now to his Arguments 1. Paul planted Paul onely was their Father What then Ergo Paul onely was their Bishop I deny the Consequence and may long wait for a syllable of proof Contrarily Paul onely was not their Apostle Ergo Paul onely was not their Bishop For every Apostle you say hath Episcopal Power included in the Apostolical and none of them ceased to have Apostolical Power where-ever they came though they were many together as at Jerusalem Ergo None of them ceased to have Episcopal Power The conceit of Conversion and Paternity entituling to sole Episcopacy I shall confute by it self anon 2. But Paul judged the incestuous person and speaketh of coming with the rod. And what followeth Ergo None but Paul might do the same in that Diocess I deny the Consequence Any other Apostle might do the same Where is your Proof And if all this were granted it is nothing against the Cause that we maintain And next let us inquire whether this Church had no Bishops or Presbyters but Paul As here is not a word of proof on their side so I prove the contrary 1. Because the Apostles ordained Elders or Bishops in every Church and City Acts 14. 23. Tit. 1. 5. Therefore the Church of Corinth had such 2. If they had not Presbyters or Bishops they could hold no ordinary Christian Church-Assemblies for all Gods publick Worship e. g. They could not communicate in the Lords Supper for Lay-men may not be the Ministers of it nor the ordinary Guides and Teachers of a Worshipping Church But they did hold such ordinary Assemblies communicating in the Lords Supper And to say that they had onely Pastors that were itinerant in transitu as they came one after another that way is to speak without book and against it and to make them differ from all other Churches without proof 3. 1 Cor. 14. doth plainly end that Controversie with 1 Cor. 11. when they had so many Prophets and Teachers and gifted Persons in their Assemblies that Paul is put to restrain and regulate their Publick Exercises directing them to speak but one or two and the rest to judge and this rather by the way of edifying plainness than by Tongues c. And c. 11. they had enow to be the ordinary Ministers of the Sacraments And cb 5. they had Instructions for Church-Discipline both as to the incestuous man and for all the scandalous for the time to come and are chidden for not using it before And who but the Separatists do hold that the power of the Keys for the exercise of this Discipline is in the Peoples hands Therefore most certainly they had a Clergy And if all this go not for proof against a bare Affirmation of the contrary we can prove nothing 4. And 1 Cor. 4. 15. I scarce think that Paul would have had occasion to say Though you have ten thousand instructers if they had not had qualified Persons enow to afford them one or two for Presbyters Cap. 2. proving no more of any one Apostles fixed Episcopacy he cometh to their secondary Bishops or Apostles And whereas we judge that Apostles and Evangelists and the Apostles Assistants were unfixed Ministers appropriating no Churches or Diocesses to themselves in point of Power but planting setling and confirming Churches in an itinerant way and distributing their Provinces onely arbitrarily and changeably and as the Spirit guided them at the present time of their work and that Bishops and Elders were such Pastors as these Church-gatherers fixed in a stated relation to particular Churches so that an Apostle was a Bishop eminenter but not formaliter and that a Bishop as such was no Apostle in the eminent sense but was also an itinerant Preacher limitedly because while he oversaw his Flock he was also to endeavour the conversion of others as far as his opportunity allowed him I say this being our judgment this learned Doctor supposeth Apostles as such to be Bishops and the fixed Bishops as such to be second Apostles And I so avoid contending about Names even where it is of some importance to the Matter that I will not waste my time upon it till it be necessary In § 1. he telleth us that these second Apostles were made partakers of the same Jurisdiction and Name with the first and either planted and ruled Churches or ruled such as others had planted Answ 1. We doubt not but the Apostles had indefinite itinerant Assistants and definite fixed Bishops placed by them as aforesaid But the indefinite and the definite must not be confounded 2. And were not Luke Mark Timothy and other itinerant Evangelists as such of the Clergy and such Assistants or secondary Apostles Exclude them and you can prove none but the fixed Bishops But if they were why did you before deny Evangelists Dissert 3. cap. 6. the power of the Keys and make them meer converting Preachers below Doctors and Pastors and the same with Deacons whereas Paul Ephes 4. 11. doth place them before Pastors and Teachers But avoiding the Controversie de nomine call them what you will we believe that these itinerant Assistants of the Apostles were of that One sacred Office commonly called the Priesthood or Ministry though not yet fixed and that the assigning them to particular Churches did not make them of a new Order but onely give them a new object and opportunity to exercise the Power which they had before and that Philip and other Deacons were not Evangelists meerly as Deacons which term denoteth a fixed Office in one Church but by a further Call And that you never did prove that ever the Scripture knew one Presbyter that had not the power of the Keys as Bishops have yea you confess your self the contrary All therefore that followeth in that Chapter and your Book of James the Just and Mark and others having Episcopal power is nothing against us The thing that we put you to prove is that ever the Apostles ordained such an Officer as a Presbyter that hath not Episcopal Power and Obligation too as to his Flock that is the Power of governing that Church according to God's Word And I would learn if I could whether all the Apostles which staid long at Jerusalem while James is supposed to be their Bishop were not Bishops also with him Whether they ceased to be Apostles to the People there Or whether they were Apostles and not Bishops And whether they lost any of their Power by making James Bishop And whether one Church then had not many Bishops at once And if they made James greater than themselves Whether according to your Premonition they did not give a Power or Honour which they had not which you think unanswerable in our Case Cap. 4. come in the Angels of the Churches Rev. 1 2 3. of which though the matter be little to our Cause I have said enough before why I prefer the Exposition of Ticoniui which Augustine seemeth to favour And I find nothing here to the
many Churches without Bishops under him and of half-Presbyters how little he saith the Reader will soon see yea how much on our side 4. As for Hooker till his 7th Book came lately out we had nothing in him considerable of this subject And in that Book it self so little to the purpose as to our foresaid two Controversies as is next to nothing nor worthy a Reply In his § 2. p. 4. He attempts that which few do to give us the definition of a Bishop which is A Bishop is a Minister of God unto whom with permanent continuance there is given not only power of Administring the Word and Sacraments which power other Presbyters have but also a further power to Ordain Ecclesiastical persons and a power of Chiefty in Government over Presbyters as well as Lay men a power to be by way of Jurisdiction a Pastor even to Pastors themselves And then he distinguisheth of Bishops at large or indefinite and Bishops with restraint and saith he meaneth the later And so you have what must be expected from Mr. Hooker for the information of you what Episcopacy he pleads for Where it is obvious how fraudulently through oversight or partiality I know not he dealeth For whereas he durst put no more into the definition of Episcopacy about Jurisdiction but a power of Chiefty in Government over Presbyters as well as Lay-men yet would not tell us whether Government of Lay-men under the Bishop belong to the Presbyters or not His words seem plainly to imply it what use else is there for his Chiefly and as well as Lay-men And yet twice over he would name nothing but Teaching and Sacraments which belong to the Pastor as a Pastor in general leaving it as a thing which he would neither affirm nor deny whether Pastors Governed their Flocks Yet all that Decantate Book turneth on the Hinges of this lame Definition which hath other defects which I pass by And without this we cannot know what Subject he disputeth of Whereas Saravia well noted and acknowledged three Essential parts of the Ministry in General Mr. Hooker who leaveth out one of them and yet durst not deny it should have told us whether he include it or not seeing it is the matter of most of our difference and we take him for no Pastor or Presbyter that is without the power of Government nor that to be a true Church in sensu politico that hath no other Pastor 2. And when as one part of his Adversaries deny not at least the Lawfulness of one Bishops superiority in a single Church as far as his description speaketh but only in many Churches no nor one Archbishops power over many Churches that have their own Bishops but only his power to depose all the Bishops of particular Churches and turn them all into one Diocesan Church his Definition visibly reacheth to no other sort of Bishops but such as we oppose not and so he saith nothing at all against us to any purpose through all his Book For where after he confidently tells us that the extent of his Jurisdiction alters not the Species it is but barely said and by his leave I shall fully prove the contrary anon And pag. 4. l. 7. He confesseth that de facto Many things are in the state of Bishops which the times have changed Many a Parsonage at this day is larger than some ancient Bishopricks were It 's well confest And I shall try among other things whether the Name of a Bishoprick will make a Parsonage and a Diocess to be ejusdem speciei and whether magnitude do not make a specifick difference between the Sea and a Rivulet or a glass of water or between a Ship and a Nut-shel And whereas page 6. He undertaketh to prove a Coercive Power in Bishops either he speaketh according to the common use of men or not If not he would not be understood Qui non vâ—lt intelligi debet negligi If he do then by Coercive he must mean by Outward force upon the body which is false and is proper to the Magistrate Parents or Masters and is disclaimed by all sober Protestant Divines yea by Papists as not at all belonging to the Pastoral Office Though we easily grant that Pastors may Coercere by nord and so may Presbyters sure yet no otherwise but by word For Excommunication and Degradation as far as belongs to them are but words and an after forbearing of their own acts of Communion But this is not the common use of the word Coercive as applyed to Government by way of distinction How much wiselier doth the more Learned and judicious Bishop Bilson still distinguish by the Power of the Word as differing from the Magistrates Coercive or by the Sword Yet note that page 8. § 5. l. 7. He is brought to acknowledge that All Churches by the Apostles erected received from them the same Faith the same Sacraments the same Form of publick Regiment The Form of Regiment by them established at first was that the Laity be subject to a College of Ecclesiastical persons which were in every such City appointed for that purpose These in their writings they term sometime Presbyters and sometime Bishops To take one Church out of a number for a pattern what the rest were the Presbyters of Ephesus as it is in the History of their departure from the Apostle Paul at Miletum are said to have wept abundantly all which speech doth shew them to have been many And by the Apostles exhortation it may appear that they had not each his several Flock to feed but were in common appointed to feed that one Flock the Church of Ephesus for which cause the phrase of his speech is this Attendite gregi Look to all that one Flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Bishops These persons Ecclesiastical being termed then Presbyters and Bishops both c. And page 9. he saith The outward being of a Church consisteth in the having of a Bishop Then the Brownists must carry it that our Parishes are no true Churches but parts of a Church because they have no Bishop Only a Diocesan Church hath a Bishop Therefore only a Diocesan is a true Church which anon shall be proved to be but Humane And page 12. He thus expoundeth Hierome as holding Episcopacy alterable The Church hath power by Universal consent upon urgent cause to take it away if thereunto she be constrained through the proud tyrannical and unreformable dealing of her Bishop Wherefore lest Bishops forget themselves as if none on earth had authority to touch their states let them continually bear in mind that it is rather the force of custome than any such true heavenly law can be shewed by the evidence whereof it may of a truth appear that the Lord himself hath appointed Presbyters for ever to be under the Regiment of Bishops in what sort soever they behave themselves Let this consideration be a bridle to them Let it
Tryal by the Holy Ghost Cap. 5. § 5. He now acknowledgeth that where many were at first Converted not always the first but the fittest was chosen Bishop And how prove you that he and his Flock were no Church The same he maintaineth § 11. And after from the choice usually made by suffrages and other reasons well confuteth the former conceit when he took it to be Blondels but sure he could not believe that they were Ecclesiae nondum natâ— or future Believers that chose Bishops by Suffrages But having so fully in this Chapter confuted his former as Blondel's opinion I doubt not but Blondel is in this as easily reconciled to him as he to himself and meant no more but 1. That the Apostles used not to make Bishops of the first Converts simply but to choose them out of the ancient grown and proved Christians 2. And that being so chosen not he that was first Baptized but he that was first ordained had the presidence in the Conâ—essus of their Presbyters Which the Dr. might easily have seen and spared his insulting upon the contrary supposition But let it here again be noted that § 9. he expresly and confidently asserteth all that I now desire viz. That Clemens doth speak of that time of the Churches beginning in which there were not yet many Believers and therefore without doubt neither Presbyters instituted If he means no Subject Presbyters or if he means not many in a Church but one Bishop I desire no more For then no Bishop had more Church Assemblies than one nor any half Presbyters were ordained by the Apostles For Clemens doth not tell us what the Apostles did in the beginning of their Preaching only but giveth us this as an account of all their course in settling Offices in the Churches where they came Cap. 6. He confesseth that Clemens mentioneth but two Orders Bishops and Deacons and we would have no more and § 4. is over angry with Blundel for gathering hence that he did not do as those that from the Jewish Elders or Priests or the 70 gather another order what is there in this Collection that deserveth the sharp words of that § Cap. 7. Whether Clemens well cited Isai 60. 17. we need not debate But if yet any think that the Dr. hath not fully granted us our Cause let him take these additions § 7. He well gathereth from Clemens that this form of Government founded in Bishops and Deacons in each Church being setled by Men entrusted by Christ is no less to be ascribed to Gods Command than if Christ himself had constituted Bishops and Deacons in every City Let who dare then approve of the alteration by the Introduction of another Order of Priests And § 8. He noteth also out of Clemens that the foresight of the contention that would be about Episcopacy caused this establishment of Bishops and Deacons No doubt God foreknew both that the popular sort would oppose Government and that the Monarchical Prelates would depose all the Bishops of the same Church save themselves and the Arch-Prelates would depose all the Bishops of particular Churches and set up half Priests in their stead And he doth well not to pass the following words in Clemens though hard yet plainly subverting the Doctors opinion that from this same foresight the Apostles constituted the foresaid Bishops and Deacons in every Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. ac descriptas deinceps ministrorum officiorumque vices reliquerunt ut in defunctorum locum alii viri probati succedere illorum munia exequi possent as Pat. Junius translateth it The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can allow no such doubt as shall make this much of the sense to be questionable 1. That upon the foresight of the Contentions about Episcopacy the Apostles made by the Spirit an established Description of the Orders and Offices which should be in the Church not only in their times but afterwards 2. And that the approved men that should hereafter be ordained should succeed in those same Orders which the Apostles had established and described even to the same Work or Office 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. That the Apostles thus setled or described no mungrel or half Priests but only Bishops and Deacons nor any Churches that had not each a Bishop and Deacon 4. Therefore no such half Priests should be brought in but only such as the Apostles instituted or described I can scarce speak my thoughts plainlier than by the Doctors next words § 9. It is evident that by the immediate impulse of the Spirit of God Bishops were constituted Deacons only joyned to them in every Church and so at Corinth and the rest of the Cities of Achaia And that by the command of the same Divine Prophesie or Revelation successors were assigned to them after their departure not a new order invented Christ thus consulting and providing for the Churches peace c. And § 14. he well granteth 1. That the form of Church Government was no where changed by the Apostles and so no middle order instituted by them 2. That through all their Age and when they were consummate in the middle under their Disciples the Government of every Church was in the power of the Bishops and Deacons in common But whereas § 13 c. he layeth this as the ground of his Cause 1. That it was not the Church at Corinth alone but of all Achaia that Clemens writeth to under this name 2. And that there were not many Bishops in one Church but one to each of these particular Churches I desire the Reader 1. To try impartially whether in all the Drs. Book there be one word of cogent Evidence to prove what he saith yea or to make it credible or likely 2. To consider these Reasons following for the contrary 1. As is said whether Scripture custom of speech will allow us to call all the Churches of a Region A Church in the singular Number Shew one Text for it if you can 2. Whether any ancient Ecclesiastical use of speech will allow us to say that the Churches of Achaia dwell at Corinth as Clemens speaketh p. 1. 3. Whether I have not proved from 1 Cor. 14. c. that the Church of Corinth had more Ministers or Clergy men or Pastors in it than one in Paul's time And therefore was not without so soon after 4. Whether it be credible that when it was but one or two Persons p. 62. by whom or for whose cause the Preâ—byters were ejected that it is like either this one or two were members of more particular Churches in Achaia than one or two Or that all the Churches of Achaia would so far own one or two mutineers in a particular Church as to cast out many of their Ministers for their sakes 5. Yea when Clemens whole scope intimateth that this one or two did this because they aspired after Power or Preeminence themselves Could they expect themselves to be made the Rulers of more
shall by the people be appointed only let the Sheep-fold of Christ live in peace with the Presbyters appointed over it By which words it is evident that it was such a particular Ovile or Church where the Will of the people might be declared as a matter that bore much sway But who can think that this is spoken of many Congregations where the peoples Will could not easily be signified 6. And it is farther manifest in that it was but for the sake of one or two that the Church of Corinth moved this sedition against the Presbyters called also Bishops pag. 62. Now how many Congregations that Church consisted of where the interest of one or two was either so far concerned or so powerful it is easie to conjecture set all these together and judge impartially I add though out of season that it was none of the Apostles meaning that those whom they made Bishops of such single Churches without a subject Order of Presbyters should make such an Order of subject Presbyters and make themselves the Bishops of a Diocesane Church without any Bishops under them For pag. 57. he saith And our Apostles by our Lord Jesus Christ knew that contention would arise about the name of Episcopacy and for this cause being endued with perfect fore-knowledge they appointed them aforesaid and left the Courses or Orders of After-Ministers and Offices described that other approved men might succeed in the place of the deceased and might execute their Offices So that it was the same places and the same Offices which those ordained by the Apostles had in which others must succeed them which therefore were described by the Apostles and not into others To confirm my Exposition of Clemens note that Grotius himself Epist 182. ad Bignon giveth this as a reason to prove this Epistle of Clemens to be genuine Quod nusquam meminit exortis illius Episcoporum authoritatis quae Ecclesiae consuctudine post Marci mortem Alexandriae atque eo exemplo alibi introduci coepit sed plane ut Paulus Apostolus ostendit Ecclesias communi Presbyterorum qui iidem omnes Episcopi consilio fuisse gubernatas that is Because he no where maketh mention of that excelling authority of Bishops which began to be intrduoced at Alexandria by the custom of the Church after the death of Mark and in other places by that example But he plainly sheweth as the Apostle Paul doth that the Churches were governed by the Common Council of Presbyters who were also Bishops Note also as aforesaid that Doctor Hammond in Dissert granteth as to matter of fact that Clemens speaketh but of the Bishops of single Congregations whom he also calleth Presbyters there being no other in the Church of Corinth II. My next Witness is Pius Bishop of Rome in Epist Justo Episcopo in Biblioth Patr. Tom. 3. pag. 15. mentioning only Bishops and Deacons of which Doctor Hammond making the same Concession still granteth that hitherto Bishops had but single Churches Of this more anon III. My next and greatest Witness is Ignatius in whom to my admiration the Diocesanes so much confide as that quasi pro aris focis they contend for the authority of his Epistles I am as loth to lose him as they are therefore I will not meddle in Blondel's controversie against whom they say Doctor Pierson is now writing In his Epistle to the Philadelphians he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is to every Church one Altar and one Bishop with the Presbytery and the Deacons my fellow servants I am not able to devise apter words to express my sense in He saith not this of some one Church but of all nor yet as of an accident proper to those times of the Churches minority but as of the Notes of every Churches Individuation or Haecceity as they speak The Unity of the Church is characterised by One Altar and One Bishop with the Presbytery and Deacons If 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were out it would not alter the sense being plainly implied Bishop Downame's Exposition of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if it signified Christ is so forced and contrary to the evidence of the Text that his own party quite forsake him in it and he needeth no confutation For who ever before dreamed that the Unity or Individuation of each particular Church consisted in having one Christ who is the common Head of all Churches One Christ to every Church and one Bishop would signifie that every Church must have one several Christ as well as one several Bishop Nor is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so used by the Ancients except when the Context sheweth that they speak by allusion of Christ Master Mede's plain and certain Exposition and Collection I gave you before the same with ours As for them that say that many Congregations might per vices come to one Altar to communicate I answer 1. Let them make Churches as big as can thus communicate and spare not though there be necessary Chappels or Oratories besides 2. But remember that every Church used to worship God publickly and to communicate at least every Lords day and that there was but One Altar to each Church and therefore but one Communicating Congregation Doctor Stillingfleet in his Schismatical Sermon is for my Exposition Object It is meant of one Species of Altars and not one Individual Answ Then it is meant also of one Species of Bishops in each Church and not of one Individual Object The practice of the Churches after sheweth that they took it not for a sin or Schism to have several Altars in a Church Answ I talk of nothing but matter of fact it was the note of One Church when those Epistles were written whether the Author was mistaken de jure or whether after Ages grew wiser or rather had fewer Bishops and more Altars for the sake of Carnal Interest I judge not The same Author Epist ad Smyrn saith Ubi utique apparet Episcopus ibi multitudo sit quemadmodum utique ubi est Christus Jesus illic Catholica Ecclesia as Usher's Lat. Trans or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 omnis exercitus coelestis And the Context sheweth that this multitudo or plebs is the Church which the Bishop overseeth Therefore ubi Episcopus ibi Ecclesia fuit and so every Church had a present Bishop So in Epist ad Magnes he bids them All unitedly or as one run together to one Temple of God as to one Altar to one Jesus Christ So that every Church had one Temple and one Altar to which as a note of their Union in Christ the whole Church must unanimously come So in Epist ad Trull he saith Et Episcopus typum Dei Patris omnium gerit Presbyteri vero sunt consessus quidam conjunctus Apostolorum coetus sine his Ecclesia Electa non est Nulla sine his Sanctorum Congregatio nulla Sanctorum Collectio Et postea Quid vero aliud Sacerdotium est vel Presbyterium quam sacer
Prelacy to be so made And were they Christians or no Christians that made the Diocesane Form If Christians were they orderly Christians or rebellious If orderly how happened it that they were of no Church themselves when the Apostles setled so much of Church Form and Order as I have before named If rebellious they were a dishonourable original of Diocesanes And if the Church Form be not of Divine institution then the Church it self is not For forma dat nomen esse And so the cause is given up to the Brownists by these Learned moderate men so far as that there is no Church in England of Divine institution Were it not that when in general they have said that no Church Form of Government is so Divine they again so far unsay it as to confess the Parith Churches or Congregations with their Pastors to be of Divine institution and of continued necessity All that is to be said by and for them is this That the Apostles were the makers of the English or Diocesane Form but not of that only but of the Presbyterian and Independent also and so made no one necessary but left all indifferent Or that they made one of these Forms as mutable allowing men to change it Answ But 1. I have proved what they made Let them prove that they made any other of a different sort not subordinate or supraordinate if they can 2. And let them prove the mutability of that which they made and their power to change it which they assert Till one of these is proved we are or should be in possession of that which was certainly first made I am bold to conclude this argument with the speech of a bold but a wise and holy man Joh. Chrysostome de Sacerdotio lib. 3. pag. mihi 48. cap. 15. And when some Bishops have obtained that prefecture of a Province not belonging to them and others of one FAR GREATER THAN THEIR OWN proper STRENGTH CAN BEAR THEY CERTAINLY BRING TO PASS THAT THE CHURCH OF GOD SEEMETH NOTHING TO DIFFER FROM AN EURIPUS or a confused turbulent changeling thing pag. 49. AND DO NOT THESE THINGS DESERVE GODS THUNDERBOLT A THOUSAND TIMES ARE THEY NOT WORTHY TO BE PUNISHED WITH THE FIRE OF HELL NOT THAT hell WHICH THE HOLY SCRIPTURES THREATEN TO US BUT EVEN OF ONE THAT IS FAR MORE GRIEVOUS Forgive the words my Lords They are not mine but Chrysostome's or if you will not forgive the citing of them I will bear it as he did the like Only I will abate you in my prognostication or sentence that far sorer hell fire than the Scripture threameth supposing this will be sharp enough even for the most dispersing silencing persecuting Prelate and imputing those words to honest Chrysostome's vehement Oratory And I 'le tell you what went next before these words And they do not only take in the unworthy into the Priesthood but they cast out the worthy For as if they had agreed both ways to spoil the Church of God and the first cause were not enough to kindle the wrath of God they add the second or worse to the former For I judge it equally pestilent to drive out the Profitable and to take in the unprofitable which certainly they do that the flock of Christ may from no part either find consolation or be able to take breath O what would this man have said had he lived now in England CHAP. XI Argument 3. From the destruction of the order of Presbyters of Divine Institution and the Invention of a new order of Sub-half-Presbyters in their stead ARGUMENT III. THe office of Presbyters instituted by the Holy Ghost containeth an Obligation and Authority to Guide by Doctrine Worship and Discipline the flocks committed to their care But the office of a Diocesane being one only Bishop over many score or hundred Congregations is destructive of that office of Presbyters which containeth an obligation and authority to Guide by Doctrine Worship and Discipline or the exercise of the Church keys the flocks committed to their care Therefore the office of such a Diocesane is destructive of the office of Presbyters instituted by the Holy Ghost The Major is thus proved by the Enumeration of the Acts which contain the general office and by the proof of the General power extending to those Acts viz. 1. They that had the Authority and Obligation to exercise the Church keys in the Scripture sence had the authority and obligation to Guide their flocks by Doctrine Worship and Discipline But the Presbyters of the Holy Ghosts institution had the authority and obligation to exercise the Church keys in the Scripture sence Ergo they had authority and obligation to Guide their flocks by Doctrine Worship and Discipline 2. Again The office which contained an Authority and Obligation to Teach Exhort Rebuke publickly and privately to judge of persons baptizable and to baptize them to Pray Praise God and administer the Lords Supper to the Church and to judge of them that are to receive it to watch over them privately and publickly to Excommunicate the obstinately impenitent and absolve the penitent doth contain authority and obligation to Guide that flock by Doctrine Worship and Discipline But such is the Office of Presbyters as instituted by the Holy Ghost Ergo c. Here note 1. That I am not now medling with the Questions Whether such Presbyters hold this power in subordination to any superiour Bishops nor whether there lie any appeal from them to a higher power in the Church 2. Nor am I now questioning Whether in Scripture sence Bishops and Presbyters are all one in Name or thing 3. But that which I maintain is 1. That there is no proof in Scripture that God ever instituted any order of Presbyters which had not the forementioned power of the keys 2. And that God did institute such an Order of Presbyters as had that power de nomine de re And 3. That the Diocesane Office destroyeth such and setteth up others in their stead What God instituted I will prove 1. Out of the Scripture records 2. Out of the History of the Church which long retained them in some degree CHAP. XII That God instituted such Presbyters as had the foresaid power of the Keys in Doctrine Worship and Discipline and no other proved by the Sacred Scriptures THat God instituted such Presbyters and no other I shall prove by the enumeration and perusal of all the Texts of Scripture which mention them viz. as instituted in the New Testament and now in force Act. 14. 23. When they had Ordained them Elders in every Church Compared with Tit. 1. 5. That thou shouldest Ordain Elders in every City as I had appointed thee 7. For a Bishop must be blameless as the steward of God And his power is described v. 11 13. Ch. 2. 1 7 15. and 3. 10. intimate it Compare this with 1 Tim. 3. 1 2 5 6. 1 Tim. 5. 17. Let the Elders that rule well be
call us to seek the alteration which we are required to abjure 10. Lastly by this objection they shew themselves too ignorant of the nature of Church and discipline and Sacrament and Ministery Or else they would better know how far Volunteers are proper objects of Church discipline and have the right to the privileges and Communion of the Church II. The Magistrates Sword will not serve instead of Church discipline 1. Else Christ would not have instituted another office for it 2. Else it might serve also instead of Ministry Preaching and Sacraments 3. The nature of it tendeth not directly to convince men of Errours to lead them into truth to move them by heavenly motions and to bring them to true repentance and godlyness But this will be fuller proved under the next and is confessed by all save the Erastians III. The Magistrates Sword should not be used too forwardly or too much to second or enforce Church discipline much less to be its life and strength and inseparably twisted with it I mean 1. No unbeliever should be forced to say he is a Believer and to professe the Christian faith 2. None upon such profession should be forced to be Baptized 3. None that hath no right to Church Communion in the Sacrament should be forced to receive it 4. None that Apostatizeth from Christ should be forced falsly to professe that he is still a Christian 5. None that are at age should be forced to stay in the Church by local presence or relation as a member of it who is not willing and the practice of the Papists who force no Heathens to be Christians but afterward force Christians by fire and Sword and burn them that were Hereticks Schismaticks or Apostates is self contradicting and self condemning God having left man as much unto his own choice for continuing as for Entring into the Church And as for Obedience to Rulers Infidels may owe it to Christian Kings as well as Christians And none but Magistrates can use the Sword to punish either 6. No Magistrate should punish a Mans body meerly because he is Excommunicate and so punished already Nor should he be made a meer executioner to the Bishop without hearing trying and judging the Cause himself in order to his own execution 7. No Magistrate should force an Impenitent sinner to lie and say he doth repent that thereby he may be admitted to the Church Communion and Sacrament but it is the force of Gods word that must try his Repentance But yet I acknowledge 1. That Magistrates and Parents and Masters may force their Subjects to use those means which tend to make them Christians as to hear Preaching Conference or disputations or to read convincing books But with these two Cautions 1. That it be but when it is like or hopeful to do more good than harme 2. That it be by wise and moderate means of constreint and not hang or burn them to convert them 2. Accordingly Magistrates Parents and Masters may use the like force with their Subjects who are Christians to cause them to use the foresaid meanes of hearing and Reading and conference for the cureing of their dangerous errours or sinful lives 3. And I doubt not but Magistrates may punish men Corporally for their crime according to the nature of them and even for the same that the Church hath excommunicated them If one be excommunicated for Treason Murder Theft Swearing Prophaning the Lords day and holy things c. it followeth not that the Magistrate may not also meddle with him 4. And we doubt not but Magistrates may Restraine false Teachers from seducing others and drawing them from God to sin 5. And the Magistrate may and ought to encourage Ministers in the use of the Church Keyes and to preserve them from the violence of wicked men 7. And they may make a difference in their favours and rewards between Christians obedient to God and their Pastors and Infidels excommunicate in penitent ones and Apostates by denying honors and preferments and rewards to the worse which he giveth to the better sort of men But yet as to the Cases before denied especially the forcing men by fire sword and imprisonment to say they believe and repent and to take the Sacrament and other Church priviledges and making this the strength of Church discipline I have all this against it 1. No force should be used to the hindering and destruction of Christs ordinance of discipline and his Church Laws But such it would be in the case in hand For Christs fundamental Covenant is that the true willing penitent and believer shall be a member of his Church or those only that credibly profess to be so at age He that will may freely drink of the water of life Nemo invitus fit Christianus so that to say that any man hath right to the mystical Church priviledges but Consenters or any man hath right to the visible Church priviledges but credible Professors of consent is to contradict the very condition of the Covenant of life which is the sum of all the Gospel It s true you may compel some men to duty but you cannot compel them to be happy But to force them by perpetual Imprisonment confiscation and the sword to say that they are Christians or repent consent or are willing and so to give them absolution and Church-communion is to make Christs ordinance of none effect For true discipline is to make them penitent and willing and then to use them as such But 1 It is not credible that that person is truly penitent and willing to be a Christian or have Church-communion who will not be perswaded to consent by all that can be said by the Pastors from the word of God but yet on the rack or to prevent undoing will say I consent This is contrary to the nature of true Repentance 2. Or if it did not make this forced consent utterly incredible yet it utterly crosseth the ends of Church discipline which is to discern the voluntary penitent which force so obscureth that no man can tell whether the person be credibly penitent or not If I left a Legacy to so many that are Lovers of the Church and its Communion and my Executors should get the Magistrate to hang or Imprison or undo certain men that are accused as Enemies of the Church unless they will say we Love the Church I think my Will would be ill performed if those men had my Legacy that were forced to say so 2. No man should be forced to his own sin and distruction But he that is forced to take the Sacrament when he is unwilling and had rather be without it in likelihood is forced to his sin and destruction For even the Liturgy telleth the unworthy that they eat and drink damnation to themselves and that the Devil may enter into them as he did into Judas And who is unworthy if the unwilling are not 3. Force is not fitted to cause love and willingness therefore
or the Puritan convert to Apostolical Christianity written by W. H. opening their fundamental errours of unwritten tradition and their unjust description of the Puritan the Prelatical Protestant and the Papist and their differences c. To which is added an examination of Roman Tradition as it is urged as infallible c. In answer to a book called A rational discourse of Transubstantiation in Quarto A Key for Catholicks to open the Jugling of the Jesuits and satisfie all that are but truely willing to understand whether the cause of the Roman or reformed Churches be of God and to leave the readerutterly unexcusable that will after this be a Papist in Octavo A Treatise of Justifying Righteousness in two books in Octavo There are lately published of this Authors these two Books following and sold by Thomas Simmons at the Princes Armes in Ludgate-street CHurch-History of the Government of Bishops and their Councils Abbreviated Including the chief part of the Government of Christian Princes and Popes and a true account of the most troubling Controversies and Heresies till the Reformation Written for the use especially of them I. Who are ignorant or misinformed of the state of the Antient Churches II. Who cannot read many and great Volumes III. Who think that the Universal Church must have one Visible Soveraign Personal or Collective Pope or General Councils IV. Who would know whether Patriarchs Diocesans and their Councils have been or must be the cure of Heresies and Schismes V. Who would know the truth about the great Heresies which have divided the Christian World especially the Donatists Novatians Arrians Macedonians Nestorians Eutychians Monothelites c. By Richard Baxter a Hater of False History A Moral Prognostication I. What shall befal the Churches on Earth till their Concord by the Restitution of their Primitive Purity Simplicity and Charity II. How that Restitution is like to be made if ever and what shall befal them thenceforth unto the End in that Golden Age of LOVE Written by Richard Baxter when by the Kings Commission we in vain treated for Concord 1661. And now published not to instruct the Proud that scorn to learn nor to make them Wise who will not be made Wise But to Instruct the Sons of Love and Peace in their Duties and Expectations And to tell Posterity That the Things which befall them were Fore-told And that the Evil might have been prevented and Blessed Peace on Earth attained if Men had been but willing and had not shut their Eyes and hardened their Hearts against the Beams of Light and Love THE English Diocesan AND PRIESTHOOD TRYED c. CHAP. I. The Reasons of this Writing I Am not ignorant how displeasing it will be to the Prelates that I publish these Reasons of my Nonconformity to the Subscriptions and Oaths by which they would have me become an obliged Approver of their Function Nor am I ignorant what Power Wit and Will they have to express and exercise their displeasure And consequently how probable it is that I shall suffer by them for this work And I well know that peaceable subjects should not unnecessarily say any thing against that which is required by their Rulers Laws nor cherish the Peoples discontents but do all that is lawful for the common Peace And I am not of so pugnacious or self-hating a disposition as to be willing of mens displeasure especially my Superiours or to be ruined in this World and all that I may but vent my Opinion in a case wherein I have published already so much that is still unanswered as in my Disputations of Church-Government is to be seen And upon such Reasons but above all that I might not cast away my opportunity for some more useful writings nor put an end to my own labours before God put an end to them I have been silent in this Cause since our publick debates in 1661 above ten years I have lived peaceably I have endeavoured to preserve the due reputation of the publick Ministry and to perswade all others to due subjection love and quietness I have by Word and Writing opposed the Principles of such as are exasperated by their sufferings into the Dividing and Separating extream Though I knew that by so doing I was like to incur the displeasur and bâ—tter cenâ—â—â—e of the Separatists as much as I had before of the Prelates though not to suffer so much by them And I thought that the Prelates themselves who would not understand the true state of the People nor the tendency of their way by our informations and evident Reasons might yet come in time to know all by experience and so to amend what they have done amiss But now I dare be no longer silent for the Reasons given Apol. ch 1. which I will â—tay the Râ—â—der bâ—ieâ—y to sum up 1. I find that experience it self doth not Teach some men but Harden them 2. I perceive that those that are now convinced by experience and wish they had taken another course and rather have united the Ministry than silenced them are not able to undo what they have done nor to amend what is done amiss much less to retrieve all the doleful consequents but the matter is gone out of their hands and beyond their power 3. I see that while we wait the Devil's work goeth on by the silence and by the Divisions of the Ministers Popery greatly increaseth Quakers multiply Atheism and Infidelity go baâ—e faced among those that are accounted men of reputation Malice and bitter hatred of each other with common backbitings censurings and slanders instead of sweet Love and Concord do notoriously encrease Thousands are every day committing these sins to the increase of their guilt and the hastening of Gods judgments on the Land The sufferers call the Prelates persecuters and wolves in sheeps cloathings who are known by their fruits their teeth and â—laws The Prelatists still say that the Nonconformists are unreasonable discontented peevish factious unpeaceable unruly schismaticks that will rather see all confounded than they will yield to things indifferent And shall we still stand by and silently see this work go on 4. And to love and defend Truth Honesty and Innocency is to be like to God It is pity that those that Christ hath done so much to justifie and will so gloriously justifie at the last should have nothing said on their behalf by men But we are much more obliged to justifie a righteous cause than righteous men For all men have somewhat that is unjustifiable but so hath not the truth of God 5. And he that in his Baptismal Covenant is engaged against the Flesh the World and the Devil should be loath to see all their work go on and not oppose it and to see that which he taketh to be no better than deliberate Lying or Justifying sin and Perjury it self and covenanting never to obey God in lawful and necessary Church-reformation to be all called Things indifferent 6. Nature and Scripture teach us to
Bishop and his Chancellor and other Officers are over us all The Magistrates Civil Governmeut of the Church I shall not meddle with as having no exceptions against it The Sacerdotal or Spiritual Power called the Power of the Keys determineth who shall be Members of the Church and partake of its Communion and exerciseth other acts of Spiritual Discipline of which more anon This power is said to be in Archbishops and Bishops in foro ecclesiae publico vel exteriore though also in the Governed Presbyters in foro privato interiore as they may privately comfort a penitent person and declare God's promise of the pardon of his sin The Archbishops have it in eminency As also the power of confirming the Election of the Bishops of their Provinces and the power of Consecrating Bishops with two others and the power of Convocating Provincial Synods upon the Kings Prescript and of moderating in them The power of receiving Appeals and of Visiting the whole Provinces yea to receive Appeals from the lower Judges omiting the middle ones and to exercise Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in any vacant Diocess under them They have power of Dispensation in all Causes not judged contrary to Gods word wherever the Pope had power and where the Pope had not power if the King or Council permit it them They may dispense with the Eating of flesh on Fasting-days with Marrying without previous publication with divers irregularities and sometime may abolish simoniacum ambitum They may grant Commendams and Dispence with Non-residence and with the keeping of divers Churches called Benefices in several Cases and with a Sons succeeding his Father and with Lay-mens possessing the Church-maintenance called Prebends The Bishops who take place in Parliament of other Barons as the Archbishops do of Dukes are all chosen really by the King who nominateth in a Writ to the Dean and Chapter the man whom they must chuse who pro forma do chuse him never contradicting the Kings Nomination Their proper Office consisteth in the powers of Order and of Jurisdiction as they distinguish them Their power of Order is threefold 1. To Ordain Priests and Deacons 2. To Consecrate Churches and Burying places 3. To Confirm Children after Baptism when they can speak and say the Creed Lords Prayer and Decalogue and others that were not Confirmed in their Childhood Besides that they may be Privy-Counsellors Lord-Keepers of the Great Seal Lord Treasurers Embassadours c. Their ordinary Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction extendeth 1. to the Interdiction of Divine Offices 2. to publick Admonitions and Penances 3. to suspension from the Sacrament and from ingress into the Church and 4. to Excommunication and Absolution and 5. to Anathematisms And as to Ministers 1. They may Sequester Benefices 2. They may Suspend ab officio beneficio and forbid them to Preach or Pray Or grant License to such as shall be tolerated to Preach 3. They may deprive 4. And depose Ministers by sentence verbal and degradation actually This Church Jurisdiction of Bishops is distinguished into Voluntary and Contentious The Voluntary extendeth to abundance of things granted them by Statute and by Common Law which I pass by That which they claim both by Municipal Law and Ecclesiastical is 1. The probate of the Testaments of the dead 2. The granting Administration of Goods to the next of Kin 3. Keeping the bona caduca where none claimeth the Inheritance 4. To receive Reasons of Administring and to be Judges of them 5. To confer Benefices or Institute such as others present 6. To grant Induction to the Instituted 7. To receive the Fruits of vacant Benefices 8. To allow the Vicar a fit proportion 9. To grant Letters Dimissory or Testimonial 10. To Visit their Diocess once in three years In which Triennial Visitation they usually go to one Town in a County and never see the face of the people in the many score or hundred Churches about them and thither they summon the Ministers and the Church-Wardens and Sides-men Where one Minister preacheth and then the Ministers must dine with the Bishop and in Court he or his Officer giveth a Book of Printed Articles containing a multitude of particulars which the Church-warden must swear to present by where because of the quality of them some Church-Wardens refuse and others because of the number some saying it is unlawful to undo their Ministers and Neighbours by such Presentments as for omitting a Ceremony for preaching or keeping a Fast in private c. and some saying it is impossible to keep the Oath and some saying that if they do it they shall be hated of their Neighbours Whereupon those that refuse are prosecuted to punishment And the rest take the Oath and Articles but not one of many doth present accordingly though the Canon enquires after the perjured And many that fear perjury or persecution themselves do hire some poor man to be Church-Warden in their stead that will venture upon all I must intreat the Reader to peruse some of their Books of Articles especially such as Bishop Mountagues and Bishop Wrens to see what was then enquired after Dr. Zouch de Jud. Eccless p. 37. § 1. Part. 3. saith Ad judices quod attinet statuto ordinatum quod personae conjugatae dummodo Doctores Juris Civilis fuerint qui ad officium Cancellarii Vicarii Generalis Officialis vel Commissarii à Majestate Regia Archiapiscopo Episcopo Archidiacono aut alio quocunque potestatem habente deputati sunt omnem Jurisdictionem Ecclesiasticam exercere quam libet censuram sive coercitionem â—rrogare possint This Jurisdiction of Bishops is exercised either Universally by a Vicar General usually a Lay-man or qarticularly by a Commissary And when he please the Bishop may do it himself The other part of their Jurisdiction is called Contentious And here the Bishop may himself judge in some Cases but in the ordinary course of Jurisdiction a Civil Lawyer called his Chancellor is the Judge This Chancellor is and must be a Lay-man which even Bishop Goodman of Gloucester Myst Rel. Epist I have it and can produce it at this time under the Kings own Hand and Seal wherein he forbids that any Church-man or Priest in Holy Orders be a Chancellor and this was the occasion of all the corruption of the Spiritual Courts For Chancellors live only on the Fees of the Court and for them to dismiss a Cause it was to lose so much blood See further in him a Papist Bishop of a Protestant Diocess complaineth in Print that he could not get Reformed This Chancellor keepeth an Ordinary Court in the form of a Civil Court where are Advocates for Council and Proctors for pleading Certain men called Apparitors whose name is commonly a scorn among the people do from abroad the Country bring them in Accusations and Summon the persons accused besides those that by Plaintiffs are accused Here are judged Causes about Church Materials and Causes Criminal which he that
have as to the kind of power 2. How their Office must degenerate from purely spiritual into secular or mixt 3. And how numerous their Flocks and large their Provinces would soon be And here you must note these things 1. That the Bishop of every Church was made Judge of these causes not alone by himself but with his Presbyters or Clergy who judged with him 2. That yet this power was not then taken to be any essential or integral part at all of the Pastoral Office but an Accidental work which Lay-men might do as well as Pastors and that it was committed to the Bishop only as the best able for Arbitration because of his abilities and interest and that as a matter of meer convenience and also for the honour of his place 3. That therefore this Judging power for ending strife and differences might be alienated from the Clergy and done by Lay-men where there was cause 4. And that the Bishop had so much more power than the Presbyters that he could commit it from them to Lay-men All this that one instance of Silvanus in Socrates lib. 7. cap. 37. and in Hanmer cap. 36. whose words were thus Silvanus also no less expressed in his other acts and dealings the good motion of his Godly mind For when he perceived that the Clergy respected nothing but gain in deciding the Controversies of their Clients O woful Clergy he thenceforth suffered none of the Clergy to be judge but took the supplications and requests of suiters and appointed One of the Laity whom for certain he knew to be a just and godly man and gave him the hearing of their causes and so ended quietly all contentions and quarrels And the likeliest way it was You see here 1. that when Princes will needs make the Clergy Magistrates to honour them the wise and good men of the Clergy will return such power to the Laity as usually fitter for it 2. And that it is no wonder that when Law-business is cast upon the Clergy if they grow worse than Lawyers in covetousness and injustice 3. And yet this was not a making Lay-men to be Chancellors that had the power of the Keys For Silvanus did only appoint Lay-men to do Lay-mens work to arbitrate differences but not to excommunicate nor to judge men to excommunication as they do now 4. And this was not a making of Ecclesiastical Elders that were not Pastors and therefore it is no countenance for such but it was a prudent casting back that work on the Laity which good Emperours had in imprudent piety cast upon the Clergy that each might do his proper work 5. But this was but one good Bishop that was so wise and honest and therefore it proved no general reformation This Judicial power went so far and took up so much of the Clergies time that the Synod Taraconens was after this put to Decree Can. 4. that the Clergy should not judge Causes on the Lords day and Can. 10. that no Bishop or Clergy-man should take rewards or bribes for Judgments And the Canons so deterred Christians from seeking Justice from the Civil Judicatures that they had few but Heathens to be Judges of Yea the Christians thought so hardly of the Judges themselves for punishing men by the Sword when the Bishops even for murder it self did punish them but with Penance that they doubted sometime whether those Christians that exercised Magistracy or Civil Judgment after Baptisme were not therefore to be taken for sinners as is visible in Innocent 1. his Epist to Epist 3. to Exuper Tholesan cap. 3. in Crab. Tom. 1. p. 459. And before in Silvester's Concil Rom. apud Crab Vol. 1. p. 280. Can. 16. it is Decreed Nemo Clericus vel Diaconus aut Presbyter propter causam suam quamlibet intret in curia quum omnis curia à cruore dicitur immolatio simulachrorum est Quod siquis Clericus in curiam introicrit anathema suscipiat nunquam rediens ad matrem Ecclesiam A Communione autem non privatur propter tempus turbidum And Constantine is said to be a Subscriber with 284 Bishops 45 Presbyters and 5 Deacons And in former Counc sub Silvest Nullum Clericum ante judicem stare licet I know that Duarenus and Grotius describe not the Bishops power as so large as the Canonists do But Duarenus confesseth that Theodosius made a Law that lites omnes controversiae forenses ad judicium Ecclesiae remitterentur si alter uter litigatorum id postularet That all strifes and controversies forensick should be remitted to the judgment of the Church if either of the contenders required it And that Charles the Great renewed and confirmed the same Law Duar. lib. 1. p. 8. And Grotius de Imper. sum pol. p. 236. saith This Jurisdiction by consent the Bishops received from Constantine with so great power that it was not lawful further to handle any business which the Bishops sentence had decided that is saith he remotâ appellatione And he there sheweth that three sorts of Jurisdiction were by the Emperours given to the Bishops 1. Jure ordinario and so they judged of all matters of Religion and which the Canons reached which went very far in heinous crimes 2. Ex consensu pâ—rtium when the parties chose the Bishop for their Judge Vid. Concil Chalced. c. 9. 3. Ex delegatione which yet went further And even to the Jews such kind of power had been granted But of this whole matter of the Rise of such Prelacy their Courts and power Pardre Paulus hath spoken so well and truly in his Histor Concil Trident. pag. 330 331 c. that I would intreat the Reader to turn to it and peruse it as that which plainly speaketh our judgment of the History now in question Read also his History of Benefices 43. The countenance of the Emperour with these honours and immunities having brought the World into the Church or filled the Churches with Carnal temporizers the numbers were now so great that quickly the great Cities had many Parish Churches and the Country Villages about had some so that now about 400 or 500 Years after Christ most Bishops of great Cities had more Churches than one even several sub Assemblies and Altars as dependant on their Mother Church 44. Yet were their Diocesses which at first were called Parishes somewhat bounded by the Canon and Edicts which decreed that every City where there were Christians enow to make a Church should have a Bishop of their own and that no Bishop except two who bordered one on Scithia a rude unconverted Countrey and the other on the like case of which more in due place 45. And then every oppidum or populous Town like our Market-Towns and Corporations was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a City and not only a few among many that have that name by priviledge as it is in England now So that even at this height of Prelacy about 500 600 or 700 Years after Christ they
alterable policy And 2. That this Opinion rose as early as he pretendeth 3. And that these Ancients were not deceived â—â—t our English Bishops rather Bilson Jewel c. who took Patriarchs and Metropolitanes as such for Creatures of Humane Original While Ignatius his being Bishop of a Church in Syria shall prove him the Bishop of all Syria and the Church of God dwelling in Syria in Antiochia shall be equivalent with the Church in Antiochia governing all Syria I shall not undertake to hinder such men from proving any thing that they would have believed His Cap. 6. of the promiscuous use of the Names of Bishop and Presbyter and Cap. 7. that prepareth the stating of the Controversie need no answer but to say that we deny not but where a single Presbyter was he had himself the power of Governing that Church but where there were many though all had the full Office severally they were bound to use it in Concord And whether one amongst them shall have a precedency or guidance of the rest we think as Dr. Stillingfleet hath proved to be a matter alterable by humane prudence according to the various condition of the Churches And if any take both such Bishops and Archbishops to be Jure Divine with Dr. Hammond it will be somewhat to his Cause but nothing to ours Cap. 8. he openeth his conceit which in time I shall shew doth yield us the whole Cause that every place of Scripture which mentioneth Bishops or Presbyters meaneth Diocesan supereminent Bishops only And first he proveth it of the Elders Bishops of Ephesus Acts 20. because the whole flock is meant of all Asia Fully proved because Irenaeus said as he thought that the Bishops were convocate from Ephesus and the nearest Cities But 1. Irenaeus saith not Bishops only but Bishops and Presbyters conjoining them as two sorts and not Bishops or Presbyters as the Doctor doth 2. The nearest Cities and all Asia we take not for words of the same importance 3. We take not your bare word for the validity of the Consequence that because the Bishops of several Cities were there therefore it is all Asia that is singularly called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole Flock and not each Bishops Flock respectively q. d. Each of you look to your several Flock 4. We think if you calculate the time Acts 20 and 21. and consider Paul's haste Acts 20. 16. that few impartial men will believe that Paul's Messengers that were wont to go on foot did so quickly go all over Asia and so quickly get together all the Bishops of Asia to Miletum unless they all resided at Ephesus as our English Bishops do at London and Governed their unknown people by a Lay-Chancellour 5. And Irenaeus ibid. p. 312. saith Et omnia hujusmodi per solum Lucam cognovimus we know all such things by Luke alone pretending no other Tradition And if it be in Luke it is yet to be thence proved 6. But he pleadeth our Cause too strongly by supposing that each City then had a Bishop without any subject half Presbyter and so that no such Office was yet made Cap. 9. Of Timothy's Episcopacy concerneth not our Cause Though I hope that neither he nor his Church were so bad as the Angel or Church in Rev. 2. is described And it 's easier to answer the strength of Dr. Hammond than for him to answer the Evidence brought by Prin in his Vnbishoping Timothy and Titus to shew the itinerant life and Ministry of Timothy contrary to the life of a fixed Bishop And if non-residency have such Patrons and Timothy have taught men to leave their Churches year after year and play the Pastor many hundred Miles distant it will make us dream that non-residence is a duty And if all these years Timothy's Metropolitan Church at Ephesus had no ordained Presbyter but Passengers that fell in I blame them not or wonder not at least that they lost their first love for it 's like they seldom had any Church Assemblies to Communicate and Worship God together Cap. 10. Cometh to the case of Philippi Phil. 1. 1 2. And 1. § 3. he saith It is manifest that Epaphroditus Bishop of Philippi was at Rome with Paul when he wrote this Epistle and he supposeth that there were yet no Presbyters but Bishops And so when Paul wrote to all the Saints which are at Philippi with the Bishops and Deacons he meant to those that are not at Philippi where there was no Bishop but in other Cities of Macedonia that had every one a Prelate without ever a Presbyter under him With some this expounding may go for modest if not true Two probable Arguments I object against his improbable Expositions of this Text and that Acts 20. before mentioned 1. Where did he ever read that all the Province of Macedonia was called Philippi and the Saints said to dwell at Philippi that dwelt all over Macedonia 2. Where did he ever read in Scripture many Episcopal Churches under one Metropolitan called One Church in the singular Number as in Acts 20. 28. or One Flock either 3. Will any knowing man deny that he contradicteth not only Hierom and Theodoret but the common Exposition of the Fathers by this his odd Opinion And is it not gross partiality for the same man that can so easily cast off the judgment of almost all the Ancients at once to lay so much of the whole stress of his Diocesan and Metropolitan Cause upon the Fathers assertions yea doubtful reports and to take it for so immodest a thing in others to deny belief to them in such uncertain matters But he setteth Epiphanius his words against Aerius against them all Even that Epiphanius who ordained in the Bishop of Jerusalem's Diocess to his displeasure and that combined with that Theophilus Alexand. of whom Socrates writeth such horrid and unchristian practices to root out Chrysostom and raise a flame in the Church of Constantinople who liker a mad man than a sober Bishop came from Cyprus not only into the City but the Church where Chrysostom used to officiate to inflame his people and declame against and censure their Bishop to whom he was an inferiour and that parted with him in a wrathful Prognostick and dyed by the way home And yet even this one man saith nothing to his advantage but that the Apostles placed Bishops only with Deacons in some Churches that had not fit men to make Presbyters of which we not only grant but doubt whether ever they made any but Bishops though in great Cities there were many of them And § 8 9 10. when it seemed to serve his turn he yet further gratifieth us by granting yea maintaining that one Congregation had not two Bishops yet nothing hindreth but that in the same City there might sometimes be two distinct Assemblies converted by two Apostles perhaps of distinct dialects and rites and these governed by distinct Bishops with a divided or distinct Clergie which is almost as much
maintaining that the word Presbyter in the places of the New Testament cited by him doth mean only a Bishop that is a Pastor of one only Congregation that had no Presbyter under him but Deacons and that no mention is made by the Apostles of other Presbyters § 6. And he gratifieth us with Epiphanius his Reasons § 4. because as yet there was not a multitude of Believers And that the Elders that Paul speaketh to Timothy of ordaining and rebuking and those that were worthy of double honour were only Bishops that had no subject Presbyters Whether they were set over the Churches as Moses was over Israel with a design that they should make subordinate Officers under them I shall enquire in due place Cap. 20. He goeth over most of the other Texts in the New Testament that mention Elders shewing that they mean such Bishops and that even at Hierusalem the Elders Acts 15. were not our new half Priests but the Bishops of all the Churches of Judaea and so of others here again repeated by him But it sticketh with me that these Bishops having no subject Presbyters are found so oft in the Metropolitane City and so oft in travel and so oft many hundred Miles from home that I doubt it was but a few Churches in the world that kept the Lords day and assembled for publick Worship or had any Sacraments frequently but lived as the Atheists and impious contemners of Church-Communion now do or else that with the Fanaticks we must hold that Lay-men or Deacons did play the Priests in all Church Offices Cap. 21. He vindicateth that one remaining Text Jam. 5. 14. which mentioneth Presbyters visiting the sick as meant only of Bishops and not of mungrel Priests And so being secured that these were never found in the Scripture times and consequently no Bishop except Archbishops that had more worshipping Churches than one we must look who presumed to institute another Office And here § 3. he perswadeth us to be so civil to Ignatius as thankfully to acknowledge him the first Patron of our Office-dignity intimating that there is no earlier proof of the invention of this mungrel Office than the Epistles of Ignatius Cap. 22. He tells us that the word Presbyter is also taken for Bishops by Polycarp Papias Irenaeus Tertullian and Clemens Alexand. so that our cause will be carried beyond Scripture times But again finding so many Bishops with Polycarp I doubt he maketh Bishops too unwearied Travellers and too great non-Residents and Gods Publick Worship too often interrupted by their absence Cap. 23 24 25 26. He speaketh of Deacons the word and Office which we have now no business with but to note that cap. 26. § 8. he is again at Epiphanius allowing a single Bishop without Presbyters but not without Deacons because he cannot be a Bishop without Deacons which I believe not nor do our Prelates but without subject Presbyters he may better than with them And § 10. he excellently argueth from the Epistle to Timothy that seeing Paul instructeth him in all things belonging to the Church of God 1 Tim. 3. 15. and yet never mentioneth these Medioxumos Presbyteros mungrel or middle Priests it is plain that the reason is because none such were instituted when the Apostle wrote To which I add nor afterward by the Apostles as far as can be proved and therefore never should have been Cap. 27. He speaketh of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tit. 1. and 2. and 1 Tim. 5. shewing that these Women were in Orders Of which I have no mind to contend so that by the Name it be not inferred that they are she-Bishops and that they argue not as a Preacher did since we were silenced I can name the Man and place from St. John's Epistle to the Elect Lady to prove that there were Lord-Bishops in the Apostles daies viz. an Elect Lady supposeth an Elect Lord But there are no Elect Lords but Elect Lord-Bishops Ergo We have not yet seen all Dr. Hammond's confutation of our Diocesan Prelacie In his fifth Dissertation we have more Cap. 1. He speaketh of Clemens Rom. and whereas we think that the confusion among Historians came partly from the little notice that came down from those times of such particulars and partly from the identity of the Office of Linus Cletus and Clemens being all Bishops at once of a great Church the Half-Presbyters being not yet ordained he gratifyeth us by proving that not only at Rome but also in Antioch Ephesus Corinth and Jerusalem there were more Churches than one with their several Bishops Even one of the Jews and one of the Gentiles how the local Diocese were then divided is hard to tell and where it was that one Apostle had Power of the Keys and where not I shall improve this Concession in due place Cap. 2. Of Clements Epistle he first takes notice of the Inscription to the Church of God dwelling or sojourning at Corinth The same Phrase as Philip. ◠1 2. And by this Church he proveth by confident affirming that all the Churches of Achaia are meant And that the same is to be said of Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians he unresistibly proveth by saying that Quisquis eas vel leviter degustaverit tuo scilicet gustu hoc omnino pronunciandum esse nobiscum statuet Nec igitur de hac Clementis ambigi poterit And so all that Controversie is ended But though without Scripture proof imagination might handsomely feign that the many Churches of Achaia are called singularly the Church of Corinth as one because of the Unity of the Metropolitane yet 1. I would have heard somewhat like reason for and some instances of the use of such a speech as this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Church of God dwelling or sojourning at Rome to the Church of God dwelling or sojourning at Corinth And why and where and by what good writers all Achaia is called Corinth or all Macedonia Philippi or all the Cities about it indeed as the County of Worcester the County of York of Warwick c. are usual Titles so may the Church of York Worcester Warwick be in the Diocesans sense But whoever said of all the County or Diocess To the County Diocess dwelling at York Worcester Warwick As if all the Countrey and Towns belonging to that Circuit were called Warwick c. 2. Doth not his own proof evidently confute him 2 Cor. 1. 1. To the Church of God which is at Corinth with all the Saints which are in all Achaia Are the last words Tautological doth with signifie no addition at all If by the Church which is at Corinth be meant all the Churches and Christians in Achaia what sense is there in the addition of with all the Saints which are in Achaia O what kind of proof will satisfie some Learned Men 3. Was it all the Churches of Achaia that the incestuous person 1 Cor. 5. dwelt with and that are chidden for suffering him
than one or two Churches 6. And what was the cause of this one or two like to touch the Bishops of the other Churches And what Cognisance was all Achaia like to have of the cause of one or two distant persons so as for them to rise up against their own Bishops 7. If it was not all nor many Pastors that were thus turned out as Clemens words import why should all Achaia be called seditious and blamed for it 8. Doth not the common Law of Charity and Justice forbid us to extend those words of reproof to a whole Province which cannot be proved to extend farther than to a single Church and principally toucht but one or two 9. I have before proved that Paul by the Saints at Corinth meaneth but one Church Therefore it 's like that Clemens doth so too 10. The Bishops and Deacons that Clemens speaketh of were set up 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cum consensu totius Ecclesiae or as the Dr. will needs have it applaudente aut congratulante tota Ecclesia indeed with the good liking Pleasure or Approbation of the whole Church And shall we be perswaded that all the Cities and Countrey of Achaia were that whole Church which approved or consented to these particular Pastors that were put out Or that had Cognisance of them or acquaintance with them 11. He expresly saith pag. 62. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Church of Corinth for the sake of one or two moved Sedition against the Presbyters And why doth he never say it was the Church of Achaia 12. p. 63. He supposeth the Person Emulating to be a Believer of power in explaining Doctrine wise in judging of Speeches c. And would have the concern'd Person say p. 69. If the Sedition be for me and the Contention and Schisms I will remove I will be gone wither you will and will do what the People pre-determine of or command only let the Flock of Christ with the Presbyters set over them live in peace And is it like that the Flock that this Person must say so to was all Achaia 13. And p. 73. He requireth those that begun the Sedition to be obediently Subject to the Presbyters and not to their Bishop onely And is it like to be the Bishops of other Churches through all Achaia that this one or two is required to Obey and be in Subjection to I have given my Reasons to prove that these Presbyters were in the One Church of Corinth Compare his if you can find them to the contrary and Judge Impartially as you see cause Cap. 8. Hath nothing that concerneth us but the recitall of his grand Concession lest we should think that in Clemens days the great Bishop of Corinth or any in Achaia had any more Church-assemblies than one to whom he could do all the Pastoral Offices himself he thus concludeth § 9. Indeed mention is found only of Bishops with Deacons constituted in each City sometimes under the Title of Bishops sometimes of Presbyters there being no token or foot-step at all appearing of such as we now call Presbyters c. To which I wholly agree though not that there was but one Presbyter in Corinth Cap. 9. He is offended much with Blondel for reproaching Hermas and yet using his Testimony As if a Hereticks or an Infidels Testimony might not be used in point of History And § 14. he again cometh to his supposition of Bishops without Subject Presbyters as if it served his turn more than ours Cap. 10. About Pius words hath nothing that I find the cause concerned in Cap. 11. Is of little moment to us both parties have little that is cogent but velitations about dubious words Cap. 12. Is but about the sense of the word applyed to Ireneuâ— which Dr. H. taketh here and by many after to mean a Bishop and wonders that Blondel pleadeth for a parity of order from a common Name But it is not so much without reason as he maketh it For if Bishops and Presbyters were in the first times called by one Name and the highest Person in the Church then was ordinarily known by the name Presbyter and the appropriating of Bishop to one sort and Presbyter to another came afterwards in by such insensible degrees that no man can tell when it was it sounds very probable that it was the true Episcopal Power or the same Office and Order that was first commonly possessed by them to whom the name was Common And so much of Dr. Hammond's Dissertations wherein I must desire the Reader to note 1. That I meddle not with other mens Causes nor particularly with the question Whether one man in each Church had of old a guiding superiority over the rest of the Presbyters Nor yet whether the Apostles had such successors in the General care of many Churches such as Visiters or Arch-Bishops but only 1. Whether every Presbyter were not Essentially a Bishop or Governour of the Flock having the power of Keys as they call it in foro interiore exteriore both for resolving Consciences and for Church-order 2. Whether every particular Church which ordinarily communicated together in the Lords Supper and had unum Altare had not one or more such Bishops 3. Whether it was not a sinful corrupting change to bring in another Species of Presbyters and so to depose all the particular Churches and Bishops and set up a Dioâ—esane Bishop inâ—â—â—is ordinis with half Churches and half-Priests under him in their stead 2. And note That as it concerned me not to speak to all that the Doctor hath said so I have carefully chosen out all that I thought pertinent and of a seeming weight as to the cause which I mannage and have past by nothing in the whole Book which I thought an understanding Reader needeth an answer to There is yet the same Authors Vindication of his Dissertations to be considered But I find nothing new in them to be answered by me nor that I am concerned for the Cause in hand any further than to give you these few Observations 1. That again p. 5. he saith That by observing the paucity of Believers in many Cities in the first Plantations which made it unnecessary that there should by the Apostles be ordained any more than a Bishop and Deacon one or more in each City and that this was accordingly done by them at the first is approved by the most undenyable ancient Records 2. That p. 7. he again well averreth that the Jewish and Gentile Congregations occasioned several Churches and Bishops in the same Cities And p. 14. 15. That Timothy was placed by Paul Bishop of the Gentiles at Ephesus and S. John and another after him Bishop of the Jews Pag. 16. He thinketh that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus or Angel when Rev. 2. was wrote Pag. 17. From Epiphanius he reckoneth above 50 years from the Revelation of John Rev. 2. to the writing of Ignatius's Epistles By which we may Calculate the time when the
affirmamus So that it is a Bishop of one Assembly or Church which Doctor Hammond will have the question stated about 2. And such a Church or Assembly as great Cities a while had divers of and so divers Bishops 3. And this was after the Scripture times for they had divers Bishops with a divers Clergy 4. But that in Scripture times the Order of Sub-Presbyters cannot be proved instituted 5. And in his Annotations he expoundeth all the Texts of the New Testament of Bishops that mention Presbyters 6. But in his Answer to the London Ministers not daring yet to hold that they were of Humane and not of Divine Institution he holds that they were instituted in the end of St. John's days after all the Scripture was written which was about two or three years before his death and so were of Divine Institution though all the rest of the Apostles were dead Before I apply this I will subjoyn his words of more numerous Witnesses to our opinion with himself for he saith 8. Doctor Hammond of the rest Vindication against London Minsters pag. 104. And though I might truly say that for those more minute considerations or conjectures wherein this Doctor differs from some others he hath the suffrages of many of the learnedst men of this Church at this day and as far as he knoweth of all that embrace the same Cause with him I purposely pass by such Bishops as Cranmer Jewel c. and such conformable Divines as Doctor Whitaker Fulke c. as being not high enough to be valued by those that I have now to do with As Jewel Art 4. p. 171. sheweth that every Church must have one Bishop and but one and out of Cyprian that the Fraternitas universa was to chuse him Et â—piscopus delegatur plebe praesente de universae fraternitatis suffragio Episcopatus ei Sabino deferretur And mentioneth the Rescript of Honorius the Emperor to Boniface that If two Bishops through division and contention happen to be chosen we will that neither of them be allowed as Bishop but that he only remain in the Apostolick Seat whom out of the number of the Clergy Godly discretion and the consent of the whole Brotherhood shall chuse by a new Election How big yet was the Church even then Now all this being asserted 1. It is evident that they hold that in Scripture times no Church consisted of more than one ordinary stated worshipping Assembly 2. And that every such Assembly had a Bishop For if there were no Presbyters there could be no Assembly but where a Bishop was present for the Lords days were then used for publick Worship and the people could not do that without a Minister for they had Communion in the Lords Supper every Lords day And therefore they must have a Bishop or have no such Worship And Doctor Hammond departeth from Petavius in holding that no Church had more Bishops than one So that de facto he granteth all that I desire 1. That the Churches were but so many Assemblies having each a Bishop 2. And that no Sub-Presbyters were instituted in Scripture times And by what right the change was made we shall enquire anon CHAP. V. The same proved by the full Testimony of Antiquity THat the particular Churches infimae speciei vel ordinis of which combined Associated Churches were constituted were no larger than is before described and had but Unum Altare I shall prove Historically from Antiquity I. And Order requireth that I begin with Clemens Romanus But let the Reader still remember that while I cite him and others oft cited heretofore by many I do it not to the same end as they who thence prove that Bishops and Presbyters were then the same but to prove the Churches to be but such single Congregations as are fore-described Ep. ad Cor. pag. 54 55. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Per regiones igitur urbes verbum praedicantes primitias eorum spiritu probantes Episcopos Diaconos eorum qui credituri erant constituerunt Here are these concurrent evidences to our purpose 1. In that he speaketh only of Bishops and Deacons and neither here nor elsewhere one syllable of any other Presbyters but Bishops it is apparent that in those times there were no Subject-Presbyters distinct from Bishops in being Nor could Doctor Hammond any other way answer Blondel here but by confessing and maintaining this and so expounding Clemens as speaking of Bishops only before other Presbyters were in the Church And if so then there could be none but Churches of single Assemblies then or such as one man could officiate in because there was then no more to do it 2. In that Cities and Countries are made the Seats of these Bishops for though some would make them to be mentioned only as the places where the Apostles preached the obvious plain sense of the words is connexive of preaching and constituting Bishops by preaching they made believers in Cities and Countries and over those believers they placed Bishops and Deacons which implieth it to be in the same places And whereas some would strain the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie Provinces and not Country Villages it must then as distinct from Cities have meant many Cities and so have stled Bishops and Arch-Bishops intimating Subject-Presbyters under them But here is no such word or intimation Yea when the Countries are made first the Place of the Apostles preaching as they confess let any impartial man judge whether this be like to be the sense They preached in Provinces that is in the Cities of Provinces and in Cities And if there were Country Churches and Bishops seâ—ied by the Apostle's its easie to see that each particular Church-Assembly had a Bishop when even the City Churches themselves were no bigger than Petavius and others mention 3. Ad hominem Though I believe that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 eorum qui credituri erant be intended only to signifie the subsequence of believing to their preaching yet waving that to them that suppose it to intend the subsequence of believing to making Bishops it must needs imply that the Churches then consisted but of few and were yet to be filled up But whether one Bishop to have many Churches is a question which must be otherwise and aliunde decided 4. The magnitude of the Churches is plainly intimated when he saith p. 57. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Constitutos itaque ab illis vel deinceps ab aliis viris celebribus cum consensu universae Ecclesiae qui inculpate ovili Christi inservierunt c. If the Bishops were chosen by the Consent of all the Church it was no greater a Church than would and did meet to signifie their consent and not such as our Diocesses now are 5. Also the same is intimated by pag. 69. If it be for me that Contention Sedition and Schisms arise I will depart I will be gone whither you will and will do what