of abuse the Reformation was but lately countenanced and yet I take it for an unquestionable truth that the Laity ought to have the Cup And though I was not desired to reform the Epistlers Errors yet in charity I shall tell him he is out when he affirms that this opinion was but of late countenanced in the Church as I could shew out of Archbishop Whitgift by Bishop Bilson and divers others And since perhaps he might think these to be men of the more Lordly Clergy I shall name one more who may stand for many and who wrote forty years since that most excellent man Mr. Hooker a Person of incomparable learning and of as much modesty who I dare be bold to say never once dreamed of a Rochet he avers in clear terms There are at this day in the Church of England no other than the same degrees of Ecclesiastical Order Namely Bishops Presbyters and Deacons who had their beginning from Christ and his Blessed Apostles themselves or as he expounds himself Bishops and Presbyters are and by Christ himself in the Apostles and Seventy and then Deacons by the Apostles I may add Bucer too no man I am sure of the Lordly Clergy who though he was not English born yet he was Professour here in King Edwards time and wrote and dyed in this Kingdom Bishops saith he are ex perpetua Ecclesiarum ordinatione ab ipsis jam Apostolis and more visum est Spiritui sancto and surely if Bishops be from the Apostles and from the holy Spirit himself they are by Divine Ordination Nay what think you if this Tenent be approved by a plain Act of Parliament I hope then it wants no Countenancer England can give it and it needs not fly for shelter under the wings of the Lordly Clergy You have these words in the Books of Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops which is confirmed by Parliament It is evident to all men reading holy Scripture and Ancient Authors that from the Apostles time there have been these orders of Ministers in Christs Church Bishops Priests and Deacons And again the prayer in the form of Consecrating Bishops Almighty God giver of all good things which by thy holy Spirit hast appointed divers Orders of Ministers in thy Church Mercifully behold this thy Servant now called to the Work and Ministry of a Bishop And in the Question to the Person to be consecrated Bishop Are you perswaded you be called truly to this Ministration according to the will of the Lord Iesus Christ c. I beseech you Sir consider whether these words or the Prayer could fall from any man not possessed with this Tenent that Episcopacy is of Divine Right For if the three Orders may be found by reading Scripture together with antient Authors if men are taught to pray That God by his Spirit hath appointed divers Orders in his Church and this made the ground of praying for the present Bishop If the Person to be consecrated must profess that he is called according to the Will of our Lord Jesus Christ either all this must be nothing but pure pageantry and then the Parliament mocked God by their Confirmation or else Episcopacy is grounded on Scripture is appointed by the Spirit of God is according to the Will of our Lord Jesus and all this hath not been said of late and countenanced only by some c. And we have the less reason to doubt that this Tenent was countenanced in this Church of ours because we find it desired in those parts that have lost Episcopacy For we are told by Doctor Charelton after Bishop of Chichester one that writ against the Arminians more than twenty-five years since That sitting at Dort he there protested in open Synod that Christ ordained no Parity but made twelve Apostles the Chief so under them the Seventy Disciples then Bishops succeeded the Twelve and Presbyters the Seventy Disciples He affirmed this order had still been maintained in the Church and then challenged the Judgment of any learned man that could speak to the Contrary Their answer was silence which was approbation enough But after saith he discoursing with divers of the best learned of the Synod He told them how necessary Bishops were to suppress the then rising Schisms Their answers were That they did Honour much Reverence that good Order and Discipline of the Church of England and with all their hearts would be glad to have it established amongst them but that could not be hoped for in their Estate their hope was that seeing they could not be what they desired God would be merciful to them that did what they could If they hoped for mercy to pardon what they did sure they must suppose that what they did was sinful nay they thought their necessity it self could not totally excuse that sin for then in that particular there had been no need of mercy Nor could they well think otherwise for being pressed they denied not but that Episcopacy was of Christs own Institution and yet they were not Lordly Clergy Nor do I well see how either by charitable or civil men they can at all be taxed either for want of Reason or Honesty But this Londoner goes on and proves this Tenent could not be here countenanced for we alwayes allowed the Protestants of Germany the Low Countrys c. part of the Reformed catholick-Catholick-Church though they had no Bishops The Reformed Catholick protestant-Protestant-Church a pretty expression just like that so well known the Roman-Catholick Church which we were wont to call a Popish Solecisme an Universal particular But wee 'l forgive him this Slip Suppose his Sence be well worded yet he has as ill luck in his Argument as his Expression For though we do maintain that Episcopacy is of Divine Right i. e. of divine Institution does it then follow That Germany and the Low Countrys are no Protestant Churches or no part of the Catholick Church I could almost believe that the Author of this Letter writ from London indeed for sure Oxford makes no such Arguments No it must be a Crime of most horrid Nature that makes a Church run in non Ecclesiam For though that of the Iews was bad Idolatrically bad yet God seriously professes He had sent Her no Bill of Divorce Nay no Learned Man of Judgment durst ever yet affirm That the Romaen Church her self was become no true part of the Church Catholick and yet She breaks a flat Precept of Christs Drink ye all of this And shall we be thought to deny the same right unto Christians without Bishops when they brake but Christ's Institutions No! Churches they are true parts of the Catholick Church but in point of Ordination and Apostolical Government they are not And to affirm this will I hope he thought I am assured by Learned Men neither irrational nor unhonest He goes on I am certain the King would never have have way for Extirpation of Bishops in Scotland had he conceived them to be Jure Divino
ask what better way there can be for interpreting Texts than that very same means whereby I know Text to be Text to wit The Consent of the Church Shall I believe and yet disbelieve that self-same Consent which is the best ground of my belief This is as 't were to say that I believe such a tale for the Authors sake who hath told it and yet now I do hold the self-same man to be a Lyar. Men do believe the Testimony of Universal Consent in the sense it gives of Singular terms and why not in the sense it gives of Sentences and Propositions Without the help of this Consent which indeed is the ground of our Dictionaries how shall we know that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the Resurrection of the Body which the Socinians at this day deny And I know no such way to confute their Errour as by the Authority of this Consent Admit then of that Rule that Consent Universal is the best interpreter of the Text and then I am sure that it is as clear as true that Episcopacy is of Divine or Apostolical Right And that Proposition There can be no Ordination without the hands of a Bishop will clearly appear to be as well grounded as this There can be no Baptism without a Lawful Minister which yet is good Divinity amongst our new Masters in Scotland and antiquity allowed it Extra casum necessitatis For I ask upon what Text do they ground this Rule I suppose they will say upon our Saviours Words Go teach all Nations and Baptize them but in the Institution of the Eucharist he spake those words too but only to the Twelve Drink c. Mat. 26. I demand then how shall we know that when our Saviour spake those words to the Eleven he spake them only as to Lawful Ministers but when he spake the other to the Twelve he spake them at large as to them that did represent all Christian men So that though only Ministers may Baptize yet all Christians may receive the Cup Perhaps they l say that this general receiving the Cup is manifest from the 1 Cor. 11. and I think so too where St. Paul seems to chide the whole Church for their irreverence at the Sacrament But if a quarreller should reply that he there speaks but of the Presbitery only whereof many were at that time at Corinth as when in Chap. 5. he seems to chide the whole Church for not Excommunicating the Incestuous Person yet t is plain that he means none but the men in Government as sure all Presbyterians will allow me I know not what could be said but to make it appear out of the Fathers and others that the whole Christian Church never took the words in that sence And if to stop the mouth of the contentious we must be constrained to quote the Authority of Universal Consent and of the common practise of Christs Church then you 'l easily see that those two Propositions named do stand fast on the same bottom There can be no Baptism without a lawful Minister extra casum necessitatis for so the Practise and Consent of Universal Church have still interpreted that Text. And again 't is true there can be no Ordination without the hands of a Bishop for so those Texts out of Timothy and Titus have been understood and practised for One thousand five hundred Years together by the Consent of the whole Church of Christ. 'T is true that this precept of Christ Go ye teach all Nations and baptize them runs not in exclusive words ye Apostles or ye lawful Ministers and none else yet extra casum necessitatis none was allowed but a lawful Minister so that though those commands Lay hands suddainly on no Man and do thou Ordain Elders in every City run not in Verbis exclusivis thou and none but thou or men of thine Order only yet the Church understanding and Preaching them in an exclusive sense no man for One thousand and five hundred Years in any setled Church was held rightly Ordained without the hands of a Bishop Nay that there is something Divine in the Episcopal Order will appear clearly by this That immediately from the times of Christ and his Apostles yea within the reach of those times it was Universally spread throughout the whole Church so that no man can name a Nation that was once converted to the Christian Faith but he shall soon find there were Bishops So that there must needs have been an Universal Cause for an Effect that was so Universal General Council there was none about it at which all Christians might have met and might thence have obeyed their directions Nor can any name a Power to which all Christians would submit for they were soon fallen into factions but either the Authority of Christ or his Apostles from them then must needs flow the Episcopal Order and at that Fountain I shall leave it I say within the reach of the Apostles times for before St. Iohn dyed there are upon good Church Records above Twenty-eight Bishops appointed to their several Sees as at Ierusalem Alexandria Antioch Rome Ephesus Crete Athens Colosse and divers others a Catalogue whereof I shall be ready to attend you with when you shall be pleased to command it And hence it will be plain how great a Corruption nay how flat a sin is brought into Christs Church when Episcopacy is thrown down and so where Ordination is performed by any hands without theirs 't is as gross as if the Laymen should be allowed to baptize where a Presbyter stands by Nay more 't is as bad as if the Order of Presbytery should be thrown down that Laymen might Baptize What is this but wilfully to run into necessity which may thence create an Apology 'T is a Corruption far worse than if a Church should audaciously attempt to put down the Lords day since the Observation of that time is neither built on so clear a Text nor on the help of so Universal consent as is the Order of Episcopacy So that if men can think it sinful to part with the Lords day though the Institution of it be merely Apostolical they must needs confess that there is at least as much sin nay indeed more in parting with their Bishops And then the Oxford Doctrine he abuses and talks of as Transmitted for Orthodox Truth will it seems prove no less in earnest Secondly For the point of Sacriledge and the better to clear this I must premise these directions 1. That God accepts of things given Him and so holds a Propriety as well in the New as Old Testament 2. That God gets that Propriety in those things He holds as well by an Acceptation of what is voluntarily given as by a Command that such things should be presented unto Him 3. To invade those things be they moveable or unmovable is expresly the Sin of Sacriledge 4. That this Sin is not only against Gods positive but plainly against the Moral-Law For the
to His Power since 't is plain so long as a Man lives and speaks he hath still power to say No For it cannot be said in this Case that the Church may be as it were ravisht from the King and then He may be no more guilty of the Crime than Lucretia was in her Rape for though a chaste Body may suffer Ravishment yet the strength of a Tarquin cannot possibly reach to Man's Will or Assent Now in all promissory Oaths made for the benefit of that Party to whom we swear 't is a Rule with Divines That they of all others do most strictly bind except then allow when Remission is made Consensu illius cui facta est promissio So although the King swear to the People of England That He will keep and preserve their Laws yet if upon their common desires these Laws be either abrogated or altered 't is clear that Oath binds no farther because a Remission is made by their own consent who desired that Promise from Him And upon this ground 't is true the King swears to observe the Laws only in Sensu composito so long as they are Laws but should this desire either to alter or abrogate either Law or Priviledge proceed from any other but from them alone to whose benefit He was sworn 't is plain by the Rules of all Justice that by such an Act or Desire His Oath receives no remission for the foundation of this Promissory is the Oath He was sworn to and it cannot be remitted but by them alone for whose sakes it was taken so that when in the second Part of the first Clause and more plainly in the fifth He swears a benefit unto the Bishops alone in behalf of them and their Churches 't is apparent this Oath must perpetually bind except a remission can be obtained from the Bishops themselves and their Churches He was sworn to This then must be confessed to be the sense of the Oath that when the King hath first sworn in general to grant keep and confirm the Laws and Customs of the People of England He farther yet swears to the Clergy to preserve their Laws and Priviledges and since these are not able to make a Negative in Parliament so that the Clergy may be easily swallowed up by the People and by the Lords therefore in a more particular manner they have obtained an Oath to be made unto them by the King which being for their particular benefit it cannot be remitted without their express Consent So that although an Act of Parliament being once passed by the Votes of the King and both Houses it doth Sir as you have told me our Lawyers say bind the whole People of England yea the whole People as it includes the Clergy too yet it concerns the King by vertue of His Oath to give His Vote to no such Act as shall prejudice what He hath formerly sworn unto them except He can first obtain their express Consent that He may be thereby freed from His Juratory Obligation It may be said perhaps That in the Consent given by both Houses of Parliament the Consent of the Clergy is tacitly implied and so it is say our Lawyers as you have told me Sir in respect of the Powers obligatory which an Act so passed obtains upon them for they affirm That it shall strongly bind the Clergy as if they themselves had in express terms consented to it although Bishops being debarr'd from the Votes in Parliament and neither they nor their inferiour Clergy having made choice of any to represent them in that great Council their Consent can be in no fair sense said to be involved in such Acts as are done as well without their Representative Presence as their Personal But the Question is Whether such tacit Consent though it be indeed against their express Wills can have a Power remissory to the King to absolve Him of His Oath He that affirms it must resolve to meet with this great Absurdity that although besides His general Oath to all the People of England His Majesty be in particular sworn ot the Rights of the Clergy yet they obtain no more benefit by this than if He had sworn only in general which is as much as to say that in this little Draught Oaths are multiplied without necessity nay without signification at all And that the greatest part of the first and the whole fourth Clause are nothing else but a more painful Draught of superfluous Tautologies For His yielding to the two first Lines swears Him to keep and to confirm the Laws and Customs of the whole People of England which word People includes those of the Clergy too and so in general their Laws and Customs are confirm'd no doubt in these words and so confirm'd that they cannot be shaken but at least by their tacit Consent in Parliamentary way And since the King condescends to afford to their Rights a more particular Juratory Tye there is no doubt but it binds in a way too that 's more particular so that His Majesty cannot expect a remission of this Oath without the Consent clearly expressed For as when the King swears to keep the Laws of the whole People in general He can by no means acquire a remission of this Oath but by the express Consent of the People So when in particular He swears unto the Laws and Customs of the Clergy this Oath must needs bind until it be remitted in an express Form either by the whole Clergy themselves or by some Body of Men at least that represents the Clergy quatenus a Clergy and not only as they are involved in that great Body of the People So that he that presumes to persuade His Majesty to pass any Act in prejudice of the Ecclesiastical Body to whom He is thus sworn without their express Consent first obtained counsels Him that which is both injurious to his Fellow Subjects nay which is indeed a most damnable wickedness against the very Soul of the King SIR As I conceive it is now plain enough That if the Parliament should destroy the Episcopal Order and take away the Lands of the Church the Houses in that Act will run themselves into two Sins and His Majesty into three And upon this Supposition the Epistler and I have agreed I do not think saith he that Convenience or Necessity will excuse Conscience in a thing in it self unlawful And before that he calls the contrary the Tenent of the Romanist or Iesuited Puritan only I will beseech him for his own Souls sake to consider how great a Scandal he hath given to Mankind in defence of such Sins as these For I conceive that Durand offended more in holding that Fornication was no Sin against the Law natural than Sechem did who was only under that Law in his lust upon old Iacob's Daughter for Fraudem legi facere saith the Civilian is worse than Legem violare It argues a more unsubject-like disposition for a Man to put Tricks and Fallacies upon his Princes Laws than to run himself into a downright Violation And God we know is a King I am a great King saith the Lord of Hosts and a King in whose hands is a vengeance 'T is true SIR we are thus put into a very sad Condition when the only Option that seems left us now is either to chuse Sin or Ruine but yet if well us'd 't is a Condition glorious a Condition in which all that Noble Army of Martyrs stood before they could come at Martyrdom And if in preparation of mind we thus lay our Lives down at the Feet of Christ I am undoubtedly persuaded it is the onely way to preserve them for this Word of God is the Lord of Hosts too and for his Glories sake he oft effects to save them who have lost both their strength and hopes But to you Sir whom I know so well such Persuasions as these are needless I rest Your very Faithful Servant FINIS M. I. 3. 8. Hagg. 1 4. 6. Mat. 25. Aquin. 22. Acts 1. Gell. l. 11. l. ult F. l. v. 1. Lev. 27. 13. Deut. 27. 17. 1646.