omnes omnium Charitates inse complectitur Sir I have sent you my Answer written with a more legible hand and with some regard of ease to my self in transcribing with my very hearty love recommended and assured to you I commend you to the Grace and Blessing of Almighty God resting Your very respectful Friend Ra. Exon. Austie in Hartfordshire Iuly 21. 1655. Bishop Brownrigg ' s Answer about Government Prop. 1. YOur first Proposal is In every Parish where there are more Presbyters than one let one be the Chief and his Consent chiefly taken in the guidance of the Church Answ. 1. This Case is rarely to be found in the Parishes of England nor can there be a sufficient Maintenance for a Plurality of Presbyters in our Parochial Congregations yet if such be found it may be a good means to preserve Order and Peace that the ordering of Affairs which shall be referred to them be managed by him that hath the Praesecture of that Parish I wish that in those Churches which beside the Incumbent have had Lecturers this Rule had been observed Prop. 2. Let many such Churches be associated call it a Classis or what you will and let the fittest Man be their President as long as he is fit that is during life unless he deserve a removal Answ. 2. This Proposal looks like our Rural Deaneries or Choriepiscopal Order which hath been laid much aside but for the reducing of it and to make it profitable I wish that it may be bounded with fit Canons prescribing what they may do and with intimation from the Bishop and his Inspection and that such a Dean or President may be continued for Life that being a means to breed Experience if he do not deserve a removal Prop. 3. Let divers of these Classes meet once or twice a Year in a Provincial Assembly and let the fitâ—est Man in the Province be their standing President Answ. 3. This Course hath been by Law and Practice already used in our Church in the Archidiaconal Visitations and Synods which may be more quickened and actuated by sit Canons for their Direction what and who the President must be may be provided for by Canons and his Station continued and that Presbyters having Cure of Souls should not be accounted meer Preachers but Church-Guides and as they are already acknowledged Rectors of Churches Prop. 4. Let it be left to every Man's Conscience Whether the President be called by the Name of Bishop President Superintendent Moderator c. seeing that a Name is no meet Reason of a Breach c. Answ. 4. If by President you understand him that must moderate the Half-year or yearly Synods under the Inspection of the Diocesan as his Order may be newly framed so his Name may be newly imposed but that the Primitive Name of Bishop should be turned into a new Name is as you say no meet Reason for a Breach and we see Presbyters assume that Name to themselves and to put a new Name upon an old Institution is as Augustine speaks in the like Case Indoctis struere fallaciam doctis facere injuriam Prop. 5. Let no Man be forced to Express his Iudgment de Jure Whether the President have a Negative Voice in Ordination or Excommunication or whether he be distinct in Order or Degree seeing it is not the unanimous and right Belief of these things that is of Necessity for then they must have been in our Creed but the unanimous and right Practice but let them all agree that they will constantly joyn in these Classical and Provincial Assemblies and then only Ordain and that they will not Ordain but when the President is one unless in Case of flat Necessity which is never like to befall us if this may be takenâ— Answ. 5. If by President you understand the Diocesan then that the Bishop should be deprived of his Negative Voice in Ordination or Excommunication and so I conceive in other Censures and Acts of Government is to make him a meer Shadow without any Authority like our Scrutators in our University to propound Graces and collect Suffrages and pronounce Sentence Surely St. Paul invested Timothy and Titus with more Power and Authority both for Ordination and Censures but then to remedy the Inconveniencies of a wilful Negative it 's fit that an Appeal may be made to a Provincial Synod that may examine and if need be rectifie what was amiss in the Negative That Church Businesses were Ordered by the Concurrence of more Presbyters besides the Bishop in Cyprian's time was fit at that time when the Government of Church Affairs was Arbitrary and not Regulated by Law in which Case it was safest for the Bishop to have the Consent of others with him This is not our Case we have express Canons and Laws laid upon Bishops beyond which they cannot go and so may well be intrusted with the Execution of the Sentence of the Law the Sentence of the Judge being only Declarativa Executiva and if he transgress those Rules prefixed he is liable to Censure In our Church plurimum legi minimum Episcopo relinquitur as we see in Civil Matters one Justice of Peace hath the Power of Executing the Sentence of a Law or Statute but no Arbitrary Power granted to him That the Bishop be distinct from the Presbyter whether ordine or gradu is the Schoolmens Debate and I conceive may have such accord as may not ingender strife That Ordination be by the Assistance of Presbyters is already required in our Form of Ordination and if it be fixed to the Times of Synods it may be easily granted and sure that Blame that hath been laid upon our Bishops for Ordaining of insufficient Men is most what an undue Charge the Law of the Land hath set that lowness of sufficiency in Men to be ordained and instituted that if a Bishop refuseth to give Orders or Institution to a Man presented by the Patron he is punishable by the Judges As I have heard Archbishop Abbot was fined an Hundred pounds in case he did not admit a Clark so meanly qualified as the Law requires Some other Proposals are added in the End of your Letter Prop. 1. I Am satisfied that the Apostles have Successors in all those Works that are of standing Necessity and that Church Government is one of those Works and that it is improbable that Christ should settle one Species of Church Government in the Apostles Hands for an Age and then Change it for ever after and they that affirm such a change must prove it Answ. 6. Supposing what the Apostles did in ordering of Church Government to be in the Name and by the Authority of Christ this Assertion I conceive to be very true and it doth infer a Subordination of all Officers and Members of the Church to the Apostles and those that were their Successors Prop. 2. Whether the Apostles had a Power by Office to govern the LXX and the Presbyters as inferior Officers besides the
Power that they had by the meer Interest of their Gifts and Priviledge of being Eye Witnesses of the Works of Christ and Ear Witnesses of his Words Answ. 7. The extraordinary Gifts of the Apostles and the Priviledge of being Eye and Ear Witnesses to Christ were Abilities which they had for the infallible Discharge of their Function but they were not the Ground of their Power and Authority to govern the Church That the Seventy and so other Presbyters were inferior to the Apostles and under their Government doth appear to me though at their first sending by Christ they were immediately subject to Christ the Apostles not being then established in the Government of the Church but when Christ authorised his Apostles with the Power of Government Potestas Clavium was committed to them only not to the Seventy and so we must conceive that the Colledge of Apostles were invested with the Government of the Church and the Seventy not having the Keys committed to them were under the Authority of the Apostles and so were Presbyters to the Apostles Successors Prop. 3. If the Apostles Example will prove the right of an unfixed ambulatory Episcopacy yet I would see how it appears that ever they were fixed to particular Charges or ever any of them had a distinct and limited Diocess where the rest had not Charge as well as they Answ. 8. I conceive the Apostles as Apostles had an unlimited and as you call it an unfixed ambulatory Episcopacy being sent into the whole World and not by Christ's Institution confined to any one fixed Seat but yet that hinders not but that by Consent and Agreement among themselves they might have a Distribution of their several Circuits as it is seen in the Agreement between St. Peter and St. Paul which as it did not exclude their original Power over all Churches so it did accommodate them to a more opportune Discharge of their Function and accordingly they setled their Successors in those Places not committing to them an universal Jurisdiction which was a Personal Priviledge of their Apostleship Prop. 4. I am satisfied that very early after the Apostles the common Government of each Church was by a Bishop and Presbytery but yet I can see no Evidence that this Church for 150 or 200 Years was any more than one Congregation like one of our Parishes for Number of People which was congregated in a City and from the circumjacent Villages as our Independant or Anabaptist Churches now are while the Multitude were Infidels I would therefore crave any clear Proof that the first fixed Bishops ruled any more standing Congregations having ordinarily Assemblies and Communion in the Lord's Supper than one only and whether the multiplying of Believers did not make a real Change of the former Species of Government while the Bishop of the City took on him the Government of many particular Churches who had but one before and whether Bishops should not have been multiplied as fast as Churches were and Presbyters were Answ. 9. That the Government of the Churches was not only Vicatim but Regionatim appears by those Deputies and Successors which the Apostles constituted in particular Titus is authorised to ordain and govern not one Parish but the many Churches in Crete That those primitive Bishops did employ their ordinary Function of Preaching and adminstring the Sacrament in their City of Residence may well be granted which hinders not but that they might have Inspection into the circumjacent Villages for ordaining of Presbyters and other Administrations of Government and what needed a Colledge of Presbyters residing in the City with the Bishop if they were not sent out by him to officiate in those Villages adjacent as the Number of Believers required not did the multiplying of Believers in the adjacent places require several Bishops in several Congregations independent on the City Bishop but the ordinary Discharge of those Places was committed to them in Subordination to the City-Bishop and Presbyters there assembled as occasion required In this Case it fared with the Church as in Philosophy they say it is in the matter of Nutrition and Augmentation where the form is not multiplied but only extended ad novam materiam These Answers not changing my Judgment I made the following Notes upon them Ad 1. Every Church Primae magnitudinis speciei should be as great and no greater than is capable of PERSONAL Communion as our greater Parishes and every such Church had of old a Bishop One Altar and one Bishop was Ignatius's Note of one Church and such a one may maintain divers Ministers and the Rich should not burden the Church for maintenance but help freely Ad 2. This is a President of a Synod of Bishops Ad 3. I thank you for granting Presbyters to be Church-Rectors Ad 4. If he be but a President he is but a Bishop Primi Ordinis of one Church as the rest But if he be the stated Rector of many Churches he is really an Archbishop Ad 5. This was written when our Diocesane Frame was taken down to reconcile them that were for and them that were against such Bishops pro tempore If you take liberty to cast off the Example of Cyprian's times on pretence that the Case is altered by the Kings Laws then you will never know where to rest while Laws are alterable Qu. Whether the Practice of the Church till Cyprian's time be not a probable Notice to us what was the Apostolical instituted Government If not why use you the Argument of Antiquity for Episcopacy If yea Qu. Whether Rulers may alter the Apostolick Institution and the Office and work of Presbyters may be changed on pretence that now Bishops can do it without them He that ever tryed true Discipline will find one Parish big enough for one Man's or divers Mens right Performance of it and Six hundred or a Thousand Parishes too many Alas do you think it Lawful to ordain insufficient unmeet Men if the Law of the Land so command you what then are Christ's Laws for Ad. 6. Here I granted you the major of your grand Argument for Episcopacy Ad 7. The Apostles Superiority of Power I deny not but that the Power of the Keys was given to the Apostles only I deny If Christ immediately gave it to no other yet by his Spirit he did and by the Church-Law which he left to be the Instrument of continued conveyance and Title by which the Apostles were to invest others with that Power which the Schoolmen ordinarily acknowledge to belong to Presbyters as such who may use them to the People Ad 8. 1. De facto it is no where proved truly that the Twelve or Thirteen Apostles did by consent limit their Provinces But contrarily that they Officiated together at Ierusalem and Peter if at Rome as some think he was and Paul in the same Diocess at Rome c. and Paul and Iohn at Ephesus and Timothy also as is said 2. If they had this had been
daily expect the Communications of his Grace and Comfort especially seeing that these Ceremonies have been imposed and urged upon such Consideratioms as draw too near to the significancy and moral efficacy of Sacraments themselves That they have together with Popery been rejected by many of the Reformed Churches abroad amongst whom notwithstanding we doubt not but the Lord is worshipped decently orderly and in the beauty of Holiness That ever since the Reformation they have been Matter of Contention and endless Disputes in this Church and have been a Cause of depriving the Church of the Fruit and Benefit which might have been reaped from the Labours of many Learned and Godly Ministers some of whom judging them unlawful others unexpedient were in Conscience unwilling to be brought under the power of them That they have occasioned by the offence taken at them by many of the People heretofore great Separations from our Church and so have rather prejudiced than promoted the Unity thereof and at this time by reason of their long disuse may be more likely than ever heretofore to produce the same Inconveniencies That they are at best but indifferent and in their Nature mutable and that it 's especially in various Exigencies of the Church very needful and expedient that things in themselves mutable be sometimes actually changed lest they should by perpetual permanency and constant use be judged by the People as necessary as the Substancials of Worship themselves And though we do most heartily acknowledge your Majesty to be Custos utriusque Tabulae and to be Supream Governour over all Persons and in all Things and Causes as well Ecclesiastical as Civil in these your Majesty's Dominions yet we humbly crave leave to beseech your Majesty to consider whether as a Christian Magistrate you be not as well obliged by that Doctrine of the Apostle touching Things indifferent not occasioning an offence to weak Brethren as the Apostle himself then one of the highest Officers in the Church of Christ judged himself to be obliged and whether the great Work wherewith the Lord hath intrusted your Majesty be not rather to provide by your Sacred Authority that the things which are necessary by virtue of Divine Command in his Worship should be duly performed then that Things unnecessary should be made by Humane Command necessary and penal And how greatly pleasing it will be to the Lord that your Majesty's heart is so tenderly and religiously Compassionate to such of his poor Servants differing in so small matters as to preserve the Peace of their Consciences in God's Worship above all their Civil Concernments whatsoever May it therefore please your Majesty out of your Princely Care of healing our Breaches graciously to grant That Kneeling at the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper and such Holydays as are but of Humane Institution may not be imposed upon such as do conscientiously scruple the Observation of them And that the use of the Surplice and Cross in Baptism and bowing at the Name of Iesus rather than the Name of Christ or Emanuel or other Names whereby that Divine Person or either of the other Divine Persons is nominated may be abolished these things being in the Judgment of the Imposers themselves but indifferent and mutable in the Judgment of others a Rock of Offence and in the Judgment of all not to be valued with the Peace of the Church We likewise humbly represent unto your most Excellent Majesty That divers Ceremonies which we conceive had no Foundation in the Law of the Land as erecting Altars bowing towards them and such like have been not only introduced but in some places imposed whereby an Arbitrary Power was usurped divers Ministers of the Gospel though Conformable to the Established Ceremonies troubled some Reverend and Learned Bishops offended the Protestants grieved and the Papists pleased as hoping that those Innovations might make way for greater Changes May it therefore please your Majesty by such ways as your Royal Wisdom shall judge meet effectually to prevent the imposing and using of such Innovations for the future that so according to the pious intention of your Royal Grandfather King Iames of blessed memory the Publick Worship may be free not only from blame but from suspicion In obedience to your Majesty's Royal Pleasure graciously signified to us we have tendered to your most Excellent Majesty what we humbly conceive may most conduce to the Glory of God to the Peace and Reformation of the Church and to the taking away not only of our Differences but the Roots and Causes of them We humbly beg your Majesty's favourable Acceptance of these our Loyal and Conscientious Endeavours to serve your Majesty and the Church of Christ and your gracious Pardon if in any Thing or Expression we answer not your Majesty's Expectation professing before your Majesty and before the Lord the Searcher of Hearts that we have done nothing out of strife vain Glory or Emulation but have sincerely offered what we apprehend most seasonable and conducing to that happy End of Unity and Peace which your Majesty doth so piously prosecute We humbly lay our selves and these our Addresses at your Majesty's feet professing our unfeigned resolution to live and die your Majesty's faithful loyal and obedient Subjects and humbly implore your Gracious Majesty according unto your Princely Wisdom and Fatherly Compassion so to lay your Hand upon the bleeding Rents and Divisions that are amongst us that there may be an healing of them so shall your Throne be greater than the Throne of your Fathers in your days the Righteous shall flourish Peace shall run down like a River and the Generations to come shall call you blessed This following Paper I drew up at this time and offered to the Brethren to have been presented to the King as the Summary of our Judgment that he might see in a few plain words what it was that we indeed desired But it was not consented to both because that all of us were not agreed among our selves in granting so much of Episcopacy and because we would not hinder our Success by adding any more to Bishop Usher's Model hoping that his Authority might have facilitated the Reception of it to which Reasons I consented The brief Sum of our Iudgment and Desires about Church-Government 1. POwer is 1. Imperial and Coercive by Mulcts and Penalties 2. or Doctoral and Suasory The first belongeth only to the Magistrate The second to the Pastors of the Church 2. Though in Cases of Necessity the same Man may be both a Magistrate and a Pastor yet out of such Case it is unlawful or very unmeet Each Calling will find a Man work enough alone And our work being perswasive is successful but as it procureth Complacency and Consent and therefore we should be put upon no such Actions as will render us more feared and hated than desired to our Flocks We therefore humbly beseech your Majesty to trust no Church-men with the Sword with any degree of Imperial
and perswading all the Families House by House they saw the Body of Town and Parish in love with serious Religion they told me they had been undone if I had followed their Counsel William Allen who with Mr. Lamb were Pastors of an Anabaptist Arminian Church first separated from the Parish-Churches and next from the Independents was turned from Independency much by seeing being our Kidderminster Factor that Parish-Churches may be made as holy as separated ones and the People not left by lazy Separatists to the Devil So that this Experience made him and his Companion more against Independency than I am 11. They abuse the People in indulging them in works that they were never called to nor are capable of nor can give any comfortable account of to God that is To be the Judges of Persons admitted to Communion and of Mens Repentance and Fitness for the Sacrament c. whenas God hath put this Power called The Church Keys into the Pastors and Rulers hands the not over-forced Men but Voluntiers Baptism is the true Churches Entrance and the Baptizer is the Judge of the Capacity of the Baptized no more but Consent to particular Church Relation and Duty is necessary to Membership of Neighbour Christians in particular Churches And nothing but proved nullifying the Baptismal Covenant by Heresie or Sin impenitently maintained or contained in doth forfeit their visible right to Communion And if the People must judge of all these they must have their Callings to examine every Person and they must grow wiser and abler then many of their Leaders are 12. Their Churches have among them no probable way of Concord but they are as a heap of Sand that upon every Commotion fall in pieces The Experience of it in Holland broke them to nothing And it so affected the Sober in New-England that in 1660. or 1661. Mr. Ash and I were fain to disswade Mr. Norton and Mr. Broadstreet whom they sent hither as Commissioners from inclining to our English Episcopacy foretelling them what was doing and we have seen so deeply were they afraid of being received by that Peoples uncurable Separation from their ablest Pastors whenever any earnest erroneous Teachers would seduce them Their Building wanteth Cement 13. God hath so wonderfully by his Providences disowned the way of Schism and Separation on how good pretences soever that I should be too like Pharaoh in hardness if I should despise his warnings For Instance 1. In the Apostles days all are condemned that separated from the setled Churches even when those Churches had many heinous Scandals and St. Paul saith That all they in Asia were turned from him The Authority and Miracles of the Apostles did not serve to keep Men from Separation and raising Schisms 2. Even when the Church lay under Heathen Persecutors for 294 years yet Swarms of Condemned Sects arose to so great a number as that the naming and confuting them filleth great Volumes to the great Reproach of the Christian Churches and Scandal of the Heathens 3. As soon as Constantine delivered the Churches from the Flames of cruel Persecution and set up Christians in Power and Wealth separating Sects grew greater than before each Party crying up their several Bishops and Teachers and grew worse by Divisions till thereby they tempted the Papal Clergy to unite Men carnally by force 4. At Luther's Reformation Swarms of Separatists arose in Germany Holland Poland c. to the great dishonour of the Protestant Cause 5. Here in England it hath been ill in Queen Elizabeth's time by the Familists and Separatists and far worse since It was such as Quarterman and Lilburn and other Separatists that drew Tumults and Crowds down to Westminster to draw the Parliament to go beyond their own Judgment and thereby divided the Parliament-men and drove away the King which was the beginning of our odious War It was the Separating Party that all over the Land set up Anti-Churches in the Towns that had able godly Ministers when they had nothing imposed on them to excuse it neither Bishops Liturgies nor Ceremonies So that Churches became like Cockpits or Fencing-Schools to draw asunder the Body of Christ. It was the Separating Party that got under Cromwell into the Army and became the common Scorners of a godly able Ministry by the Names of the Priest-byters the Driviners the Westminster-sinners the Dissembly-men as Malignant Drunkards did and worse It was these that thought Success had made them Rulers of the Land that caused the disbanding of all the Soldiers that disliked their Spirit and Way and then pull'd down first eleven and then the major part of the Parliament imprisoning and turning out Men of eminent Piety and Worth and making a Parliament of the minor part and their killing the King and afterward with scorn turning out that minor part that had done their work and to whom they had oft profest themselves Servants It was these Men that set up a Usurper that made a thing called a Parliament all of his and his Armies nomination If this should ever be imitated whom may we thank It was these Men that set up the Military Government of Major-Generals It was they that set up and pull'd down so many feigned Supream Powers in a few years as made themselves the Scorn of the World and by a dreadful warning of Divine Justice all their victorious Army and Power dropt in pieces like Sand as they would have used the Church and was dissolved without one Battle or drop of Blood save the after-Blood of their Leaders that were hang'd drawn and quarter'd by Parliament Sentence It is these Men and these doings that have hardened thousands against Reformation and turned all that was done for it O what did it cost and what raised hopes had many of the Success into Reproach quieted the Consciences of those that have thought they served God by silencing hating and persecuting those that they thought had been of this guilty Sect. In a word the spirit and way of causeless Separation whether by violent Prelatists Pursuits and Excommunications or by self-conceited Sectaries was never owned or blest by God If any say truly or falsly You have had a hand in some such thing your self I answer If I had I will hate it and write against it so much the more To thrust ones self into a way so disowned by God by such a course of fearful warnings is to run with Pharaoh into the Red-Sea especially when Impenitence so fixeth the guilt on them that cannot endure to hear of it as may make us fear that the worst 〈◊〉 behind and Sin and Judgments yet continue The Sum of what is said to you on the other side is that the Church of England and the Parish Churches have no true Ministry and therefore are no true Churches That they confess there is no Church without a Bishop and no Bishop below the Diocesan and so no Church below the Diocesan Church That those are no Scripture Bishops and Churches
Antbony Tuckny Dr. in Divinity Iohn Conant Dr. in Divinity William Spurstow Dr. in Divinity Iohn Wallis Dr. in Divinity Thomas Manton Dr. in Divinity Edmund Calamy Batchelour in Divinity Richard Baxter Clerk Arthur Iackson Clerk Thomas Case Samuel Clark Matthew Newcomen Clerks and to our trusâ—y and well-beloved Dr. Earles Dean of Westminster Peter Heylin Dr. in Divinity Iohn Hacket Dr. in Divinity Iohn Barwick Dr. in Divinity Peter Guâ—â—ing Dr. in Divinity Iohn Pierson Dr. in Divinity Thomas Pierce Dr. in Divinity Anthony Sparrow Dr. in Divinity Herbert Thorndike Batchelour in Divinity Thomas Horton Dr. in Divinity Thomas Iacomb Dr. in Divinity William Bates Iohn Rawlinson Clerk William Cooper Clerk Dr. Iohn Lightfoot Dr. Iohn Collins Dr. Benjamin Woodbridge and William Drake Clerk Greeting Whereas by our Declaration of the Five and twentieth of October last concerning Ecclesiastical Affairs we did amongst other things express an esteem of the Liturgy of the Church of England contained in the Book of Common Prayer and yet since we find some Exceptions made against several things therein we did by our said Declaration declare we would appoint an equal number of Learned Divines of both Perswasions to review the same and to make such Alterations therein as shall be thought most necessary and some additional Forms in the Scripture phrase as near as might be suited to the nature of the several Parts of Worship we therefore in accomplishment of our said Will and Intent and of our continued and constant Care and Study for the Peace and Unity of the Churches within our Dominions and for the removal of all Exceptions and Differences and Occasions of Differences and Exceptions from amongst our good Subjects for or concerning the said Book of Common Prayer or any thing therein contained do by these our Letters Patents require authorize constitute and appoint you the said accepted Archbishop of York Gilbert Bishop of London Iohn Bishop of Durham Iohn Bishop of Rochester Henry Bishop of Chichester Humphrey Bishop of Sarum George Bishop of Worcester Robert Bishop of Lincoln Benjamin Bishop of Peterburgh Bryan Bishop of Chester Richard Bishop of Carlisle Iohn Bishop of Exeter Edward Bishop of Norwich Anthony Tuckney Iohn Conant William Spurstow Iohn Wallis Thomas manton Edmund Calamy Richard Baxter Arthur Iackson Thomas Case Samuel Clark and Matthew Newcomen to advise upon and review the said Book of Common Prayer comparing the same with the most ancient Liturgies which have been used in the Church in the primitive and purest Times And to that end to assemble and meet together from time to time and at such times within the space of four Kalender Months now next ensuing in the Masters Lodgings in the Savoy in the Strand in the County of Middlesex or in such other place or places as to you shall be thought fit and convenient to take into your serious and grave Considerations the several Directions Rules and Forms of Prayer and Things in the said Book of Common Prayer contained and to advise and consult upon and about the same and the several Objections and Exceptions which shall now be raised against the fame And if occasion be to make such reasonable and necessary Alterations Corrections and Amendments therein as by and between you and the said Archbishop Bishops Doctors and Persons hereby required and authorized to meet and advise as aforesaid shall be agreed upon to be needful or expedient for the giving Satisfaction unto tender Consciences and the restoring and continuance of Peace and Unity in the Churches under our Protection and Government But avoiding as much as may be all unnecessary Alterations of the Forms and Liturgy wherewith the People are already acquainted and have so long received in the Church of England And our will and pleasure is that when you the said Archbishop Bishops Doctors and Persons authorized and appointed by these our Letters Patents to meet advise and consult upon about the Premises aforesaid shall have drawn your Consultations to any Resolution and Determination which you shall agree upon as needful or expedient to be done for the altering diminishing â—r enlarging the said Book of Common Prayer or any part thereof that then you forthwith certifie and present unto us in Writing under your several Hands the Matters and Things whereupon you shall so determine for our Approbation And to the end the same or so much thereof as shall be approved by us may be established And forasmuch as the said Archbishop and Bishops having several great Charges to attend which we would not dispense with or that the same should be neglected upon any great occasion whatsoever and some of them being of great Age and Infirmities may not be able constantly to attend the Execution of the Service and Authority hereby given and required by us in the Meetings and Consultations aforesaid We Will therefore and do hereby require and authorize you the said Dr. Earles Peter Heylin Iohn Hacket Iohn Barwick Peter Gunning Iohn Pearson Thomas Pierce and Anthony Sparrow and Herbert Thorndike to supply the place or places of such of the said Archbishop and Bishops other than the said Edward Bishop of Norwich as shall by Age Sickness Infirmity or other occasion be hindred from attending the said Meeting or Consultations That is to say that one of you the said Dr. Earles Peter Heylin Iohn Hacket Iohn Barwick Peter Gunning Iohn Pearson Thomas Pearce Anthony Sparrow and Herbert Thorndike shall from time to time supply the Place of each one of them the said Archbishop and Bishops other than the said Edward Bishop of Norwich which shall happen to be hindred or to be absent from the said Meeting or Consultations and shall and may advise and consult and determine and also certifie and execute all and singular the Power and Authority before mentioned in and about the Premises as fully and absolutely as such Archbishop or Bishops which shall so happen to be absent should or might do by Vertue of these our Letters Patents or any thing therein contained in case he or they were personally present And whereas in regard of the Distance of some the Infirmities of others the multitude of constant Imployments and other incidental Impediments some of you the said Edward Bishop of Norwich Anthony Tuckney Iohn Conant William Spurstow Iohn Wallis Thomas Manton Edmund Calamy Rich. Baxter Arthur Iackson Thomas Case Samuel Clarke and Matthew Newcomen may be hindred from the constant Attendance in the Execution of the Service aforesaid We therefore will and do hereby require and authorize you the said Tho. Horton Thomas Iacomb William Bates Iohn Rawlinson William Cooper Iohn Lightfoot Iohn Collins Benjamin Woodbridge and William Drake to supply the Place or Places of such the Commissioners last above mentioned as shall by the means aforesaid or any other Occasion be hindred from the said Meeting and Consultations that is to say that one of you the said Thomas Horton Thomas Iacomb William Butes Iohn Rawlinson William Cooper Dr.
the Error For if I had understood that it contained two Propositions 1. That Men thus and thus qualified shall preach the Word or it is the Duty of Men thus and thus qualified to preach the Word And then 2. That Men thus and thus qualified ordinis gratia shall be set apart to it or shall be appointed to Preach I never had made this Animadversion but should have acknowledged a formal Answer But I understood it only thus that Men thus and thus qualified shall be appointed that is it is their Duty being so and so qualified to seek for Ordination or it is their Duty being so and so qualified to be appointed to the Work which I thought might be true and yet they no Ministers till they were de facto set apart But now very well understanding that it may well bear both Propositions and the first coming up close to the Question in hand I shall willingly retract all that I said upon that Point and acknowledge a formal Answer which I think may satisfie But whereas you say that by disclaiming my last Argument I denied Imposition of Hands to be so necessary and by urging something hereabouts did seem to forget what I said anon I answer I did never intend to deny Imposition of Hands to be of necessity to legitimate Ordination I said indeed an Argument drawn from thence against the Question in Hand was frivolous But I did not intend to disparage the thing it self any farther than Relatively to the Question then in debate And whereas you say that Fasting was not used I answer that there never was any Ordination but Fasting was previous to it by the Appointment of the Church in Ember-Weeks which were constantly kept by the Sons of the Church though neglected by others and this I think might serve though it was not the same Day and I believe you will say so too But in these things neither will I be boisterous till I am better informed what may be the substantial or essential Parts of Christ's Ordinances and what not which I confess I have not yet such an Idea of So as to say in every Ordinance what is essential and what not Ad. 3 um Whereas you wonder that upon such slight Grounds I should so tenaciously stand to part of my third Argument I answer that I did not intend to inforce that the Case of extream inculpable necessity was the Sectaries Case But such a Necessity as did inevitably intangle them in their Invasion of the Ministry which though it doth no ways make them lawful Ministers yet it makes them inconfutably lawful Ministers till the Opinions which first made them separate be proved to them to be erroneous my meaning is this I think if this Hypothesis be true that in case of extream Necessity Men may and some must enter irregularly into the Ministry it is not possible to convince an Anabaptist that his Invasion of the Ministerial Work is unlawful till we can first convince him that Anabptism is erroneous Now hereupon I thought their Hands was much strengthened over what it would have been had that Hypothesis been false For then we could incontroulably have cleared their Invasion of the Work though they had in the mean time remained unconvinced of their erroneous Opinion But now if we cannot convince them of their Error but their way still appear Truth to them then they need do no more to justifie their Practice to themselves but borrow our Principle and that sets them right and so their Invasion is inconfutable from what they borrow from our selves And so though they do not justifie themselves to us because we think their Necessity culpable and through their own default yet they so far justifie by this very Principle their Practice to themselves that it renders them unconfutably lawful till we can prove and make it out plain to them that their very Opinions are erroneous So that you mistook while you thought that I intended to prove their Practice lawful whereas all that I intended was to shew that upon such a Principle their Invasion became less confutable and their Hands something strengthned over they could have been upon the contrary Hypothesis by which you may perhaps see what Link of your Chain I intended to break But enough of this I shall now come to the Business I first spake of First therefore you lay down the Episcopal Principles pag. 65. viz. That no Church is a true Church without Ministers and no Man a Minister that is not Ordained by a Bishop and no Man a Bishop that is not ordained by a Bishop lawfully called and not deprived again of his Power And this Bishop must be Ordained by a former Bishop and he by a former and so the Succession must be followed up to the Apostles Having done thus you catechize these Seekers as you call these Doctors And then proceed to prove that these Reverend Learned Pious Bishops which you acknowledge to be now in this Nation are no lawful Bishops upon the Principles laid down because they were ordained by such as had no Authority to ordain This you prove because they were Ordained at length by the Popish Bishops in Hen. VIII Time who had no Authority to Ordain this you prove because they derived their Authority from the Pope who had no Authority to give them any That the Pope had no Authority you prove by an Interruption of Succession of lawful Bishops in that Chair That there hath been an Interruption in that Chair you prove by the Instances of Liberius Honorias Dame Ione and many others as you say out of Bishop Iewel The Strength of these Instances depend upon that Hypothesis that Heresy or notorious Impiety doth evacuate holy Orders Now if it can be infallably proved that Heresy or Impiety doth not evacuate Holy Orders or rather if you cannot infallably prove as it is my part at this time to deny I being upon the defensive that Impiety or Heresy doth evacuate Holy Orders then it will not follow that there was an Interruption though Liberius was an Heretick And if no Interruption then Pope Clement the Incumbent at Rome in Henry VIII Days was notwithstanding what is urged in full Power to Ordain And then if he had Authority then the Popish Bishops which derived from him had full Authority and if they had then our Bishops who at length derive from them have also full Athority and so the whole Structure will fall at once in that Hypothesis which is the Foundation of all shall chance to shake And therefore Sir in the first place I pray you take notice that I deny that Heresy or Impiety doth evacuate Holy Orders and expect the Proof of it â—â—But then suppose I should grant this which I never intend I may I conceive falsly debate that though there should be an Interruption in the Succession of the Chair at Rome yet the Pope that now is or the Pope that sat at Rome in Hen. VIII Days were
fully authorized to ordain if they were but ordained by such who neither were Heretical or Impious For the Authority or Power of Ordination I conceive doth not come to any Bishop by Vertue drawn from his Predecessor in sede but by Vertue derived from him who laid Hands upon him at his Consecration For Example that you may understand my meaning suppose Dr. Winneffe the late Bishop of Lincoln was consecrated by the Imposition of the Bishop of Worcestor's Hand I conceive it is unreasonable to affirm that this Doctor received his Episcopal Orders rather from Dr. Williams his Predecessor in the Chair at Lincoln than from the Bishop of Worcester who is supposed to lay Hands upon him at his Consecration Or if the Question be whether he was a lawful Bishop that gave him Orders I conceive that it is equally unreasonable that we should go and inquire rather after Dr. Williams his Authority who was his Predecessor in sede than after the Bishop of Worcester who was or is supposed in the â—aâ—e to be his Consecrator Or if Iohn Williams who was his Predecessor should have de facto proved an Arrian or a Conjurer while he sat in the Diocesan Chair aâ— Lincoln I think it is every whit as unreasonable to affirm that therefore Dr. Winneffe who succeeded him in that Seat should lose his Episcopal Authority when as his Consecrator can have no such thing fastened upon him In like manner though Liberius was an Arrian while he sat in the Pontifical Chair at Rome yet if that Bishop whoever he was and look you to that who consecrated Pope Clement were Orthodox and so forward till we come to the Apostles his Authority was good enough though one or more of his Predecessors in sede were Heretical If you shall say that the Case is not alike betwixt the Succession of Popes and other Bishops I ask where 's the difference If you say that the difference is in this that the Pope claims not his Authority from his Consecrator but from his Predecessor I answer That it is very probable that he doth do so But let him and the Popish Doctors therefore see how they can quit their Hands of this Interruption For our parts we conceive we need not be engaged in this Controversy It is enough for us to reply to this asserted Difference That the Question is not what they lay claim to but what they ought de jure to lay claim to If you say That de jure they do challenge their Authority from their Predecessors I expect that you must prove it before I will promise you that I will believe it But if you say that the Difference is only this That they do de facio claim their Authority after another manner than other Bishops then I rejoyn that it doth not follow that they have their Authority after another manner than other Bishops because they say they have If therefore the facultas Ordinandi doth not come from the Bishop's Predecessor in sede but from the Bishop who is the Consecrator Then Sir you must prove that some of those Bishops who Consecrated Pope Clement e're the Succession reach the Apostles were Hereticks It little avails to prove that some of his Predecessors in Cathedre was such at least to me who are unwilling to be thought a Protestant But then Thirdly Suppose we should grant this which we likewise never intend how will you make it appear that our Bishops in Hen. VIII Time had their Authority from the then incumbing Pope If you say they went over to him for Imposition of Hands that 's improbable if you say he came over to them that 's intollerable if you say that he did delegate his Authority to some of our English Bishops or sent a Deputy or Nuncio authorized to those Ends I answer that it may be true that he did so But then the Question will again be whether our English Bishops had not full Authority to have done all this without his Knowledge or whether rather an Expectation of a Commission from him were not a Fruit of the Error of those times holding him to be the universal Bishop If it was though it be Argumentum ad hominem and will again I think press fore upon the Papists who assert the same yet it doth nothing trouble us who assert no such Universality I ask therefore must we acknowledge the Pope to be universal Bishop or must we not if we must why do we not If we must not why should any Man urge that Practice in his own Defence which he himself judgeth to be erroneous I speak plainlier if the Bishops in Hen. VIII Time had their Authority from the Pope then this must be pretended I think upon others Grounds either because the Bishops had indeed no Power to Ordain without his Commission or because they thought they had none or because they could not exercise that Power which they both had and knew they had without his leave If you say they had indeed no Power to Ordain without his Commission I say that you are more than a Cassandrian Papist If you say they had no Power because they judged they had none I deny the Consequence and expect you should prove it Or 3. If you say they had their Authority from him because they could not exercise it without his leave I shall only propound this Case in answer to you Suppose General Cromwell should put in so between you and the Exercise of your Ministry that without his leave you should not preach or administer the Sacraments would you say if you had leave from him that you derived your Authority from him because the external Exercise of your Authority depends upon his Leave I think you would not Well Sir I shall now only rehearse what I expect you should prove And the first thing that is expected is this That Heresy or Impiety doth evacuate Holy Orders 2. That the Power of Ordination is derived from the Predecessor in sede 3. That some of Pope Clement's Consecrators e're his Line reach the Apostles were heretical or impious 4. You must prove that the Bishops in Hen. VIII Time did not only judge that they had dependance upon the Pope for Authority but that indeed they had no Authority but what they derived from him If you can indeed make good all this then I shall confess that the Interruption of Succession is made good also But till then I shall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yet in the mean time shall be a very great Admirer of your Worth and Lover of your Industry M. Iohnson Wamborn Dec. 8. 1653. For my Reverend and very Worthy Friend Mr. Baxter Minister of the Word at Kidderminster These Mr. Iohnson's Fifth Letter to Mr. Baxter SIR THE Question as I remember was stated between us thus Whether an infallible Knowledge that our Ordainers have full Authority to ordain be necessary to make us have true Peace of Conscience in the Exercise of our Ministry To which Question
to prevail with them 2. The Protestants whom I spoke to may be prevailed with for ought you know All be not of one Spirit If they be not I have Confort in following Peace as far as I could which they will never find in flying from it While every Man must be a Pope and reduce all the World to his infallible Judgment as the only means to Peace and will agree with none but Men of his own Principles no wonder if Pacificatory Attempts are frustrate Duroeus Acontius Davenant Hall Melancthon c. found that better Labours than mine have been frustrate for Unity I bless God my Success is far more than ever I did expect but it is with the Sons of Peace Excep to Sect. 30. These things shall be defended against him through God's Grace 1. That if there be no Bishop in any Diocess yet in a National Church where many Bishops had united themselves to govern parts of one National Church they ought to have recourse to some neighbour Bishop 2. That if Presbyters in defect of Bishops might Ordain Excommunicate yet not one single Presbyter 3. That such as were never Ordained by Bishops where they might are none of of these Presbyters none at all Reply to Sect. 30. I am of as quarrelsom a Nature as others but yet I will not be provoked to turn a conciliatory Design into a Contention and if I would your Questions are ill fitted to our use 1. The First will necessarily carry us to dispute the Ius Divinum of Bishops which I purposely avoid and it should be after the last 2. The Secoônd if I yield it you is nothing against our Agreement 3. The Third I cannot dispute well till I know what you will yield in the excepted Case I would desire you as a more orderly and effectual way to our Ends to do these three Things 1. Tell me plainly whether you take the Reformed Churches of Holland France Scotland Helvetia Geneva c. for true organized Churches and their Pastors for true Pastors and Presbyters and Ordination by Presbyters to be valid in their Case 2. seeing you plainly seem to take an uninterrupted Succession of authoritative Ordination to be of flat Necessity to the being of the Ministry will you give us a clear Proof of such a Succession de Facto either to your self or any Man now living I earnestly intreat you deny me not this nor say it is needless I have told you the need of it in those Papers Again I pray you put it not off 3. Seeing you prosess to be for Concord and yet reject our Terms as a Schismatical Combination will you propound your own Terms the lowest condescending Terms which you can possibly yield to which may tend to our Closure If you only contend against our Way and will not find a better nor use any Endeavours of your own in its stead what Man of Reason will believe your Profession of the strong Inclination of the Heart to Concord and Peace I again intreat you instead of contending to perform these Three things which will exceedingly further the much desired Work And for my part though you and Millions of Men oppose it I am resolved by the Grace of God to desire pray and labour for Peace and the Unity of the Church upon Honest and Possible not Romish or Sinful Terms while I am Rich. Baxter Dec. 23. 1653. No. II. Mr. Johnson's First Letter to Mr. Baxter about the Point of Ordination SIR BEING very much unsatisfied in the reading of your late Discourse concerning the Interruption of the Succession of the Ministry I thought good to take Advantage from your own Offer friendly and freely to debate the Question with you And I shall lay out my Thoughts to you in this Method 1. I will give you the Reasons which makes me if it be Papistical to abet the Papists in pleading for an uninterrupted Succession 2. I will reply to your Arguments whereby you dispute the Succession of the Ministry of England to be interrupted 3. I will offer you some Reasons why an infallible Proof of the Point is not necessary in the Case 4. I will produce such Arguments as shall put it beyond doubting and so shall leave indubitable though not infallible Proof of the Question in your Hands 1. First I shall give you the Reasons why I plead so seriously for the uninterrupted Succession and I shall do this in the first place because all the rest will be Supervacaneous if it be a Matter of no great Consequence whether there be a Succession or not If therefore you can satisfy my Arguments whereby I plead for the Necessity and give me Reason enough to understand that an Uninterruption of the Succession is not much material I will save my self the Trouble of Confuting what you have said against it and you some Trouble of making a needless Repl. Now the first Reason which induceth me to believe that it is a matter of much more Cosequence than you talk of is the Seriousness of our Divines in their Endeavours to prove that the Bishops in Edward VI. and Queen Elizabeth's Days were Ordained by Bishops against the Calumnies of Sanders Kellison Chalmney and other Jesuits who in their Writings would have bore the World in Hand that the Succession of the Ministry of England had been interrupted at the Reformation because there were none but Popish Bishops to Ordain them and they would not and so none did But as you know had devised a Story of the Nag's-Head Ordination Now you also know there hath been much Endeavour made by searching the Archiva at Lambeth to clear up the Ordination of our first Reformers that thereby they might invalidate the Papists Calumny of our Succession◠being interrupted But if Succession in Office for Succession in Doctrine I neither speak of neither did they plead for be a matter of so small a Consequence our learned Country-Men might have saved themselves much Labour and Trouble and in a few Words have told the Jesuits that an Uninterruption of Succession was a thing not worth pleading for But on the other side we see them acknowledge Succession in Office to be necessary and contend that there hath been no such Interruption in our Ministry II. The Second Argument which persuades me to believe that the pleading for a Succession is of great Moment is this viz. That without this I do not understand how we that are now Ministers can be said to have our Authority from Christ For we must have it from him either mediately or immediately But we cannot have it mediately from him if the Succession be interrupted for if we have it mediately from him we must have it by the Mediation of some Person who at length had it immediately from him But if the Succession be interrupted we cannot have it from any Person that had it immediately from him or his Apostles This is a kind of Contradiction in adjecto and therefore we cannot have it
mediately from Christ If you deny the Consequence and say that we may have our Authority from Christ mediately though we have it not from some Person who had it immediately from him I demand how if you say by the Mediation of his written Word I answer that the written Word is no fit medium to convey the Authority of the Ministry now a days upon any Men And that upon this Account The giving of Authority which we talk of is an Action terminated upon sum individuum in this Age. But the Scriptures meddle not with any of the Individuums of these times and therefore it cannot give any Authority unto any single Person now a days The Major I think is clear the Minor I prove thus If the Scripture meddle with any of the Individuums of this Age it doth it either quod Nomen or quoad Adjunctum aliud incomunicabile or by some general Discription which may be personally and particularly applied to some individuum But I am confident you will not say it doth either of the two former ways neither doth it say I by the third way and therefore not at all That it doth not give any Authority to any single person by way of general Discription I prove thus If it doth it must be in some such Form of Words or Words of equivalent to these They that are thus and thus qualified may be Ministers of the Word but there is no such Form of Words in Scripture There is I confess such a Form of Words in the Scripture as this They that preach the Word shall be thus and thus qualified But if any individuum shall venture upon the Application of this Proposition to take the Authority of the Ministry upon himself The Application I conceive must proceed in this Form But I am thus and thus and thus qualified therefore I may preach the Word But this is to proceed ex omnibus affirmativis in the second Figure which you know makes a wild Conclusion If you say that there is such a Form of Words which being the Major may be so accommodated to any single Person in the Minor as he may thereby infer this Conclusion Therefore I M. I. or I R. B. have Authority to preach the Gospel and this without respect to any Action to be performed by some Person quasi mediante then I will yield that I have been beating the Air all this while I have said nothing to the first Branch of the first Proposition concerning our having our Authority immediately from Jesus Christ neither do I intend till I know that it will be denied Authority I conceive to be far different from either Abilities to undergo an Imployment or a willing Mind to undertake it or Conveniency of Habitation for the Discharge of it or the Desire of any kind of Men inviting a Man to it I say I conceive Authority for the Discharge of any Office to be very far wide from any one of these or altogether For a Man may have all these and yet want Authority For Example in civil Matters A Gentleman may be abundantly qualified to be a Justice of the Peace he may have a willing Mind to do his Country Service in that way his Habitation for such an Imployment may be more than Convenient he may be put upon it and invited to it by his Country Neighbours and yet for all this no Man will take hâ—m for an Officer in the Common-wealth till his Name be in the Commission from the Supreme Magistrate and he taken his Oath as a Stipulation to the supream Magistrate on his Part for his Faithful Discharge in it Neither would any understanding Man think himself obliged to obey his Warrants if he should have the Confidence to issue out any before these compleating Acts be done notwithstanding all the former Preparations towards it In like manner to the thing in Hand about Ecclesiastical Officers A Man I doubt not may have competent Qualifications for the Work of the Ministry he may have a willing Mind to the Employment he may have an Habitation fit for the Oversight of such a Congregation he may be invited by them to undertake the Care and Oversight of them and yet for all this till Jesus Christ the Supreme Governor of his Church shall by his Vicarios Episcopos put his Name into the Commission and take reciprocal Security from him for his faithful Discharge in it he neither can nor ever was esteemed a Minister duly authorized And therefore though God as in the Case of a Civil Magistrate may very fitly and properly be said to do all as you urge I think out of Spalatensis So he may be said in the Case of Ecclesiastiacal Officers to be said properly and fitly to do all yet he doth not all the Work without the Mediation of his Vice-gerents and I cannot see but that part of the Work which he hath left for them to do is as necessary for the compleating and perfecting of the Work as that which he doth without their Mediation and by consequence if that part of the Work be left undone the whole Work is as imperfect and incomplete as if this had been done but the other Parts left undone Here is in this I confess some thing taken pro confesso that Jesus Christ hath some Vice-gerents here on Earth and that he hath left some part of this Work in their Hands for them to do Which being a Matter of Fact shall be proved when I know it is denied III. But Thirdly My Third Argument is this I do therefore plead for an uninterrupted Sucession because it appears to me that most of the Invaders and Intruders upon the Ministerial Office are very much strengthened and justified in their Schism and Usurpation if Succession be not material For I will not deny but many of them are Men competently qualified and all of them willing to undertake the Work live conveniently or will live conveniently to discharge the work are chosen by a Number of Christians who call them out to it Now if all this make them Ministers authorized why do we clamour against them why do we not give them the Right Hand of Fellowship and Brotherhood in the Work of the Lord If you say they take this Course for their Call when there is no necessity if you say this is a Course only to be used in extream Necessity when either the Parties think that there are no Church Officers in being or those that are in being be so corrupt and wicked as either they will not give them Orders or they dare not take Orders from them I answer That this extreme necessity is their Case They think there be no such things as Christs Church Officers now in being or if they be they are such as either will not give them Orders or such as they dare take no Orders from And therefore they are still excusable upon such an Hypothesis as you propound Whereas do but grant a Succession uninterrupted