Answer to Dodwell and Sherlock, Chapter 2
CHAP. II. His Schiswatical Church destroying Scheme Confuted.
§. 1. BEcause he dealeth so falsly with my Doctrine, by pretence of putting it into his words and order, I will deal better with him, and deal with his Scheme word by word as he hath laid it down. As for his exceptions, th…t I refel not his charge of the sin against the Holy Ghost, &c. I am not yet so idle, (having formerly written a Treatise of that sin.) His wilful refusal to answer Voetius de desperata Causa Papalus, when he knoweth that this Plea is the Papists chief strength, and Iansenius is so fully answered, is but a dishonourable tergiversation. And it's like he knoweth how Melancthon in his Epistles copiously shameth Mr. Dodwell's cause as trusted to by the Papists; when yet the Protestants here plead Melancthon's judgment for their Reformation. And though Mr. D. told me, that it is not for the Christian Interest to hold that the Roman successive Ordination hath been interrupted; I think they that believe their own most flattering Historians, must believe that the intercision there hath been more notorious, than in those Reformed Churches which Mr. Dodwell nulleth, or than those German and Danish Bishops whom Bugenhagius a Presbyter ordained.
But I will briefly examine the words of his destructive deceiving Frame.
1. That all are obliged to submit to all unsinful conditions of the Episcopal Communion where they live, if imposed by the Ecclesiasiastical Governours thereof. And,
2. That the nature of this obligation is such, as will make them who rather than they will submit to such conditions, either separate themselves, or suffer themselves to be excluded from communion by such Governours for such a refusal of submission, guilty of the sin of SCHISM.
Here are two parts.
a 1. That all are obliged to submit to all unsinful conditions of the Episcopal communion where they live, if imposed by the Ecclesiastical Government thereof.
This proved by these two degrees.
1. That the supposition of their being less secure of salvation out of this Episcopal communion than in it, is sufficient to prove them obliged to submit to all terms not directly sinful, however unexpedient, rather than separate themselves, or suffer themselves to be excluded from this communion, chap. 1. §. 7, 8, 9, 10.
2. That there is indeed less security of salvation to be had even on performance of the Moral conditions of salvation, out of this Episcopal communion, than in it.
This proved from two things.
1. That they cannot be so well assured of their salvation in the use of extraordinary as of ordinary means; nay that they being left to extraordinaries, is a condition either very hazardous, or at least very uncomfortable at present, whatever it may prove hereafter, Ch. II.
2. That these ordinary means of salvation are, in respect of every particular person, confined to the Episcopal communion of the place he lives in, as long as he lives in it.
This proved from Two things.
1. That these ordinary means of salvation are confined to the external Communion of the visible Church.
This proved from Four things.
1. We cannot be assured that God will do for us what is necessary for our salvation on his part, otherwise than by his express promises that he will do it, Chap. III. §. 1, 2.
2. The ordinary means how we may assure our selves of our interest in his promises, is by our interest in his Covenant, by which they are conveyed to us, Chap. III. from §. 5. to the end.
3. The ordinary means by which we may assure our selves of our interest in this Covenant with him, is by our partaking in these external solemnities, by which this Covenant is transacted and maintained, Chap. IV, V, VI, VII.
4. The participation in these external solemnities, with any legal validity, is only to be had in the external Communion of the visible Church, Chap. VIII.
B. (II.) That this visible Church, to whose external Communion these ordinary means of salvation are confined, is no other than the Episcopal Communion of the place where any one lives, whilest he lives there.
This proved in Two parts.
a (1.) That the visible Church, to whose external Communion these ordinary means of salvation are consined, is the Episcopal Communion.
This proved by these degrees.
(A.) 1. That salvation is not ordinarily to be expected without an external participation of the Sacraments.
1. Negatively, Not by those other popular means, which ordinary persons are apt to trust in, to the neglect of the Sacraments; that is,
1. Not by hearing the Word Preached, Chap. IX.
2. Not by private Prayer, nor indeed by any out of the Communion of the Church, Chap. X, XI, XII, XIII. XIV.
2. Positively, That salvation is ordinarily to be expected only by this external participation of the Sacraments.
1. Proved concerning Baptism, Chap. XV.
2. Concerning the Lords Supper, Chap. XVI, XVII.
II. That the validity of the Sacraments depends on the Authority of the persons by whom they are administred, Chap. XVIII.
III. No other Ministers have the Authority of Administring the Sacraments, but only they who receive their Orders in Episcopal Communion.
This proved by Four degrees.
1. That the Authority of Administring the Sacraments must be derived from God, Chap. XIX.
2. That though it be derived from God, yet it is not so derived without the mediation of those men to whom it was at first committed, Chap. XX.
3. That it cannot be so derived from those men to whom it was first committed, without a continued succession of persons, orderly receiving Authority from those who had Authority to give it them from those first times of the Apostles to ours at present, Chap. XXI.
4. That this Authority is not now to be expected any where but in the Episcopal Communion, Chap. XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXV.
b. (2.) That the Episcopal Communion, to which every particular person is obliged to joyn himself, as he would enjoy the ordinary means of his own particular salvation, is the Episcopal Communion of the place wherein he lives, whilest he lives in it, Chap. XXVI.
b. II. That the nature of this obligation to unsinful conditions of their Episcopal Communion, is such as will make them guilty of the sin of SCHISM, who rather than they will submit to such Conditions, either separate themselves, or suffer themselves to be excluded from Communion by their respective Diocesan Ordinaries, Chap. XXVII.
Here is Episcopal Communion talkt of, without telling what is the Episcopacy, or what the Communion which he means, and how both are known. Confusion 1. There are usurping Bishops not truly called or chosen. 2. There are Heretical Bishops. 3. There may be divers Bishops in one City or County; which of these mean you? 4. He may be one fit for others, and not for me, nor am I to take him for my Pastor. As the Greek Bishop in London, and many Latine Bishops, that spake not English heretofore; or his faultiness may make it my duty to chuse a better. 5. What if the King and Law command the contrary? 6. All this is nothing for submitting to sinful conditions.
2. As it is a duty to refuse sinful conditions, so of many particular Churches to chuse the fittest for our communion. The French, and Dutch, and Greeks in London, are not Schismaticks for not being subject to this Bishop, or locally communicating with him. 2. You tell us not how a man shall know he is of the Bishops communion among a thousand Parish-Churches that differ in many things, and own the Bishop in some things, and not in others. 3. Few of the Diocess ever locally communicate with our Bishops; and mentally the Nonconformists communicate in Essentials at least. 4. Most Christians on earth are guilty of Schism, and yet are not prevalently Schismaticks, but still members of the Catholick Church. 5. The Bishops, e. g. in France, are more guilty of the Schism than the Protestants. See Dr. Stillingfleet's Defence of Laud.
1. This is false in the fore-excepted cases: 1. If he be a Bishop to others, and not to me (unless communion include not subjection; for so we communicate with many other Bishops). 2. If the condition imposed be a thing which a Superior Power forbiddeth, (King, or in some cases Parents.)
The matter and consequences are so weighty, as tell us it is not well done to abuse dull Readers thus with the deceitful unexplained nature of Episcopacy, and Communion. The love of truth and souls forbid such deceit. 1. If some receive only Parish-bishops (of the old sort) and others also their Archbishops, and others such Diocesans as put down all Parish-bishops, which of these have Episcopal communion? 2. When of old, many Ages, Voting, and Fighting, could not tell men which was the true Bishop among many competitors, and when at Rome there were oft two or three at once; and when the worst oft carried the possession; and Councils themselves were for divers; whih was the Episcopal communion? 3. Is communion and subjection all one with him, or divers? If divers, I have communion with many Bishops that I am not subject to▪ If the same, how many must each man be subject to? and in what order and cases? 4. Communion is 1. mental or local; and the first, 1. In essentials. 2. Integrals. 3. Accidents of Christianity. I have communion with all Christians in Essentials, with the best in most integrals; with none in all, nor in all accidents. 4. I am more secure in the mental communion of many Bishops, than of some one, and of All in Essentials, and certain things, than of some one in suspected things, especially in universal communion with Christ and his whole Church.
2. He that hath no communion with any true Bishops of Gods institution, in his judgment, will, and profession, hath no communion with Christs Church: But if they are, 1. of a false species, 2. incapable, 3. unordained, 4. obtruders not consented to by the Clergy and the Flock, it's safest to disown them. 5. And …f they turn wolves, thorns, and thistles, or hereticks.
2. It's dangerous to refuse communion with the true Episcopi Gregis, but not with such as depose them. 3. And its doubtful as to the Episcopi Episcoporum.
1. It's but deceit to distinguish only ordinary and extraordinary, in speaking of the necessity of means. The Gospel written or preached, is an ordinary means, which to want is hazardous indeed; so is meditation, prayer, and sacraments, where they may well be had, and Pastors to administer them. But there are many lesser means that may be wanting or ignorantly refused, where salvation is safe. The Church of England thinks preaching to be such, which forbiddeth men to go for Preaching, and from a bare Reader in his own Parish. And the Indians converted by Frumentius and Edesius, might have certain salvation before they had any Pastor. And so may they that cannot know among contenders which is the true Pastor either as to the species or individual.
But 2. Comunion in every lawful thing is no ordinary requisite means of salvation.
Mark Reader that he said, that suffer themselves to be excluded from Communion by such Governours, for refusing submission to unsinful things. And Dr. Saywell, Bishop Gunnings Chaplain, and this man, make such refusal and schism damnable. Now mark here, how they make all indifferent imposed things consequently necessary to salvation, and make all such indifferences to be Articles of faith, or necessary to salvation to be believed. E.g. if Organs, the Cross in Baptism, Surplices, Church-images, Exorcisms, and five hundred such, be indifferent, and commanded by the Bishop, he that is excommunicated for not conforming to them, or withdraweth for it, is a damnable Schismatick: Ergo, it is necessary to salvation to conform to every one of them in that case: Ergo, it's necessary to salvation to hold them to be lawful (or else to use them while I verily take them to be sins). To what a mass now have these men brought the A…ticles or necessaries to salvation! Doth any living man know all lawful things to be such?
1. Then in Abassia, where there is but one Abuna Bishop, local Communion with him is impossible to most. 2. And how is the Patriarch of Alexandria, who ordaineth him of that Place that is another Kingdom. 2. Then in one Place-Communion with Papists, in another with Greeks, Moscovites, Abisines, Armenians, &c. is necessary in unsinful things. 3. Who will judg, but the Excommunicator, what is unsinful as to his act? 4. What a case were men in at Rome, under Formosus Stephen, Sergius, Eugenius 4. Iohn 12. and 22. &c. and at Alexandria under Peter, Meletius, Paulinus, Flavianus, and so oft in other Schisms, and Nullities? 5. The Novatians, and Ioannites had the ordinary means of salvation in Constantinople, under separate Pastors.
But it's true, that the ordinary means are confined to the visible Church, and its external Communion where it may be had. Of which more anon.
1. Some think that if God had only commanded men to love him, call upon him, hate sin, seek life eternal, without an express promise, one might be sure it should not be done in vain.
2 But God hath expresly promised salvation to all that truly love, trust, and obey him, and seek first Gods Kingdom, and are pure in heart, holy, and love all men, though they were excommunicate for not crossing, subscribing, or thinking Diocesans unlawful.
Chap. 3. The Promises of God, and his Covenant on his part, are all one. Those that God promiseth to save, shall certainly be sav…d: who those are, the Gospel fully t…lls us, yea, and told men before the particular Churches were fixed under their proper Pastors, called Elders and Bishops in the Scripture.
3 Transaction is an ambiguous word. 1. It was transacted by making the promise by Christ on Earth. 2. It is transacted by giving the consenting penitent Believer a Right, before God, to Christ and salvation, when he first truly so consenteth. 3. It is transacted by a solemn M…nisterial Investiture, sealing and delivering that Right for the fuller comfort of the consenter, and in soro Ecclesiae, to give the Right of external Communion, as a Tessara, when the person is baptiz…d. 4. It is transacted by renewed confirmation, and for further grace, daily in the Eucharist. I love not to offend you; but I must be true to truth and souls, and therefore tell men, that these Generals and Confusions are but Cheats.
3. Would you have men believe that external solemnities are necessary to the Right of Heart▪ Covenanters before God, as to salvetion? Or that all external solemnities are of the same necessity? The Church of England takes Confirmation to de an external solemnity, for assuring men of Gods favour, by the sign of Imposition of a Diocesans hands; and yet bind you to profess that it is not necessary to salvation, but the baptized Infants are certainly and undoubtedly saved without it. Litanies, Processions, and many external solemnities are not essential to external Communion with the visible Church.
Chap. 8 O tremendous! Is it no other? Is not the universal visible Church, consisting of all professed Christians, Headed only by Christ, the only universal Church visible in the world? Is there no Communion with this as such? Had the baptized Eunuch (by Philip the Evangelist) no Communion with the visible Church, nor promise of salvation; nor the Iberians, Indians, and many others that were baptized before they knew, or had a Bishop? Do not baptizing Presbyters (and Lay-men say, Turtullian and the Papists) assure men of salvation, though they should not hear of a Bishop? Why was not Diocesan Episcopacy in the Creed, if the belief and obedience be necessary to salvation?
a (1.) 1. Apostles and Evangelists took men into the visible Communion of the universal Church, before they had particular Church-Bishops. 2. Fixed Church-Communion was exercised universally under Congregational, or Parochial Bishops or Pastors, without such as our Diocesans. It must be Pastoral, or true Episcopal regular Communion. 3. Many Individual Bishops, separating from one another, have been, and may be in one City. 4. If e. g. the Bishop of Lincoln, have many Counties, and one differing from him, were chosen by the Clergy at Leicester, Hartford, &c. as he was by the King, which of them is the Bishop on the place? If Gloucester Clergy and People had chose another when Goodman, a Papist, was Bishop, which was the Bishop?
1. 1. Salvation is pronounced by Conformists to be certain upon Baptism, without any other Sacrament. 2. Popes and Papists are as much as any for tying salvation to Sacraments; and yet a Pope Victor and his Council, at Benevent, 1078. decree, that rather than Communicate with a Simonist, they should persist without visible Communion, and in mind joined to Christ, have his Communion. 3. What shall they do ordinarily in Italy, Spain, France, &c. that have none but Papist Bishops.
1. Wilful neglect of any known means, sheweth wilful disobedience against God. But many means may be ignorantly neglected without destroying assurance of salvation. Turtullian thought children should stay from Baptism, unless in danger of death: and Nazianzen was for some years delay. This ignorance damned not the practisers. Apocryphal books, divers Sacraments, Ceremonies, Church-Offices, Doctrines, have been controverted means among true Christians. 2. Faith comes by hearing, Rom. 10. Christ blesseth them that hear and do it: Thousands are mentioned as believing by hearing, and salvation is promised to Faith.
2. 1. Whoever shall call on the name of the Lord, shall be saved: Ask and ye shall have. True faith and conversion, wrought by hearing Gods word, and working by true love and prayer, hath many a promise of pardon and salvation. 2. Is a baptized praying believer out of the Communion of Christs Church, though he doubt of Diocesans, or Patriarchs? He is not.
2. 1. Ordinarily faith comes by hearing, and hearing by preaching; and he that truly believeth shall be saved, Iohn 13.16. 2. I think many Score, or Hundreds of Protestant Divines have proved that Baptism giveth not the first Right to life, but only solemnly confirmeth, sealeth, and by Ministerial investiture publickly delivereth that which true Faith received before. See Gataker's two Tracts on Dr. Ward's and Dr. Davenant's Theses. 3. What's Baptism to Episcopacy; till King Iames alter'd it, Women might Baptize in England, and Priests still may. And are men Baptized into the Name, or Belief of Diocesans (as Bellarmine saith, Baptism binds them to the Pope). Prove this if you can.
2. If Baptism undoubtedly save, at what Age doth the effect cease? 2. The Lords Supper is necessary for corroboration, and for expressing true obedience, and living by Faith on Christ, where it can lawfully be had, and the need and use of it is understood.
(B.) This is false: If they be given by a Lay-man, falsly pretending Orders, or by one who hath no Authority through uncapacity, or usurpation; yet the receiver loseth not his Right; he taketh it as from God: and if his ignorance be not culpable, there is not so much as disobedience in it. 2. If I prove that Papists have no such Authority as you plead for, are all their Baptisms and Ordinations null?
III. Episcopal Communion is the Cothurnus, the Hose drawn over your ulcer and snare. 1. We have mental Communion, in Essentials, with all true Bishops in the world. 2. We have Subject Communion with true Parish-Bishops. 3. And with their Ruling Bishops, at least as Magistrates. 4. Novatians, Luciferians, Donatists, and others, in time of Schisms, had all Orders in Episcopal Communion, and so have Papists, Greeks, Moscovites, Armenians. 5. Parish-Bishops have more proof of Authority from Christ than the Diocesans, or many hundred Congregations that have no other Bishops. 6. Authority may be given by God, without any Ordination, where it cannot be had, or not without sinning.
1. No doubt but all true Authority must be derived from God.
2. Those to whom it was first given, were the Twelve Apostles. They are considered, 1. As the Inspired Prophetical Declarers and Recorders of the Laws, and Doctrine, and Promises of Christ. 2. As chief Pastors of the Church, to gather and rule it. All Gods gifts and graces that come to us by the mediation of the Gospel, come by the Apostles mediation in the first sense, as declaring Christs Will, how Ministers shall be made in all Ages. And as chief Pastors, gathering, and setling the first Churches, which, by Christs Charter, shall call their Pastors, and so others, to the end of the world; they may be said to be Mediators herein. 3. But they mediate not as the Donors of the Pastoral power, as being Pastors themselves, but only as Ministerial investers. The Sacraments come not to us without the mediation of the Apostles, but they made them not, nor make them effectual, nor make new Apostles to deliver them.
3. This is deceitful confusion. 1. Authority to Administer Sacraments, and Authority to call others to administer them, are different things. 2. And so is succession of Apostolical power, and succession of common Ministry. 3. And so is giving power, as the Donor, and giving it as an investing servant. 4. And proper giving it, and improper, which is but qualifying the persons to receive it.
1. Apostolical Prophetical conveyance harh no such succession. 2. The Flock that have no Authority to Administer Sacraments, partake of the Authority to call others to do it. 3. Inferiors may have Authority to call Superiors (else the highest could not be made) 4. None of these people give the power, but their Election is part of the receivers qualifications, to whom God giveth it by his Law or Charter; And then as ser…ants, they solemnize the Investiture. 5. The power of this Law or Charter is never interrupted: But if all Pastors were dead an Hundred years, it would renew Pastoral power in the Church, without uninterrupted Donors or Investers.
4. This conveying power is where-ever Gods Law, and capable receivers are: A capable receiver is, 1. One personally qualified with sufficiency and willingness. 2. And that hath the Churches and Ordainers necessary consent, when ordinary for order sake, the Ordainers then must invest him by declaring him authorized by God, &c.
The regular Ordination (like publick Matrimony after contract) is to be by authorized Ordainers; and most Bishops, Diocesan, Papists, Greeks, Moscovites, Armenian, &c. are of more doubtful Authority than Congregational, or Parish Bishops, though the former usurp the name, as appropriated to them.
b. 2. 1. Then men in Rome, Italy, Spain, France, &c. must be of the Papists Prelates Churches and Communion. 2. Paulinus and Flavian, Donatists, Novatians, Arrians, &c. may have Bishops in the same place. And the Orthodox, two, or more at once: Grotius thought as many as there were Synagogues in a City. 3. Then if I prove the chief Pastor of a Parish, or City-Church, to be a true Bishop by vertue of Gods Law; and if he have better Qualification, and Election, and Ordination, to be of surer Authority than the Diocesan, it's his Communion that we must prefer. 4. But indeed Baptism and Salvation are ordinarily given before Episcopal Communion of any sort. 5. They that thought the Pope Antichrist (as most Protestant Bishops long did), thought it a duty to reject the Communion of the Bishops of the places where they lived: And Denmark, and other Countries set up others against them that were ordained by Bugenhagius, and other Prsbyters. 6. Parochial and Diocesan bounds are humane mutable institutions. 7. If the Bishop of the place be a Schismatick, the Communion of a better near is better.
b. II. 1. All causleless separation from any Christians, or causleless disobedience to any Pastor, or neglect of any Christian duty, needful to the Churches peace and concord, and every opinion and practice that is against them doth make a man guilty of sinful Division, or Schism in some degree. And while every Christian hath many errors and sins, which all tend to some sinful breach (as the least sore is solutio continui), I cannot see but every man living hath some guilt of Schism; nor that there is any Church on earth that hath not some such guilt: But every degree of guilt denominateth not the man, or Church a Schismatick, in a predominant or mortal sense. And in Charity, I hope that even some of those heinous Schismaticks may be saved, that divide the Churches by their usurpation, obtrusion, sinful impositions, and worldly domination; yea, some that in blind zeal put down Parish-Bishops, and smite and silence the Pastors, and scatter the Flocks. And if I must have Communion with none that's guilty of Schism, with what Church or Bishop should I joyn? And if their Sacraments be invalid, what a case is Italy, Spain, France, yea and England in? Must all be baptized again that they baptized?
2. But it's no schism but a duty for the people as far to forsake a sinful Bishop (much more an usurper) as Cyprian and that Council advised them to do in the case of Martial and Basilides.
3. And after all this deceitful confusion, note Reader, that he denieth not our disobedience to be lawful in case of sinful conditions imposed. And if we fully prove not this to be our case, let our accusers silence us, and let our guilt be our shame.
4. And if people that had Parish-Bishops on the place where they lived, lawfully called, shall forsake them to obey a Diocesan that is not on the place, but perhaps Forty, or Fifty, or Sixty Miles off, and never saw them, and was obtruded contrary to the ancient Canons, which nullifie such, and sets himself to silence faithful Pastors, and persecute them, and other godly Christians, for not sinning heinously upon deliberate choice and covenant, doth not even this man conclude such to be Schismaticks that are out of the ordinary way and hope of salvation.