just Defence of the Truth and Liberties of Scotland against Episcopal Usurpations were either Banish'd or Confin'd and so sore Oppressed that it brought many of them with Sorrow to their Graves and the whole Discipline of the Church was over-thrown notwithstanding the King 's parting Promise to the contrary The Nonconformists in England were so far from being brought over by the Severities of the former Reign that they drew up a Petition about this time Signed by Seven hundred and fifty Ministers desiring Reformation of certain Ceremonies and Abuses in the Church which Fuller gives us at large this was designed to have been presented before the Conference at Hampton-Court but was deferr'd till after The Relation of this so much talk'd of Conference as Fuller reports it out of Barlow is justly suspected of great Partiality and the Historian himself speaks doubtfully of it and yet even in that we have a plain Indication of what temper the Court and Bishops were It looks very odd that when the King had allow'd several of Dr. Reynold's Exceptions he should threaten if they had no more to say He would make them to Conform or hurry them out of the Land or do worse a poor business for a Prince to menace his own Subjects for Non-conformity to that which himself had formerly called an Ill-mumbled Mass in English and even now acknowledged wanted some Reformation But we have this Matter set in a truer Light by Mr. Patrick Galloway in his Account of it
to the World as a Bloody Seditious Sect and Traiterous Obstructors of what all the Godly People of the Kingdom do earnestly desire for the establishing of Religion and Peace in that we stick at the Execution of the King while yet we are as they falsly affirm content to have him Convicted and Condemned all which we must and do from our Hearts disclaim before the whole World For when we did first engage with the Parliament which we did not till called thereunto we did it with Loyal Hearts and Affections towards the King and his Posterity not intending the least hurt to his Person but to stop his Party from doing further hurt to the Kingdom not to bring his Majesty to Justice as some now speak but to put him into a better Capacity to do Justice to remove the wicked from before him that his Throne might be established in Righteousness not to Dethrone and Destroy him which we fear is the ready way to the Destruction of all his Kingdoms That which put any of us on at first to appear for the Parliament was the Propositions and Orders of the Lords and Commons in Parliament June 10. 1642. for bringing in of Money and Plate c. Wherein they assured us that whatsoever should be brought in thereupon should be employed upon no other occasion than to maintain The Protestant Religion The Kings Authority and His Person in his Royal Dignity the Free Course of Justice the Laws of the Land the Peace of the Kingdom and the Priviledges of Parliament against any force which shall oppose them As for the present actings at Westminster since the time that so many of the Members were by force secluded divers imprisoned and others thereupon withdrew from the House of Commons and there being not that Conjunction of the two Houses as heretofore we are wholly unsatisfied therein because we conceive them to be so far from being warranted by sufficient Authority as that in our Apprehensions they tend to an actual Alteration if not Subversion of that which the Honourable House of Commons in their Declaration of April 17. 1646. have taught us to call the Fundamental Constitution and Government of this Kingdom which they therein assure us if we understand them they would never alter Yea we hold our selves bound in Duty to God Religion the King Parliament and Kingdom to profess before God Angels and Men That we verily believe that which is so much feared to be now in Agitation the taking away the Life of the King in the present way of Trial is contrary to the Word of God the Principles of the Protestant Religion never yet stained with the least drop of the Blood of a King the Fundamental Constitution and Government of this Kingdom as also to the Oath of Allegiance the Protestation of May 5.1641 and the Solemn League and Covenant from all or any of which Engagements we know not any Power on Earth able to absolve us or others Therefore according to our Covenant we do in the Name of the great God to whom all must give a strict account warn and exhort all who either more immediately belong to our respective Charges or any way depend on our Ministry or to whom we have administred the said Covenant that we may not by our Silence suffer them to run into that provoking Sin of Perjury to keep close to the ways of God and the rules of Religion the Laws and their Vows in their constant maintaining the true Reformed Religion the Fundamental Constitution and Government of this Kingdom as also in preserving the Priviledges of both Houses of Parliament and the Union between the two Nations of England and Scotland to mourn bitterly for their own Sins the Sins of the City Army People and Kingdom and the miscarriages of the King himself which we cannot but acknowledge to be many and great in his Government that have cost the Kingdoms so dear and cast him down from his Excellency into a horrid pit of Misery almost beyond Example and to pray that God would give him effectual Repentance and sanctifie that bitter Cup of Divine displeasure that Divine Providence hath put into his hand and also that God would restrain the Violence of men that they may not dare to draw upon themselves and the Kingdom the Blood of their Soveraign c. This was back't with a Letter to the General and his Council of War to the same effect and yet all this has not been sufficient to defend them from the malicious slanders of men that either were then unborn or had not the Courage to run those hazards for the sake of their unfortunate Prince as they did The deplorable Death of this King has been made great use of in the Late Reigns to run down Dissenters and to justifie those unmerciful Laws that have been made and executed against them and to make it the better serve such designs they have made the highest Panegyricks upon that Prince and his extraordinary Piety and Devotion in which they have commonly taken their Text out of ΕΙΚΩΠΒΑΣΙΛΙΚΗ a Book which next to the Bible excell'd all others in pure Seraphick strains but alas the grave Cheat is at length discovered and though some men are very angry there is no remedy for heat and ill Language will never retrieve its blasted Reputation only the best on 't is there is another of the same kind pourtraying his Unhappy Son in his Solitudes and Sufferings too and those that regret the Disparagement of the former may try whether they can support the Credit of the latter but the World I hope grows too wise to be enamoured of such Pageantry The Vindicator affirmed That it was by the Address and Interest of the Party called Presbyterian under God That King Charles the Second was restored and he adds the solemn Promises fair Words and great Assurances that were given them by the Church and Court Party upon the Treaty of Restoration are very well known and the speedy and bare-faced Violation of all is not to be parallell'd in Story which T. W. misreports as if the Vindicator had said that King Charles the Second was not to be parallell'd in Story tho' afterwards having cleared his Eyes he confesses these things are charged upon the Church and Court Party and how will be bring them off he says All is Fiction and Forgery for the King referr'd all to the Parliament and they re-established and Confirmed all things to the satisfaction of the Nation in General Well if we cannot prove these things to be true we will own the Forgery and submit to all the Reproaches this Gentleman can heap upon us I would feign know where the Fiction lies Were there no Promises made by the Court and Church Party or were they not broken It is strange we should be obliged to prove that such Promises were made when the Kings Declaration speaks it so plainly in these Words We do declare a Liberty to tender Consciences and
the very worst character and mark of the highest hypocrisie a piece of Pharisaisme all over that strains at a Gnat when it swallows a Camel and I cannot avoid having at least a contempt of those kind of thoughts and a compassion for those who fill their Heads with them CHAP. III. An inference concerning Ordination The Point of Succession more largely debated Our English Bishops have no Jurisdiction nor their Canons any power but what is derived from the Civil Magistrates who has now left us to our Liberty in the case of Conformity reflections upon Mr. Norris his charge of Schisme continued I Will now venture to leave this point as sufficiently proved that Bishops have no Power or Jurisdiction given them by the Law of God but what Presbyters have as well as they I have been the larger upon it because it goes a great way in deciding the whole controversie and would save me all farther Labour about the cases of Ordination and Succession As to Ordination if Presbyters be the same with Scripture Bishops the Orders conferred by them must needs be valid for as Monsieur Claude says 't is a right that cannot be taken away from them by Humane Rules it is true indeed there may be such a prudent Order agreed upon for the due management of this work as may make it irregular to ordain without a President but such agreements cannot make the action null for my part I never knew any Ordination amongst Diffenters but there was a Moderator chosen who was chiefly concerned in the conduct of it and such a Moderator wants nothing of the Primitive Bishop And if there be some Antient Canons that say the Presbyters shall not ordain without the Bishop Concil Carth. 3 4. C. 22. so there are others that say the Bishop shall not ordain without the Presbyters and by requiring Presbyters to join in this office it is certain they have the power otherwise their laying on of hands would be a meer nullity The truth is neither a single Bishop nor a single Presbyter can regularly Ordain it ought to be done by a Classis and in that case there must be some President to avoid confusion and that is the general practice amongst us and therefore our Ordinations are not only valid but regular too Bishop Carleton in his Treatise of Jurisdiction saith P. 7. The Power of Order by all Writers that ever I could see even of the Church of Rome is understood to be immediately from Christ given to all Bishops and Priests alike by their Consecration And it is very considerable what Dr. Bernard mentions concerning Arch-bishop Usher's Opinion in this case The Judgment of the late A. B. of Armagh p. 134 135. wherein we have this Historical passage That in 1609 when the Scotch Bishops were to be consecrated by the Bishops of London Ely and Bath a question was moved by Dr. Andrews Bishop of Ely whether they must not first be ordained Presbyters as having received no ordination from a Bishop the Arch-bishop of Canterbury Dr. Bancroft who was present maintained That there was no necessity for it seeing where Bishops could not be had Ordination by Presbyters must be esteemed lawful otherwise it might be doubted whether there were any lawful vocation in most of the Reformed Churches this was applauded by the other Bishops and Ely acquiesced in it c. It was too great a hardship therefore that our Bishops put upon the poor banished Ministers of the French Churches in requiring them to be re-ordained which in the sence of the imposers was a renouncing the validity of their former Ordination and it is very remarkable that some of those that were most zealous in that severe usage of those poor Refugees and would admit none to be Ministers that did not submit to them in it are since divested of their Episcopal power themselves and have now time to consider whether to allow the Ordinations of the Roman Churches and reject those of the Reformed was not to use Monsieur Claudes words a piece of Pharisaisme all over that strains at a Gnat and swallows a Camel And for the pretended Succession if our Presbyters which have Ministerial Ordination and I know no other be really Bishops by the Laws and Language of Scripture We are in the Line still as the Vindicator speaks if such a Line there be though we look upon it as a most wretched piece of confidence and madness to make the Essence of the Ministry and Church depend upon a thing so lubricous and uncertain But that we may if it be possible lead this Man out of his foolish conceit about the necessity of an un-interrupted Line of Succession from the Apostles let us but state the case according to his own assertions and perhaps when it is rightly put it will not require much arguing His opinion in this matter take in these three points 1. Arch-Rebel p. 2 3. He affirms that the Bishops receive their Spiritual Jurisdiction from the Apostles by the Line of Succession this Succession he makes the foundation of their Title and Power 2. From hence he infers that he is no true Bishop who is not ordained by another Bishop and so upwards in a continued line of Episcopal Ordination to the Apostles themselves Arch-Rebel p. 3. so that if a Man could shew a Spiritual Pedigree in a Line of Episcopacy for a thousand years yet if so long ago there was failure he is but a Lay Impostor And 3. That those Churches or what you 'll please to call them that are not under the Government of such Bishops Reply p. 18. as are possess 't of their Authority by such a Line are out of the Communion of the Catholick Church have no Ministry no Sacraments no Salvation The first of these that Bishops have their power from the Apostles as being their Successors P. 20. will certainly infer that they could never be possessed of it till the Apostles were dead unless we can suppose that they were degraded or voluntarily resigned this the Vindicator has deservedly exposed To be the Apostles Successors in Apostolical power the Apostles still living and in Plenitude of Power is a very great Mystery and something like the honest Vicar of N's Prayer for King Charles the II. that he might outlive all his Successors What has the Gentleman to reply to this He puts on a marvellous grave aspect and charges the Vindicator with Scoffing at Timothy and Titus but this is a poor shift of his own when he has rendred himself ridiculous to turn it off to Timothy and Titus I do not believe there is any such Affinity or Line of Succession betwixt those blessed Evangelists and this Gentleman but a man may venture to expose the folly of the latter and still preserve a due Veneration for the former He confesses it was a piece of Ignorance to pray that the King might out-live all his Successors and why then is not he as
ignorant in saying that Timothy and Titus and Linus were made the Successors of the Apostles in their Apostolical Power whilst the Apostles were still living for in this case the Apostles might have outlived their Successors and if we believe some Historians they did so and if this be ignorance in the Vicar it can be no extraordinary piece of Wisdom and Illumination in the Citizen he confesses this is a mystery and so he says is all the Gospel but he must not take upon him to obtrude such stuff of his own upon the World because the Gospel is a mystery thanks be to God a man may easily discern betwixt the mysteries of the Gospel and those of T. W's making But if this Notion won't pass under the pretence of Mystery he will invent a reason for it which we have in these Words They could not have been said to be Successors of Apostolical Power if the Apostles whilst living had not conferr'd it upon them could the Apostles have ordained then after they were dead No truly no more than give Scripture Rules after they were dead but were all that the Apostles ordained their Successors in Apostolical Power then the Presbyters which they ordained must be so too He says The Apostle by ordaining them in his Life-time secured the Succession to them and the Government too in the Apostles absence But I wish he had told us how they could secure the Succession to them unless they could have secured them from dying before them and for securing the Government to them in the Apostles absence that was no more than what they did for the Presbyters but if they were invested in Apostolical Power they had enjoyed the Government as much in the Apostles Presence as in their Absence for the Apostles had all the same Power and had it alike whether together or asunder In short if it be really true that the Bishops must either be the Apostles Successors in Apostolical Power whilst the Apostles lived or they could never be so we must conclude they could never be so for whilst the Apostles lived they could not have Successors in their Office especially such as claimed their Power by such Succession The second Point is equally censurable viz. That he is no true Bishop that was not ordained by another Bishop and so upwards to the Apostles This the Vindicator told him was altogether unproved and that the Papists whose Interest it is to make men believe so confess there are insuperable difficulties about the Succession of Popes in the Roman See The Gentleman replies I never discoursed with any of that Church who did not zealously affirm the Succession that all established Catholick Churches do assert it and that in every Diocess it is as sacredly recorded as the Succession of Kings and Emperors to their Thrones and challenges his Adversary to prove the contrary Well I 'll be so civil to him as to tell him that which it seems he knew not before touching the uncertainty of this Line of Succession Eusebius himself notwithstanding the Conjectures that he makes concerning the Successors of the Apostles Eccles Hist lib. 3. cap. 4. after all ingenuously confesses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. But how many or who were the true Successors of the Apostles and thought sufficient to govern the Churches founded by them is hard to say excepting those which perhaps some one may gather out of the writings of St. Paul upon which a Learned Prelate says What becomes then of our unquestionable Line of Succession of the Bishops of several Churches and the large Diagramms made of the Apostolical Churches with every ones Name set down in his Order as if the Writer had been Clarencieux to the Apostles themselves Is it come to this at last that we have nothing certain but what we have in the Scriptures Are all the outcries of Apostolical Tradition of Personal Succession of Unquestionable Records resolved at last into Scripture it self by him from whom all these Pedigrees are fetched Then let Succession know its place and vail Bonnet to the Scriptures and withal let men take heed of over-reaching themselves when they would bring down so large a Catalogue of single Bishops from the first and purest times of the Church for it will be hard for others to believe them when Eusebius professeth it is so hard to find them There are two things to be done before a man can prove this uninterrupted Line first He must have a true Catalogue of the Names of all such Bishops as have filled the See and then he must be able to demonstrate that none of them came in after a Surreptitious manner without Episcopal Ordination the former is difficult but the latter much harder and yet without it the former will amount to no more than a Wild-goose row of hard Words and Names 1. It is extreamly Difficult to get a satisfactory Catalogue even in that See whose Bishops have made the greatest noise and figure in the World and if this Gentleman has any Friend that will consult Baronius for him I suppose he will forbear making challenges for the future Licet plerique sive vitio Scriptoris acciderit sive alia ex causa c. the learned Annalist shews Tom. 1. ad Ann. 69. Num. 41. that Optatus Milevitanus rehearsing the Catalogue of Roman Bishops down to his own times begins thus In the principal Chair sate first Peter then Linus succeeded to him Clemens to him Anacletus passing by Cletus as thinking him the same with Anacletus but on the other hand Epiphanius omitting Anacletus mentions Cletus speaking thus The Succession of the Bishops of Rome is in this Order Peter and Paul Linus Cletus Clemens Evaristus St. Austin following Optatus omits Cletus thinking him the same with Anacletus St. Jerom speaking of Clemens says he was the fourth Bishop of Rome from Peter that Linus was the Second and Cletus the Third although many of the Latines think that Clemens was the second of these Jarring accounts Baronius says Num. 48. Si in ordine tempore primorum Romanorum Pontificum quempiam errare contigerit in multos errores ferri omnino cogetur The Author of the Roman Ceremonial endeavours to reconcile these things by a fine Conjecture Lib. 1. cap. 2. Ipse Jesus primum denominatione Successorem constituit ea ratione c. Jesus Christ appointed his Successor by Name and after the same manner Peter also named Clemens but on this Condition that the Senate of the Roman Church would admit of him but they knowing that this way of naming ones Successor would in time be very Prejudicial to the Church would not accept of Clemens but chose Linus to hold the Pontificate after Peter but that afterward when both Linus and Cletus were dead Clemens was chosen by the Senate it self Of these Primitive times the great Scaliger thus speaks Prolog in Euseb Chron. Intervallum illud ab ultimo c. That interval of time