Baxters Narrative of His Life and Times, Appendix · Reply – Section 1

Baxters Narrative of His Life and Times · Appendix · Reply – Section 1

p. 1A Reply to some Exceptions against our Worcestershire Agreement, and my Christian Concord. Written by a nameless Author, and sent by Dr. Warmstrye.

Honoured and Worthy Sir, Salutem & Officia in Christo Iesu Autore Salutis.

Except Sect. 1.

FOR Christian Concord, Mr. Baxter cannot write more willingly, nor you be more strongly inclined to meet any such motion, then you well know the Hearts of very many of your Brethren, to be already agreed in that. And I believe I have given you evidence in all my former Discourses with you (uncontradicted by any action of mine) that I the meanest of the servants of your Order do make it the butt and aime of all my weak Studies and Labours in order to the glory and service of God, and Christ our Lord who hath so hightly injoyned it. 2. But this bars us not, but obliges us well to consider, whether this Worcester Agreement be a true Union in Ecclesiastical Peace, or the carrying on a Schismatical Combination, reaching to enclose in the Episcopal Divines also. …3. That they may now at length by this approve of the Presbyters Declaration to the World, of the no necessity of continuing their Canonical Obedience to their Bishops in Christ, (which was the first wheel that set a work this sad Revolution, the ejecting out of the Church (I mean out of their principal proper place in the Church) the Bishops and Pastors, the Successors of the Apostles in the Church) whether this be so or no; I say, I must request you to judge by considering.

Reply to Sect 1.

I shall not unwillingly believe and acknowledge that your love to Concord is greater than mine, when I see you more zealously seeking it, and hear of your Motions and moderate Rational Attempts to that end. And I shall begin to hope well of you, when you are but willing to accept such motions from any others, or at least not to hinder the Concord of your Brethren. 2. Schismarical Combinations are against the United Churches, or the United Members of one particular Church. We unite or combine against no such-Churches or Members, nor against any thing but prophaneness and wickedness, and against the disunion, discord, and alienation of Brethren, and the utter neglect of the Ordinances of Christ. Our utmost care and endeavour is to heal a Schism; and if they that do their best to heal it, lamenting it daily as the great sin and calamity of the Churches, and making it the chiefest part of their Studies, with unsatiable longings to see it accomplished, looking for no wordly advantage by the work, having no Lordly Honours, nor Dignities of their own to engage for, which might byass them; nay most prodigally casting away their Reputation with all the contenders of every Party, accounting nothing in this world dear to them for the healing of our Divisions, and waiting on God in earnest Prayer daily for success, (concerning all which, the Righteous God is better acquainted with my heart and ways than this Contender) I say if yet we are not only Schismaticks, but Schismatical in these very attempts, I know not yet how we shall escape that sin. I hope God will not impute that to me which this Writer doth; and that as he will not impute my Prayers and Endeavours against Drunkenness, Covetousness and Contentions of Neighbours, to be indeed Drunkenness, Covetousness, or Contention, so neither will be impute my earnest Prayers and endeavours against Schism and Discord to be Schismatical. But Schism is not the same thing in one Mans mouth as in anothers. It is the unhappiness of each Party or Schismatical Faction, to make to themselves a new Center of union which God never made, and then all must be Schismaticks with them, that unite not in their Center, or at least be not tyed to union by their ligaments. So he is a Schismatick to a Papist that Centers not in the p. 2Pope as the Principium unitatis, and visible Head of the Church; and in the Roman Church as the Heart of the Church Catholick, denominating the whole. He is a Schismatīck with some others that owns not every Order or Ceremony which they maintain. For my part I should think, that he that … in …hr…t, and … deth the sound and wholsome Doctrine contained in the Creeds of the Church and maintaineth love and unity with all Christians, to the utmost extent of his natural capacity, even with all that he is capable of holding Communion with, is no Schismatick, nor his attempts for that end Schismatical Combinations. If there were a Bishop in this Diocess, and he should go one way (suppose he command that all Church Assemblies be at such a time, and all worship, in such a form) and all the Presbyters and People go another way (whether they do well or ill, so the thing itself be tollerable) and will not meet at the time, nor worship God in the form which he prescribeth, I should think I were guilty of Schism if I separated from all these Churches, and guilty of ungodliness if I wholly forsook and forbore all publick worship of God, because I could have none according to the Bishops commanding! Much more if there were no Bishop in the Diocess at all. This seems to be our case, in respect of both Worship and Discipline (at least for the most part). Is that man guilty of no Schisme, nor Impiety, who will rather have no Discipline exercised at all on the profane and scandalous, but all Vice go without controul, and the rage of Mens sins provoke Heaven yet more against us, who will rather have no Ministerial Worship of God, in Prayer or Praise no Sacraments, no Solemn Assemblies to this end, no Ministerial Teaching of the people, but have all Mens Souls given over to perdition, the bread of life taken from their mouths, and God deprived of all his Worship, then any of this should be done without Bishops? That had rather the Church doors were shut up, and we lived like Heathens, than we should Worship God without a Bishops Commands? and that when we have none to command us.

3. We distinguish of the necessity of Bishops; either it is a necessity ad bene esse for the right ordering of the Church when it may be had; or it is a necessity ad esse to the very being of a Church, or of Gods Worship, without which we may not offer God any publick Service, or have any Communion with any Congregation that so doth. The former we leave as not fit for our determination; and therefore we do not contradict you in it, nor seek to draw you to own any Declaration against it. The latter we do deny; there is no such necessity of Bishops, as that God can have no Church without them; and that we must rather separate from all our Assemblies, and never offer God any publick Worship, then do it without them, (remembring still, that we speak of those Bishops whom we are charged with rejecting, and not the Pastors of particular Congregations). And in this distinction of necessity, and in this conclusion, I have the consent of the generality of the Protestant Bishops, so far as I know to a Man, as far as their Writings declare to us their Minds; and therefore Episcopal Divines may consent.

Except. to Sect. 2.

1. Whether in this Worcestershire Association, whoever will enter into it doth not therein oblige himself to acknowledge those for Presbyters and Pastors of Churches, who profess themselves to have been made such (in a Church where there are and were Bishops that never denyed them Orders) without the Hands, Consent, or Knowladge of the Bishop, yea in a time when Bishops were (without any accusation, before any Ecclesiastical Superiour Synod, or other, (unheard) ejected, laid by, by their own sheep and Presbyters that owed them obedience?

Reply to Sect. 2.

To your first Question I answer, 1. You must distinguish of punishing and ejecting Bishops that deserve it, and casting out their Order. 2. Between casting out the appurtenances and corruptions which made up the English sort of Prelacie, as differing from the Primitive, and casting out the Order and Office of Bishops simply in itself. 3. Between those Men that do cast them out, and those that do not. 4. Between a Church that hath Bishops, and one that hath none. 5. Between them that can have Ordination by them, and those that cannot. 6. Between those Ministers of this Association that were Ordained by Bishops, and those that were not. 7. Between the Irregularity and sinfulness or Ordination, and the nullity thereof; and so between a Minister regularly Ordained, and a Minister Irregularly Ordained, who is a Minister still. Hereupon I answer further in these conclusions. 1. That too many of the Bishops lately ejected, did deserve it, is beyond dispute. 2. Whether the Parliament in the state that they were in, had not power to punish them by Imprisonment, or Ejection, as Solemon did Abiathar, without an Ecclesiastical Superior, p. 3or whether the Clergy be exempted from such punishment by the Secular power, till they are delivered up to them by the Ecclesiastical Head, hath been voluminously disputed in the world already. Sutcliffe, Bilson, Iewel, and a multitude more have proved, that Kings have power in all Causes, and over all Persons, as well Ecclesiastical as Civil; and that the Pope hath no power of Jurisdiction in England, let the Oath of Supremacy judge; and if the Metropolitan of Canterbury, or the highest Ecclesiastical Power miscarry, who shall restrain or eject them but the Civil Power, unless we go to the Pope? for more acceptable witnesses I commend to you Spalatensis, Grotius, and Saravia, yea Fr. de Victoria, and several Parisians. The two former, one de Republ. Eccles. the other de Imperio summarum potestatum, will never be well answered. If it be said the King did it not. I answer, I think the Authority by whom that much was done, that we now speak of, will be acknowledged sufficient by most that were against the fact, and that fought against the Parliament that understood the Laws. It was long before the King withdrew. 3. Many of those that approved of the Ejection of those unworthy men, yet approved not of the dissolution of the Office; and such may be many (and for ought you know most or all) of the Ministers here Associated. (Though I suppose rather it is otherwise) yet while Men do for peace silence their opinions, who knows what they are? And sure I am, many among us had no hand in the downfall of the Bishops; and whether any at all be lyable in this to your Charge besides my self, (whereof more anon) I know not; most of our Association were in the Universities, in the Wars; and the rest were (some I am sure, if not all) quiet in their Habitations, even in the Kings Quarters, not so much as taking the Covenant; so that I know not how you can except against them as casting out the Bishops. What tell you them of other Mens Actions? could they help it? what if it be in a time when Bishops were so Ejected, when you cannot prove them guilty of it? 4. The Covenant it self doth not reject all Bishops, but only such as stood in England, and so concatenated to Chancellors, Deans, &c. and with such an Explication Mr. Coleman gave it to the House of Lords. If therefore you could prove, that the Associated Ministers have taken the Covenant, (which you have not done) yet that proves not that they were the Ejectors of the Bishops. 6. There is no Bishop (that we know of) over this Diocese. 7. You cannot prove that those that were Ordained by meer Presbyters, might have had Episcopal Ordination (of which more anon). 8. It is not the Regularity of the Ordination that we desire you to acknowledge, but only its being; so that it is not a nullity. So that you may see how unfaithfully you stated the case; which is rather this, Whether when the Bishop of this Diocess is dead, and the rest taken down by the Reigning Power, and we know not where to have Episcopal Ordination, or at least, without the great suffering of the Bishops on whom the present Powers will inflict so great a penalty, if they Ordain, if in this case any be Ordained by meer Presbyters, are we bound to judge them no Ministers, yea and to refuse Associating with others for their sakes? Whether our Church doors must be shut up, and Gods publick Worship thrown away, till the Rulers will permit, and the Presbyters and People admit Bishops again; and Ministers and Churches all be null? yea I do no find you prove that our Agreement requires any such acknowledgment, as your self intimateth, of which next.

Except. Sect. 3.

Mr. Baxter himself I name for one, a Principal of this Association, and protesting it one end of this Association, that they may be acknowledged for true Presbyters and Pastors of their Churches, by all who enter into this Agreement, vid. p. 14. and the two last lines, and p. 15. for eight lines; also p. 14. Reas. 11. and Reas. 12. p. 47. mid. and p. 49. fin.

Reply to Sect. 3.

For my self I think you have more against me than any other Man in your Association. But yet 1. you have not proved, that I had not Episcopal Ordination, which indeed I had. 2. Nor that I consented to the removal of their Calling. If I did so, yet till you can know it, you have no just ground for your alienation. 3. If I did consent, yet that nulleth not my former Call. 4. You know not if I did, whether I repent or not. 5. No man must be rejected for a fault supposed, without a just Tryal, in all Equity you should hear me speak for my self. I have publickly offered satisfaction to any that are offended with me. 6. What if I only were faulty? would that warrant you to separate from all the rest for my sake? 7. But what do you alledge against me? That I would have an acknowledgment that we are true Presbyters and Pastors? A heinous Crime? that I will not yield to have Gods Church among us unchurched by the Papists, and his Worship cast aside for want p. 4of true Ministers? 8. But what are all these Words of mine to the Agreement? Those are but mine own Thoughts, which none are desired to consent to. You should have produced somewhat from our Articles of Concord, and not from my Words.

Except. to Sect. 4.

Do they take in your acknowledged Grounds of all parts, (Episcopal and all) who would have us acknowledge them Presbyters ordained in this Church without Bishops, not by necessity as in the Churches wherein no Protestant Bishop could be had? unless their Christian Charity can take Countenance to say that none of our Bishops were Protestants, and that then they must have had no Ordination at all, or Ordination by Papists (requiring of them the Acknowledging the Popes Ecclesiastial Supremacy) which was the confessed Case of those Protestants beyond Seas, from whence they would fain borrow a Cloak for their Fact: but the Covering is too short, though they argue while the World endures, there is a vast difference betwixt necessity and voluntary Engaging by Covenant, and relinquishing, casting off, and laying by true Catholick, Protestant Bishops.

Reply to Sect. 4.

Yes, Sir; I am confident I take in the Grounds of the Episcopal Protestants: (But I dare not say yours, for I do not know you) nor are you able to manifest the contrary; 1. Necessity may justify some things, that else were unjustifiable, and the absence of such Necessity may prove them sinful: But if Presbyters may justly ordain in case of necessity, then you will hardly prove our Ordination null, for want of that Necessity, though you should prove it irregular. It seems you think that Lay Men may baptize in case of necessity; if so, you may prove it sinful, but hardly null, where Necessity is not. 2. It is an incredible Assertion against the Sun, that all those Protestants beyond Sea, had such a Necessity, and could not have Protestant Bishops. Put out Mens Eyes, and then tell them this. Were the Low Countries so far from England that they could not possibly have borrowed a Bishop to Ordain? Was not Bishop Carleton at the Synod of Dort with them? why did not that Synod desire this Curtesy? It is said, he protested for Bishops in the open Synod, and that he took their Silence for Consent, and also, that some after told him, that they would have them if they could; as if Silence were any Sign of Consent against their own established Discipline.

Who knows not that their loathness to displease King Iames, of whom they had then so much need, might well cause them to keep Silence, about that which was not the Business of the Assembly, as long as they held their present Government? and if some said they would have Bishops if they could, it is plain it was but few, for if most had been willing, what hindered them? If you say the Civil Powers, I answer, 1. The Ecclesiasticks so taught them and desired the Presbyterian Government of them. 2. They might have run the hazard of a Persecution as well as we and the civil Rulers of this Nation are as much at least against it as theirs: So some gather from Moulin's Word to Bishop Andrews, and some few other Mens, that the French Churches would fain have Bishops; as also they are said to have offered Obedience to the Papist Bishops, if they would turn Protestants: when as it is known they are against Bishops, and if any particular Persons are for it, it is against the Establishment of their Churches. Perhaps they might think their Form of Government not of such Moment as to reject Episcopacy, if it might come in with such an Advantage as the turning of the Papist Bishops would have brought: But what is that to prove that they would have Bishops and could not? Grotius knew France as well as you, whoever you are; and he tells us another Story of them, Discus. Apologet. Rivet. That they wilfully cast out the Order of Bishops as far as their Authority could reach; what impossibility hath their been these hundred Years for France, Belgia, Helvetia, Geneva, with the rest of the Protestant Churches to have had Bishops if they had been willing? They had Hermannus of Colen, Vergerius of Iustinop. came among them, Spalatensis would have ordained some in his Passage; if no English Bishop could have been got thither, how easy had it been to have sent one to receive Episcopal Consecration here, and then to have gone home and ordained more? It may be you would make us believe the like of the Church of Scotland too, that they would fain have Bishops and could not: If you alledge … Inconvenience that necessitates all these Protestant Churches to continue without Bishops, even to this Day; I say, 3. Our Necessity is as great as any of theirs for ought you can manifest to the contrary; for 1. Our Rulers are as much against them. 2. We cannot exercise publickly our Ministerial Office, unless we be ordained according to the Laws of the present Rulers. 3. There is a heavy Penalty ordained to all Ordainers p. 5that do otherwise. 4. We have no Bishop in our Diocess. 5. We read Canons that null Bishops Ordination out of their Diocesses. 6. We know not of above two Bishops in England, nor where to find the rest that are latent, and we hear those two will not ordain. 7. Divers of them were justly ejected for destroying the Church, and we cannot take them for Bishops. 8. We are but Subjects and a small part of the Ministry, and cannot set up Bishops among our selves, if we were of that Judgment as much as others: But Nations, Commonwealths, and Free-cities might if they would. The Cloak which you say is too short, is indeed much larger than our Case requires: If our Nation, or any part of it, did voluntarily cast off Bishops, so did the Protestant Churches, and continue to keep them out to this Day. But you cannot prove that the Ministers of this Association did cast them off. And for your surmise of the Countenance of our Christian Charity: I answer, we never yet gave you Cause to suppose that we distinguish not between Protestant Bishops and Papists.

Except. to Sect. 5.

An Argument a Fortiori, all Logick admits of, but I never heard a Suspicion of any Firmness, in concluding ab Imbecilliori, thus: Perhaps, perhaps I say, and as many Moderns would charitably think, they may be true Presbyters, who were ordained by Presbyters, (where, morally to speak, and as to consciential possibility) there was an impossibility of procuring Orders from any Bishops, but such as would oblige them to betray both Presbyters and Bishops Authority to Papal Usurpation, and arrogated Supremacy; therefore we also, who might have had Ordination by Bishops, and those such, who have as well as we oft hindred that papal Usurpation, yea, had renued that Duration by an Oath in Synod; a little before these late sad Schisms, and this new attempted Ordination, and chose to be ordained without them contrary to all the Canons of the Church Universal of all Ages, till these last Ages of this Cotroversy. We, I say, also for all that, are true Pastors and Presbyters, and we will be acknowledged for such in this Agreement, and others to be Popish Divines, lurking under the Name of Episcopal Divines. Lo, here a goodly Consequence, and a Christian Presbyterian Charity.

Reply to Sect. 5.

1. Our Argument is not only a pari, but a fortiori, as is manifested. 2. You give us reason here to fear that your self are one of those Persons whom we except against, and that it is your own Cause that you strive for, and that your Guilt is it that makes you angry, for you seem to me to intimate to us, that you own not their Opinion that make the Protestant Ministers to be Ministers indeed (and consequently their Churches true organized Churches) for all the necessity which you pretend they had for you make it but a [perhaps,] and your double that [perhaps] that we may see you own it not, and you say it is [as many would think] as if it were but their Thought, and as if you were none of those many: And it is but [the Moderns] that so think as if you intimated that Antiquity iudged otherwise, which doubtless you prefer before the Moderns; and you say, [they would think it] intimating that Will prevails against Judgment, or Judgment follows not that Will; [yea, it is charitably] that they would think it, as if Affection misled them: and other Passages afterward do yet further reveal your Mind in this, though you are loath, I perceive, to speak out, because of the harshness of it to Protestants Ears; I therefore again say, 1. Those churches were not, nor are to this Day under any impossibility of having Bishops, if they judged them necessary. 2. That you prove not what you say, that they in this Country might have had Ordination by a Bishop, who were ordained by Presbyters only: We leave therefore our Consequence, and our Christian Presbyterian Charity to a more equal Judge, whether that Man be like to be a Protestant, that taketh the Church of Rome for a true Church, and all the reformed Churches (except the Episcopal, for no true Churches, and that taketh their Priests for Lawful Ministers, and all the Protestant Ministers for none, except those that were ordained by Bishops; nay, that argue, as here you do, to have us (and consequently all so ordained) disclaimed by Pastors and People, and consequently all our Churches nullified, and publick Worship forsaken. Are we so blind as not to see, that you thus not only prefer the Papists before us (as much as a true Ministry before no Ministry, and a true Church before no Church) but hereby would deliver us up into their Hands? If we dispute with them in the hearing of the People, and confess that their Church is true, and ours is not; may not the People easily see that it's better join with them than with us? and would not you your self rather submit to a Mass Priest, than to those whom you take for no Ministers at all? If you say (you would have us submit to p. 6neither, but to the Episcopal) yet 1. It follows nevértheless that the Papists of the two are to be preferred as true Ministers, before them that are none. 2. And if we dispute with the Papist, which is the true Church, and set against them only Eleven or Twelve (for so many you reckon on) English Bishops (and if there be any Irish or Scotish) with those of the Clergy that adhere to them (Quality and Number considered) whom the People know not where to find, nor can enjoy, what Success is such a Dispute like to have, either with the People, or with the Adversary? will they not tell us, our Church is invisible, especially when these few Bishops are dead?

Except. to Sect. 6.

2. Whether in this Worcestershire Association, whosoever will enter into it doth not therein oblige himself to acknowledge that Presbyters (while there remain alive fourteen, or thirteen, or twelve Catholick Protestant Bishops) may proceed to publick Excommunications, and Absolutions in foro Ecclesiastico, without asking those Bishops Consent, allowance, or taking any notice of them. See Resolution 12, 13, 14, 15. and the Scope of the whole Book.

Reply to Sect. 6.

To your second Question I answer, The Term [Excommunication] we use not. This Term is used to signify, sometimes a delivering up to Satan, and casting out of the Catholick Church, sometimes only a Ministerial Declaration that such a Person should be avoided by the People, acquainting them with their Duty, and requiring them to perform it: sometimes it signifies the Peoples actual Avoidance. In the former Sense we have let it alone; and that which you call your Excommunicatio Major we meddle not with, much less do we usurp a compelling Power for the Execution. The other we know to be consistent with the Principles of Episcopal Protestants (if not also with Papists) yea, even when there is a Bishop resident in the Diocess, it being but part of our teaching and guiding Office as Presbyters of that Congregation; but I have said enough of this in my Explications already.

2. But what if there be twelve latent Bishops in England (when for my part I I hear not of above two or three) have they Power not only to ordain, but also to govern other Diocesses which have no Bishops? Yea, must they needs govern them? 1. Woe then to the Churches of England, that must live under such Guilt devoid of all Government. 2. Woe to the Sinners themselves, that must be left without Christ's Remedy. 3. Woe to particular Christians that must live in the continual Breach of God's known Law, that saith [with such go not to eat, &c.] for want of a Bishop to Execute it. 4. Woe to the few Bishops that be; for it all the Authority be in them, then the Duty and Charge of executing it is only on them; and then they are bound to Impossibilities, one Bishop must Excommunicate all the Offenders in a great part of the Land, when he is not sufficient to the hundredth part of the Work. Then when all the Bishops in England are dead, save one or two, they are the sole Pastors of England, and all Discipline must be cast away for want of their Sufficiency. Then it seems the Death of one Bishop, or two or three, doth actually devolve their Charge to another, and who knoweth which other? This is new Canon. Not only Protestant Bishops; but some Papists confess, that when a Bishop is dead, the Government remains in the Presbyters till another be chosen: sure they that govern (the People at least) with him whilst he is living (as is confessed) need not look on it as an alien, supereminent, transcendent Work, when he is dead. Bishop Bromhall against Mil. p. 127. gives People a Judgment of Discretion, and Pastors a Judgment of Direction, and to the chief Pastors a Judgment of Jurisdiction. You may go well, allow us by a Judgment of Direction to tell the People that they should avoid Communion with an open wicked Man, even while a Bishop is over us; Selden de Syne. c. 8, 9, 10. and will tell you another Tale of the way of Antiquity in Excommunication and Absolution than you do hear: But of this enough in the Books.

Except. to Sect. 7.

3. Doth not he oblige himself also to acknowledge that not only Presbyters (incommuni governing) but one single one of them, may proceed to Excommunicatiand Absolution in foro Ecclesiastico?

Reply to Sect. 7.

Your third Question I answer by a Denial, There is no such Obligation. The Declaration of the Peoples Duty to avoid such an one, is by one; so is every Sermon, so is your Episcopal Excommunication. Doth not one, and that a Presbyter declare or publish it? But for advising and determining of it, we have p. 7tyed our selves not to do it alone, though for mine own private Opinion I doubt, not easily to prove that one single Bishop or Pastor hath the Power of the Keys, and may do all that we agree to do.

Except. to Sect. 8.

4. That not only one single Presbyter; but one whose Ordination was never by any Bishop to be Presbyter, (where also Bishops were that might have been sought unto) hath that Power also of Excommunication, &c.

Reply to Sect. 8.

Your fourth is answered in the rest, if his Ordination have only in the Judgment of Episcopal Protestants (yea, of some Papists) an Irregularity, but not a Nullity, then he hath Power to do so much as we agree on: Your Exception is as much against his other Ministrations.

Except. to Sect. 9.

I speak only of the Essence of their Association; not insisting on what Mr. Baxter declares to the World, that in some Cases the People (not satisfied with the Bishops or Presbyters Ordination) may accept or take a Man of themselves without any Ordination (by Bishops or Presbyters) to be their Pastor and Presbyter with Power of Excommunication and Absolution in himself alone (without the People) see p. 83.

Reply to Sect. 9.

That this may be done in some Cases, I have lately disputed it with a learned Man of your Party, and convinced him. And methinks Nature should teach you if you were (unordained, but qualified by Gifts) cast among the Indians, that you should not let them perish for want of that publick, constant teaching which is Ministerial, or of Sacraments and Discipline only for want of Ordination; that the Substance of Duty should not be thrown by for want of that Order which was instituted for its Preservation, and not for its Destruction. You dare scarce openly and plainly deny that Necessity warrants the Presbyters of the Reformed Churches to ordain: And I doubt you allow it them then on no other grounds, then what would warrant this that I am now pleading for.

Except. to Sect. 10.

And for any Votum or desire of Bishops, Protest. Bishops if they might have them, or access unto them (which was so oft the publick avowed Desire of the chiefest Reformers and Protestants beyond Sea, much unlike the Spirit of our Presbyterians) see what Mr. Baxter gives us to know, p. 85. where (comparing our present Bishops with a Leader in an Army) he faith, Nay, it is hard trusting that Man again, that hath betrayed us and the Church, ibid. These have so apparently falsified their Trust, that if we were fully resolved for Bishops, yet we cannot submit to them for Ordination or Jurisdiction, and then he proves it by Canon (he thinks) that the Presbyters now should not submit to the present Bishops by Canon Concilii Rbegien. ut perversi ordinatores nullis denuo ordinationibus intersunt, and least you may reply, that he speaks not this of all our present Bishops, he immediately subjoins these Words [Where then shall we have a Bishop to ordain of the old accused Tribe?] Is not this Christian Filial Duty of Presbyters toward the Bishops their Fathers?

Reply to Sect. 10.

1. For that Desire you again mention of Bishops in the Reformed Churches, it is an unproved, vain Assertion against full Evidence. It is only of a few particular Persons in those Churches that you can prove it: If so many Writings against Bishops and Constitutions, and actual Practice will not prove them willing to be without them; or at least, not necessitated; there is no Proof of any Man's Will or Necessity. 2. What I said, I must needs maintain till you say somewhat to change my Judgment. I am past doubt it's ill trusting the Betrayers and Destroyers of the Church, with the Government of it: And this I did prove, and can with great Ease and Evidence prove it more fully. 3. I pray you do not persuade Men that by [the old accused Tribe] I meant all the late English Bishops, they were not all accused of destroying or betraying the Church, that I ever heard of. Where be the Articles that were put in against Usher, Hall, Davenant, Potter, Westfield, Prideaux, &c. All those that I call the accused Tribe you may find Articles against in Parliament, for their Devastations or Abuses. Should the Arrians, or other Heretick Bishops, say to those that forsook them, as you do of me [is not this Christian, Filial Duty of Presbyters towards the Bishops their Fathers] There is no Duty to any Episcopal Father that will hold against God and his Church. Take heed of making their Sins your own.

p. 8Except. Sect. 11.

And elsewhere by Irony, he adds, O what a rash thing it was to imprison (though when he was imprisoned, I believe it was by the Name of Dr. Wren, or Bishop Wren ) for excommunicating, depriving, &c. p. 51. and p. 68. (To begin at home it is most certain, according to many ancient Canons (which are their Laws) our English Bishops were incapable of ordaining; for they lost their Authority by involving themselves in secular and publick Administrations, Canon 80. Apostolig.] N B. That Canon is 30. beyond the Canons Apostolical, for even the Papists themselves admit but of fifty genuine, and he would eject all our Bishops by the 80th Canon Apostolical: [Lost their Authority also for neglect of instructing their Flo…, most or many of them, and many more for non Residence, &c.

Reply to Sect. 11.

And why not [Wren] without any further Title, as well as Calvin, Luther, Beza, Zanchy, Grotius &c. 2. Let the indifferent Reader peruse all my words, and blame me if he can. What? seems it so small a matter in your eyes to expel so many thousand Christian Families, and silence and suspend and deprive so many able Ministers, in so small a room, and so short a time? as that it is disobedience to our Fathers not to consent to their punishment? It seems then these silly Lambs must be devoured, not only without resistance, but without complaint, or accusing the Wolves; because they say, they were our Fathers? God never set such Saturnine Fathers over his Church, so as to authorize them in this, or to prohibite a just remedy. He never gave them power for Destruction but for Edification. 3. What I said of our Bishops incapacity upon that reason was expresly ad hominem, against mine own Judgement, viz. upon supposition that those Canons are of such force as those imagine against whom I dispute. 4. The Canon 80 Apost. was also brought ad hominem; for though it be confessed not of equal Antiquity with the rest, yet for that Antiquity they have, it is known how much use those men make of their supposed Authority. But are there not enough others that may evince the point in hand besides that? you may easily know it, and in many Canons that null their Office who come in by the Magistracy.

Exception to Sect. 12.

And whereas we are ready to make good against all the Papists in the world, that our English Protestant Bishops had due Ordination in Queen Eliz. and King Edwards time, by such who had been Ordained in King Henry the Eighths time; Mr. Baxter tells us, the Popish Bishops who Ordained in the days of Hen. 8. and many Ages before, had no power of Ordination, (and this he speaks as his own judgment) not only from the consequences of his Adversaries; for he adds, this I prove, in that they received their Ordination from no other Bishops of the Province nor Metropolitan, but only from the Pope singly? yet this is all the Argument he hath to overthrow (consequentially upon our objections) the Ordination of those Protestant Bishops, which himself acknowledges Learned, Pious, Reverend Men; and all that Ordained, or were Ordained, in Hen. 8. & 7. and many Ages before, as he saith. And indeed if his Discourse were of any force, not only in our English Church, but also in all the Churches of the West, France, Spain, Polonia, Swedland, Denmark, and throughout the Empire of Germany, for these and those many Ages before which he speaks of, and all this that our new Presbyterians of Enngland, (Volunteers in Ordaining, and being Ordained without Bishops, without pretence of necessity, yea or difficulty, or colour of difficulty, except what themselves had created: (wherein they have as little Communion with the Protestants beyond seas, as they have with the Episcopal Protestants of the true Reformed Church of England) may be acknowledged good and lawful Presbyters and Pastors, with power conjunctim & divisim, any one of them alone (as Mr. Baxter thinks) to Excommunicate and Absolve in foro Ecclesiastico.

Reply to Sect. 12.

The word [Due] may signifie either such as is not null, or else such as is fully regular, or else such as they had Authority to perform, who did ordain, though they might have some Faults or Irregularities: If you take it in the first Sense, many will yield it, who yet deny it in the last, as supposing in some Cases Ordination Passive may be valid, and so due in the Receiver; when yet Ordination Active, is without all just Authority in the Ordainer: Though this may seem strange, I am ready to give some Reasons for it. It must be in the last Sense, conjunct with the first, that you must take the Word [Due] if you will speak to the point in Hand. 2. I do expresly say there that it is [according to the Doctrine of the Objectors consequentially] that I affirm this (not affirming or denying it to be mine own Judgment) and to that end bring the Proof p. 9which is mentioned: And yet you are pleased to affirm that I [speak it as my own Judgment, and not only from the Consequences of Adversaries.] Supposing your Grounds, (which I confidently deny) that an uninterrupted Succession of due Authoritative Ordination is necessary absolutely to the Being of the Ministerial Calling; I doubt not but all the unhappy Consequences will be unavoidable which you mention concerning the Churches of all the West: But whether it be you or I that is to be blamed for those Consequences, it is not your Word only that must determine, and I am willing to try by weight of Reasons.

Except. to Sect. 13.

And now for the Proof of all this, the whole weight is laid by this Book. 1. Upon an Argument a comparatis: If they, the Protestants beyond Seas are lawful Pastors and Presbyters (whose Necessity and Plea of Necessity publickly to have been made by those, these our new Presbyterians cannot deny) then our new ordained ones by Presbyters, are Presbyters also (though they want all such Pretence, all colour of Necessity, for themselves were the first Authors of it, to those that ejected them, which yet did not bring a Necessity neither, which we all know) If Necessity be pleaded to be above Ecclesiastical Laws, (as sometimes it hath dispensed even with divine positive Laws themselves) then they pro imperio will be above them by their own Magisterial foreign and by Consequence if they will take this to themselves, that whatsoever is lawful to others upon necessity, is, and shall be lawful to themselves without Necessity, they may in the next place, Pope-like take to themselves to dispense with divine positive Laws, also because necessity has sometimes dispensed with them.

Reply to Sect. 13.

1. You may as well say, we dare not say the Sun Shineth as that we dare not deny the Protestant Churches to have been without Bishops to this day through necessity against their Wills; when in almost all of them the full Power Civil and Ecclesiastical is supposed to be among themselves; though I deny not but some particular Persons among them would fain have Bishops, yet I think very few, in comparison of those that were willing to be rid of them, when they were received here. 2. You boldly affirm without Proof that the Ministers of this County, who were not ordained by Bishops, were Ejectors of them, or Authors of the Necessity. 3. I shewed you before we have more Necessity than you mention, and besides a Necessity whereof we are not guilty, there may be a culpable Necessity which yet may free our calling from a nullity, though not our selves from Sin. What if God should permit all the Churches of Ethiopia, or the Greeks to deny the Ius Divinum of Episcopacy; (which is possible, as well as to permit the Reformed Churches to do i…) aud so to set up Ordination by meer Presbyters? (while I speak to you on your own Grounds) I suppose this to be their Error, and so their Sin: yet would you presently unchurch them all, and rather have God's Worship forborn, as to the Publick? There be many among us; who are against Diocesan Bishops, who give us good testimony of a sincere Heart, impartial studying of the Point, with as much self-denial and earnest Prayer for God's Direction, as any Episcopal Man that ever I knew; and yet remain against Episcopacy. This kind of Necessity may sure free their Calling from the Charge of Nullity (which needs not this Plea); though it could not free them from the Charge of Error.

Except. to Sect. 14.

Instead of answering one Word to Ignatius (God's Holy Saint and Martyr) his renowned Epistles (which he knew lately vindicated) or to all the ancient Fathers avowing in terminis the jus divinum of Bishops above Presbyters, and the Bishops sole Power of ordaining; or producing any to the contrary, he fills up his Books with Citations of modern Mens Writings, which they all wrote charitably for the Patronage of those poor afflicted Protestants, who had no Bishops because they could have none: So that as well his Authorities as his Reasons are all drawn a loco comparatorum, arguing weakly from the Priviledge of necessity, to their licentiousness, with, or without Necessity, which is one continued Sophism.

Reply to Sect. 14.

1. Though Ignatius were both a Saint and Holy, yet I know not what call I had in those Papers to meddle with him: Unless I must needs dispute the point of Episcopacy, which I did disclaim. 2. As I would not undervalue the late Vindicacation of Ignatius, so I would not have you so far overvalue it, as to think it should so easily and potently prevail (1.) With all those that see not any Cogency in the Arguments, or sufficiency in the Answers to the contrary Objections. (2.) Or with hose that will take Scripture only for the Test of this Cause. (3.) Or with those p. 10that are confident that you can never prove that Ignatius speaks of Diocesan Bishops, but only of the Bishops of particular Churches. 3. Your talk of [all the Ancient Fathers avowing in terminis the Bishops sole Power of ordaining] doth but discredit the rest of your Words: You suppose us utter Strangers both to those Fathers, and the English Bishops, who maintain that Presbyters must be their Coadjutors in Ordination. 4. What if I should grant that all the Fathers would have Bishops to have the sole Power of Ordaining ordinarily, and for Order Sake? And that it is a Sin of Disorder where unnecessarily it is done otherwise? that's nothing to the Question that I had in hand; which is, whether such Ordination by Presbyters be not only irregular but null, and whether an uninterrupted Succession be necessary to our Office? 5. I plainly perceive here again, that you are loath to speak out your Mind; but you seem to dissent from these charitable Maintainers of the Protestants: Why else do you set Ignatius and the ancient Fathers as the Party that I should have respected instead of these, if you did not think that the Fathers and these Men were contrary? 6. My Business was to prove that [according to the Principles of the Protestant Bishops in England, our Ordination was not null, eo Nomine, because without a Bishop] now I am blamed for proving this by Modern Writers, and not Fathers. If you will disclaim the Modern Protestant Bishops do not pretend to be of their Party, but speak plainly: If I (fill up my Book with such Citations) then I hope I was not deficient in bringing the Testimonies of the Protestant Episcopal Divines, and yet many more I could cite to that end. 7. To that of the Protestants Necessity enough is said, till your Words are canonical, or your Proof stronger. I do not think but there are some Protestant Bishops (so called at least) in France and Holland now, that went out of Britain and Ireland, why cannot they ordain them Bishops in their extream Necessity? Why did the angry Bishops so revile poor Calvin, Beza, the Churches of Geneva, Scotland, and many others, for casting out Bishops, and setting up Presbytery, if all were done on a justifiable Necessity? But enough of this.

Except. to Sect. 15.

But that these Authors cited by him may be authentical; all the Protestant Divines of England, are branded as Popish, that since the Reformation have defended against the Pope that Bishops are jure Divino (for so I say it was direct Popery that first denied Bishops to be jure Divino, witness the Pope's and Papelins canvassing in the Council of Trent, to oppress by Force and Tyranny, the far major and more learned part of the Council that contended for so many Months with Suffrages, Arguments, and Protestations, Protestant like, to have it defined, that Bishops were jure Divino, and only the Pope and his Titulars, and Courtiers suffered it not to be propounded, least it should be as certainly it would have been, defined; for then Popes and Presbyterians could not have lorded it so): Thus the chiefest, and most pious, and learned Bishops of our English Church must be branded for Popish; Bishop Andrews, Mountague, White, &c.

Reply to Sect. 15.

1. If you deny the Authors cited by me to be authentick, pretend not to adhere to the Episcopal Protestants; for sure these are such. 2. You do not well to say that (all the Protestant Bishops are branded as Popish, that since the Reformation have defended against the Pope, that Bishops are jure Divino) either shew the Words where I so brand them, or else do not tell us that your Words are true (though in a matter of Fact before your Eyes); we may well question your Argument, when we find you so untrue in reporting a plain Writing. Indeed our late Bishops (and those most that were most suspected to be Popish) did stand most upon the jus Divinum, which many of the first did either disclaim or not maintain: But it never came into my Thoughts to brand all for Papists that did own it. Do I not cite Downame, and others, as Protestant Bishops, who yet maintain it? yea, Bishop Andrews, whom you name? this is not fair. 3. As for the Trent Quarrel about Bishops, I say but this if the Spanish Bishops, and the rest that stood for the jus Divinum of Episcopacy there, were no Papists, then those that I spoke of in England were none (much less): And I must cry you mercy for so esteeming them.

Except. to Sect. 16.

The 3d Argument is from the uncertainty of Succession, which might have done the Hereticks good Service in the old times, when St. Irenaeus and Tertullian muster up against them Successions of Catholick Bishops that ever taught as the Church then taught against the Hereticks.

p. 11Reply to Sect. 16.

1. It seems you are confident of an uninterrupted Succession of authoritative Ordination, though you seem to think none authoritative but Episcopal. But so were not the Protestant Bishops, who took the Reformed Churches to have true Ministers, and to be true Churches, when yet Episcopal Ordination is interrupted with them. Such are all those with whose Words, you say, I fill my Book, to whom I may add Men (which is strange) that were thought nearer your own way. As Bishop Bromhall in his late Answer to Militerius, who yet would have the Pope to be the Principium Unitatis to the Church, and the Answer to Fontanus's Letter, said to be Dr. Stewards, besides Dr. Fern; yea, if you were one of those that would yield that Presbyters may ordain, yet I am still unpersuaded that you are able to prove an uninterrupted Succession of Authoritative Ordination, and if you are able I should heartily thank you if you would perform it; and seeing it is so Necessary, it is not well that no Episcopal Divine will perform it: If you are not able, methinks you should not judge it so necessary; at least except you know them that are able: If you cast it on us to disprove that Succession, I refer you to our Answer to Bellarmine and others in those Papers, as to that point. 2. As for Tertullian and Irenaeus, and others of the primitive Ages, pleading such Succession, I answer, 1. It is one thing to maintain an uninterrupted Succession, then when and where it was certain, and another to maintain it now, when it is not. 2. It is one thing then to maintain that such a Succession was de facto, and another to affirm that it must be, or would be to the end of the World, which those Fathers did not. It was the Scope of Irenaeus and Tertullian not to make an uninterrupted Succession of standing absolute necessity ad esse Officii, nor to prophecy that so it should still be, and the Church should never want it; but from the present certainty of such a Succession de facto, to prove that the Orthodox Churches had better Evidence of the Soundness of their Faith, than the Hereticks had. If this be not their meaning, I cannot understand them; it was easy then to prove the Succession, and therefore it might be made a Medium against Hereticks, to prove that the Churches had better Evidence than they: But now the Case is altered, both through time and Sin. It might have been proved by Tradition without Scripture, what was sound Doctrine, and what not, before the Scripture was written: An Heretick might have been confuted in the Days of the Apostles without their Writings, and perhaps in a great measure some time after: but it follows not that they may be so to the End of the World. Those that heard it from the Mouth of the Apostles, could tell the Church what Doctrine they taught; but how uncertain a way Tradition would have been to acquaint the World with God's Mind by that time it had passed through the puddle of depraved Ages, even to 1653. God well knew, and therefore provided us a more certain way. So is it also in this Case of Succession, as the Fathers pleaded it against the Hereticks, to prove the Soundness of the Tradition of those Churches.

Except. to Sect. 17.

Against all which, a Quirk it seems lay, that if secretly any of them had had but a secret Canonical Irregularity, all the following Successions were null: But the evident Truth is much otherwise that the Church never anulled the Acts or Ordinations made by Bishops, which the Catholick Church then had accepted and reputed Catholick Bishops; though afterwards they came to know of any Secret Irregularities, or canonical Disablings had they then been urged or prosecuted by any, against those Bishops, and then they should have been accepted for Bishops by the Church no longer.

Reply to Sect. 17.

1. I have proved, and more can do, open and not only secret Irregularities in the Church of Rome's Ordinations, known a Pri…re, and not only after the Ordinations. The Multitude of Protestant Writers, even English Bishops have made that evident enough against the Pope, which you call a Querk; general Councils have condemned Popes as Hereticks and Infidels, and yet they have ordained more. 2. If it were otherwise, yet all your Answer would only prove, that we must sometimes take them for Bishops who were none (when the Nullity is secret) but not that they are Bishops indeed, or have Authority. It is one thing to say that God will make their Acts as useful to the honest Receiver, as if the Ordainer had done it by just Authority: and another to say, that such an Ordainer had Authority, because his Incapacity was not known or judged; that is because it was not then known that he had none. 2. Moreover, if the Catholick Churches Acceptation and Reputation (which you mention would serve turn, then 1. It were well worth p. 12the knowing what you mean by the Catholick Church, do you mean the whole, or only a Part? If the whole, then few Ministers or Bishops must be so accepted, for who is known to all Christians in the World? If a Part, then what Part must it be? what if one Part repute him a true Minister or Bishop, and the other a false or none, which is very common? If you say it is the People over whom he is Pastor, then nothing more common then for them to be divided in their Judgments: If you say it is the greater part, then we shall be at utter Uncertainties for our Succession, as little knowing what the greater part of the People thought of our Predecessors; if you mean the Superior Bishops, then a Metropolitan it seems is the Catholick Church when a Bishop is to be judged of, and it is like a Patriarch for a Metropolitan, and the Pope for him. But as 1. We know not how these judged of our Predecessors. 2. So we little believe that these Mens Judgments can make a Man to be a Bishop that is none, or make him have a Power which else he had not; this is worse than the Doctrine which hangs the Efficacy of the Sacraments on the Priests Intention: It's like the Faith of some that think to make a Falsehood become true by believing it true. 3. And you know it is the Pope whose Succession we are questioning; and which is the Catholick Church that must accept and repute him a true Pope? If the Council of Basil were the Catholick Church, then you know how Eugenius was reputed; and then where is our Succession? I doubt not but true Christians that are not guilty of the Nullity of the Ordination, nor knew it, may have the Benefit and Blessing of such a Man's Administrations, and they may be valid to the Receiver: But that is on another ground (which I have lately manifessed to another in debating this Cause) and not that the Administrator had any true Ministerial Authority from God. Again, I refer you to my Answer to Bellarmine and others in those Papers.

Except. to Sect. 18.

V.G. Put case one not baptized thought to have been baptized, had (per ignorantiam facti) been promoted to be Bishop, Archibishop or Patriarch, yet so long as the Church knew it not, nor himself perhaps, but did accept him bona Fide, though ipso Facto had it been known, such had been uncapable of Episcopal Order, yet being so accepted by the Catholick Church, Ordinations done by him were not null, nor did he interrupt the Succession, but (latente omni defectu baptismi) he was a true Bishop, though after his Death by any Writing they had come to discover it, for the Church as all Judicatures rightly proceeds secundum allegata & probata; the same I say of secret Symony V. S. But on the other side to speak now to the Presbyterian Case.

Reply to Sect. 18.

Nay then put Case the Man were not Ordained, and the Church took him to be Ordained: you say the Church must proceed secundum allegata & probata, doth not this give up your Cause, and yield all that I plead for? which is, that an authoritative Ordination, and so an uninterrupted Succession is not simply and absolutely necessary to the being of the Ministry: For you confess your Churches Reputation may serve without it. By the way take head least you either make the People to be none of the Catholick Church, or at least, you give a Power to the People to make Ministers Bishops and Popes by their bare Thoughts without Ordination, or so much as Election. But then you will remember, that if Reputation without just Ordination may serve turn, I know not but those among us may be Ministers whom you disclaim: For the Pastors and People of all the Protestant Churches in Europe (except your selves here) do take such for Ministers (so far as it is possible by Writings, Professions, and Practices to know their Minds) and I hope they are as good a part of the Catholick Church as the Pope and his Consistory are. If Reputation then will make Pastors without Ordination, we may have as good a Plea as those you plead for. For the case of Symony you mention, see what I cited out of Dr. Hammond, and you know sure that many Canons make Ordinations null, and the Office null, ipso Facto, whether ever the Party be questioned in Judgment or not: such Canons and Laws are equal to Sentences. A Case also may be known that is never questioned and Judged, who could question the Sodomitical unclean murderous Popes, though it was commonly known? I take it for granted therefore that the Knowledge degraded them without a Judgment according to your own Words here (unless one part of them contradict the other.)

Except. to Sect. 19.

The same ancient Church which did make void and annul constantly all Ordinations made by meer Presbyters, whether they Schismatically arrogated to themselves to be Bishops (and were not, nor so reputed by the Church) or otherwise upon p. 13any Pretention whatsoever (for at that time no necessity could be with any Colour, nor was pretended).

Reply to Sect. 19.

1. But is it the Judgment of the Ancient Church that will serve to degrade or null a Minister of this Age? If so, then all your former Arguing is in the Dust: For though your Popes had none to Judge them Wicked and Uncapable then, yet the ancient Church before them did make void and null the Office and Ordinations of such as they. If it must be a present Power that must do it, we have not yet been called to any Judicature about it. 2. Your Parenthesis seems to intimate that if the Presbyters be but Reputed Bishops by the Church, then their Ordinations are not null: All's well on our side then, except you only or the Romanists be the whole Western Church: For not only Pastors and People here do take Presbyters to be Bishops, having Power of Ordination, but so do the rest of the Reformed Churches, or at least most of them. They think that the primitive Bishop was the Bishop of one particular Church, and not of a Diocess, or many Churches. 3. You talk of necessity again, but you would not say, that necessity would have excused them then, if there had been such; though it seems you would be thought to judge of the Reformed Churches as the Protestant Bishops do, or else hide your Judgment in part.

Except. to Sect. 20.

These Three Fallacies are the Summ of all his Arguments, rather popular Calumnies, for want of Argument to cry out, these Men are not Protestants, at least in this, see pag. 49. …in. these are Popish who contend for Succession of Ordinations.

Reply to Sect. 20.

I see nothing to forbid me to say that these few frivolous Exceptions, and the Name of Fallacies, Sophisms, &c. is the Summ of your Opposition; and how far you manifest your self to be free from Popery, I leave to others to judge; for I will not, till I know you.

Except to Sect. 21.

And here give me leave, because there is a Mask of Christian Concord and Charity even to the embracing the Episcopal Party also, pretended in this Union, let me a little give you a taste of the Spirit of this Charity of theirs, whether it be like the true genuine Christian Spirit and Love: Besides the Charity he allows to Bishops which I have writ out unto you in my Second Page, to which you may add, that of pag. 74. [The late Bishops, even in the Judgment of all moderate Men that ever I spoke with, did very many of them deserve to be put down, and More reckons four, Wren, Land, &c. but come we to the Charity he allows Episcopal Divines (as he calls them).

Reply to Sect. 21.

If by (a Mask) you intimate a dissembling Pretence, he that better knows my Heart than you, will be Judge between you and me concerning this, but I dare not say that my Charity is of as high a Degree as theirs that have more of that Christian Grace: But I bewail any Uncharitableness, and beg Pardon of God and Man. 2. But were found you any M…k of Concord in my Book, as with any Bishops but the Protestant Bishops and their Followers? I never extended it to others: Not that I have not Charity to them, or wish not Concord with them, but that it is impossible till they change their Minds. And here I put it to your self, and to all of your own way, to tell me, what you would have wished me and all the Ministers of our Association to have done for Concord with you? and whether you will not confess it impossible till one party change their Minds? for the preset Rulers will not have Episcopal Ordination, nor allow any in the Publick Exercise of the Ministry, but those that come in by meer Presbyters (in your Esteem). Many of the Ministers after earnest study and Prayer cannot be satisfied that Episcopacy is Iure …ivino, or lawful: it is not in their power to change their own Judgments. Till they do change them and procure Episcopal Ordination, you will not take them for any Ministers at all; no nor joyn in the Association least you be guilty of acknowledging them Ministers; what means then have we left for Concord with such as you? Only this, Renounce your Ministry; all must forbear Preaching and Baptizing, and all Ministerial Duties: all forsake the Congregations of Christ here, and throughout England that are in the same case, and then you will be at concord with us; but what concord? not as fellow Pastors; that cannot be, when we must first renounce that Office; the meaning then of your desired Concord is this, give up all your Offices and Churches to us, and p. 14let us alone to have our way, and do all, and then we will have Concord with you as our people whilst you obey us. Truly we have found you Predecessors step Fathers, and hard Task-masters; yet the Lord knows my heart, that I take it far more easie incomparably, and in itself desirable to such as I, to be Ruled then to Rule, to Obey then to Command, so be it we be not commanded to sin against God, and run into Hell. But when we have all forsaken our Churches and Offices for peace with you, is all the work done? 1. How shall we do for peace with God and Conscience, for over-running his work, and starving Souls. 2. How shall we bear the cryes of poor People for the Bread of Life? 3. What shall God's Worship and our Congregations do? Who shall supply our Places? are there able faithful Men enough of your Way? O that we could see them! It is not two or three or ten in a Country that would serve turn. If there be enough, why did you permit so many drunken, sottish Readers, and so many hundred wicked Livers, which the Church is not well rid of yet? See the Centuries of those rejected in the Beginning, while Mr. White was Chairman, I never owned the casting out of any worthy or tollerable Man for Loyalty; yet what Reproaches did he and others undergo for casting out such a pack of Swearers, or Drunkards, or Adulterers, or the like? is there no Concord to be had with you but by giving up our poor People to such as these again? For my part I love Charity and Peace better than ever I did, but Charity hath Eyes, or is guided by Eyes. I am not a Stranger in England, I knew Multitudes of the old Episcopal Clergy that were ignorant or of wicked… Lives, and the great Hinderances of the Salvation of their People, when they should seek to save. I knew but here and there one of them that was learned and godly serious Preachers. Those Men I love and honour according to their Worth, as much as any Men of any party: These only did we desire Concord with as Ministers: and alas if it be not to be had without forsaking all our Charges, and giving up a whole Country to so few of these, the Will of the Lord be done; for I will never believe that this is his Will till you bring other Reasons for it then yet any of you all have publickly done. And I warn all honest Episcopal Divines, that they take heed of drawing your Guilt upon them, and of concurring with Men of such dangerous Principles as you are; your way to Concord must be like the Romanists (the greatest Schismaticks on the Face of the Earth) who cry up Unity, Unity, but themselves must be the Centre, or it must be only in their Way and on their Terms. They will unite with no Christians in all the World that are not of their Party, (for a Party they are, though they will be called the Catholick Church) and do not you go this way too far? You will have Concord with none as Ministers, but those of your own Party, all the rest must be no Ministers with you, nor their People take them for such. Durst you (whoever you are, for I know you not) be bound to answer for us, and bear us out before God in Judgment, if we should all give up our Places or preach no more? durst you be bound upon pain of Damnation to your selves to save all our People from being condemned for it if they should all renounce and forsake us, and all the Ministerial Worship of God which we perform, and the Churches we guide? Alas it is not your telling us, that the Holy Saint Ignatius is lately vindicated, that will satisfy our Consciences in a Case of this Moment, even to leave God unworshipped Publickly, and our People untaught, and set Satan raign, and Souls perish by Thousands for fear of saving them without Episcopal Ordination. If you still say that we should be of your Mind, and be ordained by Bishops, we again say our judgments are not at our Command; we cannot believe what we list, I know multitudes of Anti-Episcopal Men that study as faithfully and seek God's Direction as heartily as any of you all (and yet cannot see the Justness of your Cause, (though whether it be just or not, I purposely forbear to pass my Censure) if still you say, it is our Wilfulness or Peevishness; I leave you, as Usurpers of God's Prerogative, and pretending to that Knowledge of our Hearts which is a step above the Papal Arrogation of Infallability. Nay, seeing I have gone so far, I will add this; do you not imitate the Papists in the main Point of Recusansy, by which we were wont to know them in England? Nay, we had many Church Papists that went not so far? must not you, as they, have People disclaim our Ministry and Assemblies, and not join in them for fear of owning unordained Men. Be not too angry with us, I pray you, if we call not such Protestants; or at least if we take it for impossible to have Concord with them. 2. I must also tell you that are offended at my Saying, that those particular Bishops named, deserved to be cast out, that if you be one that dare own them in their Ways, or would have the Church have such as they, yea, that do not detest and lament their Miscarriages, seem to your self as Pious as you will, you are no Man for our Company p. 15and Concord. Do you complain of me for want of Christian Charity, and yet would you have the Church have such Bishops as would cast out such Men as Aims, Parker, Baines, Bradshaw, Dod, Hildersham, with Multitudes of as painful, able, Godly Men as the World knew, and leave so many drunken reading Sots, some (thereabouts) Faggot Makers or Rope Makers, many that did (and that lately whether we will or not, till the late Act) get their Living by unlawful Marriages, and such Courses as is a Shame to Mention, yea, would you have Bishops that would do as your Bishop Wren, Pierce, and the others did, whose Accusations are upon Record. For my part I think such Mens destroying the Church was the cause of all our wars and Misery; and he that dare own them in it after all this, is no Man for our Association: I love no Man the worse for being for Bishops, but for being for such Bishops and such Practices I do. They are yet alive, enquire what Men Mr. Dance and Mr. Turner are, who were the Teachers of this Parish, and what the People were then, and what they are now? Grant but Piety, Love and Concord to be better than Ignorance and Debauchery, and then judge of them.

Except. to Sect. 22.

Page 64. Speaking of Episcopal Divines he saith, and if Liberty of Sects and Separations be publickly granted and confirmed to all, you shall soon find that the Party that I am now dealing with, will soon by their Numbers obscure all other Parties that now trouble our Peace, ibid. pag. 64. n. 13.

Reply to Sect. 22.

It was my necessary care to distinguish between Protestant Bishops and Popish (of Cassender's strain) and it is your Care with all subtilty to obscure the Distinction, that you may involve the honest Party in your Guilt and Snares. That which I there spoke only of Popish Bishops, and their Party (you would intimate that I spake of the Episcopal Protestants; then which nothing less is true, as my Words fully shew. I tell you plainly, such Bishops as Usher, Hall, Morton, Iewel, &c. are twenty fold nearer me in Judgment, than they are to you, if you be one of the Cassandrian Papists that there I speak against; why then should they not sooner join with us than with you? If ever God set up Episcopal Government where I live (yea though I wer unsatisfied of its right) I will obey them in all things not against the Word of God, were it but for Peace and Unity.

Except. to Sect. 23.

They would have all the People take us for no Ministers, &c. and so all God's Worship be neglected in publick, where no Bishops and their Missionaries are, and so when all others are diseased or turned out, the Papists may freely enter; there being none but these few faithful Friends of their own to keep them out; which how well they will do, you may by these conjecture and n. 15. of the same Page. But it is a higher Charge than Popery that these Episcopal Doctors that I now speak of are liable to, &c.

Reply to Sect. 23.

Is not this true; How much of it do you plainly maintain in this Writing? I had rather you had freed your selves of the Charge then called it Uncharitable.

Excep. to Sect. 24.

Pag. 66. N. 5. Speaking to those same Men he saith, You must be certain that those same Men had Intentionem Ordinationis (if you be right Papists indeed) did ever any one ever hear and read any one single English Episcopal Doctor require Intention as necessary to Ordination? If not call you that Speech of Mr. Baxter's Christian Charity.

Reply to Sect. 24.

Remember this, that no Protestants, say Presbyters, have no more Power than the Ordainer intended them. You may see by that that I speak to Papists, why then would you intimate that it was to Protestant Bishops?

Except. to Sect. 25.

Pag. 67. Do not these Mens Grounds leave it certain that Christ hath no true Church or Ministry, or Ordinances or Baptized Christians in England, nay in all the Western Church, and perhaps not in the whole World? and then see whether these Popish Divines must not prove Seekers.

Reply to Sect. 25.

O that you would vindicate them from that Charge (though heavy) by proving the uninterrupted canonical Succession from the Apostles.

p. 16Except. to Sect. 26.

Pag. 47. Speaking of some under the Name of Episcopal Divines saith, that they withdraw the People from obeying their Pastors, by pretending a Necessity of Episcopacy, &c. and partly instil into them such Principles as may prepare them for flat Popery; and yet in the next Page 48. saith, that those same Men do themselves (viz. Mr. Chisenhall against Vane, Mr. Waterhouse for Learning, Zealous Men for Episcopacy) publish to the World what a pack of notorious, ignorant, silly Souls, or wicked unclean Persons those are that are turned Papists. How now can Mr. Baxter call those Men that so publish, &c. faithful Friends to Rome? pag. 64. See how Uncharitableness betrays and accuses it self in its busy Accusations of others; and must justify them per Force of Truth when it would condemn.

Reply to Sect 26.

Why what is the Scope of this your Writing, but to prove that we are not Pasters? and would you not then draw the People from acknowledging us such? This is like the Man that swears he never swore in his Life; you blame me with charging you with what you contend for. 2. But you do with as little Candor as verity say that in the next Page it is those same Men that I speak of, when I purposely and plainly call these [Gentlemen of the Episcopal Protestant Party] as distinct from the Cassandrian Papists, and as helping us in the Discovery of the Danger. But I perceive it is your Desire to make Men believe that I took them for all one. But a good Cause needs to such a way of Defence… Did you think that the learned Doctor to whom you wrote would believe you who had my Book at hand, and could see that your Words were false? And is it not strange that upon such a dishonest Foundation you can build such a triumphant Exclamation as follows, [See how Uncharitableness. betrays and accuses it self,] &c.

Exception to Sect. 27.

Pag. 50. n. 4. If these that I dispute with will shew themselves openly to be Papists, and plead that Women or Lay-Men may baptize in case of Necessity, &c.] See, see his Magisterial canting crying out Popery upon whatever likes him not: Doth he know whom he here condemns for Papists? Yes he doth, for he tells us, pag. 81. that the 38th Canon Elibertint Concilii (and he tells us right) decrees, that in case of necessity a Lay Man may baptize; well an ancient Catholick Council held under the primitive pure Times, whilst Persecution yet exercised the Church; more ancient than the Council of Nice, and whereof Magnus Osius Confessor was a part, is peacht of Popery too, together with us. Enough of this, I might add much more. All this within the compass of twenty Leaves, from pag. 45. to 85.

Reply to Sect 27.

All this but a meer Mistake (whether willing or unwilling): I never took this Point alone enough to denominate a Man a Papist; but because it is a Point wherein the Papists generally hold one way, and the Protestants another, I take it to be a … Discovery which side the forementioned Persons are of: I durst not say that the Error of Purgatory, or praying for the Dead, or praying to Saints, no … nor Transubstantiation alone is sufficient to denominate a Man a Papist. But yet I think if a Man would degrade our Ministers, and unchurch our Churches, and all the Reformed Churches that have not Bishops and maintain the Romish Ordination, and Church, and yet saythe is not a Papist; your Addition of one of these would further the Discovery: I am not ignorant that Tertullian and others speak of Lay Mens Baptizing in case of necessity (but not for Women, though Pamelius would pervert Tertullian's Words for that End).

Except. to Sect. 28.

To give you a Taste when he quotes Fathers as he quoted above the 80th Canon Apostotical to eject our Bishops: So also when he would prove that the ancient Church held it lawful for Ministers to impose Hands for the confirming of Parties haptised, pag. 58. for Proof of what he saith he pretends to but Two Authors, viz. Ambrose in Ephes. 4. and Augustin quoest. ex vet. & novo Testam. mixt: both certainly spurious Pieces, and the latter the Work of an Heretick.

Reply to Sect. 28.

You go the farther the worse: I quoted Bishop Downame as one of the Episcopal Protestants, to shew that it is their Judgment, that Ministers ordained without Bishops may be true Ministers: Now because the Bishop brings these two Testimonies on the by about Confirmation and Reconciliation of Penitents, you do (in my Judgment not well). 1. Feign me to be the Speaker of those Words, and the Alledger of those Authors when it was a Bishop; and his Words go cited because p. 17a Bishop. 2. You make me to do it in order to prove the Power of Ministers to impose Hands on the Confirmed and Reconciled, when even Bishop Downame brought in that and these Testimonies thereto, but as subservient to the others. But perhaps I left you some occasion of this mistake, to charge me with the Words of the Bishop: No, none at all, I enclosed his Words with this Mark [—] and after I wrote [so far Bishop Downame] that there might be no place for such an Oversight. But where you talk of [but two Authors] for this I thought you had known how easy it is to bring more: For if it be the Ceremony of Imposing Hands that you would deny to the Presbyters, it was so far from being denied the… anciently, that even the English Bishops allowed it them in Ordination, which is the greater. If you mena the Power of Confirming and Reconciling, it's known the Bishops might delegate Presbyters to it, and the Corepiscopi used it; yea, Presbyters I think in some Cases. And for Reconciliation, Bishop Usher tells you in the Words I cited, that even Deacons used it or had it: Yet is not the Testimony of those Authors contemptible; that ascribed to Ambrose, is taken by Erasmus to be Remigius or Anselme; by Maldonate to be Remigius, by Brugensis and Bellarmine to be Hillarius Diaconus. And well might Downame alledge them against the Papists when Bellarmine, the Rhemists, Alan, and others so esteem them and quote them, as Ambrose when it serves their turns. And for the Book of Quest. in vet. & nov. Test. 1. The Papists citing it (Bellarmine, Harding, Turrian, Eckius, Cope, Rhemists, &c.) Downame might well cite it ad Hominem; yea, ad Rem, it being matter of Fact that he speaks to, and the Author so ancient, that Hierome seems to take notice of him.

Except. to Sect. 29.

In all this you see I have not disputed the Case with him (but only discovered to you his manner) for that he himself professes he is resolved in this Book to forbear the Dispute, p. 79. princip. & pag. 77. he would give us to understand that he hath much more behind that he can say by way of Argument (for this is only crying out, Popery, Popish, &c.) for Presbyters Power of Governing, Excommunicating, ordaining without a Bishop. Let him be intreated to do it, and lay aside his poor kind of calumniating his Adversary, and deal Christianly by Arguments only, and he shall soon be answered, I believe. For the present he may know his Papers prevail not, but only provoke those he writes against.

Reply to Sect. 29.

It's strange that to call a Papist a Papist should be accounted Calumniation! I profess to speak of none but Cassandrian Papists. I name none. They that are not such, have no reason to say that I calumniate them, when I professedly accept, and and honour, and seek Reconciliation with them. They that are such, methinks, should not be ashamed of it. It's an ill Religion which a Man must be asham'd of; and an ill Profession that is ashamed of a true Religion. 2. That my Papers prevail not but provoke, is no wonder; 1. The Papists I expected to provoke by discovering their Designs, and attempted not to prevail with them. 2. The Protestants whom I spoke to may be prevailed with for ought you know: All be not of one Spirit. If they be not, I have Confort in following Peace as far as I could, which they will never find in flying from it. While every Man must be a Pope, and reduce all the World to his infallible Judgment as the only means to Peace, and will agree with none but Men of his own Principles, no wonder if Pacificatory Attempts are frustrate. Duroeus, Acontius, Davenant, Hall, Melancthon, &c. found that better Labours than mine have been frustrate, for Unity, I bless God, my Success is far more than ever I did expect; but it is with the Sons of Peace.

Excep. to Sect. 30.

These things shall be defended against him (through God's Grace): 1. That if there be no Bishop in any Diocess, yet in a National Church, where many Bishops had united themselves to govern parts of one National Church, they ought to have recourse to some neighbour Bishop.

2. That if Presbyters (in defect of Bishops) might Ordain, Excommunicate; yet not one single Presbyter.

3. That such as were never Ordained by Bishops where they might, are none of of these Presbyters; none at all.

Reply to Sect. 30.

I am of as quarrelsom a Nature as others; but yet I will not be provoked to turn a conciliatory Design into a Contention, and if I would, your Questions are ill fitted to our use. 1. The First will necessarily carry us to dispute the Ius Divinum of Bishops, which I purposely avoid, and it should be after the last. 2. The Secoônd p. 18if I yield it you, is nothing against our Agreement. 3. The Third I cannot dispute well till I know what you will yield in the excepted Case. I would desire you, as a more orderly and effectual way to our Ends, to do these three Things: 1. Tell me plainly whether you take the Reformed Churches of Holland, France, Scotland, Helvetia, Geneva, &c. for true organized Churches, and their Pastors for true Pastors and Presbyters? and Ordination by Presbyters to be valid in their Case. 2. seeing you plainly seem to take an uninterrupted Succession of authoritative Ordination to be of flat Necessity to the being of the Ministry, will you give us a clear Proof of such a Succession de Facto, either to your self, or any Man now living. I earnestly intreat you deny me not this, nor say it is needless; I have told you the need of it in those Papers. Again I pray you put it not off. 3. Seeing you prosess to be for Concord, and yet reject our Terms, as a Schismatical Combination, will you propound your own Terms, the lowest condescending Terms which you can possibly yield to, which may tend to our Closure? If you only contend against our Way and will not find a better, nor use any Endeavours of your own in its stead, what Man of Reason will believe your Profession of [the strong Inclination of the Heart to Concord and Peace]? I again intreat you instead of contending, to perform these Three things, which will exceedingly further the much desired Work. And for my part, though you and Millions of Men oppose it, I am resolved, by the Grace of God, to desire, pray, and labour for Peace and the Unity of the Church, upon Honest and Possible, not Romish or Sinful Terms, while I am

Rich. Baxter. Dec. 23. 1653.

N^o. II. Mr. Johnson's First Letter to Mr. Baxter, about the Point of Ordination.