powers contradicted And certainly all such disuse began with a few and proceeded further we are allowed then to disuse such things § 12. It would grieve a man that loves the Church to hear the name of the Church abused by many dark though confident disputers when they are pleading for their Ceremonies and Holy dayes and laying about them with the names of Schismaticks against all that will not do as they do O say they These men will separate from the Catholick Church and how then can they be the Children of the Church And 1. Which is it that is called by them the Catholick Church Little do I know nor am able to conjecture Did the Catholick Church make the English Common-Prayer Book what were the then Bishops in England that consented in that work the whole Church of Christ on earth God forbid Or did ever any General Council authorize it I think not And if they would tell us what General Council commanded Christmas Day or Kneeling at the Sacrament c they would do us a pleasure but I think they will not § 13. And 2. What if these things had all been commanded by a General Council May not a man disuse them without separating from the Church I think as good as you are you do some things your selves that God himself hath forbidden you to do and yet will be loth to be therefore taken for men that separate either from the Church or God And when you read the Books of Heathen Philosophers when you adore not toward the East or when you pray receive the Sacrament Kneeling on the Lords Dayes would you be taken to separate from the Catholick Church for crossing its ancient customs or Canons But these perverse and factious reasonings we must hear to the dishonour of Christianity and Reason it self and that from men that scorn the supposed meanness of others yea and see poor souls seduced into separation by such empty words And this is one of the present judgements on this land CHAP. X. Prop. 10. If it be not our Lawfull Governours that command us but usurpers we are not formally bound to obey them though the things be lawfull which they command § 1. WE may be bound by some other Obligation perhaps to do the thing which they command us but we are not formally though sometime Materially bound to obey them For it is not formally obedience unless it be done eo nomine because commanded or for the Authority of the Commander If the Pope or any usurper should command me to pray or to give alms I will do it but not because he commandeth me but because God commandeth me and therefore I will not obey him but God But if a Parent or Magistrate or Pastor command it me I will do it both because it is commanded me by God and them and so I will obey both God and them If an usurper command me to do a thing in it self indifferent I will not do it because he commandeth it but yet if accidentally it become my duty by conducing to anothers good or avoiding their offence or hurt or any other accident I will use it for these ends though not for his command § 2. The Pope 1. As the Vice-christ or universall Head is an usurper and therefore hath no authority to command me or any man in that relation the smallest Ceremony 2. The Pope as Patriarch of the West is an humane creature and not of Divine institution and was indeed a sinfull institution from the first of his creation but if it had been otherwise yet since is that Patriarchship become unwarrantable since he hath forfeited it and the world hath found the mischiefs of it So that no man is therefore bound to use one lawfull Ceremony because the Pope as Patriarch of the West commandeth it 3. If this were not so yet Brittain and Ireland were from the beginning none of his Patriarchate nor did at Nice consent to it and therefore have the less appearance of any obligation § 3. The Authority of General Councils cannot be pretended as obliging men in Conscience to the English Ceremonies 1. Because indeed General Councils are not a superiour Power for proper Government of the Church having authority to command particular Bishops or Synods as their subjects but they are only necessary for Union and Communion of Churches and mutual assistance thereby and so their Canons bind but by virtue of the General commands that require us to maintain the Unity and Communion of the Churches § 4. And 2. If it were otherwise there is few if any of these Ceremonies that are commanded by any true General Council They that can prove any such thing let them do it but till we see it we will not be forward to believe it Yea 3. Some of them General Councils have made Canons against as I before shewed in the Case of Kneeling at the Sacrament on the Lords dayes And therefore the neglecters of our Ceremonies sin not against a General Council § 5. The Common plea is that we are bound to use these Ceremonies in obedience to the Church of England and that we are not true sons of this Church if we refuse it But what is it that is called by them The Church of England In a Political sense I know no such thing as a Church of England or of any Nation on earth that is There is no one Society united in any one Ecclesiastical Soveraign that can truly be called the Church of England or of any other Nation The whole Catholick Church is One as united in Christ the Head And every particular Chuâ—ch associated for personal Communion in Gods Worshâ—p is one being a part of the Catholick Church and united in and individuated by their relation to their several Pastors But a National Church under one chief Ecclesiastick Government I find no mention of in Scripture but contrarily the Churches of Judaea Galatia c. or any other Countrey where there were many are alway mentioned in the Plural number and never called one Church § 6. Yet will we quarrel with no men about meer names or words If by a National Church â— be meant any of these following we acknowledge that there is such a thing 1. If all the particular Churches in a Nation do Associate for Communion and mutuall assistance and so use to meet by their officers in one National Assembly I confess the Association usefull if not necessary and the Assemblies to be maintained and for unity sake obeyed in things lawfull And though Scripture call not such National Associations by the name of a Church in the singular number yet we shall leave men to their Liberty in such names If all the Schoolmasters in England should hold General Assemblies to agree what Books to read in their Schools c. if any man would therefore call all the Schools in England in the singular number by the name of the School of England I would not differ with him for a
in Afrâ—ca and call the rest Cecilians and let the Papists reduce it to the subscribers to their Trent confession or to them only that believe in the Popes universal Headship and Government and call all others Hereticks yet will all true Catholicks imitate Augustine and the Councils that were called against the Donatists who still described the Catholike Church to be that which was dispersed over the world having begun at Ierusalem and though to Gods praise we dare rejoycingly affirm that the most illustrious and the soundest part of it is in Europe among the Reformed yet dare we not say that it is all or the greatest part here Nay we confess that we are but a small part of Christs Church And therefore common sobriety may tell us that the Peace of so great a part of Christs Church as is in all the rest of the world is highly to be valued and sought with all our might in righteousness Moreover even among the reformed Churches there are many for some Episcopacy or Superintendency As the Church of England and Ireland was lately for Diocesan Episcopacy so the Churches in Denmark Sweden Saxionie and other parts of Germany Transilvania c. are for a lower sort of Episcopacy called Superintendency among them 3. And the quality of many of the Divines of that way is such as bespeaks our greatest reverence to them and should move us to thirst after Unity and Reconciliation with them Many of them are men of eminent Learning and Godliness and sound in the faith I know that it is commonly objected that they are generally ungodly men that are that way and though some of them are Learned men yet they are all or almost all of careless and carnal lives or meerly formal and superstitious and therefore their Communion is not much to be desired To which I answer 1. The plain undenyable truth is that it was so here with the most of them in the Bishops dayes where ever I was acquainted There were more Ministers in many places that would have scorned threatned or troubled a man for a godly diligent life then that would lead him that way by a good example We must speak that truth that cannot be hid whoever be displeased To this day too many of that way are careless and scandalous But then Consider withall 2. That it is but too common for the common sort even of Ministers as well as people to be careless and bad what ever opinions they are of Especially if the times do discountenance practical Religiousness the greater part are likely to follow the times being that way also so strongly enclined by nature 3. Consider also that we have had and have men of that Judgement that have been excellent Instruments of the Churches good and so eminent for Gods graces and gifts that their names will be pretious whilest Christ hath in England a Reformed Church were there in all England but one such man dissenting from us as Hooper Farrar Latimer Cranmer Ridley Iewel Abbot Davenant Vsher Hall c. what sober Godly man would not be exceeding solicitous for a reconciliation I am sure besides the godliness of their lives and painful preaching One Iewel One Vsher One Davenant hath done so much against the Roman Usurpers as they will never well claw it off them to the last Moreover who knoweth not that most of the Godly able Ministers of England since the Reformation did judge Episcopacy some of them Lawful and some of them most fit for the Non-conformists were but few and that even before this late trouble and war the most even almost all of those that were of the late Assembly at Westminster and most through the land did subscribe and conform to Episcopal Government as a thing not contrary to the word of God so that it is evident that it is very consistent with a Godly life to judge Episcopacy lawful and fit or else we should not have had so many hundred learned and godly men of that mind And I am not altogether unapt to believe that many of them yet are so far reconcileable to it moderated that if it were again established they would submit to it as they did For I hear but of few that have made any recantation of their former conformity but contrarily have known divers of them profess a reconcilableness as aforesaid as Mr. Gataker doth in one of his books express his own Judgement If I have proved this preparatory proposition which I think needeth but litle proof then have I also proved 1. That they have sinned much who have hitherto forborn the use of any means for Peace which was in their power 2. And that we are bound our selves to desire and seek after a peace with such men and that we cannot discharge a good conscience while we neglect such means as is within our reach and fit for us to use The second Proposition is that A Certain Episcopacy may be yielded to for the peace if not also for the right order of the Church In the declaration of my judgement concerning this I make no doubt but I shall displease both sides the one for yielding so much the other for yielding no more But jacta est alea I live not upon mens favour nor the air of their applause That truth which displeaseth at present may tend to peace and produce it at the last when the angry humour is allayed or at least when the angry age is gone For the clearer determination of this and the main Question following it is necessary that I here stay 1. To open the nature of Church-Government in general 2. To open the sence of the word Episcopacy and the several sorts of Bishops And then 3. I shall tell you what sort of Episcopacy it is that I could yield to for the Churches peace 1. I must confess I think that the greatest part of the controversie by far is in this first question of the nature of Ecclesiastical Government strictly so called which is only in the hands of Christs Ministers Bishops or whomsoever commonly called Clergy men Aâ—d concerning this having written my thoughts more largely elâ—ewhere I shall now lay down these few Propositions Prop. 1. All this power Ecclesiastical is Jure divino given from God himself and that either immediately or by the mediation only of the Apâ—stles I mean as to the determination in specie what it shall be and the constitution of that order and power in the Church though perhaps some other causes at least sine quibus non may intervene for the reception of this power by an individual person These therefore that plead only the Laws of the Land or only Canons of former Bishops for their standing or authority do say nothing that as to our controversie is regardable Whâ—t men do they may undo if there be reason for it and if it depend on their authority we must submit to their reason Prop. 2. This Divine Constitution of the Species of church-Church-Power
and Government is to be found wholly in the written word of God called the holy Scriptures This we are agreed on against the Papists who would supply the supposed defects of Scripture by their unwritten Traditions which they call the other part of Gods word Church Canons and Laws of men may determine of some modes and circumstances for the better execution of the Laws of God by the People whom they are over but they cannot make new Church Ordinances or Governments nor convey a Power which God the fountain of Power did not ordain and convey nor can they give what they themselves had not The Church-office and Authority therefore that is not proved from the Holy Scripture is to be taken as the fruit of humane arrogancy and presumption Yet I deny not but that we may find much in Antiquity in Fathers and Councils about matters of fact to help us to understand some Scriptures and so to discern the matter of right Prop. 3. The Scripture doth not Contradict but suppose and confirm the light of Nature nor doth it impose upon any man Natural impossibilities nor constitute offices which cannot be executed or which would destroy that end to which they are supposed to be Constituted Prop. 4. Ecclesiastical Authority comprehendeth not the power of the sword nor any power of using violence to mens bodies or laying mulcts or confiscations on their estates The Ecclesiastical Power which Christ ordained was exercised for the first three hundred years without any touching of mens bodies or purses before there were any Christian Princes Prop. 5. Magistrates are not eo nomine obliged to punish men because they are Excommunicated whether upon every just Excommunication they should punish I will not now dispute but they are bound to know that their penalties be deserved before they inflict them and therefore must themselves take Cognisance of the Cause and as rational agents understand before they act and not blindly follow the Judgements of the Bishops as if they were but as Executioners where the Bishops are Judges Prop. 6. The Power of the highest Church-governours is but an Authority of Directing in the way to salvation It is but Directive but then there is no room for the common Objection that then it is no greater then any other man may perform for it is one thing to Direct Occasionally from Charity and another thing to Direct by Authority in a standing office as purposely appointed hereunto The Power of Church-Governors is but of the same nature as is the Power of a Physitian over his Patients or of a School-master over his Schollers supposing he had not the power of the rod or actual force but such a power as the Professors of Philosophy or other sciences had in their several schools upon the adult nor all so great neither because the Laws by which we must rule are made to our hands as to the substantials Hence therefore it is plain that as we can bind or force no man to believe us or to understand the truth and to be Christians but by the power of demonstrated Evidence and by the light which we let in through Gods grace into their Consciences so neither can we cause any to execute our sentences against offenders further than by light we convince them that it is their duty so that if all the Bishops or Presbyteries in the land should judge such or such an opinion to be heresie and should Excommunicate those that own it as hereticks in this case if the Church do believe as the Pastors believe they will consent and avoid the Excommunicate person but if they take it to be Gods truth which the Pastors call heresie they will not take themselves bound by that sentence to avoid him nor will the Offender himself any further be sensible of a penalty in the sentence then he shall be convinced that he hath erred and if the Church avoid him he will justifie himself and judge that they do it wrongfully and will glory in his suffering so that it is on the Conscience that Church-Governors can work and no otherwise on the outward man but mediante Conscientiâ Prop. 7. The ground of this is partly because no Church Governors can bind any man contrary to Gods word Clave errante ita apparente if the people know that he erreth they are not to obey him against God Yet in the bare inconvenient determination of some Circumstantials by which the duty is not destroyed but less conveniently performed the people are bound to obey their Governors because it is not against Gods determination and because he erreth but in an undetermined point of which God appointed him to be the orderly determiner But if God have once determined no mans contrary determination can oblige nor yet if they go beyond the sphere of their own work and determine of an aliene subject which God did never commit to their determination else a Minister or Bishop might oblige every Taylor how to cut his garment and every Shoâ—-maker how to cut his shoe so that they should sin if they did disobey which is ridiculous to imagine and if they go about to introduce new stated Ordinances or Symbols in the Church which they have nothing to do with or in any other work shall assume to themselves a power which God never gave them it doth no more oblige then in the former case Prop. 8. Another reason of the sixth Proposition is because The People have a Iudgement of discerning whether the Governors do go according to Gods word or not else they should be led blindfold and be obliged by God to go against Gods word whensoever their Governors shall go against it It is not bruits or Infants but rational men that we must rule Prop. 9. The three things which Church power doth consist in are in conformity to the three parts of Christs own office 1. About matter of Faith 2. About matter of Worship 3. About matter of Practice in other cases 1. Church-Governors about Doctrine or Matters of Faith are the Peoples Teachers but cannot oblige them to Err or to believe any thing against God nor make that to be truth or error that is not so beâ—ore 2. In matter of Worship Church-guides are as Gods Priests and are to go before the people and stand between God and them and present their prayers and prayses to God and administer his holy mysteries and bless them in his name 3. The Commanding Power of Pastors is in two things 1. In Commanding them in the name of Christ to obey the Laws which he hath made them already And this is the principal 2. To give them new Directions of our own which as is said 1. Must not be against Gods Directions 2. Nor about any matter which is not the object of our own office but is without the verge of it 3. But it is only in the making of under laws for the better execution of the laws of Christ and those
Institution not by inspired Apostles but by Ordinary Bishops then 1. They make all Presbyters to be jure Episcopali and Bishops only and their Superiours to be jure Divino as the Italians in the Council of Trent would have had all Bishops to depend upon the Pope But in this they go far beyond them for the Italian Papists themselves thought Presbyterie jure Divino 2. Either they may be changed by Bishops who set them up or not If they may be taken down again by man then the Church may be ruined by man and so the Bishops will imitate the Pope Either they will Reign or Christ shall not Reign if they can hinder it Either they will lead the Church in their way or Christ shall have no Church If man cannot take them down then 1. It seems man did not Institute them for why may they not alter their own institutions 2. And then it seems the Church hath universal standing unchangeable Institutions Offices and binding Laws of the Bishops making And if so are not the Bishops equal to the Apostles in Law making and Church Ordering and are not their Laws to us as the word of God and that word insufficient and every Bishop would be to his Diocess and all to the whole Church what the Pope would be to the whole 3. Moreover how do they prove that ever the Apostles gave power to the Bishops to institute the order of Presbyterie I know of no text of Scripture by which they can prove it And for Tradition we will not take every mans word that saith he hath tradition for his conceits but we require the proof The Papists that are the pretended keepers of Tradition do bring forth none as meerly unwritten but for their ordines inferiores and many of them for Bishops as distinct from the Presbyters but not for Presbyters themselves And Scripture they can plead none For if they mention such texts where Paul bids Titus ordain Elders in every City c. they deny this to be meant of Elders as now but of Prelates whom Titus as the Primate or Metropolitane was to ordain And if it be meant of Elders then they are found in Scripture and of Divine Apostolical Institution 4. If they were Instituted by Bishops after the Scripture was written was it by one Bishop or by many If by one then how came that one to have Authority to impose a new Institution on the universal Church If by many either out of Council or in if out of Council it was by an accidental falling into one mind and way and then they are but as single men to the Church and therefore still we ask how do they bind us If by many in Council 1. Then let them tell us what Council it was that Instituted Presbyterie when and where gathered and where we may find their Canons that we may know our order and what Auâ—hors mention that Council 2. And what authority had that Council to bind all the Christian world to all ages If they say it bound but their own Churches and that age then it seems the Bishops of England might for all that have nulled the Order of Presbyters there But O miserable England and miserable world if Presbyters had done no more for it then Prelates have done I conclude therefore that the English Prelacy either degraded the Presbyters or else suspended to ally an essential part of their office for themselves called them Rectors and in ordaining them said Receive the Holy Ghâ—st Whose sins thou dost remit they are remitted whose sins thou dost retain they are retained And therefore they delivered to them the Power of the Keyes of opening and shutting the Kingdom of Heaven which themselves make to be the opening and shutting of the Church and the Governing of the Church by Excommunication and Absolution And therefore they are not fit men to ask the Presbyters By what authority they Rule the Church by binding and loosing when themselves did expresly as much as in them lay confer the Power on them And we do no more then what they bid us do in our Ordination Yea they thereby make it the very work of our office For the same mouth at the same time that bid us tâ—ke authority to preach the word of God did also tell us that whose sins we remit or retain they are remitted or retained and therefore if one be an Essential or true integral part at least of our office the other is so too From all which it is evident that if there were nothing against the English Prelacy but only this that they thus suspend or degrade all the Presbyters in England as to one half of their offâ—ce it is enough to prove that they should not be restored under any pretence whatsoever of Order or Unity Argum. 5. THat Episcopacy which giveth the Government of the Chuâ—ch and management of the Keys of Excommunication and Absolution into the hands of a few Layâ—men while they take them from the Presbyters is nâ—t to be restored under any pretence of Vnity or Peace But such was the English Prelacy therefore c. The Major is plain because it is not Lay-men that are to be Church Governours as to Ecclesiastical Government This is beyond Question with all save the Congregational and they would not have two or three Lay men chosen but the whole Congregation to manage this business The Minor is known by common experience that it was the Chancelor in hâ—s Court with his assiâ—â—ants and the Register and such other meer Lay-men that managed this work If it be said that they did it as the Bishops Agents and Substitutes and therefore it was he that did it by them I answer 1. The Law put it in the Chancellors and the Bishopâ— could not hinder it 2. If the Bishops may delegate others to do their work then it seems Preaching and Ruling Excommunicaâ—ing and Abâ—olving may as well be done by Lay-men as Clergy men Then they may commission them also to administer the Sacraments And so the Ministry is not necessary for any of these works but only a Bishop to depute Lay-men to do them which is false and confusive Argum. 6. THat Episcopacy whâ—ch necessarily overwhelmeth the souls of the Bishops with the most hainous guilt of neglecting the many thousand souls whose charge they undertake is not to be restored for Order or Peace For men are not to be oveâ—whelmed with such hainous sin on such pretences But such is the English Prelacy and that not accidentally through the badness of the men only but unavoidably through the greatness of their charge and the Natural Impossibility of their undertaken work How grievous a thing it is to have the blood of so many thousands charged on â—hem may soon appear And that man that undertakes himself the Government of two or three or five hundred thousand souls that he never seeth or knoweth nor can possibly so Govern but must needs leave it undone except the shadow
Sect. 9. 2. A Minister is an officer of Christ and therefore receiveth his Authority from him and can have none but what he thus recieves And therefore 1. He hath no Soveraignty or Lordship over the Church for that is the perogative of Christ. 2. He hath no degree of underived Power and therefore must prove his Power and produce his Commission before he can expect the Church to acknowledge it 3. He hath no Power to work against Christ or to destroy the souls of men or to do evil Though he hath a Power by which occasionally he may be advantaged to evil yet hath he no Authority to do it For Christ giveth no man power to sin nor to do any thing against himself 4. He deriveth not his authority from man though by man as an instrument or occasion he may The People give him not his Power The Magistrate gives it not The Ordainers Bishops or Presbyters give it not any further then as I shall shew anon by signifying the will of Christ that indeed giveth it and by investing men in it by solemn delivery The Choosers may nominate the person that shall receive it and the Magistrate may encourage him to accept it and the Ordainers may Approve him and Invest him in it but it is Christ only that gives the Power as from himself As in Marriage the persons consent and the Magistrate alloweth it as Valid at his bar and the Minister blesseth them and declareth Gods consent But yet the Power that the Husband hath over the wife is only from God as the conferring cause and all that the rest do is but to prepare and dispose the person to Receive it save only that consequently the consent of God is declared by the Minister Of which more anon when we speak of Ordination Sect. 10. 3. A Minister is a man separated or set a part to the work of the Gospel For he is to make a calling of it and not to do it on the by Common men may do somewhat that Ministers do even in preaching the Gospel but they are not separated or set apart to it and so entrusted with it nor make a Calling or Course of employment of it Ministers therefore are Holy persons in an eminent sort because they have a two-fold Sanctification 1. They are as all other Christians sanctified to God by Christ through the spirit which so devoteth them to him and brings them so neer him and calls them to such holy honourable service that the whole Church is called a Royall Priesthood a Holy Nation c. to offer spiritual sacrifice to God And Christ hath made them Kings and Priests to God But 2. They are moreover devoted and sanctified to God not only by this separation from the world but by a separation from the rest of the Church to stand neerer to God and be employed in his most eminent service I mention not mans Ordination in the Definition because it is not essential to the Ministry nor of Absolute Necessity to its being of which anon But that they be set apart by the will of Christ and sanctified to him is of Necessity Sect 11. 4. These Ministers have a double subject to work upon or object about which their Ministry is Employed The first is The world as that matter out of which a Church is to be raised The second is Believers called out of the world These Believers are Either Only Converted and not invested in a Church state or such as are both Converted and Invested These later are either such as are not yet gathered into a particular Church or such as are For all these are the objects of our office Sect. 12. 5. Accordingly the first part of the Ministerial office is to Preach the Gospel to unbelievers and ungodly ones for their Conversion This therefore is not as some have imagined a common work any more then preaching to the Church Occasionally ex Charitate only another man may do it But ex Officio as a work that we are separated and set a part to and entrusted with so only Ministers may do it No man hath the Power of Office but he that hath the Duty or Obligation to make it the trade or business of his life to preach the Gospel though bodily matters may come in on the by Sect. 13. 6. Hence it appears that a man is in order of Nature a Preacher of the Gospel in General before he be the Pastor of a particular flock though in time they often go together that is when a man is ordained to such a particular flock Sect. 14. 7. And hence it follows that a man may be ordained sine Titulo or without a particular charge where the Converting preparatory work is first to be done Sect. 15. 8. And hence it appeareth that a Minister is first in order related to the unbelieving world as the object of his first work before he be related to the Church existent either Catholick or particular And that he is under Christ first a Spiritual Father to beget children unto God from the unbelieving world and then a Governour of them If others have already converted them to our hands and saved us that part of our work yet that overthroweth not the order of the parts and works of our office though it hinder the execution of the first part it being done to our hands by others in that office Sect. 16. 9. The second part of the Ministers work is about Believers meerly converted together with their Children whom they yet have power to Dedicate to God And that is to Invest them in the Rights of a Christian by Baptism in solemn Covenanting with God the Father Son and Holy Spirit And these are the next Material objects of our Office Many of the Ancients Tertullian by name and the Council of Eliberis thought that in case of Necessity a Lay-man though not a Woman may Baptize If that be granted yet must not men therefore pretend a Necessity where there is none But I am satisfied 1. That Baptism by a a private man is not eo nomine a Nullity nor to be done again 2. And yet that it is not only a part of the Ministers work to Baptize and approve them that are to be Baptized ex officio but that it is one of the greatest and highest actions of his office Even an eminent exercise of the Keyes of the Kingdom letting men into the Church of Christ it being a principal part of their Trust and power to judge who is meet to be admitted to the Priviledges and fellowship of the Saints Sect. 17. 10. The third part of the Ministers work is about the Baptized that are only entred into the universal Church for many such there are or else the unbaptized that are Discipled where the former work and this are done at once And that is to congregate the Disciples into particular Churches for Holy Communion in Gods Worship c. They must do part of this
if Pastor must cease when Ordination ceaseth For though wâ—thout Pastors there may be communities of Christians which are parts of the universal Church yet there can be no Organized Political Churches For 1. Such Churches consist essentially of the Directing or Ruling Part and the Ruled Part as a Republick doth 2. Such Churches are Christian Associatioâ—s for Communion in such Church Ordinances which without a Pastor cannot ordinarily at least be administred And therefore without a Pastor the Society is not capable of the End and therefore not of the form or name though it be a Church in the fore-granted sence Nay indeed if any should upon necessity do the Ministerial work to the Church and say he did it as a Private man it were indeed but to become a Minister pro tempore under the name of a private man If Paul had not his Power to destruction but to Edification neither have Prelates And therefore the Acts are null by which they would destroy the Church Their Power of Ordering it such as they have occasionally enableth them to disorder it that is If they miss in their own work we may submit but they have no authority to destroy it or do any thing that plainly conduceth thereunto Sect. 29. The ceasing of Ordination in any place will not either disoblige the people from Gods publick Worship Word Prayer Praise Sacraments Neither will it destroy their Right to the Ordinances of God in Church communion But this it should do if it should exclude a Ministry therefore c. The Major is proved 1. In that the Precept for such Publick worship is before the precept for the right ordering of it He that commandeth the Order supposeth the thing ordered 2. The precept for publick worshâ—p is much in the Law of Nature and therefore indispensable and it is about the great and Necessary duties that the honour of Gods add saving of men and preservation of the Church lieth on It is a standing Law to be observed till the coming of Christ. And the Rights of the Church in the excellent Benefits of Publick Ordinances and Church order is better founded then to depend on the Will of ungodly Prelates If Prince and Parliament faâ—l and all the Governours turn enemies to a Common-wealth it hath the means of Preservation of it self from ruine lest in its own hands or if the Common-wealth be destroyed the Community hath the Power of self-preservation and of forming a Common-wealth again to that end The life and being of States specially of mens eternal happiness is not to hang upon so slender a peg as the corrupt will of a few Superiours and the mutable modes and circumstances of Government nor a Necessary End to be wholly laid upon an uncertain and oft unnecessary means The children lose not their Right to Food and Rayment nor are to be suffered to famish when ever the Steward falls out with them or falls asleep or loseth the Keyes Another servant should rather break open the doors and more thanks he shall have of the Father of the family then if he had let them perish for fear of transgressing the bounds of his calling If incest that capital disorder in procreation were no incest no crime but a duty to the Sons and daughters of Adam in case of Necessity because Order is for the End and thing ordered then much more is a disordered preservation of the Church and saving of souls and serving of God a duty and indeed at that time no disorder at all Sect. 30. 7. Moreover if the failing of Ordination should deprive the world of the preaching of the word or the Churches of the great and necessary benefits of Church Ordinances and Communion then one man yea thousands should suffer and that in the greatest matters for the sin and wilfulness of others and must lie down under such suffering lest he should disorderly redress it But the consequent is against all Justice and Reason Therefore the Antecedent is so to Sect. 31. In a word it is so horrid a conclusion against Nature aâ—d the Gospel and Christian sence that the honour of God the fâ—uits of Redemption the being of the Church the salvation or comfort of mens souls must all be at the Prelates mercy that a considerate Christian cannot when he is himself believe it that it should be in the power of heretical malicious or idle Prelates to deny God his honour and Christ the fruit of all his sufferings aâ—d Saints their Comforts and sinners their salvation and this when the remedie is before us and that it is the will of God that all these evils should be chosen before the evil of an unordained Ministry this is an utterly incredible thing Sect. 32. Argument 2. Another Argument may be this If there may be all things essential to the Ministry without humane Ordination then this Ordination is not of Necessity to its Essence But the Antecedent is true therefore so is the consequent That there be a people qualified to receive a Pastor and persons qualified to be made Pastors and that God hath already determined in his Law that Pastors there shall be and how they shall be qualified is past all dispute So that nothing remains to be done by man Ordainers Magistrates or People but to determine who is the man that Christ describeth in his Law and would have to be the Pastors of such a flock or a Minister of the Gospel and then to solemnize his entrance by an Investiture And now I shall prove that a man may be a Minister without the Ordainers part in these Sect. 33. If the will of Christ may be known without Ordination that this man should be the Pastor of such a People or a Minister of the Gospel then may a man be a Minister without Ordination But the will of Christ may be known c. ergo Sect. 34. Nothing needs proof but the Antecedent For it is but the signification of the will of Christ that conferreth the Power and imposeth the Duty And that his will is sometime signified concerning the individual person without Ordination is apparent hence 1. The Description of such as Christ would have to preach the Gospel is very plain in his holy Canons in the Scripture 2. His Gifts are frequently so eminent in several persons as may remove all just occasion of doubting both from the persons themselves and others 3. Their suitableness to a People by interest acquaintance c. may be as notable 4. The Peoples common and strong affection to them and theirs to the People may be added to all these 5. There may be no Competitor at all or none regardable or comparable and so no controversie 6 The Necessities of the People may be so great and visible that he and they may see that they are in danger of being undone and the Church in danger of a very great loss or hurt if he deny to be their Pastor 7. The Magistrate also may call and command him
in other passages of Scripture had the power of Ordination and that it belonged not only to the Apostles and Evangelists and such as they call Archbishops but that the fixed Bishops of particular Churches had it Sect. 3. The Minor I prove thus that our Ordination is by Scripture Bishops The Scripture Bishops were the Pastors of Particular Churches having no Presbyters subject to them Most of our Ordainers are such Pastors therefore most of our Ordainers are Scripture Bishops Sect 4. The Major is asserted at large by the foresaid 〈◊〉 Dr. H. H. Annot. in Art 11. b. p. 407. Where he shews 〈◊〉 though this title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders have been also 〈◊〉 second Order in the Church is now only in use for them under 〈◊〉 name of Presbyters yet in the Scripture times it belonged princâ—pally if not only to Bishops there being no evidence that any of 〈◊〉 second order were then instituted So that the Scripture Bishops were the Pastors of single Churches having no Presbyters under them for there were no inferiour Presbyters that had not the Power of Ordination instituted in those times This therefore may be taken as a granted truth Sect. 5. And that our Ordainers are such is commonly known 1. They are Pastors it is but few of the Prelates that denyed this They are Rectors of the People and have the Pastoral charge of souls 2. They are Pastors of Particular Churches 3. They have for the most part at least no subject or inferiour Presbyters under them therefore they are Scripture Bishops Sect. 6. Object The difference lyeth in another point The Scripture Bishops had the Power of Ordination Your Pastors have not the Power of Ordination thereefore they are not the same Answ. That is the thing in Question I am proving that they have the power of Ordination thus In Scripture times all single Pastors of single Churches had the Power of Ordination there being no other instituted But our Ordainers are the single Pastors of single Churches and of Christs institution therefore they have the Power of Ordination If the Pastors now are denyed to be such as were instituted in Scripture times 1. Let them shew who did institute them and by what authority 2. The sole Pastors of particular Churches were instituâ—ed in Scripture times But such are ours in question therefore c. Sect. 7. There is no sort of Pastors lawfull in the Church but what were instituted in Scripture times But the sort of Pastors now in question are lawfull in the Church therefore they were instituted in Scripture times The Minor will be granted us of all those that were Ordained by Prelates They would not Ordain men to an office which they thought unlawful The Major is proved thus No sort of Pastors are lawful in the Church but such of whom we may have sufficient evidence that they were instituted by Christ or his Apostles But we can have sufficient evidence of none but such as were instituted in Scripture times that they were instituted by Christ or his Apostles therefore no other sort is lawfull The Major is proved in that none but Christ and such as he committed it to have power to institute new Holy Offices for Worship in the Church But Christ hath committed this to none but Apostles if to them therefore c. Whether Apostles themselves did make any such new Office I will not now dispute but if they did 1. It was by that special Authority which no man since the planting of the Churches by them can lay claim to or prove that they have 2. And it was by that extraordinary guidance and inspiration of the Holy Ghost which none can manifest to have been since that time communicated Sect. 8. Moreover if there were a Power of instituting new Offices in the Church since Scripture times it was either in a Pope in Councils or in single Pastors But it was in none of these not in a Pope for there was no such Creature of long time after much less with this authority Not in a Council For 1. None such was used 2. None such is proved 3. Else they should have it still Not in every Bishop as will be easily granted Sect. 9. If such a Power of instituting New Church-Offices were after Scripture times in the Church then it is ceased since or continueth still Not ceased since For 1. The Powers or officers then lâ—â—t continue still therefore their authority continueth still 2. There is no proof that any such temporary power was given to any since Scripture times Nor doth any such continue still Otherwise men might still make us more New Offices and so we should not know when we have done nor should we need to look into Scripture for Christs will but to the will of men Sect. 10. Argument 2. No men since Scripture times had power to change the Institutions of Christ and the Apostles by taking down the sort of Pastors by them established and setting up another sort in their stead But if there be lawful Pastors of particular Churches that have not power of Ordination then men had power to make such a change For the sort of Pastors then instituted were such as had but one Church and were themselves personally to guide that Church in actual Worship and had the power of Ordination and there was no subject Presbyters nor no single Pastors that had not the Power of Ordination All single Pastors of particular Churches had that Poâ—er then But all or almost all such single Pastors of particular Churches are by the Dissenters supposed to be without that Power now Therefore it is by them supposed that Christs form of Church Government and sort of Officers are changed and consequently that men had power to change them for they suppose it lawfully done Sect. 11. Argument 3. The Pastors of City Churches may ordain especially the sole or chief Pastors Many of our present Ordainers are the Pastors of City Churches and the sole or chief Pastors in some Places therefore they may Ordain The Major is proved from the doctrine of the Dissenters which is that every City Church should have a Bâ—shop and that every Bishop is the chief and sometimes only Pastor of a City Church If they say that yet every Pastor though the sole Pastor of a City Church is not a Bishop I answer that then they will infer the same power of changing Scripture Institutions which I mentioned and disproved before Let them prove such a Power if they can Sect. 12. The Minor is undenyable and seen de facto that many of our Ordainers are such Pastors of City Churches and that of two sorts some of such Cities as have both the Name and Nature of Cities And some of such Cities as have truly the nature but in our English custom of speech have not the name such as are all Corporations in the several Market Towns of England Sect. 13. Argument 4. Those Pastors that have Presbyters
Neminâ—m rectâ— dare quod non habet eumque aut eâ—s qui hac potestate induâ—i nunquam fuerint sine viâ—latione aut sacrilegio quâ—dâ—m sibi arrogare aut assumere aut aliis aeque à Deo non vocatis aut missis communicare neutiquam posse Illud hic nobis unicum mâ—minisse sufficiet unumquemque in Anglicana Ecclesia ab Epiâ—copis ordinatum Presbyterum nulla ordinandi alios facultate aut per se aut quà quolibet comparium caetu munitum praeditum esse nec igitur â—am sibi rectius arrogare posse quam si Diaconorum immo Laicorum unus aut plures tali potestate nullatenus induti idem ausursint The summ is Presbyters have not this power therefore they cannot give it Sect. 98. Answ. If the Argument run thus No man can give that which he hath not Presbyters have not the Office of a Presbyter therefore they cannot give it I then deny the Minor They are not Presbyters if they have not the Office of a Presbyter that therefore which they have to speak in the Dissenters language they may give Sect. 99. But if the Argument be this No man can give that which he hath not Presbyters have not a power of Ordaining therefore they cannot give a power of Ordaining I answer as followeth 1. We receive not our Office by the Gift of man whether Presbyters or Prelates The Power is immediately from Christ and men do but open us the door or determine of the person that shall from Christ receive the power and then put him solemnly into possession It is the first Error of the adversaries to hold that this power is given by men as first having it themselves In the Popes case Bellarmine himself will grant us this Respons ad 7 Theolog. Venet. p. 246.232 Saepe inquit jam dictum est Electionem Cardinalium non conferre potestatem sed designare tantummodo personam cui Deus potestatem tribuit And yet that In summo Pontifice post electionem nulla alia requiritur confirmatio quia statim ut electus est suscipit administrationem ut declarat Nicol. Papa Can. in nomine diâ— 23. pag. 175. And of the Power of Princes the Dissenters will grant it for we have it in their writings that the Power is from God immediately though the people may elect the person You will thrust out all Princes of the world by this Argument and say No man giveth that which he hath not the people have not a Power of Government therefore they cannot give it I would answer you as here God hath the Power and he giveth it but the people that have it not may design the person that shall receive it from God as the Burgesses of a Corporation may choose a Major or Bayliff to receive that power from the Soveraign by the Instrumentality of a Law or Charter which they had not themselves to use or give And so a Presbyterie and sometime the people alone may design the person that shall receive the Office of the Ministrie from God though they had it not themselves to use or give Sect. 100. Resp. 2. By this Argument and its supposition none are true Ministers that are Ordained by Prelates for they have not the Power of the Ministrie to Give but only to Vse no Ordination is a Giving of the Power save only by way of â—nvestiture which supposeth a Title and Right before and is not of absolute necessity to the Possession for in several cases it may be without it Sect. 101. Respons 3. A man may Instrumentally give or deliver both Right and Investiture in that which he hath not himself nor ever had Your servant may by your appointment deliver a Lease a Deed of Gift a Key or twig and turf for Possession of house and lands though he never had house or lands or possession himself It is sufficient that the Donor have it that sends him Sect. 102. Resp. 4. Presbyters have the Power of Presbyters or the Ministerial Office and if they can give that which certainly they have then they can give a Power of Ordaining other Presbyters For to Ordain others is no more then they do themselves in giving the Power or Office which they have therefore if they may do it those that they give their Power to may do it that is may also give others that power which they have Sect. 103. But as to our case in hand it sufficeth that we prove that Presbyters may give others the Office of Presbyters whether this Office contain a Power of Ordaining is another Question but soon dispatcht if this be granted because as is said to Ordain is nothing else but to invest others with the Office or Power which we have our selves Sect. 104. Resp. 5. The Argument maketh more against the Prelates Ordination on another account because that as is proved already that Species of Prelacie that was exercised in England the sole Governours of an hundred or two hundred Churches is so far contrary to the Word of God that we may boldly conclude that as such they have no power to use or give their very Office is humane and destructive of the true Pastoral Office and therefore as such they have less pretence of Divine Authoritie then Presbyters whose Office is of God Yet do I not make their Ordination Null because they were Presbyters as well as Prelates and also were in Possession of the place of Ordainers and had the Magistrates authority Sect. 105. Resp. 6. Presbytrrs have a Power of Ordaining it is already proved And to your confirmation where you say that the Bishops gave them no such Power therefore they have it not I answer 1. I deny the Consequence God gave it them therefore they have it without the Bishops gift 2. If by Giving you mean but an accidental Causation or the action of a Causa sine qua non or a designation of the Person that shall receive it then I deny the Antecedent The Prelates and Electors designed the person and also invested him solemnly in the Office which containeth this Power of Ordination which you deny them Sect. 106. Obj. The Prelates expressed no such thing in their Ordination Ans. 1. It being not the Prelates but Christ that makes the Office we must not go to the words of the Prelates but of Christ to know what the Office is though we may go to the Prelates while the work was in their hands to know who the person is If a Prelate Consecrate a Prelate and yet mention not particularly the works that are pretended to belong to a Prelate you will not think him thereby restrained or disabled to those works He that Crowneth a King and they that choose him though they name not the works of his Office and Power do thereby choose him to all those works that belong to a King God hath set down in his Word that the Husband shall be the Head or Governor of his Wife if now the woman shall
much with Christian comfort when you cannot say that you are sent of God and have nothing but your own overweening conceits of it Could you but say I entered by the way that God appointed and was not my own Judge you might have some more boldness and confidence of Gods assistance Sect. 34. Reas. 18. The most that plead against Ordination that are worthy the name of sober Christians do plead but against the Necessity of it and cannot deny it to be lawful and should not all the reasons before mentioned prevail with you to submit to a lawful thing Sect. 35. Reas. 19. And if it be thus undenyable that men must not be their own Judges it will soon appear that Ministers are the standing Judges of mens fitness for this work because no other Judges are appointed to it or capable of it It must be an ordinary stated way of Approbation that can give us satisfaction for if God had left the case at large for men to go to whom they will it would be all one as to go to none at all but to be Judges themselves And if a standing way of Approbation must be acknowledged let us enquire where it is to be found and look which way you will and you shall find no other but this which is by men of the same Calling with them that are to be Ordained Sect. 36. For 1. Magistrates it cannot be none that I know pretend to that Magistrates in most of the world are Infiâ—els and therefore cannot there be Ordainers and none of them hath the work committed to them by Christ nor do any that I know assume it to themselves Sect. 37. And 2. The people it cannot be For 1. No man can shew a word of precept or example for it nor prove that ever God did give them such a power Consent or Election is all that can be pretended to by them 2. It is a work that they are commonly unable for the Schollars may as well Try and Approve of their Schoolmaster We confess the People must by a judgement of discretion endeavour to find out the best they can but if they had not helps and if they were also called to a judgement of direction and decision what work would they make Do the Major vote or the Minor either in most or almost any Congregations understand whether a man know the meaning of the Scripture or to be able to defend the truth or whether he be Heretical or found in the faith c. God would not set men on a work that is thus beyond the line of their Capacity It is a thing not to be imagined that they that call us to be their Teachers should already be commonâ—y able to Judge whether we are sound or unsound and able to teach them or not for this importeth that they know already as much as we for wherein they are ignorant they cannot judge of us And if they know as much already what need have they of our Teaching 3. And it is contrary to the subjection and inferiority of their Relation they that are commanded to learn and obey us as their Guides may yet consent or choose their Teachers when Approved or to be Approved by abler men but they cannot be imagined to be appointed by God to Ordain their own Overseers this is a most ungrounded fiction Sect. 38. Reas. 20. On the other side it is the Pastors of the Church and only they that are fitted to be the standing Approvers or Ordainers as will appear in these particulars 1. It is they that are justly supposed to be of competent abilities to try a Minister If here and there a Gentleman or other person be able that is a rarity and therefore no standing way for the Church in Ordaining Ministers can be gathered thence 2. Ministers are doubly devoted to God and to his Church and therefore should have and ordinarily have the tenderest care of the Church 3. It is justly supposed that Ministers are ordinarily the most pious and conscionable men that are to be had or els they are too blame that choose them to be Ministers And therefore they may be expected to be most faithful in the work 4. And they are fewer and have lesser perverting interests and therefore are like to be less divided in such determinations then the people that are so many and of so many interests and minds that if it were not for the Moderation of Magistrates and Ministers they would almost everywhere be all to pieces one being for one man and another for another some for one of this mind and way and some for one of another some for the Orthodox and some for the Heretical 5. Lastly it is Ministers whose Office God hath tyed Ordination to and who have time to wait upon it as their duty so that lay all this together and I think the first Proposition is proved for the Necessity ordinarily of the Pastors Approbation and the sinfulness of neglecting it Sect. 39. Prop. 2. It is only the Pastors of one particular Church but also the Pastors of Neighbour chuâ—ches that hold Communion with that Church that should regularly Approve or Ordain Ministers though I deny not but he may be a Minister that hath no Ordination but by the Pastors of a particular Church yet I conceive that this is not a regular course Sect. 40. My reasons are these 1. Because if it be ordinarily tyed to the Pastors of the same Church only to Ordain then it will be done ordinarily without any Pastors at all For most particular Churches in the world have but one Pastor and when he is dead there is none left to Ordain and therefore others or none must do it in such cases Sect. 41. And 2. If there be one left and all the power be left in him the welfare of the Church would run too great an hazzard if every man shall be Ordained a Minister that can procure the Approbation of a single Pastor the Church will be subjected to most of the lamentable miseries before mentioned supposing that men were judges for themselves Sect. 42. And 3. We find in Scripture that it was not the way appointed by the Holy Ghost for single Pastors to Ordain The forecited Texts and examples are a sufficient proof Sect. 43. If any say that the Ruling Elders may concur I answer Though I make no great matter of it nor would not raise a contention about it yet I must say that I never yet saw any satisfactory proof that ever God did institute such Elders as this Objection meaneth in the Church that is 1. Such as are not Ordained but come in by meer Election 2. And such as have the Power of Discipline and Oversight without Authority to preach or administer the Sacraments I think these are but humane creatures though I doubt not but there may be such as Actually shall forbear preaching and administration of the Sacraments when some of their colleagus are fitter for it Sect. 44.
use them and only desire a toleration our selves because we dare not wilfully sin against our light will charity deny us this If men forbear a thing suppose indifferent for fear of Gods displeasure and damnation and profess that were it not for this they would conform to the wills of others are those Christians or men that will come behind them and drive them into hell without compassion and that for things indifferent CHAP. IX Prop. 9. There is no meer Humane Vniversal Soveraign Civil or Ecclesiastical over the whole Church and therefore none to make Laws Obligatory to the whole § 1. I ADD this because of the specious pretences of some that say we are bound to an uniformity in Ceremonies by the Church and call all Schismaticks and such as separate from the Catholick Church that disown and disuse such Ceremonies as on these pretences they obtrude And by the Church that thus obligeth us they mean either some Universal Soveraign Power or else an universal Consent of the Church essential as they call it And that Soveraign must be the Pope or a General Council § 2. If it be Universal Consent of all Believers that they suppose to be the obliging power I shall answer them 1. That Believers are not Governours and Law-givers to the Universal Church no nor to a particular Church If that point of the Separatists be so odious that asserteth the multitude of Believers to be the Governours of a particular Church and to have the power of the Keyes what then shall we think of them that give them even to such as they call the Laity themselves the Government yea in the highest point even Legislation over the Universal Church it self § 3. And 2. I add that the Dissent of those Churches that refuse your Ceremonies doth prove that there is no Universal consent If all must consent we must consent our selves before we be obliged We are as free as others we gave none power to oblige us by their consent If we had it had been Null because we had no authority so to do and could not have obliged our selves by a universal Law or perpetual contract Or if we had we had also power on just occasion to reverse a self-obligation But no such thing de facto can be pretended against us § 4. And if such an obligation by consent should be pretended 3. I would know whether it was by this or by some former generation Not by this as is certain Nor by any former For former ages had no power to bind all their successors in Ceremonies about the worship of God Shew whence they had such a power and prove it if you can we are born as free men as our ancestors were in this § 5. And 4. I would be satisfied whether every mans consent in the world be necessary to the Vniversality or not If it be then there are no Dissenters or no obligation because no Universal consent If not then how many must consent before we are obliged you have nothing to say but a Major part where you can with any shew of reason rest And 1. How shall we know in every Parish in England what mind the Major part of the Christians through the world are of in point of such or such a Ceremony 2. Yea by this rule we have reason to think that both Papists and Protestants must change their Ceremonies because the greater part of Christians in East and South and some in the West are against very many of them § 6. But if it be the Authority of a Soveraign Head that is pleaded as obliging the universal Church to an uniformity in Rites and Ceremonies we must know who that Soveraign is None that we know pretend to it but the Pope and a General Council And for the Pope we have by many volumes proved him an Usurper and no authorized Head of the Church Universal The pretended Vice-Christ is a false Christ. The first usurpers pretended but to a Soveraignty in the Roman world but had never any shew of Government over the Churches in Ethiopia India and the many Churches that were without the verge of the Roman Empâ—re § 7. And as for General Councils 1. They are no more the Visible Head and Soveraign of the Church then the Pope is This I have proved in another Disputation by it self 2. There neither is nor can be any Council truly universal as I have there also shewed It s but a delusory name 3. There never was any such in the world since the Church which before was confined to a narrow room was spread over the world Even at Nice there was no proper representative of almost any but the Churches under the Roman Emperours power Few out of the West even in the Empire and none out of almost any of the Churches without the Empire For what 's one Bishop of Persia or such another of another Countrey and perhaps those prove the Roman subjects too that are so called If there was but one from Spain and only two Presbyters of Rome from Italy and one from France if any and none from many another Countrey in the Empire no wonder if there was none from England Scotland or Ireland c. And therefore there can be no universal obligation on this account § 8. Councils are for Concord by Consultation and consent and not a Soveraign or superiour sort of Governing power And therefore we that consented not are not obliged and if we had consented we might on weighty reasons have withdrawn our consent § 9. The Orders established by General Councils have been laid aside by almost all and that without the repeal of a Council Yes such Orders are seemed to presuppose the custom of the Universal Church if not Apostolical Tradition to have been their ground § 10. Among many others let us instance only in the last Canon of the Nicene Council that forbidding Kneeling commandeth all to pray only standing on the Lords Dayes c. And this was the common use of the Church before as Tertullian and others shew and was afterwards confirmed again in a General Council And yet even the Church of Rome hath cast it off much more the Protestant Churches No General Council hath been of more authority then this of Nice No Ceremony of more common use then this standing in prayer on the Lords dayes So that it might as much as any be called the constitution and custom of the Catholick Church And yet we suppose not these now to bind us to it but have cast it off without the repeal of any other General Council And why are we more bound then by the same authority to other Ceremonies then to this And if to any then to which and to how many and where shall our consciences find rest § 11. Even the Jesuites themselves say that the General disuse of a practice established by Pope and Council is equall to an abrogation without any other repeal so it be not by the said
valid 6. The Old Episcopal Divines thought it lawful to joyn in actual Communion with the Pastors and Churches that were not Prelatical But the New ones separate from their communion and teach the people to do so supposing Sacramental administrations to be there performed by men that are no Ministers and have no authority 7. The Old Episcopal Divines thought it meet to suspend silence imprison or undo those Godly Divines that did not bow towards the Altar or publish to their People Declarations or Instructions for Dancing on the Lords Day or that did preach twice a day But many of the New ones practically told us that this was their judgement Of these differences I have given you some proof hereafter and would do here in the express words of the Authors on both sides were it not that I should be needlesly tedious and that I should unnecessarily offend the particular Divines of the New party who are among us by reciting their words More of the differences I pass by I. And now I would know of those of you that follow the Ancient Episcopal Divines what hindereth you from a charitable peaceable Communion with those Orthodox Ministers now in England that some of you stand at a distance from Doctrinal differences at least requiring such a distance you cannot pretend B p Hall tels you in his Peace-maker after cited that there is none between you and the Forrein Presbyterian Churches And as for the matter of Episcopacy if you will insist upon the late English Frame as necessary viz. That there be but One Bishop over many hundred Churches and that he have the sole power of Excommunication and that he rule by a Layâ—Chancellor c. and be a Lord and seconded with a forcing power c. then you will forsake the Iudgement of your Leaders For they will tell you that some of these are but separable appurtenances some of them corruptions and blemishes and some not Necessary What need we any more ado You see in the published Iudgements of B p Hall B p Usher D r Holdsworth Forbes and others after cited that they would have all Presbyters to be Governors of the Churches one of them having a stated Presidency or Moderatorship and this will content them And are we not then agreed I am confident most of the Ministers in England would be content to yield you this But what if there be some that are not of your mind concerning the stated Presidency which you desire will you therefore uncharitably refuse communion with them so would not your Leaders In this therefore you will forsake them and forsake many holy Churches of Christ and forsake charity and Christ himself that teacheth you another lesson Will it not content you that you have freedom your selves to do that which seemeth best in your own eyes unless all others be of your opinion But perhaps you will say that you have not Liberty your selves to practise according to this your judgement To which I answer 1. Your Brethren of the Ministery have not the power of the Sword and therefore do neither deny you Liberty nor can give it you It is the Magistrates work And will you separate from us for other mens doings For that you have no rational pretence If you know of any that perswade Magistrates to restrain your Liberty that 's nothing to others Censure none but those that you know to be guilty 2. I never knew that you were deprived of the Liberty of exercising such an Episcopacy as the forementioned Bishops do desire I do not believe you could be hindered and we that are your neighbours never hear of it I know not of either Law or Execution against you If you think that the clause in the Covenant or the Ordinance against Prelacy or the late Advice that excepts Prelacy from Liberty are any restraint to you I think you are much mistaken It is only the late frame of Prelacy as it stood by Law exercised by Archbishops Bishops Deans Chancellors c. and that by force upon dissenters that is taken down You have not Liberty to force any by corporal punishment to your obedience But you have full Liberty for ought that ever I heard to exercise the meer Episcopacy desired by Hall Usher and such like on all that are of your judgement and will submit to it That we may hold constant Assemblies of Pastors we find by experience And in these Assemblies if you will choose one for your stated President who will hinder you No one I am confident Tell us whoever suffered for so doing or was prohibited or any way hindered from it by any force Nay more if you will give this President a Negative vote in Ordination and Iurisdiction who will hinder you yea who can If twenty Ministers shall resolve that they will never Ordain or Excommunicate any without the consent yea or Command if you must have it so of such a man whom they take for their President who can or will compell them to the contrary And all the People that are of your mind have Liberty to joyn themselves with such Pastors on such terms and submit themselves to you if they will But you will say that this is no setting up of Episcopacy while every one that is unwilling to obey us may refuse it I answer This is all that the Nature of Episcopacy requireth And this is all that the Church saw practised even Rome it self for above three hundred years after Christ. And is not that now tolerable for your Communion with us which served then for the Communion of all the Churches on earth Is the Primitive pattern of purity and simplicity become so vile in your eyes as to be inconsistent with Christian Communion Let not such principles be heard from your mouths or seen in your practises Whether the Magistrate ought to compell us all to be of your mind or way I will not now meddle with but if he will not will you therefore separate from your Brethren Or will you not exercise the Primitive Episcopacy on Consenters because you have not the sword to force Dissenters And are you denied your Liberty because you are not backed by the Sword This concerneth other mens Liberties and not yours You have the Liberty of Episcopal Government though not of smiting others with the Magistrates Sword and as much Liberty for ought I know as Presbyterians or Independents have though not so much countenance And how comes it to pass that the other modes of Government are commonly exercised upon meer Liberty and yours is not Is it because you have no confidence in any Arm but flesh If your Episcopal Power be of Divine appointment why may you not trust to a Divine assistance as well as others that you think are not of God If it can do nothing without the Sword let the Sword do all without it and retain its proper honour If it can do less on voluntary Subjects then other ways of Church-government can
authority and gifts I think was done in Scripture times and might have been after if it had not then And my judgement is that ordinarily every particular Church such as our Parish Churches are had more Elders then One but not such store of men of eminent gifts as that all these Elders could be such But as if half a dozen of the most judicious persons of this Parish were Ordained to be Elders of the same Office with my self but because they are not equally fit for publick preaching should most imploy themselves in the rest of the Oversight consenting that the publick preaching lie most upon me and that I be the Moderator of them for Order in Circumstantials This I think was the true Episcopacy and Presbytery of the first times From the mistake of which two contrary Errors have arisen The one of those that think this Moderator was of another Office in specie having certain work assigned him by God which is above the reach of the Office of Presbyters to perform and that he had many fixed Churches for his charge The other of them that think these Elders were such as are called now Lay-elders that is Vnordained men authorized to Govern without Authority to Preach Baptize or Administer the Lords Supper And so both the Prelatical on one side and the Presbyterians and Independents on the other side run out and mistake the ancient form and then contend against each other This was the substance of what I wrote to Mr. Vines which his subjoyned Letter refers to where he signifieth that his judgement was the same When Paul and Barnabas were together Paul was the chief speaker and yet Barnabas by the Idolaters called Jupiter Nature teacheth us that men in the same Office should yet have the preheminence that 's due to them by their Age and Parts and Interests c. and that Order should be kept among them as in Colledges and all Societies is usual The most excellent part of our work is publick preaching but the most of it for quantity is the rest of the Oversight of the Church in Instructing personally admonishing reproving enquiring into the truth of accusations comforting visiting the sick stablishing the weak looking to the poor absolving answering doubts excommunicating and much more And therefore as there is a necessity as the experienced know of many Elders in a particular Church of any great number so it is fit that most hands should be most imployed about the said works of Oversight yet so as that they may preach as need and occasion requireth and administer Sacraments and that the eminent Speakers be most employed in publick preaching yet so as to do their part of the rest as occasion requireth And so the former Elders that Rule well shall be worthy of double honour but especially these that labour in the Word and Doctrine by more ordinary publick preaching And such kind of seldom-preaching Ministers as the former were in the first times and should be in most Churches yet that are numerous Sect. 6. When I speak in these Papers therefore of other mens Concessions that there were de facto in Scripture times but One Bishop without any subject Presbyters to a particular Church remember that I speak not my own judgement but urge against them their own Concessions And when I profess my Agreement with them it is not in this much less in all things for then I needed not disspute against them but it is in this much that in Scripture times there was de facto 1. No meer Bishop of many particular Churches or stated worshipping Congregations 2. Nor any distinct Office or Order of Presbyters that radically had no Power to Ordain or Govern or Confirm c. which are the subject Presbyters I mean Sect. 7. Specially remember that by Bishops in that dispute I mean according to the Modern use one that is no Archbishop and yet no meer Presbyter but one supposed to be between both that is a Superior to meer Presbyters in Order or Office and not only in degree or modification of the exercise but below Archbishops whether in Order or Degree These are they that I dispute against excluding Metropolitans or Archbishops from the question and that for many Reasons Sect. 8. If it were proved or granted that there were Archbishops in those times of Divine Institution it would no whit weaken my Arguments For it is only the lowest sort of Bishops that I dispute about yea it confirmeth them For if every combination of many particular Churches had an Archbishop then the Governors of such Combinations were not meer Bishops and then the meer Bishops were Parish Bishops or Bishops of single Churches only and that is it that I plead for against Diocesan Bishops that have many of these Churches perhaps some hundreds under one Bishop of the lowest rank having only Presbyters under him of another Order Sect. 9. If any think that I should have answered all that is written for an Apostolical Institution of Metropolitans or of Archbishops or of the subject sort of Presbyters or other points here toucht I answer them 1. In the former my work was not much concerned nor can any man prove me engaged to do all that he fancieth me concerned to do 2. Few men love to be contradicted and confuted and I have no reason to provoke them further then necessity requireth it 3. I take not all that I read for an argument so considerable as to need Replyes If any value the Arguments that I took not to need an Answer let them make their best of them I have taken none of them out of their hands by robbing them of their Books if they think them valid let them be so to them Every Book that we write must not be in folio and if it were we should leave some body unanswered still I have not been a contemner or neglecter of the writings of the contrary-minded But voluminously to tell the world of that I think they abuse or are abused in is unpleasing and unprofitable Sect. 10. And as to the Jus Divinum of limited Diocesses to the Apostles as Bishops and of Archbishops Metropolitans c. I shall say but this 1. That I take not all for currant in matter of fact that two or three or twice so many say was done when I have either cross testimony or valid Reasons of the improbability I believe such Historians but with a humane faith and allow them such a degree of that as the probability of their report and credibility of the persons doth require 2. I take it for no proof that all that was done in all the Churches that I am told was done in some 3. I take the Law of Nature and Scripture to be the entire Divine Law for the Government of the Church and World 4. And therefore if any Father or Historian tell me that this was delivered by the Apostles as a Law to the Vniversal Church which is not contained in Scriptures
Presbyters and then the Government of the Church will be such as you blame Ans. It is the thing I plead for that every Church may have such Bishops as they had in the Apostles days and not meer new devised Presbyters that are of another Office and Order Sect. 23. Object Bishops had Deacons to attend them in the Scripture times though not Presbyters therefore it follows not that Bishops had then but One Congregation Answ. Yes beyond doubt For Deacons could not and did not perform the Pastoral part in the whole publick worship of any stated Churches They did not preach as Deacons and pray and praise God in the publick Assemblies and administer the Sacraments It 's not affirmed by them that are against us therefore there were no more Churches then Bishops Sect. 24. Object But what doth your Arguing make against the other Episcopal Divines that are not of the opinion that there were no meer Presbyters in Scripture times Answ. 1. Other Arguments here are as much against them though this be not if they maintain that sort of Episcopacy which I oppose 2. They also confess the smalness of Churches in Scripture times as I have shewed out of Bishop Downam and that is it that I plead for Sect. 25. Object But if you would have all reduced to the state that de facto the Church Government was in in Scripture times you would have as but one Church to a Bishop so but One Bishop to a Church as Dr. H. Dissert 4 c. 19 20 21 22. hath proved copiously that is that Scripture mentioneth no assistant Presbyters with the Bishop and would that please you that think a single Congregation should have a Presbyterie You should rather as he teacheth you c. 21. p. 237. be thankful to Ignatius and acknowledge the dignity of your Office ab â—o primario defensore astrui propugnari Answ. As we make no doubt from plain Scripture to prove and have proved it that single Churches had then many Presbyters some of them at least So having the greatest part of Fathers and Episcopal Divines of our mind herein even Epiphanius himself we need not be very solicitous about the point of Testimony oâ— Authority 2. We had rather of the two have but one Pastor to a Congregation then one to a hundred or two hundred Congregations having a Presbyter under him in each authorized only to a part of the work 3. Either the distinct Office of the Presbyters is of Divine Institution to be continued in the Church or not If not Bishops or some body it seems may put down the Office If it be then it seems all Gods Vniversal standing Laws even for the species of Church Officers are not contained in Scripture And if not in Scripture where then If in the Fathers 1. How shall we know which are they and worthy of that name and honor 2. And what shall we do to reconcile their contradictions 3. And what number of them must go to be the true witnesses of a Divine Law 4. And by what note may we know what points so to receive from them and what not But if it be from Councils that we must have the rest of the Laws of God not contained in the Scripture 1. Is it from all or some only If from all what a case are we in as obliged to receive Contradictions and Heresies If from some only which are they and how known and why they rather then the rest Why not the second of Ephesus as well as the first at Constantinople But this I shall not now further prosecute unless I were dealing with the Papists to whom have said more of it in another writing 4. Ignatius his Presbyters were not men of another Office nor yet set over many Churches that had all but one Bishop But they were all in the same Churches with the Bishop and of the same Office only subject to his moderation or presidency for Vnity and Order sake and this we strive not against if limited by the general Rules of Scripture Sect. 26. Object Those that you have to deal with say not that There were no Presbyters in the Apostles days but only that in the Apostles writings the word Bishops always signifies Bishops and the word Elders either never or but rarely Presbyters But it is possible for them to be in the time of those writings that are not mentioned in those writings and the Apostles times were larger then their writings as you are told Vind. against the Lond. Minist p. 106. Ans. 1. The words I cited from Annot. in Act. 11. faithfully which you may peruse which say that there is no evidence that in Scripture times any of the second Order were instituted So that it is not Scripture writings only but Scripture times that 's spoken of And 2. If there be no evidence of it the Church cannot believe it or affirm it for it judgeth not of unrevealed things and therefore to us it is no Institution that hath no evidence 3. The Apostles were all dead save John before the end of Scripture times So that they must be instituted by John only And John dyed the next year after Scripture times as the chief Chronologers judge For as he wrote his Apocalypse about the 14 th year of Domitian so his Gospel the year before Trajan and dyed the next year being after the commoner reckoning An. D. 98. and some think more And what likelihood or proof at least that John did institute them the year that he dyed when the same men tell us of his excursion into Asia to plant Elders bâ—fore that year it 's like 4. And if they were not instituted in Scripture time then no testimony from Antiquity câ—n prove them then instituted But indeed if we had such testimony and nothing of it in the Scripture it self we should take it as little to our purpose For 5. doth Antâ—quity say that the Institution was Divine of Universal obligation to the Church or only that it was but a prudential limitation of the exercise of the same Office the like I demand of other like Testimonies in case of Diocesses Metropolitans c. If only the later it binds us not but proveth only the licet and not the oportet at least as to all the Church And then every Countrey that finds cause may set up another kind of government â—ut if it be the former that is asserted as from antiquity then the Scripture containeth not all Gods Vniversal Laws Which who ever affirmeth must go to Fathers or Councils instead of Scripture to day and to the infallibility of the Pope or a Prophetical Inspiration to morrow and next Sect. 27. Once more to them that yet will maintain that the Apostles modelled the Ecclesiastical form to the Civil and that as a Law to the whole Church we take it as their Concession that then we ow no more obedience to the Archbishop of Canterbury then to the Civil Magistrate of Canterbury and especially
by another that could not have any power to Rule him without that consent of his own and voluntary Condescension 5. As for the fifth sort that is The standing President of a Classis having no Negative voice I should easily consent to them for order and Peace for they are no distinct Office nor assâ—me any Government over the Presbyters And the Presbyterian Churches do commonly use a President or Moderator pro tempore And doubtless if it be lawful for a Month it may be lawful for a year or twenty years or quam diu se bene gâ—sserit and how many years had we one Moderator of our Assemblies of Divines at Westminster and might have had him so many years more if death had not cut him off And usually God doth not so change his gifts but that the same man who is the fittest this month or year is most likely also to be the fittest the next 6. And for the sixth sort viz. A President of a Classes having a Negative voice I confess I had rather be without him and his power is not agreeable to my Judgement as a thing instituted by God or fittest in it self But yet I should give way to it for the Peace of the Church and if it might heal that great breach that is between us and the Epâ—scopal Brethren and the many Churches that hold of that way but with these Cautions and Limitations 1. That they shall have no Negative in any thing that is already a duty or a sin for an Angel from heaven cannot dispense with Gods Law This I doubt not will be yielded 2. That none be forced to acknowledge this Negative vote in them but that they take it from those of the Presbyters that will freely give or acknowledge it For its a known thing that all Church-power doth work only on the Conscience and therefore only prevail by procuring Consent and cannot compell 3. Nor would I ever yield that any part of the Presbyters dissenting should be taken as Schismaticks and cast out of Communion or that it should be made the matter of such a breach This is it that hath broken the Church that Bishops have thrust their Rule on men whether they would or not and have taken their Negative voice at least if not their sole Jurisdiction to be so necessary as if there could be no Church without it or no man were to be endured that did not acknowledge it but he that denyeth their disputable Power must be excommunicated with them that blaspheme God himself And as the Pope will have the acknowledgement of his Power to be inseparable from a member of the Catholike Church and cast out all that deny it so such Bishops take the acknowledgement of their Jurisdiction to be as inseparable from a member of a particular Church and consequently as they suppose of the universal and so to deny them shall cut men off as if they denyed Christ. This savoureth not of the humility that Christ taught his followers 4. Nor would I have any forced to declare whether they only submit for Peace or consent in approbation nor whether they take the Bishops Negative vote to be by Divine Institution and so Necessary or by the Presbyters voluntary consent contract as having power in several cases to suspend the exercise of their own just authority when the suspension of it tendeth to a publike Good No duty is at all times a duty If a man be to be ordained by a Presbytery it is not a flat duty to do it at that time when the President is absent except in case of flat necessity why may not the rest of the Presbyters then if they see it conducible to the good of the Church resolve never to ordain except in case of such Necessity but when the President is there and is one therein which is indeed to permit his exercise of a Negative vote without professing it to be his right by any Institution It is lawful to ordain when the President is present it is lawful out of cases of Necessity to forbear when he is absent according therefore to the Presbyterian principles we may resolve to give him de facto a Negative voice that is not to ordain without him but in Necessity and according to the Episcopal principles we must thus do for this point of Ordination is the chief thing they stand on Now if this be all the difference why should not our May be yield to their Must be if the Peace of the Church be found to lye upon it But 5. I would have this Caution too that the Magistrate should not annex his sword to the Bishops censure without very clear reason but let him make the best of his pure spiritual Authority that he can we should have kept peace with Bishops better if they had not come armed and if the Magistrates had not become their Executioners 7. As to the seventh sort viz. A President of a Province fixed without any Negative voice I should easily admit of him not only for Peace but as orderly and convenient that there might be some one to give notice of all Assemblies and the Decrees to each member and for many other mattters of order this is practised in the Province of London pro tempore and in the other Presbyterian Churches And as I said before in the like case I see not why it may not be lawful to have a President quam diu se bene gesserit as well for a moneth or a year or seven years as in our late Assembly two successively were more as I remember so that this kind of Diocesan or Provincial Bishop I think may well be yielded to for the Churches Order and Peace 8. As to the eighth sort of Bishops viz. The Diocesan who assumeth the sole Government of many Parish Churches both Presbyters and People as ten or twelve or twenty or more as they used to do even a whole Diocess I take them to be intolerable and destructive to the Peace and happiness of the Church and therefore not to be admitted under pretence of Order or Peace if we can hinder them But of these we must speak more when we come to the main Question 9. As for the ninth sort of Bishops viz. A Diocesan Ruling all the Presbyâ—ers but leaving the Presbyters to Rule the People and consequently taking to himself the sole or chief Power of Ordination but leaving Censures and Absolution to them except in case of Appeal to himself I must needs say that this sort of Episcopacy is very ancient and hath been for many ages of very common reception through a great part of the Church but I must also say that I can see as yet no Divine institution of such a Bishop taken for a fixed limited officer and not the same that we shall mention in the eleventh place But how far mens voluntary submission to such and consent to be ruled by them may authorize them I have no mind to dispute
Churches must remain polluted and ungoverned through the unavoidable absence of those twelve or thirteen men The Apostles therefore did admonish Pastors to do their duties and when themselves were present had power to do the like and to censure Pastors or people that offended but they did not take on them the full Government of any Church nor keep a Negative vote in the Government Prop. 15. It seems utterly untrue that Christ did deliver the Keyes only to the twelve Apostles as such and so only to their Successors and not the seventy Disciples or any Presbyters For 1. The seventy also were General unfixed Officers and not like fixed Presbyters or Bishops and therefore having a larger Commission must have equal power 2. The Apostles were not single Bishops as now they are differenced from others but they were such as had more extensive Commissions then those now called Arch Bishops or Patriarchs If therefore the Keyes were given them as Apostles or General Officers then they were never given to Bishops For Bishops as fixed Bishops of this or that Diocess are not Successors of the Apostles who were Geneâ—al unfixed Officers 3. It is granted commonly by Papists and Protestants that Presbyters have the power of the Keyes though many of them think that they are limited to exercise them under the Bishops and by their Direction and Consent of which many School-men have wrote at large 4. The Key of Excommunication is but a Ministerial Authoritative Declaration that such or such a known Offendor is to be avoided and to charge the Church to avoid Communion with him and him to avoid or keep away from the Priviledges of the Church and this a meer Presbyter may do he may authoritatively Declare such a man to be one that is to be avoided and charge the Church and him to do accordingly The like I may say of Absolution if they belong to every authorized Pastor Preacher and Church guide as such then not to a Bishop only but to a Presbyter also And that these Keyes belong to more then the Apostles and their Successors is plain in that these are insufficient Naturally to use them to their Ends. An Apostle in Antioch cannot look to the censuring of all persons that are to be Censured at Athens Paris London c. so that the most of the work would be totally neglected if only they and their supposed Successors had the doing of it I conclude therefore that the Keyes belong not only to Apostles and their Successors in that General Office no nor only to Diocesan Bishops for then Presbyters could not so much as exercise them with the Bishops in Consistory which themselves of late allow Prop. 16. The Apostles were fallible in many matters of fact and consequently in the Decisions that depended thereupon as also in the Prudential determination of the time and season and other Cirumstances of known duties And thence it was that Paul and Barnabas so disagreed even to a parting where one of them was certainly in the wrong And hence Peter withdrew from the uncircumcision and misled Barnabas and others into the same dissimulation so far that he was to be blamed and withstood Gal. 2. Prop. 17. In such Cases of misleading an Apostle was not to be follownd no more is any Church-Governor now but it is lawful and needful to dissent and withstand them to the face and to blame them when they are to be blamed for the Churches safety as Paul did by Peter Galatians 2.1 Prop. 18. In this Case the Apostles that by Office were of equal Authority yet were unequal when the Reasons and Evidence of Gods mind which they produced was unequal so that a Presbyter or Bishop that produceth better Reasons is to be obeyed before another that produceth less Reason or that Erreth And the Bishop of another Church that produceth better Evidence of Gods mind is to be obeyed before the proper Bishop of that same Church that produceth weaker and worse Evidence Yea a private man that produceth Gods Word is to be obeyed before Bishops and Councils that go against it or without it in that case where the word bindeth us so that in all cases where Scripture is to determine he that bringeth the best Scripture proof is the chief Ruler that is ought chiefly to prevail Though in the determination of meer Circumstances of duty which Scripture determineth not but hath left to Church-Guides to determine pro re natâ it may be otherwise so that the Apostles power in determining matters of faith was not as Church-Governors but as men that could produce the surest Evidence Prop. 19. It is not easie to manifest whether every Presbyter in prima instantia be not an Officer to the Church Universal before he be affixed to a particular Church and whether he may not go up and down over the world to exercise that office where ever he hath admittance And if so what then could an Apostle have done by vertue of his meer office without the advantage of his extraordinary abilities and priviledges which the Presbyter may not do May an Apostle charge the people where he comes to avoid this or that seducer or heretick so may any Preacher that shall come among them and that by authority May an Apostle Excommunicate the very Pastor of the place and deprive him why what is that but to perswade the people and Authoritatively require them to avoid and withdraw from such a Pastor if the Cause be manifest And so may any Pastor or Preacher that comes among them For if as Cyprian saith it chiefly belong to the people even of themselves to reject and withdraw from such a Pastor then a Preacher may by Authority perswade and require them to do their own duty Yet I shall acknowledge that though both may do the same duty and both by Authority yet possibly not both by equal Authority but an Apostle Majore authoritate and so may lay a stronger obligation on men to the same duty but the rest I determine not but leave to enquiry Prop. 20. In making Laws or Canons to bind the Church which are now laid down in Scripture the Apostles acted as Apostles that is as men extraordinarily Commissioned illuminated and enabled infallibly to deliver Gods will to the world And therefore herein they have no Successors In Conclusion therefore seeing that matters of meer Order and Decency depending on Circumstances sometime rationally mutable sometime yearly daily hourly mutable are not to be determined Vniversally alike to all the Church nor to all a Nation nor by those that are at too great a distance but by the present Pastor who is to manage the work and being intrusted therewith is the fittest Judge of such variable Circumstances and seeing for standing Ordinances that equally belong to all ages and places Gods word is perfect and sufficient without the Bishops Canons and seeing that Scripture is a perfect Law of God and Rule of Christian faith and seeing that
altogether neglect it So that some through a Carnal indulging of their own ease and quiet and to avoid mens ill will and some through the great oppositions of the people or for one such cause or other do let all alone In so much as even here in this County where we have associated and engaged our selves to some execution of Discipline this work goes on so heavily as we see and need not mention further when yet there is not a daies omission of Sermons and other Ordinances so that its apparent that its it which all lazie carnal man-pleasing Ministers may well comply with as that which suites their Carnal Interests to be free from the toil and care of Discipline If you say why then do the Bishops desire it if flesh and blood be against it I answer Experience and the impossibility of performance tells us that it is not the work but the empty name and honour that they took up and that indeed the flesh doth much more desire Had they desired or been willing of the work as they were of Lordships and Riches they would have done it Argum. 9. NO Episcopacy at least which hath so many evils as aforesaid attending it which is not of Gods Institution should be admitted into the Church The late English Prelacy as to the disapproved properties before mentioned is not of Gods Institution therefore it is not to be admitted into the Church The Major is confessed by all that plead for the Ius Divinum of Episcopacy or most and with the qualification from the ill consequents will be yielded by all The Minor I prove by parts 1. That the exclusion of Presbyters from Rule and the putting the Government from them into a Lay-mans hand with the rest before mentioned are not of Divine Institution is proved already as much as needs 2. If at the present we yield a superintendency or preheminence of one Pastor before others yet the Controversie remaineth whether a Prelate should be only Parochial that is only the President of the Elders of one particular Church or at the utmost of that with two or three or a few neighbour small Parishes which he may well oversee without the neglect of the Discipline Now I know not how any man of that way can prove out of Scripture that a Bishop must have more then one Parish much less more then three or four or a few For it is confest by them for ought I know that Scripture doth not determine how many Presbyters or Churches a Bishop must have under him only we say he must have but one for the main thing that they labour to prove is that a Bishop is above Presbyters as to Ordination and Jurisdiction and so he may be if he be a Parish-Bishop for a parish-Parish-Church may have a Curate and 2 or 3 Chappels with Curates at them besides Deacons and according to the old course perhaps many Presbyters more that did not publikely preach though they wanted not authority but oversee the flock Now one man may have all that most of their Arguments require if he be but the chief over this Parish Presbytery But perhaps they will say that according to Scripture every City only must have a Bishop and therefore all the Country about must be his Diocess though the number of Churches and Presbyters under him be not determined To which I answer that the word Only is not in Scripture no Text saith that it was Only in Cities that Churches or Bishops were to be seated There is no prohibition of setling them in Villages It will be said that There is no example of any Bishop but in a City To which I answer 1. Themselves ordinarily tell us in case of Sacrament gesture and many other things that examples do not alway bind affirmatively much less can they prove that they bind negatively I mean not to do that which was not done Can you prove in Scripture that there were any particular Churches or Assemblies for Sacraments and other worship in Villages If not then is it lawful now to have any If not then all our Parish Churches in the Country are unlawful If yea then why may we not have Bishops in the Countreys without Scripture example as well as Churches for we shall prove that the reasons why there were none or few Bishops in the Country was for want of Churches for them to oversee The Gospel was not then preached nor any Bishops placed in many Nations of the world it doth not follow therefore that there must be none since 2. The reason is evident why Churches and Bishops were first planted in Cities because there was the greatest Concourse of people not that God loves a Citizen better then a Countrey-man or that he will have his Churches so limited to soil or place or scituation it is the number of persons where-ever they live that must be regarded that the Church be not too great nor too small but if there be the same number of people Cohabiting in the Countrey as one of the Apostolical Churches did consist of then there is the same reason to have a Church and Bishop in that Country Village as was then for having one in a City 3. Elders should be ordained in every Church and therefore Bishops for some of them say that these were Bishops But Churches may be in Country Villages therefore Elders and Bishops may be in Country-Villages 4. I prove from Scripture that there were Bishops in Villages or out of Cities thus Where there was a Church there was a Bishop But in a Village there was a Church therefore The Major I prove from Act. 14.23 compared with 1 Tim. 3. They ordained them Elders in every Church or Church by Church but these Elders are called Bishops in 1 Tim. 3. and by some of that way maintained to be such For the Minor I prove it from Rom. 16.1 where there is mention of the Church at Cenchrea but Cenchrea was no City but as Grotius speaks Portus Corinthiorum ut Piraeus Atheniensium viz. ad sinum Saronicum apparet ibi Ecclesiam fuisse Christianorum Grot. in Act. 18.18 in Rom. 16.1 vide et Downam Defensâ— pag. 105. who out of Strabâ— saith it was the Port that served most properly for Asia But Bishop Downam saith ibid. that Cenchrea was a Parish subordinate to the Church of Corinth having not a Bishop or Presbytery but a Presbyter assigned to it so before he saith by a Church he means a Company of Chrâ—stiâ—ns haâ—ing a Bishop and Presbytery But if he will so define a Church as that the Prelate shall enter the Definition then he may well prove that every Church had a Prelate And so a Patriarch may be proved to be Necessary to every Church if you will say you mean only such congregations as have a Patriarch But it was denominated a Church Act. 14.23 before they had Presbyters ordained to them and so before fixed Bishops when the Apostles had converted and congregated them they
way or other feel ere long that they have owned a very unprofitable cause and such as they shall wish they had let alone and that it made not for their honour to be so much enemies to the welfare of the Church as the enemies of the abolition of that Prelacy will appear to be Cons. II. The matter of that clause in the National Covenant which concerneth the abolition of this Prelacy before mentioned was so far from deserving the Reproaches and Accusations that are bestowed on it by some that it was just and necessary to the well being of the Church In this also I purposely mean the Civil controversie about the authority of imposing taking or prosecuting the Covenant and speak only of the Matter of it to avoid the losing of the truth by digressions and new controversies They that by reproaching this clause in the Covenant do own the Prelacy which the Covenant disowneth might shew more love to the Church and their own souls by pleading for sickness and nakedness and famine and by passionate reproaches of all that are against these then by such owning and pleading for a far greater evil Cons. III. Those of the English Ministry that are against the old Episcopacy and are glad that the Church is rid of it are not therefore guilty of Schism nor of sinfull disobedience to their spiritual superiours If any of them did swear obedience to the Prelates a tyrannicall imposition that God never required nor the Primitive Church never used that 's nothing to our present case which is not about the keeping of oaths but the obeying or rejecting the Prelacy in it self considered It is not schismatical to depart from an â—â—â—rpation that God disowneth and the Church is endangered and so much wronged by and to seek to pull up the Roots of Schism which have bred and fed it in the Churches so long Cons. IV. Those that still justifie the ejected Prelacy and desire the restauration of it as they needlesly choose the guilt of the Churches desolations so are they not to be taken for men that go about to heal our breaches but rather for such as would widen and continue them by restoring the main cause Cons. V. If we had had such an Episcopacy as Bishop Hall and Bishop Vsher did propound as satisfactory and such men to manage it Episcopacy and Peace might have dwelt together in England to this day It is not the the Name of a Bishop that hath been the matter of our trouble but the exorbitant Species introducing unavoidably the many mischiefs which we have seen and felt Cons. VI. Ordination by the ejected Prelacy in specie is not of necessity to the being or well-being of a Presbyter or Deacon If the Species of Prelacy it self be proved contrary to the word of God and the welfare of the Church then the Ordination that is by this Species of Prelacy cannot be necessary or as such desirable Cons. VII A Parochial or Congregational Pastor having assistant Presbyters and Deacons either existent or in expectance was the Bishop that was in the dayes of Ignatius Iustin Tertullian and that Dr. Hammond describeth as meant in many Scriptures and existent in those dayes I speak not now to the question about Archbishops Cons. VIII The Ordination that is now performed by these Parochial Bishops especially in an assembly guided by their Moderator is beyond all just exception Valid as being by such Bishops as the Apostles planted in the Churches and neerer the way of the Primitive Church then the Ordination by the ejected Species of Prelates is Cons. IX As the Presbyters of the Church of Alexandria did themselves make one their Bishop whom they chose from among themselves and set him in a higher degree as if Deacons make an Archdeacon or Souldiers choose one and make him their Commander saith Hierom ad Evagr. so may the Presbyters of a Parochial Church now And as the later Canons require that a Bishop be ordained or consecrated by three Bishops so may three of these Primitive Parochial Bishops ordain or consecrate now another of their degree And according to the Canons themselves no man can justly say that this is invalid for want of the Consecration by Archbishops or of such as we here oppose Cons. X. Those that perswade the People that the Ordinanation of those in England and other Churches is null that is not by such as the English Prelates were and that perswade the people to take them for no Presbyters or Pastors that are not ordained by such Prelates and do make an actual separation from our Churches and Ministers and perswade others to the like upon this ground and because the Ministers have disowned the English Prelacy and withal confess that Church of Rome to be a true Church and their ordination and Priesthood to be just or true are uncharitable and dangerously Schismatical though under pretence of decrying Schism and many wayes injurious to the Church and to the souls of men and to themselves This will not please but that I not only speak it but further manifest it is become Necessary to the right Information of others FINIS The Second DISPUTATION VINDICATING The Protestant Churches and MINISTERS that have not Prelatical Ordination from the Reproaches of those Dividers that would nullifie them WRITTEN Upon the sad complaints of many Godly Ministers in several parts of the Nation whose Hearers are turning Separatists By Rich. Baxter LONDON Printed by Robert White for Nevil Simmons Bookseller in Kederminster 1658. The Preface Christian Reader IF thou be but for the interest of Christianity more than of a party and a Cordial friend to the Churches Peace though thou be never so much resolved for Episcopacy I doubt not but thou and I shall be one if not in each Opinin yet in our Religion and in Brotherly affection and in the very bent of our labours and our lives And I doubt not but thou wilt approve of the scope and substance of this following Disputation what imperfections soever may appear in the Manner of it For surely there is that of God within thee that will hardly suffer thee to believe that while Rome is taken for a true Church the Reformed that have no Prelates must be none that their Pastors are meer Lay-men their Ordination being Null and consequently their administrations in Sacraments c. Null and of no Validity The Love that is in thee to all believers and especially to the Societies of the Saints and the honour and interest of Christ will keep thee from this or strive against it as nature doth against poyson or destructive diseases If thou art not a meer Opinionist in Religion but one that hast been illuminated by the spirit of Christ and felt his love shed abroad in thy heart and hast ever had experience of spiritual communion with Christ and his Church in his holy Ordinances I dare then venture my cause upon thy judgement Go
spoke of such Bishops only as we have in question or that he did not plainly speak of Presbyters as such For he speaks of the plenitude of Power and Grace in the Church and therefore intended more then what was proper to a Prelate 2. He mentioneth Elders Majores natu in general without distinction And 3. His praesident is plainly related to the Church as the ubi shews it being the People and not the Elders over whom these Elders are said to preside And 4. Baptizing is first instanced which was known to be commonly the work of Presbyters and never appropriated to the Prelate So that the same persons that did Baptize even the Elders of the Church according to Firmilian did then possess the power of laying on hands and of ordaining But these things are more fully discussed in what followeth And if any either adversary or friend would see the Reformed Churches Ministry and Ordination more fully vindicated I refer them to Voetius against Jasenius Desperata causa Papatus which if I had read before I had written this Disputation I think I should have spared my labour Reader if others are too busie to misled thee I may suppose thee unwilling to be misled especially in a matter of so great concernment For saith Blessed Agustine Multos invenimus qui mentiri velint qui autem falli â—eminem de Doctrin Christ. l. 1. cap. 36. And therefore as thou lovest Christ his Church and Gospel and the souls of others and thine own take heed how thou venturest in following a sect of angry men to unchurch so great and excellent a part of the Catholich Church and to vilifie and depose so great a number of able faithfull Ministers of Christ as those that had not Prelatical Ordination And if you are Gentlemen or unlearned men that for want of long and diligent studying of these matters are uncapable of judging of them and therefore take all on the Authority of those whose Learning and parts you most esteem I beseech you before you venture your souls on it any further procure a satisfactory answer to these Questions 1. Whether the Reformed Churches that have no Prelates have not abounded with as learned men as any one of those that you admire of a contrary judgement 2. If you are tempted to suspect men of partiality whether they that plead for Lorship honour and preferment or they that plead against it and put it from them are more to be suspected caâ—teris paribus 3. If you will needs suspect the Protestant Ministers of partiality what ground of suspicion have you of them that were no Ministers such as the two Scaligers whose learning made them the admiration of the Christian world even to Papists as well as Protestants and yet were cordial friends to those Reformed Churches which these men deny and draw men to disown Such also as Salmasius that hath purposely wrote about the subject with abundance more 4. If these are not to be trusted why should not Bishops themselves be trusted were not Bishop Usher Andrews Davenant Hall and others of their mind as learned pious men as any whose Authority you can urge against them 5. If all this be nothing I beseech you get a modest resolution of this doubt at least whether the concurrent judgement of all the Protestant Churches in Christendom even of the English Bishops with the rest should not be of more authority with any sober Protestant then the Contrary judgement of those few that are of late risen up for the cause that you are by them solicited to own It is a known Truth that the generality of the Bishops themselves and all the Protestant Churches in the world have owned them as true Ministers that were ordained by Presbyteries without Prelates and have owned them as true Churches that were guided by these Ministers and have taken them for valid administrations that were performed by them And are your few Recusants that would draw you to separation of greater Learning authorty and regard then all the Protestants in the world besides I beseech you if you will needs take things upon trust consider this and trust accordingly Though I must say it is pitty that any truely Catholick Christian should not have better grounds than these and be able himself in so palpable a case to perceive his duty For my own part my conscience witnesseth that I have not written the following Disputation out of a desire to quarrel with any man but am drawn to it to my great displeasure by the present danger and necessity of the Churches and by compassion to the souls that are turned from the publick Ordinances and engaged in the separation and also of the Churches that are divided and troubled by these means The sad complaints of many of my Brethren from several parts have moved my heart to this undertaking Through Gods Mercy I have peace at home but I may not therefore be insensible of the divisions and calamities abroad I shall adjoin here one of the Letters that invited me and no more because in that one you may see the scope and tenour of the rest and that I rush not on this displeasing work without a Call nor before there is a cause The passages that intimate an ever-valuing of my self you may charitably impute to the Authors juniority and humility with some mistake through distance and disacquaintance One of the Letters that invited me to this task Reverend Sir UNderstanding by the Preface to the Reader before your Gildaâ— Salvianus that you intend a second part wherein you promise to speak of the way how to discern the true Church and Ministry I make bold to present you with the desire of some Godly Ministers viz. that if you see it convenient you would do some thing towards the vindication of the present Churches and Ministers from the aspersions of the new Prelatical party in England It is a principle much made of by many of the Gentry and others that we are but Schismatical branches broken off from the true body and this by faithfull tradition is spread amongst them the learning of some rigid Prelatical Schollars is very prevalent with them to make them thus account of us With these men we must be all unchurched for casting off Diocesan Episcopacy though we be found in the faith and would spend our selves to save souls and the main substance of our Ordination at least cannot be found fault with yet because we had not a Bishop to lay his hands on us we are not sent from God Of what consequence this opinion may prove if it spread without being checked an ordinary apprehension may perceive I can guess something from what I observe from those of this leaven already that our most serious pains will be little regarded if our people take this infection when we would awaken them we cannot because they take it that we have no power to teach them It must not be men of mean parts that must
occasioning the disorders of other men It s better that men be disorderly saved then orderly damned and that the Church be dissorderly preserved then orderly destroyed God will not alllow us to suffer every Thief and Murderer to rob or kill our neighbours for fear lest by defending them we occasion men to neglect the Magistrate Nor will he allow us to let men perish in their sickness if we can help them for fear of encouraging the ignorant to turn Physitians 2. There is no part of Gods service that can be used without occasion of sin to the perverse Christ himself is the fall as well as the rising of many and is a stumbling stone and Rock of offence and yet not for that to be denyed There is no just and reasonable cause of mens abuse in the doctrine which I here express 3. True Necessity will excuse and Justifie the unordained before God for exercising their Abilities to his service But pretended counterfeit necessity will not Justifie any And the final judgement is at hand when all things shall be set strait and true Necessity and counterfeit shall be discerned 4. Until that day things will be in some disorder in this world because there is sin the world which is the disorder But our Remedies are these 1. To teach men their duties truly and not to lead them into one evill to prevent another much less to a mischief destructive to mens souls to prevent disorder 2. The Magistrate hath the sword of justice in his hand to restrain false pretenders of Necessity and in order thereto it is he and not the pretender that shall be judge And 3. The Churches have the Power of casting the pretenders if the case deserve it out of their communion and in order thereto it is not he but they that will be Judges And other remedies we have none till the last day Sect. 54. Quest. But what would you have men do that think there is a Necessity of their labours and that they have Ministerial abilities Answ. 1. I would have them lay by pride and selfishness and pass judgement on their own Abilities in Humility and self-denyal If their Corruptions are so strong that they cannot that is they will not do this that 's long of themselves 2. They must not pretend a Necessity where is none 3. They must offer themselves to the Tryal of the Pastors of the Church that best know them 4. If in the judgement of the godly able Pastors that know them they are unfit and there is no need of them they must acquiesce in their judgement For able Godly men are not like to destroy the Church or envy help to the souls of men 5. If they have cause to suspect the Pastors of Corruption and false judgement let them go to the other Pastors that are faithfull 6. If all about us were corrupt and their judgements not to be rested in and the persons are assured of their Ability for the Ministry let them consider the State of the Church where they are And if they are sure on Consultation with the wisest men that there is a Necessity and their endeavours in the Ministry are like to prevent any notable hurt without a greater hurt let them use them without Ordination if they cannot have it But if they find that the Churches are so competently supplied without them that there is no Necessity or none which they can supply without doing more hurt by offence and disorder then good by their labours let them forbear at home and go into some other Countries where there is greater need if they are fit there for the work if not let them sit still Sect. 55. Argument 4. If unordained men may Baptize in case of Necessity then may they do other Ministerial works in case of Necessity But the Antecedent is the opinion of those that we now dispute against And the Consequence is grounded on a Parity of Reason No man can shew more for appropriating the Eucharist then Baptisme to the Minister CHAP. IV. An uninterrupted Succession of Regular Ordination is not Necessary Sect. 1. HAving proved the Non-necessity of Ordination it self to the Being of the Ministry and Validity of their administrations I may be the shorter in most of the rest because they are sufficiently proved in this If Ordination it self be not of the Necessity which the adversaries do assert then the Regularity of Ordination cannot be of more Necessity then Ordination itself Much less an uninterrupted Succession of such Regular Ordination Yet this also is asserted by most that we have now to do with Sect. 2. By Regular Ordination I mean in the sence of the adversaries themselves such as the Canons of the Church pronounce not Null and such as by the Canons was done by such as had Authority to do it in special by true Bishops even in their own sence Sect. 3. And if the uninâ—errupted succession be not Necessary then neither is such Ordination at this present Necessary to the being of the Ministry For if any of our predecessors might be Ministers without it others in the like case may be so too For we live under the same Law and the Office is the same thing now as it was then Sect. 4. Argument 1. If uninterrupted Regular Ordination of all our Predecessors be Necessary to the Being of the Ministry then no man can know that he is truly a Minister of Christ. But the Consequent is false and intolerable therefore so is the Antecedent Sect. 5. The truth of the Minor is apparent thus 1. If we could not be sure that we are true Ministers then no man could with comfort seek the Minstry nor enter into upon it For who can have encouragement to enter a calling when he knows not whether indeed he enter upon it or not and whether he engage not himself in a course of sin and be not guilty as Vzza of medling with the Ark unlawfully especially in so great and tender a case where God is so exceeding jealous Sect. 6. And 2. who can go on in the Calling of the Ministry and comfortably do the work and bear the burden that cannot know through all his life or in any administration whether he be a Minister or a Usurper What a damp must it cast upon our spirits in Prayer Praise administration of the Eucharist and all publick worship which should be performed with the greatest alacrity and delight when we remember that we are uncertain whether God have sent us or whether we are usurpers that must one day hear Who sent you Whence had you your Power and who required this at your hands Sect. 7. And the Consequence of the Major that we are all uncertain of our Call and office both Papists and Protestants is most clear in case of the Necessity of such successive Ordination For 1. No man ever did to this day demomstrate such a succession for the Proof of his Ministry Nor can all our importunity
as his judgement that the Scotch Ministers then to be Consecrated Bishops were not to be reordained because the Ordination of Presbyters was valid Sect. 5. These Novel Prelatical persons then that so far dissent frrom the whole stream of the Ancient Bishops and their adherents have little reason to expect that we should regard their judgement above the judgement of the English Clergy and the judgement of all the Reformed Churches If they can give us such Reasons as should conquer our modestie and perswade us to condemn the judgement of the Plelates and Clergy of England all other Churches of the Protestants and adhere to a few new men of yesterday that dare scarcely open the face of their own opinions we shall bow to their Reasons when we discern them But they must not expect that their Authority shall so far prevail Sect. 6. And indeed I think the most of this cause is carried on in the dark What Books have they written to prove our Ordination Null and by what Scripture Reasons do they prove it The task lieth on them to prove this Nullity if they would be Regarded in their reproaches of the Churches of Christ. And they are not of such excessive Modesty and backwardness to divulge their accusations but sure we might by this time have expected more then one volume from them to have proved us No Ministers and Churchess if they could have done it And till they do it their whsperings are not to be credited Sect. 7. Argument 2. If that sort of Prelacy that was exercised in England was not necessary it self yea if it were sinfull and tended to the subversion or exceeding hurt of the Churches then is there no Necessity of Ordination by such a Prelacy But the Antecedent is true therefore so is the consequent The Antecedent hath been proved at large in the foregoing Disputation Such a Prelacy as consisteth in the undertaking of an impossible task even for one man tâ— be the only Governour of all the souls in many hundred Parishes exercising it also by Lay men and in the needful parts not exercising it all all a Prelacy not chosen by the Presbyters whom they Govern yea suspending or degrading â—he Presbyters of all those Churches as to the governing part of theâ—â— office and guilty of the rest of the evils before mentioned is not only it self unnecessary but sinful and a disease of the Church which all good men should do the best they can to cure And therefore the effects of this disease can be no more Necessary to our Ministry then the burâ—ing of a feaver or swelling of a Tympany is necessary to the body Sect. 8. No Bishops are Necessary but such as were in Scriture times But there were none such as the late English Bishops in Scripture times Therefore the English Bishopâ— are not necessary He that denyeth the Major must go further in denying the sufficiency of Scripture then I find the Papists ordinarily to do For they will be loth to affirm that any office is of Necessity to the Being of the Church or of Presbyters that is not to be found in Scripture or that was not then in Being Therefore so far we are secure Sect. 9. And for the Minor I prove it thus If the English Bishops were â—either such as the unfixed General Ministers nor such as the fixed Bishops of particular Churches then were they not such as were in Scripture times But they were neither such as the unfixed General Ministers nor such as the fixed Bishops of particular Churches therefore c. Sect. 10. Besâ—des these two sorts of Ministers there are no more in the New Testament And these aâ—e diversified but by the exercise of their office so far as they were ordinary Ministers to continue The unfixed Ministers whether Apostles Evangelâ—sts or Prophets were â—uch as had no special charge of any one Church as their Diocess but were to do their best for the Church in general and follow the direction and call of the Holy Ghost for the exercising of their Ministry But it s known to all that our Engsish Bishops were not such They were no ambulatory itinerant Preachers they went not about to plant Churches and confirm and direct such as they had planted but were fixed to a City and had every one their Diocess which was their proper charge but Oh how they discharged their undertaking Sect. 11. Object The Apostles might agree among them selves to divide their Provinces and did accordingly James being Bishop of Jerusalem Peter of Rome c. Answ. No doubt but common reason would teach them when they were sent to preach the Gospel to all the world to disperse themselves and not be preaching all in a place to the disadvantage of their work But 1. It s one thing to travail several ways and so divide themselves as itinerants and another thing to divide the Churches among them as their several Diocesses to whâ—ch they should be fixed Which they never did for ought is proved 2. And its one thiâ—g prudently to disperse themselves for their labour anâ— another thing to claim a special power over a Circuit or Diocess as their charge excluding a like charge and power of others So far as any man Apostle or other was the Father of souls by their conversion they owned him a special honour and love which the Apostles themselves did sometimes claim But this was nothing to a peculiar Diocess or Province For in the same City a Ierusalem some might be converted by one Apostle and some by another And if a Presbyter convert them I think the adversaries will not therefore make them his Dâ—ocess not give him there an Episcopal Power much less above Apostles in that place Nor was this the Rule that Diocesses could be bounded by as now they are taken Sect. 12. Nor do we find in Scripture the least intimation that the Apostles were fixed Diocesan Bishops but much to the contrary 1. In that it was not consistent with the General charge and work that Christ had laid upon them to go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature How would this stand with fixing in a peculiar Diocess Sect. 13. And 2. We find them answering their Commission in their practice going abroad and preaching and planting Churches and sometimes visiâ—ing them in their passage but not sâ—tling on them as their Diocesses but going further if they had opportunity to do the like for other places Yea they planted Bishops in the several Cities and Churches which they had gathered to Christ. Though Paul staid three years at Ephesus and other adjacent parts of Asia yet did not all that abode prove it his peculiar Diocess And yes its hard to find again so long an abode of Paul or any Apostle in one place Elders that were Bishops we find at Ephesus Acts 20. and some say Timothy was their Bishop and some say Iohn the Apostle was their Bishop but its clear that it was
Church This is it that I affirm and have already proved § 7. Nor yet is it any of our Question Whether the difference between these general unfixed Ministers and ordinary fixed Presbyters be in point of Authority or of exercise only Whether they are two distinct Species of the Ministry or but one of the same Office in Specie variously exercised I have given in my thoughts of this before so far as I can yet reach But if it be granted that some should ordinarily exercise their office generally and ambulatorily over many Churches as others ordinarily must exercise it fixedly in one particular Church I shall not contend whether they are to be called One Office or two nor yet whether the fixed Minister may not extraordinarily upon a special reason do the same work as the itinerant Minister in the same way But Ministers there must be for both these work § 8. And that some should make the general work before mentioned their ordinary business and not take the pastoral Charge of any particular Church I conceive besides the former proofs is further manifest 1. In that the work of Converting Unbelievers and bringing them into a fitness for Church Communion is the work that is to go first and is the greatest work It s the greatest in weight praecisively considered and as to the terminus à quo of the change that it effects and it is the greatest in regard of opposing difficulties the winning of a soul which rejoyceth Angels and rejoyceth Jesus Christ himself will have so much of Satans malice to oppose it and hath so much resistance in the heart of the sinner that it requireth the whole work in ordinary of those Ministers that are specially called hereunto § 9. And 2. Withall it commonly falls out that there are far greater numbers to be converted then to be Governed after Conversion If it be not so in some Countries where the face of God hath shined most effectually yet in others and in most it is even in the far greatest part of the world O how many millions of souls are there that perish for lack of knowledge and know not for want of teaching and never heard of Jesus Christ in any likely manner to prevail in all their lives Surely such multitudes of Miserable souls yea Nations require Ministers wholly set upon this work § 10. And 3. It ordinarily falls out too that the unconverted unbelieving part of the world do live at a great distance from the Churches of Christ and therefore the same man that is Pastor of a Church hath not opportunity to speak to them Or if they live in the same Country they seldom meet in greatest numbers in the same Assemblies And therefore when the Pastor is upon his own work it is requisite that there be some to speak to the rest § 11. And yet I doubt not but as there are hypocrites in most Churches and among us many that by their ignorance or impiety we have cause to judge to be yet no Christians are our Ordinary hearers so the Pastors of the Churches may and must endeavour their conversion and much suit their preaching to the condition of such souls But yet those millions that in other parts of the world and perhaps in Ireland Wales and the Highlands of Scotland too many such may be found that neither know what Christianity is nor are the Ordinary hearers of a fixed Ministry and live not within the reach of such should have a Converting Itinerant Ministry for themselves § 12. Moreover 4. The Pastoral work is it self so great and the charge that we take of particular Churches and our obligation to them so strict that it will usually it self take up the whole man and will not allow a Pastor time for the other work on those at a distance yet uncalled without neglecting the souls that he hath undertaken to oversee § 13. And 5. For want of such general Ministers the state of persons is in some places confounded and the world and the Church are thrust together as if there were no difference to be made Because there are no Ministers known but Pastors therefore there are no People known but as Christians where yet the very knowledge of Christianity is too rare Whereas if where numbers and distance make it necessary the preparing Ministry had first done their part it would have prevented much dangerous confusion and self-deceit that followeth hereupon in many places § 14. And 6. By the mistaken supposition that such generall or unfixed Ministers are ceased men have been drawn to set Lay-men upon the greatest and noblest work of the Ministry and a conceit is hence risen among some that because this is not proper to the Pastors of a Church therefore it is not a Ministerial work but the work of gifted Brethren And hereupon uncalled men are tempted to exercise it and by laying aside the officers appointed hereunto by Christ the burden is cast on the weakest men § 15. Yea 7. By this means many Ministers themselves understanding not the Nature and extent of their own Office when they do but preach to any that are not of the Church that they have charge of imagine that they preach but as meer Lay-men and if they preach for the Conversion of unbelievers they profess it to be no act of their office which is an act that hath more inconveniences then I shall now express § 16. And 8. Which is worst of all by supposing that no Ministers are now to be appointed for the Conversion of Infidels and gathering and planting Churches it is come to pass that the most necessary work in all the world is neglected cast off and almost quite unknown in the world except Mr. Eliots and a few with him in New England and some of the Jesuites and Fryars in the East-Indies and America who have been sent or have adventured themselves for the Converting of the Nations Were it but known and considered how much of the Will of Jesus Christ is to be fulfilled by this most blessed work Princes would have studied it and contributed their assistance and many would have been ready to have offered themselves to God for the work when now it is looked on as no part of our duty not only because that sluggishness and cowardize calleth it impossible and the adventure unreasonable but also because we think it was a work that was proper to Apostles and Evangelists and Ministers are now tyed to their proper flock And thus the poor unbelieving world is left in their sin § 17. And 9. I doubt by this mistake and neglect we forfeit the benefit of that special promise in too great a measure Mat. 28.20 and miss of that eminent assistance and presence of Christ with our Ministry that otherwise we might expect If we did go into the world and preach the Gospel to the Nations having used our industry first to learn their languages we might expect that Christ would alwayes be with us
exercised here in England how confidently soever some appropriate the title of the Church of England to the adherents of that frame yet would we not have the Church ungoverned nor worse governed nor will we refuse for peace such a kind of Episcpacy as is tolerable in the Church And there are four sorts of Exercise of the Ministry which if you please you may call Episcopacy which we shall not refuse when it may conduce to Peace § 2. I. We shall consent that the Ancient Parochial Episcopacy be restored that is that in every Parish that hath a particular Church there may be a Pastor or Bishop setled to govern it according to the word of God And that he may be the chief among the Presbyters of that Church if there be any And may assume fit men to be assisting Presbyters to him if there be such to be had If not he may be content with Deacons And these Parochial Bishops are most antient and have the Power of Ordination § 3. Yet do we not so tye a Church to a Parish but that in places where the ignorance infidelity or impiety of the people or the smalness of the Parishes is such as that there are not fit persons enough in a Parish to make a convenient particular Church it may be fit for two or three or four in necessity Neighbour Parishes to joyn together and to be formed into one particular Church The several Ministers keeping their stations for the teaching of the rest as Catechumens but joyning as one Presbyterie for Governing of that one particular Church that is Congregate among them And having one President without whom nothing should be done in matters left to humane determination Yet so that the Presbyters be not forced to this but do it freely § 4. II. We shall consent that these Parish Churches be Associate and that in every Market Town or such convenient places as shall be agreed on there may be frequent meetings of the Pastors for Communion and Correspondency and that one among them be their standing Moderator durante vita or their President for so I would call him rather then Bishop though we would leave men to use what name they please And to him should be committed the Communicating of times and places of meeting and other businesses and Correspondencies And the Moderating of the debates and disputations § 5. And for my part I would consent for peace that de facto no Ordination be made in either of the foresaid Presbyteries without the President but in cases of Necessity so be it 1. That none be compelled to own any other Principle of this Practice then a Love of Peace and none be compelled to profess that he holdeth the President to have de jure a Negative voice yea that all have liberty to write down on what other Principles they thus yeild that the Practice only may suffice for Peace § 6. III. We shall consent also that one in a Deanry or Hundred or other convenient space may by the Magistrate be chosen a Visitor of the Churches and Countrey about him having Power only to take notice of the state of things and gravely to admonish the Pastors where they are negligent and exhort the people and provoke them to Holiness Reformation and Unity only by perswasions from the Word of God Which is no more then any Minister may do that hath opportunity only we desire the Magistrate to design a particular person to do it requiring Ministers and people to give him the meeting because that which is every mans work is not so well done as that which is specially committed to some And we desire that he may acquaint the Magistrate how things are § 7. And to avoid the inconveniences of dividing these works we are desirous that these two last may meet in one man and so he that is chosen by the Pastors the President of their Association may be chosen his Visitor by the Magistrate and do both which may be done by one in every Market-town which is truly a City in the antient sense and the circumjacent Villages Yet this we cannot make a standing Rule that one man do both because the Pastors must choose their President and the Magistrate his Visitor and its possible they may not alwayes concur But if the Magistrate will not choose such a Visitor the Pastors may But then they can compel none to meet him or hear him § 8. IV. Besides these three or two whether you will before mentioned we shall consent that there be a general sort of Ministers such as the Apostles Evangelists and others in those times were that shall have no special charge but go up and down to preach the Gospel and gather Churches where there are none and contribute the best assistance of their Abilities Interest and Authority for the reforming confirming and right ordering of Churches And if by the Magistrates Command or Ministers consent there be one of these assigned to each County and so their Provinces prudentially distinguished and limited we shall not dissent Yet we would have such but where there is need § 9. V. Besides these four sorts of Bishops we are all agreed on two sorts more 1. The Episcopi gregis or Pastors of every Congregation whether they have any assistant Presbyters or no or being themselves but such assistant Presbyters 2. The Magistrate who is a secular Bishop or a Governor of the Church by force And we desire the Magistrate to be a nursing Father to the Church and do his duty and to keep the sword in his own hand and for forcible deposing Ministers or any punishment on body or estate we desire no Bishops nor other Ministers may be authorized thereto But if Pastors exclude an unworthy Pastor from their Communion let the Magistrate only deprive him forcibly of his place and maintenance if he see cause When the Council of Antioch had deposed Paulus Samosatenus he would not go out of the house And all the Bishops in the Council could not force him out but were fain to procure the Heathen Emperor Aurelian to do it It lyeth as a blot on Cyril of Alexandria that he was the first man that arrogated and exercised there a secular Coercive Power under the name of a Bishop of the Church § 10. There is enough in this much to satisfie any moderate honest men for Church-government and for the healing of our Divisions thereabout And there is nothing in this that is inconsistent with the Principles of the moderare of any Party § 11. 1. That a Church organized called by some Ecclesia prima should be no greater then I have mentioned is not contradictory to the Principles of the Episcopall Presbyterians Congregationall or Erastian Indeed the two first say that it may be bigger but none of them say It must be bigger The Presbyterians instances of the Church of Ierusalem which sâ—rued to the highest cannot be proved neer half so great
as some of our Parishes and such other Churches are but for the may be and not for the must be And therefore if they be peaceable this will make no breach § 12. 2. That Parochial Churches and Associations have fixed Presidents is nothing contrary to any of their Principles as far as I am able to discern them § 13. 3. That Pastors may be lawfully appointed to visit and help the Country and the neighbour Churches and exhort them to their duty and give the Magistrate information of their state is a thing that none can justly blame any more then preaching a Lecture among them Nor do I know any party that is against it of these four § 14. And 4. That there may be more General Ministers to gather and take care of many Churches I think none of them will deny Sure the â—tinerant Ministers in Wales will not Nor yet that these may have their Provinces distinguished If I could imagine which of all these sorts would be denied I would more fully prove it yea and prove it consistent with the Principles of each party but till then its vain § 15. The only point that I remember like to be questioned is the consenting to forbear Ordination in several Presbyteries till the President be one except in case of Necâ—ssity And nothing is here questionable that I observe but only Whether it be consistent with the Principles of the Congregational party seing they would have all Ordination to be by the Elders of their own Church and where there are none that it be done by the people without Elders To which I answer 1. That we here grant them that a Congregational Presbyterie with their President may ordain an Elder for that Congregation 2. The Moderate Congregational men do grant us that the Elders or Pastors of other Churches may lawfully be called to assist them in Ordination though they think it be not necessary It is not therefore against their Principles to do so For sure they may do a Lawful thing especially when the Churches Peace doth lie so much upon it as here it doth § 16. I conclude therefore that here are healing Principles brought to your hands if you have but healing inclinations to receive them Here is a sufficient remedy for our Divisions upon the account of Church-government if you have but hearts to entertain them and apply them But if some on one side will adhere to all their former excesses and abuses and continue impenitent unchurching the best of the Protestant Churches that are not Prelatical while they unchurch not the Church of Rome And if others on the other side will stifly refuse to yield in things that cannot be denied to be lawfull yea and convenient for the Churches and set more by all their own conceits then by the Peace of Brethren and consequently the prosperity of the Church we must leave the care of all to God and content our selves that we have done our duty CHAP. VII Some instances to prove that moderate men will agree upon the foregoing terms § 1. LEST any think that it is a hopeless work that I have motioned and the parties will not agree upon these terms I shall shall next prove to you that the godly and moderate of each party are agreed already at least the Episcopal and Presbyterians and I think the rest and that its in Practice more then Principles that we disagree § 2. I. I will begin with the Episcopal Divines of whom there ate two parties differing much more from one another then the one of them doth from the Presbyterians The ancient Bishops and the moderate of late did maintain the Validity of Ordination by Presbyters and own the Reformed Churches that had other supposing their Episcopacy usefull to the perfection or well being of a Church but not necessary to the being of it And this sort of men who also agree with us in doctrine we could quickly be reconciled with But of late years there are many Episcopal Divines sprung up that embracing the Doctrine called Arminianism do withal deny the Being of the Ministry and Churches that want Prelatical ordination and with these there is no hope of concord because they will have it on no other terms then renouncing our Churches and Ministry and being again ordained by them and thus coming wholly over to them These separate from us and pretend that our Churches have no true Worship wonderous audacity and our Ministers are no true Ministers and call the Church into private houses as D. Hide expresly in his Christ and his Church in the beginning of the Preface and many others Of whom I spoke before § 3. That the ancient English Bishops that hold to the doctrine of the Church of England and are peaceable men are easily agreed with us I first prove from the example of Reverend Bishop Hall In his Peace-maker he hath these words Pag. 46 47 48 49. The Divisions of the Church are either General betwixt our Church and the other Reformed or special with those within the bosome of our own Church both which require several considerations For the former blessed be God there is no difference in any essential matter betwixt the Church of England and her Sisters of the Reformation We accord in every point of Christian Doctrine without least the variation N B. Their publike Confessions and ours are sufficient convictions to the world of our full and absolute agreement the only difference is in the form of outward administration Wherein also we are so far agreed as that we all profess this form not to be essential to the being of a Church N. B. though much importing the well or better being of it according to our several apprehensions thereof and that we do all retain a reverent and loving opinion of each other in our own several wayes not seeing any reason why so poor a diversity should work any alienation of affection in us one towards another But withall nothing hinders but that we may come yet closer to one another if both may resolve to meet in that Primitive Government whereby it is meet we should both be regulated universally agreed on by all antiquity wherein all things were ordered and transacted by the Consent of the Presbyterie moderated by one constant President thereof the Primacy and perpetual practice whereof no man can doubt of that hath but seen the writings of Clemens and Ignatius and hath gone along with the History of those primitive times We may well rest in the judgement of Mr. John Camero the Learnedst Divine be it spoke without envy that the Church of Scotland hath afforded in this last age Nullus est dubitandi locus c. There is no doubt at all saith he but that Timothy was chosen by the Colledge of the Presbyters to be the President of them and that not without some authority over the rest but yet such as have the due bounds and limits And that this was a leading case and
from them till you hear them And if you hear them guilty of such after a First and Second admonition avoid them But let not wicked uncharitable censures be an argument against the worship of God You know not but a Physitian may poison you and yet you will choose the best you can and then trust your lives with him You may much more do so by a Minister because you proceed not by so implicite a faith in the matters of your Salvation You may refuse any evil that the Minister offereth Object 3. But many of them speak nonsence and unreverent words and abuse Gods worship Answ. Get better in their stead that are able to do Gods work in a more suitable manner But see that your quarrelsome capricious wits do not odiously aggravate imperfections or make faults where there are none And remember that you have not Angels but men to be your Pastors and therefore imperfections must be expected But a blessiâ—g may accompany imperfect administrations But if People Patron and Ordainer will choose weak men when they may have better they may thank themselves A Common Prayer book will make but an imperfect supply instead of an able Minister Though in some cases I am for it as aforesaid Object 4. But prayer is a speaking to God and therefore men should say nothing but what is exactly weighed before hand Answ. 1. We grant all this But men may weigh before hand the matter of their requests without preparing a form of words or a man may fore-consider of his words without a Prayer-book 2. Preaching is a speaking in Gods name as though God speak by us and as Christs embassadors in his stead 2 Cor. 5.19 20. And to speak as in Christs stead and Gods name requireth as great preparation as to speak to God in the peoples name It seems more as it were to represent Christ in speaking then to speak to Christ while we represent but the people And therefore by this argument you should let no man preach neither but by a book prescribed 3. God is not as man that looks most at oratory and fine words It is an humble contrite faithfull honest heart that he looks at And where he sees this with earnest desires and that the matter of Prayer is agreeable to his will he will bear with many a homely word One Cold request or the lest formality and dulness of affection and carelesness and disesteem of the mercy is more odious with God then a thousand Barbarisms and Solaecisms and unhandsome words Yet the tongue also should carefully be lookt to but men should not mistake themselves and think that God judgeth by the outward appearance and as man judgeth 4. Still I say get Ministers that are able to do better if you have insufficient ones A man on a common prayer-book is likelier to provoke God by a careless heartless customary service and meer lip labour let the the words be never so exact then another that fears God is like to provoke him by disorderly or unhandsome words Though both should be avoided Object 5. Our minds are not able to go along with a Minâ—ster on the sudden unless we knew what he will say before hand Answ. A diligent soul that marketh what is said may with holy affections go along with a Minister without knowing what he will say before hand The experience of Christians confuteth this objection 2. And this would not only plead for a form but shut out all other prayer which is sufficient to disgrace it with any understanding man Object 6. The publick Prayers of the Church are they that we must own by our concurrence His own conceived Prayers are but the Private Prayers of the Minister Answ. The Minister is a publick person and his prayers publickly made for and in the Church are as much the Publick prayers of that Church as if they were read out of an imposed Book But indeed when many Churches Agree in a form that form may so far be called the Common Prayers of all those Churches but it s no more the Publick Prayers of any one Church then sudden conceived prayer is And when there is no form yet the matter may be the Common Prayer of all Churches Object 7. But what confusion will it â—ake in the Church if one Congregation shall have a Form and another none and every man shall be left to do what he list in Prayer Answ. This is the voice of that Ignorance Pride and Dividing usurpation that hath caused all the Schisms and troubles of the Church Must the Churches have no Peace but on your imposed terms Must none be endured but all cast out of the Church of God that dare not say your forms of prayer though they are as wise and pious and peaceable as you Nothing but Proud arrogancy and uncharitable cruelty will say so 2. But if we must needs all Agree in the manner of our Prayers we must shut out all forms and agree all to be without them which yet I consent not to For there is no one Form that you can expect that all should agree in that 's of humane invention Not but that we may well do it but it will not be 3. How had the Church Unity before any of your forms were known 4. If it be no blemish for several Nations to have several Forms and manners it is tolerable for several Congregations 5. How did the Ancient Churches maintain thâ—ir Unity when Liturgies were in use and the variety was so great as is commonly known Many Churches had no singing of Psalms Vid. Pamel in Cyprian de Orat. Dom. Not. 6. Others used it by the whole Assemblies see Ball 's Friendly Tryal page 60. citing the Authors that attest it Other Churches did use to sing by course or two at a time See it proved by Ball ibid. out of many witnesses This variety and much more consisted then with Unity and may do now when forced uniformity will not 6. We are all now at Liberty what Gesture we will use in singing Psalms c. and is here any discord hence arising But men were forced to kneeling only in Receiving the Lords Supper and there came in discord Mens fancies makes that seem confusion that is no such thing No more then that all that hear or pray have not the same coloured cloaths complections c. Object 8. But should not men obey Authority in forms and mâ—â—ters of indifferency Answ. They should if they be indeed indifferent But should Authority therefore ensnare the Church with needless Impositions All men will not be satisfied of the Indifferency I have heard many say that they would preach in a fools Cap and Coat if authority command them But is it therefore fit that Authority should command it All men will not judge it lawfull to obey them in such cases and so there will be needless snares laid to intrap and divide men Object 9. But antiquity is for set forms
and therefore Novelty must not be permitted to exclude them Answ. 1. Let Scripture be the Rule for deciding this which is the chief witness of Antiquity and let the oldest way prevail 2. Forms were at first introduced in Variety and not as necessary for the Churches Unity to Agree in one And they were left to the Pastors Liberty and none were forced to any forms of other mens composing When Basil set up his New forms of Psalmodie and other Worship which the Church of Neocaesarea were so offended at he did not for all that impose it on them but was content to use it in his Church at Caesarea Object 10. No man can now say what is the worship of God among us because there is no Liturgy but its mutable as every person pleases Answ. We have a Liturgy and are agreed in all the parts of worship To have forms or no forms is no part of it but a circumstance or mode THE summ is this 1. We have already a stinted Liturgy 1. A form of Doctrine in Scripture 2. Real forms in Sacraments 3. A verbal form in Baptizing 4. A form in delivering the Lords Supper 5. A Creed used at Baptism as a form of confession 6. We Read the Psalms as Liturgical forms of praise and prayer 7. We have forms of singing Psalms 8. We have a form of blessing the people in the End 9. And of Excommunication see the Government of the Church c. 10. And of Absolution 11. And of Marriage 12. And Ministers preparation makes much of their Sermons a form 13. And they are at liberty to pray in a form if they Please 2. No more is necessary of it self unless accidentally Authority or Peace c. require it 3. If Peace c. require a form let it be one by common Agreement as neer as may be taken out of Scripture even in words and as much of the old as is consistent with this Rule retained 4. Let it not contain any doubtfull or unnecessary things but be as much certain and necessary for the matter as may be 5. Let none be forced to use it but such as by Ordainers or Approvers are judged insufficient to worship God without it and yet are allowed or Tolerated in the Ministry 6. Let no Tolerated Ministers be Absolutely forbidden to use it 7. Let none be suffered to lay the Vnity and Peace of the Church on it and suspend excommunicate or reproach all that dissent from them in using or not using it 8. In times of Liberty let none use it constantly but the unable before excepted But let the weaker use it ofâ—â—er and the abler seldomer yet sometimes voluntarily and caeteris paribus still looking to the state of their flocks and fitting all to their Edification 9. When Magistrates command it or the Agreement of Pastors and Peace of the Churches though accidentally by mens infirmity require it let none refuse the frequent use of lawfull forms 10. But let none desire or endeavour the introducing of any such Necessity of this or any indifferent thing that is not first Necessary by some considerable antecedent occasion to the Edification of the Church This much will please the moderate but not the self conceited FINIS The Fifth DISPUTATION Of Humane CEREMONIES Whether they are necessary or profitable to the Church and how far they may be imposed or observed By Richard Baxter LONDON Printed by Robert White for Nevil Simmons Bookseller in Kederminster Anno Dom. 1658. Qu. Whether Humane Ceremonies be Necessary or Profitable to the Church CHAP. I. Distinctions and Propositions in order to the Decision § 1. THE discussion of the Controversie about the Etymologie of the word Ceremony is unnecessary to our ends and would be more troublesome then usefull Whether it be derived ab oppido Caere or à carendo or à Caritate or à Cerere as several mens conjectures run or rather as Scaliger and Martinius think from Cerus which in veteri lingua erat sanctus it sufficeth us that it signifieth a sacred rite Servius saith that all sacred things among the Greeks were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and among the Latines Ceremoniae But by Ceremonies we mean only external Rites or Orders in or about the worship of God And by Humane we mean such as are devised and appointed to be used by men without any special Revelation from God or any extraordinary inspiration of his Spirit by which the institution might have been justly ascribed to God as the certain principal cause § 2. There is so much ambiguity partly in the terms and partly in the supposed or implyed passages that will rise before us in the dispute that I judge it necessary to make the way to the true decision of the controversie and your right understanding of it by these distinctions following and then to lay down the truth in certain Propositions § 3. Dist. 1. We must distinguish between such Ceremonies as God hath left to humane determination in his worship and such as he hath not so left but hath either 1. Expresly forbidden them in particular 2. Or in a General prohibition forbidden them or 3. Hath given no man authority to institute them So great difference is there between things that commonly go under the name of Ceremonies that they are not in this Controversie to be confounded if we would not lose the truth § 4. Dist. 2. We must distinguish between Ceremonies commanded by man as in Gods name and by pretence of a Commission from him and such as are only commanded in mens own names or at least on pretence of nothing but a General Power § 5. Dist. 3. We must distinguish between Ceremonies commanded by men as necessary duties or means of worship and such as are only commanded as indifferent things § 6. Dist. 4. We must distinguish between Ceremonies imposed by a Lawfull Magistrate or Church-Governours and such as are imposed by usurpers or men without authority § 7. Dist. 5. We must distinguish between Ceremonies imposed as Vniversally to be practised by all ages or all people in the Church at least and such as are imposed only on some one Congregation or Nation by their proper Governours and that as things mutable that upon special occasion were taken up and may so be laid aside again § 8. Dist. 6. We must distinguish between Ceremonies commanded as things necessary to the being of the Church or Worship or only necessary to the Order and convenient administration and better being of them in the judgement of the imposers § 9. Dist. 7. We must distinguish between the absolute command of Governors imposing such ceremonies upon grievous penalties or without tolerations and the simple recommending them or requiring them to be used with expressed or implyed exceptions § 10. Dist. 8. We must very much difference the several Countreys where such things are imposed and the several sorts of People on whom and the several seasons in which they are
what hath been said you may see which of the late English Controverted Ceremonies I take to have been Lawful and which unlawfull Too many years did I spend long agoe about these controversies and the judgement that then I arrived at I could never find reason since to change notwithstanding all the changes of the times and the helps I that have since had And it was and is as followeth § 39. 1. About Episcopacy which was the principal point concomitant with the Ceremonial Controversie I have given you my thoughts before 2. The ceremonies controverted among us were especially The surplice the gesture of Kneeling in Receiving the Lords supper the ring in Marriage Laying the hand on the Book in taking aâ— Oath the Organs and Church musick Holy daies Altars Rails and the Cross in Baptism To say nothing of the matter or form of the Prayers § 40. And 1. If the surplice be Imposed by the Magistrate as it was who is a lawfull Governor and that directly but as a Decent Habit for a Minister in Gods service I think he needlesly strained his Power and sinfully made an engine to divide the Church by making such a needless law and laying the Peace of the Church upon it But yet he medled with nothing but was within the reach of his Power in the general Some Decent Habit is Necessary Either the Magistrate or the Minister himself or the Associated Pastors must determine what I think neither Magistrate nor Synod should do any more then hinder undecency But yet if they do more and tye all to one Habit and suppose it were an undecent Habit yet this is but an imprudent use of Power It is a thing within the Magistrates reach He doth not an aliene work but his own work amiss and therefore the thing in it self being lawfull I would obey him and use that garment if I could not be dispensed with Yea though Secondarily the Whiteness be to signifie Purity and so it be made a teaching sign yet would I obey For secondarily we may lawfully and piously make Teaching signs of our food and rayment and every thing we see But if the Magistrate had said that the Primary reason or use of the Surplice was to be an instituted sacramental sign to work gâ—ace on my soul and engage me to God then I durst not have used it though secondarily it had been commanded as a decent garment New Sacraments I durst not use though a secondary use were lawfull § 41. 2. And for Kneeling at the Sacrament I doubt not at all but the imposing it and that on such rigorous terms tying all to it and casting all out of the communion of the Church or from the participation of the Sacrament that durst not use it was a very grievous sin and tended to persecution injustice and Church-dividing It is certainly in a doubtful case the safest way to do as Christ and his Apostles and the universal Church did for many hundred years That none should Kneel in publick worship on the Lords day no not in Prayer much less in receiving the Eucharist was a Custome so ancient and Universal in the Church that it was everywhere observed before general Councils were made use of and in the first general Council of Nice it was made the last Canon and other general Councils afterward renewed it so that I know not how any Ceremony can possibly pretend to greater Ecclesiastical Authority then this had And to cast out all from Church Communion in Sacraments that dare not go against the examples of Christ and his Apostles and all the Primitive Church who long received the Eucharist in another gesture and against the Canons of the first and most famous and other succeeding general Councils this is a most inhumane part Either the gesture is indifferent in it self or not If it be how dare they thus divide the Church by it and cast out Christians that scruple it when they have these and many other reasons of their scruples which for brevity I omit If they say that Kneeling is of it self Necessary and not Indifferent because it is Reverent c. then 1. They make Christ an â—mperfect Law-giver 2. They make himself or his Apostles or both to have been sinners 3. They condemn the Catholick Church of sin 4. They condemn the Canons of the Chief general Councils 5. And then if the Bishops themselves in Council should change the gesture it were unlawfull to obey them All which are consequents that I suppose they will disown What a perverse preposterous Reverence is this when they have leave to lie in the dust before and after the very act of receiving through all their confessions and prayers yet they will at other times stand and many of them sit at prayer and sit at singing Psalms of Prayer and Praise to God and yet when Christ doth invite them to a feast they dare not imitate his Apostles and universal Church in their gesture lest they should be sinfully unreverent § 42. But yet as sinfully as this Gesture was imposed for my part I did obey the imposerâ—â—nd would do if it were to do again rather then disturb the Peace of the Church or be deprived of its Communion For God having made some Gesture necessary and confined me to none but left it to humane Determination I shall submit to Magistrates in their proper work even when they miss it in the manner I am not sure that Christ intended the example of himself and his Apostles as obligatory to us that shall succeed I am sure it proves sitting lawful but I am not sure that it proves it necessary though very convenient But I am sure he hath commanded me obedience and peace § 43. 3. And for the Ring in Marriage I see no reason to scruple the lawfulness of it For though the Papists make a Sacrament of Marriage yet we have no reason to take it for any ordinance of Divine worship any more then the solemnizing of a contract between a Prince and People All things are sanctified and pure to the Pure but that doth not confound the two Tables nor make all things to be parts of Worship that are sanctified The Coronation of a King is sanctified as well as Marriage and is as much a Sacrament as Marriage and the Ceremonies of it might as well be scrupled especially when God doth seem to go before them by the example of Anointing as if he would confine them to that Ceremonie which yet was none of his intent nor is it much scrupled § 44. 4. And though the taking of an Oath be a sort of worship yet not the natural worship of the first Commandment nor the Instituted of the second but the Reverent use of his name in the third so that it is not primarily an act of worship but Reductively and Consequentially It being the principal use of an Oath to Confirm the Truth and End strife by appealing to God which appellation is indeed an acknowledgment
no Transgression but here is no Law of God commanding Christmas day or the other Holy daies therefore there is no transgression in not keeping them And then 9. it is not so sure that there is no transgression in keeping them therefore the surer side is to be taken 10. And it seems strange that we find not so much as any ancient general Council making any mention of Christmas or such daies though of the Martyrs daies some do All these reasons which I run over hastily and many more which for brevity I pretermit do seem to make it a very hard question whether the keeping of this sort of Holy daies be lawfull § 47. And it is not to be much stuck at that a Day to Christ doth seem more necessary and pious then a Day in commemoration of a Martyr or a particular Mercy For in the highest parts of Gods worship God hath left man least to do as to Legislation and Decisions and usurpations here are far most dangerous A weekly Day is somewhat more then an Annâ—versary And yet I think there is few of the contrary minded but would doubt whether man might impose on the Church the observation of another weekly Holy day in commemoration of Christs Nativity The worship of God is a more excellent and necessary thing then the veneration due to a worthy person And yet we have not so much liberty to make new waies of worshiping God as of veneration to men So is it here though even the Daies that are for the memorial of the Saints are ultimately for the honour of God yet those that are set apart directly and immediately to commemorate the work of Redemption are Relatively much higher and therefore seem to be more exempted from the Determination of humane laws § 48. By this and much more I am fully satisfied 1. That the keeping of these daies is a thing of it self unnecessary 2. And that there being none on earth that can justly pretend to a power of universal Government over the whole Catholick Church it is certain that none on earth can bind the Catholick Church to such observances The Canons of Pastors are Authoritative Directions to their own flocks that are bound to obey them so it be in lawful things but to other Churches or to their fellow Pastors they are but Agreements and how far they bind I shall shew anon 3. And even in a single Church or a Province or Nation I am satisfied that it is a great sin for Magistrates or Pastors to force all that scruple it to the observation of these daies and to lay the unity or Peace of their Churches on it and to cast out censure reproach or punish them that dare not obey such impositions for fear of sining against God And it is a most dsingenuous thing to insinuate and put into the minds of men accusations of the Impiety of the dissenters and to perswade the world that it is irreligiousness or humorous singularity when it is so known a thing to all that know them that the persons that scruple or disown these daies do ordinarily walk in uprightness and the fear of God in other matters and profess that it is only a fear of breaking the Laws of God that keeps them from conformity to the will of others and that they are reproached by the multitude of the observers of these daies for their spending the Lords Day in Holy exercises which the reproachers spend too much in idleness sensuality or prophaness and it is not long since many of them were cast out of the Ministerial service or suspended for not reading a Book authorizing Dancing and other recreations on the Lords day In a word to reproach them as Precisians and Puritans for the strictness of their lives and yet at the same time to perswade men that they are ungodly for not keeping Holy daies or not kneeling at the Sacrament is not ingenuous dealing and draws too neer the Manners of the Pagans who called the Christians ungodly because they durst not offer their sacrifices and when they dragd them to the judgement-seats they cryd Tollite impios as iâ— themselves were the Godly men I compare not the matter of the causes here but only the temper of the persons and manner and justice of proceedings § 49. And yet for all this I am resolved if I live where such Holy daies as these are observed to censure no man for observing them nor would I deny them liberty to follow their judgements if I had the power of their Liberties provided they use not reproach and violence to others and seek not to deprive them of their Liberties Paul hath so long agoe decided these cases Rom. 14. 15. that if men would be Ruled by the word of God the controversie were as to the troublesome part of it at an end They that through weakness observe a Day to the Lord that is not commanded them of God should not judge their brethren that observe it not and they that observe it not should not despise or set at naught their weaker though censorious brethren that observe it but every one should be fully perswaded in his own mind The Holy Ghost hath decided the case that we should here bear with one another § 50. Yea more I would not only give men their Liberty in this but if I lived under a Government that peremptorily commanded it I would observe the outward rest of such a Holy day and I would preach on it and joyn with the Assemblies in Gods worship on it Yea I would thus observe the Day rather then offend a weak brother or hinder any mans salvation much more rather then I would make any division in the Church I think in as great matters as this did Paul condescend when he circumcised Timothy and resolved to eat no flesh while he lived rather then offend his brother and to become all things to all men for their good Where a thing is evil but by accident the greatest Accidents must weigh down the less I may lawfully obey and use the day when another doth unlawfully command it And I think this is the true case § 51. 7. And for the next ceremony the Name and form of an Altar no doubt it is a thing indifferent whether the Table stand this way or that way and the Primitive Churches used commonly the names of Sacrifice and Altar and Priest and I think lawfully for my part I will not be he that shall condemn them But they used them but metaphorically as Scripture it self doth Heb. 13.10 15 16. Rom. 12.1 Ephes. 5.2 Phil. 2.17 4.18 All believers are called Priests and their service Sacrifices 1 Pet. 2.5 9. Rev. 1.6 5.10 20.6 I conceive that the dislike of these things in England the form and name of an Altar and the Rails about it was not as if they were simply evil But 1. because they were illegal innovations forced on the Churches without Law or any just authority
word 2. Or 〈◊〉 the Churches are all called One that are under one Christian Magistrate I will confess the thing to be true that is pretended to be the reason of the name All the Churches do owe obedience to the Magistrate But he is no Essential part or Ecclesiastical Head of the Church and therefore it is very improperly denominated from him or called One on that account No more then all the Schools are one because he is their Soveraign It is the Common-wealth that is specified and individuated by the Magistrate as the Soveraign Power and not the Churches But yet it is but an improper word to call all the Churches one Church on that account which we contend not about § 7. But it is the Thing that we stick more at then the name A General Head doth properly specifie and individuate the Body Prove either 1. That the Archbishop of Canterbury or any other 2. Or an Assembly of Bishops or Presbyters is properly an Ecclesiastical Head having Authority from Jesus Christ to be the chief Ruler of all the Churches in the Land and then I will confess that we have properly and strictly a National Church But no such thing can be proved § 8 As for an Assembly I have already shewed which Bishop Vsher asserted to me that they are not superior Governors nor instituted graâ—ia Regiminis but gratia unitatis having no more Rule over particular Bishops then a Convention of Schoolmasters over a particular Schoolmaster If they say that Kings and Parliaments give Power to Convocations I answer that can be but such as they have themselves which we shall speak of anon and is nothing to this place § 9. And as for a Primate or Archbishop of Canterbury e. g. 1. It will be a hard task to prove Archbishops as such to be of Divine Institution 2. And it will be harder even Impossible to prove Archbishops of the English species as such to be of Divine institution 3. And certainly Christ hath nowhere told us that every Nation shall have such a Head nor every Province nor every County nor told us whether there shall be one over ten Nations or ten over one Their limits are not to be found in Scripture supposing there were such an office there known 4. Nor is it anywhere determined that such a City shall have the preheminence and Canterbury v. g. be Ruler of all the rest All these are of meer humane institution And therefore that which the imposers of Ceremonies call the Church of England is a meer humane thing which therefore can bind us no further then the Magistrate can authorize them to do § 10. But the stronger pretence will be that the particular Bishops of England were severally officers of Christ authorized to Govern their several flocks and therefore a Convâ—cation of these Bishops binds us in conscience gratia unitatis The People they oblige as their Rulers and the several Presbyters also as their Rulers and the several Bishops gratia unitatis for avoiding of schism § 11. Answ. This also is an insufficient evidence to prove our Consciences obliged to their Ceremonies eo nomine because of their Canons or commands For though we acknowledge a sort of Episcopacy to be warrantable yet that this sort that made the Canons in question is not warrantable I have proved at large in the former Disputation on that question Such Pastors of a Diocess as our Bishops were have no word of God to shew for their office further then as they are Presbyters but we have shewed already that their office is unlawfull And therefore though their actions as Presbyters may be valid yet their actions are Null which were done by pretence of this unlawfull sort of office they being no other way enabled thereto On this ground therefore we are not bound § 12. If it could be pretended that at least as Presbyters the Convocation represented the Presbyters of England and therefore thus their Canons binds us to the use of ceremonies Common prayer c. I should answer that 1. Even Synods of Presbyters or the Lawfullest sort of Bishops oblige but gratia unitatis 2. That the late Synod at Westminster was as truly a Representative of the Presbyters of England as the Convcaotion where such consent if any were given was retracted 3. By actuall dislike signified by disuse the Presbyters of England for the most part have retracted their Consent 4. Yea most that are now Ministers never gave such Consent 5. Even â—ll particular Pastors and Churches are free and may on just reason deny consent to such impositions § 13. There remains nothing then that with any shew of strength can be pretended as continuing our obligation to Ceremonies from Authority but that of the Civil Power that commanded them But to that I say 1. So much as was lawfull we confess that we were bound to use while we had the command of the Civil power But nothing unlawfull could be made our duty by them 2. the Civil Power hath repealed those laws that bound us to these ceremonies The Parliament repealed them the late King consented at least for the ease of tender Consciences as he spoke that men should have liberty to forbear them And the present Rulers are against them whom we see even the ceremoniouâ— obey in other matters § 14. Let those then that would subjugate our Consciences to their ceremonies make good their foundation even the Authority by which they suppose us to be obliged or they do nothing If all their impositions were proved things indifferent and lawfull that 's nothing to prove that we must use them till they prove that lawfull authority commandeth them The Civil Powers do not command them And the Ecclesiasticks that command them prove not their authority over us In the matters of God we will yield to any man that bids us do that which God hath bidden us do already But if they will exercise their power by commanding us more then God commands us and that unnecessarily we must crave a sight of their commission § 15. And if men that have no Authority over us shall pretend Authority from God and go about to exercise it by Ceremonious impositions we have the more reason to scruple obeying them even in things indifferent lest we be guilty of establishing their usurpation and pretended office in the Church and so draw on more evils then we foresee or can remove CHAP. XI Prop. 11. The Commands of Lawfull Governors about Lawfull Ceremonies must be understood and obeyed with such exceptions as do secure the End and not to the subverting of it § 1. THE proof of this is obvious These humane Ceremonies are appointed but as means to a further end But that which would cross and overthrow the end doth cease to be a Means and cannot be used sub ratione medii § 2. Order and Decency are the pretended ends of the Imposed Ceremonies and the right worshiping of God and the good of mens