Answer to Dodwell and Sherlock, Chapter 4

Answer to Dodwell and Sherlock · Chapter 4

p. 27CHAP. IV. My words of Gods Collation of Ministerial Authority, Vindicated from the forgeries and fallacies of Mr. Dodwell.

§. 1. CHRIST hath taught me to judg of Prophets, or Teachers, by their fruits more than by their cloathing, Mat. 7. And the fruits which are of God, are those which express the Divine Nature and Image, viz. holy Light and Truth, holy Love, and holy Life and Practice, and the promoting of these in the world.

And Christ hath taught me, that the Devil is, 1. Against holy Light and Truth, the Prince of Darkness, and a Lyar, and the Father of Lyes. 2. Against holy Love, accusing, slandring, p. 28and rendring as odious the servants and ways of Christ. 3. Against holy, righteous, and sober living; and an opposer of it, and a persecutor and murderer of the Saints.

And those that are likest Satan in these three parts of his Image, and whose works are more certainly the works of these three Diabolical Principles, I am taught by Christ to judg of by their fruits▪ So much as there is in Mr. Dodwell's labours, of holy Truth, holy Love, and helps to holy living, so much sure is of God. But so much as there is in his, or any of his Parties cause, of deceit and falshood, and defence of ignorance, so much as there is of Malignity, Calumny, or making odious the servants of Christ; so much as there is of cruelty and destruction, and silencing faithful Ministers, and promoting ungodliness, by upholding its defences, I am obliged to resist, as being from him, against whom in my baptismal Covenant I was engaged.

§. 2. He giveth his Reader the sum of my doctrine in this point, p. 29, &c. a chain of forgeries, or putid falshoods. Either he knew that he wrote falsly, or he did not; if yea, then it seems he thinks that God or his Church needed his lyes: if not, how unfit is he to write against what he understandeth not? But what made him devise a frame of his own words of above six pages, to express my words by, if he meant not to deceive those that would believe his writing without reading mine?

§. 3. And whether it be from the Lord of love, or the enemy of love, that he goeth so far to the unchurching and damning of so many of the Reformed Churches, besides the Churches of the Southern and Eastern parts of the world (if not of all Churches on earth) let the sons of Love consider.

§. 4. And whether his endeavours to persuade all the Nonconformists to give over preaching Christs Gospel, and all publick Worship of God, till they can conscionably conform, and his reasonings for that frame that hath long excluded true discipline, and sheltered ignorance and ungodliness, be of God, and all his copious discourses to that end, are to save souls, or to starve and murder them, I leave to mens impartial trial.

§. 5. I so often and fully repeated my judgment of the Calling of the Ministry, as leaveth his Forgeries inexcusable. The sum is this.

1. There is no power but of God. 2. Gods universal Laws are the prime Laws, and the only universal Laws of the Church or world. p. 293. In his Laws God hath established or instituted the work and the species of that Ecclesiastical Ministry which he will have to teach and guide his Church to the end of the world. And therein signified his owning of them as sent by him, and promised them his help and blessing. 4. In that Law he hath told us what men they are that he will thus own and bless, and described the Essentials and the Integrals of their Receptive disposition or qualifications. 5. He hath in that Law told us who shall be the tryers and judgers of the personal qualifications; and that ordinis gratia, ordinarily their approbation, choice, or consent, shall be a relative part of their Receptive qualification. 6. God himself giveth all the personal qualifications. 7 He is ready to help the approvers and chusers to discern all these, and to judg aright of them. 8. The person being thus made a capable Recipient by personal qualifications and relative (due Approbation, Election and Consent) God's Donation or Law doth give him Right, and oblige him to the office-work. And the Electors, Approvers, and Consenters, are none of the proper efficient Donors or causes of this right and obligation, but only efficient causes of his relative receptive capacity. 9. That therefore the right and obligation is immediately from Gods Law by resultancy, as the established medium of Gods conveyance; but not immediately without any means of his receptively, to make him materiam dispositam. 10. That all this is true both of Soveraign Civil Power, and of Church-power in Bishops and Pastors. 11. That yet besides Approbation and Election, God hath for the publick notice and order of the Church, appointed a Regular Ministerial Investiture, by which the Approved shall be solemnly put into possession (as Kings are crowned, and Ministers instituted): and Ordination usually containeth both the approbation, part of the election, and the investiture. 12 But this Investiture being but a Ministerial delivery of possession, proveth not the Investor to be any Donor of the Power to the King, or to the Bishop or Pastor. 13. Nor is it necessary save ordinis gratia, and in foro ecclesiae, to avoid intrusion and confusion▪ but not when it is set against the end, or the end may and must be sought without it. 14. Who it is that hath the power of this Ordination (Approbation and Investiture) is much of the controversie of these times: some say it is the Magistrate: but those that say it is the bishops, are not agreed what species of bishops it is; whether the chief Pastors of each particular Parish true Church, or only a Diocesan p. 30that is the sole bishop of many parishes that are no true Churches; or only Diocesans that are Archbishops over many true Parish-churches and bishops. 15. But the Fundamentum juris being Christs Statute-Law or Grant, and all that is left to man being but qualitatively or relatively to make the person an immediately capable Recipient, and ministerially invest him; therefore it follows, that if at Alexandria, Antioch, Ierusalem, Cesarea, Constantinople, London, all the old bishops were dead or hereticks, a just title may be restored without the ordination of one that had successive canonical ordination; because there needeth no efficient donor but Christ and his Law, and the receptive capacity may be without such ordination where it is not to be had (as among Papists that will not ordain one on lawful terms, &c.) for Order it self is but for the thing ordered, and not against it: And I will have mercy and not sacrifice …morals before rituals); and all power is to edification, &c. are certain rules. And God never made men judges in partem utram libet, whether there shall be Churches, and Pastors, and Worship, or none; or whether there shall be Civil Government or none; no, nor of what the species the Church-Offices shall be. 16. I use to explain this by many expository, similitudes. 1. If the Laws of God authorize Soveraignty, and the Constitution of the Kingdom say it shall be Monarchy; were it Elective, the Electors are not Efficients of power, but determiners of the Recipient: And if it be Hereditary or Elective, the Investers by coronation, are no efficients of the power; but Ministerial deliverers of possession, and that but necessary ad ordinem, and not ad esse potestatis.

2. If the King by a Charter to the University, state the power of the Chancellor, Vicechancellor, Proctors, and all the Masters of Colledges, and then tell them who shall be capable, and how chosen, and how inve…ted; here his power is immediately from the Kings Charter, as the efficient Instrument; and all that others do is but to determine of the Recipient, and invest him.

3. So it is as to the power of the Lord Mayor of London, and the Mayors and Bailiffs of all Corporations.

4. So it is in the essential power of the Husband over the Wife; the woman chuseth who shall have it; and the Parson that marrieth them, investeth him in it; but God only is the efficient donor of his Law.

p. 3117. Therefore it is not in the power of the Electors, Approvers, or Investors, to alter any of the Power established by God. If both the woman and the Priest say, that the man shall be her Husband, but shall have no government of her, it is a nullity; Gods Law shall stand. If the City and the Recorder say, You shall be Lord Mayor, but not have all the power given by the Kings Charter, its vain, and he shall have all that the Charter giveth him. If the A Bp crown the King, and say, You shall be King, but not have all the power stated by the Constitution on the King, this depriveth not the King of his power, (unless he give away that which God hath not stated on him, but men) so if an Ordaining Prelate, Patron, or Parish say, This is a true Parish Church, and we choose, and Ordain you the true Pastor of it, but you shall have but part of the true Pastoral Power stablished on the office by God, it's null: Gods Institution shall be the measure of his power.

18. But I confess, that if God had left Church-Officers as much to the will of men as he hath done the Civil, the case had been otherwise; for Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Democracy, are all lawful: And the King, or other supreme power may make new Species of Judges, and Magistrates, and Officers, and alter them as they see cause. And it would have been so in the Church, if as the Italians at Trent would have carried it, Christ had immediately Instituted only the Papacy, and left it to the Pope to make Bishops, and to Bishops to make Priests: And yet I would not wrong the worst. I cannot say, that they would have empowered the Pope to change the Species of Priests or Bishops. But God hath fixed the Species, by making a setled Law for all the work, and all the Authority to do it, though Accidentals may be altered in work and Office.

§. 6. This is the clear state of my assertions, which how grosly Mr. Dodwell hath falsified in his forged description, I will not stay to open.

But it is a great stress and fabrick that he layeth on the contrary supposition, that his Species of Bishops are the givers of the Powers, and so we can have no other, or more than they are willing to give us: And let him that thinks he spoke a sentence of truth and sense, to prove it, enjoy his error. I would quickly prove the contrary to him, if I knew what he denieth.

p. 32§. 7. I. If he deny that God hath Instituted the Office of the sacred Ministry, and Pastorship in his Law, 1. The Scripture will shame him to all that believe, and understand it. 2. And if it be not divinely established, men may alter it; and what is all this stir about, to keep up their Domination?

§. 8. II. If he think that God hath only Instituted Teachers, or Rectors, in genere, but not in Specie, then I give him the same answer as before. Scripture will shame him, and men may make new Species of Church-Pastors, and unmake, or alter them; and how many, or how oft, who knows? And who be the men that have this Office-changing-power, that we may know whether, and how far, and how long we are bound to obey them?

§. 9. III. If he think that Gods Law hath not described the Essential Qualifications of the Recipient, then Prelates may make Pastors of Infidels, Mahometans, Bedlams, or Blasphemers, if not of Horses or Dogs.

§. 10. IV. If he think that Gods Law hath determined of no way of Election, Approbation, or judging who is capable, then every man may make himself a Bishop or Priest, and the Turk may make Bishops for Christians, or a company of Lay-enemies and persecutors may do it; and then the Bishops Judgment and Ordination will have no Divine Authority.

§. 11. V. If when the Recipient is duly qualified, and chosen, and capable, he does not think that Gods Law, or Grant, is a sufficient signification of his Donative will, and a fundamentum juris, and an obliging instrument, 1. He must deny the very nature and force of Gods Law, and Grant. And 2. He maketh it less effective than the Laws, Charters, and Donations of men are; For which he cannot have the least shew of true reason.

p. 33§. 12. VI. Can he devise any other sort of power in the Ordainers, than I have named? What is it? If he say, that they give the Office-power; I ask, Is the controversie about the word [Give] or the Act? If that which I have named be called giving, let him use his liberty, and call it how he will. 1. But as to the Thing, what is it more than I have described? It is God, and not man that made the Office in genere & specie. Did our Bishops make the universal Law, which stablisheth the Office in the world? 2. And the Bishop never had that power, and therefore cannot give that which he had not: It's Dr. Hammond's reason against Presbyters ordaining, N…mo dat quod non habet. The word Office or Power and Duty, signifieth an Accident, which cannot transire a subjecto in subjectum. The Orda…ners have their own power, but they have not another mans. 3. Do they give it as Masters and Owners, or only as the Donors Ministers? No doubt they will say as his Ministers And do I need to prove to Mr. Dodwell, that servants are not the Donors, and give not their own, but deliver their Masters? Stewards themselves are but entrusted with the performance of their Masters will, in delivering his Goods as he requireth them.

§. 13. And this is so evident a truth, that the Papists themselves, who would fain have all power flow from the Pope, are yet forced to plead for it, (as you may see in W Iohnson's, alias Terret's answer to my first) because else they cannot defend the Papal Power. For the Pope hath been sometimes chosen by the Roman people, sometime by the Roman Presbyters, sometimes by people and Presbyters, sometime by the Italian Bishops, sometimes by Emperors, and now by Cardinals; and none of all these were Popes, nor had Papal power; and if they were the givers, must give what they never had: Whereupon the Papists are fo…c't to grant that the Electors do but determine who shall be the Recipient, but that the power floweth to him …m…edi…tely from Gods Law or Institution.

§. 14. And the Prelatists must needs say the same, or else grant, that Inferiors, that never had Superior power, may yet give it others; for how else shall the supreme Ecclesiastical power, in every National Church, be given? If it be in a Primate, or a p. 34Synod, those that have not the supreme power must give it; for there is none above them, or equal to do it: And so Archbishops are chosen, and Councils called.

§. 15. And thus almost all Societies, by contract, are formed. e. g. The King giveth Commission to several men to List voluntary Souldiers, and be their Captains, and command them: Every Souldier chooseth his own Captain, and thereby subjecteth himself to him; but it is not by giving him his power, for that floweth immediately from the Kings Commission; but by making himself a subject to it, and so ma…ing the Captain Relatively, a Recipient of power from God, and the King, over this particular man; for the Soldiers have no governing-power to give, nor are superiors to their Captain▪

§. 16. And thus Servants imprope…ly only make men their Masters, not by giving them a Domestick Ruling-power (which they never had themselves), but by making themselves the Correlate Subjects, and so putting their Masters into the Relation, to which Gods L…w immediately giveth the Ruling-power. All the power is from God: and God doth not first give it the Servant, Souldier, &c. to give the Master, or Captain, but the Servants, or Souldiers consent is, a Causa sine quae non, dispos…tiva Recipientis, to make the Receiver capable of it from God.

§. 17. And indeed all Kings and Soveraigns thus hold their Soveraignty from God. Though God hath not made the form, in Specie, necessary; all power is of God, and the Soveraignty from him, by no mediate Efficient below his Law: It's a falshood in politicks to say▪ that the people, as such, efficiently give the Soveraign his power, and that he is universis minor in Authority, though he is not universis melior; and therefore their common good is more than his, the finis regiminis ▪ Nor is it true, that Richard Hooker saith, that in defect of Heirs it escheateth to the people; but only that it belongeth to the people to choose a new Recipient, to whom the power shall flow from Gods Law, and not from them. I do not think that the King of France, Spain, or England, will believe that their power is given …fficiently by, and floweth from their People, Parliaments, or p. 35the Prelate that Crowneth them. And the case is evidently the …am as to the Ministry.

§. 18. And the French Papists (by some called Protestants), who are for the Ecclesiastical Soveraignty of General Councils above the Pope, do not believe that the Pope giveth them their power, though he may call them: But whoever calleth them, or chooseth them, they suppose that God only giveth them their power.

§. 19. And in all these cases, it is notorious, that an interr…ption of due Election and Investiture, hindereth not the restoration of interrupted power. If the Law say, whoever is thus and thus chosen to be Lord Chancellor, Lord Chief Iustice, Lord Admiral, &c. shall have such, and such power, and be thus, and thus invested in the place, if there were an intercision of an hundred y…ars, the next person, so chosen, will from the Law immediately receive his power. And the Investiture is but for publick Order, and the Investers regular succession (no nor the act it self), never necessary, ad esse, where it cannot be had, as I proved against Mr. D. in my Book of Concord. The Archbishops succession that Crowneth him, is not necessary to the power of the King.

§. 20. And obligation to the Office-work, is as essential to the Officer, as is the power to do it: And it is only the Governours that lay on another an obligation to duty (except what by contract a man layeth on himself): and none are the obliging Governours of the highest Powers, Civil or Ecclesiastical, but God; therefore theirs must flow only from God. Therefore the thing is not unusual. And if Bishops were as much superior to Parish-Pastors, as the Lord Chancellor is to a Constable, yet they were but Governours of them, in tantum quoad exercitum, and not Donors of their power: The Constables power is immediately from the Soveraigns Law, and so is the Ministers from Christ; for he is the only universal Soveraign.

§. 21. Mr. Dodwell saith, These are bare similies.

p. 36Ans. These are plain explications of the conveyance of power from the Soveraign of all.

He saith, That the power is not properly given by the Ordainer, is but begged by me.

Ans. A begging affirmer may easily write Books at that rate.

But saith …e, They connot give an instance from humane Charters, where the acts of men, not invested, are valid in Law.

Ans. 1. Will you tell the King so to his saace, that before his Coronation no act is valid that he doth? 2. No doubt but (as publick Matrimony after secret Marriage is necessary, in foro civili ordinis gratiâ, where it may be had, and yet when it was done by a Justice, without a Priest, yea, or by the persons publick contract only, it was no nullity, no, nor coram Deo before, so) to regular order, the most orderly Investiture is needful, but not ad esse, much less that all the Investers circumstances also, and all his predecessors, have been regular. 3. Investing here, is the act of a servant only, solemnizing the entrance, or delivery of possession: But such a servant is not the Owner, and Don… of th… power. 4. The Papists and Protestants confess that the power of Inv…sting is so humane and mutable, that it cannot be necessary, ad esse potestatis. I told you how oft the power of choosing …nd investing Popes hath beeen changed. And the old Canons make the Act of three Bishops necessary to Invest, or consecrate one. But did God determin… of three? Or can you prove on… Bishops Ordination a Nullity? 5. In the Civil State some Officers are made without any Investiture (as Constables, Headboroughs, Church Wardens and others), and some the Charter imposeth Investiture on: But whether if Recorders, Stewards, Town Clerks, that by Charter are to Invest, be dead, or refuse their Act, the Mayor, Bayliff, or other Officers be therefore none, and the Government be dead, let Lawyers tell you. 6. Sure I am that Hen. 4. and the rest of the Germane Emperors, who fought, and strove so long against Hildebrand, and his Adherents, for the Investing-power, were no Bishops; and all the Councils of Bishops, who stood for the Emperors, never took them for B…shops; and therefore thought not that Ivesting was an Act proper to Episcopal-power. 7. I have before proved, that ancient Writers, and Papists, and many Protestants agree, that Baptism is valid administred p. 37by Lay-men, that I say not women. 8. Mr. Dodwell, self-condemningly saith, that a presumptuous Ordination of the Priest serves to the validity of Sacraments, though indeed he were not Ordained; and that God is bound to make such Acts to the people good. 9. Mr. D. must beg belief instead of proving it, if he tell us, that the stated teaching of Gods Word to a Church, is not as truly the work of the Pastor, as is the Admistring the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lords Supper. It is one of the principal of the Jesuits jugglings, to make the people think, that till they can prove their Teachers the rightly Ordained Ministers of Christ, they are not bound to hear them, or believe them. Our Parents (mostly) were never Ordained Bishops, or Priests: Must not Children therefore hear them, and believe them (fide humanâ)? And hath not that God, who appointed Parents to teach his Law to their children, lying down, and rising up, and to educate them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, thereby signified, that Parents instruction is the first ordinary means appointed by God for the conveying of saving knowledg, and faith? And if the help of Parents, though unordained, be Gods ordinary means of the first saving faith, shall We say with such men as Mr. Dodwell, that we have no Covenant right to salvation, till we have the Sacrament from the hand of a Minister that had a regular Ordination, uninterruptedly down from the Apostles? 10. Did the Three hundred, Act. 2. and the Eunuch, Act. 8. refuse Baptism till they were satisfied by proof, that the Baptizers were rightly called Ministers? Paul tells those that questioned his Apostolick power, that he was an Apostle to them whatever he was to others; and that they should know first, whether Christ were in them, and so whether he were not a true Minister, and not begin at the trying of the Ministry, 2 Cor. 13.4, 5, 6, 7. Gal. 3.1, 2, 3, 4. &c. 11. The Acts of the Parliament, called irregularly by General Monk, were they that restored King Charles the 2d and were confirmed by him as valid, through the defect of a Regular Summons, and by necessity. 12. I have fully proved in my Treatise of Episcopacy, that the Species of Bishops, which Mr. Dodwell pleaded for, is not the same which the Churches had for 200. or 300. years. And then where is his regular succession from the Apostles?

p. 38§ 22. He saith also, p. 37. They cannot give an Instance (of any power setled by Charter), whereupon the Acts of any persons, lawfully Invested, though confessedly less qualified, are not thought valid: A plain sign that their Investiture doth properly confer such power.

Ans. Words fitted to deceive. 1. He that is unqualified is not lawfully Invested, and yet the Act of the Invester may be right, had the Recipient been lawful.

2. He saith, Less qualified; when he knew that our question is of the unqualified.

3. Investiture giveth it, as the Act of the Power and Donor, by a servant delivering orderly possession, but doth not make, or prove the Investing Minister the Owner, or Donor, no more than he was that from the Emperor Henry delivered the Bishops the Staff and Ring; or the Priest that Marrieth the persons

4. Burroughs and Cities choose, and return Burgesses for Parliament by Charter; yet if they are unqualified when they come thither, the choice is judged null. If a City choose, and Invest a proclaimed Rebel for Mayor, I will believe it null, or invalid, though Mr. D. will not: And if he write Forty Books with such streams of confident words, to prove, that the Election, and Investiture of the d…lared Heretick Bishops at Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, and most of the Empire in many Ages (Arrians, Eutichians, &c.) were yet judged valid by the Councils of the Orthodox, no man that ever read the Councils will believe him.

5. Nor will I believe him, that any Bishops Ordination can make a true Bishop, or Priest, of a Woman, an Infant, or a professed Heathen, Infidel, or proper Heretick, or any uncapable person, any more than he can make a Woman to be a Husband, or a dumb man the University Orator.

§. 23. He saith, They cannot give an Instance of any Power setled by Charter, whereupon a failure of all who are by the Charter empowred to dispose of Offices, the power must devolve to those who are not by the Charter empowred to dispose of them and where such a Charter is not thought in Law to fail, by becoming unpracticable, till the supreme power interpose, &c.

p. 39Ans. Still the same fraud: If all empowred to dispose of Offices, is an ambiguous word. The Prince disposeth of them, by giving the Power, and the Electors by choosing the Receivers, and the Minister by delivering the Insignia: If Electors, and all die indeed, there are none to determine of the Receiver: And yet if the Plague kill most of the Electors at Age, and leave not a due number, when the rest left come to Age, and choose, the Charter will renew the Office-power. 2. But if it be only the Ministerial Invester that faileth, the sense of the Lawgiver must be judged of by the words, and by other notices, and the light of common Reason. e. g. Whether it be the meaning of the Charter which saith, that the Recorder shall give the Oath, or the former Mayor shall deliver the Insignia, that if the Recorder, or Mayor be dead, or sick, or mad, or wilfully refuse, the City shall have no Mayor; or if no Priest will Marry folks, all England must live unmarried; or if the Archbishops and Bishops will Ordain none but Hereticks, all the Churches must have no other Ministers. And here Nature and Christ teach us, that the Means is only for the End, and Order for the thing ordered; and God will have us understand his own Laws so, as that Rituals give place to Morals: I will have mercy, and not sacrifice. And sure if the King of Spains Charter, for the making of Governours at the West Indies, should not express, or reasonably imply a Remedy, in case of the failure of circumstances of meer Order, his Countrey might be lost before they could send to Spain for a new Charter or new power.

And Mr. D. saith, Which is the very case impugned by me of the Nonconformists: And so judg whether he must not turn a Seeker, and say, that all Ministry, Churches, and Sacraments cease, till a new Commission comes from Heaven, upon the failure of every such circumstance; yea, when almost all the Churches charge each other with failures and intercisions, and the very species of the Ordainers is so much altered.

If the King send his Army into the Indies (or his Navies), and mention no power but the Generals, as chief, or no way of choosing a new General, but by the Field-Officers choice, and giving him an Oath by the Secretary, &c. yet no man doubteth but it was his meaning, that if the General die, or turn Rebel, yea, and the major part of the Field-Officers, or the p. 40Secretary, the Army should choose another General, rather than perish, and the Kings service miscarry.

§. 24. He addeth, They cannot give an Instance of any humane Charter, that ever allows any person empowered, to extend his own power by a private exposition of the Charter, against the sense of all the visible supreme powers of the society.

Ans. This opens the Core of the Aposthume.

1. We deny, as confidently as any French, or Italians affirm, that there is any such thing at a supreme visible power over the universal Church, under Jesus Christ; and therefore none such is disobeyed, or contradicted.

2. And we maintain, That by Divine appointment there is no visible National supreme Church-power, but that of the Civil Christian Soveraign; and therefore none such disobeyed.

3. And we hold, that no man can extend his own power further than Christs own Law extendeth it. False expositions give no power.

4. And therefore we prove by your own Rule, that (Christ being the only supreme universal Ruler, and having described and specified the Office of a Pastor, and order of a Church) no Bishops can by their private exposition▪ turn a single Church into a Diocesan, or a Presbyter of Christs description into an half Presbyter of their own making: But if they make a man a Pastor, his power and work shall be what Christ saith, and not what the Orda…ner will. Investing-Ministers Acts are null, if they contradict the Order of the Donor: If the King give you a Parsonage of 300. l. a year, and the Instituter say, you shall have but 100. l. out of it, it's vain; he instituteth you but as the Donors instrument in the same Benefice, and power given by him.

§ 25. He addeth, p. 38. Where can they find such a Charter for the power of Presbyters in Scripture as they speak of?

Ans. Nay, then we are far from agreeing, if you think that the very Species of a Pastors Office is not found in Scripture, as of Christs institution. Th…n it seems, the Bishops make the very Species: The Italian Bishops at Trent scarce gave so much to the Pope. Then why may not the Bishops put down Presbyters, if they make the Species, or make as many Species as p. 41they please? Indeed Dr. Hammond thought that there was no evidence of the Order of Subject Presbyters in Scripture-times. And if God instituted none, let us have none. But I have told you before, and often, where in Scripture the true Pastors Office is described.

§. 26. He adds, They may find some actual practices; but will they call that a Charter?

Ans. This is indeed to strike at our foundation. If we prove not Christ to be King, and Lawgiver, and that his Laws, or Governing-precepts, were partly given by himself, and partly by his Spirit, in his Commissioned Apostles, and these Recorded, Sealed, and Delivered in Scripture: If we prove not, that these, as the authorized Agents of Christ, delivered his Will by words and practice, in setling, and describing the Pastors of his Churches, then take the Ministry, and spare not for mans invention. I cited you before, the Texts that are our proof.

But if the Office, which you call Priestly, be of mans making in specie, I doubt the Diocesans will prove so much more; for many Papists doubt of the Divine right of Prelacy, that doubt not of the Divine unalterable right of the Priestly, or Presbyter-power and work. And will this cure men of Schism, to tell them, that God hath not so much as made, and specified the Parish-Pastors Office, and it is but a humane invention which you forsake?

§. 27. And I would crave of this confident man to consider, whether he reach not high, and horrid Sacriledg, if he make the Invester to be first the Owner, and then the Donor? Did we devote our selves to Patrons in our Ministry, or to Diocesans, or immediately to God? If we covenanted only to be Gods Ministers, for the Churches good, then let them take heed that claim propriety in us as Priests. And if Tythes and Glebes were devoted to God, and not to Princes, or Patrons, I doubt he that maketh Patrons the Proprietaries, and proper Donors, will prove Sacrilegious, and be convinced at last, that he should only have taken Princes and Pastors for such Trustees as determine of the Receiver, but give not the things.

p. 42§. 28. If it be otherwise, Princes, Patrons, and Prelates, are greater and richer than I ever thought them 1. Then, all the Bishopricks in England are the King's, till he give them. 2. Then all the Tythes, Glebes, and Temples in England, are the Patrons, till they give them; or else the Bishops, or Chancellors, who investeth men in them by institution and induction. And the Patron and Bishop may have a hard suit to determine which is the Proprietor. 3. And then a Bishop that Ordaineth a thousand Priests, was the Owner of all their Relations before; and so as they that are for the pre-existence of souls, dispute, whether they pre-existed individually, or only in animâ universali; so these that are for the pre existence of Priesthoods in the Diocesans, must dispute, whether they were in the Prelate a thousand individual Priesthoods before, or but one common Priesthood, that fell into individuals by Ordination. If they say, that they were but virtually in the Prelate, that kills their Cause; for then they did not pre-exist (for existere est esse extra causas). And this only saith, that the Prelate had an effective vertue that could make them. But the species was made before; and so was the obliging, and Donative Law; therefore the Prelate had not power to do what God had done before.

§. 29. I take it for granted (because I know him), that all this is nothing to Mr. Dodwell; but to me it is moreover something, 1. That the highest esteemers of Diocesans Ordination, make it but a Sacrament. 2 And that the Investing Minister is not the Owner and Donor of the Relation and Gift in any of their Seven Sacraments.

1. In Baptism God only giveth the Right and Relation, which the Minister by Investiture solemnizeth, but giveth it not as his own: Else every Lay-man and woman by their judgment, should have multitudes of Christendoms of their own to bestow.

2. In Confirmation the Priest never pretendeth to be the giver of the Spirit, but by his act to fit the person to receive it: The Holy Ghost is said to fall on them that heard the word (before Baptism), Act. 10.44, 45 and they were after baptized: He fell on them, Act. 11.15. And Peter and Iohn prayed p. 43for the Samaritans, that they might receive the Holy Ghost, Act. 8.15. and they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost, v. 17. but not that they gave the Holy Ghost, though by the laying on of their hands, and their prayers, he was given, as he was on them without, Act. 2.

3. And in Matrimony it's confessed, that the Priest is not the Owner and Donor of the Husbands power, but a Ministerial Invester.

4. And in the Eucharist, even they that think the bread is made God, take not the Priest as the efficient cause, but a disposing instrument; nor that he giveth God to the Receiver, as the Owner, or Donor, but delivereth him as a Minister.

5. The same is true of Penance, Extreme Unction, and therefore must be so also in Ordination.

If the King send a thousand Commissions to Captains, Judges, Justices, &c. the Messenger is not the Owner, or Donor of them all; nor may make any alteration of them: yea, if he intrust the Chancellor to name all the Justices, he doth thereby but determine of the person that shall receive the Commission, but altereth nothing of the Office, nor is the Donor of it. All this is plain to us, but not to Mr. Dodwell.

§. 30. Saith he, p. 39. Are not many actual practices grounded on circumstances? Are not many of those circumstances obnoxious to great mutability? Are not ordinary Governours the competent Iudges of their actual change?

Ans. 1. And did not Christ promise, his Spirit to his Apostles, for the performance of their Commissions? And were not those Commissions to gather, and settle his Churches, and teach them all that he commanded them? And did not Christ by that Spirit make Pastors and Teachers, as is before proved? And did not the Apostles faithfully perform their trust?

2. And doth he not see, that by this he also subverteth his foundation of Prelatical power also, as having no better institution than the Priesthood? And then who are those Governours of the Church that he talks of, that must judg? And how prove they their jugding-power?

3. And it were a kindness, if he would tell us what change it is that th… Diocesans may make in the Priestly Office and work, and tell us the bounds of their power, if it have any? And p. 44whether they may put down the Preaching part, the Praying part, the Sacraments, or which of them? And whether this be the power that hath put out the Sacramental Cup, and made all the changes that are made in the Church. To tell us of these ordinary Governours changing-power, is a hard word to us, that took Christs Laws, delivered by his Spirit, to be perfect, and unchangeable; However, some circumstances are changed, which were noted to be but occasional.

§. 31. To return his Consequence, p. 40. Since it is certain, that the power of O…daining others, was not given to, nor for some hundred years exercised by that species of Diocesans, who were neither the Bishops of single Churches, associated for personal present Communion, nor were the Overseers of such Bishops, but the Bishops of Diocesses, that have many score, or hundred unbishoped stated worshipping Assemblies, it will follow by his arguing, that these never had their Office from the Apostles, and much less a continued succession of it.

§. 32. He next pleadeth the Nullity of the Presbyterians Ordination. 1. Because if they had Ordaining power, it is only in Assemblies where Bishops are Presidents, and Edict them. 2. And because they carry it not by Plurality of Voices. But I am a weary with answering such trifling things, and the later part is a known mistake. I never heard of one contradicting Voice against the Ordination of any that was Ordained in our Synods.

§. 33. And he hath half disabled me to answer him from p. 50. forwards, where he feigneth me to maintain, that Authority must necessarily result from true qualifications: For it is taken for uncivil to give his words their proper name. But if the Reader will pardon the Repetition, I may remind him, how probable it is, that Mr. Dodwell trusted that his Reader would believe his words without perusing what I wrote; where he might have seen, 1. That I say, that the Authority resulteth not from the qualifications, but from Christs Law, Grant, or Charter. 2. That personal qualifications (of gifts, or grace) are but part of the necessary Dispasitio Recipientis; but that moreover there is needful, 1. Opportunity. 2. And need of his Office. p. 453. And to a Bishop the flocks consent, if not election. And ordinis gratia, (where moral necessi…y dispenseth not with order) the Ordainers approbation and consent. 5. And to regular possession, where it may be had, a due Investiture; so that there is a Relative part as well as a Qualitative of the Receptive disposition necessary. And all the following leaves in which he disputeth against me, as maintaining a power resulting from meer qualities, are so unbeseeming a Divine, and a C…ristian, that I will not soul my paper with their due confutation. But they are suitable to that man who thinks himself wise, good and fit enough to Unchurch and condemn so much as he doth of the Christian world, on pretence of pleading for obedience to the Diocesans.

§. 34. And where he adds, p. 50. [Or that it so depends on them (qualifications) as that where the persons ordained may want any of them, there the whol: Ordination must be null, because of the incapacity of the matter.] This also he denieth.

Ans. 1. I still distinguish between the Qualifications necessary ad esse, and those only ad bene esse, or integral. If he would perswade the Reader that I null Ordination for want of the latter, his weakness, or designed ill intent is such as warneth his Readers to take heed of believing him. If he mean it only of the former, as I speak, I have before confuted him that dare say that no qualification is necessary ad esse. Then a Pope Ioan, or woman-Priest or Prelate, or a professed enemy of God or Christ may be a Priest. And he may be a Pastor of a Church to feed them by the Word, who never heard or know what was the Word or Church. Cannot the best believer go to Heaven, if all your Priests will but deny him the Sacrament? and yet may a man be validly a Bishop, and the Key keeper of Heaven that believeth not that there is a God, a Christ or Heaven, and so professeth? This maketh me remember the old Roman Canons, how no Bishop must be deposed for lying with his own Sister, unless a great multitude of Witnesses testifie it; and the Councils that decreed no Layman shall witness against a Clergy-man, &c.

But Election, consent, the Ordainers approbation (ordinarily) are part of my Qualifications. And if these be unnecessary, what doth the man plead for? And is a false approbation of a man that wanteth Essentials, more necessary than having them? How contrary is this to the Doctrine of the Council of Carthage in the Epistle p. 46in Cyprian, of Martial and Basilides; and to many honest Councils?

§ 35. P. 90. At the end of this insinuated false accusation, he asketh, [Where do we find that God ever gave Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons, (though he gave Apostles, Pastors and Teachers)? those extraordinary Offices indeed seem to have been made neither of man, nor by man, but by God immediately, &c.

Ans. 1. Hath he said a word to prove that Pastors and Teachers are not ordinary Officers, contrary to the common judgment of the Church in all ages? 2. Whether he mean [Bishops] in the Dative Case, or the Accusative, I know not. If the later, let him speak out and say, God gave not Bishops. But how proveth he that Presbyters (and Bishops) are not Pastors or Teachers? 3. The Text tells you, Ephes. 4.14, 15, 16. that these offices were given for the continued stated use of the Church: For the perfecting of the Saints, the work of the Ministry, for the edifying the body of Christ, till we all come in the unity of the faith, and the knowledg of the Son of God, to a perfect man, &c. Was this temporary? 4. It seems he disclaimeth Bishops being made, in making Apostles. 5. Christ by his Spirit in the Apostles ordered the Churches.

§. 36. P. 65. he saith [They never find any of those Officers to whom succession is at present pretended, made immediately by God, but by the intervention of men, &c.]

Ans. Still deceiving confusion: 1. Intervention is a word of fraud, and may signifie only that act which determineth of, and qualifieth the receiver; and it may signifie the Donation, or making of the office. It is this that we speak of. 2. The Intervention of infallibly inspired men, commissioned to deliver and record Christs own will, hath an efficiency instrumental in making the office, in that the Spirit in them doth it, and they do make instrumentally the Charter or Law which giveth the power; and Christ doth what they did by his Commission and Spirit. If you can prove that our Diocesans have this Commission, spirit and power, if they write new Sacred Scriptures, or make new Sacraments, and Church-forms, and offices, we will obey them. But prove it well.

3. Did any man but Christ send forth the Seventy? Yet most Prelatists hold, that those were the predecessors of the Presbyters.

p. 474. By this it seems he again denieth, that Christ himself instituted the Order of Bishops, by making Apostles. And if so, he will sorely shake his standing; for then they must prove all their power from the Apostles (or following persons) institutions, and not make them successors of the Apostles own Office (for they made not their own Office). And Dr. Stillingfleet thinks there were no Bishops, or few made in the Apostles times, as Dr. Hammond thinks of subject-Presbyters. And if Christs Spirit in the Apostles made not these Offices (who made the Scripture, which is Gods Law), I despair of seeing it proved, that any since them were authorized to make them. And if men only made the Episcopal and Presbyters Office, men may unmake them.

§. 37. A case put to me within this hour, remindeth me, how much these men prefer Ordination, not only in it self, but in this circumstance of Prelatical uninterrupted succession, before Baptism, which is our Christning. There are some godly young men that have Communicated in the Lords Supper, that were the children of Quakers and Anabaptists; some were never baptized, and some know not whether they were, or not; and being born near Two hundred Miles hence, cannot learn or come to any certainty. The question is, Whether these that have Communicated, should yet be baptized? which is to make Christians of Christians? Or whether the higher Sacrament do not eminently contain the lower, as making a man a Bishop, containeth making him a Presbyter, and that containeth eminently his Deaconship (as some say)? If they must be baptized, yet, it implieth the Nullity of their Sacramental Communion before: And if so, Mr. Dodwell must confess, that Priestly exhibition, or investiture is null to an uncapable Subject. But I think most will say, that he should not be baptized, it being done interpretatively. And if so, is his Prelatical mode of Ordination more necessary than actual Baptism? Besides, that (as is said) they make Lay-mens or womens baptizing sufficient ad esse. And yet the Church of England professeth, that only the Two Sacramens, Baptism and the Lords Supper, are generally necessary to salvation.

p. 48§. 38. Pag. 67, 68. He would persuade us that the Imposition of hands in Ordination signifieth what he asserteth. But he giveth us not one word of proof of it. Was it the Holy Ghost which was in the imposing Apostle or Prelate that was given by him, and out of him into the Ordained? No, he was never in Scripture said to be the Ownor, Donor, or efficient conveyer of the Holy Ghost. But Gods will made the Imposition of the Apostles hand, a conditional act to qualifie the recipient to receive the Holy Ghost immediately from God, as the Texts before cited, and many more prove. What if it be once said that [foreign,] when many other Texts expound it? It's well known that foreign signifieth many other causes, mediums, conditions, as well as efficient conveying causes. Is it like to signifie more here than in the Doctrine of Justification, when it is so oft said that we are justified by faith? And yet faith there, is no efficient instrument conveying or giving us pardon and relative Justification, but only a necessary qualification of the Recipient (called by Dr. Twisse, Causa dispositiva, which is part of the Materialis) upon which Gods Covenant immediately pardoneth and justifieth the believer; so both there and here it is by or through the Act of man, as a moral qualification of the Recipient, made a condition by God.

§. 39. After all this, the man cometh himself pag. 72. to distinguish of Qualifications necessary to the being of the office, and to the well-being; yea, and hath the face to say, that I should have distinguished them; as if I had not ever done it. Is it not an unprofitable toil to dispute with such men that will pretend that a case by me constantly stated was not stated, and then will long dispute himself for the unqualified without distinction, and after all distinguish in the fag end? This beseemeth not any man that will pretend to plead for truth.

But yet he will not be over-liberal to us▪ he saith p. 13. All the skill that is requisite essentially, is only in general to know the benefits to be pe…formed on Gods part, and the duties to be promised on mans, and the nature and obligation of Covenants in general; and the particular solemnities of Ecclesiastical Covenanting. And of this how can any one be uncapable, that is but capable of understanding the common dealings of the world?

p. 49Ans. 1. And yet must we have Universities? and must the Holy Ghost be given by the Bishops for this? And is there any need to open the Bible to know it? and must so much riches and honour maintain this much? and all be damned Schismaticks that turn to better?

2. Set this qualified Ministry and his great zeal to perswade the Nonconformists to cease Preaching, and his Unchurching the Reformed Churches altogether; and it's easie to see what this humble diligent man is labouring for.

3. Do not many millions understand the common dealings of the world that understand not the Gospel? The natural man receiveth not the things that be of God, for they are spiritually discerned.

4 Is not this a plain design to set up a carnal Kingdom of ignorant, vicious Clergy-men, such as St. Paul saith, Rom. 8 neither are nor can be subject to Gods Law, instead of a holy Catholick Church and Communion of Saints? and to make Mahometans think that they are Saints in comparison of us, and that Christians are an unholy sort of men?

5. Either he includeth all that is necessary to the things named by him, or not. If not, then his Priest must know the benefits of Gods Covenant, without knowing what God is, or that Christ is the Purchaser, Covenanter, &c. If yea, (which I doubt not he will say) then, O what an excellent body of Theology is included in these few general words! Then he must know all those Attributes of God and his Relations to man, by which he is said to be our God. He must know all the necessary articles of faith, about the Person of Christ, as God and man in two Natures and one Person, his Incarnation, Birth, Life, Sufferings, Death, Burial! his Doctrine, his Merits, his Resurrection, Ascension, Glory, Intercession, Kingly and Prophetical office, and last Judgment, and Glorious Kingdom. He must know what Covenant God formerly made, and man broke; and what sin, original and actual, and what curse and condemnation followed on mankind. And Oh how many great and mysterious things are contained in Gods Covenant-benefits! On Union with Christ, Reconciliation, Justification, Adoption, Sanctification; The Doctrine of the Holy Ghost as the Third person in the Trinity, and as the Inspirer of Prophets and Apostles, and Inditer and confirmer of the Scriptures, and the Witness of Christ, and the Sanctifier and Comforter of the Elect, besides Resurrection, Glorification, &c. And what a deal is contained in mans necessary qualification p. 50(Faith, Repentance), and promised duty? And the true nature and use of the Sacraments themselves? And is all this such a small or easie matter as he seems to intimate?

6. But hath he yet proved that a true Minister of Christ hath no necessary work but thus to administer Sacraments? I will yet believe, 2 Tim. 4.1, 2. that he must preach the Word in season, out of season, reprove, rebuke, exhort, partly to convert the unconverted, partly to confirm and guide believers; and that the people should ask the Law at his mouth as being the messenger of the Lord of Hosts. And that the very essence of his office is to be a Minister under the Teaching, Priestly and Ruling office of Christ.

7. And if he had proved that a sorry Priest hath all that is essential to his office, that proveth not that I must take him for my Pastor, no not though the Diocesan command me. Souls are more worth than to be wilfully made the Priests and Prelates merchandize. If a man have all essential to a Physician, and no more, I will not trust my life to his skill, which is less than my soul, though the Bishop bid me. If a woman have all that's essential to a woman, he is a fool that will take her for his wife, because the Bishop bids him, if she have no more. The Priests that the Pope sent from Italy into England …hat could speak no English, knew what you mention perhaps. But it's necessary also that the Pastor teach all this knowledg to all the flock, which is not done with saying few words. This man minds me of the saying of an Atheistical Ph…sician, What needs there all this Preaching and stir? I can tell them all in three words, it is but think well, and say well, and do well. Dr. Saywell, and Mr Dodwell that are so much for our silence, seem to be too near to this mans mind. But saith St. Paul, Who is sufficient for these things!

8. Yet this sort of men that can accept of so little of God in the Priests, so be it they will but be ruled by the Prelate (who I suppose need ad esse be no wiser or better himself in their opinion) are the rigidest silencers and excommunicators of others the wisest and holiest Pastors and Christians, as Schismaticks, or Hereticks, if they obey not the Diocesan in every indifferent thing, or be not of their mind in what they decree; such odds is in their demands for God, and for the Prelates.

He that doth but understand the common dealings of the world, is capable of saying over the Liturgy of the Sacrament; and a little p. 51knowledg, and no honesty or piety, may serve ad esse. But if the Councils of Prelates, yea or his single Diocesan command him never so many things as indifferent, which the poor Priest feareth are perjury, lying, false worship, or other heinous sins, he is to be Excommunicated from Christian society, and cast out of the Ministry, and as a Schismatick not only to be silenced, but to be damned, if such as Mr. Saywell and Mr. Dodwell, and their Masters be to be believed.

§. 40. But saith he, P. 74. How can they prove that Preaching is at all any essential part of the Office? &c.

Ans. 1. From Christs own practice, and his command to those whom he called and sent, and from their practice, and the Holy Ghosts determination by them, Mat. 4.17. & 10.7. & 11.1. Mar. 1.4, 38. & 3.14. Luk. 4.18, 19, 43. & 9.2, 60. Act. 5.42. & 10.42. Rom. 10.8, 10, 14, 15. Mat. 28.19 Mar. 16.16, 20. Act. 30.20. & 8 5, 2…, 40 & 9.20. & 13.5, 42. & 20.7, 20, to the end. Phil. 1.17, 18. 1 Tim. 3.16. 2 Tim. 3.16. 2 Tim. 4.1, 2. 1 Cor 1.21. 2 Tim. 2.2, 24. Tit. 2.3. Where do you find that ever any one in the New Testament was ordained a Mass Priest, or Sacrament Priest, and not a Teacher?

2. When did you prove that actual giving the Sacrament was essential to a Bishop or Presbyter? not only; Paul baptized few, but many Parish Priests leave that work to their Curates, and some Bishop… leave both the Sacraments to their Chaplains or Priests. I suppose you know that in the ancient Churches one Assembly had usually a Bishop with many Presbyters and Deacons; and usually the Bishop did both preach and celebrate the Eucharist? Can you prove that the rest did any … celebrate than preach?

3. But if you are willing, you may easily know that we take Preaching to …ave more modes than making a set Sermon in the Pulpit. The Presbyters of old were all Preachers; Sometimes in the Pulpit when the Bishop or chief speaker was absent, sick or required it; Sometimes to smaller parties in Houses or Chappels, or lesser meetings; sometime by conference, as Christ preached to the Woman, Iob. 4. And if you think otherwise, yet I am confident by experience, that it is an easier thing, and requireth less skill to make a Pulpit studied Sermon, than to deal convincingly in conference with particular persons that need our teaching. And a man may learn to say Mass or Liturgies, that hath no tolerable fitness to teach.

p. 524. But if Preaching and Teaching be all one with you as they are with me, is it not a strange question to ask, How we prove that Preaching, that is, Teaching, is at all essential to their Office? As if you should ask, How we prove that Teaching is essential to a Schoolmaster or Tutor? or that to Rule is essential to a Ruler; or to give Physick essential to a Physician? What can you take the Office to be that includeth not Teaching? Neither Christs Apostles, nor the ancient Church ever ordained any to give Sacraments without Teaching, (however Papists make the essence of the Priesthood to be in the power of making the body and blood of God.) Nay, how can they celebrate the Sacraments without Preaching or Teaching? Can they justly baptize the adult, and not teach them the great Articles of the Creed which they must profess? and the great and many duties to be done? and the great and many benefits to be received? And doth he think it such a small and easie matter to teach men all the Articles of the Creed, the sense of the Lords prayer, the Ten Commandments, and the nature of the Sacrament of Baptism, and the Lords-supper? It may be h… will say, that it is some other Preaching that he meaneth. But he speaketh to me, who (in the hearing of D… Warmstrie, and of Mr. Th. Baldwin, who is yet living) did offer Bishop Morley when he …orbad me to preach in his Diocess, to promise him to preach only the Catechism-Doctrine, on Baptism, the Creed, the Lords prayer, the Ten C…mmandments, and the Lords supper. Archbishop Vsher in his …ermon before King Iames, on Eph…s 4 3. boldly affi…th, That l…t the learneds… of them all try it when they will, they shall find that it requireth greater skill to open to the …gnora…t intelligi…ly these Cat…chism common truths, than to handle points of controverted School-Divinity.

§. 41. It may be objected, 1 Cor. 12. Are all Teachers? and Rom. 12. He that teacheth on teaching.

Ans. It's evident that Teachers or Doctors are there put for some eminently gifted above others in opening and defending sound Doctrine, and not for all Teachers in general. For Exhortation is distinguished from it, which yet is the greatest p…rt of most Sermons. Paul was the chief Speaker, yet Barnabas was a Teacher. We are more than he is, for many Ministers in each Church, where the chief Speaker shall usually preach; but the other as assistants in their time and place, and not to be meer Sacramenters.

p. 53§. 42. His next recollections run all upon such intimated or expressed untruths meerly forged by him contrary to my copious Explications, and against the rules of common honesty, that I will not lose my own and the Readers time in particular answers to them. He would perswade the Readers that I affirm that power immediately results from gifts, who never had such a thought, but say it neither resulteth from them, mediately nor immediately. This dealing is so grosly false, that it is neither credit to his cause nor him. Would he make men think that I take him to have most authority or power, that hath the best gifts? As if the wisest and best man had right to the Crown or Church-power? If copious discourses to the contrary will not hinder such busie disputers from such inhumane slanders, are they meet to be disputed with? I have over and over said that, 1. Gifts, or the best abilities. 2. And due election or approbation of the Ordainers. 3. And the peoples election and consent, all set together, do but make up the Qualification or Receptive disposition of the Recipient. 4. Yea, and his consent conjoined; and that where all these in the necessary degree concur, the power resulteth to that cap…ble person from none of them all, but immediately from God Law, which is his instrument giving power to persons so qualified. And that besides all these, Ministerial Investiture for Orders sake, when it may be had, should introduce him into possession; yea, and the Magistrate must be judg whom he will countenance, protect or tolerate. But the case of Ordination and Investiture are necessary only where they may be had lawfully, and without crossing their end; as sacrifice was compared with mercy, and the Rest of the Sabbath compared to works of charity and necessity.

§. 43. And as it is the trick of such dealers, p. 81. he must have Governours to do his work; and therefore must not leave out that which may make us odious to them; but tells men, that our Hypothesis is unreconcilable with government in this life, in that it permits persons to assume Authority, and to extend it as far as they think fit, by appealing to Writings against the sense of all the visible authority of this life.

Ans. 1. But …f this Hypothesis be none of his Adversaries, but come out of the Meal-Tub, or forge of Inventers, what shall such men be called?

p. 542. We permit no person to assume Authority. But Writings are not so contemptible to us in comparison of that which you take to be all the visible Authority of the Church. It is your Richard Hooker that saith, that the Law maketh the King, and giveth and measureth his power, and that it's usurpation which obligeth no mans Conscience, when power is taken, and us…d which the Law never gave. What I think of this, I have elsewhere shewed. The Statutes are not so contemptible in this case, but the great Lawyers think they may be appealed to from visible Rulers in several cases. And you must talk at other rates than you have done in your tedious fallacious Vagaries, before wise Christians will believe that we may not appeal from Prelates to the written Word of God, when the power used by them is justly questioned. If not, how ca…e the Reformed Churches to justifie their Reformation? Was it not by appealing to Scripture against the visible Church Rulers, that were commonly against them? Were not P…pes, Council, Prelates, and Priests against them, for the far greatest part? Did it overthrow all Government of the world to appeal from these to the …cripture? I hereby undertake to prove, that neither Popes, Prelates, or Priests, have any Church-Authority, b…t what God hat… given them by his Word▪ And is it not th… necessary to try it by that Word? Must we take th…r own words for all that Popes, or Prelates c…im? And it will put the Pope and Council hard to it, to prove any Authority from God, if the Scripture do not give it them: And if it give it them, it may give it others.

§ 44. And wh…n …, done, we are far from granting, that we have les… to sh… for our succession from the Apostle…, than Popes or … have.

1 We are … that we have the same …aptism, Eucharist, Creed, L…ds Pra…r, D…calogue, and Script…re, delivered down from the A…ostles. 2. We are sure that we have a Ministry of the same species which Christ and his …pirit in the Apostles instituted. 3. We know that our Churches, and Worship, and Doctrine, are the …ame that are described, and setled by the Apostles. 4. We know that our present Ministers are qualified as the Apost… requi…ed. 5. And that they are Elected, or … to by the …, is the Apostles required. 6. And p. 55that they have as good an Ordination, and Investiture, as the Apostles ever made necessary to the Ministry: That is,

1. They have the Approbation of senior Pastors, and many of them of Diocesans. All that were put into any places by the Parliament, when the Bishops were down, were to have the Westminster Assemblies Approbation under their hands. And that Assembly, as called, consisted of many Diocesans, with many score grave Eminent Divines, though the Diocesans were not actually present. And a signed Approbation, and Allowance, hath the Essence of all that is of absolute necessity in Ordination.

2. They were Ordained by true Bishops. 1. All true Presbyters are Episcopi gregis, and joyn in Ordination here in Enggland. 2 The chief Pastors of City-Churches, having Curates under them, are Episcopi Eminentes vel Praesides, such as Ordained for above Two hundred years after the Apostles. And 3. The chosen Presidents of Synods were such Bishops. But all these concurred in the Nonconformists Ordinations when the Diocesans were down. They were Ordained at, and by a Synod of Presbyters in some great Town, or City, where the Moderator, and the chief City-Pastors were part.

3. Many of them were Ordained by Diocesans.

4. Many Ordained, as aforesaid, were after approved by Diocesans, some by Imposition of Hands, and all by Word, or Writing▪ for Archbishop Vsher did in my hearing by Word and in Writing more publickly declare his opinion of such Presbyters Ordination as valid …though he excused not such as deposed the Diocesans from the guilt of Schism); and so did the many other Bishops, whom I formerly cited; yea, even Bancroft himself. And surely all this hath all that is essential to Ordination.

5. And we know that such a Ministry hath continued to propagate the Church and Gospel in the world since the Apostles days.

But we confess, 1. That we cannot prove, that such Ministers have still succe…ded in the same Towns. 2. Nor that no one, from whom their Ordination came down from the Apostles, did pretend to have Orders, or Authority when he had none. 3. Or that no one of them in 1660. years was an Heretick, or a Schismatick, or a Papist. 4. Or that no one Ordained p. 56in wrong words. 5. Or that no one Ordained contrary to the Canons, out of his own limits, or without three Bishops, or without the Presbyters. 6. Or that no Competitors were Ordained by several Bishops. Mr. Dodwell is a great Historian; when he hath proved all this of all, or any of his Clergy-friends, he hath done something more than multiply words.

§. 45. But on the other side, we can easily prove, and have proved, 1. That our Diocesans are not of the same species with those of old. 2 That the Apostles did not make them. I think Mr. Dodwell will say, that the Presbyters first made them by consent (the Children begot the Fathers). 3 And Dr. Hammond will defend it, that there is no certainty, that any Subject Presbyters were made by the Apostles in Scripture times. So that the very species of their Clergy hath no such succession, as distinct from ours. 4. And he that will read the Church-History, and Councils, declaring the multitude of doleful intercisions in East and West by Heresies, the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, Ierusalem and Rome, and most of the chief Seats of Bishops, having been judged Hereticks, Simoniacks, or no Bishops by General Councils; yea, Roman Bishops judged some of them Infidels, and Diabolical by the Councils of Constance Bas…l, &c. I say, he that knoweth this History, must know, that the Diocesans that from these derive their succession, have certainly had frequent and notorious intercisions.

§. 46. And this leads me to another part of Mr. Dodwell's work: viz. his proof that Aidan and Finan were Bishops. As if this had been a great part of his Cause. Such diverting noise is a great part of the art of deceiving. Because I had said, that Aiden and Finan were not Bishops, but Presbyters, that is, when they came out of Scotland into Northumberland, I apprehended that some men of his g…ius and design, would be willing to mistake me, and therefore Printed an Explication of the Words in the end of my first Answer to Dr. Stillingfleet. But Mr. D would have men think that I said, that they were never made and called Bishops at all; and that I read not Beda, from whom alone (near Five and Thirty years ago) I took almost all that I assert concerning them. Let the p. 57Reader see my foresaid Explication. If Mr. Dodwell will give us more than noise and mist about this matter:

1. Let him prove that it was Diocesan Bishops that Ordained these Scots before they came into England, when Beda saith they were sent from those Monasteries that were ruled by Presbyters, and which would not so much as eat or communicate with the Roman Bishops.

2. Let him prove that any Bishops in England Consecrated hem, or made them Bishops here, when Beda tells us that they were the first in the North, and therefore had none here to Ordain them.

3. Let him prove that they were here made true Diocesan Bishops of our species: When, 1. they had no Presbyters at first under them, and therefore ruled none, and had but one Congregation; for one man can be but in one place at once. 2. Their Church in Lindisfarne was not made of stone, but of wood, covered or thatcht with reeds, and they are not said to have any other Church under them. 3. They went indeed to preach all over the Country, but not as to a Church, but as to Heathens to convert them. 4. Let him prove that ever they took themselves to be of a distinct order from Presbyters. 5. At a Synod (Bed. c. 25.) we find no more but the King and his Son, and Hilda a woman-Abbess, and three or four of this sort of Bishops, (far below our Ordaining City-Presbyters and their Synods.)

But unlearned men that value Books by interest and preconceived opinions, may think that by such talk Mr. Dodwell hath done some great matter.

§. 47. But (saith he, p. 81, 82.) Our Hypothesis obliging inferiour Governours to prove their title to their office, and the extent of it, from the intention of their supream Governours, does oblige all to a strict dependance on the supreme visible power, so as to leave no place for appeal concerning the practice of such Government (which as it lasts only for this life, so it ought not to admit of disputes more lasting than its practice), &c.

Ans. Alas for the poor world and Church that will be cheated at so gross a rate!

1. Did you not know that the grand error that Protestants charge Papists with, is the asserting of any such thing as a supreme visible power over the Church universal besides Christ. And did you think that your roteing over the name to them that deny the thing, p. 58would make a wise man change his Religion?

2. By your Hypothesis then no man can prove his title to his Office, who either believeth not that there is any such universal Supreme, or that knoweth not who it is (I know no Competitors but the Pope, and General Councils, unless the Patriarch of Constantinople be one.)

3. And he that knoweth not the intention of this Supreme power, is still unable to prove his office.

4. And he that knoweth the intention of the Ordaining Diocesan, is never the better if he know not the intention of the Supreme. And what if the intention of the Supreme, and of the Diocesan are contrary?

5. But by your Hypothesis the Governours may alter the very species of the Priesthood as they please; and what ever God saith of it in his Institution or Law, it must be to us no other in kind or extent, than the Governours intend. If they say, I ordain thee to baptize, but not to teach; or to do both, but not to celebrate the Lords-Supper; or to do that, but not to pray or praise God; or not to use the Keys of the Church, our power is limited accordingly; Then if the Prelates make Mass-Priests, their intention is the measure of their power. Answer the Papists then that ask, Was it ever the intention of the Pope and his Prelates, that the English Bishops should disclaim the Pope, or the Mass, or reform without them as they did?

6. Seeing the English Bishops, by you, derive their succession from Willfred, and Augustine, and Rome, is not the Church of Rome the …ittest Judg of the extent of their power, as knowing their own intentions? Nay, if they were so blind as to intend them power to pull down themselves, may they not recall it?

7. Did ever Protestant preach this Doctrine, That there is no appeal from the supreme Prelates, to God? O dreadful! what may men come to? and what error so great that a former may not introduce? Disgrace not the Church of England so much as thus to intimate, that they set up themselves so as that there is no appeal to Scripture, or God himself from them? God hath commanded Preaching, Praying, Praises, Baptism, the Lords-Supper, holy assemblies, &c. if the supreme Prelates interdict and forbid all these, is there no appeal to God? I have told you how much Robert Grosthead abhor'd this Doctrine, and so told Pope Innocent the 4th. What absolute blind obedience to Prelates is this!

p. 598. And what a reason brings he, That the practice lasteth only for this life, and therefore, &c? Doth any of our actions here last longer than while they are doing? Praying, Praise, Sacraments, obeying the King, doing good to the poor, &c. and so swearing, cursing, adultery, rebellion, atheism, blasphemy here, last only for this life. Must we therefore obey men without appeal to God, if they forbid us all duty, and command all sin?

9. And what did the man mean when he said, That it ought not to admit of disputes more lasting than its practice. Is this the rate of these mens wise disputations? 1. A murderers practice may be disputed at the Assizes when his act is past. 2. Shall not all the actions of men in this world be examined and judged of by Christ hereafter? What? no men judged according to their works, or for any thing done in the body? 3. Or did he mean that God will justifie us for any Villany that we shall do in obedience to the Supreme Clergy? 4. Or did he think that by appealing to Gods judgment, we challenge them there to dispute with us? What to make of this mans demonstrations, little do I know.

§. 48. He adds, P. 82. For how fallible soever they may be conceived to be in expounding Scripture, yet none can deny them to be the most certain, as well as the most competent Iudges of their own intentions.

Ans. 1. That's true. And if their intentions may make Doctrine, Worship, and Priesthood, what they please, it much concerneth us that they conceal not their intentions! But I would I knew whose intention this must be; whether the supreme Clergies, or the Ordainers; and what to do if divers mens intentions differ; and what bounds are set to their intentions; and how many hundred sorts of Priests Doctrine or worship they may make.

2. You touch their fallibility tenderly, as a thing that some may conceive. But it seems let them never so falsely expound Scripture, their own intentions still shall prevail against all the word of God? I would you would answer Dr. Stillingfleet's Rational Account, which confuteth you.

§. 49. He proceeds, As certainly therefore as God hath made his Church a visible society, and constituted a visible Government in it, so certainly it is to be presumed that their Hypothesis must be false, &c.

Ans. 1. Trifle not at this deceiving rate with plain men that p. 60love the light. If by a visible Society with a visible Government, you mean (as we have great reason to think), With a visible Government over it besides Christ, do not thus as Mr. Thorndike and others of you do, go on to beg it, and build vast structures on it, but prove it to us and we will yield; prove to me that the Vniversal Church is a Society that must have one vis…ble supreme Government under Christ, and I here declare to you, that I will turn Papist presently, and will not wrangle against any man for calling me a Papist (though I may not own all that Popes say and do, as those do that Grotius called Papists.) I will not talk with Bishop Gunning of a Collegium Pastorum, governing all the Christian world per literas formatas; nor be so moderate as those French Papists that make an Vniversal Council (which never was, nor ever must be) the supreme Church-power. I will presently be for the Pope, though not as absolute. But why answer you not what we have said against it? particularly my Sermon in the Morning-Lectures against Popery.

2. But if by a visible power in the Church, you mean not one over the Church, the Independents deny it not; while every City hath its proper Mayor, (and so every Church its Pastor) it is a visible power in the Kingdom, but not over it as a Kingdom. All the Justices of Peace are visible powers in the Kingdom, but not Supreme, nor as one Aristocracy over the whole.

Seeing all my dissent from Popery, and from you, is founded in my judgment against any one universal Supreme besides Christ, (Monarch, Aristocracy, or Democracy, I seriously intreat you to write your strongest arguments on that subject to convince me, and answer what I have said to Mr. Iohnson, and you may spare all the rest of your labour as to me. This will do all.

§. 50. P. 83. He adds, How can subjects preserve their due Subordination to their Superiors if they practice differently? and while they defend their practices, and pretend Divine authority for them?

Ans. 1. As the three Confessors did, Dan. 3. and as Daniel did, Dan. 6. and as the Apostles did, Act. 2. & 3. & 4. And as all the Bishops and Churches did for three hundred years. And as the Orthodox did under Valens, Constantine, Theodosius junior, Anastasius, Philippicus, &c.

2. They may defend it by proving, that there is a God, who is supreme, and that there is no power but of him, and none against p. 61him; and that man is not God, and therefore hath no power but limited; and that to disobey usurpation, is not to disobey power; and that God must be obeyed before man.

3. This is high language, and harsh to Protestant and Christian ears, What! are you serious? Must none in Rome, Italy, Spain, France, &c. practise contrary to their Governours? nor in Turky neither? Nor in China, Iapan, &c? Is it unlawful to read the Scripture, to pray, to worship God, to be baptized, to profess our selves Christians, to speak a good word, or do a good deed, to feed our Children, or relieve our Parents, &c. if Governours forbid us? This is far worse than to forbid the Scripture in a known tongue, if when we know it, we must not obey it if Governours forbid us, nor so much as plead Divine Authority for doing what Gods word commandeth us? Is Gods authority so contemptible in comparison of Prelates. Or doth it so little concern us, as that we may not so much as plead it for any practice forbidden us by superiours? This Doctrine must needs startle a Christians heart. It's far unlike Bishop Bilsons of subjection, and such others. If you really mean so, that whatever God commandeth us in Scripture, we must do none of it if the Governours forbid us, or else we overthrow all Governments, speak it out, and prove it; but Christians will abhor it. And yet this same man calleth the Martyrs Saints, when his argument makes them rebels. W. Iohnson would not have talkt at this rate.

§. 51. And I would fain know, whether he that first saith, that it subverteth all Government, and after nameth [supreme Church-Government] do really mean it of all, or of Church-Government only?

1. If of all, the man is no Papist, I will gratifie him to proclaim it; for he is no Christian. He that thinks that men must not plead Gods Authority for doing any thing different from the wills of Turkish, Iewish, or Heathen Governours, surely is no Christian: No, nor if he had confined this power to Christian Governours.

2. But if he mean it only of Church-Governours, how come they to have so absolute a power more than Civil Magistrates? May we plead Gods Authority against a King, and not against the Prelates? What proof was ever given of this? Then the Prelates is far above the Kings: Then the Prelate is an absolute Governour of the King himself.

p. 62Let Kings and Parliaments but understand these men, and we fear not their deceits. Are they willing to give over all worship of God, and confessing Christ, and all duties of Religion, Justice, or Charity, if the Supreme Clergy will but forbid them? See I beseech you, worthy Country-men, what sort of men and Doctrine you have to do with.

§. 52. And why doth the man talk only against different practice? Doth he not know, that Government commandeth duty, as well as forbiddeth the contrary? Is not Omission against Government as well as Commission? If the King command Taxes, Military service, &c. may we disobey, and call it Passive obedience? What if the Bishops only forbid us to confess Christ, to come to Church, to Pray, to give Alms, to do any good? May we forbear, sobeit we do not the contrary? Doubtless if Gods Word and Authority may not be pleaded for any duty which God commandeth, and the Prelates forbid, neither may it be pleaded for the Omission of any Villany commanded by Prelates (no, not Inquisition, Torments, or Massacres), which God forbids. But this man hath the Gramatical skill to call Omissive obedience by the name of Passive.

§. 53. It's like he will next say, that I make odious suppositions, That the supreme Church-power may command any Villanies, and forbid Christian duties.

Ans. 1. I despair of getting any of these designers to tell me, which is the Supreme Universal Church-power, so as to be well understood. I never heard of any pretenders but Pope, and General Councils, and as Bishop Guning holds, the Colledg of all the Bishops in the world. And certainly Pope and Councils have set up Heresies, and decreed even the exterminating of all that will not dis-believe all their senses, and deny Bread to be Bread, and Wine to be Wine. They have decreed deposing Kings, absolving Subjects from their Allegiance, adoring Images, &c. And what is it that yet they may not do? If they say with Peter, If all men deny thee, I will not; how shall I know that they say true? Doth not the Church of England tell us, that Councils have erred, &c?

p. 63§. 54. And be not these very honest Sons of the Church of England, that affirm it irreconcilable to Government, to alledg Divine Authority of any different practices, without exception, and at the same time to Subscribe to Art. 21.19.6.18. of the sufficiency of Scripture. That the Churches of Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, Rome, have erred in matters of Faith; That the Church may not Ordain any thing contrary to Gods Written Word: That General Councils may err, and have erred; and that things Ordained by them, as necessary to salvation, have neither strength, nor Authority, unless it may be declared, that they are taken out of the holy Scripture: And those are accursed that presume to say, that every man may be saved by the Law, or Sect which he professeth. And why not, if he must do all that the Governours require, or nothing divers to them?

§. 55. My Reason forbids me to trace such a Writer as this any further. To tell men of every vain Harangue, and confident discourse, that's full of gross error, or false report, is work unworthy of time and labour; but I will a little more open the Coar of his deceit.