Saint, Ignatius.

"Let all things be done to the honour of GOD, give respect to your bishop as you would God should respect you. My soul for theirs which obey their bishop, presbyters, and deacons ; GOD grant that my portion may be the same with theirs." And let my soul have the same share with that blessed Martyr that said so. Amen.

LAUD, ARCHBISHOP AND MARTYR.-Conference with Fisher,

xvi. 29.

Yes

"I am with you always unto the end of the world." most certain it is,-present by His Spirit; or else in bodily presence He continued not with His Apostles, but during His abode on earth. And this promise of His spiritual presence was to their successors; else, why "to the end of the world?" The Apostles did not, could not, live so long. But then to the successors the promise goes no farther, than "I am with you always," which reaches to continual assistance, but not to divine and infallible.

"The Comforter the Holy Ghost shall abide with you for ever." Most true again; for the Holy Ghost did abide with the Apostles, according to Christ's promise thus made, and shall abide with their successors for ever, to comfort and preserve them.

Ibid. -xxv. 15.

Christ promised the Keys to St. Peter. (Matt. xvi.) True; but so did He to all the rest of the Apostles (Matt. xviii. John xx.), and to their successors as much as to his. . . . St. Augustine is plain, "If this were said only of St. Peter, then the Church hath no power to do it," which God forbid! The Keys, therefore, were given to St. Peter and the rest in a figure of the Church, to whose power and for whose use they were given. But there's not one key in all that bunch, that can let in St. Peter's successor more powerful principality" universal than the successors of the other Apostles had.

to a

66

BRAMHALL, ARCHBISHOP AND CONFESSOR.-Vindication of the Church of England.-Discourse III.

I do also acknowledge that Episcopacy was comprehended in the Apostolic office, tanquam trigonus in tetragono, and the distinction was made by the Apostles, with the approbation of CHRIST; that the angels of the seven Churches in the Revelation were seven Bishops; that it is the most silly ridiculous thing in the world, to calumniate that for a Papal innovation, which was established in the Church before there was a Pope at Rome; which hath been received and approved in all ages since the very cradle of Christianity, by all sorts of Christians, Europeans, Africans, Asiatics, Indians, many of which never had any intercourse with Rome, nor scarcely ever heard of the name of Rome. If semper, ubique, et ab omnibus be not a sufficient plea, I know not what is.

But because I esteem them Churches not completely formed, do I, therefore, exclude them from all hopes of salvation? or esteem them aliens and strangers from the commonwealth of Israel? or account them formal schismatics? No such thing. First, I know there are many learned persons among them who do passionately affect Episcopacy; some of which have acknowledged it to myself, that their Church would never be rightly settled, until it was new-moulded. Baptism is a sacrament, the door of Christianity, a matriculation into the Church of Christ: yet the very desire of it in case of necessity, is sufficient to excuse from the want of actual Baptism. And is not the desire of Episcopacy, sufficient to excuse from the actual want of Episcopacy, in like case of necessity? or should I censure these as Schismatics?

Secondly, there are others, who though they do not long so much for Episcopacy, yet they approve it, and want it only out of invincible necessity. In some places the sovereign prince is of another communion; the Episcopal chairs are filled with Roman Bishops. If they should petition for Bishops of their own, it would not be granted. In other places the magistrates have taken away Bishops; whether out of policy, because they thought that regiment not so proper for their republics, or be

cause they were ashamed to take away the revenues, and preserve the order, or out of a blind zeal, they have given an account to GOD: they owe none to me. Should I condemn all these as schismatics for want of Episcopacy, who want it out of invincible necessity?

Thirdly, there are others who have neither the same desires, nor the same esteem of Episcopacy, but condemn it as an Antichristian innovation, and a rag of Popery. I conceive this to be most gross schism materially. It is ten times more schismatical to desert, nay, to take away (so much as lies in them) the whole order of Bishops, than to subtract obedience from one lawful Bishop. All that can be said to mitigate this fault is, that they do it ignorantly, as they have been mistaught and misinformed. And I hope that many of them are free from obstinacy, and hold the truth implicitly in the preparation of their minds, being ready to receive it, when God shall reveal it to them. How far this may excuse (not the crime but) their persons from formal schism, either a toto or a tanto, I determine not, but leave them to stand or fall to their own Master.

But though these Protestants were worthy of this contumely, yet surely the Romanists are no fit persons to object it, whose opiniastrety did hinder an uniform reformation of the Western Church. Who did invest Presbyters with Episcopal jurisdiction, and the power of ordaining and confirming, but the Court of Rome, by their commissions and delegations, for avaricious ends? And could they think that the world would believe, that necessity is not as strong and effectual a dispensation, as their mercenary Bulls? It is not at all material, whether Episcopacy and Priesthood be two distinct orders, or distinct degrees of the same orders, the one subordinate to the other; whether Episcopal ordination do introduce a new character, or extend the old. For it is generally confessed by both parties, Protestants and Roman Catholics, that the same power and authority is necessary to the extension of a character, or grace given by ordination, which is required to the Institution of a Sacrament, that is not human but divine. These avaricious practices of that Court (though it be not commonly observed) were the first source of

these present controversies about Episcopacy, and Ecclesiastical discipline, which do now so much disturb the peace of the Church.

Ibid. Vindication of Grotius.-Discourse III.

Excuse me for telling the truth plainly; many who have had their education among Sectaries and Non-conformists have apostated to Rome, but few or no right Episcopal Divines. Hot water freezeth the soonest.

He addeth, that " Grotius himself assures him (whom he hath reason to believe) that there were not a few such among the prelatical men." How! not a few such as these, who have apostated from the Church of England? For ingenuity's sake let him tell us where Grotius saith any such thing. Grotius hath not one word to his purpose, when it is duly examined. But this it is to confute books, in less time than wise or modest men would require to read them.

Hitherto, he is not able to show us any tolerable reason of his warning. But he showeth us the occasion, p. 82. "Those that unchurch either all or most of the Protestant Churches, and maintain the Roman Church and not theirs to be true, do call us to a moderate jealousie of them." This is far enough from proving his bold suggestion, that they have a design to introduce the Pope into England. So though all he say were true : yet he can conclude nothing from thence to make good his accusation or insinuation. I wish he would forbear these imperfect enthymematical forms of argument, which serve only to cover deceit, and set down both his propositions expressly. His assumption is wanting, which should be this: but a considerable party of Episcopal divines in England do unchurch all or most of the Protestant Churches, and maintain the Roman Church to be a true Church, and these to be no true Churches. I can assent to neither of his propositions, nor to any part of them, as true, sub modo, as they are alleged by him.

First, I cannot assent to his major proposition, that all those who make an ordinary personal uninterrupted succession of Pastors, to be of the integrity of a true Church, (which is the ground of his

exception) have, therefore, an intention, or can justly be suspected thereupon to have any intention to introduce the Pope. The Eastern, Southern, and Northern Churches are all of them for such a personal succession, and yet all of them utter enemies to the Pope. Secondly, I cannot assent to his minor proposition, that either all or any considerable part of the Episcopal divines in England, do unchurch either all or most part of the Protestant Churches. No man is hurt but by himself. They unchurch none at all, but leave them to stand or fall to their own Master. They do not unchurch the Swedish, Danish, Bohemian Churches, and many other Churches in Polonia, Hungaria, and those parts of the world, who have an ordinary uninterrupted succession of Pastors, some by the names of Bishops, others under the name of Seniors, unto this day. (I meddle not with the Socinians :) they unchurch not the Lutheran Churches in Germany, who both assert Episcopacy in their confessions, and have actual superintendents in their practice, and would have Bishops, name and thing, if it were in their power. Let him not mistake himself: those Churches which he is so tender of, though they be better known to us by reason of their vicinity, are so far from being "all or most part of the Protestant Churches," that being all put together, they amount not to so great a proportion as the Britannick Churches alone. And if one secluded out of them all those who want an ordinary succession without their own faults, out of invincible ignorance or necessity, and all those who desire to have an ordinary succession either explicitly or implicitly, they will be reduced to a little flock indeed.

But let him set his heart at rest. I will remove this scruple out of his mind, that he may sleep securely upon both ears. Episcopal divines do not deny those Churches to be true Churches, wherein salvation may be had. We advise them, as it is our duty, to be circumspect for themselves, and not to put it to more question, whether they have ordination or not, or desert the general practice of the universal Church for nothing, when they may clear it if they please. Their case is not the same with those who labour under invincible necessity. What mine