in the Church For our Saviour left his Apostles with full power extraordinary and ordinary for the planting and propagating his Church through the World The ordinary power they were to leave unto others after them for continuing of his Church to the Worlds end viz the power of Reconciliation in the Ministry of the Word Sacraments the power of ordaining and sending others and the power of jurisdicton and government How and into what hands they communicated these severall powers That 's the question Some of the Ancients apprehend it thus That they committed the whole power to those first Elders they placed in every City where the Church was planted so that those first Elders were properly Bishops having power to ordain other Ministers and Labourers as the encrease or extent of the Church required Other Fathers or ancient Writers seem to apprehend those first Elders to be meer Presbyters to whom the whole power was not committed but that afterwards upon the encrease of the Church other speciall Men were intrusted with it to ordain others as need required and as Generall Pastors to rule and over-see the whole Church with all the particular Congregations and Presbyters or inferiour Pastors belonging to it Either way is sufficient for establishing the Episcopall power and government and the Adversaries thereof as they cannot disprove it if we say those first Elders were Bishops properly so neither will they gain any thing if we grant them in courtesy thus much that the first Elders were meer Presbyters For see briefly what they can say against the first or draw from the second Against the first they usually say 1. If those Bishops at Philippi were so properly then were there more than one Bishop in one City or Church Answ This indeed was absurd and inconvenient and never suffered in the Church inlarged and established but in the Church Nascent or beginning it might be very reasonable by way of provision for the future enlargement establishment of that Church So we find 12. Apostles left in the Church of Jerusalem by our Saviour in order to their propagating and governing the Church through the whole World And so in some great Cities where and from which the Gospel might suddenly spread it self the Apostles might provisionally leave more than One Elder vested with power for the supply of the Church enlarged Secondly If the Elders or Bishops mentioned in those places were Bishops properly vested with such power then would the Apostle also have remembred the other sort of Elders between them and Deacons Answ But what if there were not yet in that Church Elders or Presbyters of the second sort For no Church at first was full Or if there were such in that Church why might he not salute both sorts under that general name Bishop Thirdly But then the Apostle did not distinctly set down the Office of the one or the other for having set down the office of a Bishop he presently goes to the Deacon 1 Tim. 3. Tit. 1. 5. Answ It was not the Apostles purpose in those places distinctly to set down the Office of Elders nor of Deacons but the general qualification of the Persons to be admitted to those Offices We may ask of them Where has the Apostle distinctly set down or described the Office of a Lady-Elder They are fain to force it out of one word Ruling 1 Tim. 4. 17. which belongs to the Preaching Elders as they well acknowledge In the places above mentioned the Apostle gives as I said qualifications fitting the Persons of both sorts of Elders that then were or should be in the Church for the duties there hinted teaching ruling do belong to both sorts of Elders but with Subordination of the one to the other And if they will have the word rule 1 Tim. 4. 17. insinuate a distinct Office of Elders from the preaching Elders without any intimation of such an Office anywhere else in Scripture why might not we say with more reason that the same word in the forementioned place 1 Tim. 3. 5. belongs to Bishops of both sorts according to their order and station to rule or take care of the Church of God Especially seeing we shew elsewhere in the same Epistle such a Prelacy or supereminent power of rule given to Timothy distinctly from other Elders as Lay hands suddenly on no man Rebuke not an Elder receive no accusation against an Elder c. cap. 5. v. 19. 22. Like speciall power given to Titus as we see in that Epistle besides all the acts of ordinary power exercised by the Apostles and not communicated in general to Presbyters And so the exhortation of the Apostle Acts 20. 28. might generally fit both sorts of Elders or Bishops supposing those of the inferiour rank present there that they should all of them feed the Flock according to their several stations and in that subordination of Rule which was in the Church But if we grant them that those Elders or Bishops in the above cited places were not Bishops properly but ordinary presbyters What can they draw from thence advantagious either to the Classicall or Congregational pretension when as there is no instance in all Scripture of the Power vested in a Classis or consistory of Presbyters or in every particular Congregation but on the contrary where ever there is mention of the exercising of the power for ordination by laying on hands or for Jurisdiction in rebuking or receiving accusation against an Elder in rejecting Heretiks or the like we find it always done by the Apostles or speciall men appointed thereunto as Timothy Titus Nor is it to any purpose to reply as they doe These were extraordinary men Apostles or Evangelists and so exercised that power as such For albeit in the office of Apostle and Evangelist there was something extraordinary and supposing Timothy Titus may passe under the Title of Evangelists yet the power of ordination and Jurisdiction was ordinary and to continue in the Church and to be communicated unto others as was most convenient What help therefore can the Adversaries have in the Apostles and Evangelists being extraordinary persons unlesse they can shew the power did ordinarily belong to and was exercised by the company of Presbyters or else demonstrate it was left in their hands by expresse and peremptory order from the Apostles So that here they would be non-suited laying their plea only by Scripture against Universall Tradition and practice of the Church for the Scripture story goes not downe to the departure of the Apostles Now after they were gone off it clearly appeared by the practice of the whole Church in what hands the chief power and Government was left viz. not to Presbyters in common but in speciall hands according to the instances and examples of the exercising that power in the Apostles Time The Ancient Records also which continue the Church story from that Time give us the succession of Bishops from the Apostles in the more eminent
Romanists alledging that the present Sects of these dayes may plead against the Church of England from which they have divided what the Church of England can against the Roman for as it was above premised the case betweene English and Romish Church is as between two Nationall Churches having full authority for publick Reformation but the case between the English Church and those that have divided from it is between a Nationall Church and the members of it by which appears they could have no sufficient Authority for publick Reformation without and against the Authority in being to pull down and set up as they have done and it will appear they could have no just Cause for so much as a Separation from the Communion of this Church §. IX Grounds laid for convincing them of Schism Now for making good the charge of Schisme against them we will premise some undeniable Truths which speak the Authority of Church-governours the obedience due thereunto the condition of Schism and the danger and guilt of it I. That the Church of Christ is a Society or Company under a Regiment Discipline Government and the Members constituting that Society are either Persons taught guided governed or Persons teaching guiding governing and this in order to preserve all in Unity and to advance every Member of this visible Society to an effectuall and reall participation of Grace and Union with Christ the Head and therefore and upon no lesse account is obedience due unto them Eph. 4. 11 12 13 16. and Heb. 13. 17. and he that will not hear the Church be as a Heathen and Publican Mat. 16. II. That every Nationall Church has power as to determine in matters of Faith according to Gods word so to determine in things indifferent Rites Ceremonies matters of order as in prudence it sees most fit for the better and more convenient performance of Gods worship or administration of Discipline and Government This is plain by the Apostle 1 Cor. 14. 26 40. The Rule above delivered speaks to this purpose That the Church propounding or determining matters of Faith or of the substance of Worship ought to manifest it out of Gods Word cannot doe it besides the same as the 20 Act of our Church hath it and we may expect such manifestation or proof before we yeild the absolute assent of belief unto any thing so propounded But in the Churches determination of things in themselves indifferent and enjoyning the observation of Rites and Ceremonies it is enough that the particular be not against Gods Word and he that will not yeild obedience to it is bound to shew it plainly contrary to the Word or else stands guilty of disobeying the known precepts of the Word which command obedience to Authority I will not be enough to say The Governours of the Church did not hold to their Rule for this Rite or Ceremony is not to edification is not decent it might be better otherwise For this is to set a mans owne judgement against that of the Church in matters of prudence a spice of that pride and self conceit which is the Mother of all disobedience Schism and though a private judgement might truly say some things might be better done in and about Gods Worship or Service yet unlesse such a one can say as truly those things are unlawfull to be done and that by direct warrant from Gods Word he ought not to disobey III. When the Apostle used an argument from Custome against certaine disorders We have no such Custome nor the Churches of God 1 Cor. 11. 16. he plainly shews what force the Customes of a Church so they be not against Gods Word have to binde the Members of that Church as from Introducing any New Custome without Authority so to observe such Customes as the Church hath and he that will not is reckoned by the Apostle there among the Contentious or disturbers of the peace of the Church for against such he urges that Much more are we to take notice of the strength of Universall Tradition the Custome and Practice of the whole Church in all Ages for of this we shall have occasion below against the Contentious IV. In the same Epistle for it is mainly spent upon this Argument he commends Charity as a Remedy against that Pride which upon conceit of Knowledge or Spiritual gifts cap. 12. pufft them up and made them swell one against another and despise one another the ready way to Division and breaking all asunder This Charity not that which does workes of mercy or relieves the poor as we see by ver. 3. cap. 13. but which bindes together the body of the Church Edifying it selfe in Love as Eph. 4. 16. Charity in opposition to Schism this I say he commends and by severall properties discribes It vanteth not is not puffed up ver. 4. not against Equals much lesse in setting our private judgement against our Governors It thinketh no evill ver. 5. It receives satisfaction easily from Equals interprets their Words and Actions to the best much more the commands and doings of our Governours Charity seeks not her owne endureth all things ver. 5 7. suffers much rather than come to open difference and contention with Equals so will peaceable Charity suffer much ere it come to a division from the Church much lesse will it seek that which is anothers that especially which belongs to the Governours their power meanes preferments Thus Schism takes beginning from Pride and self-conceit goes on by uncharitablenesse to enormous excesse of disobedience and injustice and renders all Knowledge Faith and other good workes for want of this Charity unprofitable nothing worth as the Apostle in that Chapter often tells us V. The Apostle when he set Titus over the Churches of Crete directs him in the use of his power as to this point of dealing with the Contentious Tit. 3. 10 11. A man that is an Heretick reject being self-condemned Every Schismatick is this Heretick for so the word Heresie and Heretick signifies and according to the use of it then implyed one that obstinately stood out against the Church or that lead any Sect after the strictest Sect or Heresie of the Pharisees Act 26. 5. after that which they call Heresie Act. 24. 14. a Factious company divided from the Church so they called or accounted of Christians and Gal. 5. 20. we have it reckoned among the workes of the Flesh Debates Contentions Heresie So here Heretick that leads a Faction a Sect or that wilfully followes or abets it A Man therefore that is a Heretick contentious disobedient to the Order and Authority of the Church reject for he is self-condemned having both passed the Sentence upon himself by professing against or dividing from the Church and also done execution like that of the Churches censure and excommunication upon himselfe by actuall separation or going out of the Church A fearfull condition Now the application of the Premises to the convincing
all the Members thereof how much more Vniversall practise This the Adversaries of Episcopall-government whether they be of the Classicall or Congregationall way turn off with a light finger as if it had no weight in it or as if the Apostle had said nothing in alledging the Customes of the Church Scripture is the onely thing they will be tryed by We refuse not to meet them there but let them consider that they come against the Established authority of their own Nationall Church against the custome and practise not onely of that but of all the Churches of God and there are bound to bring plain and expresse Scripture to demonstrate that Episcopacy or such a superiority over other inferiour Pastors or meere Presbyters is directly unlawfull for else the Custome and Practise of the Churches by the Apostles rule must be observed so long as in force i. e. till due Authority change them supposing they are changeable and that it is in the power of the present Church to change them It were well the Adversaries of the Episcopall Function would yeild more Authority to Universall Practise or Tradition of the Churches of God at least in their respect to some points they will acknowledge themselves bound to maintaine As first That Scripture is the Word of God I do not ask upon what grounds they finally believe this themselves but how they would maintaine it against Heathen or Jew and perswade them to it but upon the witnesse of universall Tradition which speaks to the conviction of all men upon the ground of common Sense or Reason as abovesaid 2. or Secondly That the observation of the Lords day comes from the Apostles How would they convince such a one as Mr. Trask was by the places of Scripture mentioning the Apostles meeting upon the first day of the week or that place which names the Lords day Rev. 1. which might be on Easter day the annuall Lords day He according to the doctrine of these men slighting the Witnesse of Universall Tradition or Practise found nothing in Scripture expresse but the Commandement for the Seventh day or Jewish Sabbath so obstinately held for that till he was reclaimed by the labour and travail of our learned Bishops and made to see how the continued and undeniable practise of the whole Church did clearely shew those passages in Scripture were intimations of this practise then beginning and that their observing of the Seventh day or Jewish Sabbath for they observed that too as occasion served was but in complyance with the Jewes for a time while the Temple stood In like manner the Universall practice of the Church the best interpreter of Scripture where there is not any place of it so plaine as to take away all gainsaying tells us those passages we shew in Scripture for this Government contain so many intimations and sometimes exercises of that Episcopall power which should continue in the Church after the Apostles and assures us those other instances brought by the Adversaries against that Function cannot inferre any other way of Government And therefore we had good cause to say above Episcopall Government was conformable to Gods Word which is our second consideration §. XIV Episcopall government conformable to the word Secondly then take we a briefe survey of the Grounds on both sides which yet I cannot in reason enter upon without asking leave to suppose it possible which never was seen in any particular that Universall Tradition or Practise can be contrary unto Scripture but yeilding that as possible to the Adversaries it is cleare they are bound as abovesaid to demonstrate this Practise or Government is against Scripture and that their way is peremptorily there prescribed How impossible it is for them to do this appeares at first sight by their severall judgements upon the passages of Scripture concerning Church-government Some of them look upon these passages and think they see a Classicall or Presbyterian others of them look upon them and are as strongly perswaded they see a Congregationall or Independent way Where 's the clear Evidence then which they pretend against Episcopall Government To examine their chiefe Instances briefly and plainly for the satisfaction of ordinary Capacities make the triall of those that are alledged for the Classicall way because that pretends to more regularity and to a better foundation than the other Their Instances are from the mention made in Scripture of Presbytery and Presbyters or Elders and the name of Bishop applyed to them We read 1 Tim. 4. 14. the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery But what evidence is there in this to demonstrate that the power of ordination was put into the hands of meer Presbyters For first it is a question whether this laying on of hands was for ordination here or for some other purpose Secondly when that is granted it is a question whether the word Presbytery here implies the office to which Timothy was ordained or the Persons ordaining him for both interpretations are admitted Thirdly admit the Persons ordaining are meant yet never can it be proved they were meer Presbyters for besides that the word Presbytery or Eldership included the Apostles and all the chief Rulers of the Church 1 Pet. 5. 1. who am also an Elder and John Ep. 2. v. 1. Ep. 3. v. 1. the Elder St. Paul saith expresly he laid hands on Timothy 2 Tim. 1. 6. Neither can they in all Scripture give one instance of Imposition of hands for Ordination permitted to meere Presbyters alone So for the places alledged by them mentioning Bishops and Deacons onely as the Ministers of the Church Phil. 1. 1. or calling them first Elders and then presently Bishops Tit. 1. 5. 8. Acts 20. 17. 28. If we say that in these and the like places those first Elders set in the Churches newly planted were Bishops properly or that the Elders or Bishops there mentioned were of both sorts some Bishops properly some inferiour Presbyters the Adversaries could disprove neither part evidently or if in the third place we should grant them what they aime at that these were onely Presbyters it would be nothing to the purpose unlesse they could directly shew the power of Ordination and Government over those Churches fully committed to them For supposing those Elders to be such Presbyters the name Bishop might be appliable to any of them in as much as he had over-sight of any flock which Name was appropriated after to the more Generall Pastor who had oversight of the Presbyters and particular Flocks or Congregations within such Precincts And what marvail is it if the distinction of these two sorts of Elders or Bishops did not nay could not appeare so clearly in the beginning of the new planted Churches and whilst the Apostles were on earth governing the Churches as it did after the Churches were enlarged and the Apostles gone off Then clearly appeared who succeeded them and how far in that ordinary power which was to continue