The Due Right of Presbyteries

of sundry other Tribes raised up Prophets, and did immediately call them, they had only of the people not the calling, bu •• • t the least the silent approbation of the faithful amongst the people. Christ coming in the flesh chose twelve Apostles not knowing either the governing Church or the people; at length, when the Apostles established a Church-government, and a Pastor to a certain flock, they ordained that the ch • sing of the man should be with consen of the people, and beg • n this in Ma • thias, then the seven Deacons, then Acts 14. 23. Elders were chosen by lasting up of the people's hands. But that persons were ordained Pastors and sanctified, and set apart for the work of the ministry, by the authority of the sole multititude, and that without all Officers, we never read. And the laying on of the hands we see not in the New Testament; we shall be d • si • ous to be informed of this by our dear brethren, and entreat them in the fear of the Lord to consider of an unwritten calling of a Ministry. Thirdly, if ordination of Pastors be laid down in the Apostolic Canons to Officers, as Officers, then is not this a charge that doth agree to the people, especially wanting Officers. But the former is true; Ergo, so is the latter. I prove the proposition: What is charged upon Officers as Officers cannot be the charge of the people, because the people are not Officers. I prove the assumption, because 2 Tim. 2. 1, 2. To commit to faithful men the things of the Gospel, which Timothy heard Paul preach, is a charge laid on Timothy in the very terms, that he is verse. 4. not to entangle himself with the affairs of this life, but to be separated for preaching the Gospel, from all worldly employment; as a Soldier sworn to hi • Captain, can attend no other calling, verse. 5. and as he is to put other Pastors in mind of these things, and to charge them that they strite not about words; and as he is to be an approved workman, dividing the word aright, verse. 14. 15. But these are laid upon Timothy as a Pastor. So 1 Tim. 5. as he showeth the honor and reward due to Elders, so doth he charge Timothy not to hear accusations of Elders, but upon two or three witnesses testimony, which is the part of Church-Judges; even as he is to rebuke sin publicly, that others may fear, verse. 19, 20. So according to that same office, must imposition of hands be conserred upon Pastors advisedly, verse. 22. As the Apostle commandeth all believers to lay hands suddenly on no man. Also Paul would have said, I left a Church of believers at Crete to appoint Elders in every City; if it be the Churches part, even though destitute of Elders to appoint Elders over themselves, but by what po • er Titus was to rebuke sharply the Cretans, that they may be found in the saith, by that power was he left at Crete to appoint Elders in every City; but this is an official power, Titus 1. 13. due to Bishops, as a part of their qualification, verse. 9.

In answering our brethren's reasons; I first return to our Author; secondly, I obviate what our brethren say in the answer to the Questions sent from old England; and thirdly, shall answer Robinson's arguments.

Our Author saith, Believers have power to lay hands on their Officers, because to them Christ gave the keys; that is, the ministerial power of binding and loosing, Matth. 16. 16, 17, 18. and Acts 1. The voices of the people went as far as any human suffrages could go, of an hundred and twenty they chose two. And Acts 14. 23. The Apostles ordained Elders by the lifting up of the hands of the people. Acts 6. They are directed to look out and choose seven men to be Deacons. And the ancient Church did so from Cyprians words, Vlebs vel maxim potestatem habet, vel dign • s sacerdotes eligendi, vel indignos recusandi.

Answ. The places Math. 16. and 18. give, to some power ministerial to bind and loose, open and shue, by preaching the Gospel, and administering the Sacraments, as to stewards the Keys of an house are given: but this power is given to Elders o • ely, by evidence of the place, and exposition of all Divines. 2. If the ministerial power and the warrantable exercise thereof, be given to all; then are all Ministers; for the faculty and exercise doth denominate the subject and agent; but that is false by Scripture. 2. That all the hundred and twenty did ordain • Matthias an Apostle, Act. 1. is not said, they did nominate and present him. 2. they did choose him. But authoritative separation for the Office was Christ's and his Apostles work. 3. That women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, v. 14. being there, had voice, and exercised authority in ordaining an Apostle cannot be orderly. Yea the Apostles names are se • down, and these words, V. 23. and they appointed two, are relative to v. 17. these words, For he was numbered with us the Apostles, and to these V. 21. Wherefore of these men which have companied with us, &c. and to these v. 22. must one be ordained to be witness with us of his resurrestion, and they appointed two, that is, the Apostles; and the rest are set down as witnesses, v. 14. These continued, that is the Apostles, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, &c. The women and others were only consenters. 3. Here is no probation, that only a company of believers wanting Pastors are ordainers of Matthias to the Apostleship, and this is the question. 4. The place Act. 14. 23. proveth that Elders appoint or ordain Elder. with consent, or lifting up of the hands of the people, which is our very doctrine. 5. Act. 6▪ The multitude are directed to choose out seven men, as being best acquainted with them. Yet if Nicholas, the sect master of the fleshly Nicolaitans was one of them; it is likely they were not satisfied in conscience of the regeneration of Nicholas, by hearing his spiritual conference and his gift of praying, which is your way of trying Church-members. But 2. they look out seven men. 2. They choose the • . But v. 6. The Apostles prayed, and laid their hands on them (which we call ordination) and not the multitude. 6. Cyprian give •• election of Priests to the multitude, but neither Cyprian, nor any of the Fathers give ordination to them.

Author Sect. 7. If the people have power to elect a King, they have power to appoint one is their name to put the crown on his head. Ergo, if believers elect their Officers they may by themselves or some others lay hands on them and ordain them.

Ans. The case is not alike, the power of electing a King is natural, for Ants and Locusts have it, Prov 30 25, 16, 27. Therefore a civil Society may choose and ordain a King. The power of choosing Officers is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a supernatural gift. And because God giveth to people one supernatural gift, it is not consequent that he should give them another, also beside ordination is another thing, then coronation of a King. Presbyters in the Word have always performed ordination.

Neither will it hence follow (saith the Author ) as some object that because the Church of believers neither make the Office nor authority of Pastors, that both are immediately from Christ, and that therefore the believers may not lay hands upon the Officers; nor doth it follow, because they receive ordination from the Church, that therefore they should execute their Office in the Churches name; or that they should be more or less diligent at the Churches appointment, or that the Church of believers have a Lordly power over them, or that the Elders must receive their commission from the Church, as an Ambassador doth from the Prince who sent him, or that the Church in the defect of Officers may perform all duties proper to Officers, as to administer the Sacraments. For 1. most of the objections do strike as much against imposition of hands by Bishops and Presbyters. 2. Though Officers receive the application of their office and powerly the Church, yet not from the Church; and if from the Church, yet not from her by any Lordly power and dominion, but only ministerially as from instruments under Christ, so that they cannot choose or ordain whom they please, but only him whom they see the Lord hath fitted and prepared for them; nor can they prescribe limits to his Office, nor give him his Embassage, but only a charge to look to the Ministry that he hath received of the Lord.

Ans. 1. I know none of ours who use such an Argument, that because a Pasters or Elders Office is from Christ, that therefore the Church cannot ordain him. For it should prove that the Presbyterie cannot ordain him a Pastor, because his Office is from Christ and not from the Presbyterie. It would prove also, that because the Office of a Judge is from God, that the free States of a Kingdom could not ordain one to be their King; or that the King could not depute Judges under him, because the Office of a King and Judge is from God, and not from men.

2. If Elders have their Ordination to that heavenly Charge from the people, as from the first principal and only subject of all ministerial power, I see not how it doth not follow, that Elders are the servants of the Church in that respect; and that though it doth not follow, that they come out in the name of the Church, but in the name of Christ, whose Ambassadors they are, yet it proveth well that they are inferior to the Church of believers. For 1. though the power of the Keys given to believers in relation to Christ be ministerial, yet in relation to the Officers whom the Church sendeth, it is more then ministeriail, at lest it is very Lordlike. For as much of this ministerial power is committed to the Church of possibly twenty or forty believers, as to the Mistress, Lady, Spouse, and independent Queen, and highest dispencer of all ministerial power; and the Elders, though Ambassadors of Christ, are but mere accidents or ornaments of the Church, necessary ad been esse only, and liable to exauthoration at the Churches pleasure; yea, every way the Officers in jurisdiction are inferior to the Church of believers, by your grounds, and not over the people of the Lord. For if the Church of believers, as they are such, be the most supreme governing Church, then the Officers, as Officers, have no power of government at all, but only so far as they are believers; now if they be not believers (as it falleth out very often) then have they no power of the Keys at all, and what they do, they do it merely as the Churches servants, to whom the Keys are not given marriage-ways, or by right of redemption in Christ's blood: yea, Officers as they are such, are neither the Spouse, not redeemed Church, yea nor any part, or members of the redeemed Church. 2. The Church of believers are the • od, the Officers means leading to the end, and ordained to gather the Saints; if therefore, as the end, they shall authoritatively send Officers, they should call and ordain Officers as the States of a Kingdom, with more then a power ministerial; Yea with a Kingly power, for all authority should be both formally and eminently in them, as all Regal or Aristocratical power is in the States of a Kingdom, as in the fountain.

But neither do we bring this argument to prove a simple Dominion of the Church of believers over the Officers, or a power of regulating, limiting, and ordering the Ambassage of Officers, as King and State lay bands upon their Ambassadors; but we bring it to prove that this doctrine degradeth the Officers from all power of government above the believers, and putteth them in a state of ministerial authority under these, above whom Jesus Christ hath placed them, contrary to Scripture.

3. The Author saith, believers may not administer the Sacraments in the defect of Pastors, because that, by appointment of Christ, belongeth only to such as by Office are called to preach the Gospel, Math. 28. 29. which is indeed well said; but I desire to be satisfied in these. 1. These places Math. 28. 29. Mar. 16. 14, 15. Luke 24. 28. being all one with Math. 16. 17. and Joh. 20. 21, 22, 23. The Keys of the Kingdom are given to Church-officers because of their Office. So the Text is clear, and so the ancients have taught, as Tertullian, Irenaeus, Origen, Cyril. Theophylact. Oecum • nius▪ Clemens Alexandrin▪ Justin Martyr, Chrysost. August. Hilarius, Ambrose, Basil. Epiphanius, Jerome, Eusebius, Cyprian, Damascene, Beda, Anselm, Bernard. So our Divines, Calvin, Luther, Beza, Martyr, Junius, Bullinger, Gualt • r, Daneus, Ti • enus, Bucanus, Trelcatius, Piscator, Pareus, Tossanus, Polanus, Decolampadius, Bucer, Hipperius, Viret, Zwingli, Fennerus, Whittakerus, Feildus, Reynoldus, Anto. Walaeus, Profess. Leydens. Magdeburgersis, Melanthon, Chemnitz, Hemingius, Aretius. Then the Keys be given to Church-officers, because they are Officers, and Stewards of the Kingdom. And you will have the Keys to be given to believers as believers, and as the Spouse of Christ. Now Elders and believers may be opposed, as believers and no believers, as the Church of the redeemed, and not the Church of the redeemed, but the accidents only of that Church; as you teach, and as the Spouse of Christ and his body, and not the Spouse nor his body. I see not by our brethren's doctrine that Officers as Officers have any right title or warrant to the Keys, or to any use of them, seeing they are given to believers as believers, and as Christ's body and Spouse. 2. The place Matth. 28. 19. is against you; for you say, that Pastoral preaching and administration of the Seals are given only to such as are Preachers by office. Now the converting of infidels and other unbelievers, to make them fit materials of a visible Church, is not (as you say) the charge proper to Pastors as Pastors, and by virtue of their Pastoral charge, as baptizing; by this place is their proper charge, because Pastors as Pastors convert none at all, nor can they as Pastors exercise any pastoral acts toward the un-converted; the un-converted by your way are under no Pastoral charge, but converted by Prophets, not in Office; Pastors as Pastors exercise all pastoral acts toward these only who are members of a visible Church, as toward these only who have professed by oath subjection to their ministry, ad are partakers of the precious faith, and are the sons and daughters of the Lord God Almighty. So you teach. So by this Text, Pastors as Pastors cannot convert infidels, and we desire a warrant from God's Word for the pastoral acts in converting soul • ; yea, seeing by this place persons out of office only do convert souls by your doctrine, with all reason persons out of place should baptize, for teaching and baptizing here, and by your own doctrine are of a like extent. See to this, and satisfy us in this point of such consequence as everteth the ministry of the New Testament, which we believe our brethren intend not, being so direct Anabaptatisme and Socinianism, points that, we know, our dear brethren do not love or affect.

The Author addeth, He who said to the Apostles, Whose sins ye retain they are retained, and whose sins ye remit they are remitted, Joh. 20. 23. He also said to the Church, Whatsoever ye bi •• on earth shall be bound in Heaven. Math. 18. 18. Which is a Commission of the same power, and to the same • ffect; and so the Apostles and the Churches both received the same power immediately from Christ: and therefore though the Church presented their Officers chosen by themselves to receive ordination from the Apostles, 〈◊〉 now when the Apostles are ceased, and no other successors left in t ••• room from whom their officers might receive ordination, but fr •• the Presbyterie of their own Churches; where such a Presbytery is yet wanting, and is now to be erected, the Church hath full power to give ordination to them themselves, by the imposition of their hands.

Answ. If the Reverend Author had framed an Argument here, it should have been thus: Those who have received immediately from God a Commission of the same power, and to the same effect, by the Text Math. 18. 18. Which the Apostles of our Lord received by the Text, Joh. 20. 23. These may do what the Apostles did in ordaining of Elders, seeing they are the successors of the Apostles, where there be no Elders.

But the Church of believers received the same Commission, Matth. 18. 18. which the Apostle did Joh. 20. 23. and where Edders are wanting in the Church, the Church of believers is their successors. Erge. &c.

First, the assumption is false; for if the Church receive the same Commission Math. 28. The Apostles received Joh. 20. and you must add Math. 28. 19. for the same Commission is given to the Apostles, Math. 28. 19. which is given Joh. 20. 23. But the Disciples received Commission, John. 20. and Math. 28. of Pastoral binding and loosing, and preaching, by virtue of their Office; and to administer the Sacraments in their own persons, as you grant: therefore the Church of believers received commission from Christ (where Presbyters are not) to preach by virtue of an Office, and administer the Sacraments in their own persons. Ergo, the Church of believers may, where there is no Presbytery, preach by verue of an Office, and administer the Sacraments. You will happily say, there is no such necessity of baptizing as of ordination of Ministers, and baptizing is incommunicable, because we read not that any in the Apostolic Church baptized, but Pastors. I answer, there is, in an extraordinary necessity where there are no Presbyters at all, as little necessity of ordination if there be Presbyters in other Congregations to ordain▪ And since you never read that any in the Apostolic Church ordained Pastors, but Pastors only; why, but we may have recourse to a Presbytery of other Congregations for ordination, as well as for baptizing; for it is petitio principii, a begging of the question, to say that baptizing is proper to Pastors, but ordination is not so. yea but ordination by precept & practice is never given but to Pastors, and Elders in consociation 1 Tin. 4 14 1 Tim. 5. 22. 2 Tim. 1. 6. 2 Tim. 2. 2, 3. Tit. 1. 5. Act. 6. 6. Act. 13. 3 Act. 14 23. 2. There is good reason why Pastors should be successors of the Apostles in the act of ordaining Pastors; & you grant, where Pastors and Elders are, they succeed to the Apostles in the acts of ordination; but that all believers men and women should be the Apostles successors to ordain Pastors, is a rare and unknown case of Divinity, for 1 Cor. 12. 29. Are all Apostles? are all Prophets? Yea, not long ago you said that Act. 1. an hundred and twenty, amongst whom there were women, had all hand in the ordination of Matthias to be an Apostle; so that believers by you are made the Apostles successors; and more, yea even co-ordainers, and joint-layers on of hands with the Apostles. Yea, if believers received immediately this same Commission from Christ, Math. 18. which the Apostles received John. 20. Believers are to ordain Pastors no less, when the Presbytery and Elders are present, then when they are absent; yea, and rather then the Apostles, because the Church of believers their patent passed the Seals first, even before the Lord's resurrection. 3. It is good you grant that ordination and election are different, we will make use of it hereafter.

The Author addeth, We willingly also acknowledge, where God hath furnished a Church with a Presbytery, to them it appertaineth by imposition of hands to ordain Elders and Deacons chosen by the Church; but if the Church want a Presbytery, they want a Warrant to repair to other Churches to receive imposition of hands to their Elders. 1. Because ordination is a work of Church power, now as Church hath power over another, so no Presbytery hath power over another Church then their own; All the Apostles received alike power, John. 20. 23. 2 The power of the keys is a liberty purchased by Christ's blood, Math. 28. 8. Phil. 2. 8, 9 10. Therefore it is unlawful for any Church to put over that power into the hands of another.

Answ. We desire a warrant from God's Word, where Elders, where they are present, are to ordain Elders by imposition of hands, and not believers; for ordination is a work of the Church; Officers are not the Church, nor are they parts or members of the Church, but only accidents; the Church hath its full being, the power and use of the Keys given to them by Math. 18. though there be not a Pastor or Officer among them; and if Christ before his resurrection gave the Keys to believers as to his Spouse, living body, and such as have Peters faith Math. 16. Resolve us, we beseech you brethren, in this, how Christ can give the Keys after his resurrection, John. 20. 23. to the Apostles as Pastors, and as no believers, not his Spouse, not his body; for Officers, as Officers, are not the redeemed of God, nor Christ's Spouse. If you say that Christ, John. 20. gave the Keys to his Disciples as believers, then he gave the power of baptizing after his resurrection also, by the parallel place Math. 28. 19. to the Apostles as to believers. Hence 1. Christ hath never given the Keys to Officers as Officers. 2. The place John. 20. is but a renewing of the Keys given to the Church, Math. 16. and Math. 18. and all believers are sent and called to be Pastors, as the Father sent Christ, and as Christ sent his Apostles, as our Lord speaketh, John 20. 21. This I think all good men will abhor, though M. Smith saith these words, and that power John 20. 21. was given to Cleo • has and Mary Magdalene. And by your way, Paul (as I think) without warrant interdicted women of the use of that power, that Christ purchased by his blood. 3. There is no warrant of the Word to make good, that Christ gave the Keys to Officers as Officers, by your way, but only to Officers as to believers; and therefore believers ought rather to ordain Pastors then the Officers, though there be Officers to ordain. 3. That Pastors of other Congregations may not ordain Pastors to Congregations, who have no Pastors of their own. as they may baptize infants to them also, we see no reason. Yea, and Church power is not a thing that cannot be communicated to another Church by your Doctrine, for ye grant members of one Congregation may receive the Lord's Supper in another Congregation, except you deny all communion of sister Churches, for it is a work of Church power to give the Lord's Supper to any, then if you give that Sacrament to members of another Congregation; consider if the liberty purchased by Christ's Blood be not communicable to other Churches.

Thirdly, (saith he) if one Church repair to another Church for ordination, they may submit to another Church for censuring of offenders, now how can Churches censure these that are not members? Is not this a transgression of the Royal Law of government? Mat. 18. 15, 16, 17, 18.

Answ. The offense being great, and the offender deserving to be cast out of all the visible congregations round about, yea and to be bound in Earth and Heaven, the congregation is to have recourse to all the congregations consociated, when they are convened in one presbytery; that they, being convened in their principal members, may all cast him out, because it concerneth them all: as if only one congregation do it, they transgesse that royal Law, Quod omnes tangit, ab omnibus tractari debet. 2. The Author granteth, that the Church presented their officers chosen by them, to receive ordination from the Apostles; Ergo, The Church did give a way their liberty of ordination, bought by Christ's blood, to the Apostles, not as to Apostles, but as to pastors: which is against our Brethren's Doctrine; for except the Apostles be said to ordain Officers, as Pastors, and not as Apostles, our Brethren shall find none to be the successors of Apostles in the power of ordination, but only Believers; so Pastors have no power at all to ordain Pastors, the contrary whereof our Brethren teach.

Now I come to the Brethren's mind in their Questions. It was objected How can it be lawful for mere lay and private men to ordain Elders? they answer, the persons ordaining are the public assembly, and so cannot, in any congruity of speech, be called mere Lay-men.

I answ. Seeing they have no Church office, they can be nothing, but mere private men; For the unwarrantable action of ordination maketh them not public Officers. As if a Midwife baptize in the name of the Church, she is not a mere private person.

2. They say, The Church hath power from Christ for the greater, to wit, for Election; Ergo, she hath power to do the less, which is ordination; or ordination dependeth upon Election, and it is nothing but the putting of a person in actual possession of that office, whereunto he had right by Election.

Answ. Ordination, by your own grant, is more then Election, for the Apostles ordained, Acts 6. and must have done the most, and the multitude elected the seven Deac̄ons, Acts 6 2. Ordination is more then the installing of a person chosen, it is a supernatural act of the Presbytery separating a man to an holy calling, election is posterior to it, and is but an appropriation of a called person his Ministry, to such a particular flock.

3. Say they; Ordination may be performed by the Elders, where there be Elders, 1 Tim. 4. 14. yet it is an act of the whole Church, as the whole man seeth, but by the Eye.

Answ. Though you say, Pastors in the Churches name baptize, yet doth it not follow; Ergo, where Pastors are not, the Church of believers may baptize.

4. They object, when the Church hath no Officers, the prime grave m • n perform ordination; as Nu • . 8, The Israelites laid on Hands on the Levites, that is, some prime Man laid on hands.

Answ. Israel wanted not Officers. 2. These prime Men are called the Congregation; Ergo, there is a representative Church.

5. They object; If B lievers may not ordain, it shall follow either that Officers may minister without ordination, against the Scripture, 1 Tim. 4. 14. Heb. 6. 1. or, by virtue of ordination received in another Church, they might minister. Now if this be, we establish an i • d • l • ble character of Papists, but if being called to another Church, there be need of a new Election, then there is need of a new ordination, for that dependeth upon this; Ergo, then ordination cometh by succession, but we see not what authority ordinary officers have to ordain Pastors to a Church, whereof themselves are not members.

Answ. 1. That ordination be wanting, where Ministers are wanting, is extraordinary, and not against, 1 Tim. 4 14. No more then that one not baptized for want of a Pastor should yet believe in Christ. 2. We see no indelible Character, because a Pastor is always a called Pastor; if the man commit scandals, the Church may call all his character from him, and turn him into a mere private man. But to renew ordination, when election to another congregation is renewed, is to speak ignorantly of ordination and election: for election maketh not the man a Minister, nor giveth him a calling, but appropriateth his Ministry to such a flock. But they speak of Election to a charge as of marriage, which is not well understood, for by marriage a man is both made a Husband, and a Husband to this Wife only: by election a Pastor is not made a Pastor, by ordination he is made a Pastor of the Church Universal, though he be not made an Universal Pastor. 3. The ordination by succession of Pastors, where Pastors are, you hold yourselves. But a popish personal succession, we disclaim, as well as you do:

The 5. Objection I omit to another time. The 6. Objection is; If there be a magistrate before, the succeeding magistrate receiveth keys or (word from the preceding magistrate: but if there be none, he receiveth them from the people. So here.

Answ. Christ's calling is not ordered according to the pattern of civil governments, his kingdom is not of this world. People may both ordain and elect to a civil office, without consent of the preceding Magistrate. But we read of no officers ordained by the people, only in an ordinary way.

Ordination (say they) is not of such eminency as is conceived, it is not mentioned in the Apostles first commission, Mat. 28, 19. Mark 16. 15, 16. The Apostles accounted preaching and praying principal. So Perkins Willet Whittaker, Ames.

Answ. So answer Arminians and so doth the Socinian Theol. Nicolaides, and Socinus; and so in your words saith to reform, but this is not to take away the necessity of ordination, by Pastors.

I come now to answer, what Mr. Robinson doth add, to what is said for the ordination of Pastors by Pastors, and not by single Believers, Mr. Robinson saith, the question is, whether succession of Pastors be of such absolute necessity, as that no Minister can in any case be made but by a Minister, and if they must be ordained by popes, and prelates.

Answ. But we say that this is no question at all, we affirm ordination of pastors not to be of that absolute necessity, but in an exigence of necessity the election of the people, and some other thing, may supply the want of it. Nor do we think a calling from papists no calling, as we shall hear: before I proceed this must be discussed.

• . Election we are to consider, to whom it belongeth of right. 2. The force and influence thereof to make a Church-officer; but let these considerations first be pondered.

1. Consid. Election is made either by a people gracious and able to discern, or by a people rude and ignorant; the former is valid, Jure & facto, the latter not so.

2. Consid. Election is either comparative or absolute; when Election is comparative, though people have nothing possibly positively to say against a person, yet though they reject him and choose one si • ter, the Election is reasonable.

3. Consid. Peoples Election is not of a person to the Ministry as a Wi • is choice of a man to be a Husband, but of a Minister; Election doth not make a Minister.

4. Consid. Election is either to be looked to, quoad jus, or, quoad f • ctum. A people not yet called externally, cannot elect their own Minister, a Synod or others of charity ( as Reverend Junius saith ) may choose for them, though, de facto, and in respect of their case, they cannot choose their own Pastor.

1. Conclus. The people have God's right to choose, for so the word prescribeth. So Tertullian, Eyprian. Non blandiatur sibi plebs, quasi immunis à contagione delicti esse possit, cum sacerdote peccatore communicans & ad injustum atque illicitum propositi Episcopatum consensum s • um accommodans, &c. and nefas sine consensu po • uli: and this Cyprian writ an hundredth years before the Nicene Council. Bellarmine lo • ed hi • face to say this custom began in the time of the Nicon Council. It was not a consuetude Qu • d ipsum (inquit Cyprianus) videmus de Divina autoritate descender • ; Ignatius, It is your part, as the Church of God to choose the Pastor; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . So speaketh he to the people of Philadelphia; and so speaketh Ambrose to Valentinian, Omitto, quia jam ipse populus judicavit, Origen: Requiritur ergo in ordinando sacerd te praesentia populi, &c. and his reason is Scripture, a pastor must be of good report. And Chrysostom saith, all elections of pastors are null, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , without the conscience of the people. And the Council of Nice did write this to the Bishops of Alexandria as Theodoret saith, and the fi • st general council of Constantinople wrote the same to Daemasus, Ambrose, and others, as Theodoret also showeth The council of Africa is cited by Cyprian producing Scripture, as Acts 1. 23. Acts 6. to prove that the people had their consent in elections; and the council of Chalcedon the council of Ancyron, and of Laodicea; and the Popes own Canons say this, so Nicolaus the Pope in his Decrees saith, the Clergy and people did choose the pope, Reliquus clerus & populus Romanus ad consensum nova electionis pontificis à Cardinalibus factae accedant. So Gelasius the pope writeth to Philippus and Cernuti •• Bishops, so Stephanus ad Romanum archiepiscopum Rav •• natensem, is cited in the gloss to that purpose; in the Epistles of Ivo Bishop of Chartres, we being called, by the will of God, the Cle • gy and people of such a City, and this Pope Ur ••• practiced upon Ivo.

2. Conclus. But elections in the ancient Church were not by one single congregation, but by the Bishops of diverse other Churches. In the council of Sardis, Si unum tantùm in provincia contigerit remanere Episcopum, suporstes Episcopus con •• care debet Episcopos vicinae provinciae. & cum iis orainare sibi comprovincales Episcopos; quod si id facero negligat, populus convocare debet Episcopos vicinae provinciae & peter • sibi rectorem. In the council of Toledo it was ordained, that the Bishop of Toledo might choose in quibustibee Pr • vinciis, in any provinces about Bishops to be his successors, salvo privilegio unius • njusqu • provinciae. Cardinals are forbidden to usurp to choose a Bishop, if the see vace in the time of a general Council, this was enacted in the council of Constance and Basil. The Abbot of Panormo saith, it was obtained of the council of Carthage to avoid dissension, that they should transfer their right to the Cardinals. So Almain and Gerson prove the equity of this by good reasons. That wicked council of Trent, laboring to exalt the popes chair, did abrogate these good acts to the offense of many, as the Author of the review of the council of Trent showeth; nor should good men stand for Leo his abrogation of what the council of Basil did in this kind, as may be seen in that wicked council of Lateran wherein much other wicked power is given to the pope and his Legates by Julius III. and Paul the III. and Pius the IIII. and Theodoret saith, all the Bishops of a Province ought to be at the ordination of a Bishop. The ordination of the worthy, Ambrose, as he himself saith, was confirmed by all the Bishops of the East and West. Cornelius Bishop of Rome was confirmed by the Bishops of Africa. More of this may be seen in Zonaras, In Theodoret the council of Carthage and Petrus a Navarre, who all witness ordination of a Bishop was never done in the ancient Church by one single Congregation, and these destitute of pastors and Elders. The learned say, that Gregory the VII. or Hildebrand did first exclude the people from voicing in elections of pastors. Illiricus saith only from the time of Frederick the XI. about the year, 1300 they were excluded from this power. And though it were true, that the election of Alexander the III. was made 400 years before that, by the Cardinals only, without the people's consent, the Law and Logic both say; from one fact no Law can be concluded. Yea the election of Gregory the VII. (saith Vasquez ) was five hundred years before that, and like enough that such a monster and such a seditious head to the Lord's annointed to Henry the IIII, as this Gregory was, could violate Christ's order. Platina saith so; yet Bellarmine, Suarez and others grant, in the Apostles time it was so; b •• because it was a positive Law (some say) and others that it was a Church constitution, not a divine Law, the Pope might change it. Yet the Jesuit Sanctius in his comment proveth it from Scripture, Azorius saith, it should be common Law, communi jure, Krantius layeth the blame of wronging the people in this, on Gregory the IX. yea the council of Bracare, the second council of Nice; The council of Constantinople. 4 called the eight general Council the council of Laodicea are corruptly expounded by Bellarmine. V • squez and others: because. 1. They forbid only disorder and confusion. 2. That all the multiude, without exceptionosage, gifts, or sexes, should come, and speak and voice at the election. For in the council of Antioch it is expressly forbidden that the multitude should be debarred. And we will not deny but a pastor may be sent to a Church of Infidels that knoweth nothing of Christ, without their knowledge, as Ruffinu • saith, that Frumentius was ordained Bishop to the Indians, they knowing nothing of it, Indis nihil scientibus neque cogitantibus. Epiphanius writeth to John Bishop of Jerusalem, that he had ordained Paulinianus a presbyter, the people not consenting. Gregorius ordained Augustine Bishop of England and sent him to them to teach them, Anglis nescientibus. And Gregorius II. ordained Boniface a Bishop to be sent to Germany, Germanis nihil de ear cogitantibus. And thus Perkins, if the Gospel should arise in America, where there were no Ministers, ordination might be wanting. And why not (say I) election also in another case, if as Petrus Martyr saith well; a woman may be a Preacher of the Gospel; Yea, and a Turk (saith Zanchius ) converted by reading the New Testament, and converting others, may baptize them whom he converteth, and be baptized where both ordination and election should be wanting: and this may answer what Robinson saith for ordination by the people.

Nor did the people first begin to have hand in election in Tertullian's time, as Bellarmine saith, nor yet that the people might love their Bishops, nor yet by mere custom.

Conclus. III. It is false our Brethren say, that the calling of a Minister consisteth principally and essentially in election of the people, for the Apostles were essentially pastors, yet not one of them, except Matthias was chosen by the people. 2. If, as our Brethren say, the people's after acceptance may supply the want of Election at first, as Jacob's after consent to Leah made her his Wife, yet all the pastoral acts of Word, Sacraments, and censures going before the after consent shall be null, because he wanteth that which most principally and essentially is required in a calling. And all baptized by him must be rebaptized. And what if the people shall never assent, and it is ordinary that hypocrites in hearts will never consent to the Ministry of a gracious pastor, shall his acts of converting, and baptizing be no pastoral acts, and to the hypocrites no pastoral acts: and shall all be Infidels, who are baptized by him? The people are not infallible in their choice, and may refuse a man for a pastor, whom God hath called to be a pastor; election maketh not one a pastor, in foro Dei, then he shall be no pastor whom God hath made a Pastor, because people out of ignorance or prejudice consent not to his Ministry. Nor are we of Dr. Ames judgment, that the calling of a Minister doth essentially consist in the people's election; for his external calling consisteth in the presbyters separation of a man for such a holy calling, as the Holy Ghost speaketh. We find no Church-calling in all God's Word of sole election of the people, and therefore it cannot be the essential form of a right calling. All the arguments of Doctor Ames prove, that election is necessary to appropriate a made Minister to such a Congregation, but concludeth not the poyn.

This question there is moved because of our Brethren, who think. 1. If ordination of pastors by pastors, be so necessary for an ordinary calling to the Ministry, and if Election of people be not sufficient, though they want pastors and Elders then Luther and our Reformers had no calling, for they were called by the Pope and his Clergy, for saith Robinson when there be no 〈◊〉 Church-officers on Earth to give ordination, we must hold with Arians, and expect new Apostles to give ordination; neither can a true, pastor go and seek a calling from a false pastor. Hence observe carefully the following distinctions, to obviate both papists cavillations and our Brethren's doubts.

1. Distinct. That is. 1. Properly extraordinary, which is immediately from God, without any other intervening cause; so Moses his calling, when God spake to him out of the Bush to go to Pharaoh and command the letting go of his people, was extraordinary, for, both the matter of the calling, and the persons designation to the charge was immediately from God Luther's calling this way was not extraordinary, because he preached no new Gospel, nor by any immediate calling from God.

2. That is extraordinary which is contrary to the Law of of nature. Neither the calling of Luther nor of Hus and Wiccliff was extraordinary; for, that any enlightened of God and members of the Catholic Church should teach, inform, o • help their fellow-members being seduced, and led by blind guides, is agreeable to the Law of nature; but according to our Brethren's grounds Luther's calling here, was not only extraordinary, but unlawful and contrary to a Divine Law. For now when Apostles are ceased, Luher had no warrant (if our Brethren say right) no calling of God, to exercise pastoral acts of preaching, converting souls to Christ, and baptizing through many visible Churches & congregations, because that is (say they) Apostolic; and no man now can be a pastor, but in one fixed congregation whereof he is the elected pastor.

3. That is extraordinary, which is beside a Divine positi •• Law. So that one should be chosen a pastor in an Island where there be no Elders nor pastors at all, and that the people only give a calling, is extraordinary, and so it is not inconvenient tha • something extroardinary was in our reformers.

4. That is extraordinary, which is against the ordinary corruptions, wicked and superstitious forms of an ordinary calling: so, in this sense, Luher and our reformers calling was extraordinary.

2. Dist. A calling immediately from God, and a calling from God, some way extraordinary, are far different. An immediate calling often requireth miracles to confirm it, especially the matter being new, yet not always; John Baptists calling was immediate, his Sacrament of Baptism beside the positive order of God's worship, yet he wrought no miracles, but an extraordinary calling may be, where there is an immediate and ordinary revelation of God's Will, and requireth not miracles at all.

3. Dist. Though ordinarily in any horologe the higher wheel should move the lower, yet it is not against ordinary art, that the hotologe be so made as inferior wheels may move without the motion of the superior. Though by ordinary dispensation of God's standing Law, the Church convened in a Synod should have turned about Hus, Wicliff, Luther, to regular motions in orthodox Divinity; yet it was not altogether extraordinary, that these men moved the higher wheels, and labored to reform them. Cyprian urged Reformation, Aurelius Bishop of Carthage, Augustine and the African Bishops did the like, the Bishop of Rome • epining thereat It is somewhat extraordinary that Reformation should begin at Scholars, and not at principal Masters.

4. Dist. A calling may be expressly and formally corrupt, in respect of the particular intention of the ordainers, and of the particular Church, ex intention ordinanris & operantis. Thus Luther's calling to be a Monk was a corrupt calling, and eatenus, and in that respect he could not give a calling to others. But that some calling may be implicitly and virtually good and lawful in respect of the intention of the Catholic Church and ex inte • tione op • ris & ipsius ordinationis, he was called • o preach the Word of God.

5. Dist. Luther's Oath to preach the Gospel did oblige him as a pastor, this is his calling according to the substance of his Office, and is valid; but his Oath to preach the Roman Faith intended by the exacters of the Oath was eatenus, in so far▪ unlawful, and did not oblige him. Even a Wife married to a Turk, and swearing to be a helper to her Husband in promoving the worship of the Mahomet, or being a papist is engaged in an Oath to promote Romish Religion; if she be converted to the true Faith of Christ, needeth not to be married de novo, but remaineth a married Wife; but is not obliged by that unjust Oath to promove these false Religions, though the marriage Oath, according to the substance of marriage duties, tieth her.

6. Dist. A pastor may, and ought to have a pastoral care of the Catholic Church, as the hand careth for the whole body, and yet neither Luther nor Zwingli are universal pastors, as were the Apostles. For they had usurped no power of Governing and Teaching all Churches: though, I profess, I see no inconvenience to say that Luther was extraordinarily called by God, to go to many Churches, to others then to Wittenburg, where he had one particular charge, yea even through Germany and the Churches of Saxony, and Zwingli through the Helvetian and Western Churches, which yet doth not make them essentially Apostles, because. 1. They were not witnesses of Christ's Death, and Resurrection, which as a new Doctrine to the World, as Apostles, they behooved to preach, Acts 1. v. 22. They only revealed the old truth borne down by an universal Apostasy. 2. Because they were not immediately called, nor gifted with diverse Tongues. And the like I may say of Athanasius, for men in an extraordinary apostasy to go somewhat farther then to that which a particular Church calleth them to, is not formally apostolick, yet lawful.

7. A calling to the Ministry is either such as wanteth the essentials, as gifts in any messenger, and the Churches consen • , or these who occupy the room of the Church, the Church consen • ing, such a Minister is to be reputed for no Minister. Or. 2. An entry to a calling, or a calling, where diverse of the Apostles requisites are wanting, may be a valid calling, as if one enter as Caiaphas who entered by favor and money, and contrary to the Law was High Priest but for a year: • yet was a true High Priest, and prophesied as the High-priest.

8. If the Church approve by silence, or countenance the Ministry of a man who opened the Church door to himself, by a silver key, having given the prelate a bud. The ordinance of God is conferred upon him, and his calling ceaseth not to be God's calling, because of the sins of the instruments both taking and giving.

9. Though Luther was immediately called by Men An. 1508. by the Church of Wittenburg as may be seen in his writings as Gerard showeth, and the Jesuit Becanus saith, he was called and ordained a Presbyter, and so had power to preach and administer the Sacraments, yet that hindereth not that his calling was •• t from the Church, whereof he was a member, that is from the Roman Church, and from God, and that his calling to cast down Babylon was not from the Church of Rome: and his gifts being extraordinary. 2. His Spirit heroic and supernaturally courageous, and so extraordinary. 3. His Faith in his Doctrine great, that he should so be blessed with success in his Ministry extraordinary, his calling in these considerations may well be called extraordinary, though not immediate or apostolick.

10. Then we may well acknowledge a middle calling betwixt an ordinary and every way immediate calling, and an extraordinary and immediate calling, for the calling of Luther was neither the one, nor the other, in proper sense, but a middle betwixt two; and yet not an immediate calling. See Sadaecl and 〈◊〉 .

1. Conelus. To show that our Church was a visible Church before Luther arose, and that our Reformers were lawfully called o • God, and h • Church, is a question of Fact: and cannot be proved by the Word of God. Because the Word of God is not a Chronicle of these who were the true Church and truly called to the Ministry since the Apostles departed this life. 2. Because these must be proved by Sense, and the Testimony of human writings, who can err.

2. C • nclus. Yet may it be gathered from human writers, that the visible Church of Protestants this day, hath been since the Apostles days. I mean the determinate persons may be known by human reasons and signs; as. 1. If Orthodox Doctors are known to have lived in all ages since the Apostles it is likely that there was a visible Church, which approved of these Doctors; and if we teach that same Doctrine in substance, that these Doctors did, then hath our Church, this determinate Church, been since the Apostles time. But Orthodox Doctors are known to have lived in all • ges as men of approved learning and soundness in the Faith; Ergo, our present Church visible hath continued since the Apostles time. The proposition is probable, for these Fathers would not be so renowned, if the Church about thē had not approved their Doctri • . It is probable (I say) because the writers against them have been suppressed, false Teachers have beeve spoken of and renowned, and true Prophets ill reported of, Mat. 5. 11, 12. I prove the assumption; for there lived in the first age, John the Baptist, the Apostles, and Polycarpus, the Scholar of John (as they say) and Ignatius. And in the 2. age, Justinus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Irenaeus, Melito Sardensis, Theophilus. In the 3. age Tertullian, Cyprian, Dyonisius, Alexandrin, Methodi • s, Origen; It is likely they opposed purgatory, prayer for the dead, relics and the Popes supremacy, which in their seed did arise in this age. In the 4. age were Eusebius Caesariensis, Basilius, Athanasius, Magnus Gregorius, Nissenus, Nazian. Macarius, Cyrillus Bishop of Jerusalem, Arnobius, Lactantius, Ep • phanius, Optatus Melivitanus, Hilarius, Ambrose, Prudentius, Hieronymus, Ammonius, Ephrem, Faeustinus. I think they opposed the infallibility of councils, invocation of Saints, and the monastick life springing up in this age. In the 5. age were Anastasius, Chrysostom, Augustine, Alexandrinus, Theodoretus, Leo, Socrates, Vigilianus, Cassianus, Prosper, Elutherius, Marcus eremita, Marius Victorius. We conceive these opposed the corrupt Doctrine anent freewill, sin original, justification by works, men's merits. In the 6. age were Fulgentius, Cassiadorus, Fortunatus, Olympiodorus, Gregorius Mag •• s, Max • ntius; These opposed the heresies of this age, as the Doctrine of worshipping Images, Indulgences, Satisfactions, Crossing, Pilgrimages, Service in an unknowen Tongue, Offerings for the dead, worshipping of Relics of Saints, necessity absolute of Baptism, the making the Sacrament a Sacrifice for the dead. In the 7. age being a time of Darkness very few, Isiodorus, and few others, here the holiest opposed the Popes style and place of being universal Bishop, and the abominable Sacrifice of the Mass. In the 8. arose Beda, Paulus Diaconus, Joann, Damascene, a superstitious Monk, Carolus Magus, Albinus; In this age came in Transubstantiation, the Sacrament of penance, and confirmation. It was an evil time. In the 9. age were Rabanus, Haymo, Re • igius, Hinaemarus, Pashasius, then extreme unction, orders, and marriage were made Sacraments. In the 10. age was Theophylact, Smaragdus, Giselbertus. In the 11. Anselm, Algerus. In the 12. School Doctors, such as Peter Cluniarensis, Alexander Alensis, Thomas Aquinas, Scotus, at length Luther and Melanthon came, but from these we build no infallible argument to prove our Church to be the true Church.

2. The very visible Church that now is, was in the Waldenses. 1. One of their own writers Rainerus saith, quod duraverit à tempore Sylvestri, alii dicunt quod à tempore apostolorum, a Novator set out by the Jesuit Gretserus Petrus Pilichdorffius saith, they arose eight hundereth years after Silvester in the time of Innocentius the 2. In the City of Walden in the borders of France one arose, who professed voluntary poverty, and because they were against preaching of the Gospel, he and his followers were excommunicated, but he is found a liar by popish writers who lived long before Innocentius the 2. and make mention of them. The articles of John Hus, saith Aeneas Silvius, cum confessionibus Calvinianorum consonant, and Silvius is not our friend. I grant Gretser denieth this, that the Faith of such as are called Calvinists agreeth with the articles of Hus; because he will have them grosser Flaccius saith these Waldenses called Leonistae, their Doctrine was spread, per L • mbardiam, Alsatiam, totum tractum Rhenanum, Belgicam, Saxoniam, Pomeraniam, Borussiam, Poloniam, Luciniam, Sueviam, Silesiam, B • h • miam, Moraviam, Calabriam, & Siciliam. Carolus Lotharingus the Cardinal complaineth, as also Hegesippus, that for sixteen ages since Christ, the first only was of God, and of the Church was a Virgin. And none made these complaints, but these who were Waldenses. So also complaineth Lactantius, and Isiodorus pelus • ota: Why did Costerus taking on him to prove the succession of the Roman Church for 1400 years, leaves 300. years blank, where he cannot find his Mother Church; and yet Nicephorus saith Simon Zealots preached the Gospel in Maur • tania & Aphrorum regione, even to Britain, that is, to the end of the Earth, yea Balaeus, Flemingus, Sirop • s say, that Joseph of • rimathea preached in Bri • taine, and Tertullian in the second century which was his own time saith the like. See the Centuriasts, yea and Barontus, and Origen about an. 206. saith the same; and Jerome an. 407. Gattia, Britannia, Africa, Persis, oriens India, & omnes Barbarae nations u • um Christum adorant, & unam observant regulam veritatis. What were all these but such as after were called Waldenses? And in the first ages Pius 2. saith, ante concilium Nicenu •• parvus respectus babitus fuerat ad Romanam ecclesiars; before the Nicene council little respect was • ad to th. Church of Rome. See this learnedly Demonstrated by the learned Voetius, and his reason is good. Ignatius, Irenaeus, Justin. Martyr, Cl • m. Alexander. Tertullian, Cyprian speak not one syllable of popery or popish articles; also Lucian, Porphyrius, Tryphe • , Cellus, Sosymus, Symmachus, Julian, mockers of Reiligon would have spoken against transubstantiation, one body in many thousand places, worshipping of dead bones, the worshipping of a Tree, Cross, and dumb images, and bread, a Pope who could not err, and they would have challenged and examined miracles, and I add if they scoffed at the Doctrine of these called after Waldenses as the confession beareth, then were the Church of Waldenses (though not under that name) in their time. The Jews objected against the Fathers Tatian, Theophilus, Athenages, Justin, Tertullian, Alexand. Cy • rian, Chrysostom, Isiodorus, Hispalensis, Julianus Po • nerius, They objected all they could devise against the Christian Faith, but not a word of points of popery now controversed; Ergo, popery hath not been in the World then, an. 188. In the Time of Victor many opposed victors Tyranny: and as Plessaeus and Doctor Molineus saith, were called Schismatics therefore, and excommunicated. Neither can Gretserus nor Bellarmine defend this, but by lies and railings. Yea from the 4. to the 7. age (saith Voetius ) produce one Martyr, professor, or Doctor. See Augustine de side ad Petrum, Ruffinus his exposition of the Creed, G • nnadius of the Articles of the Church, Theodoret his Epitome Divinorum decretorum, Cyrillus his tract de fide, and produce one holding the popish Faith. Clemens Romanus and Elutheri • s in the Epistle to the Bishops of France maketh all Bishops pastors of the Church universal. Any who readeth Gre • serus against Pl • ssie may see in the 4. age that Baronius and Bellarmine cannot descend, that appeal was made to the Pope in the council of Carthage, yea the Popes Legate brought Apiarius to the Council, that his cause might be judged there, because • the Pope could not judge it, and that the Council of Chalcedon was, per precepta Valentiniani, convened. and that Canstantinople was equal with Rome. That Simplicius, G • lasius and Symmachus were Judges in their own cause, and that Hormisda an. 518. had no command over the O • ientall Churches, as may be seen in Baronius. So Pelagius the 1. John. the 3. and Pelagius the 2. were refused the honor of universal Bishops, and could not help the matter; See Gretser, and Honorius must be defended as not denying two wills; and two natures in Christ. See what saith B • ronius of this. The council of Constantinople would not receive the worshipping of Images. The best part of the Western Churches were against it. The Churches of France, Germany, Italy, Britain. The council of franckford, of Paris, so did they all refuse the power of the Pope. So Occam, Gerson, Scotus, in most points were not papists. Nor Cajetan, Contaren, Alm • in, Ioa, Major, Caranza. Therefore said Thuanus the Doctrine of the Waldenses were now and then renewed by 〈◊〉 and Hus, and when Hildebrand came in, all know what wicked new points he brought in, as in the Tomes of the councils may be seen; and Onuphrius saith, quod major pars antea parum in usu fuerit; The greatest part of his novelty not heard before, or little in use. His Tyranny upon the consciences of Church-men forbidding marriage: and over the Lord's people may be seen in Sleidan In Lampadius, and his form of excommunicating the Emperor as it is written by Beruriedenses and Sigonius, also Aventinus, Gerochus Reicher sperge • sis Orthuinus; Gratius and others can tell. But ere I speak of this monster head I should not have omitted humble Stephanus the 5. To whom Lodovick the Emperor, descending from his Horse, fell down upon the Earth thrice before his feet, and at the third time saluted him thus, blessed be the Lord God, who cometh in the Name of the Lord, and who hath shined upon us. As Theganus saith that Pashalis excuseth himself to the Emperor Lod. That he had leapen to the Popedom without his authority, which saith, this headship is not supreme, as Aimoinus saith, who was a murderer of Theodorus, The Roman Churches Seal-keeper and of Le • . for having first put out their Eyes, he then beheaded them, say the same Aimoinus, Gregory the 4. caused Lodovick the Emperors sons to conspire against the Father and was upon that plot himself. Sergius the 2. made an act that a Bishop should be convinced of no fault but under sevety and two witnesses. Siconulphus a Prince desiring to have this Popes blessing, came to Rome and kissed ( saith Gretserus after Anastasius ) his precious feet. Anguilbert Archiepisc. Mediolanensis departed out of the Roman Church for the pride of Rome, and Simon of Sergius, saith Sigonius, It was ordinary for all, saith Anastasius, to kiss the seat of Leo the 4. Platina saith, he was guilty of a conspiracy against Gratianus a godly and worthy man, to expel the French-men out of the Kingdom and bring in the Greciane • . Gretser the Jesuit saith, their own Platina is a Liar in this.

We all know there was an English Woman-Pope called Joanna, betwixt Leo the 4. and Benedictus the 3. Bellarmine, Baronius, Gretser, Lipsius will have it a fable. Platina a popish writter is more to be believed then they all, for he affirmeth it as truth. A great schism arose in the Church because Benedictus the 3. was chosen Pope without the Emperors consent. The Emperor did hold the bridle and lead the Horse of Nicolaus the 1. Gretser cannot deny this) he defended and maintained Baldvinus, who was excommunicated by the Bishops of France, because he ravished Iuditha the daughter of C • rolus Calvus. He pleaded that there was no reason; but the decretalls of the popes should be received as the Word of God, but because they were not written in the books of Church-Canons: for by that reason some books of the old and New Testament are not to be received as God's Word ( Grets. ) said, these Epistles were equal with God's Word, and said, they had, neither these Epistles, nor the Scriptutes authority from the holy Spirit, but from the Church. That the church was four hundred years ignorant of the authority of the Scriptures: that he himself was Jehovah eternal, and that Gratianus had inserted it in his distinct. 96. That he was God. Adrian the 2. approved of Basilius his killing of Michael the Emperor his Father.

Onuphrius who observeth 26. Schisms of antipopes thinketh Schismatic Popes, no popes, as Benedict. 5. and 10 Honorius 2. Clement 3. Gregor. 8. Celestinus 2: Victor 2. Some Popes have been declared Heretics by papists, as Gregorius 12. Benedictus 13. In the council, of Pisa • ; and John 23. In the council of Constance; moreover Boniface 8. Sergius 3. Benedictus 7. Eugenius 4. John 9. and John 22. had no tolerable measure of learning to be priests, how then could they be universal prophets who could not err? Liberius was an Arian (as Athanasius and Alphons. saith ) Zepherinus was a Montanist, as Tertullian saith. Honorius was condemned, for saying Christ had but one will, in general councils at Constantinople, Marcellinus sacrificed to Idols as Bellarmine confesseth; faelix was an Arian and consecrated by an Arian Bishop, (as Hieronim. saith) Anastasius was a Nestorian (as Alphonsus saith) John 22. said, souls did not see God until the Resurrection, as Erasmus saith ) Innocentius 1. ordained the Eucharist to be given to Infants, as a Jesuit saith to wit Maldonatus. All this is observed to prove the Church could not be in the Pope. 2. That the Waldenses were opposers of the pope, whose confession is set down by Gulielmus Reginaldus Turco-papista: as Vsserus saith, and cast to by the Jesuit Gretser to the end of Peter Pilichdorffius his Treaties contra Waldenses, and by Reinerus contra Waldenses, Their confession containing a condemning of the popes Supremacy, unwritten Traditions, worshipping of Images, Invocation of Saints, &c. and all the Articles of popery. We know how well Calvin thinketh of their confession The slanderous Gr • tser saith, that Wycliffe renewed their errors and taught this Article. D • u • debet obedire diabolo. God should obey Satan. But that faithful witness of Christ, hath no such thing in his writings. Many other points are objected to the Waldenses, but Thuanus saith, Reliqua quae à Waldensi • us affing untur, per invidiam assinguntur. Other lies and false Doctrines are laid upon them, but the Magdeburgenses set down faithfully the Articles that they held, which we own as the Truth of God.

What Sanderus Coccius and Parsonius objected to them that they Taught that carnal co • cupiscence was no sin. 2. That all oaths in any case are unlawful. 3. That the Magistrate may not use the sword. 4. That the Apostles Creed is to be contemned these and other calumnies are well refused by Usser and proved by the Testimony, that Papists gave of the Holy life of the Waldenses, to be but Lies and mere cal • mnies.

These who of old (saith Serarius ) were called Berengariani from Berengarius, are this day called Calvinists, and these who are this day ( saith John, Wendelstonus ) called Protestants, are novi, s • n G • rmanici Waldenses. The new Waldenses of Germany. Nec vero (saith Usser, citing the foresaid Authors) justam a • l •• c causam videre p • ssimus, quam • brem horum majnum pudere nos debcat; we need not think shame of our forbearers the Waldenses. Whether did Berengarius fear Leo the 9. his unjust sentence of excommunication: but contrary to Victor the 3. he did stoutly plead that the E • ements were a figure or sign of the body and blood of Christ, Ar. 1056. And before Nicol • us the 2. in a Synod at Rome before 113. Bishops, for the space of seven days he pleaded the same cause. So saith Albericus Diacon. Cassinens. and Carolus Sig • nius. Yea, and he lest behind him in his age multitudes of his followers, so as Rome was not able to suppress the visible Church ever since her Cedar branches did spring up to the Clouds.

And we know that the Faith of the Council of Trent, as pressed by Oath prescribed by Pius 4. and by the command of Gregorius 13. was not in the World the 10. age, Ambrosius, Catharinus, Martinus, Isengrenius, Contarenus, the Sorbonists of Paris, and the Doctors of Venice, in many substantial points contradicted the Church of Rome: yea Thuanus and the Bishop of Split teach that after the council of Trent the Reformation spread through the Christian World. In the 12. and 13. ages, the Doctrine of the Waldenses, of Wycliffe and Berengarius did grow, but few did write, (saith Voetius, ) in these times because of heavy persecution, multitudes in Germany Austria, Moravia, Silesia Leiden, Collen, Osenbruge, and many other parts opposed popery.

Now we say there were multitudes professing the Truth, both of Doctors, Fathers, and witnesses opposing the Roman Church! and what calling the Church of Rome gave to our reformers must be measured by the best of the Church consenting to their c • l • i • g: for we are not to think that all professed popery, but many of the gu des opposed, many were burdened in 〈◊〉 and yet out of weakness durst not profess, because of the 〈◊〉 •• ea • nesse. 3. They durst not write and preach ag 〈…〉 n of the time. 4. Many were simple, many 〈◊〉 .

3. 〈…〉 Luther and Zuinolius had their whole calling from the 〈…〉 ye • think we not that calling no calling, but that it hath that which • ssentially constituteth a Ministe. 1. C • j phas entered most c • r • n •• lie to the Priesthood, by the favor of men, and to be High Priest for one year contrary to the Law, which ordained the high-priest to remain for his lifetime. But as Josephus said Toletus Cajetan Maldonado Iansonius: yea and our own writers Calvin Marlorat Musculus Rollock Bullinger observe, all was done by the will and lust of men; yet Cajaphas was the high-priest and prophesied, which is a specific act of a called Prophet. John, Ex. 51. 52. It is said, he prophesied as high-priest. 2. The Scribes and T • aisees set in Moses chair, and are to be heard, Mat. 23 1. In so far as they teach God's Truth, and yet their entry to their calling was corrupt, if it be true that diverse say, that Christ, John 10▪ calleth the Scribes and Pharisees. Thieves and Robbers, because they came not in by the door, but climbed up another way, but however there was corruption in the way of their coming to the chair, for they leavened all other the Ordinances of God, and the high priest was entered a false way, the rest of the Rulers could not come, but in a corrupt way. But though Augustine and Clemens Alexa • . expound the place, John 20. of such as want a lawful calling; but then the place cannot agree with Scribes and Pharisees, which seemeth to fight with the course of the Text. But our Interpeters Brenz B • z • Rollocus, expound the place of these who preach not Christ soundly, and to be the door and the foundation, but human Traditions, and yet had a calling; and the Text saith so much, where v. 9. Salvation is promised to everyone who entereth in by Christ the door, now salvation is not promised to a man, because he hath a lawful calling to the Ministry; he may have that and yet b • e a Child of perdition.

3. We are nowhere forbidden in God's Word to hear Teachers sent and called, but only Wolves in sheep skins, void of all calling, and intruders: for pastors may be antichristian in the manner of the entry, as Cajaphas. 2. In the matter of their Doctrine Teaching some of men's Traditions, in place of God's Word as Scribes and Pharisees. 3. Yea, and brook an antichristian calling, as prelates do and have done in Britain • , and yet their Ministry be valid. For that the calling of a Minister be valid, and his Ministerial acts not null, it is sufficient that the governing Church give him a calling, either by themselves, their express call, their silence, or tacit consen • , or their approbation communicating with him in his Ministry, or by these to whom the Church resigned her power, or by these who stand in place of the Church; though prelates invade the place of the Church: yet because first they themselves be pastors and have power to teach and Baptize as pastors called of Christ. Mat. 18. 19. 2. Because they stand for the Church the Church approving, or some way by silence consenting (as in the case of Cajaphas entry to the priest-hood) thereunto. these who are baptized of them, are not rebaptized, and these who are ordained pastors by them are not reordained, but have a calling to the Ministry and do validly confer a calling upon others. Yea, many of great learning think that at the beginning of Reformation thousands being under popery baptized by Midwives and private persons, were never rebaptized, not that they think such Baptism valid, but where the Sacrament is wanting, ex invincibili ignorantia facti, out of an invincible ignorance of a fact, such that way baptized do indeed want the Lord's Seal; but we cannot for that say that they are no better then Infidels and unbaptized Turks and Jews, because. 1. Their being borne in the visible Church giveth a federal holiness, as all of Jewish parents had a federal right to circumcision, and were, eatenus, in so far, separated from the womb. 2. Because their profession of that Covenant whereof Baptism is a seal, separateth them sufficiently from Infidels, though they want the seal external. But our Divines esteem, and that justly, baptism administrated by Women, or such as have no calling, to be no baptism at all; for which let the Reader see Calvin Beza the learned Rivet. We stand not for what Bellarmine Maldonatus Gretserus and other papists say on the contrary: and also Cajetan and Toletus.

4. Robinson and our Brethren acknowledge that the Church of Rome hath true baptism, for they retain the essential causes of Baptism, even as the vessels of the Lord's house profaned in Babylon may be carried back to the Temple, but if these vessels were broken and mingled with brass and iron, and cast in another mould they could not obtain their former place in the Temple. Baptism is a vessel profaned in Babel, but not broken; but the ministry and priest hood of Rome is like the new melted and mingled vessel, and essentially degenerated from the office of pastorship. But I answer, if baptism be valid in Rome so are the Ministers baptizers, for if the Ministers and priests be essentially no Ministers, the baptism administrated by the Romish priests is no Ministry, and all one as administrated by Midwives and private persons, who therefore cannot administrate the Sacraments validly in the essential causes, because they are essentially no Ministers. If therefore Robinson will have the Romish priest-hood essentially no ministry, by that same reason he must say, baptism administrated by Romish priests i • no baptism, the contrary whereof he confesseth: otherwise he must say baptism administrated, à non habente potestatem, even by Women and private Men, is valid, and cannot be but esteemed lawful in the substance of the act. 2. These have a ministry essentially entire who have power under Christ to preach the Gospel and administrate the Sacraments, Matthew 28. 19. The Romish priests have this, and are called to this by the Church.

I answer, England may well separate from Rome everting the fundamental parts of Faith, and not separate from Rome's baptism, or ministry, in so far, as they be essentially the ordinances of Christ: and I retort this argument; How can Separatists separate from both us and Rome, and yet retain the baptism in both our Church and Rome. 2. A ministry true in the essence may make a Church true 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in so far; but because of many other substantial corruptions in Rome, it is a Church which we ought to forsake.

I answer, that the true Church was only at Jerusalem radically, as, you say, would import that the 10. Tribes revolting from David's house ceased to be a Church, which is false: Israel though all the Land were in Covenant with God, had circumcision and the Passover, and so were a true visible Church, even when they did meet in their Synagogues. The Altar, sacrifices, Temple, are not the essentials of a visible Church, they were a Church, and did pray toward the Temple even in Babylon, and were to profess the True God before the heathen, Ierem. 10. 11. 2. There be typical reasons to hinder men why they cannot be capable of the priest-hood, that did not exclude them from Church state; but this hindereth not but if the seals administated by a Minister be true seals, then is the Minister thereof catenus, in so far, a true Minister.

Answ. That proveth a difference betwixt the ministry and Baptism, which is not the question; but it proveth not this to be false, if Rome's baptism be lawful in its essence, so is Rome's ministry.