Christian Concord, Part 6
2. To the second Objection (That we are no true Churches or Ministers, &c.) I answer, 1. I must here necessarily give notice to all that shall reade these Papers, what kinde of men they be that I have to deal with in this.
There are in England two sorts of Episcopal Divines. The one sort are Protestants, differing in nothing considerable from the rest of the Reformed Churches, save only in this matter of Church-Government. These (if they be not ignorant, ungodly, negligent, insufficient,) I shall heartily reverence and desire their Union: And many of them the Church hath had, and yet hath, with whom I account my self unworthy to be once named: Such as were Jewell, Davenant, and many more formerly; and such as are A. B. Ʋsher, B. Hall, B. Morton, Dr Sanderson and many more at this day. I am very confident that we have not in our Propositions agreed on any exercise of Discipline, which is not agreeable to the Principles of Protestant Bishops to grant us; nay which Papists do not very many of them allow, where no Bishops are. If therefore any of you that are our hearers, being not able to maintain your own conceits, or objections against us, will fly to the Authority of Episcopal Divines; we must intreat you to go to the Writings of Protestants only; and if you will enquire of any now living, let them be such as our old godly Protestant Bishops were: Or else I must tell you we neither expect their conjunction with us, nor shall much be moved by their Judgements.
For there is a second sort of Episcopal Divines of the last edition, and of the growth of about thirty years, who differ from us in greater matters then Episcopacy, being indeed Cassandrian Papists, and levelling all their doctrines to the advancement of the Papall interest; If you will appeal to these Episcopal Divines, we should almost as soon consent to an appeal to Rome.
I must desire you to understand thus much that you may know whom I mean. The French are more moderate Papists then the Spaniards and Italians are: Especially as to the points of the Popes Infallibility, and his power over a General Council; and many of them deny most of his Power over the Churches and Bishops of other Nations. Since the mixture of the English and French blood, there have been strong endeavours afoot to make these two Nations of one Religion, and that must be the moderate Cassandrian Popery. What agitations have been among our Superiours to that end, I will not once presume to meddle with: But (to speak of Scholars whom Scholars may be bolder with as being fitter Judges of their waies which their Writings do discover) one of the first and most famous Trumpets that sounded a retreat to the Christian world, to return (on these terms) to Rome, was H. Grotius, a man of great reading, much Learning, and a mighty Judgement to improve it; but being imprisoned in his Country for his actions for the Arminians in the great stirres that were then a foot, and having escaped (being carried out in a Trunk) was made the Swedish Ambassador with the King of France. This exasperated Learned man, by his residence in France, did both lie open the more to the reception of impressions from the Jesuites, who were his great familiars, and also had the fairer opportunity among those Papists of the more moderate sort, to prosecute his designes, for the reconciling of both parties (Papists and Protestants) in a Cassandrian Popery. To this work he set himself with all his might, publishing Cassander's Consultations with his Notes; seeking to draw us up to the Council of Trent (but not to the opinions of their private Doctors.) Several Writings between him and Rivett, with passages in his Annotations do shew us what was his Religion. This design had many favourites, of the better sort of the Papists, and the colder and more Ceremonial party of the Protestants. Fran▪ a Sancti Clarâ, alias Davenport (provinciae Angliae FF. Minorum Exminister Provincialis, Olim apud Duacenses Lector Theologiae Primarius, Nunc vero ser. Reginae magnae Britanniae a sacris, &c. saith Th. White in the Dedication of his Instit. Sacr. to him: and yet he lieth in London) did by his Writings deeply engage in it; seeking to reconcile the Articles of the Church of England, with the Council of Trent: (for so high we must go as that Council, or no Reconciliation.) How far this design took in England, is easie in a greater measure to discover, by many changes of later times. How far it prevailed with the Bishops and the Kings Chaplains, and other Doctors, I had rather leave to your selves to judge, then take from my word; only I would desire you but impartially to reade the Articles that were in the beginning of the Parliament (while L. Digby, L. Faulkland and such others joyned with them) preferred by the Commons of England against B. Wren, B. Pierce, B. Goodman, with the rest of them; And observe how they all seemed Protestants, as long as the Warre was like to prosper for them; but since that is hopeless, how easily Dr Vane, Dr Baily, Dr Goffe, with many more are turned Papists (of whom the Legenda Lignea will give you an account:) But some had more wit then these, and think they may do that Party more service by staying in England, under the names of Episcopal Divines, a great deal then they can do by declaring themselves Papists: And therefore they rather choose yet to make use of these greater Advantages: And I confess they have very many and very great: And I take my self bound to proclaim to the Inhabitants of this Nation, this publique warning (that they may escape the danger if yet it be possible;) and to tell them that he is stark blinde that doth not see so strong a design laid for the introduction of Popery, that gives it a strong probability of prevailing, if God do not wonderfully blast it. The first part of the Plot is, by blowing up the sparks of all Errours and Heresies, that our Churches being divided, may become odious, and so men may be prepared for a remove. (The kindling of dissentions and Warres between Protestants, let God and the Authors look after; I will not meddle with that.) The next is an incessant endeavour to infect all persons, especially those in Power, Civil or Military, with the opinion of Libertinism, that all their doctrines may have Toleration and free vent, and their practices a free exercise. They will not yet openly shew themselves till their expected freedom be established: but if once they were sure of it, so that their open dealing would be no hazard to their Toleration, you should have them as busily running into our Pulpits, or challenging the weaker Ministers to Dispute about the truth of our Church and Religion, as any Anabaptists do now. For their third Plot is to get down the Learned, Judicious, Godly, Painfull Ministers; at least to take away their publique Maintenance; and then they know how great a part of the people (so impoverished already by Warres and Taxes) will take him for their Minister that will do it best cheap, and will most humour them: And then they know that one Jesuite will shame and silence a hundred such Ministers in disputation, and carry the Countrey before them in many places. And the fourth part of their Plot is, to hinder all Union of the Learned Godly Ministers, and all exercise of any Discipline, or maintaining of Church order: that so they may tell the world, we have no Church, no Government, &c. and that so by division we may be disabled from opposing them; and we may not obtain that strength among our selves, nor that interest in the people, which our Unity and Unanimity would afford us against them. And therefore I know they will malice our Union in this County. The fifth, and not the least part of the Plot is, to keep afoot a Party of Learned men, who under the name of Episcopal Divines, may keep an interest in the people, and partly draw them from Unity, and from obeying their Pastors, by pretending a necessity of Episcopacy and Ceremonies, and keeping open the breaches upon that occasion made; and partly may instill into them those principles which may prepare them for flat Popery. And I confess its a great advantage that they have for this Work. For 1. Some of them are men of so much Learning as may deserve much respect. 2. Some Ministers lately put in, are young, weak, and indiscreet, and fit matter for them to contemn, and modestly to make stepping stones to their own reputation. 3. The Gentry that did with them adhere to the late King, are under so much suffering in their Estate, Reputation, Places of Honour, &c. that no man can wonder if their mindes be much exasperated, and alienated from those Ministers that were not of their Party (especially when they have weak injudicious men to be their Ministers:) Nor should any wonder if they very much value and prefer those Learned Divines that were of their side: And so be ready to hear their Judgements before others. 4. And yet more must it needs endear them to the Gentry, in that they are their fellow-sufferers in the same cause: many of them being sequestred, and cast out of their places, for the matter of the Warres: And all men naturally pity the suffering, but especially their fellow-sufferers. I scarcely know the thing in the world that more uniteth and endeareth men, then suffering together in a cause which they think good. 5. And when these men have secretly insnared the Gentry, what a mighty influence the Gentry will have on their Tenants and poor neighbours, is easie to be judged, both to draw them first from their Ministers, and next from their Religions.
So that, alas, it is a poor low game that the other Sects in England are playing in comparison of the Papists. The Plot in a word is this. The multitude and madness of other Sects must be the means to drive them from their present station. The Cassandrian Papists under the name of Episcopal Divines, must be the instruments to draw them from their present station, and loosen them from their Ministers, and so to prepare them for the Church of Rome; and then when the matter is ripe, they must deliver them all up to the Mass-Priests; and when any publique Disputations are abroad, they must give the Papists the better, and pass into their Camp.
I do judge it my duty to desire all the people of England, especially the Gentry, to discern the danger that they are in, and beware: and to be jealous lest their discontents and passions should betray their souls: and so lest they do themselves more wrong then all their enemies ever did them. And do not think that I censure you too uncharitably, in thinking you in so much danger of Popery. For you are but men: and it is no easie matter to break through so many discontents, enticements, prejudices and other great temptations, which any man may see in your way: I see the nets are strong, and the fishes most of them weak, and therefore it is easie to prophesie what is like to become of you, if God do not speedily shew you the danger. Yea many of the more Learned Gentlemen of your own party, are lately awakened to see your danger; partly by the number of them that are already turned Papists, and partly by the industry of the Papists to pervert the rest: And they do themselves publish to the world, what a pack of notorious ignorant, silly souls, or wicked unclean persons, those are that are turned Papists; such as are no great credit to the Religion that they turn to. See the Authour of Legenda Lignea, Mr Chisenhall against Dr Vane, Mr Watherhouse for Learning: all zealous men for Episcopacy; And indeed this is a great part of the danger, that very many of the Gentry are to this day, after all the warnings of Gods Judgements, so sensual and licentious, so prophane and deboist, spending almost all their time in drinking, hawking, hunting, bowling, yea swearing and other ungodly practices (wasting that pretious time in vanity, which the Lord knows they had as great need to redeem for a preparation for death and judgement, as other men) that it is no wonder if God in judgement do give them up for a prey to the Papists: That they that would not reduce their lives to their right belief, should be permitted to reduce their belief to their vicious lives. I can but faithfully warn you of your danger, and proclaim to you all, that the Gentry of England that were adherents to the King, are now under so great temptations, and so great danger of Popery, that if God be not very mercifull to them, they are gone. He that will deliver men from evil, will have them pray, Lead us not into temptations, you shall have them ere long insinuating themselves with you, if you be not fore-armed and resolved.
And among all others your greatest danger will be from the Popish Divines, that lurk under the name of Episcopal.
If you ask me how you shall know them to be such. I answer, If they could be easily and certainly known, there were the less danger of them. But you may see much in this one thing: All their Writings or Discourses do carry on the Romane Interest. You may finde in those of them that write of Doctrinals or Devotion, 1. The plain footsteps of common Popery. I am loth to name men; but I could easily shew you a great deal of Popery in divers such Books which I see much in Gentlemens hands, as written by an Episcopal Doctor. And those of them that write about Church-Government, do quite forsake our Protestant Bishops, and carry on those principles, by which they may prove the Protestant Churches to be no Churches; nor our Ministers any Ministers; nor our people true Christians: and which would necessitate us to go to Rome for our Orders; which we cannot have without being sworn servants to the Pope.
These are the men that I have now to deal with: for theirs are the Objections now to be answered.
They say we are no Ministers, 1. Because many were Ordained by meer Presbyters without Bishops. 2. Others were but the Bishops Curates, who were the sole Pastors of Churches. And so we have no Churches neither. For it can be no Politicall organized Church without Pastors. And therefore our people should not submit to our Guidance, nor other Ministers associate with us as with Pastors.
To this I now answer, 1. It is manifest that the contrivers of these Objections are not Protestants (in this at least.) For 1. They do hereby at one blow deny all the Ministers of almost all the Protestant Churches to be Ministers at all: For they are none of them Ordained by Bishops, except in England, or very few more, if any. So France, Holland, Scotland, the free Cities, Helvetia, &c. must have no Ministers. Nay the Superintendents of Denmarke, Sweden, and some parts of Germany, being themselves but appointed by the Magistrate, and (as I take it) having at first no Ordination by Bishops, no nor themselves pretending to that which in the judgement of our Antagonists, is the Office of a Bishop, it must needs follow that there are no true Ministers in any of the Protestant Churches, but what our own Dominions do afford.
2. Nay hereby they unchurch all those Churches at a blow. For if they are no Ministers, they can be no Organized Churches, no more then we.
3. Hereby they would absolve all the people of the Reformed Religion in France, Holland, Helvetia, Scotland, &c. from all obedience to their Pastors as such.
4. Yea, I think, hereby they would unchristen all the Reformed Christians in all these Nations. For they say (that's their great argument) no man can give that which he never had: but Presbyters never had power to Ordain: Therefore they cannot give it: and Bishops did not give it them. And will it not hold as strongly [Laymen never had power given them to Baptize; therefore they cannot give it to others, or exercise it themselves.] Now if the Ministers of the Reformed Churches be no Ministers, but Lay-men, then prove where any power to Baptize is given them. 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, I shall desire them to tell me, who gave them that power, and when, and by what expressions? and then we will compare a Presbyters power to Ordain, with a Lay-mans power to Baptize, and try with them, which hath the clearer Commission. In the mean time, it beseems not me to spend time on this Question, while the whole Army of the Learned Protestant Divines (Bishops and others) who have written against the Papists in this point, remain so much unanswered.
5. Yea hereby they would make the Praises, publique Worship, and Sacramental Administrations proper to the Ministry, to be all meer Nullities: and so God hath no Ministerial service in any of our Churches! O happy Rome! O miserable Reformed Churches, if all or any of this be true.
6. What if these few Bishops that are left in England were dead, or what if they die before any other be ordained in their rooms? Why then we must go to some other Churches (say they) for help. But what other Churches can we go to that hath Bishops but Rome? And who knows not that if we would seek to Rome for Orders, that we cannot obtain it without swearing to be true to the Pope, and the doctrine of the Council of Trent, and causing all our charge to be true to them to the death and this with a Spondeo, Voveo ac Juro, sic me Deus adjuvet & haec sancta Evangelia: as the Trent Creed concludeth. Are not these think you zealous Protestants?
7. And if our Princes be of the minde as all Reforming Princes hitherto have been, to forbid all dependance on Rome, and seeking thither for Orders, as accounting it dangerous that their subjects should have so much dependance on forreign Powers, what shall we do for Ordination then?
8. It seems by these men, if these few Bishops were dead without successors, the Church of Christ, at least in England, were extinct. For if Rome be a true Church (which I deny not, without distinction) yet it is easie to prove that we may not lawfully take their Ordination on their terms: and then it seems the Church of England dependeth on these few men for its Being to the worlds end, in all likelihood. O what a rash thing it was to imprison Wren for Excommunicating, Suspending or Depriving, Censuring, Silencing, fifty Godly painfull Ministers in two years in Norwich Diocess, for not reading the Book for Dancing on the Lords daies, For using conceived Prayer before and after Sermon, For not reading the Service at the Altar, and such like: And for expelling three thousand persons with their families into other Lands, by such dealings, with many the like courses! How rashly did they accuse B. Pierce for such like practices, and putting down Ministers and Preaching, till he thanked God that he had not a Lecture in his Diocess, alledging that though there was need of Preaching in the Infancy of the Church, yet now there was no such need; suspending Ministers for Preaching on Market daies; and did so effectually put down all afternoon Sermons on the Lords daies, that he suspended him that Preached but a Funerall Sermon; and put the Minister to Penance that did but explain the Church Catechism, saying that was as bad as Preaching, and charging them that they ask no Questions, nor receive any Answers from the people, but such as were contained in the Catechism in the Service Book; and putting the Church-Wardens to Penance for not Presenting them that did otherwise; yea commanding that the common Service should not be too long, that the people might not be hindered from their Recreations at the Wakes: yea punishing a Minister for Preaching on a Text in Jonas of fasting, weeping and mourning, on the Wakes day, telling him his Text was scandalous to the Wakes. (And all these they lay upon the King, as being his Will.) But what should I tell a people of these things that have felt them. Had the Parliament known that it might lie in these mens hands, whether England shall ever (in likelihood) have Ministers more, or whether ever Christ shall have a Church in England more or not; Yea whether ever he shall have any Ministerial Worship, or one person Baptized into Christ; it might have seemed more wit to have let them crucifie the present Church, then extinguish our hopes for ever. Now when honest B. Ʋsher, Hall, and one or two more are dead, the Parliament must go to the Tower to intreat these prisoners, that Christ may once more have a Church in England; but if they prove as dogged as they were wont to be, the Church is extinct, there is no probable remedy; our children cannot be Christened again for ever, because no man without a Bishop can Authorise a Minister to do it.
9. But suppose we could send to Prester John, and prevail with him for some Bishops (when the vast Kingdom of Nubia that was nearer him could not borrow some Preachers to save the life of gasping Christianity, but it was extinct for want of them;) Yet, alas, how is it possible that we in England could be sure that their Bishops were rightly Ordained, having their power from Generation to Generation by a succession of lawfully Ordained Bishops? Yea if we could get some but from Russia or Constantinople, our difficulty were insuperable. But I beleeve these Objectors would not have us to go so far, but rather stoop to Romes conditions.
10. But, have not Councils determined, That the Ordination shall be Null which a Bishop makes out of his own Diocess? Concil. Antioch. Can. 13. & 22. and then our cure is yet more difficult.
11. But what need I tell an English man that these Objectors are not sons of the Church of England, what ever they pretend, when the world knows that the Church of England took him to be a true Minister that was Ordained in France, Holland, Scotland, Geneva, Heidelberge, &c. by meer Presbyters without a Bishop? The world knows that we did not Ordain those again that were so Ordained; no more then we baptized those again that were there baptized. The world knows that we gave them the right hand of Fellowship as true Churches of Christ, when we set light by Rome. And must those now be Sons and Doctors of the Church of England that would perswade the poor people, that they are no Pastors that are not Ordained by Bishops?
12. If yet the matter be not clear, let me intreat you to peruse the Writings of the most zealous defenders of Episcopacy in the Church of England, and see whether they did not defend the truth of those Churches and Ministers callings that have no Bishops; and the Pastorall Offices there performed of Ministers in Guiding their Flocks (though they think it were better if they had Bishops.) I will not send you to Chamier, Paraeus, Sadeel, or any of our forreign Divines, who in their Writings against Bellarmine and other Papists debate this Question, because they are known to be defenders of their own Churches. Nor will I mention Whitakers, Reignolds, or any the most Learned Doctors of our Universities, who are suspected to be no great friends to Episcopacy: But those that are past all such suspition I will cite; (yet not many, as not standing with my necessary brevity, and being in a known case.)
1. Doctor Field the Learned Dean of Glocester in his 3. li. of the Church, &c. 39. handleth this very point of purpose against the Papists, whom he brings in thus arguing [By this note it is easie to prove that the Reformed Churches are not the true Churches of God. It can be no Church that hath no Minister: and Cypr. saith, the Church is nothing else but Plebs Episcopo adunata. But among the Protestants there is no Ministry; Therefore no Church.] Dr Field answers [The minor we deny, &c.] Yea when they further Object, p. 155. [Whatsoever may be said of those places where Bishops did Ordain, yet in many other places none but Presbyters did impose hands, all which Ordinations are clearly void, and so by consequent many of the pretended Reformed Churches, as France, &c. have no Ministry at all.] To this the Doctor answers at large: and distinguishing between 1. Election of the person. 2. Ordination in generall to the Ministry. 3. The assigning to a man that portion of Gods people, which he is to take care of, who must be directed by him in things that pertain to the hope of salvation,] he adds [This particular assignation giveth to them that had only the power of order before, the power of Jurisdiction also, over the persons of men.] (So the Presbyters have power of Jurisdiction he thinks.) Next he addes, [p. 157. Whereby it is most evident that that wherein a Bishop excelleth a Presbyter, lis not a distinct power of Order, but an eminency and dignity only, specially yielded to one above all the rest of the same Rank for order sake, and to preserve the unity and peace of the Church: Hence it followeth that many things which in some cases Presbyters may lawfully do, are peculiarly reserved unto Bishops, as Hierom noteth; Potius ad honorem Sacerdotij, quam ad legis necessitatem; rather for the honour of their Ministry, then the necessity of any law, and therefore we reade that Presbyters in some places, and at some times did impose hands, and confirm such as were baptized: which when Gregory Bishop of Rome would wholly have forbidden, there was so great exception taken to him for it, that he left it free again. And who knoweth not, that all Presbyters in cases of necessry may absolve and reconcile penitents; a thing in ordinary course appropriated unto Bishops: And why not by the same reason Ordain Presbyters and Deacons in cases of like necessity? for seeing the cause why they are forbidden to do these acts is, because to Bishops ordinarily the care of all Churches is committed, and to them in all reason the Ordination of such as must serve in the Church pertaineth, that have the chief care of the Church, and have Churches wherein to imploy them; which only Bishops have as long as they retain their standing; and not Presbyters, being but Assistants to Bishops in their Churches. If they become enemies to God and true Religion, in case of such necessity, as the care of Government of the Church is devolved to the Presbyters remaining Catholique, and being of a better spirit: so the duty of Ordaining such as are to assist or succeed them in the Work of the Ministry, pertains to them likewise. For if the power of Order, and Authority to intermeddle in things pertaiinng to Gods service, be the same in all Presbyters, and that they be limited in the execution of it, only for order sake, so that in case of necessity every of them may baptize and confirm them whom they have baptized, absolve and reconcile penitents, and do all those other acts, which regularly are appropriated unto the Bishop alone; there is no reason to be given, but that (in case of necessity, wherein all Bishops were extinguished by death, or being fallen into heresie, should refuse to Ordain any to serve God in his true Worship) Presbyters as they may do all other acts, whatsoever special challenge Bishops in ordinary course make unto them, might do this also.
Who then dare condemn all those worthy Ministers of God that were ordained by Presbyters in sundry Churches of the world at such times as Bishops in those parts where they lived opposed themselves against the truth of God, and persecuted such as professed it? Surely the best Learned in the Church of Rome, in former times durst not pronounce all Ordinations of this nature to be void. For not only Armachanus a very Learned and worthy Bishop, but as it appears by Alexander of Hales, many Learned men in his time and before, were of opinion that in some cases, and at some times, Presbyters may give Orders, and that their Ordinations are of force, though to do so, not being urged by extream necessity, cannot be excused from overgreat boldness and presumption; neither should it seem so strange to our adversaries that the power of Ordination should at some times be yielded unto Presbyters, seeing their Chorepiscopi, suffragans or titular Bishops that live in the Diocess and Churches of other Bishops, and are no Bishops according to the old course of Discipline, do daily in the Romish Church both Confirm children and give Orders.
All that may be alledged out of Farthers for proof of the contrary, may be reduced to two heads. For first, whereas they make all such Ordinations void as are made by Presbyters, it is to be understood according to the strictness of the Canons in use in their time, and not absolutely in the nature of the thing; which appears in that they likewise make all Ordinations sine titulo to be void: all Ordinations of Bishops, ordained by fewer then three Bishops with the Metropolitane: all Ordinations of Presbyters by Bishops out of their own Churches without special leave: Whereas I am well assured the Romanists will not pronounce any of these to be void, though the parties so doing are not excusable from all fault. Secondly, Their sayings are to be understood regularly not without exception of some special cases that may fall out.
Thus then we see the Objection, which our adversaries took to be unanswerable, is abundantly answered out of the grounds of their own Schoolmen, the opinion of many singularly learned amongst them, and their own daily practice, in that Chorepiscopi or Suffragans, as they call them, being not Bishops, but only Presbyters whatsoever they pretend, and forbidden by all old Canons to meddle in Ordination, yet do daily with good allowance of the Roman Church, Ordain Presbyters and Deacons, confirm (with imposition of hands) those that are baptized, and do all other Episcopal acts whiles their great Bishops Lord it like Princes in all temporal ease and worldly bravery.
(I will adde his Answer to the next Objection, because it is to the same purpose with theirs that now tell us we are not lawfull Ministers, we are wrongfully put into other mens places by Sequestrators: Thus therefore Dr Field proceedeth) [The next thing they Object against us is, that our first Ministers, what Authority soever they had that Ordained them, yet had no lawfull Ordination, because they were not Ordained and placed in void places, but intruded into Churches that had lawfull Bishops at the time of those pretended Ordinations; and consequently, did not succeed but incroach upon other mens right. To this we answer, that the Church is left void, either by the death, resignation, deprivation, or the peoples desertion and forsaking him that did precede: in some places, our first Bishops and Pastors found Churches void by death, in some by voluntary relinquishment, in some by deprivation, and in some by desertion, in that the people, or at least that part of the people that adhered to the Catholique verity who have power to choose their Pastor, to admit the worthy and refuse the unworthy, did forsake the former that were Wolves and not Pastors, and submitted themselves to those of a better spirit. Of the three first kindes of voidance there can be no question; of this fourth there may: and therefore I will prove it by sufficient authority and strength of reason.
Cyprian, Cecilius, Polycarpus, and other Bishops writing to the Clergy, and people of the Churches in Spain, whereof Basilides and Martialis were Bishops, who fell in time of persecution, denied the Faith, and defiled themselves with idolatry, perswade them to separate themselves from those Bishops, assuring them that the people being holy, Religious, fearing God, and obeying his Laws, may and ought to separate themselves from impious and wicked Bishops, and not to communicate with them in the matters of Gods service, Quando ipsa plebs maxime habeat potestatem, vel eligendi dignos sacerdotes L. 1. Ep. 4. Par. 1. l. 5. 28.vel indignos recusandi; that is, seeing the people have authority to choose the worthy and refuse the unworthy. And Occam to the same purpose saith on this sort, Si Papa & maximè celebres Episcopi incidant in haeresin, ad Catholicos devoluta est potestas omnis judicandi; If the Pope and the principall Bishops of the Christian world do fall to Heresie, the power of all Ecclesiasticall judgement is devolved to the inferiour Clergy and people remaining Catholique.
This opinion of Cyprian and the rest, if our adversaries shall dislike or except against, may easily be confirmed by demonstration of reason: For if it do fall out, that the Bishops, and a great part of the people fall into Errour, Heresie and Superstition, I think our adversaries will not deny, but that the rest are bound to maintain and uphold the ancient verity; who being not so many, nor so mighty, as to be able to eject those wicked ones by a formall course of Judiciall proceeding, what other thing is there left unto them, but either to consent to their impieties, which they may not do, or to separate themselves, which is the thing our adversaries except against in the people of our time. Now having separated themselves from their former supposed and pretended Pastors, what remaineth, but that they make choise of new to be Ordained and set over them; if not by the concurrence of such and so many, as the strictness of the Canon doth ordinarily require to concurre in Ordinations, yet by such as in cases of necessity, by all rules of equity are warrranted to perform the same.] Thus far Dr Field.
I finde transcribing will make these Papers more tedious then I intended, and therefore I will forbear most of the rest, which else I would adjoyn.
2. The same Vindication of the Reformed Churches, and the Ordination of their Ministers without Bishops, you may finde in that Learned Godly man, B. Downame, and that in his very Writings for Bishops, the strongest for Episcopacy that ever I saw (not excepting the late ones) and very passionate against the opposers of Episcopacy. See his Consecr. Serm. and Defence of it, li. 3. c. 4. pag. 108. In the last he writes thus: [Out of a Christian and charitable desire to preserve the credit of such Reformed Churches as have no Bishops, I endeavoured to prevent the Objections of Papists, (mark who are the Objectors) who reason thus against them: The right of Ordination being peculiar to Bishops, it followeth, that where is no Bishop there is no Ordination: Where is no Ordination there are no Ministers: Where are no Ministers, there is no Church. I answered that although ordinary right of Ordination belongeth to Bishops in the judgement of the ancient Church; that yet it was not to be understood, as so appropriating it to them, as that extraordinarily, and in case of necessity it might not be lawfull for Presbyters to Ordain; and much less teaching absolutely a Nullity of the Ordination which is performed without a Bishop, which Answer I confirmed by divers Reasons (see them.) Whereunto I now adde, that there seemeth to be the like reasons for the Imposition of Hands, in Confirmation of the baptized, in the reconciliation of publique penitents, as in the Ordination of Ministers. But although the two former were reserved as well as the third to the Bishop, yet extraordinarily, in the case of Necessity, and in the want or abscence of the Bishop, the ancient Church held it lawfull for Ministers to Impose hands either for the Confirming of parties baptized, or for reconciliation of the penitents. The former is testified by Ambrose in Eph. 4. & Augustine qu. ex Vet. & No. Test. mixt. q. 101. The later by Cyprian, l. 3. Ep. 17. and divers Councils, Conc. Carth. graec. c. 43. Carth. 2. c. 4. Com. Aransic. c. 2. And the Popish Writers themselves do teach that the Pope may give license to him that is not a Bishop, to Ordain: so that he to whom such license is given, have those orders himself, which he would give to another. Summa Angelic. ordo. §. 2. If therefore by the Popes license a Presbyter may Ordain Presbyters, much better may a company of Presbyters, to whom in the Want of a Bishop the charge of the Church is divolved, be authorized thereto by Necessity, which as they say, hath no Law.] So far B. Downame.
3. B. Jewell in his Defence of the Apol. (authorized to be kept in all Churches) Part 2. p. 131. [Neither doth the Church of England depend on them whom you so often call Apostates, as if our Church were no Church without them. They are no Apostates Mr H. &c. Notwithstanding if there were not one, neither of them, nor of us, left alive, yet would not therefore the whole Church of England flee to Lovaine. Tertullian saith, Nonne & Laici Sacerdotes sumus? Scriptum est, Regnum quoque & Sacerdotes Deo & Patri suo nos fecit: Differentiam inter ordinem & plebem constituit Ecclesiae Authoritas, & honos per ordinis consessum sanctificatus à Deo. Ʋbi Ecclesiastici ordinis non est consessus, & offert, & tingit Sacerdos qui est ibi solus. Sed & ubi tres sunt, Ecclesia est, licet Laici.] See more of Bishop Jewels minde, Part 3. p. 346. & p. 2. c. 3. Div. 5. p. 109, 110, 111. &c. 9. Divis. 1. and his Serm. on Hag. 1. and against their doctrine of succession, p. 2. c. 5. Divis. 1. pag. (mihi) 127, 128, 129. So much for him.
4. Learned Sacavia, de divers. Ministr. gradib. cap. 2. pag. 10, 11.
5. Bishop Alley in his poor mans Library, Praelect. 6. & Praelect. 3. p. 95, 96.
6. Bishop Pilkinton in his Treat. of the burning of Pauls Church, and on Hag. c. 1. ver. 1, 2, 3. to 14. c. 2. v. 1. to 11. and on Abdaas or Obadiah v. 7, 8.
7. Bishop Bridges for Supremacy, pag. 359, to 364.
8. Bishop Bilson in his Difference between Christian subjection and unchristian Rebellion, pag. 540, 541, 542. Part 3. & passim, pag. 233, 234.
9. Alex. Nowell Dean of Pauls, in his Reproof of Dormans Proof, fol. 43, 44, 45.
10. Grotius himself in his li. de Imperio sum. potest. circa sacra, cap. 11. p. 336. saith, that by the precept of Gods Law nothing is on either side determined, as to those Church-Offices, which some Reformed Churches use, and others use not. And having laid down divers Propositions in favour of Episcopacy, he addes these following in favour of Presbytery, as consistent with the former. [Pag. 354. Rursum pro Pastorum aequalitate haec prioribus illis minime pugnantia afferimus. 1. Episcopalem eminentiam non esse divini praecepti. Probatur hoc satis quia non probatur contrarium, &c. 2. Non plane universaliter observatum, ut cuique civitati unus Episcopus praeesset: de temporibus id jam probatum arbitramur; postea quoque saepe plures in una urbe Episcopi imitatione Judaeorum, qui quot habebant synagogas, totidem Archisynagogos: Multae autem in una saepe urbe synagogae (mark that) aut (ut Philo etiam appellat) foreign: unde illud in satyra, In qua te quaero proseucha, &c. p. 357. Jam verò etiam Cathedrae Episcopales multis in urbibus saepe non menses tantum aliquot, sed & per annos etiam multos vacavere; quo omni tempore Ecclesiae, ut cum Hieronymo etiam loquar, communi Presbyterorum consilio gubernabantur, aut ut Ignatium loquentem audivimus foreign. Et pag. 358. Quanquam autem ex horum patrum sententia, Presbyteris adimitur ordinandi Jus, quod ipsum multis in Synodis constitutum videri est; Quid tamen obstat quo minus id ita interpretemur ut Presbyteri neminem potuerint ordinare contempto Episcopo? Ʋna cum Episcopo concurrisse aliquatenus Presbyteros ad ordinationem docere videtur Synod. 4. Carthag. &c. Illud interea non video quomodo refelli possit, ubi Episcopi non sunt, etiam à Presbytero recti fieri ordinationem: Cum hoc ipsum inter scholasticos Altisiodorensis jam pridem concesserit. Nimirum ea quae foreign causa observantur, exceptiones suas habent. Quomodo in veteri Concilio Carthag. in causa necessitatis Presbyteris conceditur reconciliare paenitentes: & alibi manus imponere baptizatis. Dein ut supra diximus, dubium an Episcopis, an Praesbyteris meris, propriores sint Praesbyteri, qui nec sub se Praesbyteros, nec supra se Episcopum habent. Nam & de Timothaeo ita argumentatur Ambrosius [Qui ante se alterum non habebat, Episcopus erat.] Nimirum (ut è Republica, sumamus exemplum.) Multa licent senatui Regem non habenti, quae senatui sub Rege constituto non licent: Quia senatus sine Rege, quasi est Rex. 3. Hoc asseramus: Non leves fuisse causas cur hoc saeculo nonnullis in locis Episcopatus certè ad tempus aliquod omitteretur. 1. Penuria virorum, &c. 2. Causa hujus consilii esse potuit longa atque inveterata jam planè Episcopalis officii depravatio: (Vide ultra.) At profectò nunquam tantos ab Apostolorum aevo ad illa-tempora processus ambitio Ecclesiastica fecerat, quantum ab istis seculis ad patrum nostrorum memoriam, ut jam nisi abscissa parte causarià, morbus vix sanari posse videatur, &c. Quid quod & nomen & eminentia Episcopalis eorum culpa quibus obtigerat, omnem sui reverentiam perdiderat, & in odium venerat plebis, cui etiam erranti interdum mos est gerendus? 3. Causa addi potest, quod infestissimis temporibus, magistri veritatis nomine, invisae non culpam tantum ambitionis, sed & suspicionem omnem amoliri debuerant; quod cum sublata Episcopali dignitate sollicitè curaverint, ne sic quidem tamen calumniam effugerunt: Quid non audituri, si doctrinae mutatio conjuncta fuisset cum majoris gradus adeptione? Adjiciam unam insuper causam cur initio repurgationis non admodum necessarius fuerit Episcopatus. Excitarat Deus praestantes viros, summo ingenio, summa eruditione, nec minore tam apud suos, quam apud vicinos authoritate pollentes, paucos quidem numero, sed qui plurimis negotiis sustinendis pares essent: horum summa apud omnes existimatio, facilè supplevit quod ab Episcopatu deerat. Et (si cum Zanchio verum volumus agnoscere) reipsa nulli magis Episcopi fuere, quam illi ipsi quorum (quamvis hoc non agentium) authoritas ad oppugnandum usque Episcopatum valuit, &c.] Et p. 367. [Exercitium ergo clavium, & jus absolvendi penitentes ex omnium patrum sententia solis competunt Sacerdotibus, hoc est, Presbyteris verbi & Sacramentorum depositariis.] Yea in favour of Lay-Elders he asserteth (having argued them not to be of Divine Institution, yet) 1. That they may be lawfully instituted by Soveraigns, or by the Church on their permission. 2. That it may be proved by Scripture that this Institution is not displeasing to God. 3. That there are examples in pious Antiquity, either of this same way, or one very near it. 4. That it is no contemptible benefit, that by these Elders may be received. But these to exercise their Office with several cautions: 1. Not claiming Institution by Divine precept. 2. Not usurping any of the power of the Keyes, nor of Excommunication, further then Excommunication belongeth to the people (executively.) 3. That the men be not unmeet. 4. Exercising no externall Jurisdiction but by publique Law. 5. Standing as mutable. Thus far Grotius.
To all these let me adde two Episcopal Gentlemen, that you may see the difference between Episcopal Protestants and Episcopal secret Cassandrian Papists.
The eleventh shall be Mr Chisenhall a Gentleman that lately answered Dr Vane (a Chaplain of the Kings lately turned Papist.) That he is no friend to Presbytery you may be out of doubt by his whole Book; and in particular by these discreet gentle terms which he gives to the Presbyterian Church of Geneva, pag. 12. [Such an upstart youngling, that wind-egge of a tumult, which being braddened under a Toad of France, is become a staring Cockatrice, and thinks to center the world within the compass of his contagious den, darting poyson upon whom he first espies: as experience tels us how he glancing upon the poor Scot, has given him such a deadly wound that he will scarce ever recover it, &c.] Is not this Gentleman zealous enough against Presbytery? But yet he is no Papist: Pag. 129. he saith [It is not absolutely necessary that Bishops Ordain Bishops. For what if all the Bishops should dye so near at one time, that none were left Ordained by them? Shall not the Presbytery make Bishops? They have Right to the Keyes; which are called Claves Ecclesiae, non Episcoporum: and they are the remaining Pillars of the Church, and certainly may Confer the Order of Bishop on others: and that the rather because the Councils forbid Bishops of another Province to Ordain, in a Forreign Province. And though it may seem strange to some that Ministers which are subordinate should Ordain Bishops, and so conferre Superiour Orders; it is not (if rightly examined) contradictory to Reason: For in this first Ordination of Priests and Deacons, they are infra Ordines majores, which Orders are called Holy and Sacramentall, and are the highest Orders: Witness Pope Ʋrban Dec. Dist. 60. sum. sac. Ro. Eccles. 226. As for the Order of Bishops it is no more then a Priest as to the Holy and Sacramentall Order only: More excellent in respect of the order of Government, Which is rather of humane then Divine Right: For as it is Divine it is no more then what every Priest hath by the Sacramentall Order: but as it is humane it is transcendent in relation to Discipline: and therefore the Presbytery may agree to Ordain one over them to Govern them in Ecclesiastical Rites, as the people may choose a Prince to Govern in Civil affairs. Hence it was that the Apostles sent John to Ephesus, &c.] So far Mr Chisenhall.
12. I will adde also the Lord Digby's words in that notable Judicious Letter to Sr K. Digby, pag. 118. [He that would reduce the Church now to the form of Government in the most Primitive times, should not take, in my opinion, the best nor wisest course; I am sure not the safest: For he would be found pecking towards the Presbytery of Scotland; which, for my part, I believe in point of Government hath a greater resemblance then either yours or ours, to the first age of Christs Church, and yet is never a whit the better for it; since it was a form not chosen for the best, but imposed by adversity and oppression; which in the beginning forc't the Church from what it wisht, to what it might; not suffering that dignity and state Ecclesiasticall, which rightly belong'd unto it, to manifest it self to the world: and which soon afterwards upon the least lucida intervalla shone forth so gloriously in the happier, as well as more Monarchicall condition of Episcopacy: of which way of Government I am so well perswaded, that I think it pity, it was not made betimes an Article of the Scottish Catechism, that Bishops are Jure Divino. But as it is a true Maxime in nature, Corruptio optimi pessima; so it holds likewise in Government both Civil and Ecclesiasticall, &c.] So far the Lord Digby: Whose words I recite not for his Judgement against the Antiquity of Episcopacy (for I now disclaim disputing on that point:) but a majore, if Presbytery be likest to the Primitive Government, then at least those may be now true Churches that are without Episcopacy, and those true Ministers that are Ordained without them, and true Ordinances that are administred by such Presbyters.
Nor do I take the L. Digby's Reason for mens varying of Primitive forms of Government to be of solidity or safety. Nor do I alledge any of these fore-mentioned Authours as being of their opinion in the whole, nor as if they were with me of the highest Authority. But to evince the full consent of the Episcopall party of Protestants, calling themselves The Church of England; to be downright for the Truth of Ministery and Ordinances where there is no Episcopacy, nor Ordination by any but meer Presbyters: And to shew you that Rome hath alway argued for the contrary, and used the same Objections, which I am now answering, and that I answer now but on the grounds of the Episcopal Protestants.
13. The Judgement of Learned Bp Davenant you may see in his Determ. Qu. 42. pag. 191, 192. approving of the Ordination of Presbyters in case of Necessity, and in speciall when Bishops fall into heresies, and refuse to ordain Orthodox Pastors, but will ordain only such as will partake with them in their faction and errour; or when they turn combined Enemies to the truth: And hereupon he vindicates the Forreign Churches Ordinations without Bishops.
14. Dr Prideaux our last Bp of Worcester in Fascic. Cont. de discipl. Eccles. p. 249. saith, Presbyterum Presbyteros ordinare posse; praesertim deficientibus Episcopis, concedit cum magistro sententiarum sanior pars Scholasticorum; ut patet ad sent. l. 4. Dist. 25. 2. Episcopatum retinent tales Ecclesiae (viz. transmarinae) licet non per manum unius Monarchicè, sed Aristocraticè per multos administratum. 3. Moderatores & superintendentes ipsorum analogicè sunt apud ipsos Episcopi, & authoritate (ut contèndunt) ordinandi pollent cum fratribus;] And Orat. 8. de vocat. Ministr. p. 77. he saith, that [those that were baptized of Hereticks themselves are truly baptized, and those that are ordained by them are truly ordained.]
15. Bp Andrews also (as I remember, for I have not the Book now by me) in his Epistles to Molinaeus, goes the same way.
16. See also how directly our Objectors imitate the Jesuite that disputeth against Dr Potter, Chap. 6. § 20. 21. 22. 23. And see Chillingworths full Answer to him, too long to transcribe; Some of his Questions are these, pag. 360. [Whether all those Protestants that conceive the distinction between Priests and Bishops, not to be of divine Institution, be schismaticall and hereticall for thinking so? Whether your form of ordaining Bishops and Priests be essential to a true Church? &c. Whether in saying that the true Church cannot subsist without undoubted true Bishops and Priests, you have not overthrown the truth of your own Church? Wherein I have proved it plainly Impossible, that any man should be so much as morally certain either of his own Priesthood, or any other mans? Lastly, Whether any one kinde of these external Forms and Orders and Government, be so necessary to the being of a Church, but that they may not be divers in divers places? and that a good and peaceable Christian may and ought to submit himself to the Government of the place where he lives, whatsoever he be? &c.]
Much more might be added out of many Authors to prove that the Doctrine of the old Episcopall Protestants is not contradicted by any thing in our Agreement, but by the Objectors is directly opposed.
But I know some will marvell that I bestow so many words in so plain a case, and trouble the Reader and my self with such frivolous Objections, which deserve not a serious Answer (for some have told me all this) But they must know that I have Reasons of weight for what I do. They are men of no contemptible Parts, though of Popish inclinations that manage these Objections, and make a great matter of them; and they are many of them well-meaning men, and of no contemptible Understandings, who through accidental advantages, are taken with them. And if liberty of Sects and Separations be publiquely granted and confirmed to all, you shall soon finde that the Party that I am dealing with, will soon by their numbers obscure all other Parties that now trouble our Peace (except the Papists.)
Having therefore shewed that the Consent of Protestant Bishops is against them, I will give you some further discovery of their designes; only adding here that saying of Musculus (not as his, but because) cited by Grotius, de Imperio sum. potest, c. 10. pag. 322, 323. [Pastorem Christianum de Vocatione sua sollicitum esse non debere, neque ambigere quin Christiana ac legitima sit sua Vocatio ubi ad Evangelium praedicandum à pio Magistratu aut Principe vocatus est.] Though I know this speech must be understood cum grano salis, some other requisites being here supposed as implied.
13. It may easily appear whether the Objectors be greater friends to Rome, then to our old Episcopall Divines, by the tendency of their present plot: For they would have all the people take us for no Ministers, and our Churches for no Churches, and so all Gods worship be neglected in publique where no Bishops or their Missionaries are. And so when all others are disseised and turned out, the Papists may freely enter, there being none but these few faithfull friends of their own to keep them out, which how well they will do you may by these conjecture.
14. The Objectors do openly back the Papists in the Argument of succession as a proper note of a true Church, against the stream of Protestants that have fully confuted them, both Bishops and others. It were in vain for me to fall on this dispute with these Doctors, as long as so many Volumes against Bellarmine are unanswered. Dr Sutlive saith, In externâ successione quam & haeretici saepe habent & Orthodoxi Non habent, nihil est momenti, lib. de Eccles. cap. 18. fol. 123. pag. 2. Reade more largely Bp Jewell Defence of the Apol. par. 2. pag. 131, 132. and in other places. But it were endlesse to cite all that joyn with us in this against the Popish necessity of succession: and it is needlesse as to those that have read the writings of our English Bishops and other Divines, who must needs know already how fully they speak to this point.
15. But it is a higher charge then Popery, that these Episcopall Doctors that I now speak of, are liable to: For my part, I see not how they can be excused from unchurching, if not unchristianing all the people of Christ on the whole earth; or at least leaving it utterly uncertain, whether Christ hath ever a Church, or ever a baptized Christian on the earth? For according to them, no Church is a true Church without Ministers (and it is true of an organized political Church,) and no man is a Minister that is not Ordained by a Bishop, because meer Presbyters have no Power to Ordain; and no man is a Bishop that is not Ordained by a Bishop; and this must be a true Bishop, lawfully called, and not deprived again of his power; and this must be Ordained by a former Bishop, and he by a former, and so the succession must be followed to the Apostles. Now I would desire these seekers (for such they are) to resolve me these few doubts.
1. Can all the poor Christians in our Churches in faith submit to your own Ministry, or to any other mans on earth, as being true Ministers of Christ Authorized to Baptize, Administer the Supper, Guide the Church? &c. Can they know that the line of your succession hath been uninterrupted from the Apostles daies till now?
2. Nay, can your selves or any the learned'st Cardinals at Rome, or Bishops on earth know that your successions have not been interrupted? Is Church-History so clear, full and infallible in this? Suppose that by the advantage of the eminency of Rome (being the Imperial Seat, and so populous) that they could have such a Certainty of History, Hath every true Church or Bishop or Presbyter in the world so too? If so, I confess Historians have plaid their parts better, both for fulness and faithfulness, then ever I dreamed of.
3. Do you not deserve ill at the hands of all Gods Churches, and God himself, to bring all poor Christians to such an uncertainty as this, whether they have true Baptism, Ministry, Worship, &c. and to leave all Ministers at such a loss that no one man on earth (much less all) can act in Faith? How dare they adventure on a Calling which no man living can assure them that they are lawfully called to? and how should they comfortably go on in the works of it?
4. Must not all these following things concurre before you can know that you are a Minister on your own grounds? 1. You must be sure that he that Ordained you, was Ordained himself by a Bishop. 2. You must be sure that this Bishops own Ordination was such as was not void by the Canon: (that is, that it had not as great a defect as the Ordination of meer Presbyters which you say is Null.) And here what a loss are you at when some Councils allow that which another condemns: Some do make Null those Ordinations which others allow of. Particularly, you must be sure that he came not in by Simony (a hard matter:) that he was not a Heretick, or erroneous in the Fundamentals: that he was not Ordained by a Bishop without the reach of his own Jurisdiction (else many Canons Null it:) that he was not a man through ignorance or wickedness utterly uncapable of the Office: that he was chosen by the Clergy over whom he was to be Bishop (and not only by a Chapter or the King:) Yea that the people themselves had their voices in the Election, or were called to Consent (according to Cyprian and the elder times;) and that the people be present, and have liberty to make their exceptions, according to later times: with many the like. 3. You must be certain that all the Bishops successively from the Apostles times, by whom you draw your claim, were thus Ordained: For one Nullity breaks the whole chain, and nulleth all that follow, as you suppose. 4. You must be sure that never a one of all these Bishops did lose his power again by Heresie, wickedness or other means, before he Ordained the next. 5. You must be certain that the Bishop had intentionem Ordinandi (if you be right Papists indeed.) 6. You must know who was the Apostle that was the root of your own succession; which is a greater matter then to know what Apostle did first convert the Nation. And do you indeed know all these things? Is it indeed so certain See B. Ushers Brit. Eccle. Primor. c. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.whether it were Joseph of Arimathea, or Simon Zelotes, or any such man, that first converted England? Nay do you know the Names of your Predecessors before the time of Augustine the Monk? And if you know not who the men were, much less do you know that they were every man of them truly Ordained. If you have curranter History of these things then is yet openly known, why do you not produce it? When the very general Question, Whether Bishops were put in the places of the Flamins, and Archflamins, is so uncertainly determined by History, that about thirty Historians affirm it, and yet Bishop Ʋsher, Jewell, Godwin, Dr Suttliffe, Sr H. Spelman, deny it: I think waking men will hardly affirm a Certainty of any History of their own succession by an uninterrupted series of truly Ordained lawfull Bishops to the Apostle that Ordained the first Bishop. Nay it's well known, that a great part of the Christian world is Uncertain what particular Apostle did first convert their particular Countries; which yet were it known, would go but a little way toward the resolving our doubt.
But perhaps some will say, It is not necessary that I prove my succession, let others disprove it that question it. I answer, 1. That Argument may serve to stop the mouth of some busie Questionists; In foro externo humano it may have some force: But will that serve before God? Either you are a true Pastor or not. If you are not, it is not the difficulty of discovery or of eviction that will make you one: If all the Baptism, and other Ministerial acts that you have performed, are Null, it is not mens inability to prove them Null, that will make them Valid. 2. That should, methinks, be but small satisfaction to your own Conscience neither: For Conscience will expect that you prove your Authority, and not only that others cannot disprove it. For it is Gods judgement and not mans, to which you must stand or fall. And therefore Conscience must needs put you to resolve this Question, How know you that you are a true Minister? and so, How know you that your succession hath been uninterrupted, from an Apostle, in point of lawfull Ordination? 3. But if you think it be enough to Conscience, that you know nothing to the contrary; or that you think you have an uninterrupted succession; then why may not this serve turn as well for others? Those that think Bishops to be a humane Institution and unlawfull, do think themselves more rightly Ordained then you; and therefore if thinking will serve turn, why may it not serve their turn? 4. And for our people, if it be enough to satisfie their Consciences that Sacraments and other our Ministerial Administrations are no Nullities, because they think so, or because they cannot disprove our claim, then why must they not on that ground submit to them that were Ordained without Bishops, when they cannot disprove their claim? 5. Nay why should people trouble themselves to know whether men be Ordained at all or no? When Thinking must and will serve turn, and a true discovery is impossible. For though you can shew your Orders, yet you cannot shew all the succession of Orders from the Apostle to your Ordainer. I think that man that dare affirm that any one Pastor on earth can know that he is a true Pastor, (if a succession of right Ordination uninterrupted be necessary to it and if want of that make the Ordination a Nullity,) is sick of the disease that Festus suspected in Paul, and is elevated so farre on the wings of Pride and Learning, that he is quite overgone Humility and Reason.
5. But yet this is not all. 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 Churches, and perhaps not in the whole world? And then see whether these Popish Divines must not prove Seekers.
For the Greek Church it is well known how oft the succession of their Patriarch hath been interrupted, as to right Ordination; those being thrust in that had no call thereto: and so all the Ordinations that did flow down from them must needs be Null. And there is as little probability of an uninterrupted succession of right Ordination in the Aethiopian Churches, and those scattered rude Christians in Aegypt, Palestine, &c. Bellarmine saith (de Notis Eccles. l. 4. cap. 8. p. (mihi) 312. Non posse ostendi in Ecclesia Graeca certam successionem: Nam 1. Fatetur Calvinus in Asia, Aegypto & proinde Antiochiae, Hierosolymae, & Alexandriae interruptam fuisse successionem: sola constat Constantinopolitana Ecclesia, &c. At Constantinopolitana Ecclesia non est Apostolica; nec ostendit certam originem ab Apostolis, &c.] Quod autem apud Graecos non sit Ecclesia, probamus alio modo; quia nimirum convicti sunt legitimè in tribus plenariis conciliis, Lateranensi, Lugdunensi, & Florentino de schismate at haeresi; ac praecipuè de haeresi circa processionem Spiritus Sancti à Filio, &c. Adde ultimò omnes Ecclesiae ille Patriarchales, habuerunt per longa tempora Episcopos manifestos haereticos, & proinde interrupta est veterum Pastorum successio.]
And of the adherents to the Pope in Africa, and Asia he saith, [Non posse quidem ostendere successionem continuam Episcoporum suorum particularium, sed posse ostendere successionem continuam Episcoporum universalium, qui sunt Romani Episcopi, quibus illi subjectos se esse fatentur.] So that you see in Bellarmines Judgement what case the rest of the world is in, except the Romanists. And yet the successive right Ordination is a matter of more apparent impossibility to be proved, then the sucession that Bellarmine speaks of.
Let us therefore come neerer home and see, Whether it be not Certain beyond all doubt, upon the grounds of Bellarmine and our Popish Doctors, that there is no true Church, Ministry or Ministerial administrations, in this Western part of the world? To begin at home, it is most certain, 1. That according to many ancient Canons (which are their Laws) our English Bishops of latest times were uncapable of ordaining; For they lost their Authority, by involving themselves in secular and publique administrations, Canon Apost. 80. For neglect of instructing their Flocks (most or many of them) Can. Apost. 51. and many more: For non-residence: For unjust silencing and suspending Ministers, and destroying the Preaching of the word, suppressing Learned able Teachers, and maintaining or permitting multitudes of silly souls that could but read and multitudes of drunken wicked livers. How many Canons do depose Bishops for these! Yet I know we had some very Learned, Pious, Reverend men. 2. But then even these with all the rest were Ordained by such as had no Authority (according to the doctrine of these Objectors consequentially) For the Popish Bishops who Ordained in the daies of Hen. 8. H. 7. and many Ages before, had no power of Ordination. This I prove in that they received their Ordination from the Pope, who had no Authority to Ordain them. To say that England had Bishops before Augustine, is nothing to the business of Ordination, as long as it is undeniable that the English Bishops and Clergy did enslave themselves to the Pope, and profess their subjection to him, and to receive and hold their Authority from him. So that if the Pope had no Power to give Orders, then they were no Bishops (according to the Objectors rule.) Now that the Pope hath no Authority to Ordain, shall be made evident; by shewing that the succession of lawfull Bishops hath been interrupted at Rome, and so none since (on their own grounds) can be a true Bishop. 1. I will not undertake to maintain that the Pope is Antichrist, professing my weakness and ignorance of those Propheticall Scriptures, to be so great, that I dare not be confident in my interpretations of them: But yet our English Protestant Bishops have commonly been confident of it, and maintained it: and Bishop Downames Book de Antichristo, deserves consideration: and if that hold then the case is clear. 2. But however, that it is certain that multitudes of Popes have been such as were utterly uncapable of the Office of a Bishop, and power of making Bishops, is evident to any that hath read Pauls Epistles to Timothy and Titus, and the old Canons and the Histories of the Popes lives. Pope Liberius subscribed to the Arians Confession in the Council of Sirmium [Libenti animo suscepi in nullo contradicens] and to that Councils condemnation of Athanasius. Vid. Binnium Tom. 1. Conc. part. 1. p. 470, 480, 422. & Baron. anno 357. §. 9. & 344. §. 3, 4, 5. & Bellarm. l. 4. de Pontif. c. 9. Pope Honorius in two General Councils was condemned for a Heretick. Vid. Bin. Conc. 5. Oecum. Pope Stephen 6. and Sergius 1. did judge Pope Formosus uncapable of Ordaining, when they Decreed that those whom he Ordained, should be Ordained again. Vid. Sigebert. Chron. p. 74. anno 902. Reade but what Platina saith of them in Vit. Greg. 7. Ʋrban. 7. Alexand. 3. Alex. 6. John 13. Joh. 22. & 23. Some were Sorcerers, some Idolaters, some jested at Christianity it self; some Arians, Nestorians, Monothelites, Montanists, denied the souls immortality: besides their infamous Whoredoms, Tyranny, Murders, Poysoning their Predecessors, Buying the Popedom, &c. But I had rather give you this in other mens words, as by them applied to the Argument in hand. Bishop Jewell Defen. Apolog. part. 2. p. 131. c. 5. Divis. 1. saith, [I trust you will not think it ill if I a little touch the like in the Bishops of Rome, that thereby we may be the better able to see some of the branches of your succession: Therefore shortly to say, you know that Pope Marcellinus committed Idolatry: that Pope Silvest. 2. was a Conjurer, and gave himself whole body and soul to the Devil, and by the Devils procurement was made Pope: That Pope Zosinus for ambition and claim of Government corrupted the holy Council of Nice: That Pope Liberius was an Arian heretick: That Pope Leo, as appeareth by the Legend, was also an Arian: That Pope Celestine was a Nestorian heretick: Pope Honorius a Monothelite heretick: Pope John 22. was reproved by Gerson and the School of Paris for an heretick, &c. And to leave Dame Joane, &c. This is Mr H.'s holy succession! Though faith fail, yet succession must hold: For unto such succession God hath bound the holy Ghost. For lack of this succession, for that in our Sees in the Churches of England we finde not so many Idolaters, Necromancers, Hereticks, Advouterers, Church-robbers, Perjured persons, Mankillers, Renegates, Monsters, Scribes and Pharisees, as we may easily finde in the Church of Rome, therefore I trow Mr H. saith, we have no succession, no Bishops, we have no Church at all. But St Paul saith [Faith cometh (not by succession, but) by hearing, and hearing cometh (not of Legacy or Inheritance from Bishop to Bishop, but) of the Word of God.] So far Jewell.
That truly Noble Lord Du Plessis saith, in Treat. of the Ch. c. 11. p. 362. &c. [Examining the Election of the Bishops of the Romish Church, a man shall hardly finde one that may be called a Bishop that can hold proof against the Canons Apostolicall or Ecclesiasticall, either in that which concerneth lawfull Calling or the due exercise of it: Not of Calling; for where is the Election, or the Examination of life and of maners? Where is not (contrariwise) either only favour, or meer Simony? and yet the Canons are plain [That such Institutions of Bishops are void of themselves, and all those likewise void that they bestow upon others.] And, I pray you, when Pope Eugenius 4. is deposed by the Oecumenicall Council of Basill, and pronounced a Heretick and Schismatick, and all his adherents likewise, and yet retaineth the Papall Authority against the Judgement of that Council, where are the Cardinals and Bishops communicating with one excommunicated, instituted by one destituted, receiving of him who was deprived of his Calling, a Calling which he could not give? and transfusing it to others, which consequently could not have it themselves. And where is there then (according to their Canons, and according to their own Decrees) so much as one Bishop, or one Priest, since all that time, &c. Not the Bishop of Rome himself created by the creatures of Eugenius, or by those whom from time to time they have created: seeing the Law tels us, that Quod initio vitiosum est, non potest tractu temporis convalescere, &c. (see further.) So far Du Plessis.
Nay were there nothing against the Bishops of Rome but their claiming the Title of Universall Bishops, their own Pope Gregory will pronounce (Epist. 80.) that it is no other thing then to fall from the Faith: and (Epist. 188.) it is Apostacy: and (Ep. 78.) it portendeth Antichrist: (yea surpasseth his pride, Ep. 80.)
Reade Dr Prideaux Lect. 11. de Antichristo, & 9. And Sutlive fully.
And whether the Reign of Pope Joane be of no truth, or force to interrupt the succession, let it rest on the credit of that great number of Historians that report it.
If any man will say, that the Ordination of such as these forementioned Popes, is of more validity then of an Assembly of the most Learned Godly Presbyters, I think them not worthy any further confutation: Yet I desire them to regard these following words of Learned Dr Hammond in his Defence of the Lord Falkland, pag. 64. [I ask you whether it be not true what his Lordship saith, that a Pope chosen by Simony, is ipso facto no Pope? You (durst not I conceive, because you) did not before deny it: and if now you will take more courage, let your minde be known, and we shall not doubt to bring as Classick Authors as your selves against you. If it be true, then is your answer of no validity, because of no truth: For either that infallibility, or what ever other power, must be annexed to him as a man (which he may be indeed though he be not Pope) or under some other relation, which infallibly belongs to him (neither of which I conceive you will affirm, for then ten thousand to one, some other will communicate with him in that claim) or else he must be Pope, when he is ipso facto no Pope; or else that power must be annext to him by some body that may think him Pope, when he is not, and then either God must run the Errour, or that power be given him from some others. For that God should know him to be no Pope, and yet give that power of Infallibility to him (for if you speak of any other Power it is not pertinent) as long as he is peaceably received, must first conclude that a No-Pope may be Infallible. And secondly, that whosoever is so received by the Church, is so: which unless there be some promise of Gods to assure me that he hath promised it to the Churches blinde reception, will for ought I yet see, conclude again, that either the Chair or the peoples errour gives him that prerogative.] Apply this reason to their Ordination, and you need no more in answer to your Objection. See further Dr Hammond pag. 66, 67.
So that it is too evident, not only that there is no certainty to be had in the Roman Church (and consequently in any that received their power from them) that there is any one true Bishop, Pastor or Ministeriall Administration, if succession of lawfull Ordination be necessary to the Being of these, but also it is certain that there is no Bishop or Ministry, and so no Church and Ordinances; which is a Conclusion so notoriously false and abominable, that we may know what to judge of the premises whence it is inferred.
By this time therefore I hope it is apparent that our Ministers Calling is not therefore Null, because they are Ordained by meer Presbyters. And that they that would by such accusations entice people from their Pastors to Rome, if they follow on the work according to their Principles, must bring them at last to be of no Church. Adde to this what I have said in the Preface to the second Part of my Book of Rest, and you will see that at long running the Principles of Popery do leade to flat Infidelity.
Bellarmine confesseth (l. 3. de Eccles. c. 10.) that [Non habemus certitudinem nisi Moralem, quod isti sint Veri Episcopi.] (He was loth to speak out and say the plain truth, that we can have no proper Morall Certainty at all, no nor probability.) But what then must salve this sore? why we may know that [Aliqui saltem sunt Veri: alioqui Deus Ecclesiam deseruisset.] True: but therefore it follows that a succession of right Ordination (as you maintain) is not necessary to such a knowledge. And then how shall it be known by the Lords Flock which be these true Pastors? Why he tels us [Certi sumus certitudine infallibili, quod isti quos videmus sint Veri Episcopi & Pastores nostri: Nam ad hoc non requiritur, nec fides, nec character Ordinis, nec legitima electio, sed solum ut habeantur pro talibus ab Ecclesia.] I pray you mark that all this is but quod Christi locum tenent, & quod debemus illis Obedientiam: But for this second [Quod habeant potestatem Ordinis & Jurisdictionis] poor Bellarmine leaves the Christian world at a loss; as if it were a thing not to be known. 2. And he durst not say, that God bindeth a people to obey him as being in Christs place, who hath not the power of Order and Jurisdiction: But this is all [Eos non esse quidem in se veros Episcopos; tamen donec pro talibus habentur ab Ecclesiâ, deberi illis obedientiam, cum conscientia etiam erronea obliget.] So that is but the Obligation of an erring Conscience, and not of God. But wiser men then Bellarmine say, Conscience hath no proper Sovereignty or Legislative power, and therefore may ligare, but not obligare, we being eo ipso momento bound both to judge more truly, and lay by that errour, and also to practice the contrary. 3. Observe, I pray you, that the upshot of all is, that this is the whole thats requisite [Solum ut habeantur pro talibus ab Ecclesia] and so I hope if the Church judge men Ordained without Bishops to be true Pastors, you have Bellarmines testimony that they owe them obedience, as to men that stand in Christs place. But I have been too long about this Section.
16. In the time of the Arian prevalency, when, as the Papists confess scarce five Bishops could be found that were not turned Arians, was there not then an interruption of succession in point of right Ordinations? and was all Null both then and since?
17. I have known in the Bishops daies more then one or two idle ignorant Readers, that feigned their Orders, and made the people believe that they were Ordained by the Bishop, and continued many a year in Administration of both Sacraments; and yet when it was discovered, it was not taken for Null which they had all this while done. Why then should Presbyters Ordination be Null?
18. It was not necessary to the Priesthood before Christ, that there were an uninterrupted succession of right Ordination: For the Priests in Christs time were such as had no right to it; not of the right line (which had been long before interrupted:) they bought the Priesthood for Money: and as many judge, were annual and two at a time (though not equal:) Yet Christ requireth submission to them as Priests. I am sorry that we must be put to use the same Arguments with these men, as we have done against the old Separatists so long.