Major is undenyable because there are all things enumerated that are Necessary to the determination of the person qualified that is to receive the power from Christ Sect. 68. And the Minor I prove by parts 1. That our Ministry have usually the peoples consent is a known case that needs no proof 2. So is it that they have the Magistrates allowance and his Authority appointing Approvers for their Introduction and allowing Ordination and commanding Ministerial Works Sect. 69. And doubtless the Magistrate himself hath so much Authority in Ecclesiastical affairs that if he command a qualified person to preach the Gospel and command the people to receive him I see not how either of them can be allowed to disobey him Though yet the party ought also to have recourse to Pastors for Ordination and people for consent where it may be done And Grotius commendeth the saying of Musculus that would have no Minister question his Call that being qualified hath the Christian Magistrates Commission And though this assertion need some limitations yet it is apparent that Magistrates power is great about the Offices of the Church For Solomon put out Abiathar from the Priesthood and put Zadeck in his place 1 Kings 2.27 35. David and the Captains of the host separated to Gods service those of the sons of Asaph and of Heman and of Ieduthun who should Prophesie with Harps c. 1 Chron 16.4 And so did Solomon 2 Chron. 8.14 15. They were for the service of the house of God according to the Kings Order 1 Chron. 25.1 6. And methinks those men should acknowledge this that were wont to stile the King In all causes and over all persons the supream Head and Governour Sect. 70. But 3. We have moreover in the Ordination of the Reformed Churches The approbation and solemn Investiture of the fittest Ecclesiastical Officers that are to be had And no more is requisite to an orderly Admission There being nothing for man to do but to determine of the qualified person and present him to God to receive the power and obligation from his Law it is easie to discern that where all these concur the Peoples Election or Consent the Magistrates Authority the determination of fit Ecclesiastical Officers and the qualification and consent of the person himself there needs no more to the designation of the man Nor hath God tyed the essence of the Church or Ministry to a certain formality or to the interest or will of Prelates nor can any more ad ordinem be required but that a qualified person do enter by the best and most Orderly way that is open to him in those times and places where he is And that we have the fittest Approvers and Ordainers I prove Sect. 71. If the most of the Protestant Churches have no other Ecclesiastical Officers to Ordain but Presbyters then is it the most fit and orderly way to enter into the Ministry in those Churches by their Ordination and those Presbyters are the fittest that are there to Ordain But the Antecedent is a known truth If any in denyal of the Consequence say that the Churches should rather be without Ministers then have Ordination by such they are confuted by what is said before Sect. 72. And if you say that they should have Bishops and it is their own fault that they have not I answer Suppose that were a granted truth it can reach but to some that have the Rule It is not the fault of every Congregation or expectant of the Ministry It is not in their power to alter Laws and forms of Government and therefore they are bound to enter by the fittest way that is open to them Sect. 73. Moreover even in England the Presbyteries are fitter for Ordination then the present Bishops as to the Nation in general therefore the Ordination by Presbyteries is done by the fittest Ecclesiastical officers and is the most regular and desireable Ordination Sect. 74. I prove the Antecedent by comparing the Ordination of the Presbyteries and the present Prelates 1. I have before shewed that the English Prelacy is more unlike the Primitive Episcopacy then our Parochial Presbytery or Episcopacy is and therefore hath less reason to appropriate to themselves the Power of Ordaining 2. The Ordaining Presbyters are Many and known persons and the Prelates few and to the most and except three or four to almost all that I am acquainted wiâ—h unknown 3. The Presbyters Ordain Openly where all may be satisfied of the impartiality and Order of their proceedings But the Prelates Ordain in Private where the same satisfaction is not given to the Church 4. Hereupon it is easie for any vagrant to counterfeit the Prelates secret Orders and say he was Ordained by them when it is no such matter and who can disprove him But the publick Ordination of Presbyters is not so easily pretended by such as have it not and the pretence is easily discovered 5. The Prelates for ought I hear are very few and therefore few can have access to them for Ordination But Presbyteries are in most countreyes 6. The Prelates as far as I can learn Ordain Ministers without the peoples consent over whom they are placed and without giving them any notice of it before hand that they may put in their exceptions if they dissent But the Presbyters ordinarily require the consent of the people or at least will hear the reasons of their dissent 7. The Presbyteries Ordain with the Magistrates allowance and the Prelates without and against them Those therefore that are Ordained by Prelates usually stand on that foundation alone and want the consent of People and Magistrates when those that are Ordained by Presbyteries have all 8. Ordination by Prelates is now pleaded for on Schismatical grounds and in submitting to it with many of them we must seem to consent to their Principles that all other Ordination is Null and the Churches are no true Churches that are without it But Presbyteries Ordain not on such dividing terms 9. We hear not of neer so much care in the Prelates Ordinations in these or former times as the Presbyteries I could give some instances even of late of the great difference which I will not offend them with expressing 10. Most of them that we hear of Ordain out of their own Diocesses which is against the ancient Canons of the Church 11. Some of them by their Doctrines and their Nullifying all the Reformed Churches and Ministry that have no Prelates do shew us that if they had their will they would yet make more lamentable destructive work in the Church then the hottest persecutors of their late predecessors did For it is plain that they would have all the Ministers disowned or cast out that are not for the Prelacy And what a case then would this land and others be in Of which more anon So that we have reason to fear that these are destroyers and not faithful Pastors I speak not of all but only of the guilty For
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-Power
Bishops who gathered as many as they could under their own Government when they should have erected new Churches as free as their own Reason 12. If the Description of the Bishops settled in the New Testament and the work affixed to them be such as cannot agree to our Diocesan Bishops but to the Pastors of a single Church then was it never the mind of the Holy Ghost that those Bishops should degenerate afterwards into Diocesan Bishops But the Antecedent is certain therefore so is the Consequent I here still suppose with Learned Dr. H Annot. in Act. 11. passim that the name Presbyter in Scripture signifieth a Bishop there being no Evidence that in Scripture time any of that Second Order viz. subject Presbyters were then instituted Though I am far from thinking that there was but one of these Bishops in a Church at least as to many Churches Now as we are agreed de facto that it was but a single Church that then was under a Bishop and not many such Churches for that follows undenyably upon the denying of the existence of subject Presbyters seeing no such Churches can be nor the worshipping Assemblies held without a Bishop or Presbyter so that it was the mind of the Apostles that it should so continue is proveed by the Desciption and work of those Scripture Bishops Argument 1. From Acts 20.28 29 31. The Bishops instituted and fixed by the Holy Ghost were and are to take heed to all the Flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made them overseeers to feed the Church of God and to watch against Wolves and to warn every one night and day But this cannot be done by Diocesan Bishops nor any that have more then one Church Therefore Diocesan Bishops are not the Bishops that the Holy Ghost hath so fixed and instituted such as Paul describeth were to continue and that 's such as can do that work Argument 2. The Bishops that the Holy-Ghost settled and would have continue and had the Power of Ordination given them were such as were to be Ordained in every City and every Church Acts 14.23 Tit. 1.3 4 5. See Dr. Hammonds Annotat. But it is not Diocesan Bishops that are such for they are over many Churches and Cities therefore it is not Diocesan Bishops that were settled by the Holy Ghost nor meant in those texts Ar. 3. The Bishops which were instituted by the Holy Ghost and are meant in Scripture were to watch for their peoples souls as those that must give account Ruling over them and to be obeyed by all and speaking to them the word of God Heb. 13.7 17 24. But this cannot be done by a Bishop to a whole Diocess nor will they be willing of such an account if they be wise therefore it is not Diocesan Bishops that are meant in Scripture Argument 4. The Bishops settled for continuance in Scripture were such as all the people were to know as labouring among them and over them in the Lord and admonishing them and to esteem them very highly in love for their work sake 1 Thes. 5.12 13. But this cannot be meant of our Diocesan Bishop whom the hundreth part of the flock shall never see hear nor be admonished by therefore it is not such that were settled for continuance in the Church Argument 5. The Bishops settled by the Holy Ghost must by any that are sick be sent for to pray over them But this a Diocesan Bishop cannot do to the hundreth or thousandth person in some places therefore it is not Diocesan Bishops but the Bishops of a single Church that are capable of these works that are meant by the Holy Ghost to continue in the Church and consequently to whom the power of Ordaining was committed If any question whether the Texts alleadged do speak of subject-Presbyters or Bishops I refer them to the foresaid Reverend Doctor with whom I am agreed that there were no subject-Presbyters instituted in Scripture times Reason 13. It was not one or two or all Churches for a year or two or more in their meer fieri or infancy before they were well formed that consisted only of one settled worshipping Assembly and its guides but it was the formed and stablished state of the particular Churches To prove this I shall briefly do these three things 1. I shall shew it in respect to the Jewish Synagogues 2. As to the Churches in the Apostles dayes after many years growth even of every Church that 's mentioned in the New Testament as a particular Political Church 3. As to some of the Churches after the Apostles dayes mentioned by the ancients 1. It is apparent that the Jews Synagogues were particular Congregational Churches having each one their several Rulers and as many Learned men suppose they had an Ecclesiastical Judicature of Elders belonging to each of them where fit men could be found and this distinct from the Civil Judicature Or as others think they had a Sanhedrim which had power to judge in both Causes and one of these was in every City that is in Places of Cohabitation For in every City of Israel which had one hundred and twenty families or free persons say others they placed the Sanhedrim of twenty three And in every City which had not one hundred and twenty men in it they set the smallest Judicature of three Judges so be it there were but two wise men among them fit to teach the Law and resolve doubts See Aâ—nsworth on Numb 11.16 citing Talmud Bab. Maimonides more at large And doubtless many of our Country Villages and almost all our Parishes have more then 120. and every Country Village may come in in the lesser number below 120. which are to have three Elders and that say some was every place where were ten men And that these were under the great Sanhedrim at Ierusalem is nothing to the matter For so we confess that such particular Churches as we mention have some such General officers over them de jure as the Apostolical men were in the Primitive Church but not that any of these Synagogues were under other Synagogues though one were in a great City and the other but in a small Town And that these Synagogues were of Divine institution is plain in divers texts particularly in Lev. 23.1 2 3. where a convocation of holiness or a holy Convocation is commanded to be on every Sabboth in all their dwellings which most plainly could be neither the meeting at Ierusalem at the Temple nor yet in single families and therefore it is not to much purpose that many trouble themselves to conjecture when Synagogues began and some imagine it was about the Captivity For as their controversie can be but about the form of the meeting place or the name so its certain that some place there must be for such meetings and that the meetings themselves were in the Law commanded by God and that not to be tumultuary confused ungoverned Assemblies If the scourging in