Iowest political church but as constituted by the political union of congregational or parochial churches held also to be political under an officer of another order and the proper superior of those officers under which the parochial churches immediately are then let it be observed that a church of this frame is not properly an Episcopal but an Archiepiscopal Church For the churches whereof it is compacted are properly Episcopal being such as have each of them their own bishop pastor or elder But the divine right of such an Archiepiscopal church I leave to further inquiry As for a National church I come now to inquire in what sence it may or may not be granted In a more general notion it is some part of the universal church distinguished and severed from the rest of that body by the limits of a Nation or of a civil state or in other terms a nation of Christian churches or the Christian churches of a Nation But there are more express and special notions thereof respecting the frame of Ecclesiastical Polity which are discrepant from each other And about the being thereof in these special notions mens judgments vary Some own a national church in this sence only viz. a nation of churches or the churches of a nation agreeing at least in the essentials of christian Dectrine divine Worship and church-Government Some own a national church in a stricter sense namely the said churches not only agreeing in the points aforesaid but politically united by the same common band of Ecclesiastical Government under one head personal or collective And this stricter sence hath a subdivision for it may be understood of the churches united in a Civil Ecclesiastical polity under a civil head or supream or of the churches embodyed in the band of a polity purely Ecclesiastical under a spiritual head or supream I own the rightful being and divine warrant of a national church as united in one Civil Ecclesiastical polity under one civil head or supream either personal as in a Monarchy or collective as in a Republick And in this sence I assent to the National Church of England viz. All the churches in England politically united under one Supream Civil Church-Governour the Kings Majesty Yet it is to be understood that the partition of a church by the bounds of a nation or of a civil state is but extrinsecal or accidental to the church as such also that the union of the churches of a nation in the band of civil church-polity under a civil head is but an extrinsecal and not an intrinsecal union But I question the divine warrant of a national church embodied in the band of one national polity purely Ecclesiastical under one spiritual head or supream either Personal as a Primate or Patriarch or collective as a consistory of bishops or elders intrinsecally belonging to it and being a constitutive part of it For I find no Canon or Precedent for it in Scripture which is the adequate rule of divine right in the frame of churches and of what intrinsecally belongs thereuntò and I do not know any such spiritual head of the Church of England as for the Arch-bishops of Canterbury and York they at the most can be heads but of their respective provinces and are not subordinate but coordinate to each other in point of Archiepiscopal Government however the case is between them in point of precedency Yet if the civil supream power shall constitute a person or persons Ecclesiastical to be head of a national church or the churches of a nation politically imbodied I here offer nothing against it or for it But if there be such a national constitution being but humane it is but extrinsecal and accidental to the church and being derived from the civil supream it is but a civil church-polity § 21. The subordination of particular Churches to an association or collective body of the same Churches considered I Come to enquire whether there be a subordination of churches taken distributively to an association o◠collective body of the same Churches or an assembly thereof and again whether there be a subordination of that collective body to a larger association of more collective bodies or to an assembly thereof and so forward till we come to the largest that can be reached unto The association of particular churches is of the law of nature and therefore to be put in practise according to their capacity tho there were no positive law for it for they are all so many distinct members of one great body or integral parts of the Catholick church and they are all concerned in each others well being both in reference to themselves as fellow members of one body and to Christ their Head whose honour and interest they must promote each church not only within themselves but throughout all the churches to the utmost extent of their agency And they naturally stand in need of each others help in things that concern them severally and jointly Likewise that there be greater and lesser associations acting in their several spheres higher or lower the one included in the other is of the law of nature or of natural convenience for the more ample capacity and more orderly contributing of the mutual help aforesad such as have been called classical provincial and national assemblies used in one form of church-government yea and beyond this the association of the churches of many nations as far towards an oecumenical council as they are capable of convening is of the same reason But of an oecumenical association truly so called that is of all the churches in the world the moral impossibility thereof hath been spoken of before It is also by the law of nature most convenienient that in the lesser associations all the ruling officers personally meet and that in the larger they meet by their delegates or representatives chosen by all and sent in the name of all which meetings are called assemblies or synods and the convenience of meeting by delegates is that the particular churches be not for a time left wholly destitute of their guides and that there may be less trouble and difficulty and danger of disorder in the whole management Note That what is most naturally convenient hath in it the reason of necessary or is matter of duty unless when something gainsay or hinder and then indeed it ceaseth to be convenient And that there be some kind of subordination in the said associations and their respective Assemblies is of the Law of nature which requires order but as to the kind or manner of subordination men go several ways Some place it in a proper Authority or Governing power that the collective bodies of Churches have over the several Churches included in them others place it in the agreement of the several churches and some of these make this further explanation that the Canons made by Synods as they are made for the people who are subject to the Pastors are a sort of Laws and oblige by
because it cannot be seen without an act of the understanding no more may the unity of the Catholick Church be for that reason judged invisible I have already shewed that the adequate notion of visible and invisible in this subject is to be not only the object of the bodily eye or other external sence but also of any humane intuition or certain perception or that which falls under humane cognizance and judgment § 9. The Polity of the Catholick Church THE Catholick Church is not as secular Kingdoms or Commonwealths are autonomical that is having within it self that Power of its own fundamental constitution and of the laws and officers and administrations belonging to it as a Church or spiritual polity but it hath received all these from Christ its Head King and Law giver Indeed as it includes Christ the Head it is in reference to him autonomical but here we consider it as a political Body visible upon earth and abstracted from its Head Nevertheless it hath according to the capacity of its acting that is in its several parts a power of secondary Laws or Canons either to impress the Laws of Christ upon its members or to regulate circumstantials and accidentals in Religion by determining things necessary in genere and not determined of Christ in spâ—câ—â— but left to humane determination The spiritual authority seated in the Church is not seated in the Church as Catholick so as to descend from it by way of derivation and communication to particular Churches but it is immediately seated in the several particular Churches as similar parts of one political Body the Church Catholick The Church Catholick is as one universal or Oecumenical Kingdom having one supream Lord one Body of Lawâ— one Form of Government one way of Enrollment into it and subiects who have freedom throughout the whole extent thereof radically and fundamentally always and actually to be used according to their occasions and capacities but having no Terrene Universal Administrator or Vicegerent personal or collective but several administrators in the several provinces or parts thereof invested with the same kind of authority respecting the whole kingdom radically or fundamentally but to be exercised ordinarily in their own stated limits and occasionally any where else according to a due call and order Wherefore tho it be one political society yet not so as to have one terrestrial vicarious Head personal or collective having legislation and jurisdiction over the whole And indeed no terrestrial Head is capable of the Government and Christ the Supream Head and Lord being powerfully present throughout the whole by his spirit causeth that such a vicarious Head is not wanted Indeed the Apostles as such were universal officers having Apostolick authority not only radically or habitually but actually also over the whole Catholick Church in regard they were divinely inspired and immediately commissioned by Christ under him to erect his Church and to establish his religion even the Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government that was to be received by all Christians But this office was but temporary in the nature and formal reason of it and so expired with their persons and was not of the essence or a constitutive part of this society § 10. The Headship of a General Council examined BY Headship over the Church in this inquiry is not meant a dominion and Desporick power over it for the Church hath no Lord but Christ nor soveraign authority over it which is the power of legislation and final decisive judgment by which men stand or fall finally for the Church hath no King but Christ I exclude Headship in any such sence as not fit to come under consideration But the Query is Whether a general Council be supream in that kind of power which resides in the Church and is only ministerial and dispensatory that is whether it hath a supream ministry or Geconomy over the Catholick Church so that all Churches and ministers have their power conveyed to them from the same not as from the Fountain which is Christ alone but as from the first receptacle thereof and are subject to its authoritative regulation and determinations and finally accountable to it for their administrations Who can affirm that an Oecumenical council rightly so named was ever in being The councils that have born that name were conventions of Bishops within the Roman Empire except some very few that were without it and those living near the confines of it Whereupon let it be considered whether the said councils were truly Oecumenical or just representatives of the Catholick Church That which is wont to be said for the affirmative is that no Bishops were excluded from the right of voting therein but from all parts of the world they might come to them as rightful members of them if they would But what if no greater number of Bishops meet upon a summons to a General council than did at the council of Trent May such a convention be called an Oecumenical council because all might come that would when so small a number came as was comparatively nothing to the number of bishops throughout the world Or can the convention of a greater number suppose as many as met in the first Nicene council be justly called a representative of the Catholick Church or carry the sence of it when it bears no more proportion to it Surely it is not their freedom of access but their actual convening at least in a proportionable number that can justly give the denomination And what if the bishops without the limits of the Roman Empire would not come to a General council called by the Mandate of the Roman Emperour especially they that lived in the remoter parts as Ethiopia and India c Were they obliged to come to a general council in case it had been summoned in another especially a remoter Empire or Dominionâ— Moreover what if they could not come which may well be supposed by reason of the restraint of their several Princes or the length of the journey or insuperable difficulties or utter incapacities Tho the most illustrious part of the Catholick Church was contained in the Roman Empire yet an assembly of the bishops thereof could no more make a representative of the Catholick Church than an assembly of the bishops of the other part of the world without them could have done if there had been such an assembly Besides the ancient General councils were usually called in the Eastern parts of the Empire and tho the bishops of those parts might convene in a considerable number yet the number from the Western parts was inconsiderable and as none comparatively to a just proportion Let it be hereupon considered whether the said councils were a just representative and did carry the sence of that part of the Catholick Church that was included in that Empire And in this consideration it is not of little moment to observe what numbers of bishops were ordinarily congregated in the many provincial assemblies and that within
more prevalently in their judgment and practice in their hearts and lives than the superadded errors and corruptions and are ready to Renounce those errors and corruptions if they saw their inconsistence with the essentials are true Christians otherwise they are not such The same church may be a true and a false church in different respects or formal considerations In respect of the essentials of Christian Faith Worship and Ministry it may be a true church and in respect of some devised Church-form superadded by which over and above the said Essentials it is constituted and denominated it may be in that distinct formal consideration a false church OF THE MINISTRY § 1. The Nature of the holy Ministry in general THE Holy Ministry is a state of Authority and Obligation to perform some special Holy Works and Services in the Name of Christ for the edifying of the church So that whosoever is in a holy order or office is qua talis authorized and obliged to the work and service that is appropriated to it and whosoever statedly and de jure doth the work and service appropriated to a holy order is really in or of that order altho men may not give him the name thereof Whether the Magistratical and Ministerial Offices may reside together in the same person is not here considered but if it were granted that they may they would essentially differ from each other For the Magistrate as such hath received no authority formally ministerial nor hath any minister as such the power of a civil magistrate Some thus distinguish between the magistratical and ministerial authority that the one is directive and the other imperative I take not this to be a competent distinction for that authority that infers an obligation on the subject to obey is properly imperative and the ministerial authority doth so as the Scripture speaks expresly Heb. 13.17 Paul was no Magistrate but as a Minister he speaks 2 Cor. 10.6 Having in readiness to revenge all disobedience and he expresly declares his ministerial authority to be imperative Phil. v. 8. The I might make hold in Christ to injoyn thee that which is convenient c. and v. 21. having confidence in thine obedience I wrote unto thee Now they had rightly distinguished if instead of imperative they had put coercive coactive or imperial For all directive authority by special office is imperative Whosoever doth by special office direct unto duty in the name of his King and according to his will as a Minister doth in the name of Christ doth therein command But a coactive power is something more and belongs not to a Minister as such The Magistrate rules by the Sword and the Minister by the Word § 2. Of the efficient cause of the Ministry and its Authority AS Christ alone hath the power of appointing the work or works of the holy ministry to be done in his name either towards believers or the unbelieving towards the church jointly or toward particular persons severally so he alone hath the power of appointing the holy orders or offices that contain an authority and obligation to perform the same And seeing Christ hath already appointed all the ministerial works and appropriated the same to certain ministerial orders no new order or office of the holy ministry can be instituted by men for they cannot institute other ministerial work to be done in Christs Name than what he hath appointed But the circumstances and accidental modes and subservient offices about the work of the ministry are of that nature as that they well may be appointed by men and accordingly the officers for the management thereof may be so appointed and such modes and circumstances being necessarily subject to great variation in regard of the great diversity of occasion cannot well be pre-defined The holy ministry and power belonging to it is conferred neither by Magistrate nor by Prelate nor by any spiritual officer or officers as the proper givers thereof but by Christ alone And tho Christ give it in some respect by the mediation of men yet not by them as giving the office power but as instruments either of designing the person to whom he gives it or of the solemn investiture of that person therein as the King is the immediate giver of the power of a Mayor in a Town corporate when he gives it by the mediation of the Electors not as giving the power but designing the person to be invested with it or by the mediation of some other officers as instruments of the solemn investiture Neither Magistrate nor Prelate nor any spiritual officer or officers can dsiannul or take away that spiritual office whereof they are not the authors nor in proper sence the givers Nor can they inlarge or lessen it as to its essential state or define it otherwise than Christ hath defined it And if the ordainer in conveying the holy office or order should use any any words or actions that import the lessening thereof in its essential state they are void and null as if a Minister that joyns a Man and Woman in marriage according to the true intent of that ordinance shall add some words that forbid the Husband the government of his Wife that addition is a nullity § 3. Of the Office of a Bishop Elder or Pastor THE Ministry of Gods appointment is either extraordinary and temporary as that of the Apostles and Prophets and Evangelists also if so be they were only the itinerary assistants of the Apostles or ordinary and perpetual as that of Pastors and Teachers The words Elder Bishop Pastor are names of the same Sacred Office as appears Acts 20.17 28. where their Ministry towards the Church is set forth in Pauls words to the Elders which he sent for from Ephesus to Miletum Take heed to your selves and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers to feed the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood The Apostles besides their extraordinary Office of Apostleship had also the ordinary Office of Bishops pastors and Elders or to speak peradventure more properly they had these ordinary offices included in their Apostleship Christ saith to Peter Feed my sheep And Peter calls himself an Elder 1 Pet. 5.1 And John in his second and third Epistles so calls himself And indeed if it were not so they could have no successors or partakers Howbeit the Scripture gives us no evidence of their being fixed Bishops or Pastors to particular Churches As for the meaning of these names the word Bishop imports an Overseer Elder is a name of Authority borrowed from age and applied to a Ruling-officer The word Pastor is metaphorical signifying that this Officer is to the Congregation of God as a Shepherd to a Flock of sheep to feed them This feeding consists in teaching and ruling so that every Pastor is in the nature of his office a Teacher and he feeds by doctrine And indeed Pastoral Ruling is by
against the Episcopacy of a bishop infimi gradus over many Churches makes not against the right of an overseer of other bishops such as Titus must needs be if he were indeed bishop of Crete which contained a hundred Cities and where bishops or elders were ordained in every City If either Scripture or Prudence guided by Scripture be for such an office I oppose it not Now a bishop of bishops may be taken in a twofold notion either for one of a higher order that is to say of an office specifically different from the subordinate bishops or for one of a higher degree only in the same order I suppose our Archbishops of Provinces do not own the former notion of a bishop of bishops but the latter only But the bishop of a Diocess is de facto that which the Archbishop of a Province doth not own namely a bishop of bishops in a different order from the Presbyters of his Diocess who have been already proved from Scripture to be bishops Hereupon the present inquiry is Whether the Word of God doth warrant the office of a bishop of bishops in either of the said notions And in this inquiry I shall consider what kind of Government the Apostles had over the Pastors or Elders of particular Churches 2. The Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus much alledged by the Hierarchical Divines 3. The preeminence of the Angels of the seven Churches of Asia◠Apoc. 1. and 2. § 9. The BISHOPS Plen of being the Apostles Successors in their Governing-Power examined THO the Apostles in respect of that in them which was common to other officers call themselves Presbyters and Ministers but never bishops yet it is asserted by the asserters of Prelacy that bishops superior to Presbyters are the Apostles successors and thereupon have a governing-power over Presbyters Wherefore the Apostles governing-power and the said bishops right of succession thereunto is necessarily to be considered As touching this claimed succession in the governing power the defenders of prelacy say that Presbyters qua Presbyters succeed the Apostles in the office of governing But the Scripture doth not warrant this dividing of the office of teaching and governing And if the division cannot be proved in case there be a succession it must be into the whole and not into a part and so the Presbyters must succeed as well in ruling as in teaching Besides it hath been already proved that an authoritative Teacher of the Church is qua talis a Ruler The Apostles had no successors in their special office of Apostleship For not only the unction or qualification of an Apostle but also the intire Apostolick office as in its formal state or specifick difference was extraordinary and expired with their persons It was an office by immediate Vocation from Christ without the intervention of man by election or ordination for the authentick promulgation of the Christian Doctrine and the erecting of the Christian Church throughout the World which is built on the foundation of their Doctrine and for the governing of all churches wherever they came and it eminently contained all the power of ordinary bishops and pastors The continuation of teaching and governing in the Church doth no more prove that the office of teaching and governing in the Apostles was quoad formale an ordinary office than that the office of teaching and governing in Christ himself was so But their teaching and governing was by immediate call and authentick and uncontrolable and therefore extraordinary And I do not know that the bishops say they are Apostles tho they say they are the successors of the Apostles Moreover in proper speaking the ordinary bishops or elders cannot be reckoned the successors of the Apostles for they were not succedaneous to them but contemporary with them from the first planting of churches and did by divine right receive and exercise their governing-power And the bishops or elders of all succeeding ages are properly the successors of those first bishops or elders and can rightfully claim no more power than they had Nevertheless let the Apostles governing power be inquired into as also what interest the bishops of the Hierarchical state have therein And in this query it is to be considered That the Presbyters whom the Apostles ordained and governed were bishops both in name and thing and consequently their example of ordaining and ruling such Presbyters is not rightly alledged to prove that bishops as their successors have an appropriated power of ordaining and ruling Presbyters of an inferior order which in Scripture times were not in being Further it is to be considered Whether the said governing-power were only a supereminent authority which they had as Apostles and infallible and to whom the last appeals in matters of religion were to be made or an ordinary governing power over the Churches and the bishops or elders thereof I conceive it most rational to take it in the former sense For we find that the ordinary stated government of particular Churches was in the particular Bishops or Elders and we find not that any of the Apostles did take away the same from them or that it was superceded by their presence or that they reserved to themselves a negative voice in the government of the Churches Now if their governing power were only the said supereminent Apostolick authority they had no successors therein and tho teaching and ruling be of standing necessity and consequently of perpetual duration in the Church yet there is no standing necessity of that teaching and ruling as taken formally in that extraordinary state and manner as before expressed But if they exercised an ordinary governing-governing-power over the Churches and bishops to be continued by succession such kind of Bishops over whom that power was exercised cannot claim a right of succession into the same but they must be officers of an higher orb Consequently if the Hierarchical Bishops claim the right of succession to the Apostles in their governing-power they must needs be of a higher orb than the first Bishops of particular Churches over whom that power was exercised And if this Hypothesis of the Apostles having an ordinary governing-power over the Churches and Bishops do sufficiently prove the right of the succession of Bishops of a higher orb in the same power I shall not oppose it But only I take notice that these higher Bishops are not of the same kind with those first bishops that were under that governing power and of which we read in Scripture That the Apostles should be Diocesan Bishops was not consistent with their Apostolick office being a general charge extending to the Church universal That any Apostle did appropriate a Diocess to himself and challenge the sole Episcopal authority therein cannot be proved The several Apostles for the better carrying on of the work of their office did make choice of several regions more especially to exercise their function in There was an agreement that Peter should go to the Circumcision and Paul to the Uncircumcision But as
Christ indeed hath instituted a ministry for the compleating of his church unto the consummation of all things he hath also promised his Apostles and his ministers successively in them that he will be with them alway to the end of the world But I find no promise of an uninterrupted succession of regularly ordained ministers That which is delivered by ordination is the sacred ministerial office at large as respecting the universal Church to be exercised here or there according to particular calls and opportunities § 21. Of Prayer and Fasting and Imposition of Hands in Ordination PRAYER is such a duty as is requisite to the sanctifying of all other duties as the preaching of the Word administration of Baptism and the Lords Supper and therefore is necessary to this sacred action of ordaining ministers Fasting is a service expressive of solemn humiliation and a necessary adjunct of extra ordinary prayer for the obtaining of more special mercy and therefore a necessary preparative and concomitant in this solemnity And we have Scripture Examples for prayer and fasting in the mission of persons to the work of the ministry Luke 6.12 13. Act. 13.2 Act. 14 23. What imposition of hands imports and the moment of it is to be considered from the use of it both in the Old and New Testament In the Old Testament 't was used 1. In solemn benediction the person blessing laid his hand on the person blessed Gen. 48.14 2. In offering Sacrifice as a sign of devoting it to the Lord by him that offered it Lev. 1.4 3. In ordaining to an office as a sign of setting apart therunto Numb 27.18 20. In the New Testament it is used 1. in blessing Mark 10.16 2. In curing bodily diseases Mark 16.18 Luke 13.13 Acts 19.11 3. In conveying the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost Acts 8.17 Acts 19.6 4. In ordaining ministers Acts 6.6 1 Tim 4.14 The meaning of imposition of hands spoken of Heb. 6.2 is diversly taken some take it as used for the remitting of sins as they also do 1 Tim. 5.22 and say that Baptism refers to the making of proselytes and laying on of hands to the absolving of penitents Others take it for confirmation Others conceive that the whole ministry is by a synecdoche therein comprehended From the various uses of this Rite we collect that it was a sign of conveying a benefit or of designing to an office or of devoting one to the Lord and particularly of authoritative benediction and designation to the office of the ministry and of devoting to the Lord in that kind There is no sufficient reason to make it but a temporary Rite and to limit the use of it in ordination only to the times of miraeles there being no circumstance in any Text to shew that it was done only for the present occasion And we read not that miraculous gifts were given by imposition of hands in ordination § 22. The power of Ordaining belongs to the Pastors of the Church SOme give this reason why the power of Ordination is not in the people but in the Pastors because the act of ordaining is a potestative or authoritative mission which power of mission is first seated in Christ and from him committed to the Apostles and from them to the Bishops or Elders But this Reason must be taken with a grain of salt or in a sound sense because Bishops or Elders have spiritual power formalier but not efficienter and they do not properly make or give the ministerial power but are only instruments of designation or application of that power to the person to whom Christ immediately gives it by the standing-act of his Law That the power of ordaining belongs not to the people but to the Church officers first appears by scripture-Scripture-authority for that in all the New Testament there is no example of ordination by any of the Laity but contrariwise it is therein expresly committed to spiritual officers 2. By Reason for that the Pastors of the Churches are better qualified for the designation of a person to the Holy ministry and for performing the action of solemn investiture as also for that ordination includes an authoritative benediction and that is to come from a Superior as the Scripture saith The less is blessed of the greater and not the greater of the less as it would be if the Pastor were to be ordained by the people that are governed by him Some argue for a popular ordination because election which is the greater belongs to the people But 1. Election is not greater than Ordination in the ministerial Call For in ordination investiture in the Function it self is given but in the peoples election no more is given than the stated exercise of the ministry in that Congregation 2. In case Election were greater than Ordination yet the consequence holds not Several parties may have each their own part divided to them and he that may do the greater may not always do the lesser unless the lesser be essentially included in the greater which is not in this case It is likewise urged for popular ordination That in the consecration of the Levites the children of Israel laid their hands upon them Numb 8.11 To this it is answered That the Levites were taken by God instead of the first born of all the children of Israel which the Lord claimed as his own upon the destroying of the first-born of the Egyptians and so the imposition of hands by the first-born upon the Levites was not strictly an ordaining of them to their office but an offering of them as a sacrifice in their own stead to make an atonement for them as he that brought a sacrifice laid his hand on the head of it Tho in Timothy's ordination the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery be mentioned and where many Presbyters were they joined in this action yet I see not any thing in Scripture or Reason to gainsay the validity of ordination by a single Bishop or Presbyter Nevertheless ordination by the imposition of many hands is more unquestionable and the use thereof most laudabl◠and in no case to be omitted where it may be had according to the custom of the Church in all ages § 23. The Validity of Presbyterian Ordination IF a Bishop and Presbyter of divine institution be the same as hath been before proved the controversie about ordination by Presbyters is at an end And if the Bishop that now is be another kind of officer than the Scripture Presbyter there is no proof of his divine institution That the Presbyter that now is hath the Pastoral or Episcopal office hath been already proved by the form of their ordination and by the nature of that power of the keys that is granted to reside in them If the Prelates have invested them with an office that is truly Episcopal it matters not whether in express terms they gave them the power of ordaining or no or whether they expresly excluded the power of ordaining for not
no resolved point of faith among them whether bishops differ from presbyters only in degree or in order and office Catalogus Testium veritatis Tom. 2 reports that Wicklief held but two orders of ministers Walsing Hist. in Rich. 2 p. 205. saith That it was one of Wickliefs errors that every priest rightly ordained had power to administer all Sacraments Dr. Reynolds in his Epistle to Sir Francis Knolls shews That they who had laboured for Reformation of the Church for five hundred years past held that all pastors be they intituled bishops or priests have equal authority by the Word of God Ockham a great Schoolman faith that by Christs institution all priests of whatsoever degree are of equal authority power and jurisdiction Catal. Test Verit. Richardus de Media Villa in 4 Sent. distinct 24 q. 2. saith That Episcopacy is to be called not an order which is a Sacrament but rather a certain dignity of an order Council Colon. Enchirid. Christ Religion Paris edit An. 1558. p. 169. of holy orders saith bishops and presbyters were the same order in the primitive church as all the Epistles of Peter and Paul and Jerom also and almost all the Fathers witness Richardus Armachanus l. 9. c. 5. ad quest Armen saith There is not found in the Evangelical or Apostolical Scripture any difference between bishops and simple priests called presbyters It. lib. 11. q. Arm. c. 5. Johan Semeca in his gloss dist 95. c. Olim saith In the first primitive church the name and offices began to be distinguished and the prelation was for the remedy of Schism Gratian distinct 60 c. null ex urb pap saith The primitive church had only those two holy orders presbyterate and diaconate And Dr. Reynolds saith That this was once enrolled in the Canon-Law for sound doctrine Peter Lombard the father of the Schoolmen Lib. 4. distinct 24. tit 1. saith the same and that of these two Orders only we have the Apostles precept Sixtus Senensis heaps up the testimonies of others upon his own to the same thing § 6. The Testimony of Antiquity for the identity of Bishops and Presbyters HERE I first observe by way of preface That Michael Medina de Sacr. Orig. accusing Jerome of holding the sameness of bishops and presbyters saith that Ambrose Austin Sedulius Primasius Chrysostome Theodoret Oecumenius Theophylact were in the same Heresie as Bellarmine reports him lib. 4. de Eccles Milit. c. 9. The same Medina gives this reason why Jerome Austin and others of the Fathers fell into this Heresie as he calls it because this point was not then clearly determined of Hist of the Council of Trent lib. 7. p. 570. And Bellarmin de clero l. 1 c. 15. saith that this Medina assures us That St. Jerome was of Aerius his opinion in this point Touching Aerius Whitaker Controv. 2. q. 5. saith that he was not accounted an Heretick by all but by Eustathius who opposed him Dr. Reynolds in his Epist to Sir Francis Knolls shews out of bishop Jewel that Chrysostome Jerome Ambrose Austin Theodoret Primasius Sedulius Theophylact and most of the ancient Fathers held that bishops and presbyters are one in Scripture with whom Oecumenius and Anselm of Canterbury and another Anselm and Gregory and Gratian agree The Testimony of Clemens Romanus Clemens in his Epistle to the Corinthians mentions but two Orders Bishops and Deacons Pag. 96. The Apostles preaching through Regions and Cities did constitute their first fruits proving them by the Spirit to be bishops and deacons to those which should afterward believe With him bishops and presbyters are every where the same Ib. p. 4. Ye walked in the Laws of God subject to them that have the rule over you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and giving due honour to the Presbyters among you ye warned the young men that they should follow things moderate and grave Ib. p. 100. Our Apostles foreknowing there would be contentiona bout the name of Episcopacy for this cause having received certain foreknowledg appointed the aforesaid Episcopacy and gave Ordination 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that if they dyed other approved men might successively receive their Ministry 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It will not be a light sin to us if we eject out of thier Episcopacy those that have unblameably and holily offered that gift blessed are those presbyters who are gone before who have received a fruitful and perfect dissolution for they fear not lest any one should cast them out of the Charge wherein they are set Ib p. 108. Base things very base and unworthy of Christian conversation are reported That the most firm and ancient Church of Carinth for one or two persons doth move sedition against the presbyters Ib. p. 120. Who then is generous among you and let him say if the sedition and contention and schisms be risen because of me I will depart whithersoever ye will and do the things commanded by the multitude only let the flock of Christ be in peace with the presbyters set over it Ib. p. 128. You therefore that have laid the foundation of schism be subject to the presbyters be instructed unto Repentance c. These are the passages in that Epistle relating to the point here in question And who cannot see that here are only two Orders of Ministers bishops and deacons and not three bishops priests and deacons Also Presbyters and those in the Episcopacy and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are evidently the same And here is no mention of any office above the presbyters and to them the church were required to be subject As concerning that passage p. 7. To the High Priest proper ministrations were appointed to the priests their own place was assigned and upon the Levites their proper ministry lay and the Laick man bound to Laick precepts I conceive that it alone affords no argument for three Orders of ministry or essentially different offices in the Gospel-church For it respects the present matter but only in way of similitude and no more is signified thereby than as under the Mosaical Oeconomy there were several orders and several ministrations pertaining to them so it is also in the Gospel-church but it may not be used in argumentation beyond what is plainly designed in it much less may it be urged to prove any thing contrary to the tenor of the whole Epistle besides the High-priests office was not of another kind from the priests but a higher degree in the same office for some particular ministrations which also in time of his incapacity might be ordinarily performed by another priest And let the comparison be forced to the utmost it will shew no greater difference between a bishop and a presbyter than between an Archbishop and an ordinary bishop It is Grotius his argument That this Epistle of Clemens is genuine because it no where makes mention of that excessive authority which began to be afterwards introduced or was at first introduced at Alexandria by the custom of that church after the
of the Empire it is said to be unusual That presbyters may ordain see Anselm on 1 Tim. 4.14 also Bucer Script Anglic. p. 254 255 259 291. The Lollards and Wickliefists in England held and practised ordination by meer presbyters Walsingham Hist Ang. An. 1389. so did the Lutheran protestants Bugenhagius Pomeranus a presbyter of Wittenberg ordained the Protestant bishops of Denmark in the presence of the King and Senate in the chief Church at Hafnia See Melchior Adam in the Life of Bugenhagius and Chytraeus Saxon Chronicle l. 14 15 16 17. Forbes in his Irenicum l. 2. c. 11. saith that presbyters have a share with bishops in the imposition of hands not only as consenting to the ordination but as ordainers with the bishop by a power received from the Lord and as praying for grace to be confer'd on the persons ordained by them and the bishop That the Ancients did argue from the power of baptizing to the power of ordaining is evident out of the Master lib. 4. distinct 25. 4. Presbyters with Bishops laid on hands for Restoring the excommunicate and blessing the people Cyprian Epist 12. Nor can any return to communion unless hands be laid upon him by the Bishop and Clergy Vid. also Ep. 9. 46. Id. l. 3. Ep. 14. Erasm Edit To the presbyters and deacons against some presbyters who had given the peace of the Church rashly to some of the lapsed with the knowledg of the Bishop In lesser offences sinners after a just time of penance and confession receive Right of Communication by the imposition of hands of the Bishop and Clergy Clemens Alexandrin paedag p. 248. speaking against women wearing other hair than their own saith On whom doth the presbyter lay hands whom doth he bless Not on the woman adorn'd but on anothers Hair and thereby on anothers Head § 8. Testimonies in reference to the Bishops Plea of being the Apostles Successors FOR the diversity of order between a bishop and a presbyter it is alledged That bishops are the Apostles successors which presbyters are not To this it is answered 1. The ancient Fathers make presbyters as well as bishops the successors of the Apostles Irenaeus lib. 4. c. 43 44. We must obey the presbyters that are in the Church even those that have succession from the Apostles who have received the certain gift of truth according to the pleasure of the Father with the succession of Episcopacy Here presbyters are said to have succession from the Apostles and to have succession of Episcopacy This cannot be evaded by saying he intended it only of presbyters of a superior order which are bishops for this is to beg the question and in this Father there is no footstep of any order of presbyters but what are bishops Cyprian l. 3. Ep. 9. The Deacons must remember that the Lord chose Apostles that is bishops and Praepositi but after the ascension of the Lord the Apostles made deacons to themselves as Ministers of their Episcopacy and the Church Now in the names of Bishops and Praepositi the presbyters are included as I have before made manifest And it is plain that in this place all in the sacred Ministry above Deacons are included in those names and called Apostles Jerome in his Epistle to Heliodor speaks in general that Clericks are said to sucreed the Apostolical degree The late form of Ordination in the Church of England viz. Receive the Holy Ghost whose sins thou dost forgive they are forgiven and whose sins thou dost retain they are retained and be thou a faithful dispenser c. is for the former part the very form of words used by our Saviour to his Apostles to express their Pastoral Authority and fully proves that the office of a presbyter is Pastoral and of the same nature with that which was ordinary in the Apostles and in which they had successors 2. Some conceive there is no proper succession to the Apostles whose office as to its formal state and specifick difference was extraordinary and expired with their persons And in proper speaking the ordinary Bishops or Elders cannot be reckoned the successors of the Apostles for they were contemporary with them in the first planting of the Churches and did by divine right receive and exercise their governing-governing-power which the Apostles did not supercede by their presence tho it were under the regulation of their supereminent authority and the Bishops or Elders of all succeeding ages are properly the successors of those first bishops Bellarmine l. 4. de Pontif. c. 25. saith That bishops do not properly succeed the Apostles because the Apostles being not ordinary but extraordinary Pastors have no successors and that the Pope of Rome properly succeeds Peter not as an Apostle but as an ordinary pastor of the whole church 3. Whereas some say That the Order of bishops began in the Apostles and the order of presbyters in the seventy disciples it is answered 1. As concerning the bishops order when the Fathers speak of Apostles or Evangelists long residing in one church they did by way of similitude call them bishops thereof Reynolds against Hart saith That the Fathers when they term an Apostle the bishop of this or that City mean in a general way that he did attend that Church for the time and supply that room in preaching which the bishop afterwards did And not only the Apostles but itinerant Ministers or Evangelists were in such a general sence bishops of the places where they came Paul staid at or about Ephesus three years Acts 20.31 yet he was not bishop there in the strict and proper sense of the word James was either no bishop of Jerusalem or no Apostle but as many think another James 2. As concerning the order of inferior presbyters said to be instituted in the seventy disciples it is spoken without proof and against Reason Spalatensis saith those seventy had but a temporary commission and therefore that he cannot affirm that Presbyterial Order was directly and immediately instituted in them de Rep. Eccles l. 2. c. 3. n. 4. Saravia acknowledgeth that the seventy disciples were Evangelists de Minist Evang. grad c. 4. § 9. Testimonies concerning the Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus 1. TImothy was not a fixed bishop His travels we find upon sacred Record When Paul went from Beraea to Athens he left Silas and Timothy behind him Acts 17.14 Afterwards they coming to Paul at Athens Paul sent Timothy thence to Thessalonica to confirm the Christians there 1 Thes 3.6 An. C. 47. Thence he returned to Athens again and Paul sent him and Silas thence into Macedonia Acts 18.5 and thence they returned to Paul at Corinth An. 48. Afterwards they travel to Ephesus whence Paul sent Timothy and Erastus into Macedonia Acts 19.22 whither Paul went after them An. 51. from Macedonia they with divers brethren journied into Asia Acts 20.4 and come to Miletum where Paul sent to Ephesus to call the elders of the Church An. 53. Then Paul did
in a higher or lower degree about ones part in this Society according to its Invisible form yet it can ground a judgment of certainty about ones part in the same according to its Visible form So that altho God only knows those whom he accepts yet the Church may know certainly whom she ought to admit And as God in the matter belonging to his cognizance to wit the sincerity of profession and the rights consequent thereunto so the Church in the matter belonging to its cognizance to wit the credibility of profession and the rights consequent thereunto proceeds upon certain knowledg § 5. Of the Catholick Church Invisible and Visible IT hath been well observed That the term Catholick Church hath been sometimes used of a particular Church holding the true Doctrine of the Apostles and is the same with Apostolical and in this sence any Bishop of a true Apostolical Church may be called a Catholick Bishop But here the term Catholick signifies the same with Oecumenical or the Church that is throughout the whole World or the whole World of Christians And in this sence the Church is termed Catholick not as actually extending to the whole World but potentially no Nation or People being excluded but all having Liberty to accept and injoy the Priviledges thereof In this notion there is one Catholick Church both in the Invisible and Visible form The Catholick Church Invisible is the whole company of true Believers throughout the World who make that part of Christs Mystical Body which ia militant here on Earth The Catholick Church Visible is the whole company of Visible believers throughout the World or believers according to humane judgment § 6. The Vnity of the Catholick Church Visible THE Catholick Church is not only notionally but really existent and hath Relation to particular Churches as an intregal whole to integral parts The same relation it hath also to particular Christians yea and to such as are not fixed members of a particular Church There being one peculiar Kingdom of Christ throughout the World distinct from the World in general visibly constituted and administred not by humane Laws and Coercive Power as Secular Kingdoms are but by Divine Laws and Power directly and purely respecting the conscience there must needs be one Caetholick Visible Church The Catholick Church in its Visible form is one political Society or Spiritual Commonwealth the City of God the more special Kingdom of Christ upon Earth for the World in general is his Kingdom at large The Unity of the Catholick Church being a political Society ariseth not out of a local contiguity but out of the moral and political Union of the parts And if the Invisible Church be one body the Visible must be so likewise For these terms the Church Visible and Invisible do not signifie two Societies as hath been shewed but the same Society distinguished by its diver considerations The Visible Catholick Church hath one Head and Supreme Lord even Christ one Charter and Systeme of Laws Members that are free denizons of the whole Society one form of admission or solemn initiation for all its Members one Spiritual polity or one Divine form of Government and one kind of Ecclesiastical Power The members of one particular Church are intituled to the priviledges granted of God to visible Christians in any other Church wheresoever they come to be injoyed by them according to their capacity and in a due order And wheresoever any Christian comes as a stranger he is by his relation to the Universal Church bound to have communion with the particular Church or Churches of that place in Gods ordinances according to his capacity and opportunity And if it be said he is looked upon as a transient member of that particular Church where he comes as a stranger I answer that it ariseth from his being a member of the Catholick Church which contains all particular Churches as an integral whole its several parts for it is his right and not a favour or a matter of mere charity Whosoever is justly and orderly cast out of one Church is thereby vertually cast out of all Churches and ought to be received by none This cannot be meerly by compact among the Churches or by the mutual relation of mere concordant or sister Churches but by their being integral parts of one society for the ejection out of all de jure follows naturally necessarily ipso facto from the ejection out of one The Apostles were general officers of the whole Catholick Church as of one visible society And it is not to be imagined that it lost its unity by their death The ordinary Pastors and Teachers tho actually and in exercise overseeing their own parts are habitually and radically related to the whole Catholick Church and thereby are inabled to exercise their ministerial authority in any other parts wheresoever they come without a new ordination or receiving a new pastoral authority so that they do it in a due order This shews that the several Churches are parts of one political society otherwise the officers could not act authoritatively out of their own particular congregation no more than as one well observes a Mayor or Constable can exercise their offices in other Corporations § 7. The Priority in nature of the Catholick Church to particular Churches FOrasmuch a◠men are Christians in order of nature before they are members of a particular Church and ministers in general before they are ministers of a particular Church they are members and ministers first of the Catholick Church in order of nature and then of particular Churches And the Charter and Body of Laws and Ordinances by which the Church subsists doth first belong to the Catholick Church and then to particular Churches as parts thereof To be a member of a particular congregation gives only the opportunity of injoying divine ordinances and Church priviledges but immediate right thereunto is gained by being a visible believer or a member of the Church Catholick One may be a member of the Church Catholick and yet not a fixed member of any particular Church and that in some cases occessarily and in that state he hath right to Gods ordinances The Ethiopian Eunuch was of no particular Church and yet baptized by Philip. The Promises Threatning and Precents of Christ are dispensed by his Minister to the members of his Church primarily not as members of a particular but of the universal Church And therefore the Minister dispenseth the same with authority in Christs Name even to strangers that come into his Congregation 8. The Visibility of the Catholick Church AS a large Empire is visible to the eye of sence not in the whole at one view but in the several parts one after another so is the Catholich Church As a large Empire is visible in the whole at one view by an act of the understanding which is the eye of the mind so is the Catholick Church As the unity of a large Empire is not judged invisible
provinces of narrower circuits of ground And how doth it appear that an Oecumenical council rightly so named can be For suppose it be not necessary to consist of all the bishops in the world but of some as delegates in the name of all yet it must consist of so many proportionably delegated from all in the several quarters as may signifie the sence and consent of all Hereupon let it be considered whether there be a possibility of such assemblies much more whether there be a possibility of the continuation or of the succession of them in such frequency as would be requisite in case such an assembly were Head of the Church Nor doth it stand with reason that an Oecumenical council in case it were existent can possibly execute the authority that belongs to the head of the Universal Church in overseeing all in receiving appeals from all in making authoritative determinations for all either immediately by it self or mediately by subordinate councils judicatories and ministers to be superintended regulated and determined by it in their proceedings Nor is there any notice given of the said headship of a General council more than of the Popes or any other bishops universal headship in the primitive and authentick records of the Charter that Christ hath given to his Church to wit the Holy Scriptures Nor is any rule given therein for the constitution of a General council whether it shall be made up only of the Clergy or only of such bishops as are of a higher order thâ—â— Presbyters or of all such bishops of the Catholick Church or if of some in the name of all what number there must be either definite or indefinite and proportionate to the number of those that are represented It is evident de facto that the officers of the Catholick Church as the particular bishops or pastors and the associations and conventions of them do not derive their spiritual authority from a General council Nor doth it appear that de jure they should derive their power from it any more than from the Pope § 11. The infallibility of the Catholick Church examined THE Romanists assert an insallibility about matters of faith somewhere seated within the Catholick Church as the perpetual priviledg thereof some of them place it in the Pope and others in a General council Hereupon this priviledg is to be considered whether it be and what it is The meaning of the term is a being not liable to be deceived or to deceive about those matters about which it is said to be That the catholick church is infallible in the essentials of the christian religion is a most indubitable truth for every member of the catholick church so remaining is infallible so far it involves a a contradiction that any such should err therein for it were as much as to be a christian and no christian The Query therefore is whether it be liable to errour in the integrals aâ—d accidentals of Religion Now the church remaining such is not necessarily or in its nature infallible so far and therefore if it be infallible it must be so from the free grant of Christ But it doth not appear in the Holy Scripture that any such grant is made to the church What was the Apostles doctrine and consequently the doctrine of the Church in their days obedient to their authority we know what the church universally held in any one age touching all the integral parts of religion much more concerning accidentals I conceive extreamly difficult if not impossible to be known But that the church hath de facto if not universally yet very generally erred in the same errour about some integrals of religion appears by the ancient general practise of some things now generally accounted erroneous as for instance the giving of the Lords Supper to infants Moreover it is evident that the whole Church in its several parts hath erred some in one point some in another and that no part thereof hath been found in which hath appeared no error in some point of Religion or other And if all the parts may variously err in several points why may not they also harmoniously err all of them in one and the same point If the Catholick Church be not infallible in all doctrines of Faith much less is any such Council infallible as was ever yet congregated or is ever like to be congregated Hereupon it follows that in all Controversies of doctrine we cannot stand finally to the decision of the Catholick Church if it were possible to be had or to the decision of any the largest Council that can possibly convene We cannot tell what the Catholick Church is nor what particular Churches or persons are sound parts thereof but by the holy Scriptures For what Criterion can be brought besides them Mens bare testimony of themselves is not to be rested on How can we know that the first Nicene Council was orthodox in its determination about the Sacred Trinity and the second Nicene Council erroneous in its determination for Image-worship but by finding that the former was consonant and the latter dissonant to the Scripture in their aforesaid determinations If it be said That of Councils called General those that consist of greater numbers of bishops must carry it against those that consist of lesser numbers let some proof either from Scripture or Reason be given for it What ground is there from either to conclude that in the time of the Arrian Heresie the major part of bishops in the Roman Empire or the major part of those that assembled in Council and for instance in the first Council at Nice might not possibly have been Arrians Moreover if the major part were to carry it in the first six Centuries why not also in the ten last That promise of Christ Mat. 28. I am with you always to the end of the world may imply That there shall be a successive continuation of Bishops or Pastors in the Catholick Church to the worlds end that shall be Orthodox in the Essentials yea and in the Integrals of Religion yet it doth not imply that they shall be the greater number of those that are called and reputed bishops or pastors within Christendom nor that the greater number of those being convened in Councils shall not err in their Conciliar determinations about matters of Faith § 12. Of the Indefectibility of the Catholick Church CHRIST hath promised the perpetuity of the Church in general in saying that he would build it on a Rock and the gates of Hell should not prevail against it and I am with you always to the end of the world but how far and in what respect this perpetuity and indefectibility is promised ought to be enquired into lest we expect or insist upon more than the promise hath ensured That which Christ hath promised cannot be less than that there be always upon earth a number of true believers or faithful Christians made visible by their external profession of Christianity successively
the Apostles and their coadjutors were led to this way by the natural convenience of it But if any where a greater inconvenience comes or a greater benefit be lost by such a partition of Churches than the convenience of it can countervail there the partition must be made as it may be that is as the state of things will admit It is supposed by some learned men that in the Apostles time there were several Churches at Rome under their several bishops or pastors as one of the circumcision another of the uncircumcision within the same local precincts And if there were not so de facto I think few will deny but that the state of christians then and there might have been such as to have made such a partition of churches among them lawful and expedient § 18. Of the power of a particular Church THE power of a Church is but the power of the ruling part thereof and therefore the power of particular churches is according to the power of their particular bishops or pastors the nature whereof shall be opened when I come to speak of the nature of the pastoral office It appears by what hath been already shewed of the frame of particular churches mentioned in Scripture that they all had the government within themselves Every stated church had its proper pastor or pastors having authority of teaching and ruling it in Christs name If a distinction of churches into such as have Pastoral government within them and such as have it not be asserted it must be proved by the assertors from divine testimony And if it be granted that every organical church hath in it its authoritative Teacher or Guide under Christ and in his name it must be granted as far as I can see that it hath in it its Ruler also for ruling is but by teaching and guiding The smallest Church hath the same power in its narrow Sphere that the greatest Church or any association of Churches have in their larger Spheres that is it hath the same power intensively tho not extensively Indeed the authoritative acts of larger churches and associations in regard of their amplitude may be justly esteemed in degrees more Solemn August and Venerable § 19. The subordination of Churches of the same kind considered TOuching this point of the subordination of Churches there be three parts of the enquiry 1. Whether there be a subordination of one or more particular Churches to another particular Church whose constitution and frame is the same in specie with theirs 2. Whether there be a subordination of particular Churches to some other Church specifically different from them in the frame thereof and being in a state of greater sublimity and amplitude 3. Whether there be a subordination of particular Churches taken distributively to an association or collective body of the same Churches or an assembly thereof and of that collective body to a larger association of more such collective bodies conjunct with it or to an assembly thereof and so forward till we come to the largest that can be reached unto 1. Whether there be a subordination of one or more particular Churches to another particular Church whose constitution and frame is the same in specie with theirs and whose officers are of the same holy order such as the seven Churches of Asia were in relation one to another and as congregational Churches are to each other and as Diocesan Churches are to each other if de jure there be such Churches Now as touching subordination in this kind what hath been or may be by humane right upon prudential considerations either statedly or pro tempore is not here examined but what is by divine right inferring an obligation upon one Church to be subject to another of the same specifick frame with it self Sometimes a Church hath been called a mother-Church in relation to other churches either because they have issued from it as swarms from a hive or because they have received the Christian faith from it or because they have been erected by some sent forth from it c. Now that these latter Churches do owe a reverential regard and observance to the first which is called the Mother-Church is not to be doubted and such regard or observance every small or obscure Church owes to those that are more Ample Illustrious or Renowned But that the said Mother Church can by divine right or warrant claim a governing power over those Churches that have issued from it or that the more Ample and Illustrious Churches can claim the like over the smaller and obscurer I do not find any proof but I judg the contrary because notwithstanding the aforesaid diversity or disparity of condition they all rest upon the same Basi◠Christs Charter by which they are constituted which is the same to all and alike immediately given to all So that in this respect they all stand upon the same level and are equal Now one equal hath not governing power over another in that wherein they are both equal § 20. The subordination of Churches of different kinds considered AS touching the subordination of Churches to some other Church specifically different from them as of parochial or congregational Churches to a Diocesan Provincial National Church be it first observed that the Diocesan Church is not merely the incorporated society of a Cathedral nor any one parcular Church besides the Parochial Churches nor is it materially divers from them jointly taken nor the provincial church from the Diocesan churches nor the national church from the provincial churches jointly taken But in their several ranks they differ formally as being each of them one body politick constituted by the political compages of the churches included in each of them And let what was before observed be here reminded that each congregational or parochial church having its proper Presbyter or Elder invested with the power of the keys is a political church or such as hath its government within it self And thereupon the divine warrant of such a Diocesan Church as is the lowest that hath government within it self and consequently that swallows hundreds of political churches that are of Christs institution was called in question and still I desire the Asserters of it to give some proof of its divine right Indeed the Postscript of the Epistle to Titus mentions him as ordained the first bishop of the Cretians Of what authority that Postscript is I know not but this is certain that where there were Christians there were to be churches in every city of Crete and there were reckoned a hundred cities in that no very large Island and those churches were political societies within themselves having their proper elders or bishops And upon supposition that the whole Island made but one larger church constituted by the political union of the said particular churches in every city under Titus it must be such as is now called a provincial church under one Archbishop Now if the Diocesan church be not looked upon as the
teaching so that every authoritative Church-teacher is a Pastor for the Pastor rules only by the spiritual sword which is the word of God and the discipline which he exercises is no more than than the personal application of Christs word in his name to judg the impenitent and absolve the penitent And every authoritative Teacher in Christs name hath power to make such personal application of the word The Pastoral Office hath its work not only towards those that are within but towards those also that are without to bring them into the Fold As Christ the Prince of Pastors or chief Shepherd doth by virtue of that office not only feed the sheep that are gathered to him but goes out also into the wilderness to seek the lost sheep even so the Ministerial pastors or bishops are by virtue of their office under Christ to seek those that are as yet going astray and to bring them to Christ the Shepherd and Bishop of their souls Thus the name Pastor doth very congruously denote the Ministerial Authority towards the unbelieving and unconverted as well as towards believers and converts Moreover the said Officers are stiled Preachers of the Gospel 1 Cor. 9.14 Stewards of the Mysteries of God 1 Cor. 4.1 Ambassadors of Christ that have the Ministry of Reconciliation committed to them 2 Cor. 5.18 20. And these Titles infer an Office and Ministry relating as well to those that are without and to be brought into the Fold as to those that are within and to be kept there and in reference to both sorts it is for the edifying or building of the Church In short the Pastoral Office is a state of Authority and obligation to dispence the Word and Sacraments and disciplinary censures of Christ the Mediator in his name The Ministerial dispensation of the Word differs quoad formale from spiritual instruction reproof exhortation given in a common way of Christian charity or in a special way of Oeconomical or civil Authority being performed by Christs commissioned Officers and Stewards in holy things and separated or devoted thereunto And herein the Ministers as Ambassadors or Heralds according to the tenor of the Gospel do publish and offer the mercies of Christ upon his terms and denounce the threatnings of Christ to those that refuse his Mercies The Sacraments being seals annexed by Christ to the word of his grace and a visible word are also to be dispenced by them to whom the dispensation of the word is committed The disciplinary censures of Authoritative Reproof Suspension and Excommunication of persons convicted of ungodliness and impenitency being a particular and personal application of the threatnings of the Gospel and a declaring and judging of the persons unmeet for fellowship with Christ and his Church are likewise to be administred by the same Officers § 4. The nature of the Spiritual Power residing in the Pastors THE Spiritual Power of Pastors Bishops or Elders is expressed by the Author and Giver of it in these terms viz. The keys of the kingdom of heaven binding and loosing remitting and retaining sins To understand the true import of these terms is to understand the Power enquired of The keys of the kingdom of Heaven signifie the Stewardship of Christs Gospel to dispence to every one a due portion thereof according to his command Binding and loosing is a Ministerial Authority of holding impenitent sinners under the curse and absolving the penitent from it only by the word of Christ generally or personally applied and it may further signifie a Ministerial prohibiting of that which is unlawful and allowing of that which is lawful by the doctrine of Christ And the power of remitting and retaining sins as granted to Ministers is only that of meer Stewards or Dispensers of the Blessing or the Curse that hath proceeded out of the mouth of Christ their Lord and there appears no grant from Christ to his Ministers of other power than what is here expressed or what is implyed in it or by necessary consequence follows from it In reference to the ministerial power a great Scholar distinguisheth between a Vicar and a mere Minister and saith a Vicar doth produce actions of the same kind with him whose Vicar he is his words are actiones congeneres tho less perfectly but a mere minister doth not produce such actions but only such as are serviceable to the action of the principal cause Therefore the name of the same action is properly yet analogically attributed to the Vicar as to the principal as for example to pass sentence but to the minister only tropically as remitting and retaining of sins Indeed the sentence of a vicarious Judg whether just or unjust is decisive or definitive and valid as to matter of legal right till it be reversed by the principal but the action of a Minister for the remitting and retaining of sin is of no force no not for a moment if it be unjust or done as the common expression is errante clave Hereupon it follows that the ministerial power of remitting and retaining sins and of binding and loosing at least as to the conscience is merely declarative that is it hath its force and vertue as it is a true declaration of the mind of Christ in that particular otherwise it is void and of no effect The power of Pastors in the acts aforesaid is but the power of Heralds or Ambassadors and therefore only declarative God and Christ doth by the law of grace absolve or justifie the penitent constitutivè Even before the Pastor pronounceth absolution every penitent is by the covenant of grace justifyed or made righteous Therefore the Pastor doth absolve or justifie him only declarativè For when a man is justified by the law of grace and consequently so esteemed and judged of God what hath his officer or minister afterwards to do in his name but to declare what is already done in law As for the saying of Dominus expectat servum that is before God justifies the penitent believer who is ready to submit to all his terms he stays for the sentence of absolution to be pronounced by the Minister I confess I understand not its consistence with the Covenant of Grace Wherefore the pastoral sentence of absolution doth confer no new right nor doth it perfect the right already given by the law of Christ but it doth authoritatively declare that right and strengthen the assurance and comfort the conscience of the penitent The pastoral binding of the impenitent is not the adding of a further curse or obligation to divine vengeance but merely a solemn declaration of the curse already past upon the sinner by the law of Christ But as the solemn declaration of the Kings pardon to repenting rebels and the denunciation of vengeance to the obstinate by an authorized officer according to the law doth strengthen the assurance of the conditional mercy and increase the guilt of continuing in rebellion and more forcibly press to obedience so the like declarative acts
it doth not hence follow that Peter was a fixed Bishop of the Jews and Paul of the Gentiles no more were any of the Apostles fixed Bishops in those places where they were more especially imployed and we know that they made frequent removes §. 10. Of the Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus THE Name of Bishop is not given either to Timothy or Titus except in the Postscripts of the Epistles But those Postscripts are taken for no part of Canonical Scripture For if they were free from the objected Errors about the places from which the Epistles were written they cannot in reason be supposed to be Pauls own words and written by him when the Epistles were written Moreover the travels of Timothy and Titus do evidently shew that they were not diocesan bishops nor the setled Overseers of particular churches And those passages 1 Tim. 1.3 I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus and Tit. 1.5 For this cause I left thee in Crete shew an occasional and temporary employment And whatsoever stress may be laid upon these texts to prove they were bishops of those places yet they do not sound like the fixing of them each in their proper diocess The name of an Evangelist is expresly given to one of them 2 Tim. 4.5 and the work enjoined both of them and accordingly performed by them being throughout of the same kind there is all reason to believe that they had the same kind of office Now by several texts of Scripture compared together we find the work of Evangelists to be partly such as belonged to the Apostles whose Agents or Adjuncts they were and partly such as was common to Pastors and Teachers whose office was included in theirs Their work in common with the Apostles was the planting and setling of churches by travelling from place to place and in this regard they have been well called Apostles of the Apostles And in doing this Vice-apostolick service they did also that which was common to pastors and teachers in teaching and ruling but with this difference that the ordinary pastors did it statedly in those churches where they were fixed but these transiently in several churches which they were sent to erect or establish or to set things in order therein as the Apostles saw need Or if Timothy and Titus were not in an office essentially divers from the ordinary pastors and teachers yet they were in extraordinary service as being the Apostles Agents and being in that capacity might have their intrinsick spiritual power enlarged to a greater extent and higher pitch of exercise than the ordinary Ministers Howbeit I rather judg that they had an office specifically different from that of the ordinary pastors because in the enumeration of the several sacred offices Paul mentions the office of an Evangelist as a distinct kind from the rest But if it can be proved that the Superiority of Timothy and Titus over bishops or elders of particular churches was not as they were the Apostles assistants or as extraordinary and temporary officers but as ordinary superiors it will indeed follow that Archbishops or bishops of bishops are of divine Right Nevertheless the Episcopal authority of bishops or presbyters of particular churches such as the Scripture-bishops were remains unshaken § 11. Of the Angels of the Churches ANother allegation for the divine right of bishops of an higher order than presbyters is from the Angels of the seven Churches Apoc. 1. and 2. To which many things are said by those of the other persuasion As that those Angels are not called Bishops nor any where implied to be bishops in the present Vulgar sense of the word That the denomination of Angels and Stars in the judgment of ancient and modern Writers do belong to the Ministers of the Word in general That in mysterious or prophetick Writings and Visional Representations a number of things or persons is usually expressed by singulars and that it is very probable that the term Angel is explained under that plurality you distinguished from the rest Apoc. 2.24 but to you and the rest in Thyatira c. and to be a collective name expressing all the Elders of that church Also some observe that it might be expressed in the same manner as Gods providence in the administration of the World by Angels is expressed wherein one being set as chief over such a countrey the things which are done by many are attributed to one Angel president It is further to be considered that in the church of Ephesus one of the seven the Scripture makes mention of many bishops who were no other than presbyters Acts 20.28 Against this some say That the Elders there mentioned were not the presbyters of the church of Ephesus but the bishops of Asia then gathered together at Ephesus and sent for by Paul to Miletum But 1. This is affirmed altogether without proof 2. The text saith Paul sent from Miletum to Ephesus to call the elders of the church which in rational interpretation must be the Elders of the church to which he sent 3. If the bishops of all Asia had been meant it would have been said the Elders of the churches For in Scripture tho we find the Christians of one city called a church yet the Christians of a Region did ever make a plurality of churches as the churches of Judea the churches of Galatia and the churches of Asia 4. There is not the least hint given of the meeting of the bishops of Asia at Ephesus when Paul sent for the elders of the Church 5. The asserters of prelacy hold that Timothy was the first bishop of Ephesus now Paul did not send for him for he was already present with him and accompanied him in his travels Nor did he commit the charge of the church to him but to the Elders that were sent for 6. It could not be the sence of the church of England that those Elders who are declared to be bishops were bishops in the Vulgar meaning of the word when she appointed that portion of Scripture to be read at the ordination of Presbyters to instruct them in the nature and work of their Office Some say That by the Angel of the church is meant the Moderator or President of the Presbytery who might be either for a time or always the same person and the Epistle might be directed to him in the same manner as when the King sends a Message to the Parliament he directs it to the Speaker Now such a Moderator or President makes nothing for bishops of a higher order than Presbyters § 12. A further Consideration of the Office of an EVANGELIST and of a general Minister COncerning the Office of Evangelists such as Timothy and Titus the query is Whether it was temporary or perpetual An eminent Hierarchical Divine saith That Evangelists were Presbyters of principal sufficiency whom the Apostles sent abroad and used as Agents in Ecclesiastical Affairs wherâ—ver they saw need Now this description doth not make them of a specifically
different Order from the ordinary presbyters and it seems to confine their Ministry to the Apostles times Grotius saith they were presbyters tyed to no place and that many such Evangelists were ordained long after and thereupon concludes that not to ordain without a title to some particular place is not of divine right Indeed if the office of an Evangelist be no other than that of a general Minister or a presbyter tyed to no place it seems not only to have been requisite in the Apostles times but to be of standing conveniency if not of necessity in the church And his not being limited to one church is but the extending of the common office of a presbyter or bishop and not the making of a new office For this more extensive power of a general Minister is only the having of that in ordinary exercise which every Minister hath in actu primo by vertue of his relation to the Catholick church in which Teachers and Pastors are set 1 Cor. 12.28 and into which his ministerial acts of teaching and baptizing have influence yea which he hath by vertue of his relation to Christ as a steward to an housholder in his Family and as a delegate to the chief pastor for the calling of the unconverted as well as for the confirming of Converts Now the more or less extensive exercise of an Office is a matter of humane prudence and variable according to time and place But that a general Minister be of a higher order than fixed bishops or presbyters is not of standing or perpetual necessity Nor is it always necessary that he be in a state of superintendency over them Nevertheless if a superintendency be granted to him by the consent of the churches and pastors for the common good or by the Magistrate as to his delegate in his authority in Ecclesiastical affairs I cannot condemn it but rather judg that it may be sometimes not only expedient but necessary Yet it is not of divine right but of prudential determination § 13. A further Consideration of the Angels of the Churches and of a President bishop AS touching the Angel of a Church it being a mystical expression in a mystical book it may be rationally questioned Whether it be meant of one person or of a number of Colleagues as may appear by what hath been already noted But if it be meant of one person it is not necessarily to be understood of one that is the sole pastor and bishop of a Church Nay by what hath been already noted it may with as great if not greater probability be understood of a Prefident bishop who is not of a superior order to the rest of the bishops but the first or chief in degree of the same order and like the Moderator of an Assembly a Chair-man in a Committee and Mayor in a Court of Aldermen And for such a presidency there needs no divine institution it being not a holy order or office of a different species from that of the rest of the Pastors but a priority in the same office for orders sake For it is orderly and convenient that where there are many Presbyters or elders of a particular Church that for concords sake they consent that one that is ablest among them should statedly have a guiding power among them in the ordering of Church-affairs § 14. Of the Office of Ruling Elders THESE have been commonly called Lay-Elders but some have disliked that name alledging that they are sacred officers but they own the name of Ruling Elders Now it is to be noted that the asserters of the divine right of this office make it not an office of total dedication to sacred imployment as the office of a Minister but allow such as bear it to have secular imployments not only occasionally but as their stated particular calling also that they make it not an office of final dedication to sacred imployment as the office of a Minister is but grant that such as bear it may cease from it and again become no Elders Also they make not these Elders to have office power in all Churches as Ministers have actu primo but only in their own particular Churches and in Classical and Synodical assemblies nor do they ascribe unto these Elders the power of the keys of binding and loosing of remitting and retaining sins which belong to Ministers nor do they solemnly ordain these Elders by prayer and imposition of hands as Ministers are ordained Now the Query is whether Christ hath instituted in his Church such a spiritual officer as this ruling Elder who is not totally nor finally dedicated to sacred imployment but statedly left to secular callings and hath no office power no not in actu primo in the church at large but only in his own church or in such an assembly as that Church helps to make up nor hath the power of the keys of binding and loosing of remitting and retaining sins nor is ordained by prayer and imposition of hands I say whether Christ hath instituted such an officer and authorized him in his name as his steward to admit into or cast out of his Family the Church I find nothing in Holy Scripture to warrant his divine right nor can I see in reason how one destitute of the above nanamed capacities can put forth acts of spiritual Discipline or of binding and loosing in Christ Name In the New Testament there be three significations of Presbyter the first belonging to age the second to Magistracy in the greater or lesser Sanhedrim the third to ministers of the Gospel The only place that hath a shew of mentioning the ruling Elder in the Church that is not a Minister of the Gospel is 1 Tim. 5.17 The Elders that rule well c. But this hath nothing cogently to evince two different kinds of officers but that of those in the same office some may be imployed more especially in one part of the work thereof and others in another part and that the being more abundantly imployed in the Word and Doctrine hath the preeminence The Emphasis lies in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying that some did more especially or abundantly labour therein but not implying that others did not meddle therewith And learned men observe that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is maintenance which is not used to be given to this kind of officer we are now inquiring of For they are such as have secular imployment to live by The Enumerations of divers gifts Rom. 12.6 doth not infer the institution of divers offices For as he that giveth and he that sheweth Mercy may be the same man so he that teacheth and he that exhorteth and he that ruleth may be the same For they are all proper acts of the pastoral office Likewise in 1 Cor. 12.28 those two expressions Helps and Governments do necessarily infer the institution of two Functions no more than Miracles and Gifts of healing there also mentioned do infer the same § 15. That a single Presbyter
as nothing was lawful to the Levites that was not lawful to the Priests so nothing is lawful to Deacons that is not lawful to Presbyters in matter of Sacred Administration And the Bishop or Elder had the chief dispensation of the Churches money else how could he be enjoined to be given to Hospitality § 17. Of a Call to the Ministry MInisters are Stewards Overseers Heralds Ambassadors which are names of special office And the holy Scripture declares the perpetuity of this sacred function Eph. 4.14 in declaring the end thereof to be the perfecting of the Saints till Christs mystical body be compleat which is not till the end of all things And tho some offices as that of the Apostles were for the first times only yet others as Pastors and Teachers are for all times and the reason of the difference is manifest the work of the one being extraordinary and temporary and of the other ordinary and perpetual And that the work which is done by ministers be not left in common to all but appropriated to a special office or a state of authority and obligation to do that work there is a perpetual necessity in the Church of God for it being a work of the greatest importance in the world it is necessary that there be in some a state of special obligation thereunto lest being left as every mans work in the issue it prove to be no mans work The ministry being not a state common to all but a special office it is usurpation and intrusion for any one to take it up without a due call thereunto that is a commission or warrant to instate him in it As none can be a Herald or Ambassador or Steward by assuming any of these offices to himself but he must have commission or warrant from the Prince or Housholder so none can be authoritative preachers of Christs Gospel or stewards of his mysteries without a commission from him The Scripture declares That a mission is necessary Rom. 10.15 How shall they preach except they be sent That is without mission none preach with the authority of one of Christs Heralds Accordingly a rule is given for calling men to the ministry which rule is to be kept till the appearance of Christ 1 Tim 6.14 compared with chap. 5.17 21. What manner of preaching the Gospel is lawful for them that are no ministers hath been before spoken of The essence of the call to the ministry lies in Christs command to any man to do the work of the ministry and in his own consent accordingly to give up himself thereunto The said command is the efficient cause of a mans being a minister and the sufficient signification of that command and a mans own consent is each of them a causa sine qua non or a necessary condition thereof For it hath been already shewed it is Christ only that gives the office and power intrinsick to it and he doth it by his publick standing act in his law And in proper speaking it is no more given by man than the power of a Mayor is given by the Citizens that elect him or by the City-Officers that are appointed for his solemn investiture § 18. Of the immediate and mediate Call to the Ministry THE immediate Call to the ministry is extraordinary and it is either that which is altogether without the intervention of man as the Call of John Baptist of the twelve Apostles and of Paul Gal. 1.1 or that wherein though God use some ministry of man yet he makes an immediate designation of the person in an extraordinary way as the calling of Aaron and his sons to the Priesthood and of Matthias to the Apostleship They that receive an immediate call are able to give proof of it either by the gift of miracles or some other extraordinary testimony of God The extraordinary and immediate call did belong to the extraordinary offices but an ordinary and mediate call to the ordinary standing offices It is to be noted that at certain times in an ordinary office such eminent qualifications and successes may be given to some as exceed the common measure yet their call is not extraordinary for the kind thereof Luther in that high and eminent service which was done by him did not pretend an extraordinary and immediate call And none of our first Reformers renounced that ordinary call which they had under the corrupt state of the church The mediate call is by the intervention of man in the ordinary way of election and ordination which is so to be understood that neither the Electors nor Ordainers do properly make a minister nor give the ministerial authority nor doth the minister act by authority derived from the one or the other nor in their name as their officer commissioned by them but by authority derived from Christ and in his name as his officer It is Christ therefore that gives the office by the standing act of his Law immediately that is without any mediate efficient cause yet by the mediation of men as designing and inaugurating the person that receives it as the King is the immediate giver of the power of a Mayor tho the Corporation design the person that receives it and God is the immediate giver of the Husbands power but the application of it to such a person is by the womans consent Now in the mediate call mans part is necessary as well as Gods part and therefore in no wise to be neglected For what is done by man is necessary to give a sufficient signification of the will of Christ to put this or that person into the Ministry § 19. Of Election belonging to the Ministerial Call THAT Election which belongs to the setting up of Government is not always an act of government but sometimes of meer liberty as when a people elect a Ruler over them Meer Election to the Ministry made by men doth not confer the office nor apply it to the person but the most that it doth is to apply the person invested with the office to a certain company in the relation of their proper Minister Much controversie hath been about the right of Election to whom it belongs The peoples electing of their own Minister is just by the law of nature if it be not otherwise ordained by positive law as naturally all men choose Physitians for themselves and School-masters for their Children yet in some places and cases it is otherwise ordained and guardians are appointed by the Supreme Power and Physitians and School-masters in like manner yet so as none be constrained to use them It doth not appear that the divine law hath prescribed any certain way of election to the ministry as unfixed besides the mutual consent of the ordainer and ordained No proof of any as to the general ministry being chosen by the people appears in the New Testament The Apostles and the Seventy had a divine election Timothy was elected by Prophesie and it doth not appear Act. 1. That the
preservative and accumulative not destructive or diminutive The Church is Christs family and the magistrate is not the Lord but a member of it and cannot govern it at his pleasure but only as the Lord himself hath allowed and the state thereof requires In short the magistrate as well as the minister hath received his authority for edisication not for destruction The magistrate cannot make any new essential or integral part of religion either Doctrine of Faith or Divine Worship but he is as much bound up to the religion that is of Gods making as the meanest of his Subjects for he and they are Gods Subjects both alike But by his civil sanctions he may strengthen the true religion and enforce the observance of the Divine Laws so far as it is meet they should be inforced by Humane Laws and this is the most noble part of his work in matters of Religion The Magistrate may and must take care that sacred things be duly administred by sacred or spiritual officers and he may and must punish them for mal-administration He may and must restrain persons of impious principles from venting their wicked errors and from any open impious practice by a power formally civil tho objectively ecclesiastical He may convocate synods or councils of ecclesiastical persons to advise and conclude according to the Word of God how the Church being corrupt is to be reformed and how to be guided and governed when reformed And he ought to use his own judgment of discretion concerning the decrees and judgments of ecclesiastical persons in reference to his own act of political ratifying the same The Magistrate cannot maâ—e any new kind of sacred or spiritual office becâ—use he cannot institute any new sacred work and the work that Christ hath instituted â—ath an officer of his own institution already appointed for it also because a spiritual office is to be administred not in the Magistrates but in Christs Name yet he may make new offices for civil service about sacred things He cannot appoint any thing in religion that is forbidden by the divine laws nor forbid any thing appointed by the divine laws All his authority being from God cannot be against him And therefore such injunctions and prohibitions can lay no obligations of obedience upon the subject Hereupon he cannot forbid the preaching of the Gospel or the administring of Sacraments for then it were at his pleasure whether Christ should have a Church or Kingdom upon earth He cannot take one part of the Pastors office from him while he continues him the exercise of the other for that were to maim and marr the office He cannot deprive a Pastor of his Pastoral office or discharge him from fulfilling his Ministry because it is held from Christ and not from him He may not compel aminister to give the Sacraments to whom he pleases nor may he compel any to profess either in word or deed wha they believe not or to take that which God hath made the specia priviledg of Believers The accidental parts modes and circumstances of Religion which are necessary in general and left undetermined of God in particular the Magistrate hath power to determine according to the general rules of Gods Word Forasmuch as the Divine Law doth constitute more particulars and leaves less to humane liberty and God is more jealous and conscience more scrupulous in sacred than in common things it behoves the Magistrate to be wary humble and sober in his determinations about these matters He may regulate the preaching of the Gospel provided that regulation be for the furtherance not the hinderance thereof And that can be no part of due ordering that causeth the destruction or dangerous detriment of the thing ordered The Magistrate may not appoint that which is not simply forbidden of God if it be scandalous or mischievous in the consequents nor may he forbid that which God hath not appointed but left indifferent if the omission of it be scandalous or mischievous in the consequents because in such cases God hath forbidden the former and required the latter by his general command and because the Magistrate hath his authority as was said for edification not for destruction OF CERTAINTY and INFALLIBILITY § 1. Of Certainty in general I Begin the enquiry by taking notice of the common distinction of objective and subjective Certainty Objective Certainty or Certainty in the object is the immutable verity of the thing it self For that a thing is what it is is unchangeably true Subjective Certainty is the firmness of assent to a thing apprehended as it is It is this later which I enquire into and it presupposeth the former It must be supposed that our faculties are true that is that in their sound state and set in due circumstances they are adapted to discern things as they are indeed Otherwise the question of the nature of Certainty is out of dores there being no such thing in the world Certainty of Assent includes three things 1. That it be firm without staggering 2. That it be true and not erroneous 3. That it rest upon firm and sure grounds The first is evidently necessary because it is the very notation of the word Certainty the notion we mean thereby is not to doubt or stagger in our apprehension of a thing The second is as evidently necessary for Certainty is an affection of knowledg but an erroneous apprehension is not knowledg but ignorance a confident mistake cannot be certainty The third also is clear for if the grounds be either false or weak the knowledg built thereon cannot be sure Tho the assent be true in respect of the object yet it is not certain in this case because not judicious nor solid yea tho the apprehension be according to the thing yet as far as it rests upon a false or weak ground it is not knowledg properly so called but a casual confidence or presumption and when the insufficiency of the grounds shall appear the apprehension fails and vanisheth away Meer probability is not Certainty strictly so called it is indeed an affection or mode both of knowledg and of error which is a kind of ignorance for that which is only probable may either be or not be what it is apprehended to be and so the apprehension thereof may be either true or false either knowledg or error Yet the apprehending of a probable thing only as probable is always a right apprehension for whether the thing be or not be it is certainly true that it is probable The reason of probability lies in a sufficient evidence that a thing not only may be but is so indeed rather than not so as it is apprehended to be The reason of Certainty lies in a sufficient evidence that a thing must needs be as it is apprehended For if there be not such evidence then if we indeed consider the matter we presently apprehend that in regard the thing may be otherwise it is so for ought we know and that
supernatural help in remembring and attesting it The first Churches received the Testimony from the first witnesses upon naturally certain and infallible evidence it being impossible that those witnesses could by combination deceive the world in such matters of fact in the very age and place when and where the things are pretended to be done and said And these Churches had the concomitance of supernatural attestation in themselves by the supernatural gifts of the Holy Ghost and by miracles wrought by them The Christians or Churches of the next age received the testimony from those of the first with a greater evidence of natural infallible Certainty for that the Doctrine was delivered to them in the records of sacred Scripture and both the miracles and reporters were more numerous and they were dispersed over much of the world and with these also was the supernatural evidence of miracles We of the present age receive it insallibly from the Churches of all precedent ages successively to this day by the same way with greater advantages in some respects and with lesser in others not upon the Churches bare authority but the natural Cerainty of the infallible tradition of the Holy Scriptures or records of this religion and of the perpetual exercise thereof according to those records in all essential points wherein it was naturally impossible for the precedent ages to impose falshoods upon the subsequent And this rational evidence of the Churches tradition was in conjunction with the histories of heathens and the concessions of the Churches enemies infidels and hereticks all which did acknowledg the verity of the matters of fact There is natural evidence of the impossibility that all the witnesses and reporters being so many of such condition and in such circumstances should agree to deceive and never be detected for there is no possible sufficient cause that so many thousand believers and reporters in so many several countries throughout the world should be deceived or be herein mad or sensless and that those many thousands should be able in these matters unanimously to agree to deceive more than themselves into a belief of the same untruth in the very time and place where the things were said to be done And no sufficient cause can be given but that some among so many malicious enemies should have detected the deceit especially considering the numbers of Apostates and the contentions of Heriticks Besides all this there is a succession of the same spirit of Wisdom and Goodness which was in the Apostles and their hearers continued to this day and is wrought by their Doctrine § 20. Of the infallible Knowledg of the Sense of Scripture AS we may be infallibly certain of the Divine Authority of the Holy Scripture so likewise of the sence of the Scripture at least in points fundamental or essential to the Christian Religion and that without an infallible Teacher We may certainly know that an interpretation of Scripture repugnant to the common reason of mankind and to sense rightly circumstantiated is impossible to be true if we can certainly know any thing is impossible to be true and consequently we may infallibly know it The sence of Scripture in many things and those most material to Christian faith and life is so evident from the plain open and ample expression thereof that he that runs may read it if his understanding be notoriously prejudiced And if we cannot know the said sense to be necessarily true we can know nothing to be so and so we are at uncertainty for every thing It will surely be granted by all that we may as certainly know the sense of Scripture in things plainy and amply expressed as the sense of any other writings as for instance of the Writings of Euclide in the definitions and axioms in which men are universally agreed If any say the words in which the said definitions and axiomes are expressed may possibly bear another sense it is answered That they may absolutely considered because words which have their sense ad placitum and from common use being absolutely considered may have a divers sense from what they have by common use but those words being respectively considered as setled by use cannot possibly bear another sense unless we imagine the greatest absurdity imaginable in the Writer Besides they that pretend the possibility of another sense I suppose do mean sense and not nonsense And how a divers sense of all those words in Euclide that is not pure nonsense should arise out of the same words and so conjoined is by me incomprehensible But if the possibility of the thing be comprehensible or so great an absurdity be imaginable in a Writer led only by a humane spirit it is not imaginable in Writers divinely inspired That the Holy Ghost should write unintelligibly and wholly diversly from the common use of words in things absolutely necessary to salvation is impossible If an infallible Teacher be necessary to give the sense of Scripture in all things and no other sense than what is so given can be safely rested in then either the right sense of that infallible Teachers words if he be at a distance cannot be known but by some other present infallible Teacher or else that pretended infallible Teacher is more able or more willing to ascertain us of his meaning than the Holy Spirit of God in Scripture To speak of seeking the meaning of Scripture from the sense that the Catholick Church hath thereof is but vain talk For first the Catholick church never yet hath and never is like to come together till the day of judgment to declare their sense of the things in question nor have they written it in any book or number of books 2. Never did any true Representative of the Catholick Church or any thing like it as yet come together or any way declare what is their sense of the Scripture and the things in question nor is ever like to do 3. Tho it be granted that the Catholick Church cannot err in the essentials of Christian Religion as indeed no true member thereof can for it would involve a contradiction yet there is no assurance from Scripture or Reason but that a great if not the greater part of the Catholick Church may err in the integrals much more in the accidentals of Religion yea there is no assurance from Scripture or Reason but that the whole Catholick Church may err at least per vices in the several parts thereof some in one thing some in another And all this is testified by experience in the great diversities of opinions about these things in the several parts of the Catholick Church yea and by the difference of judgment and practise of the larger parts thereof even from those among us who hold this principle of the necessity of standing to their judgment Wherefore shall we think that God puts men upon such dissiculties yea impossibilities of finding out the true meaning of the Holy Scriptures at least in the main points of
convene and ordain one to the Patriarchate and that they might chuse the Patriarch out of any Region Jerome as an Historian only mentions from the testimony of Eusebius some bishops made by the Apostles But who can prove that those bishops were of a higher order than Presbyters The Testimonies of other Ancients in the same point Cyprian lib. 3. Epist 9. Erasmus his Edit to Rogatianus The Deacons must remember that the Lord chose Apostles that is bishops and Praepositi but after the ascension of the Lord the Apostles made Deacons to themselves as ministers of their Episcopacy and the church Here are but two Orders mentioned 1. bishops and Praepositi who were as the Apostles 2. Deacons who are ministers to them and the church Id. lib. 1. Epist 11. to Pomponius When all ought to maintain discipline much more the Praepositi and the Deacons From this and the other place before cited it may plainly appear that there was no middle office between that of the Praepositi and the Deacons And all the Presbyters being Praepositi must needs be of the same Order with bishops that title importing the very nature of the bishops office Chrysostome on the first to Timothy consesseth that there is little or no difference between a bishop and a presbyter That a bishop had not a different ordination from a presbyter Ambrose shews on 1 Tim. c. 3. in these words Why after the bishop doth he come to the ordination of a deacon Why but because there is one ordination of a bishop and presbyter for either of them is a priest but the bishop is the first every bishop is a presbyter but every presbyter is not a bishop for he is a bishop who is first among the presbyters Here note that the difference lies in this that the bishop is the first among the Presbyters Vid. Sedulius on Tit. 1. Anselm of Canterbury on Phil. 1. Beda on Acts 20. Alcuinus de divinis officiis c. 35 36. all agreeing in this point § 7. Testimonies to prove That the Episcopal Authority is really in the Presbyters 1. THAT Presbyters have the power of the keys and that the Apostles received it as Presbyters is commonly agreed on all sides Mr. Thorndike in his form of primitive Government and Right of Churches p. 128. saith That the power of the keys that is the power of the Church whereof that power is the root and source is common to bishops and presbyters Bishop Morton in his Apology Dr. Field and many others say much more 2. Presbyters have the power of jurisdiction and discipline particularly of excommunication and absolution Spalatensis proves that the power of excommunication and absolution is not different from the power of the keys which is exercised in foro poenitentiali and is acknowledged to belong to presbyters L. 5 c. 9. n. 2. l. 5. c. 2. n. 48 c. Jerome in his Epistle to Heliodor saith If I sin a presbyter may deliver me to Satan In the Church of England a presbyter is set to pass the sentence of excommunication in the Chancellors Court tho he doth but speak the words when the Court bids him Tertullian in his Apology c. 59. saith that probati quique seniores all the approved Elders did exercise discipline in the Church Clemens Alexandrinus Strom. l. 7. saith that in the Church the presbyters keep that discipline which makes men better Irenaeus l. 4. c. 44. With the order of presbytery they keep the doctrine of the Apostles sound and their conversation without offence unto the information and correction of the rest This place shews that discipline for correction as well as doctrine for information did belong to the presbyters Epiphanius haeres 42. reports that Marcion was expell'd by the Roman presbyters the Sea being vacant Id Heres 47. That Noetus was convicted judged and expelled by a session of presbyters Many Diocesses have been long without bishops upon several occasions and governed all that time by presbyters Vid. Blondels Apol. sect 3. p. 183 184. The Church of England allows presbyters in the Convocation to make Canons Also it allows presbyters to keep persons from the Communion of the Church for some offences and to receive them again if they repent To say that the presbyters cannot exercise this power without the bishops consent doth not derogate from the truth of their power herein for in some ancient times it was so ordered that presbyters could perform â—o sacred ministrations without their bishop They might not baptize as hath been observed without the bishops command but that limitation respected only the exercise of the power but not the power in it self 3. Presbyters have power of ordaining Acts 13.1 2 3. The Church of Antioch had not many Prelates at that time if any but the prophets and teachers there are mentioned as Ordainers Whereas some say they were bishops of many Churches in Syria they speak without proof and against the text which saith there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers c. which clearly expresseth that they all belonged to that Church this right of presbyters is confirmed by the passages before cited concerning the ordaining and making the bishops of Alexandria by the presbyters of that Church Firmilian in Cyprian Ep. 75. saith of them that Rule in the Church that they have the power of baptizing of laying on of hands and ordaining and who they be he expressed a little before viz. Seniors and Praepositi by which the presbyters as well as the bishops are understood Foelicissimus was ordained a deacon by Novatus one of Cyprians presbyters schismatically yet his ordination was not nulled by Cyprian but he was deposed for mal-administration The first Council of Nice in their Epistle to the Church of Alexandria and all the Churches of Egypt Libia and Pentapolis thus determine concerning the presbyters ordained by Meletius Socrat. l. 1. c. 6. Let those that by the grace of God and helped by our prayers are found to have turned aside to no schism but have contained themselves within the bounds of the Catholick and Apostolick Church free from spot of error have authority of ordaining Ministers and also of nominating those that are worthy of the Clergy c. Now tho they had not this power granted them to be exercised apart without their bishop yet it is to be noted that they had the power tho the Bishop as president guided in all those acts The Author of the Comment on the Ephesians that goes under the name of Ambrose saith That in Egypt the presbyters ordain consignant if the bishop be not present Also Austin faith that in Alexandria and all Egypt if the bishop be wanting the presbyters consecrate Presbyters sent bishops into England and ordained bishops for England Bedes Hist l. 3. c. 4 5. The Abbot and other presbyters of the Island Hye sent Aydan c. at King Oswalds Request and this was the ordinary custom tho in respect of the custom
bishop to delegate his Episcopal power to a Lay-man yea or to a Clergy-man if that Clergy-man be not as Christs commissioned Officer authorized to exert that power 18. The sentence of excommunication is denounced for any non observaâ—ce of the judgment of the Court tho in cases of doubtful right and in the smallest matters But no proof of such practice can be produced from the first ages And let the bishops themselves judg howsoever contempt may be pretended in the case Whether many who are usually so sentenced either upon doubtful or trivial matters do indeed deserve to be adjudged to such a state as that sentence duly administred doth import 19. The Parish Minister is bound to denounce in his Church the sentence of Excommunication decreed by the Court tho he have no cognizance of the cause and tho he know the sentence to be unjâ—st But no such practice was known in the ancient church 20. Ministers at their Ordination receive that Office which essentially includes an Authority and Obligation to teach their flocks yet they may not preach without a license from the bishop in their own proper charges or cures tho they perform other Offices of the Ministry But anciently it was not so 21. The present bishops require of their Clergy an Oath of Canonical obedience but let any proof be given that the ancient bishops did ever impose such an Oath or that the presbyters ever took it 22 The Parish minister hath not the liberty of examining whether the Infant brought to Baptism be a capable subject thereof that is Whether he be the child of a Christian or Infidel but he must baptize the child of every one that is presented by Godfathers and Godmothers who commonly have little or no interest in the Infant nor care of its education and who not seldome are but Boys and Girls 23. Confirmation is to be administred only by the bishop and yet it is in an ordinary way impossible for him to examine all persons to be confirmed by him within his Diocess Consequently it cannot be duly administred to multitudes of persons that are to be presented thereunto and they that are confirmed are few in comparison of those that are not But the ancient bishops being bishops of one particular Church were capable of taking the oversight of every particular person of their flocks and did personally perform the same 24. A great part of the adult members of Parish-churches are such as understand not what Christianity is but the ancient churches were careful that all their members might be competently knowing in the Religion which they professed as appears by their discipline towards the Catechumeni and the long time before they admitted them to baptism 25. The Parish ministers have no remedy but to give the Sacrament to ignorant and scandalous persons that offer themselves thereunto they can but accuse the openly wicked in the Chancellors Court and but for one time deny the Sacrament to some kind of notorious sinners but then they are bound to prosecute them in the Court and to procure a sentence against them there where not one notorious sinner of a multitude is or can be brought to a due tryal in regard of the way of proceeding in Ecclesiastical Courts and the multitude of souls in every Diocess The consequent hereof is the general intrusion of the grosly ignorant and profane who pollute the communion of the Church and eat and drink damnation to themselves 26. All parishioners that are of age are compelled to receive the Sacrament how unfit or unwilling soever they be by the terrors of penalties subsequent to excommunication and those that have been excommunicated for refusing to receive are absolved from that sentence if being driven thereunto they will receive the Sacrament rather than lye in Gaol And the Parish-ministers are compelled to give the Sacrament to such 27. Many Orthodox Learned and Pious men duly qualified for the Ministry are cast and kept out of it for not declaring an unfeigned assent and consent to all and every thing contained in the Liturgy and Book of Ordination Let any proof be given that ever any of the ancient Bishops or Churches thought all the points contained in those books so necessary to be assented and consented to or that any of them so severely required the like conformity to opinions forms and ceremonies of the like nature and reason 28. The present bishops debar all Christians from the Lords Supper who through unfeigned scruple of conscience refuse to kneel in the act of receiving the Sacramental bread and wine and they debar from baptism the children of those Parents who judg it unlawful for them to permit the signing of their children with the sign of the Cross But the ancient bishops did not so nor doth the practise of Antiquity warrant the same 29. The greatest severity of the present Church-discipline is directed against Ministers and people who observe not full conformity to the Rules Forms Rights and Ceremonies prescribed in the Liturgy and Canons But the ancient bishops exercised it against those who subverted the Christian faith by damnable Heresies or enormously transgressed the Rules of soberness righteousness and godliness prescribed of God in his word 30. The Oath imposed upon the Church-wardens to make their Presentments according to the Book of Articles framed by the bishop hath had this consequence which ought to be laid to heart that commonly they would rather overlook their Oath than become accusers of their honest neighbours not only those who withdraw from but those who hold communion with the Parish churches 31. The requiring of the reordination of those ministers who have been ordained by presbyters is contrary to the practise of the ancient Church it contradicts the judgments of many Eminent bishops and other Divines of the Church of England who have maintained the validity of Presbyterial ordination it nullifies the ministry of all the Foreign Reformed Churches and of most if not of all the Lutheran churches and it advances the Church of Rome above them for the priests of the Church of Rome upon their conversion are received without reordination whereas those that come from the Foreign Reformed churches must be reordained before they be admitted to the ministry in the church of England And all this is done when in Scripture the office of a bishop and presbyter is one and the same and the difference between them came in afterwards by Ecclesiastical custome It is commonly said That Churches and Bishops being now delivered from their ancient low and distressed state under the tyranny and persecution of the Heathen powers and enjoying the patronage and bounty of Christian Rulers should not be consined to their ancient meanness narrowness and weakness but be enlarged in opulency amplitude and potency answerable to the Civil State Ans It is freely granted that the state Ecclesiastical should in reasonable proportion partake of the prosperity of the Civil state But the question still remains 1. Whether
for the encrease of the wealth power and splendor of bishops and other chief Clergy-men or for any political considerations the essential form of a bishops church constituted by the Apostles who were immediately commissioned from Christ should be changed from a single Congregation or Society of which the bishop took the personal oversight to a diocess consisting of many yea commonly of many hundred stared congregations having each of them their proper presbyter and all of them but one bishop to whom it is impossible to take the personal oversight of the souls therein and to perform towards them all the duties which were the ordinary work of the ancient bishop 2. Whether the office of a bishop or elder of one single church instituted by the Holy Ghost should be changed into mother essentially different office viz. of a bishop of many yea many hundred single churches each whereof have their proper pastors or presbyters who according to the Scripture are the same with bishops 3. Whether the office of presbyter or elder of divine institution who according to the Scripture is truly and properly a bishop should be changed into an office essentially different viz. of a presbyter who is no bishop but only the bishops subject substitute or Curate And whether the said office should be statedly bereaved of the power of discipline which is essential to it 4. Whether the office of a bishop which is a trust given by Christ to be personally discharged by him that receives it should be executed by delegation to a Lay-man yea or to a Clergy-man who is held to be no bishop 5. Whether the ancient government of the Church by a bishop in conjunction with his presbyters should be changed into a government by the bishop alone and by his Chancellor and Officials whose authority is derived from him Concessions concerning Episcopacy I Hold it lawful and expedient that the elders or pastors of a particular Church should statedly defer to one that is ablest among them a guiding power over them in ordination and discipline and other church affairs I hold it not unfit that this person should for distinctions sake have the title of bishop given him tho he be not of an essentially different order from the rest of the pastors but only of a superior degree in the same holy Order Some Nonconformists think upon probable grounds that tâ—â—â—e should be a general sort of bishops who should take care of â—â—he common government of particular churches and the bisâ—â—ps thereof and that they should have a chief hand in the ordaining and placing and displacing of the pastors or bishops of particular churches And from this I dissent not A Consideration of the present state of Conformity in the Church of England IN considering the terms of Conformity now injoined I am not forgetsul of the reverence due to Rulers I do not herein presume to judg their publick acts but I only exercise a judgment of discretion about my own act in reference to their injunctions which surely they will not disallow To consider the lawfulness of those things of which an unfeigned approbation is required is an unquestionable duty If I should profess what I believe not or practice what I allow not my sin were heinous and inexcusable The Reasons of my dissent are here expressed as inoffensively as can be done by me who am to shew that it is not nothing for which I have quitted the station which I formerly held in the Church I have no reason nor will to lay a heavier yoke upon my self than the Law doth or to set such bars in my own way as the Law doth not I therefore admit that more restrained sense of the Declaration which is thought by many to make the enjoined terms more easie I am concerned to take notice of smaller as well as greater matters because as well the one as the other are alike to be owned Tho I would not differ with the Church about little things yet I may not profess an allowance of any little thing which I believe is not allowable I desire to proceed in this enquiry with good judgment and to do nothing weakly but however it be I had rather be thought to be injudicious and overscrupulous in making objections than want a sufficient clearness in a business of this nature I take no pleasure in making objections against the book of Common prayer but I do it by constraint that I may give an account of that Nonconformity to which by an irresistible force of Conscience I am necessitated If all things contained and prescribed in the said book be right and good I heartily wish that I and all men were convinced of it I joyn with the Congregation in the use of the Liturgy and I acknowledg that by joyning in it I declare my consent to the use of it as in the main an allowable form of Worship But this doth not as I suppose signifie my allowing of all things therein contained Of the Declaration of unfeigned Assent and Consent required by the Act of Vniformity THE true intent of this Declaration is to be considered By the form of words wherein it is expressed it seems to signifie no less than assent to and approbation of the whole and of every thing contained and prescribed in and by the Book of Common-prayer c. so that no man can make this Declaration that is not satisfied of the truth of every thing contained and the lawfulness and allowableness of every thing prescribed in the said book Nothing is more evident to me than that I ought not to dissemble or lye in matters of Religion but so I do if I declare my unfeigned assent and consent to those things contained and prescribed in the Liturgy from which I really dissent But this meaning thereof is not acknowledged by many and very judicious persons among the Conformists They grant indeed that the words will not only bear this sense but would seem to incline to it if the meaning of them were not evidently limited by the Law it self and that in the very clause wherein it doth impose it That the Law doth expresly determine this assent to the use of the Liturgy they say is evident from these words He shall declare his unfeigned assent and consent to the use of all things in the said book contained and prescribed in these words and no other I A. B. do here declare c. Now by all rules of interpreting laws we are directed say they to understand what is said more generally in any law according to the limitation which the law it self gives especially if it be in express words I admit this later and more restrained sense of the Declaration as probable and in this disquisition I proceed accordingly taking the declared assent and consent as limited to the use of things Nevertheless it must necessarily extend to the use of all things contained and prescribed in the Liturgy And thereupon I judg that not only all
permanently or unalterably holy as well sanctifying the duties therein performed as sanctified by them so I suppose that the appointed feasts or at least some of them are set apart by the Church to a state of like holiness I confess that as touching the dedication of such days and times as some of those are which are appointed by the Church I have not a clearness of judgment to determine for or against the warrantableness thereof Nor would I break with the Church upon this account but would make those days an occasion of joining in the unquestionable divine worship then celebrated But I know not how to declare an unfeigned assent and consent to the sanctifying of those days because in so doing I should not speak the truth while I doubt of the warrantableness thereof Of the Order for Morning and Evening-prayer THE second Rubrick before Morning-prayer is taken to enjoin the use of the Surplice Supposing that the use thereof is not in it self unlawful nevertheless I question whether I may lawfully consent to a Rule enjoining the use of it to such Ministers and in such Congregations by which the use thereof is judged unlawful or to which it is odious or greatly offensive by invincible or inveterate prejudice I enquire Whether a consent to the use of this Rubrick doth not imply a consent to the enjoining of this Vestment for the enjoined retaining and using of it so that sacred Ministrations shall not be performed without it is the subject matter of the Rubrick I enquire also Whether I may lawfully declare my consent to the use of this Vestment supposing that tho I do not scruple the bare lawfulness of using it yet I wish in my heart the use thereof were not retained but laid aside in regard of the great offence taken at it it being a thing unnecessary and the worship of God being as decently and profitably performed without it as with it Moreover what were those Ornaments in the Church which were in use by authority of Parliament in the second year of the reign of King Edward the sixth I do not well know Some say this Rubrick seems to bring back the Cope and other Vestments forbidden in the Common-prayer-book 5 6. of Edw. 6. to the use whereof I do not see it fit for me to declare my consent The Responsals of the Clerk and people the multiplied repetitions of the Gloria Patri and the Lords Prayer the omission of the Doxology in the Lords Prayer the composure of many short Collects instead of one continued prayer I can submit unto and declare my consent to them as to things passable But if the declaration of consent imply not only the simple allowableness but also the laudableness and comparative usefulness or expediency of these things I am not clear therein Of the Creed of St. Athanasius I Heartily own the whole Doctrine of the Trinity and of the incarnation of the Son of God as set forth in this Creed yet I am not satisfied to declare my assent to these assertions Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled without doubt he shall perish everlastingly Also This is the Catholick faith which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved Also he therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity This Creed doth contain deep mysteries as that the Son is not made nor created but begotten That the Holy Ghost is neither made nor created nor begotten but proceeding The difference between eternal generation and eternal procession being a mystery wherein the greatest Divines see but darkly we may be justly afraid to condemn all persons as uncapable of salvation who do not understand and explicitely believe these mysteries Likewise the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son being here delivered as a part of the faith concerning which it is asserted That except every one do keep whole without doubt he shall perish everlastingly the undoubted damnation of those Churches and Christians who hold that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father only seems to be thence inferred The best answer to these objections that I have seen I here transcribe out of a book lately written It is to be considered That in this Creed there be some things contained and expressed as necessary points of Faith and other things for the more clear and useful explication of the truth tho they be not of equal necessity to be understood and believed even by the meanest capacity Thus if we first consider the contexture of this Creed the Faith declared necessary concerning the Trinity is thus expressed in the beginning thereof The Catholick Faith is this That we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Vnity neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance After this follows an explication useful to set forth the true Christian Doctrine which begins For there is one person of the Father c. After which explication the same necessary doctrine to be known and believed is thus again expressed and distinguished from that explication in these words So that in all things as aforesaid the Vnity in Trinity and the Trinity in Vnity is to be worshipped he therefore who will be saved must thus think of the Trinity What is contained in this consideration is the more clear by the following observation That our Church doth both here and in her Articles evidently receive the Athanasian Creed and yet from the manner of using the Apostles Creed in the form of Baptism as containing the profession of that Faith into which we are baptized in the Catechism as containing all the Articles of the Christian Faith and in the Visitation of the sick as being the Rule to try whether he believe as a Christian man should or not it is manifest that no more is esteemed in our Church of necessity to salvation for all men to believe than that only which is contained and expressed in the Apostles Creed Hereunto I make this Reply In this point the question is not What the Church of England but what the Athanasian Creed appointed by this Church to be read on certain solemn days instead of the Apostles Creed declares to be of necessity to salvation Now the thing that is manifestly asserted in this Creed to be of necessity to salvation is the intire belief of the Catholick Faith as it is there expressed For it is said Which Faith except every one keep whole c. Wherefore to distinguish the summary of the doctrine of the Trinity set down in the beginning and the conclusion from the whole intermediate explication thereof as if the belief of the one but not of the other were affirmed to be necessary to salvation is a very forc'd and unwarrantable narrowing of the intendment of the Words The explication as well as the said Summary is set forth as that Catholick Faith which except every one keep whole and undefiled he shall without doubt perish everlastingly Yea it is expresly said in
Name of God baptizeth the party in the name of the Father c. but acting in the name of the Church he signeth him with the sign of the Cross This sign is not any tender of Grace received from God nor any proper consecration to God in his Name and Authority and as by his Symbol but a declarative token of duty and engagement to God The Israelites were circumcised kept the Passover and had their Sacrifices all which were tokens of the Covenant between God and them Yet Joshua did solemnly engage them to God by setting up a Stone as a Witness thereof The Objection and Reply I leave for a while to further consideration I have somewhat more to say touching this point The Stone of Witness set up by Joshua was a meer professing or witnessing-sign of the Israelites acknowledged Relation and Obligation to God and the erecting or using of it was not for their Dedication to God as by an Act of solemn Worship The using of the Cross in Banners and Coyns c. is no Act of Religious Worship but a professing-sign or signal Action to testifie to the World that they who use it do believe in Christ crucified And surely it is not unlawful to profess by other signs as well as by words that we are Christians But the sign of the Cross in Baptism is a solemn and stated Symbol of a Divine Mystery Its usage therein is not a meer circumstance but a very important Act of Divine Worship It is a compleat Institution of it self added to the Ordinance of Christ appearing to be of the same nature and end It is evidently used as a rite of solemn Dedication to God upon the terms of the Covenant of Grace and in this regard it is plainly Sacramental and it seems a Dedication added by way of supplement to the Baptismal Dedication and in that regard derogatory from the sufficiency of Baptism to that end It is also performed by a Minister of Christ acting as his Minister towards one of his Flock Moreover it is a rite not of private arbitrary use but of publick institution and it is made a matter not of occasional temporary Observance but a perpetual Ordinance of Worship of the same reason with those Ordinances which God hath instituted to be universally and perpetually observed by his Church Sacred rites of this nature more than those which God hath instituted are not of that rank of things which are necessary in genere and need to be determined in specie and being not necessary they may be matter of scruple to those who think that unnecessary rites of Worship should not be ordained or statedly used in conjunction with the Holy Sacrament That God hath reserved some things in Religion to his own appointment and left other things therein to humane Determination is not to be questioned But to discern exactly and throughly between the one and the other sort I want a sufficient clearness of Judgment That the sign of the Cross in Baptism as now used is to me a puzling difficulty I am not ashamed to confess tho it may be thought a weakness in me If the sign of the Cross were lawful I am not satisfied to declare an assent and consent to the imposing of it as a bar against the Baptism of the Children of those Parents who judg it unlawful and a sin in them to permit the signing of their Children therewith To this it may be answered That it is not the injoyning but the using of this ceremony that is consented to But here also I inquire Whether I may lawfully declare an unfeigned consent to the use of this Rubrick if I dissent from the injunction of the things thereby injoyned The use of this Rubrick doth include such an Obligation upon the Minister as hinders his Baptizing of the Children of such Parents as are before described Further I inquire Whether I may declare my unfeigned consent to the use of this ceremony if I be perswaded that it is not in it self unlawful yet wish in my heart that the use thereof were not retained in regard it is necessary and an occasion of stumbling to many I may submit to the use of a thing not simply evil when I may not declare a hearty consent to it The saving Regeneration of all baptized Infants and their undoubted Salvation if they dye before actual sin being asserted in the Liturgy is to be considered In the prayer after the Child is Bapt zed are these words We yield thee hearty thanks most merciful Father that it hath pleased thee to regenerate this Infant with thy Holy Spirit c. At the end of publick Baptism there is this Rubrick It is certain by Gods word that Children which are baptized dying before actual sin are undoubtedly saved Admitting that the injoyned Declaration doth not respect this Rubrick as being not a matter of practice but a doctrinal assertion Nevertheless the form of thanksgiving for all baptized Children aforcited is unquestionably contained under it and I am ingaged to examine the truth and lawfulness thereof The extent of the efficacy of Baptism is a point much controverted by Protestant Divines among themselves and the state of Infants seems not to be so fully and clearly express'd in Scripture as the state of adult persons and I acknowledg my self unable to dertermine thereof in the manner here required The Question is not Whether there be any saving-benefit to Infants by Baptism But whether every Infant admitted thereunto be regenerated by the Holy Spirit and received of God for his own Child by Adoption c. That an Infant be a partaker of these saving-benefits besides his being baptized this condition is requisite that he be duly qualified for Baptism and have right thereunto in the sight of God Be it granted that the Sacrament hath its effect where the receiver doth not set a bar against it yet it must be supposed that the receiver is one who hath right to Baptism in the fight of God and to whom the promise of Salvation doth belong But I do not find that the promise of Salvation belongs to Children whose Parents Proparents or proprietors are impious or infidels under the Mask of the Christian profession or that such have right before God to Baptism whatsoever right they may have before the Church while the impiety or infidelity of the Parents c. is not discovered It is not enough to say that the Infants title to Baptism is founded in Christ Institution of the Sacrament For as there must be an Institution of the Sacrament so there must be a due qualification of the subject that receives it The Infants of Jews or Mahomitans or Pagans do not actually set a bar against the efficacy of the Sacrament yet it cannot be said of such Infants in case they were baptized that they are regenerated by the Holy Spirit The Parents infidelity doth put a bar to the efficacy of the Sacrament towards his Infant and this bar
can be without some Alteration Here the question that concerns me is Whether there lies no secondary obligation from this Covenant upon any person that took it to do that which he was antecedently obliged to do viz. To endeavour in his own place and calling and only by legal ways that alteration of Government in the Church which is just and necessary to be made It is to be considered that the Renunciation required is to declare not only that there lies no obligation from the Covenant to endeavour an alteration of the substance of Church-government to wit Episcopacy but that there lies no obligation thence to endeavour any alteration of Government in the Church The extent of the words doth equally respect any change in any point tho never so just and necessary It is a point too high for me to judg of all persons whatsoever who have taken this Covenant how far they are or are not bound thereby And put case I may not be so clear and sure in this matter as to assert the obligation thereof I may also not be so clear and sure therein as to renounce the obligation thereof As Gods Moral Law primarily obligeth to endeavour Church-Reformation while there is corruption in the Church so a solemn Swearing or Vowing thereof infers a secondary or further obligation thereunto in respect of the Oath or Vow God being a Party in an Oath or Vow of duties directly respecting him and antecedently required by his Law no humane Authority can nullifie the obligation thereof The unlawfulness of the imposition and the defect of Authority in the imposers or that it was taken constrainedly or in sinful circumstances doth not nullifie the obligation of an Oath or Vow when the matter thereof is in it self a duty The conjunction of things unlawful in an Oath or Vow doth not make it null as to those things which are antecedently necessary This Covenant consists of many parts which are indeed for the matter so many several Vows And those parts which are of things lawful and necessary do not rise from nor depend upon those parts that are objected to be unlawful but stand intire by their own force and valour Now the question is Whether those parts which are of things lawful and necessary can be made void by the conjuction of those other parts objected to be unlawful The obligation of this Covenant cannot cease by the mutual consent of the Covenanters because it was not solely or chiefly a league between men but chiefly an Oath or Vow to God of things to be performed towards him and the Union and Association of men therein was in vowing to God who was the party chiefly intended in it Tho a Vow of things in themselves arbitrary being made by such as are under the power of another may be disannulled by him under whose power they are yet it is not so in Vows of those things that are duties antecedently To be obliged by this Covenant to endeavour alteration of Government in the Church so far as that alteration is just and necessary to be made is against no due of obedience to Governours no just rights of Superiors or any persons whatsoever This Covenant cannot oblige to any such endeavour of alteration as includes the determining of matters of publick Government against the Law and mind of the Soveraign It is only an endeavour of a just and necessary alteration by lawful ways and means which is here taken into consideration Several things of moment in the Ecclesiastical Government may need Reformation tho Episcopacy remain as it was received in the ancient Church It is an ordinary and necessary practice to make an alteration of Laws and so of Government both in Civil and Ecclesiastical matters from time to time so far as need requires I freely declare That there lies no obligation from this Covenant upon any person to endeavour any alteration of Government in Church or State by Rebellion Sedition or any other unlawful means There lies no obligation from this Covenant upon any person to endeavour by any means any such alteration of Government in Church or State as may not lawfully be made by the authority of King and Parliament nor be endeavoured by others in subordination to the said Authority I consent to the Episcopacy that was of ancient Ecclesiastical custom as in the times of Ignatius Tertullian or Cyprian I consent to Bishop Vsher's Model of Government by Bishops and Archbishops with their Presbyters which was presented to his Majesty by the Divines called Presbyterian for a ground-work of accommodation I am willing to exercise the Ministry under the present Ecclesiastical Government and to promise obedience to the Ordinary in things lawful and honest if there were a relaxation about some injunctions which I scruple or if the grounds of my scruples about them were removed I am ready to engage not to disturb the peace of the Church and not to endeavour any point of alteration in its Government by Rebellious Seditious or any unlawful ways I am ready to engage also That I will not any way endeavour any point of alteration to be made in the Government of the Church otherwise than by authority of King of Parliament Yea for my own part I couâ—d willingly engage That I will not any way endeavour a change of Church Government from Episcopâ—l to Presbyterial The ancient conjunction of Episcopacy with Presbytrey is that which I wish might be restored to the Church Some have argued that the renouncing of the obligation of the Covenant is to be taken in a restrained sense viz. That there lies no obligation from this Covenant by Seditious Factious Turbulent and Tumultuous ways to disturb the publick Peace and Government now Established in Church or State Ans 1. It is hard to warrant this restrained sense of the Declaration by sufficient proof or good authority 2. When we intend to declare the non obligation of an Oath or Vow only in a limited sense it is not saâ—e to declare it in such words as express its non-obligation in any sense whatsoever Both the taking and renouncing of an Oath had need be done in words of unexceptionable clearness at least in such words as are not liable to great exception Not only the thing intended by an Oath but the expression thereof had need be warrantable 3. This Covenant hath been so handled and the form of the renunciation is so expressed as that one would easily think that the Law-makers intended an utter renouncing of all manner of obligation from it Of Divine Worship in three Parts The First Of the Nature Kinds Parts and Adjuncts of Divine Worship The Second Of Idolatry The Third Of Superstition less than Idolatry TO make diligent search into the nature of Divine Worship I have judg'd my self concern'd as a Christian and a Minister and a Sufferer for conscientious dissents and doubtings about some points thereof in joyned by Authority Some Delineation of what I discern in this
the Authority of the Pastors but as they are made for the present or absent Pastors who are separately of equal Office Power they are no Laws except in an equivocal sense but only Agreements Now in judging between these two ways of the subordination enquired of let it be considered first That every particular church hath power of government within it self as hath been before observed 2. That a particular church doth not derive that power from any other particular church or collective body of churches but hath it immediately from Christ 3. That yet the acts of government in every particular church have an influence into all the churches being but integral parts of one whole the Catholick church and consequently they are all of them nearly concerned in one another as members of the same body 4. Thereupon that particular churches combine in such collective bodies and associations as have been before mentioned is not arbitrary but their duty 5. That the greater collective bodies are in degrees more august and venerable than the lesser included in them and in that regard ought to have sway with the lesser and not meerly in regard of agreement For tho in the greater there be but the same power in specie with that in the lesser yet it is more amply and illustriously exerted 6. That in all Societies every part being ordered for the good of the whole and the more ample and comprehensive parts coming nearer to the nature and reason of the whole than the lesser and comprehended the more ample parts if they have not a proper governing power over the lesser have at least a preeminence over them for the ends sake and this preeminence hath the force of a proper superior power in bearing sway 7. Hence it follows that the acts of Synods if they be not directly acts of government over the particular Pastors yet they have the efficacy of government as being to be submitted to for the ends sake The general good § 22. What is and what is not of Divine Right in Ecclesiastical Polity WE must distinguish between things that belong to the church as a church or a Society divers in kind from all other Societies and those things that belong to it extrinsecally upon a reason common to it with other regular societies The former wholly rest upon Divine Right the latter are in genere requisite by the Law of Nature which requires decency and order and whatsoever is convenient in all societies and so far they rest upon Divine Right but in specie they are left to human determination according to the general Rules given of God in Nature or Scripture And it is to be noted That such is the sulness of Scripture that it contains all the general Rules of the Law of Nature What soever in matter of Church government doth go to the formal constitution of a church of Christ is of Divine Right The frame of the Church catholick as one spiritual society under Christ the head as before described wholly rests upon Divine Right and so the frame of particular churches as several spiritual Polities and integral parts of the Catholick church as before described is also of Divine Right if such Right be sufficiently signified by the Precepts and Rules given by the Apostles for the framing of them and by their practise therein Moreover the parcelling of that one great Society the Church-catholick into particular Political Societies under their proper spiritual Guides and Rulers is so necessary in nature to the good of the whole that the Law of Nature hath made it unalterable It is intrinsick to all particular stated Churches and so of Divine Right that there be publick Assemblies thereof for the solemn Worship of God that there be Bishops Elders or spiritual Pastors therein and that these as Christs Officers guide the said Assemblies in publick Worship that therein they authoritatively preach the Word and in Christs Name offer the mercies of the Gospel upon his terms and denounce the threatnings of the Gospel against those that despise the mercies thereof that they dispence the Sacraments to the meet partakers and the spiritual censures upon those that justly fall under them that the members of these Societies explicitely or implicitely consent to their relation to their Pastors and one towards another It doth also intrinsecally belong to particular churches as they are integral parts of one Catholick church of which all the particular Christians contained in them are members and consequently it appears to be of Divine Right that they hold communion one with another and that they be imbodied according to their capacities in such Associations as have been before described As for all circumstantial variation and accidental modification of the things aforesaid with respect to meer decency order and convenience according to time and occasion being extrinsick to the spiritual frame and Polity of the Church as such and belonging in common to it with all orderly Societies they are of Divine Right only in genere but in specie they are left to those to whom the conduct and government of the church is committed to be determined according to the general Rules of Gods word Much of the controversie of this Age about several forms of Church-government is about things extrinsick to the church-state and but accidental modes thereof tho the several parties in the controversie make those Forms to which they adhere to be of Divine Right and necessary to a Church-state or as some speak a Church-organical Now in the said controverted Forms of Government there may be a great difference for some may be congruous to the divine and constitutive frame of the Church and advantageous to its ends others may be incongruous to it and destructive to its ends § 23. Of a True or False Church MANY notes of a true Church are contentiously brought in by those that would darken the truth by words without knowledg But without more ado the true and real being of a Church stands in its conformity to that Law of Christ upon which his Church is founded This Law is compleatly written in the Holy Scriptures The more of the aforesaid Conformity is sound in any Church the more true and sound it is and the less of it is found in any church the more corrupt and false it is and the more it declines from truth and soundness A Church may bear so much conformity to its Rule as is sufficient to the real being or essential state of a Christian church and yet withall bear such disconformity to its Rule as renders it very enormous A church holding all the essentials of Faith Worship Ministry and Government together with the addition of such Doctrine Worship Ministry and Government as is by consequence a denial of those essentials and a subverting of the foundation is a true church as to the essentials tho very enormous and dangerous And they that are of the communion of such a church who hold the essentials of Religion