§. 1. WHEN Mr. Dodwell, in a tedious Vo­lume, did null the Reformed Churches, their Ministry, Sacraments, and Co­venant-title to salvation, meerly for want of uninterrupted succession down from the Apostles, of Ordination, by such as he appropriateth the name of Bishops to, I aggravated his fault, as being one that professeth himself a Protestant. He took this to be an accusation of Popery: I Published, to satisfie him, that I meant no such thing; but de nomine will call him what he calls himself, and de re will be no judg of any thing but his books and words, to which I leave the Reader to know him: This satisfieth him not, but he continueth so much concerned, that I doubt he will make men think there is some tender place that is so impatient of a mis-supposed touch. I have nothing to do with him, or his Religion, as his, further than he assaulteth us by his Writings: And he is the Accuser, and the Accusation [Page 2] is of no less moment than aforesaid, and sinning against the Ho­ly Ghost, and of Schism, and subverting all Government, if we do but practice differently from the Prelates will, and alledg Scripture and Gods Authority for it, and appeal to Christ. I am but on the Defence against all this.

§. 2. I profess it is not meer education, prejudices, custom, or worldly interest which keep me from Popery, or his way of ab­solute obedience to Prelates. I have studied what may be said for it as well as against it; and I never met but with Two Objecti­ons, which seemed to me worthy of much further search: One was, that seeing de facto Popery and high Prelacy have so far and long ruled in the Church, whether it be credible that Christ would so permit it, if he hated it, and give his Church, de facto, no bet­ter government? 2. Whether mens great proneness to discord, make not Popery (Italian, or French) a prudent course.

And to these, 1. I am sure that Christ came to destroy the works of the Devil, and save his people from their sins, and make them holy, a peculiar people, zealous of good works, and gather a Church of such out of the world, and rule them in a Commu­nion of Saints, till he bring them to perfection. Therefore I have great reason to suspect those men, and that order and course of government, which cherisheth ignorance and sin in Ministers and People, and hunteth, and silenceth faithful Mi­nisters, and suppresseth, persecuteth, tormenteth, burneth the most conscionable Christians, that for fear of offending God, disobey them, that turn serious Religion and spiriritual Worship of God, into bodily exercises, and meer Conformity to their wills, and outward taking Sacraments, and using commanded Ceremo­nies and words; under the shadow whereof, for 1000. years, piety hath withered, and impiety prospered.

Christ promised to be with his servants to the end of the world, Mat 28.30. And I cannot but think that he is most with those that are most acquainted with his Gospel, and most love him and obey him, and are most holy and heavenly, and walk not after the flesh, but the spirit, rather than with the ig­norant, fleshly, worldly malignant Persecutors, that set them a­gainst serious godliness and godly men.

[Page 3]§. 3. And I take not any notices of the time present from a­ny thing but certain experience; nor of the Ages past, from e­nemies, or suspected, but of the eldest times from all our com­mon Church-history, and of the last 1000, or 1200▪ years, as to the worst part of their actions, from their own greatest friends and flatterers, such as Baronius, Binnius, Platina, Peta­vius, and others.

§ 4. And the matter of fact, I confess, hath had much pow­er on my judgment: Had the Popes, and Lording sort of Dio­cesans been promoters of love and holiness in the Church, and not the woful scandal of it, and the enemies of good men, and serious piety, I should have been stronglier tempted to own their form of government to be of God; though I am assured that Nature maketh one man, or one Council uncapable of proper government over all the earth; I should never have opposed that which doth good. But destruction, silencing, persecuting, cruel­ties, rebellions, worldliness, ignorance, malignity, and cherishing sin, and suppressing piety, and the very word of God, I am sure are all the work of the Devil, what name or titles soever are pretended for them.

§. 5. And the fact being to me past dispute, I quietly sub­mit to the dreadful providence of God that permitteth it, con­sidering,

1. The Church on Earth is no better than the Angels; of Heaven were; and if so many of the Angels kept not their first estate, but fell by Pride, what wonder if many Bishops do so?

2. If Adam and Eve both fell from Innocency, and that so soon, it is not incredible that the Serpent should beguile some Bishops to depart from the simplicity that is in Christ.

3. And if the first born man, Cain, murdered his righteous bro­ther by malignant envy for his true Religion, it's no wonder if some Clergy-men are such.

4. And if the whole world so soon was drowned in wickedness, that only Noah and his house were meet to be saved from the flood, what wonder if the Church had too great a deluge of iniquity?

[Page 4]5. And to be short, if Noah himself fall after such deliverance, and a Cham be cursed that had been saved, and their posterity proved so bad, that all the Canaanites, &c. must be destroyed; if Sodom's flames too, better warned Lot, or his Wife and Chil­dren; if Abraham have an Ismael, and Isaac an Esau, and Ia­cob envious Sons, and two Murderers, and two Adulterers; If Israel sin, and die in the Wilderness; if Aaron after that he had seen, make them an Idol; if Nadab and Abihu die, as they did; if Eli's and Samuel's Sons proved all so bad; and in the days of the Judges there were so many revolts and ruins; if the first King, Saul, so soon revolted; if David so fell, and Absolom so sinned, and Solomon himself: If Ten Tribes so quickly broke off from David's house, and left him but Two; if those Two proved as bad as the Prophets tell us, and went into Cap­tivity: And if the Nation rebelled against Christ, and be cursed and scattered over the Earth, what wonder if the Pope and proudest Prelate did corrupt the Church of God? If Christs chosen Twelve had a Iudas among them; if the rest strove who should be greatest; if Peter denied him, and they all forsook him and fled; if Heresies swarmed in the Apostles days, and Iewish Teachers would have subjected the Gentiles to Moses's Law; if all forsook Paul in his Tryal, and many accused him before, and such as Diotrephes cast out the Brethren, and pra­ted maliciously against Iohn; if Christ tell us of a little flock, and not many Noble and great are called; if it be as hard for the Rich to be saved as Christ saith; if for Three hundred years the Church was a persecuted people; and if the Patri­archs and Bishops themselves, for many hundred years after ac­cused one another in Councils, and accused such Councils them­selves of Heresies, and other crimes, as much as is yet visible they did, why should I be scandalized at the badness of Bishops and Councils, and the woful corruptions of the Church?

Especially considering, 1. That it was chiefly but the world­ly proud domineering sort that thus miscarried, as the very Angels did.

2. That God kept up still a great number of humble and ho­ly Bishops and Presbyters, that joined not in usurpations and pride with the rest.

3. And that God blest their labours to the saving of so ma­ny Millions of souls, and propagating true serious Religion to [Page 5] this day. Yea, some of the great Patriarchs themselves have been holy humble men.

4. And when God preserved, by an humble Ministry, so many Christians, as the Albigenses, Waldenses, and many among the Papists themselves, from the liking and guilt of the Roman cor­ruptions.

5. And when God hath raised so learned, humble, and holy a Ministry to reform the Churches, and blest their labours in Europe, and specially in England, as he hath done; even those that Mr. Dodwell degradeth; yea, many pious Diocesans here and elsewhere, who yet cannot prove their title by his preten­ded way of successive Canonical Ordinations; nor durst have sworn that they had such a call.

§. 6. I am sure that the work of Christ is the restoring of Gods Image, holy life, and light, and love; and that the destroy­ing of these, by hiding the Scriptures, unintelligible worships, Imagery, dead hypocrisie, silencing, and persecuting, and kil­ling Gods servants, making dividing engines to tear, and Ca­nons to batter the peace of the Church, and this by an igno­rant, ungodly, worldly Ministry, seeking not the things of God, but of men; all this is the Devils work; and to do the Devils work against Christ, is not a sign of Christs servants; he bids us judg of our selves and others by the fruits; His servants we are whom we obey: If a Peter once give Christ such world­ly fleshly counsel, he shall hear worse than I said of Church-Tyrants, get thee behind me Satan, thou art an offence unto me; for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men, Mat. 16.22 hating the good, silencing thousands of faithful Ministers, excommunicating, and sinning against God, in obedience to Prelates, and for using the needful means of their own salvation, and serving God but as Peter and Paul did; this is the Devils work, if he have any in the world. And Mr. Dodwell must trust more to swords than words to keep it up; for there is a spirit in true Christians that will never suffer them to believe that it is pleasing to God, what name soever is preten­ded for it.

§. 7. I will reverence the Iews visible Church, to whom were committed the Oracles of God, but will not say, that they [Page 6] sinned not in persecuting Christ and his Apostles; nor say, that they are not now under their own curse, and cut off from the Church, who once cast out Christians from their Synagogues. I will give due honour to Primogeniture, and yet not equal Cain and Abel, Ismael and Isaac, Esau and Iacob, &c. but expect, that as he that was born after the flesh did persecute him that was born after the spirit; even so it will be now: And the world was the world still, when it was taken into the Church. The Heathen Romans were less Persecutors than the Iews, and so are the Turks than the Papists.

§ 8. I shall, in due place, take notice of Mr. D's confining the Essence of the Ministry to transacting between God and man, in covenanting, requiring essentially no more skill than any man is capable of, who is but capable of understanding the common deal­ings of the world, p. 73, 74. And that Immoralities of such mens Lives excuse us not from Schism, for turning from such to better Teachers, p. 72. contrary to the Epistle of the Carthage Coun­cil, in the case of Martial and Basilides, and even of Popes and Councils, that forbid hearing Mass from a Fornicator. And his denying the [...]cripture to be intended or designed to be a Charter to appeal to for all future generations, and for the extent of Offi­ces, and preventing litigious dispute about government and subjecti­on, p. 80, 81. But that recourse ought now to be had to the in­tention of the Ordainers for these. And what he saith, p. 81. against appealing to Writings (as he calls them), against the sense of all the visible authority of this life, as unreconcilable to the pra­ctice of any visible government on earth, p. 81. And that sub­jects cannot preserve their subordination to their superiors, if they practice differently, and defend their practices, and pretend Divine Authority for them, where he speaketh indefinitely, and except­eth no practices. And if we may not appeal from man to God and Scripture, we may appeal from Scripture to man. And if mans Law be above Gods, it is not from him; for the inferior ma­keth not his superior.

And the root of all this i [...], p 82▪ That God hath made his Church (and not only particular Churches that are parts of his Church) a visible Society, and constituted a visible Government in it. Did I know what Mr. D. taketh this one visible Government to be, whether Ge­neral Council, or Pope, or all the Bishops of the world by a major [Page 7] vote, or all the people of the Christian world, or what, I should know what to say to him. But for this I must not hope.

§. 9. But I shall after speak to his securing subterfuge, p. 90. That there is but one sense of all terms, which causes oblige men to mean; and that every one ought to know who pretends to skill in cau­ses. Which I am so defective in, that I know not at all what his cause is till he tell me: Nor know I among many senses of most of his chief terms, which it is that he meaneth. I know not what he meaneth by a Papist; and whether he take those for Papists that are, as the Councils of Constance, and Basil, and the French, for the supremacy of a Council, the Pope being President, or Principium Vnitatis, and Patriarch of us in the West. I know not who he meaneth by the Supreme Church-power in the visible Universal Church. I know not by what he essentiateth the very Episcopacy which he so much pleads for; no, nor their Ordination. I know not what he taketh to be the Supreme Church-power over the Church of England. And how can I know by the bare general name, when Dr. Stillingfleet denieth any such thing?

§. 1. BEcause he dealeth so falsly with my Doctrine, by pretence of putting it into his words and order, I will deal better with him, and deal with his Scheme word by word as he hath laid it down. As for his exceptions, th [...]t I refel not his charge of the sin a­gainst the Holy Ghost, &c. I am not yet so idle, (having formerly writ­ten a Treatise of that sin.) His wilful refusal to answer Voetius de de­sperata Causa Papalus, when he knoweth that this Plea is the Pa­pists chief strength, and Iansenius is so fully answered, is but a dis­honourable tergiversation. And it's like he knoweth how Melan­cthon in his Epistles copiously shameth Mr. Dodwell's cause as trust­ed to by the Papists; when yet the Protestants here plead Melan­cthon's judgment for their Reformation. And though Mr. D. told me, that it is not for the Christian Interest to hold that the Roman suc­cessive [Page 8] Ordination hath been interrupted; I think they that believe their own most flattering Historians, must believe that the interci­sion there hath been more notorious, than in those Reformed Churches which Mr. Dodwell nulleth, or than those German and Danish Bishops whom Bugenhagius a Presbyter ordained.

But I will briefly examine the words of his destructive deceiving Frame.

1. THOSE that live under the Popish Bishops in Italy, Spain, France, &c. must live in their communion, and under their command in all unsinful things.

2. The Protestant Churches that have not Episcopal Ordination, are no true Churches, and have no true Ministers or Sacraments, nor any Covenant-right to salvation.

3. The Protestant Churches are in the same unchurched damna­ble case that have Bishops, if they have not an uninterrupted suc­cession of such from the Apostles canonically ordained.

4. Therefore the Churches of Denmark, Germany, &c. that have Superintendents ordained at the Reformation by Bugenhagi­us, Pomeranus a Presbyter, and all the rest whose succession was interrupted, are in the same case.

5. It is Schism, and rejecting Sacraments, and Covenant-right to salvation, in all the people that continue in such Protestant Chur­ches, and communicate with them.

6. It is better for the Protestants in France to joyn with the Papists, than to live as they do without Sacraments or Church-communion.

7. Yet (by self contradiction) it will follow, that certainly the Church of Rome, and all that derive their ordination from that [Page 22] Church, have no true Bishops, Ministers, Sacraments, Churches, nor Covenant-right to salvation; for it's certain their true succes­sion hath been oft interrupted, 1. By such utterly uncapable per­sons as all History describeth, and even Baronius calleth Apostaticos non Apostolicos; and such as divers General Councils judged Here­ticks, Infidels, Simoniaks, &c. e g. Eugenius 4. who yet kept in. 2. By such whose false ordination the Canons expresly null. 3. By many Schisms, two or three Popes at once, of whom none can tell who had the right, or whether any. 4 By the Popes taking on him to be Christs Universal Vicar, an Office in specie usurpt, which he maketh his Episcopacy, and as such giveth his orders. And all his Presbyters have turned the true Ministry into the false one of Mass-Priests; and being no true Ministers, can give no true Sacraments by his rule.

8. Yea it is certain, that few, if any Churches on earth, can prove such an uninterrupted succession as he and the Papists de­scribe, and most its known have no such thing.

9. Therefore if any have such a succession, they cannot know it, it being a thing that cannot be proved; and so cannot be sure that they are true Churches, &c.

10. For the certainty of any true Ministry, Church, Sacra­ments and Salvation, dependeth on such knowledg of History as is not in the world: viz. To know that this Bishop and his Or­dainer, and his Ordainer, and his Ordainer, and so up to the Apo­stles, were every one true Bishops, and truly Ordained; which no mortal man can know.

11. Men that by a Prince, against even the Nullifying Canons, can but get possession of Patriarchal and Diocesan Churches, with­out the Clergy or peoples choice, have thereby the power of damn­ing men that fear God, at their pleasure. For, 1. they must pass for the Bishops of the place. 2. They may command any unsinful thing, and excommunicate him that doth not obey. 3. He is a Schismatick that suffers himself so to be Excommunicate, and so is in a damnable state. 4. He cannot hinder it, not knowing the thing to be unsinful.

12. For by this whoever will escape damnable schism, must be one that knoweth the unsinfulness (as he speaks) of all things in the world that are such, which a Prelate may command; or else he must do any thing which he judgeth sin, if a Prelate command it. But that is wicked Idolizing man.

[Page 23]13. And therefore by this rule, no man living can be saved that a Prelate hath a mind to damn; or from his damning impositions. For no man living knoweth the lawfulness of all lawful things, and therefore may take a commanded thing for sin that is not: and then if he wilfully do that which he judgeth sin, he rebelleth against God; if he do it not, the Prelate may excommunicate him, and unresistibly make him a damnable schismatick.

14. And hereby there are as many hundred new Articles of Faith made, as there are things lawful which a Prelate will com­mand. For though all is not to be done that is to be believed, yet all must be believed to be lawful and duty which must be done as such: e. g. We cannot love God, worship him, hear and read his Word, &c. as by Divine obedience, unless we believe it to be our duty by a Divine command. Therefore when as Mr. Dodwell, Dr. Say­well, and such others tell us what damning schism it is to disobey such commands of the Bishops, or to suffer our selves to be Ex­communicate, it plainly includeth that it is as damning a sin to take any lawful thing to be a sin, and not to believe it to be lawful whatever the Bishop shall command. And so to how many hundred indifferent things may the Articles of our Faith be extended, while it is made ordinarily necessary to Salvation to do them, and there­fore to believe them to be lawful?

15▪ By this he confoundeth Communion and Obedience: I may have communion with many Bishops whom I am not bound to obey: But I cannot hinder them from Excommunicating me without obeying them.

16. Yea, he maketh Communion and Salvation to lye not only on such obedience, but on such perfection of obedience as reacheth to every lawful indifferent thing. Whereas God himself under the Gospel accepteth of sincerity, instead of perfection which the Law required of perfect man.

17. This is the way to make Bishops absolute Lords of Kings and States, and all the world, if they can make them believe that on pain of damnation for schism, all must obey them even in every indifferent thing.

18. If you would ferret him out of his Burrough, ask Mr. Dod­well, what if the Bishop of the place where I live contradict the Archbishop, or the Synod, or most of the Bishops in the land, which must I obey to escape damning schism? Doubtless he will allow me to disobey my Bishop. But what if the National Synod [Page 24] gainsay the Provincial? He will say, I may disobey the Provinci­al? But what if a Council of many Nations, called General, gainsay the National? and it be known that our National Church is gainsayed by the far greatest part of the Bishops in the world? which must I obey? If the National, why not a Provincial against them? And why are not they Schismaticks for disobeying a Ge­neral Council? If it be the greater Council that I must obey, 1. What's become then of his doctrine of obeying the Episcopacy of the place where we live? 2. And then we are brought under a foreign Jurisdiction. 3. And who but the Pope must call that Ge­neral Council, preside, approve, &c.? 4. And among all the er­roneous and contradicting Councils called General, how shall all Christians know which of them to obey? We see whither all will come at last. But saith Bishop Bilson, To such Councils cal­led General, we owe respect for concord, if they abuse us not by error or usurpation; but subjection and obedience we owe them none.

19. How hardly will these men ever resolve one's conscience which is to be taken for the Episcopacy of the place, when there are in the same place both different species of Bishops, and also di­vers Bishops of the same species, and all pretending to be right. In Ireland both the Papist and Protestant Bishops pretend to just succession; and so they did in Bohemia, Poland, Transylvania, Hungary, &c. And doth salvation lye on mens knowledg who hath right?

20. And how contrary is it to the way of Christ, and the an­cient Church (that made the Baptismal covenant the terms of sal­vation) for men to make it necessary for every poor man and wo­man that will have Covenant-right to salvation, and escape damn­ing schism, to be able to decide the controversies between all such pretenders, and to know whether their Bishops be of a true spe­cies, and have true Ordination, and to be such rare Historians as to know that all the line of Ordainers down from the Apostles to their Bishops, were truly ordained? O difficult terms!

21. Doth he not condemn all those Ancient and Modern Christians as Fautors o [...] damning Doctrine, who thought that when there were none of the Clergy to do it, lay-men might bap­tize and give the Lords Supper? Grotius told us his judgment for it in Dissertat. de Caenae administrat. ubi Pastores non sunt: And he hath vindicated Tertullian's judgment for it, confessed by Ri­galtius. Anton. Govea tells us it was the case of the Christians of [Page 25] Malabar, &c. called of St. Thomas, whose Bishops being all de­stroyed, they caused a Deacon to administer the Eucharist, as the Bishops and Presbyters had done (which Grotius also repeat­eth). Ionan. Antiochenus magnified by Socrates, lib. 6. cap. 3. when at Antioch there were two Churches, with two Bishops, Meletius and Paulinus, stuck to Meletius till he died, and af­ter, for three years, would communicate with neither. Did he by this become a damned Schismatick, or lose his Covenant-right to salvation?

22. Many of old were chosen for Bishops before they were baptized (the cases of Ambrose, Nectarius, Synesius, &c. are known): If the Church thought them all to be in a state of damnation, for want of the Sacrament, it's strange that they would choose them to be their Bishops (though it was irregu­lar).

Indeed it's true that Grotius saith ( ibid. in fine), that Chry­sostomes, Nazianzenes, and others cases tell us, that it was or­dinary in the Greek-Church to delay baptizing even the children of the faithful, till at full years (about Twenty). Were they all that while without any promise of salvation, or ordinary hope?

23. What a task will it be for Mr. Dodwell to tell us what state the baptized are in till they receive the Lords Supper? Baptism saveth them once; but yet till they receive the Lords Supper by a Minister, in successive Episcopal Orders, they have no Covenant-title to salvation, by his way. But some Commu­nicate not till Thirty years old, some not till One and Twenty, and in England scarce any before Sixteen. Are they all this while the children of God, or of the Devil? And when is it that their Christianity ceaseth for want of the other Sacrament? I believe that if they truly believe, they are Gods children be­fore they come to the second Sacrament (or the third, as some call it.) Was Constantine Mag. in a state of damnation, who was not baptized till near his death? Or the good Emperour, Valentinian, who died unbaptiz [...]d, but taken by Ambrose for a blessed man? What absurdities are men fain to use, to get the Mastery of the Christian world, by making men believe that they can save or damn them by the power of Sacra­ments?

[Page 26]24. And how is this man for Conformity, by which they subscribe assent to the certain salvation of Infants, so dying with­out Confirmation; and ordain that the Lords Supper be not Ad­ministred to any till they are ready to be Confirmed, by learn­ing the Catechism, and recognizing the Covenant? &c.

25. Doth he not make the chief Bishops and Reformers of the Church of England, to be the promoters of the Doctrine which he accounteth so damnable, when Dr. Stillingfleet in his Irenicon recites the words of Cranmer, and others of them, at a Consultation, down-right against not only the necessity of his uninterrupted succ [...]ssion, but also even of Episcopal Ordination it self? And I have elsewhere cited about Fourteen of them, for the validity of Ordination without Bishops: And Dr. Stil­lingfleet, Bishop Edw. Reignnolds, and many more, held that no Form of Government was of Divine determination. Did all these plead for damning Schism, against all title to salva­tion?

26. And what could more directly contradict the main te­nor of the Gospel, which tells us of the saving power of the Word Preached, how it converteth souls, and promiseth sal­vation to all that truly believe and repent? Insomuch that Paul thanks God that he baptiz [...]d few of the Corinthians, because God sent him not to baptize, but to Preach the Gospel?

27. But his Doctrine feigneth, that God will damn them that truly believe, repent, love God, forsake sin, for want of the Sacrament: or else that the Word converteth none, but only Sacraments convert men.

28. And then it will follow, that none but unbelievers, impeni­tent wicked men should be first admitted to the Sacrament; for if that only converteth, then it is only the unconverted that must first be received to it.

29 When all's done, he doth but contradict his end; for it's hard to find a National Episcopacy on earth, which imposeth no unlawful thing on Ministers or people: And with all such he speak­eth not for our Communion.

30. Either Ordination, and Collation of Church-power, must be given by Superiors, or by Equals: if by Equals, why may not Presbyters make Presbyters? If by Superiors, then who shall give the Pope his Power? Or if you think any other be the highest, who makes them such? Who giveth the Archbishop of Canterbury his Power?

[Page 27]31. In short, as far as I can understand, these men deny all Covenant-right to salvation to all men living, and all true Sacra­ments and Church-Communion, or at least, all knowledg of any such thing; seeing, as it is certain, that in most Churches such Ordination as they describe, hath not had an uninterrupted suc­cession, so no man is sure that any one Church or man hath had such. And they that silence us for not subscribing, declaring and swearing obedience to our Diocesans, and other Ordinaries, are bold men, if they dare swear themselves, that they are true Bishops, and have any Authority to rule and command us, by an uninterrupted succession of a Canonical Episcopal Ordination down from the Apo­stles.

But I have already in my Book of Concord, Part 3. Chap. 9. opened so many palpable, and pernicious absurdities, and ill con­sequents of Mr. Dodwell's Doctrine, which he dare not undertake to answer, but s [...]ly passeth by, that I must expect the Reader will there peruse them, who will judg uprightly between him and me; and therefore will hear what both have said. And those that will judg falsly upon partial trust, to save themselves the labour of tryal, are out of the reach of ordinary means to be saved from deceivers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. There is no power but of God. 2. Gods universal Laws are the prime Laws, and the only universal Laws of the Church or world. [Page 29] 3. In his Laws God hath established or instituted the work and the species of that Ecclesiastical Ministry which he will have to teach and guide his Church to the end of the world. And there­in signified his owning of them as sent by him, and promised them his help and blessing. 4. In that Law he hath told us what men they are that he will thus own and bless, and described the Essen­tials and the Integrals of their Receptive disposition or qualificati­ons. 5. He hath in that Law told us who shall be the tryers and judgers of the personal qualifications; and that ordinis gratia, or­dinarily their approbation, choice, or consent, shall be a relative part of their Receptive qualification. 6. God himself giveth all the personal qualifications. 7 He is ready to help the appro­vers and chusers to discern all these, and to judg aright of them. 8. The person being thus made a capable Recipient by personal qualifications and relative (due Approbation, Election and Con­sent) God's Donation or Law doth give him Right, and oblige him to the office-work. And the Electors, Approvers, and Consenters, are none of the proper efficient Donors or causes of this right and obligation, but only efficient causes of his relative receptive capaci­ty. 9. That therefore the right and obligation is immediately from Gods Law by resultancy, as the established medium of Gods con­veyance; but not immediately without any means of his recep­tively, to make him materiam dispositam. 10. That all this is true both of Soveraign Civil Power, and of Church-power in Bishops and Pastors. 11. That yet besides Approbation and Election, God hath for the publick notice and order of the Church, appointed a Regular Ministerial Investiture, by which the Approved shall be solemnly put into possession (as Kings are crowned, and Ministers instituted): and Ordination usually containeth both the approba­tion, part of the election, and the investiture. 12 But this Inve­stiture being but a Ministerial delivery of possession, proveth not the Investor to be any Donor of the Power to the King, or to the Bishop or Pastor. 13. Nor is it necessary save ordinis gratia, and in foro ecclesiae, to avoid intrusion and confusion▪ but not when it is set against the end, or the end may and must be sought without it. 14. Who it is that hath the power of this Ordination (Ap­probation and Investiture) is much of the controversie of these times: some say it is the Magistrate: but those that say it is the bishops, are not agreed what species of bishops it is; whether the chief Pastors of each particular Parish true Church, or only a Dio­cesan [Page 30] that is the sole bishop of many parishes that are no true Churches; or only Diocesans that are Archbishops over many true Parish-churches and bishops. 15. But the Fundamentum juris being Christs Statute-Law or Grant, and all that is left to man being but qualitatively or relatively to make the person an immediately capable Recipient, and ministerially invest him; therefore it fol­lows, that if at Alexandria, Antioch, Ierusalem, Cesarea, Constan­tinople, London, all the old bishops were dead or hereticks, a just ti­tle may be restored without the ordination of one that had suc­cessive canonical ordination; because there needeth no efficient do­nor but Christ and his Law, and the receptive capacity may be without such ordination where it is not to be had (as among Pa­pists that will not ordain one on lawful terms, &c.) for Order it self is but for the thing ordered, and not against it: And I will have mercy and not sacrifice [...]morals before rituals); and all power is to edification, &c. are certain rules. And God never made men judges in partem utram libet, whether there shall be Churches, and Pastors, and Worship, or none; or whether there shall be Civil Government or none; no, nor of what the species the Church-Offices shall be. 16. I use to explain this by many expository, si­militudes. 1. If the Laws of God authorize Soveraignty, and the Constitution of the Kingdom say it shall be Monarchy; were it Elective, the Electors are not Efficients of power, but determin­ers of the Recipient: And if it be Hereditary or Elective, the Investers by coronation, are no efficients of the power; but Mi­nisterial deliverers of possession, and that but necessary ad ordi­nem, and not ad esse potestatis.

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

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

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

[Page 31]17. Therefore it is not in the power of the Electors, Appro­vers, or Investors, to alter any of the Power established by God. If both the woman and the Priest say, that the man shall be her Hus­band, but shall have no government of her, it is a nullity; Gods Law shall stand. If the City and the Recorder say, You shall be Lord Mayor, but not have all the power given by the Kings Charter, its vain, and he shall have all that the Charter giveth him. If the A Bp crown the King, and say, You shall be King, but not have all the power stated by the Constitution on the King, this depriv­eth not the King of his power, (unless he give away that which God hath not stated on him, but men) so if an Ordaining Pre­late, Patron, or Parish say, This is a true Parish Church, and we choose, and Ordain you the true Pastor of it, but you shall have but part of the true Pastoral Power stablished on the office by God, it's null: Gods Institution shall be the measure of his power.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Page 36] Ans. These are plain explications of the conveyance of power from the Soveraign of all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ans. This opens the Core of the Aposthume.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

§. 33. And he hath half disabled me to answer him from p. 50. forwards, where he feigneth me to maintain, that Authori­ty must necessarily result from true qualifications: For it is taken for uncivil to give his words their proper name. But if the Rea­der will pardon the Repetition, I may remind him, how pro­bable it is, that Mr. Dodwell trusted that his Reader would believe his words without perusing what I wrote; where he might have seen, 1. That I say, that the Authority resulteth not from the qualifications, but from Christs Law, Grant, or Char­ter. 2. That personal qualifications (of gifts, or grace) are but part of the necessary Dispasitio Recipientis; but that moreover there is needful, 1. Opportunity. 2. And need of his Office. [Page 45] 3. And to a Bishop the flocks consent, if not election. And ordinis gratia, (where moral necessi [...]y dispenseth not with order) the Or­dainers approbation and consent. 5. And to regular possession, where it may be had, a due Investiture; so that there is a Relative part as well as a Qualitative of the Receptive disposition necessary. And all the following leaves in which he disputeth against me, as maintaining a power resulting from meer qualities, are so unbeseem­ing a Divine, and a C [...]ristian, that I will not soul my paper with their due confutation. But they are suitable to that man who thinks himself wise, good and fit enough to Unchurch and condemn so much as he doth of the Christian world, on pretence of pleading for obedience to the Diocesans.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Page 47]4. By this it seems he again denieth, that Christ himself in­stituted the Order of Bishops, by making Apostles. And if so, he will sorely shake his standing; for then they must prove all their power from the Apostles (or following persons) in­stitutions, and not make them successors of the Apostles own Office (for they made not their own Office). And Dr. Stil­lingfleet thinks there were no Bishops, or few made in the A­postles times, as Dr. Hammond thinks of subject-Presbyters. And if Christs Spirit in the Apostles made not these Offices (who made the Scripture, which is Gods Law), I despair of seeing it proved, that any since them were authorized to make them. And if men only made the Episcopal and Presbyters Office, men may unmake them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Page 52]4. But if Preaching and Teaching be all one with you as they are with me, is it not a strange question to ask, How we prove that Preaching, that is, Teaching, is at all essential to their Office? As if you should ask, How we prove that Teaching is essential to a Schoolma­ster or Tutor? or that to Rule is essential to a Ruler; or to give Physick essential to a Physician? What can you take the Office to be that includeth not Teaching? Neither Christs Apostles, nor the ancient Church ever ordained any to give Sacraments without Teaching, (however Papists make the essence of the Priesthood to be in the power of making the body and blood of God.) Nay, how can they celebrate the Sacraments without Preaching or Teaching? Can they justly baptize the adult, and not teach them the great Articles of the Creed which they must profess? and the great and many duties to be done? and the great and many benefits to be re­ceived? And doth he think it such a small and easie matter to teach men all the Articles of the Creed, the sense of the Lords prayer, the Ten Commandments, and the nature of the Sacrament of Bap­tism, and the Lords-supper? It may be h [...] will say, that it is some other Preaching that he meaneth. But he speaketh to me, who (in the hearing of D [...] Warmstrie, and of Mr. Th. Baldwin, who is yet living) did offer Bishop Morley when he [...]orbad me to preach in his Diocess, to promise him to preach only the Catechism-Doctrine, on Baptism, the Creed, the Lords prayer, the Ten C [...]mmand­ments, and the Lords supper. Archbishop Vsher in his [...]ermon before King Iames, on Eph [...]s 4 3. boldly affi [...]th, That l [...]t the learneds [...] of them all try it when they will, they shall find that it requireth greater skill to open to the [...]gnora [...]t intelligi [...]ly these Cat [...]chism common truths, than to handle points of controverted School-Divinity.

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

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

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

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

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

[Page 54]2. We permit no person to assume Authority. But Writings are not so contemptible to us in comparison of that which you take to be all the visible Authority of the Church. It is your Richard Hooker that saith, that the Law maketh the King, and giveth and measureth his power, and that it's usurpation which obligeth no mans Conscience, when power is taken, and us [...]d which the Law never gave. What I think of this, I have else­where shewed. The Statutes are not so contemptible in this case, but the great Lawyers think they may be appealed to from visible Rulers in several cases. And you must talk at other rates than you have done in your tedious fallacious Vagaries, before wise Christians will believe that we may not appeal from Pre­lates to the written Word of God, when the power used by them is justly questioned. If not, how ca [...]e the Reformed Churches to justifie their Reformation? Was it not by appeal­ing to Scripture against the visible Church Rulers, that were com­monly against them? Were not P [...]pes, Council, Prelates, and Priests against them, for the far greatest part? Did it overthrow all Government of the world to appeal from these to the [...]crip­ture? I hereby undertake to prove, that neither Popes, Pre­lates, or Priests, have any Church-Authority, b [...]t what God hat [...] given them by his Word▪ And is it not th [...] necessary to try it by that Word? Must we take th [...]r own words for all that Popes, or Prelates c [...]im? And it will put the Pope and Council hard to it, to prove any Authority from God, if the Scripture do not give it them: And if it give it them, it may give it others.

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

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

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

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

3. Many of them were Ordained by Diocesans.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Page 59]8. And what a reason brings he, That the practice lasteth only for this life, and therefore, &c? Doth any of our actions here last longer than while they are doing? Praying, Praise, Sacraments, obeying the King, doing good to the poor, &c. and so swearing, cursing, adultery, rebellion, atheism, blasphemy here, last only for this life. Must we therefore obey men without appeal to God, if they forbid us all duty, and command all sin?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

§. 1. AS to his Method of disputing, that you may detect his fallacies, he hath got this absurd ptetence, p. 90. That there is but one sense of all Terms, which Causes oblige men to mean; and that every one ought to know, who pretends to have skill in Causes.

Ans. Would you have thought that ever a man should pub­lickly use such a Cothurnus among the Learned? What a man is obliged to mean, is one thing, and what he doth mean is ano­ther. And is there any one that knoweth what humane Lan­guage is, that knoweth not that almost all words have various [Page 64] significations? Doth he not know by how good reason the Schools oblige Disputants, first to explain their Terms? And what need there is of Definition to explain them? He instanceth in the words Bishops, and the Church of England; And might have added, the Catholick Church. And doth he not know that it is the species of Bishops that we differ about? and will the general name here ex­plain each parties sense? When we are for one sort of Bishops, and against another? And is it not such fraud as souls should not be abu­sed by, to refuse wilfully to define the Episcopacy that he meaneth, and then plead that all should understand him? And why is it not as much ignorance in him not to understand me, as in me not to un­derstand him, when I use distinct explication, which he obstinately refuseth?

And doth not Dr. Stillingfleet's case shame what he saith of the Church of England, who was hardly brought to explain it, and at last denieth the very being of the Church in Mr. Dodwell's sense? which of you was to blame to meddle with the Word till you had skill in Causes, to understand it without a Definition?

And doth not Dr. Stillingfleet take it as the Introduction of Po­pery, to hold a Constitutive Regent Church-Government, Na­tional, or Catholick? and so he, and Mr. Dodwell mean not the same thing by the Church Catholick (nor Bishop Guning, Mr. Thorndike, or the Church of Rome, who are all for an Univer­sal humane Supreme power). And who is he that hath read Dr. Challoners Credo Eccles. Cathol. Chillingworth, Bishop Mortons Grand Imposture, Bishop Bilson, Dr. White, Dr. Whitaker, Dr. Sutliffe, Bishop Andrews, Bishop Carlton, &c. Chamier, Sadeel, Melancthon, Bucer, &c. who knoweth not that the Papists and Prorestants, by the name of the Catholick Church, do mean se­veral things, and that we deny the very being of any such Church as they call the Catholick? And is this the bold and happy Dis­putant, that will save the Schools and World the labour of ex­plaining Terms, and foreagreeing of the sense, and put men on disputing, where the Subj [...]ct is denied, and fill a Book with te­dious confident Harangues, and then hide all the fraud by saying, that there is but one sense of all Terms, which Causes oblige m [...]n to mean; and that every one ought to know, who pretend to have skill in Causes? When the Cause disputed is only managed by words, as they signifie the minds of the Speakers about the real matters▪

[Page 65]§ 2. And as to the material fundamental difference between Mr. Dodwell's party and us, it lyeth in these following things:

• I. We totally differ about the nature of Gods Government of man.
• II. And about the use of the Holy Scripture, and Gods Laws.
• III. About the nature and extent of all humane Government.
• IV. About the form of moral good and evil.
• V. About the essential form of the Catholick Church.
• VI. About Gods ordinary means of saving Grace.
• VII. About the use of Preaching.
• VIII. About the duty of worshipping God in Sacred Assemblies, or the Communion of Saints.
• IX. About the difference of Apostles, and the office of the Bi­shops.
• X. About the office of a Presbyter or Parish-Pastor.
• XI. About the Necessaries to Ministry, Churches, Christianity, and ordinary title to Salvation.
• XII. And about the final Judgment. If all these be little toller­able differences, why may not we be tollerated? If not, judg Rea­der who they be that are intollerable, when you hear them plead against tolleration.

§. 3. I. For the first, we judg that there is a God, who is the Governour of the World by an universal Law, which is above all humane Laws or will, and that he is the fountain of all power, and there is none but what he giveth and limiteth, and that no man is above him, nor hath true authority against his Laws.

But Mr. Dodwell saith, That it is irreconcileable to Government in this life, or to due subordination of subjects to superiours, to practice differently, and defend it by pretending Divine authority, and appeal­ing to writings, (Scriptures is our word by excellency so called). And so God shall be God, and be obeyed, if the Clergy please.

§. 4. II. As to the second, we suppose that the Holy Scriptures are Gods Laws, indited and recorded by the Holy Ghost to be the first obliging Rule of Faith, and holy living, which all men are to be obedient to, before and against all contrary Laws of men. But Mr. Dodwell as aforesaid, alloweth no such prime obligation as will warrant an appeal to the Word of God, from the visible Church-Governours that contradict it.

[Page 66]§. 5. III. And for the third, we suppose that all humane Powers are derived from God, and have no authority but what he giveth them, and are more under him and his Laws, than the Justices are under the King and his Laws, and can oblige no man against the Laws of God. But how far Mr. Dodwell thinks otherwise, you have heard. He saith not indeed that we must break Gods Laws, but we must not pretend them, or appeal to them against our Governours. In charity I hope he meaneth no worse, but that we must take our Rulers word or exposition, and judg nothing to be in the Scripture, contrary to their commands. And whether he give them the same dominion also over the Law of Nature, let him tell you. Paul dis­claimed dominion over mens saith, and the written Law of God.

§. 6. IV. And for the fourth, We take moral good to be a confor­mity to Gods Law▪ and moral evil or sin to be a breach of it. But Mr. Dodwell is for measuring them by the Clergies or Governours will, though Gods Law be against theirs.

§. 7. V. And for the fifth, we take the Catholick Church to have no Supreme Government but God, and our Glorified Redee­mer God and man; and that there is no such thing as a Catholick-Church of Gods making under any other Supreme Rulers. But that as God is the invisible King of this visible world, and Kings are subordinate Supremes in their Kingdom, but neither one of them, or many conjunct in an Aristocracy, Supreme over all the earth; so Christ is the partly visible, and partly invisible supreme Ruler of the visible Church of Christians, and each Pastor is under him over his proper flock (bound to keep concord and peace); but none under him Supreme over all, whether Monarch (as the Pope) or Aristocracy, as Councils, Cardinals, or 'others. But Mr. Dod­well is for a visible Society, with a visible humane Supreme. But who the Supreme is, I despair of getting him to acquaint us.

§. 8. VI. And for the sixth, we suppose that God sent forth Preachers to convert the world, and turn them from darkness to light, and the power of Satan to God, and that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word preached, and that whoever be­lieveth shall be saved; and the word of God is powerful to this end, and sufficient to make us wise to salvation. But Mr. Dodwell thinks [Page 67] that it is not Preaching, but the delivering men the Sacraments, that giveth them the first true saving grace and title to Salvation. And that none in the world have this Sacrament or Covenant-title to life, but those that receive it from a hand that had an Ordinati­on by Bishops in his sense, of uninterrupted succession from the Apo­stles by the like Ordination.

§. 8. VII. Accordingly we hold that Preaching is for the con­verting of souls, and the means of saving faith and holiness. But what he thinks it is good for, I know not well; nor whether he would send the Indians the Sacraments instead of Preachers.

§. 10. VIII. We take it to be our duty, though men forbid us, to confess Christ, and assemble for Gods worship, to read and hear the Scripture, and to praise God: But he thinks we must not practice differently from the ruling Clergies will, if they forbid us, nor alledg Divine authority for it.

§. 11. IX. We suppose that the office of a Prophetical Ministry bringing new Doctrines or Laws from God, and the office of the Teachers and Rulers by these Laws, are greatly different, and must necessarily be distinguished. Moses was a Prophetical Mediator in Legislation, and he confirm [...]d his Mediation by uncontrouled Miracles. The Prophets afterward came but on particular applica­tory messages. But the Priests and Levites as such were no Prophets, nor had power to make any new additions or alterations of the Law, but only to teach it the people, and as guides apply it to their several cases; so Christ and his Apostles commissioned to deliver and record all his Doctrines and Commands to the following ages, did by the Holy Ghost Prophetically deliver to the world that bo­dy of Doctrine and Law, which must rule them to the end, and judg them; and thus sealed and confirmed all by a multitude of un­controuled Miracles; but all following Bishops and Pastors are not to do the like, nor add or alter, nor are such Legislators, being not Prophets nor workers of Miracles, but only to teach and apply the Laws already recorded in Scripture, and guide their Congre­gations in variable circumstances (time, place, translations, &c.) according to the general rules of Gods Law. This is the truth.

But how much Mr. Dodwell equals the Bishops and Apostles, and sets their words above the Scripture as to obligation, you have seen before.

[Page 68]§. 12. X. And as he giveth Bishops power to silence Presby­ters, and forbid the Preaching of the Gospel, and Gods worship, so how little knowledg or godliness, or common sobriety or honesty, he requireth to a saving Sacramenting Priest, who must not be se­parated from, you heard before, contrary to Cyprian, and many a Councils Canons. But we know that Paul had no power to de­struction, but only to edification. And they have no more.

§. 13. XI. We suppose that we must love, honour, and commu­nicate with all such as true Ministers or Churches, who have true faith and repentance, and sincere obedience to Christs Laws, and are able, godly, willing Pastors, chosen or consented to by the flocks, approved and ordained by senior Pastors, (especially in Synods where City-Pastors preside), and especially if also authorized by the Christian Magistrate.) But he thinks if they have not also suc­cessiv [...] Ordination from the Apostles by Bishops of his species, they are no Ministers, or Churches, and have no Sacrament, and Cove­nant title to Salvation, but are Schismaticks, and by their Ministry sin against the Holy Ghost. And so destroyeth all certainty of title to Salvation, and of Church-communion, Ministry and Sacra­ments, to all the Christian World.

§. 14 XII. Lastly, we think that men shall be judged by their keeping or breaking Gods Law, and according to what they did in the body. But he would have us obey the Supreme Clergy, and not plead Scripture or Divine authority for our different practice; because the Government that lasteth but for this life, ought not to ad­mit of disputes more lasting than its practice.

§. 15. I conclude with a request to him to resolve me these doubts.

1. Whether Prophets having immediate messages from Heaven, were not differenced from the teaching Priests and Pastors.

2. Whether false Prophets were not grievously threatened a­mong the Iews; and whether Christ did not command us to be­ware of false Prophets?

3. Whether he be not a false Prophet (worse than a false teacher) that falsely pretendeth to that which is proper to a Prophet?

4. Whether it be not proper to a Prophet to deliver as imme­diately [Page 69] from God, new Laws to the universal Church, yea or to any Church, which are not in the Scripture, nor are revealed by it as Gods means, (besides the determination of circumstances left to humane prudence variable pro re nata) if Moses and the Apo­stles in Legislation acted as Prophets, do not they so that pretend to do the like?

5. Whether the General Councils of Bishops and the Pope have not done the work proper to the Prophetical office, when they have made Laws for the unversal Church, and this as by Divine authority, and undertaken to give all the Church the sense of Scripture, which only shall be obligatory to them thereby? For it is the maker of the sense that is the maker of the Law; especially when they pretend to Infallibility, or to be secured from erring in faith, by Divine inspiration, how ignorant or bad soever they be singly. Is not this pretended authority and inspiration that of Pro­phets, as different from meer Teachers and Guides by Gods Law already made?

6. If it be so, how many such Papal Councils, arrogating such power, have been false Prophets?

7. But if they pretend not Inspiration, nor Prophetical autho­rity from God, nor yet authority given them by the Scriptures, or Laws of God already made, (or falsly pretend such) then is not this to usurp Christs own authority, and so instead of being false Prophets, to be partly Vice-Christs, (or Law-givers to his universal Church) called commonly Antichrists? I would willingly have things so cleared, that men may be freed from all such suspicions.

But if you are still confident that the universal Church hath a vi­sible supreme Government besides Christs, I should be glad, 1. To see it proved. 2. To know whose it is, and how we may know them. 3. And to know its true extent. If you intend no fraud, you cannot refuse me this, when I promise you, if performed, I will let fall the suit, and no more trouble you with lesser Controversies.

[Page 70]I have no Copy of my first Letter to Mr. Dodwell upon a Book which he sent me. This is his Answer.

[Page 90]The short Answer to Mr. Dodwell's long Letter, fully an­swered in my Treatise of Episcopacy.

Mr. Dodwell desiring me not to make haste in answering him, I sent him only this, intending more; but want of time, and the quality of the task, (being put but to answer a multitude of words) delayed it till he came to London, and then I thought we might talk it out, which we oft tried to little purpose. His great proof of large Churches, of many Altars, from the only two that swelled first, Rome and Alexandria, are so fully an­swered in this annexed Letter which worthy Mr. Clerkson wrote to me, that I think he needs no other answer; since published by me: As is a f [...]ll discourse on the Subject, by Mr. Clerkson himself, against Dr. St [...]llingfleet.

I. I hope if you are a man of charity or impartiality, it will be no hard matter to you to believe that I am willing to be acquainted with healing truth (that I say not as willing as you); and if I be un­happy in the success of my Enquiries, it is not for want of sear­ching diligence. And your parts assure me, that it is so with you. But it is the usual effect of one received error, to let in many more; and it is so either with me or you. And lest it should prove my un­happiness, I shall thankfully accept your remedying informations.

1. The Principles which I presuppose, are such as these. 1. As God as Creator, so Christ as Redeemer is the Universal King and Head over all things to the Church, which is his body, Ephes. 1.22, 23. Ioh. 17.2, &c.

2. He hath made Vniversal Laws to be means of this Uni­versal Government.

3. His Universal Laws are in suo genere sufficient to their proper use.

4. There is no other Universal King or Ruler of the world, or of the Church, whether Personal or Collective. And there­fore none that hath power of Universal Legislation, or Juris­diction.

5. Much less any that hath a superiour power to alter Gods Universal Laws by abrogation, subrogation, suspension, or dis­pensation. Nor will God himself alter them, and substitute new ones. As Tertullian saith, We at first believe this, that no more is to be believed.

6. These Laws of our Universal Governour are partly of na­tural Revelation, and partly of Supernatural, viz. by himself, and by his Spirit in his Apostles given in an extraordinary mea­sure to this end, to lead them into all truth, which is delivered to us in their Scripture-records.

7. Some local precepts, whose matter was narrow and tempo­rary, [Page 120] even the mutable customs of that time and place were also narrow and temporary; (as the washing of feet, anointing, vailing women, the kiss of peace, &c) which maketh nothing for the mutability of the Universal Laws.

8. No Pastors since the Apostles, are by office or power ap­pointed to make any Universal Laws for the Church, nor any of the same kind and reason with Gods own Laws, whose rea­son or cause was existent in the Apostles times, but only to ex­plain the word of God, and apply it to particular persons and cases, as Ministers under Christ in his Teaching, Priestly and Governing office; nor have the Apostles any other kind of Suc­cessors.

9. Christ made not Peter or any one of his Apostles Gover­nour of the rest: But when they strove who should be the chief, rebuked that expectation, and determined, That among them Preeminence should consist in excelling in humility and service.

10. When the Corinthians were sick of the like disease, Paul rebuked them for saying, I am of Cephas, and determineth that Apostles are but particular members of the body, of which Christ only is the Head; and not the Lords, but Ministers and helpers of their faith.

11▪ No Pastors (as such) have forcing power, either to touch mens bodies, or estates, or inflict by the sword corporal penal­ties, or mulcts. But only by the word (by which the power of the Keys is exercised) to instruct men, and urge Gods precepts, promises and threats upon their Consciences.

12. The Apostles were Bishops eminenter, in that they called, gathered, and while they stayed with them, governed Churches. But not formaliter as taking any one particular Church for their proper charge: But setled such fixed Bishops over them. And though they distributed their labours about the world prudent­ly, and as the Spirit of Christ guided them; yet we find not any probability that ever they divided the world into twelve or thirteen Provinces, or ever setled twelve or thirteen chief Me­tropolitical seats in the world, which their proper Successors as such should govern in preeminence. Nor doth any History intimate such a thing; nor yet that any Apostle took any City for his proper Diocess, where another Apostle might not come and exercise equal Power.

[Page 121]13. It seemeth that Christs sending out his seventy Disciples by two and two, and the Apostles staying together much at Ierusalem, and Paul and Barnabas's going forth together, and after Paul & Silas, and Barnabas and Mark, & Peter and Paul (sup­posed) to be together at Rome, &c. that the Spirit of God did pur­posely prevent the intentions of any afterward of being the Metropo­litical Successors of single Apostles or Disciples of Christs imme­diate sending, in this or that City as their proper seat.

14. As Grotius thinks that the Churches were instituted after the likeness of the Synagogues, of which one City had many; so Dr. Hammond endeavours to evince, not only that Peter and Paul were Bishops of two distinct Churches of Rome, one of the Iews, and the other of the Gentile Christians; but also that it was so in other Cities. Dissertat.

15. The Patriarchs were not 12 or 13, but three first, and five afterward; and none of them pretended to any power as espe­cial Successors of any one Apostle, but Antioch and Rome of Peter; (and that was not their first claim or title, but an honorary rea­son why men afterward advanced them.) Alexandria claimed Succession but from St. Mark, and Ierusalem from Iames (no Apostle, if Dr. Hammond and others be not much mistaken) and Constantinople from none.

16. The 28 Canon of Calcedon tels us enough of the founda­tion, title and reason of Patriarchal power, and all Church-Hi­story that the Metropolitical Powers were granted by Empe­rours, either immediately, or empowering Councils thereto.

17. These Emperours having no power out of the Empire, neither by themselves, nor by Councils, gave not any power that extended further than the Empire, or that could by that title continue to any City which fell under the Government of another Prince.

18 A [...] the [...]e never was a Council truly Universal, so the name Vniversal or Oec [...]menical was not of old given them, in respect to the whole Christian world, but to the whole Empire; as the power that called them, and the names of the Bishops subscribed, &c. fully prove.

19. Before Christian Princes did empower them, Councils were but for Counsel, concord and correspondency, and particular Pastors were bound by their Decrees only: 1. For the evidence of truth which they made known: 2. And by the General Law [Page 122] of God, to maintain unity and peace, and help each other. But afterward, by vertu [...] of the Princes Law, or Will, they exer­cised a direct Government over the particular Bishops, and those were oft banished that did not submit to them.

20. While Councils met but for Counsel and Concord, and al­so when afterwards they were but Provincial, or National un­der Kings, where none of the Patriarchal Spirit and Interest did corrupt them, they made excellent Orders, and were a great blessing to the Churches: Of the first sort, e. g. were divers African, and of the latter divers Spanish, and French, when neither Emperor, nor Pop [...] ▪ did over-rule them, but the Goth­ish, and French Kings moderately govern them. But though I deny not any good which the Councils, called General, did, especially the fir [...] Nicene; yet I must profess, that the History of the Patriarchal Seats, and the History of the General Coun­cils, and the Church-Wars then, and after them managed by Four of the Patriarchs especially, and their Bishops▪ the con­fusion caused in most of the Churches, the Anathematiz [...]ng of one another, the blood that hath been shed in the open streets, of Monks▪ and common people; yea, the fighting, and fury of Bishops at the Councils, to the death of some of them, their [...]iring out the endeavours of such Emperors, and their Officers, that would have kept Peace and Concord among them, do all put me out of hope, that the Peace and Concord of the Chri­stian world, should ever be setled by Popes, Patriarchs, or such kind of Councils, which all have so long filled the Christian world with most calamitous divisions, contentions, and blood-shed, and made the snares, which continue its divisions and distractions to this day.

II. I conceive, that the means of Church-concord, appointed by God, is as follows▪ But I premise,

1. It must be pre-supposed, That no perfect Concord will be had on earth; yea▪ that there will unavoidably be very many differences, which must be born. So great is the diversity of mens natural Capacity and Temper, their Education, Compa­ny, Teachers, Helps, Interests, Callings, Temptations, &c. that it is not probable that any Two men in all the world, are [Page 123] in every particular of the same mind: And every man that grow­eth in knowledg, will more and more differ from himself, and not be of the same mind as he was when he knew less.

2. Yet must our increase in knowledg, and Concord, be our continual endeavour; and it is the use of teaching to bring these differences, caused by ignorance, to as small a number as we can.

3. There is scarce a more effectual means of Division, and Confusion, and Church-ruin, to be devised, than to suppose a more extensive Concord to be possible, and necessary, than in­deed is; and so to set up an impossible End, and Means, and to deny Concord and Peace to all that cannot have it on those terms. If all should be denied to be the Kings Subjects, who dare not profess Assent, Consent, and approbation of every law, and part, or word of the laws, or that agree not of the mean­ing of every law, or that differ in any matters of Religion, what a Schism, Confusion, and Ruine would it unavoidably make in the Kingdom? and how few Subjects would it leave the King? Even as if none but men of the same stature, visage, or wit, should be Subjects.

4▪ The necessary Union and Concord of Christians, is a mat­ter of so great importance, that it cannot be supposed, that Christ is the sole Universal Lawgiver, and yet hath not ordain­ed, or determined what shall be the terms of necessary Chri­stian Unity and Concord: And indeed he hath determined it. Viz.

I. He hath ordained Baptism himself, to be our Christ­ning, or our visible Investiture in the Church Universal; that is, our Relation to Christ, as the Head of his Universal Kingdom, or Body. And every rightfully baptized person (till by viola­ting that Covenant he forfeit his benefits), is to be taken by us as a Member of Christ, a Child of God, and an Heir of Heaven; and we are bound to love him as a brother, and use him accordingly, in all due Offices of Love. And because the Church, into which Baptism entereth us, consists of Christian Pa­stors and People, Apostles and Prophets, having been as Foun­dations, infallibly delivering us, now recorded in Scripture the Word of Life; and ordinary Pastors being appointed to teach, and guide the people in holy Doctrine, Worship, and Conversati­on; therefore it is implied, that the baptized person at Age, [Page 124] understandeth this, and consenteth thereunto; that is, to re­ceive, as infallible, the recorded sacred Doctrine of the infalli­ble persons, Apostles and Prophets, and the ordinary Ministry of such ordinary Pastors and Teachers, as he shall discern to be set over him by the Word and Spirit of Christ. Whether this consent to the Pastoral-Office, be necessary to the Being of a Christian, or only to the Well-being, is a controversie with which I need not stop, or length [...]n in this account. But Baptism, as such, doth not enter us into any particular Church.

II. 1. Christ (by himself, and his [...]pirit in the Apostles) hath ordained, that Christians shall be associated into particular Chur­ches, consisting of the aforesaid Ordinary Pastors and their Flocks, for Personal Communion in holy D [...]ctrine, Worship, and Conversation; in all which these Pastors are their Guides, according to the Laws, or Word of Christ, already delivered by the in [...]allible Ministry of the Apostles and Prophets; against, or beyond which, Christ hath given them no power. Their Of­fice is of his own making, and describing; and their power to determine undetermined useful circumstances in Gods Worship, and Church-discipline, is but a power to obey Christs general commands (to do all thing [...] in Love, Peace, Order, Decency, and to Edification), which they may not violate.

2. Every Christian that hath opportunity, should be a Mem­ber of some such particular Church; Statedly, if it may be; if not, yet transiently: But some may want such opportunity (as single persons converted, or cast among Infidels; Travellers, Embassadors, Factors, and other Merchants, (among Infidels) or where Christianity is so corrupted by the P [...]stors, as that they will not allow men Communion without sinful Oaths, Covenants, Professions, Words, or Practices.

3. No one at Age can be a Member of the Universal, or of any particular Church (and so the Subj [...]ct of that Pastor) against his will, or without his own consent (however Antecedent Obli­gations may bind men to consent).

4. Every such Church should have its proper Bishop; and in Ignatius's time, its Unity was describ [...]d by One Altar, and One Bi­shop, with his fellow Presbyters, and Deacons.

5. Such B [...]shops, or Pastors were to be ordained by Senior Bishops, or P [...]stors, and received by the E [...]ection, or Consent of the whole Church; and for many hundred years no Chur­ches [Page 125] received their Bishops on any other terms. The Ordainers, and the People or Church receiving him, having each a necessary consent, as a double Key for the security of the Church; to which afterwards the Christian Magi [...]rates consent was added according to Gods word, so far as protecting and countenancing of the Bishop did require, The senior Bishops must consent to his Ordination, the people must consent to him as formally related to themselves as their Pastor; and the Magistrate as to one to be protected by him.

6 As without mutual consent the relation of Pastor and flock is not founded; so Gods Providence must direct every man to know what particular Church he should be of, and whom by consent to take for the guide of his soul. In England men may freely chuse what Church and Pastor they will stand related to; every man having liberty to dwell in what Parish or Diocess he please, without asking leave of the Bishop to remove.

7. The individuating or distingu [...]shing of particular Churches by peculiar Circuits, or proper spaces of ground, is no further of Gods institution, than it is the performance of the general commands of doing all in order to edification, &c. And as in prosperous times under godly peaceable Princes, it is greatly con­venient and desirable; so in several cases of Division, Church-corruption by Heresie, or Tyranny, Persecution, &c. it is incon­venient, and it becomes a necessary duty to gather Churches in the same space of ground where only some other Pastor had a Church before. The cases in which this is lawful, and the cases in which Separation is unlawful, having written largely in ano­ther paper, I shall offer it to you when you desire it.

8. It is not of absolute necessity that all the members of a particular Church, do always or usually meet in one place, (though it be very convenient and desirable where it may be done); for Persecution may prohibit it, or want of a large ca­pacious place, or the great d [...]stance of some of the Inhabitants, or the age, or weakness of others; and therefore in the ancient Churches, though at first they usually were all assembled in one place, yet after when they encreased, the Canons required all the people to assemble with the Bishop but at certain chief Fe­stivals in the year, having Chappels or Oratories in the Villages where they m [...]t on other days. And with us many Parishes of great extent have many Chappels of ease.

[Page 126]9. But that the end of the Association be not only for distan [...] communion by Delegates or Letters, or meer relation to one common Ruler as all the Empire had to the Emperour, but for PER­SONAL COMMVNION of Pastor and Flock, so that they may at least per vices meet together, or live within the reach of each others personal notice, and converse, and Communion in Doctrine, Worship and Discipline, this is essential to a par­tiicular Church, primi ordinis, of Divine Institution, of which I now treat.

III. 1. As Christians must gather into particular Churches, under their proper Bishops; so these Churches must hold a cer­tain Communion among themselves, so much as is necessary to their mutual Edification and Preservation, of which Synods, and Communicatory Letters and Messengers, are the means.

2. An association of several Churches for Communion of Chur­ches, doth tota specie differ from an association of individual Christians into one Church primae speciei. And it differeth in the matter, end, and kind of Communion.

3. If these several Churches agree in the same Baptismal Cove­nant, in the same ancient Creed or Articles of Faith, and in the same love and holy desires summed up by Christ in the Lords-prayer, and in taking the commands of Christ for the Rule of their conversation, and receiving Gods Revelations recorded in the holy Scriptures so far as they understand them, renouncing all contraries to any of this so soon as they perceive them so to be, this should suffice to their loving and comfortable communion, without any desires of Domination or Government over one ano­ther. And though I will not do any thing unpeaceably against Patriarchs, Metropolitans, Archbishops or Diocesans, if they go­vern according to the Laws of God; yet I know no Divine right that any of them have to be the Rulers of the particular Bishops and Churches. Though a humane presidency for order we deny not, nor that junior Bishops do owe some respect and submission to the Seniors.

4. Though the General Laws of Christ (for concord, edificati­on, &c.) do enable Magistrates by command, or Pastors by con­tract to chuse and make new Officers of their own (which God [Page 127] never particularly instituted) for the determining and executing such circumstantials as God hath left to humane prudence, (as Presidents, Moderators, Churchwardens, Summoners, &c.) yet I deny, 1. That any Officer of meer humane Institution hath a su­perior proper Ecclesiastical Power of the Keys, to be a Bishop of Bishops, and to govern the Governou [...]s of the particular Chur­ches by Excommunications, Depositions, and Absolutions, seeing ex ratione rei, it belongeth to the same Legislator, who institu­ted the inferiour order, to have instituted the Superiour, if he would have had it. 2. And I peremptorily deny that any such pre­tended Superiour (Patriarch, Primate, Metropolitan, Archbishop, &c.) hath any power (save Diabolical) to deprive any particular Churches, Bishops, or Christians, of any of the Priviledges setled on them by Christs Vniversal Laws, or to disoblige them from any duties required by Christ.

IV. It belongeth to the Office of Princes and Magistrates on­ly to Rule all, both Clergy and Laity, by the sword or force; even to drive Ministers to do their certain duty, and to punish them for sin. And they are to keep peace among the Churches; and (as bad as the Secular Powers have been) had they not kept peace better than the Bishops have done, I am possest with hor­rour to think what a field of blood the Churches had been throughout the world, since the Exaltation of the Clergy.

V. Christ only is (as the Universal Legislator, so) the Universal final judg, from whom there is no appeal.

VI. Every Christian as a Rational Agent hath a Judgment of discerning, by which he must judg whether his Rulers commands be according to Christs commands or not. And if they be, must obey Christ in them. If not, must not obey them against Christ, but appeal to him. And if any do this erroneously, it is his sin; if justly, it is his duty.

These six Particulars I take to be the sufficient means which Christ hath appointed for the concord of the Church; and that the seven points of Concord mentioned by the Apostle should sa­tisfie us herein, viz. 1. One body. 2. One Spirit. 3. One hope of our calling. 4 One Lord. 5. One Faith. 6. One Baptism. 7. One God and Father of all. And they that agree in these, are bound to keep the Unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace; as knowing that the Kingdom of God consisteth not in meats and d [...]inks, but in Righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost. [Page 128] And he that in these serveth Christ, is acceptable to God, and (should be) approved of men, Rom. 14.17, 18. Ephes. 4.6, 7, &c. Nor is it lawful for any to hate, persecute, silence, or Ex­communicate their Brethren that agree in these; or to divide, distract, or confound the Churches for the interest of their se­veral Preeminences, or Provinces, which have no higher than hu­mane authority, perhaps questionable, at least unquestionably be­low the authority of God, and null when it is against it.

I am sure by the Church-History of all ages since Christ, the great divider of the Christian World hath been the Pride of a worldly (too ignorant) Clergy.

1. Striving who should be greatest.

2. Striving about ambiguous words.

3. Imposing unnecessary things by their Authority upon the Churches; to be ignorant of this, is impossible to me when once I have read the History of the Church; which warneth me what to suspect as the causes of our distractions; for the things that had been, are.

And how unexcusable these three evils are, and how contrary to Christ, these Texts do tell me: I. Luk 22.24, 25, 26 1 Pet. 5.1, 2, 3, 4. 1 Cor. 3.5, 6, 7, 22. 2 Cor. 1.24. II. 2 Tim. 2.14, 16, 23, 24, 25. 1 Tim. 1.4, 5, 6. III. 2 Cor. 11.3. Act. 15.28. Revel. 2.24, 25, Mat. 15.8, 9. Rom. 14, & 15, throughout.

To tell you, that I am not only as you say, on the destructive part, I have thus told you briefly what I assert as the way to peace. And now I shall destructively tell you why I differ from your Principles as truly destructive of truth, unity and peace.

Some of the Principles which I have heard from your mouth, which I dissent from, are these:

I. That the Church must have some Ecclesiastical Governours that are absolute, from whom no man may appeal to an invisible Power.

II. That Diocesan Churches are the first in order of Divine Institution▪

III. That Diocesan-Bishops by consent may make other Church-forms, as National, Patriarchal, &c. And that such Churches are not made by Princes, but by the consent of Prelates.

IV. That these Church-forms of mans making, stand in a Go­verning [Page 129] Superiority over those of Gods making.

V. That where by such consent of Diocesans such superior Ju­risdictions are once setled, it is a sin for any to gather Assem­blies within the local bounds of their Jurisdiction without their consent.

VI. That you cannot see how those that do so, can be saved.

VII. That if I preach on the account of my Ministerial office, and the peoples necessity, to such as else would have no Preach­ing, nor any publick worship of God, ( e. g. in a Parish where there are 40000 more than can hear in the Parish-Church), though I must conclude that according to the ordinary way of Salvation such could not be brought to Faith, Holiness and Sal­vation, for want of teaching, it is yet my sin to preach to them, and my duty to let them rather be damned, if I have not the Bishops consent to teach them; and that because it is the Bishop and not I that shall answer for their damnation.

VIII. That it is disputable with you whether those to whom Church power is given ( viz. Diocesans) may not change (not only the local temporary circumstances, but) the very Church-forms, and suspend Laws of Christ.

IX. That Baptism entreth the Baptized into some particular Church, and consequently under this fore-described Church-Government.

X. That in the case of Preaching the Gospel, Ministers may in many cases do it, though Emperours and Kings forbid them, (as in the days of Constantius, Valens, yea and better men); but not if the Bishop forbid them, or consent not.

XI. That circa Sacra, if the King command the Churches for Uniformity, one Translation of the Bible, one Version or Meter of the Psalms, one Liturgy, one Time, or Place of Worship, &c. and the Bishop another, we ought to obey the Bishop against the command of the King.

XII. That the required Subscriptions, Declarations, Rubricks and Canons, are primarily the Laws of the Church, which the King and Parliament do confirm by their Sanction; and there­fore the Church is the Expounder of them.

These are some of your Assertions, which I cannot yet re­ceive.

[Page 130]I. My Reasons against the first are these: 1. Because this ma­keth Gods of men, and so is Idolatry, giving them Gods pro­per Power and Prerogative.

2. Yea, it taketh down God (or his Laws), and setteth them above him: For there cannot be two Absolute Governors that have not one Will. If I must not appeal from them to God, then I must appeal from God to them; that is, I must break his Law, if they bid me, or else they are not Absolute.

3. This maketh all Gods Laws at the will of ma [...], as altera­ble, or dispensible: Man may forbid all that God commandeth, and I must obey.

4. Then all Villanies may be made Virtues, or Duties, at the will of man: If they command us to curse God, or Blaspheme, or be perjured, or commit Fornication, Murder, or Idolatry, it would become a Duty.

5. Then the Power, and Lives of Kings would be at the Cler­gies mercy; For if their power be Absolute, they may make Trea­son and Rebellion a Duty.

6. And all Family-Societies, and Civil Converse, migbt be overthrown, while an Absolute Clergy may disoblige men from all duty to one another.

7. Then the Council at Lateran, which you have excellent­ly proved in your Considerations, to be the Author of its Ca­nons, doth, or did oblige Princes to exterminate their Reform­ed Subjects, and disoblige Subjects from their Allegiance to Prin­ces that obey not the Pope herein, and are excommunicate. So of Greg. 7 th's Council. Rom.

8. Then did the Church, or Kingdom of England well, to disobey, or forsake the Roman Power, that was over them?

9. Were not our Martyrs rather Rebels, that died for dis­obeying an Absolute Power?

10. How should two contradicting Absolute Powers ( viz. General Councils) be both obeyed? E. g Nicen. 1. and Ari­mini▪ Sirm. and Tyr. or Ephes. 2 and Calced ▪

11. How will this stand with the Judgment and practice of the Apostles, that said, Whether it be meet that we obey God, or man, judg ye?

[Page 131]12. How will it stand with Conformity to the Church of England, that in the Articles saith, that General Councils may err, and have erred in matter of Faith? &c.

13. Is it not against the sense of all mankind, even the com­mon Light of Nature, where utter Atheism hath not prevail­ed?

Say not, that I wrong you, by laying all this odium on your self. I lay it but on your words: And I doubt not, but (though disputing Interest draw such words from you) on consideration you will re-call them by some limitations.

II. My Reasons against your second, must pre-suppose, that we understand one another as to the sense of the word, Diocesan Church, which being your [...]erm, had I been with you, I must have de­sired you first to explain. The word, Diocess of old, you know, signified a part of the Empire, larger than a Province, and that had many Metropolitans in it. I suppose that is not your sense. Sometimes now it is taken for that space of ground which we call, a Diocess; sometimes for all the people in that space. And with us, a Diocesan Church, is a Church of the lowest Order, con­taining in it, a multitude of fixed Parochial Congregations, which have every one their stated Presbyter, who is no Bishop, and Vnum altare, and are no Churches, but parts of a Church, and which is individuated by one Bishop, and the measuring-space of ground, whose inhabitants are its Members. Till you tell me the contra­ry, I must take this for your sense; For you profess to me, that you speak of such Diocesan Churches as ours (and they have some above a thousand, others many hundred Parishes), and you say our Parishes are not Churches, but Parts of a Church, and so Families are.

2. Either you mean, that a Diocesan Church is the first in order of Execution and Existence, or else in order of Intenti­on, and so last in Existence and Execution. I know not your meaning, and therefore must speak to both.

I. That a Diocesan Church is first in Intention, is denied by me, and disproved (though it belong to you to prove it).

[Page 132]1. Intentions no where declared of God in mature or superna­tural Revelations, are not to be asserted of him as Truths. But a prime intention of a Diocesan Church is no where declared of God: Ergo, not to be asserted of him as truth.

2. It is the end or ultimum rei complementum, which is first in intention (where there is ordo intentionis.) But a Diocesan Church is not the end or ultimum rei complementum: Ergo, not first intended.

The Major is not deniable: The Minor hath the consent as far I as know, of all the world. For they are all either for the Hierarchy, or against it. They that are for it, say that a Metro­politan is above a Diocesan, and a Provincial above a Metropoli­tan, and a Patriarchal above a Provincial, and a National (which hath Patriarchs, as the Empire had) above that; and [...]ay the new Catholicks, an humane universal above a National Church, as the complement or perfection; and therefore must be first in­tended.

But those that are against the Hierarchy, think that all these are Church-corruptions, or humane policies set up by Usurpati­on, and therefore not of prime Divine Intention.

3. If you should go this way, I would first debate the questi­on with you, how far there is such a thing as ordo intentionis to be ascribed to God. For though St. Thomas (as you use to call him) assert such intentions, it is with many limitations; and others deny it, and all confess that it needeth much Explication to be understood.

II. But if it be a priority of Existence in order of execution. that you mean, it disproveth it self. For,

1. It is contrary to the nature of production, that two, or twenty, or an hundred stated Congregations, should be before ont; as it is that I should write a page before a line, and a line be­fore a word, and a word before a letter.

2. It is contrary to the Scripture-History, which telleth us that Christ called his Disciples by degrees, a few first, and more after; and that the Apostles accordingly converted men; from the number of 120, they rose to 3000 more; and after to 5000, &c. And that ordinarily the Churches in Scripture-times were such as could, and often did meet in one place, (though that be n [...]t necessary as I said before) hath so copious evidence, as that I will not here trouble you with it.

[Page 133]3. Either the Apostles Ordained Bishops before subject Pres­byters, or such Presbyters before Bishops, or both at once. If both at once as two Orders, it's strange that they called both Orders promiscuously by the same names, sometimes Bishops, some­times Presbyters, and sometimes Pastors and Teachers, without any distinguishing Epithete or notice. And it's strange that we never find any mention of the two sorts of Congregations, one the Bishops Cathedral, and the other the Parish Presbyters Con­gregation. If you say that they were the Bishops themselves, and first Ordained only subject-Presbyters under them, that cannot hold. For doubtless there were more than twelve or thirteen Churches (the number of Apostles in their times; nor were they fixed Bishops, but indefinite gatherers and edifiers of the Churches. And either those Elders first Ordained by the Apostles were Bi­shops, or else there were Churches without Bishops, for they Or­dained Elders in every City, and in every Church. And either the Elders first Ordained by the Apostles had the power of Ordain­ing others, or not. If they had, then either they were Bishops, or else subject-Presbyters were Ordained to be Ordainers; yea to Ordain Bishops (if such were to be after ordained.) And so in­deed it would be suitable to your concei [...], that the inferiour order of Diocesans do by consent make superior Metropolitans, Provincials, Nationals, and Patriarchs to rule them; and with Hieromes report ad Evagr. that the Alexandrian Presbyters made the Bishops, as the Army doth a General. But this making of Children to beget Fathers, is so commonly denied, that I need not more dispute against it.

3▪ But I think most of the Hierarchical way will say, that the Apostles first Ordained Bishops, that those Bishops might Ordain subject-Presbyters. And if so, the Churches could be but single Congregation at the first till the subject-Presbyters were Ordain­ed Yea, Dr. Hammond (as aforesaid) asserteth (in Act. 11. and in Dissert. &c.) that there is no proof there were any of the Or­der of subject-Presbyters in Scripture-times; and he thinketh that most of his party were of his mind; and that the name Bishop, Elder and Pastor in Scripture signifie only those that we now call Bishops. And in this he followeth Dion. Petavius, and Fr. a San­cta Clara de Episcop. who saith that it came from Scotus. And if this be so, then in all Scripture-times there was no Church of more than one worshipping Congregation. For we are agreed that [Page 134] Church-meetings were for the publick Worship of God, and celebration of Sacraments, and exercise of Discipline, which no meer Lay-man might lawfully guide the people in, and perform as such assemblies did require. And one Bishop could be but in one place at once. And if there were many Bishops, there were many Churches. So that according to Dr. Hammond and all of his mind, there was no Church in Scripture-times of more than one stated ordinary Worshipping Congregation, because there were no subject-Presbyters.

If you say that yet this was a Diocesan Church, because it had a Diocesan Bishop; I answer, why is he called a Diocesan Bishop if he had not a Diocesan Church?

If you mean that he was designed to turn his single Congre­gation into many by increase: 1. That must not be said only, but proved. 2. And that supposeth that his one congregation was first before the many. And I hope you [...]ake not Infidels for parts of the Church, because they are to be converted here­after. Those that are no members of the Church make not the Church, and so make it not to be Diocesan. One Congregation is not an hundred or a thousand, because so many will be here­after.

If you mean that such a space of ground was assigned to the Bishops to gather and govern Churches in. I answer,

1. Gathering Churches is a work antecedent to Episcopacy.

2. The Ground is no part of the Church. It is a Church of men, and not of soil and houses that we speak of.

3. Nor indeed will you ever prove that the Apostles measu­red out or distinguished Churches by the space of ground. So that the first Churches were not Diocesan.

III. As to your Third Opinion, 1. Officers are denominated from the work which they are to do. There are works to be done, circa sacra, about the holy Ministerial works, as Acci­dental: as to [...] to Church buildings, Utensils, and Lands, to Summon Synods, and Register their Acts; to moderate in disputations, and to take votes, &c. These the Magistrate may appoint Officers to pe [...]orm; and if he do not, the Churches, by his permission, may do it by consent.

[Page 135]And there are works proper to the Magistrate, viz. to force men to their duty by mulcts, or corporal penalties. I deny none of these.

But the works of Ordination, Pastoral Guidance, Excommuni­cation and Absolution, by the power of the Keys, are proper to the sacred Office, which Christ hath instituted. And I shall not believe, till I see it proved, that any men have power to make any new Order, or Office of this sort, which Christ never made by himseelf, or his Spirit in his Apostles; much less that Infe­riors may make Superior Offices: For 1. It belongeth to the same power to make one (especially the Superior) Church-Office, which made the other of the same General nature. If without Christs in­stitution, no man could be Episcopus gregis, and have the power of the Keys over the people, then by parity of Reason, without his institution no man can be Episcopus Episcoporum, and have the power of the Keys over the Bishops.

2. Dr. Hammond's argument against Presbyters Ordination is, Nemo dat quod non habet; which though it serve not his turn on several accounts (both because 1. They have the Order which they confer. 2. Because Ordination is not giving, but Ministerial delivery by Investiture); yet in this case it will hold; For 1. This is supposed to be a new institution of an Office. 2. And that of an higher power than ever the Institutors had themselves: The King giveth all his Officers their power, but all of them cannot give the King his power. The Patriarch can­not make a Pope, nor the Metropolitans a Patriarch, that shall have a power over them, which they never had them­selves.

And what I say of Superior Orders, and Offices, I say of Sy­nods; For whether the power be Monarchica [...], or Aristocrati­cal, or Democratical, there is need of the same power in the Cause that maketh it: No man can give that which he hath not to give.

If you should fly to such popular Principles, as the Episcopal Champion, Richard Hooker, doth, and the Jesuites in their Po­liticks, and many; yea, most other Writers of Politicks, and say, That as the people are the givers of power to the Sove­raign, though they are no Governours themselves, so the Bi­shops give power to the Episcopi Episcoporum (personal, or Sy­nodical), I answer, The Principle is false about Civil Policy, as [Page 136] I have proved against Mr. Hooker, in my Christian Directory, and as Dr. Hammond hath proved in the Kings Cause, against Iohn Goodwin. The power every man hath over himself, doth so specifically differ from the power of Governing-Societies, that the latter is not caused by all mens Contribution of the former; and much more in Church-Government, which God hath left less the Will of man (as Mr. Dan. Cawdr [...]y hath proved).

To conclude, I grant the Superiority of Magistrates, and of their Officers, circa sacra, but not that Inferior Clergy­men may by consent, make a Superior Species of Rulers (or Episcopos Episcoporum) by the Keys, in eodem genere.

But I confess, that how far Christ himself hath made Aposto­lick Successors, or Archbishops, as to the ordinary part of go­verning many Churches, is a question to me of much more diffi­culty, and moment.

As for the Patriarchal, and other Superior Church-power in the Roman Empire, that it was made partly by the Emperors themselves (as the instances of the two Iustiniana's, and many others shew), and partly by Councils, Authorized thereto by the Em­perors, is past all doubt.

IV. As to your fourth Opinion, I include the reason of my denial of it, in the description of it. Whether you confess par­ticular worshipping Churches, that have each unum altare, to be of Divine Institution, I cannot tell: but that you take the Di­ocesan to be so Divine, you have told me; and that you take the Superior Ruling-Churches, to be made by them. Now that Churches of mans making (Universal, or National, or Patriarchal, &c) should be the rightful Governors (by the Keys) over the Churches of Gods making, must be either jure Divino, or hu­mano: not jure humano; For 1. Man cannot give the power of the Keys without God. 2. And mans grant cannot over top Gods. Indeed there is no power but of God.

2. Not jure divino; For if God give them the power, God maketh that Species that containeth that power. For God not to make the Office, and not to give the power, is all one.

3. At least, what satisfying proof you will give us, that in­deed God giveth power to Church-Officers of his own making, them­seves [Page 137] to make nobler superior Officers or Churches than themselves, I cannot foresee. And till it's proved, it is not to be believed. 4. Yea it confoundeth the Inferiours and the Superiors. For the Diocesans are so far the Superiors to the Provincial, National, Patriarchal, &c. in that they make them▪ or give them their power, and yet inferior in that they are to be subjects to them.

More Nonconformists do deny the power of men to make new Species of Churches, and Church Rulers, than their power to make new Ceremonies.

V. Your next mention'd Opinion, (that it is a sin to preach and congregate people within the local bounds of Diocesan or Provincial, or other superior Jurisdictions without their consent) falleth of it self, if those foregoing fall, which it is built upon.

1. If it prove true that they that made these superior Juris­dictions had no power to make them, but gave that which they had not to give, then your foundation faileth.

2. If it be proved that neither Christ nor his Apostles ever made a Law that Bishops Jurisdictions shall be limited, measured and distributed by space of ground, as our Parishes and Dioces­ses are, so that all in such a compass shall be proper to one Pa­stor, much less did ever divide our Diocesses or Parishes; (which me thinks none should deny) then Preaching in that space of ground is no sin against such an Order of Christ.

3. If it be proved (as I undertake to do) that this distribution by spaces of ground, is a work that the King and his Officers are to do, (or the Churches by his permission by way of contract, if he leave it to them), and this in obedience to Gods General Laws (of Order, Peace, Concord and Edification), then these things will follow,

1. That if the King give us Licenses to Preach within such a space of ground, we have good Authority, and break not the restraining Law: And yet such as you accused us of schism as well when the King Licensed us, as since.

2. That this Law of local bounds doth bind us but as other humane Laws do; which is, say many Casuists, not at all out of the case of scandal, when they make not for the bonum publicum. [Page 138] But say others more safely, not when they notoriously make against, 1. Either the bonum publicum, which is finis regiminis: 2. Or the general Law of God which must authorize them, (be­ing against edification, peace, &c.) 3. When they are contrary to the great, certain and indi [...]pensible Laws of God himself. And that in such cases patient suffering the penalty which men inflict is instead of obedience to the prohibition, (and as in Da­niels case, Dan. 6 and [...]he Apostles, &c.)

Therefore I am [...] to give you, 1. My Concessions in what cases it [...] to [...] the Magistrate in Preaching where he forbiddeth [...]. 2. [...] in what cases it is a great duty. But to say that it is a sin because that the Clergy forbiddeth it, must have better proof [...]an I have seen, even, 1. That such Clergy­men are truly called by God. 2. And that they have from him the assignation of this space of ground. And 3. are by him em­powered to forbid all others to preach on their land. 4. And that even when Gods general Laws do make it our duty, that they can suspend the obligation of such Laws, even the greatest: I am ready upon any just occasion to prove to you, that I were a heinous sinner, if I should have ceased such Preaching as I have used upon all the reasons that you alledg against it. And wo to them that make our greatest and dearest duties to pass for sin, and our greatest sin, Isa. 5.20. Were it but one of the least commands, I would be loth to break it, and teach men so to do, much less one of the greatest; when men whose consciences tell them, that they are totally devoted to God; as Christians and as Ordained Ministers, deny their worldly interest and preferments, and serve him in poverty, beholden for their daily bread, and to the ruin of their worldly Estates, and the hazard of their lives in the Common Goals, endeavour nothing but to Preach Christs Gospel to save mens souls from ignorance, unbelief, sensu­ality, worldliness, &c. in case of the peoples undeniable necessity; I say, when such meet with men of the same profession, who think not the Common Goals among Rogues, and the forfeiture of Forty pound a Sermon, as Enacted by Law, to be enough to re­strain them, but also as in the name of Christ they will charge us with heinous sin unless we will perfidiously break our obliga­tions to Christ, and sacrilegiously alienate our selves from the work which we are devoted to (many of us under the Bishops hands) and unless we will be cruel to miserable souls, and shut [Page 139] up the bowels of our compassion from them, while we see them in need and in danger of damnation, what fortitude do we need against such kind of Tempters, and such Temptations? If Drun­kards and boys in the street only scorn'd me as a Puritan, or Precisian, it were less. If Turkish Rulers did persecute me for my Preaching Christ, it were less. If mistaken Christian Rulers made me the scorn of the Nation, and stript me of all my worldly main­tenance, and laid me with Malefactors in Prisons, it were a less temptation, than for a man to come in the name of Christ, to tell me that I sin against him, unless I will forsake my Calling, break my Vows, cease Preaching his Gospel, betray thousands of souls to Satan and damnation, and encourage all that endeavour it by yielding to all their temptations, and giving them success. But as Christ must be accused of sin, as well as crucified, and not allowed the honour of suffering as innocent, so must his servants.

I will venture upon one argument on the by that may be somewhat by others, though nothing to you for the invalidating of your ac­cusation. I saw from the hands of a Noble Lord, The Earl of Orery. an excellent truly Learned Manuscript said by him to be the Bishop of Lincolns, to sa­tisfie you who are said to judg it unlawful to subscribe to Athana­sius's Creed. What else you refuse I know not; but by that much I perceive you are a strange kind of Nonconformist. Now if it be unlawful for you to subscribe and conform, or unlawful for me, (which I here undertake to prove before any equal competent Judges) then it is unlawful for all the Ministers of England; ☜ for none of them may do evil that good may come by it. And then all the Ministers in England ought to cease Preaching, if I ought to cease, when they are forbidden. The consequence will be denied by others, though not by you. (And by the way, How can you take the Bishops for Absolute, from whom there is no appeal to an in­visible power, and yet disobey them, if they bid you subscribe Athanasius Creed.) If it be a sin in me not to cease Preaching when I am silenced for Nonconformity, and yet Nonconformity be a duty, then it is a sin in all the Ministers of England not to be Non­formists, and so not to cease Preaching. But the latter part of the consequent is false: Ergo, so is the Antecedent.

2. Yea, directly your assertion puts it in the power of one su­perior to put down the Preaching of the Gospel, and all Gods pub­lick Worship, in whole Countries or Kingdoms, (if not in the world), and so Christ must be at their mercy whether he shall have [Page 140] any Church, and so whether he shall be Christ; and God, whether he shall have any publick Worship In Ethiopia (though Brierwood saith that yet after the decay of the Abassine Empire, it is as big as Italy, Germany, France and Spain) they have but one Bishop, called their Abuna And if he forbad all Preaching or publick Worship in the Empire, it is a sin to obey him. And it is a great duty to gather Churches within his Church. It is a sin in the Empire of Muscovie, that all their Clergy obey their Patriarch and Prince in forbearing to Preach. If all the Bishops of England should agree to reduce the Kingdom to one only Bishoprick, and one Church, and turn all the rest into Parish-Chappels, it were a duty to disobey them, and gather Churches in that one Church. If the Patriarch of Alexandria, Antioch, or Constantinople, had forbidden all in their limits to Preach and worship God publickly, it had been a wicked­ness to obey them. When Severus Antioch, the Eutychian, forbad the Orthodox to Preach in his Patriarchate, it had been their sin to obey him, (yea or if Theodosius or Anastasius the Emperours had done it): yea, though a General Council of Ephes. 2. (if not Ephes. 1.) was on his side. If the Pope (whether as Pope or as Patriarch of the West), Interdict all the Preachers and Churches in Venice, or in Britain, it were a sin to obey him.

The reasons are, because their power is derived and limited (to pass by the no power of Usurpers) the greatest have it for edification, and not for destruction. None of them have power to make void the least (continued) Law of God by their Doctrines, Precepts or Tra­ditions. All men must take heed of the leven of their false Do­ctrine, and must beware of false Prophets, and must prove all things, and hold fast that which is good. There is no true power but of God, and therefore none against him. It is better to obey God than men. But of this you may in season have larger proof, if you desire it.

VI. Your excluding us from Salvation, that will not cease Preach­ing the Gospel of Salvation, and worshipping God, remembreth us:

1. What a mercy it is that neither Pope, nor any such condem­ner is made our final Judg.

2. How most Sects agree (Papists, Quakers, &c.) in damning those that dance not after their Pipe.

[Page 141]3. What various wiles of temptations Satan useth to hinder Christs Gospel, and mens Salvation.

At once I have, 1. A backward flesh, that is the worst of all, that saith, Favour thy self, and expose not thy self to all this labour, obloquie, hatred, suffering, loss and danger of death for nothing, but that work which thy superiours think needless, and forbid.

2. I feel Satan setting in with the flesh, and saying the same.

3. Carnal and worldly friends say the same (as Peter to Christ, Mat. 16.)

4. Displeased Sinners and Sectaries wish me silent.

5. What Superiors say and do, I need not mention.

6. And to perfect all, some Preachers in Press and Pulpit, and you in Discourse, declare us in danger of damnation, as Schisma­ticks, unless we will give over Preaching the Gospel. O how easie were it to me to avoid that damnation! And if I incur it, how dear­ly do I purchase it! It is a sad case that such poor souls as we are in, that would fain know Gods will whatever study or suffering it cost us, and after our most earnest search and prayers, believe that if we forsook our trust, and office, and the peoples souls, we should be judged as sacrilegious, perfidious hypocrites, and yet we are told by wiser and greater men, that our labours and sufferings do but damn us; may not a man be damned at a cheaper rate than Forty pound a Sermon, or the loss of all his worldly Estate, and lying with malefactors, and perhaps dying in a Goal, under the publish­ed sacred infamy of being Schismaticks and enemies of the publick Government and peace, &c? But this also we must be fortified a­gainst. For Satan is sometime utterly impudent, and will say, Damn your selves by perfidiousness, and let the people be damned quietly, or else you shall be damned for Schismaticks. But the long noise of damning Papists and Quakers have somewhat hardned or embol­dened us. It was an early trick, Act. 15. Except ye be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When lands and li­vings will not prevail; when profit, pleasure and honour fail; when poverty, reproach and prisons will not serve, then comes, You cannot else be saved. How many Sects say, Say as we say, and do as we do, and follow us, or you cannot be saved? But saith St. Paul, It is a small thing with me to be judged of man, or at mans day: I have one that judgeth me, even the Lord, (to whom we will appeal what­ever you say against it.) But you must give me leave to think, that to draw men from their great duty, and the saving souls, to heinous [Page 142] sin, as in the name of Christ, and to frighten men into Hell with the fear of damnation, and the abused Word of God, hath heinous aggravations, which enticing men by sensuality to drunkenness, whoredom or theft, hath not.

VII. To the next, the matter of fact, and antecedent Suppositions cannot be denied, viz. 1. That it is probably supposed that there are inhabitants more than can hear the Preachers voice in the Parish-Churches, in Martins Parish about 40000, in Stepney Parish near as many, in Giles Cripplegate 30000, in Giles in the Fields near 20000, in Sepulchres, Algate, White-chappel, Andrews Holborn, and many other Out-Parishes very many thousands. The last Bill of Mortality that I saw, saith there died in Stepney Parish as many wanting one, as in all the Ninety-seven Parishes of London, and in Martins as many within six, and in Giles Cripplegate as many within eight, or thereabout.

2. How shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe if they hear not? and how shall they hear with­out a Preacher? If the Gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: Where Vision faileth, the people perish, even for lack of knowledg.

3. Yet people by our Church Laws must be presented and prose­cuted as Recusants if they come not to Church, and so 40000 or 30000 should be presented and punished for want of room; but it is a greater punishment to be strangers unto the Gospel.

4. The Canon forbiddeth them going to, and communicating in other Parishes, and forbiddeth the Ministers to receive them.

5. The Children of Christians are born with no more knowledg than the children of Heathens; and need teaching as well as theirs, to bring them to knowledg when they grow up.

6. God will not save any adult person that is an Infidel, impeni­tent, unsanctified, because he is bred up among Christians, and Churches, or born of Christians, and Baptized; but it will go worse with such unholy persons in the day of Judgment, that have had the greatest means.

7. If you can cast the fault on the people, and say that they might remove their dwellings, or (break the Law, and) go to other Parishes, or read at home, &c. that excuseth us not. For the worse they are, the more need they have of help. If they were faultless, what need had they of us?

[Page 143]8. As to my own case whom you condemn, I have told you, that I have the Ordination of a Bishop, and the License of the Bishop of this Diocess (not nulled or recalled) which by your principles one would think might serve if it had been against Gods own Laws. And yet Gods Law and the Bishops License will not serve.

9. Some other may say, What's your case to many others? I answer: To pass by a great deal not now to be said, Let it be understood that the case is this. Men are first silenced and ex­communicated, and so forbidden the publick Churches, and all publick worship of God; and then the Excommunicate are pro­secuted and accused for not coming to Church. Divers Canons do ipso facto (that is, sine sententiâ) excommunicate all that do but say that any thing in the Liturgy or Discipline is unlawful, or may not be done with a good conscience (which all Noncon­formists hold). And it is not possible for us to repent of that as a wicked Error, which after all means that we can possibly use, appeareth unto us an undoubted truth, that so our Excommu­nication may be taken off. Now these silenced men are assured, that God disobligeth them not from the duty of Preaching; and these excommunicate men are assured that God doth not dis­oblige them from the duty of publick worship and Church-commu­nion. Therefore they must use it as they can, when they may not use it as they would. Men say the Papists should not call us Schismaticks, because they cast us out, and went from us; and will you silence and excommunicate men, as they undertake to prove, for obeying God, and then call them Schismaticks for not communicating with you, or for worshipping God in such Church-communion as they can? Indeed many of us commu­nicate with you, because we think not our selves bound, tho' you excommunicate us ipso facto, to do execution on our selves, or to go further from you than necessity compelleth us (tho' I must profess that Cyprians 68. Epistle, p. 200. and St. Martin's Separation from the Bishops, confirmed by Miracle, sometimes sticks in my stomack). But I cannot make so light as you do, 1. Of such Texts as 2 Tim. 4.1, 2. I cha [...]g [...] thee before God, and the Lord Iesus Christ, who shall judg the quick and the dead at his appearing, and his kingdom, preach the word, be instant in season, out of season, reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all long-suffering and doctrine.

[Page 144]2. Nor of the murderous famishing of thousands of souls, when to murder one child by famine deserveth death and hell.

3. Nor of Christs Law of preferring Mercy before Sacrifice, necessary Morals before Rituals, Circumstantials or Ordinals, which are all but propter rem ordinatam. I remember you have told me, That if the Bishop forbad all Gods publick worship in the Assemblies, we must forbear. Such sayings, and this, That I must let so many souls be untaught though they be damned, because it is the Bishops fault and not mine, do make me ready to tremble to think of them. If Christs works be saving, whose work is it to make so light of mans damnation? Is it any wonder if such Principles be called Antichristian? I cannot but perceive from whom they come, when the damnation of poor people must be so easily submitted to, if the Bishop do but command the means. Methinks you wrong the Bishops by such odious Sup­positions and Assertions, as if you would make men believe that they are the Grievous Wolves that spare not the flock, and the thorns and thistles that are made to prick and rend the people. But I believe that the Bishops faultiness in mens damnation would be no exeuse to me if I be accessory.

4. And I doubt not but if you unjustly ipso facto Excommu­nicate men, it neither depriveth them of the right, nor absol­veth them from the duty of publick Worship, and Church-Communion. And I am ashamed to read and hear Preachers publickly reproaching them for not holding constant Commu­nion with the Parish-Churches, when it's notorious that the Ca­non hath thus Excommunicated them, yea though it were their duty sometime to intrude.

And I beseech you judg as a Christian or a man, whether you can think such Arguments should draw the people them­selves to be of your mind: Go to them and speak out, Neigh­bours, I confess that while you live in ignorance and sin for want of teaching and publick worship, you are in the way to dam­nation; but it is the Bishop, and not the silenced Preacher that shall answer for it. Will they not reply, And shall not the Bishop then he damned instead of us, as well as instead of the silenced Prea­cher?

[Page 145]VIII. Your doubt about mens power to change Christs setled form of Church-government, is but a consequent of your first, of mens absolute power.

But 1. if they change Gods Laws, or instituted Church-forms or Government, may they not change their own? And if so, there is some hope of a Reformation. But why then did the Ca­nons of 1640. in the Et caetera Oath, swear the Clergy never to consent to change? And why are we now to swear in the Ox­ford Oath, That we will never endeavour any alteration of Church-Government (tho' the keys be in the power of Lay-Chancel­lors, and tho' the King may command us to endeavour it) must the Nation or Clergy swear never (in their own places) to en­deavour any alteration of the Bishops Institutions (as you take them), and yet may the Bishops alter the very Form of Go­vernment, and Churches made by our Universal King?

2. What an uncertain mutable thing may Christs Laws or Church-Government prove, while mutable men may change it at their pleasure.

3. To what purpose is Antiquity and Tradition so much pleaded by Hierarchical Divines, as if that were the Test to know the right Government and Church, if the Bishops may alter it?

4. If thus much of Christs Laws and Institutions may be altered by Prelates, how shall we be sure that all the rest is not also at their will and mercy? or which is it that they may alter, and which not?

5. Doth not this set man so far above God, or equal with him, as will still tempt men to think that more are Anti­christian than the Pope? If you say that it is by Gods own grant, I wait for your proof, that God granteth power to any man above his Laws: Those that he made but Local or Temporary himself, are not abrogated or changed by man where they bind not; for they never bound any but their proper sub­jects, e. g. The Iewish Laws, as such, never bound the Gentile world; and the command of washing feet, bound only th [...]se where the use of going bare-leg'd with Sandals in a hot Coun­try, [Page 146] made it an office of kindness; and so of other Temporary precepts.

6. How contrary is this to the common Christian Doctrine, that we must obey none that command us to sin against God? For by the first assertion, and this, it seemeth that it cannot be a sin which the Bishops command.

7. I pray you put in an exception for the Power and Lives of Kings, and the Laws of the Land, and the Property and Liber­ty of the Subjects; and one word for the Protestant Religion. For we English-men think God to be greater than the King, or St. Patrick; and Gods Laws to be firmer than the Statutes of King and Parliament. And yet I doubt that the King and some Parliament will be angry if you do but say that the Bishops by consent may change their Statutes, or lawful Officers and Pow­ers; And Bishops, if you say that Episcopacy may be chan­ged.

IX. Baptism, as such, entereth not the Baptized into any parti­cular Church, but only into the Vniversal, headed by Christ; yet a man may at the same time; be entered into the Vniversal, and into a particular Church, but that is by a double consent, and not by Baptism as such. In this I know none that agree with you but some few of the Independents in New-England, and some of the Papists. I confess Bellarmine saith, That by Bap­tism we are virtually obliged to the Pope, being baptized by a Ministry, and into a Church, of which he is the Head. But the contrary is proved,

1. From the express form of the Baptismal Covenant, which only tyeth us to Christ and his Universal Church, and maketh us Christians. But to be a Christian dedicated to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is one thing, and to be a part of the Pastoral Charge of A. B. or N. N. is another thing.

2. What particular Church was the Eunuch, Act. 8. bap­tized into? Not that of Ierusalem, for he was going from it, never like to see it more. Not that in Ethiopia, for there was none till he began it. If you say, of Philips Church: 1. I pray you, where was that? 2. And how prove you it? 3. Specially [Page 147] if it was Philip the Deacon that had no Church, being no Bishop.

3. May not men be baptized in Turkey, or among other In­fidels, or Indians, where there is no Church? And is the first baptized man among them, a Church himself? Paul thanketh God that he baptized no more of the Corinthians, lest they should think that he baptized into his own name. And doth every Baptizer baptize to himself, or to his Bishop? A man may bap­tize out of all Diocesses, or in another's.

X. As to your next Assertion, I grant, that when a Bishop or a beggar speaketh the Commands of God, and a King speaketh against it, we must follow that Bishop or beggar, rather than the King, because this is but obeying God before men. But supposing that it is a thing indifferent, and but circa sacra, and not a proper part of the Agent Pastors Office, I confess to you, I will obey the King before the Bishop.

1. Because it is a thing that is under the Power of the King to command; and if so, the King is the Supreme, and not the Bishop.

2. Bishops themselves are Subjects of the King, and owe him obedience. Therefore rule not over or before him in matters be­longing to his Office.

3. Bishops are chosen by the King, (for I suppose no man takes the Dean and Chapters choice for more than a Ceremony, that knoweth it); if the King command me to Preach at one hour, or one place, and the Bishop at another, or to use for Uniformity such a Translation, Metre, Liturgy, Utensils, Gar­ments, &c and the Bishops others, I will obey the King be­fore the Bishop. But if either or both command me to sin, I will obey neither so; and if they would take me off from that which Christ hath made a real part of my own Office (as com­manding that I shall preach and pray in no words but such as they prescribe, &c.) I think neither hath power to do this.

But Bishop Bilson of Christian Obedience, and Bishop Andrews in his Tortura Toetis, and Buckeridg of Rochester, and Grotius de imprrio sum▪ Potest. circa Sacra, have said so much of the Power [Page 148] of Kings about Religion, as that I think I need not add any more.

And by the same Arguments that you will absolve me from obeying if the King forbid me to Preach, by the same you absolve, if the Bishop forbid me. If I may disobey Constantius and Valens, I may disobey Eusebius Nicomed. Theognis Maris. If I may disobey Theodosius junior, Anastasius, Zeno, Iustinian, I may disobey Petrus Moggus, Dioscorus, Severus, &c. But you will much cross your [...]nds if you tell the Londoners that they may preach and worship God though the King forbid them, but not at all if the Bishop forbid them. For he that exalteth himself, or is sinfully exalted by others, shall be brought low. If the reverence of the King were not greater in England than of the Bishops, the consciences of many thousands would stick but little at disobedience. There are so many cases first to be resolved. As,

1. Whether such Diocesans deposing all Parochial Churches (and Bishops) and reducing them to Chappels or parts only of a Church, be not against Christs Law?

2. Whether they destroy not the ancient order of particular Churches (Bishops) and Discipline?

3. Who made their office, and by what power?

4. Who chose and called them to it?

5. Whether their Commands be not null, as contrary to Gods?

6▪ How far Communion with them that silence hundreds of faithful Ministers, and set up in their stead— &c. is lawful? Many such questions the people are not so easily satisfied in, as you are.

XI. And the three last all set together, look with an ill design: The Preface to Dr. Rich. Cousins Tables, tells the King, That the Church-Government here is the Kings, or derived from him, and dependant on him; and Grotius de Imperio sum▪ potest. proveth at large the Power of Kings circa sacra, as doth Spalatensis, and ma­ny more; and that Canons are but good counsel, till the King make them Laws. And we know no Law-makers but the King and Parliament. But if the Church be the Expounders of the Liturgy, Rubrick and Canons, Articles and Acts of Uniformity, and out [Page 149] of Convocation-time, the Bishops be the Church, and the Arch­bishops be the Rulers of the Bishops, (that swear obedience to them) this hath a dangerous aspect: For then it is in the power of the Bishops (if not of the Archbishops only) to put a sense upon our 39 Articles, Rubricks, &c. consistent with Popery or Heresie, and so to change the Religion of the Kingdom, without King or Parlia­ment, or against them at their pleasure.

And thus Officers of mans making, who become a Church of mans devising, may have advantage by this and the former Articles, to destroy Godliness, Christianity and Humanity.

Indeed by the Preface to the Liturgy, the Bishop is made the Ex­pounder of any thing doubtful in the Book; and by the Index the Act of Uniformity is made part of the Book. But this affrighteth me the more from declaring:

1. Because I must consent to all the Penalties and Impositions of the Act it self.

2. And the Bishop, Exposition is limited, so that it must be con­trary to nothing in the Book.

Thus I have given you the reasons of my destructive Conference.

If I had been with you, and we had been to enter upon any dis­pute that tendeth to satisfaction, I would have endeavoured to a­void the common frustraters of Disputes, 1. By ambiguous words: 2. And subjects that are no subjects: Therefore if you desire any such dispute:

I. I intreat you to write me down your sense of some terms which we shall frequently use, (and I will do the like of any at your desire): As what you mean, 1. By the word Bishop. 2. By a Church. 3. By a particular Church. 4. By a Diocess and Dio­cesan Church. 5. By a National Church. 6. By the Vniversal Church. 7. By Church Government and Iurisdiction. 8. By Schism. I shall dispute no terms unexplained, lest one take them in one sense, and the other in another, and so we dispute but about a sound of words.

II. I desire that the denied Subject of the Question may not be ta­ken for granted, instead of being proved.

On these terms (supposing the common Laws of Disputation, especially avoiding words that have no determinate sense) I shall [Page 150] not refuse whenever you invite me; and I am able to debate with you any of these points that I am concerned in; especially, whether my Preaching Christs Gospel as I do, be my sin, or my duty? And if our great distance in Principles put either of us upon r [...]sons that seem dishonouring to the person opposed, we shall I hope [...] that it is the opinion only that is directly intended. But [...] opinion is the persons opinion, if it be bad, is a dish [...]n [...]r, whi [...] the owner only is guilty of, and the opponent ca [...]not [...] must not forbear to open the evil of the cause, for avoiding the disho­nour of the owner; but must the rather open it, in hope that the owner will disown it, when he understandeth truly what it is. For I suppose it is evidence of Truth that we desire.

In Conclusion, remember I pray you, 1. That it is not the anci­ent Episcopacy (which was in Cyprians days; yea, which agreeth with Epiphanius's Intimations, and Petavius excellent Notes there­on, in Haeres. 69.) which I deny. And I conjecture that at this day in England there are more Episcopal than Presbyterian silenced Non-conformists.

2. That what sort of Prelacy or higher Rulers I dare not sub­scribe to, yet I can live quietly and submissively under, though not obey them by sinning against God, or breaking my Vows of Bap­tism or Ordination, and perfidiously leaving souls to Satan. Nothing more threateneth the subversion of the Church-Government than swearing men to approve of all th [...]t's in it. Many can submit and live in peace, that dare not subscribe or swear Approbation. It was the & caet [...]ra Oath 1640, that constrained me to th [...]se searches which [...] me a Nonconformist. It is an easie ma [...]er for Overdoers to add but a cla [...]se or two more to their Oaths and Subscriptions, which shall ma [...]e almost all the conscionable Ministers of the King­dom Nonconformists.

3. Whenever notorious necessity ceaseth by the sufficient num­ber and q [...]ality of Conforming Preachers, I will cease Preaching in England (But death is liker first to silence me.)

Though I take my Conforming to be a Complex of heinous sins, [Page 151] should I be guilty of it; yet till I am called, I perswade none to Nonformity for fear of casting them (occasionally) out of the Mi­nistry, preferring their work before the change of their judgment till such endeavours are clearly made by duty.) But all your en­deavour, as far as ever I perceived, is not so much to draw us to Con­formity, as to persuade us to give over Preaching Christs Gospel, so contrary are our designs. 1 Thes· 2.15, 16. Methinks is a fear­ful Text. And so are the words of the Liturgy before the Sacra­ment, If any of you be a hinderer of Gods Word—repent—or take not this Sacrament, lest Satan enter into you, as he did into Judas, and fill you, &c.