none such as is granted therefore c. And what proof is there of Archbishops then Sect. 23. Their first proof is from the Apostles But they will never prove that they were fixed Bishops or Archbishops I have proved the contrary before But such an itinerant Episcopacy as the Apostles had laying by their extraordinaries for my part I think should be continued to the world and to the Church of which after Another of their proofs is from Timothy and Titus â— who thy say were Archbishops But there is full evidence that Timothy and Titus were not fixed Bishops or Archbishops but Itinerant Evangelists that did as the Apostles did even plant and settle Churches and then go further and do the like See and consider but the proofs of this in Prins unbishoping of Timothy and Titus Such Planters and Itinerants were pro tempore the Bishops of every Church where they came yet so as another might the next week be Bishop of the same Church and another the next week after him yea three or four or more at once as they should come into the place And therefore many Churches as well as Ephesus and Creet its like might have begun their Catalogue with Timothy and Titus and many a one besides Rome might have begun their Catalogue with Peter and Paul Sect. 24. Another of their proofs is of the Angels of the seven Churches which they say were Archbishops But how do they prove it Because those Churches or some of them were planted in chief Cities and therefore the Bishops were Metropolitans But how prove they the consequence By their strong imagination and affirmation The Orders of the Empire had not then such connection and proportion and correspondency with the Orders of the Church Let them give us any Valid proof that the Bishop of a Metropolis had then in Scripture times the Bishops of other Cities under him as the Governor of them and we shall thank them for such unexpected light But presumption must not go for proofs They were much later times that afforded occasion for such contentions as that of Basil and Anthymius Whether the bounds of their Episcopal Jurisdiction should change as the Emperours changed the State of the Provinces Let them prove that these Asian Angels had the Bishops of other Churches and the Churches themselves under their jurisdiction and then they have done something Sect. 25. But if there were any preheminence of Metropolilitans neer these times it cannot be proved to be any more then an honorary Primacy to be Episcopus primae sedis but not a Governour of the rest How else could Cyprian truly say even so long after as is before alledged that none of them was a Bishop of Bishops nor imposed on others but all were left free to their own consciences as being accountable only to God Sect. 26. Yea the Reverend Author above mentioned shews Dâ—ssertat de Episcop 4. cap. 10. Sect. 9 10 alibi that there were in those times more Bishops then one in a City though not in una Ecclesia aut Coeâ—u And the like hath Grotius oft So that a City had oft then more Churches then one and those Churches had their several Bishops and neither of these Bishops was the Governour of the other or his Congregation much less of the remoter Churches and Bishops of other Cities And this they think to have been the case of Peter and Paul at Rome yea and of their immediate successors there And so in other places Lege Dissert 5 c 1. Sect. 27. When the great Gregory Thaumaturgus was made Bishop of Neocaesarea he had but seventeen Christians in his City and when he had increased them by extraordinary successes yet we find not that he had so much as a Presbyter under him And if he had it s not likely that Musonius his first and chief entertainer would have been made but his Deacon and be the only man to accompany him and comfort him in his retirement in the persecution and that no Presbyter should be mentioned which shews that Bishops then were such as they were in Scripture-times at least in most places and had not many Churches with their Presbyters subject to them as Dâ—ocâ—san Bishops have And when Comana a small place not far off him received the faith Gregory Ordained Alexander the Colliar their Bishop over another single Congregâ—tion and did not keep them under his own Pastoral charge and Government Vid. Greg. Nysâ—n in vita Thaumat Sect. 28. But because that our Dâ—ocesan Bishops are such as the Archbishops that first assumed the Government of many Churches and because we shall hardly drive many from their presumption that Timothy and Titus were Archbishops besides the Apostles I shall now let that supposition stand and make it my next Argument that Argument 3. Ordination by Archbishops is not necessary to the Being of Ministers or Churches Our English Bishops were indeed Archbishops therefore Ordination by them is not Necessary It is not the Name but the office that is pleaded Necessary Sect. 29. And for the Major I think it will not be denyed All that I have to do with Protestants and Papists do grant the Validity of Ordination by Bishops And for the Minor it is easily proved The Bishops that are the Governours of many Churches and their Bishops are Archbishops The Bishops of England were the Governours of many Churches with their Bishops therefore they were Archbishops The Major will be granted And for the Minor I prove it by parts 1. That they were by undertaking the Governours of many Churches 2. And of many Bâ—shops Sect. 30. He that is the Governour over many Congregations of Christians associated for the publick Worship of God and holy communion and Edification under their Proper Pastors is the Governour of many Churches But such were our English Bishops therefore c. That such Societies as are here defined are true Churches is a truth so clear that no enemy of the Churches is is able to gainsay with any shew of Scripture or reason they being such Churches as are described in the Scriptures And 2. That our Ministers were true Pastors if any will deny as the Papists and Separatists do I shall have occasion to say more to them anon Sect. 31. Argument 4. If Ordination by such as the English Bishops be of Necessity to the Ministry and Churches then was there no true Ministry and Churches in the Scripture times nor in many years after But the consequent is false therefore so is the Antecedent The reason of the Consequence is because there were no such Bishops in those times and this is already proved they being neither the Itinerant Apostolical sort of Bishops nor the fixed Pastors of particular Churches besides which there were no other Sect. 32. Argument 5. If Ordination by such as the English Prelates be Necessary to the Being of the Ministry and Churches then none of the Protestants that have not such Prelates which is almost all are
were instituted in Scripture times Now as a pretended Presbyters administrations are Valid to the innocent receiver of the Sacrament so a pretended Bishops administration in Ordination is as Valid to the innocent caeteris paribus Sect. 43. Argument 15. They that have the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven have the power of Ordination But Parochiall Pastors called Presbyters have the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven therefore they have the power of Ordination Sect. 44. The Minor is granted commonly by Papists and Protestants as to some of the Keyes but it is by many denyed as to other They say that every Pastor hath the Key of doctrine and of Order but not the Key of Jurisdiction But 1. Christ gave the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven together and never divided them Therefore they are not to be divided He did not give one Key to one and another to another but all to the same men And what God hath joyned together let no man put asunder 2. The Apostles in delivering these Keyes to others are never found to have separated them For Subject Presbyters were not instituted in Scripture-times Therefore all that were then Ordained Presbyters had all the Keyes together and so that of Iurisdiction as it is called with the rest 3. That Presbyters had the Key of Order will prove that they may Ordain as is aforesaid 4. But that English Presbyters had the Key of Iurisdiction is proved 1. In that they were with the Bishops to Ordain by Imposition of hands 2. In that they were by the Book of Ordination charged to administer Discipline though this was disused and the Prelates frustrated their power Sect. 45. I shall recite the words of Reverend Vsher for the proof of this Reduction of Episcopacy c. By Order of the Church of England all Presbyters are charged in the Book of Ordination to administer the Doctrine of Sacraments and the Discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded and as this Realm hath received the same and that they might the better understand what the Lord hath commanded therein the exhortation of St. Paul to the Elders of the Church of Ephesus is appointed to to be read unto them at the time of their Ordination Take heed unto your selves and to all the flock among whom the Holy Ghost hath made you Overseers to Rule the Congregation of God which he hath purchased with his blood Of the many Elders who thus in common ruled the Church of Ephesus there was one President whom our Saviour in his Epistle unto this Church in a peculiar manner stileth the Angel of the Church of Ephesus And Ignatius in another Epistle written about twelve years after unto the same Church calleth the Bishop thereof Betwixt the Bishop and the Presbyterie of that Church what an harmonious consent there was in thâ— ordering of the Church Government the same Ignaâ—iâ—â— doth fully there declare by the Presbyterie with St Paul understanding the Community of the rest of the Presbyters or Elders who then had a hand not only in the delivery of the Dâ—ctrine and Sacraments but also in the Administration of the Discipline of Christ For further proof of which we have that known Testimony of Tertullian in his General Apology for Christians â—n the Church are used exhortations chastisements and divine censure for judgement is given with great advice as among those who are certain they are in the sight of God and it is the chiefest foreshewing of the Iudgement which is to come if any man have so offended that he be banished from the Community of Prayer and of the Assembly and of all holy fellowship The Presidents that bear rule therein are certain approved Elders who have obtained this honour not by Reward but by good report who were no other as he himself intimates elsewhere but those from whose hands they used to receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist For with the Bishop who was the chief President and therefore stiled by the same Tertullian in another place summus Sacerdos for distinction sake the rest of the dispensers of the Word and Sacraments joyned in the common Government of the Church and therefore where in matters of Ecclesiastical judicature Cornelius Bishop of Rome used the recieved form of gathering together the Presbyterie of what persons that did consist Cyprian sufficiently declareth when he wisheth him to read his Letters to the flourishing Clergy which there did preside or rule with him The presence of the Clergy being thought so requisite in matters of Episcopal audience that in the fourth Council of Carthage it was concluded That the Bishop might hear no mans cause without the presence of the Clergy and that otherwise the Bishops sentence should be void unless it were confirmed by the presence of the Clergy which we find also to be inserted into the Canons of Egbert who was Archbishop of York in the Saxon times and afterwards into the body of the Canon-Law it self True it is that in our Church this kind of Presbyterial Government hath been long disused yet seeing it still professeth that every Pastor hath a right to rule the Church from whence the name of Rector also was given at first unto him and to administer the Discipline of Christ as well as to dispence the Doctrine and Sacraments and the restraint of the exercise of that right proceedeth only from the custom now received in this Realm no man can doubt but by another Law of the Land this hinderance may be well removed Sect. 46. And indeed the stream of Antiquity and the Authors that are principally rested on for Episcopacy are full against them that deny the Government of the people to the Presbyters And it is the principal mischief of the English Prelacy thus to degrade or quoad exercitium to suspend at least all the Presbyters from their office Not as it is a denying them any part of their honour that 's not to be much regarded but as it is a discharging them of their work and burden and consequently leaving the Churches ungoverned And for the Government of Presbyters themselves in Cyprians dayes the Bishop did not could not Ordain or censure any Presbyter without his Clergy and Councils have decreed that so it should be Yea and the plebs universa also was consulted with by Cyprian Sect. 47. And now I come to the Major of my Arrgument which I prove thus Either Ordination is an act of the exercise of the power of the Keyes or of some other power But of no other power therefore of the Keyes If it be the exercise of any other power it is either of a secular power or an Ecclesiastick but neither of these therefore of no other Not of another Ecclesiastick power for there is no Ecclesiastical power at least which Ordination can be pretended to belong to but the power of the Keyes not of a secular power for that belongeth not to Ministers nor is it here pretended Sect. 48. And I think it
to the end of the world in a way of assistance and owning of our Labours answerable to our engagements for him and service to him Were we deeplier engaged for Christ and did with Peter cast our selves into the Sea or walk on the Waters at his Call we should find Christ acting as if he were answerably engaged for our indemnity or at least for our eminent encouragement and reward If ever we might expect Miracles again it would be upon our engagement in the antient work though I know that even for this they are now no more necessary nor I think promised § 18. And 10. We do hereby seem to accuse Christ unjustly of Mutability supposing that he had setled one sort of Ministry and Government in his Church for one Age only and then changed it for another that is ever after to continue alone I know the extraordinary work of that age to plant Churches by new doctrine and Miracles and reveal the new Articles of Faith and Practice in Scripture to the world did require such enablements thereto which ordinary works do not require and therefore the Apostles as immediatly sent and as inditing Scriptures and working Miracles and Prophetically bringing new Revelations have no Successors But the Apostles as preaching to the Nations and as planting Churches and as setling them and taking care of their prosperity after they had planted them and as exercising their Ministry itinerantly as not fixed to a special charge thus they have Successors the work being ordinary and such as should be done now as well as then and must continue while the necessity of it doth continue § 19. There needeth no other proof of this then by observing that it was not Apostles only but all the Ministry at first that was thus unfixed and itinerant and that the Apostles assumed such to their assistance and employed them all their dayes in this work § 20. The seventy Disciples as well as the Apostles were at first by Christ sent forth in this Itinerant way for the Conversion of the inhabitants of Iudaea And thus Iohn the Baptist had preached before them And after Christs Resurrection and Ascension it was not only the Apostles but it was they that were scattered abroad that went everywhere preaching the Word Act. 8.4 And who were these Act. 8.1 They were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria except the Apostles And the Evangelists of those times are confessed to have exercised this Itinerant Ministry so did Barnabas Silas Mark Epaphroditus Tychicus Trophimus Timothy Titus Luke and others ordinarily It was the first and most ordinary way then of exercising the Ministry § 21. And if we lived our selves in Heathen or Infidel Countreys we should be soon taught by experience that this must be still an ordinary work For what else is to be done till persons be converted and brought into the Church They must be made Disciples before they can be used as Disciples and caught to observe all things that Christ hath commanded § 22. But against this it is objected 1. That the Apostles were extraordinary Officers and therefore have no Successors To which I answer 1. That I have before shewed in what they were extraordinary and in what not in what they have no Successors and in what they have As Apostles sent immediatly by Christ to Reveal a new doctrine and confirm it by Miracles they have no Successors but as general Ministers of Christ to convert souls plant Churches and take a care of many they have Successors call them by what name you please 2. And what if the Apostles have no Successors Had the seventy Disciples none Had Apollo Titus Timothy Silas Barnabas c. none Had all the Itinerant converting Ministers of those times none that were not affixed as Pastors to a particular Church § 23. Obj. 2. But at least in the extent of their charge the Apostles were extraordinary in that they were to preach the Gospel to all Nations I answer in point of exercise being furnished with tongues and Miracles for the work they were obliged to go further or to more Nations then most particular Ministers are now obliged to go but that is not because we want Authority if we had ability and opportunity but because we want ability and opportunity to exercise our Office The Apostles were not bound to go into every Nation of the world inclusively but to avoid none but go to all that is to as many as they could Otherwise they had sinned in not going to Mexico Peru Brasile the Philippine or Molucc◠Islands to Iapon China c. And it is our duty to extend our Ministry for the Conversion of as many as we have Ability and opportunity to do That which was common to the planting and waetering Ministry in the Apostles dayes was not proper to the Apostles but to go up and down the world to Convert and Baptize and plant and water Churches was then common to such as Apollo Silas c. therefore c. § 24. Obj. 3. But say others the Apostles were not at last such unfixed Ministers as you imagine but fixed Diocesan Bishops Peter was Bishop of Antioch first and of Rome after Paul was Bishop of Rome James of Jerusalem c. Ans. That any Apostle was a fixed Bishop taking on him durante vita the special Pastoral charge of one particular Church or Diocess as his peculiar is 1. Barely affirmed and therefore not to be believed 2. And is contrary both to the tenor of their Commission and the History of their Ministrations And 3. Is also contrary to Charity it self and therefore is not worthy of any credit The Apostles were not so lazy or uncharitable as to affix themselves to Parishes or Diocesses and leave the Nations of the world in their unbelief and to cease the work that they were first sent out upon before the necessity of it ceased Peter and Paul were Bishops of Rome as they were of other Churches which they planted and watered and no more even as Paul was Bishop of Ephesus Philippi Corinth c. And Iames was either no Bishop of Ierusalem or no Apostle but as many think another Iames. Indeed pro tempore not only an Apostle but other Itinerant Ministers were Bishops of the places where they came that is were Officers of Christ that might exercise any act of their Office Teaching Governing administring Sacraments c. to any people that gave them a Call or so far as opportunity and need required And so I doubt not but every Minister now may do in any Church on earth If he be invited to stay a day or week or month among them and do the work of a Minister yea or if he be invited but to preach a Sermon to them he may do it not as a private man but as a Minister in general and as their Teacher or Pastor pro tempore ad hoc that give him the invitation For though the first Call to
Elders having no power of Ordination or Government And to say that by Elders in each Church is meant only one Elder in each Church is to forsake the letter of the text without any proved Necessity We suppose it therefore safer to believe according to the first sence of the words that it was Elders in every Church that is more then one in every Church that were ordained And what sort of Churches these were appears in the following verses where even of the famous Church of Antioch its said Verse 27. when they were come and had gathered the Church together they rehearsed all that God had done by them So that its plain that this Church was a Congregation to whom they might make such rehearsal And Chap. 15.3 It s said that they were brought on their way by the Church And if it be not meant of all but a part of the Church yet it intimateth what is aforesaid To conclude though many of these texts may be thought to speak doubtfully yet consider 1. That some do most certainly declare that it was particular stated Assemblies that were then called Churches even Governed Churches having their Officers present 2. That there is no certain proof of any one particular Political Church that consisted of many such stated Assemblies 3. That therefore the Texts that will bear an exposition either way must be expounded by the certain and not by the uncertain texts so that I may argue thus If in all the New Testament the word Church do often signifie stated worshipping single Assemblies and often is used so as may admit that interpretation and is never once used certainly to signifie many particular stated worshipping Assemblies ruled by one fixed Bishop then we have any just cause to suppose that the particular Political Churches in Scripture times consisted but of one such stated Congregation But the Antecedent is true therefore so is the Consequent As for the New Episcopal Divines that say There were no subject Presbyâ—ers in Scripture times I suppose according to their principles they wâ—ll grant me all this as is aforesaid And for others the Instances that they bring to the contrary should be briefly considered The great swaying Instance of all which did sometime prevail with me to be my self of another mind is the Numerous Church at Ierusalem Of which its said that three thousand were converted at once and five thousand at another time and the word mightily grew and prevailed and daily such were added to the Church as should be saved to whâ—ch some add the mention of the Miriades of believing Jews yet zealous of the Law which the brethren mentioned to Paul Acts 21.20 And the instance of Ephesus and Rome come next But I remember how largely this business is debated between the late Assembly at Westminster and the Dissenting Brethren that I think it unmeet to interpose in it any further then to annex these few considerations following 1. That all that is said on that side doth not prove certainly that that one Church at Ierusalem was the eighth part so big as Giles Cripple-gate Parish or the fifth part so big as Stepney or Sepulchres nor neer so big as Plimoth or some other Country Parishes 2. That it is past doubt that the magnitude of that Body of Believers then at Ierusalem was partly acccidental and the members cannot at all be proved settled cohabitants nor that Church as in its first unordered Mass be the proved to be the fittest pattern for imitation 3. That Christ hath not punctually determined how many members shall be in a particular Church 4. But the ends being personal holy communion are the Rule by which humane prudence must determine it 5. That its fitter one Church instance give way to many in point of our imitation then of many to that one caeteris paribus 6. That it s known among us that more then are proved to have been members of that Church may hear one man preach at the same time I have none of the loudest voices and yet when I have preached to a Congregation judged by judicious men to be at least ten thousand those farthest off said they could well hear as I was certainly informed 7. That its certain by many passages historicall in â—cripture that men did then speak to greater multitudes and were heard at far greater distance then now they can orderly be which I conjecture was because their voices were louder as in most dryer bodies which dryer Countreys have is commonly seen when moister bodies have ofâ—er hoarser voices and other reasons might concur 8. That it is confessed or yielded that the Church at Ierusalem might all hear at once though not all receive the Lords Supper together And if so then they were no more then might at once have personal communion in some holy Ordinances and that the Teachers might at once make known their minds to 9. And then the reason of receiving the Supper in several places seems to be but because they had not a room so fit to receive all in as to hear in And so we have now in many Parishes Assemblies subordinate to the chief Assembly For divers families at once may meet at one house and divers at another for repetition prayer or other duties and some may be at Chappels of ease that cannot come to the full assembly 10 They that are for Presbyâ—erial Churches of many Congregations do not say that There must be many to make the first political Church but only that There may be many If then there be no Necessitâ— of it 1. Should it not be forborn when it appeareâ—h to prudence most inconvenient as frequently it will no doubt 2. And when it is Necessary for a peaceable Accommodation beâ—ause others think it a sin should not a May be give place to a Must not be in pacificatory consultations caeteris paribus 11. It is granted also by them that the Pastors of one Congregation have not a charge of Governing other neighbour Congregation in Consistory one rather then another which they gâ—vern not though perhaps as neer them but bâ— conâ—ent And therefore as there is but a licet not an oportet of such consent pleaded for so while no such consent is given we have no such châ—â—ge of Governing neighbour Congregations and none may force us to such consent 12. And Lastly that if a siâ—gle Congregation with it own Officer or Officers be not a true particular Political Church then our ordinary Parish assemblies are none and where the Presbyterian Government is not set up which is up but in few places of England it would then follow that we have no true Political Churches left among us perhaps never had which I meet yet with few so uncharitable as to affirm except the Papists and the Separatists and a few of the new sort of Episcopal Divines who think we have no Churches for want of â—ishops except where Bishops yet are retained and acknowleged For my part I
as his judgement that the Scotch Ministers then to be Consecrated Bishops were not to be reordained because the Ordination of Presbyters was valid Sect. 5. These Novel Prelatical persons then that so far dissent frrom the whole stream of the Ancient Bishops and their adherents have little reason to expect that we should regard their judgement above the judgement of the English Clergy and the judgement of all the Reformed Churches If they can give us such Reasons as should conquer our modestie and perswade us to condemn the judgement of the Plelates and Clergy of England all other Churches of the Protestants and adhere to a few new men of yesterday that dare scarcely open the face of their own opinions we shall bow to their Reasons when we discern them But they must not expect that their Authority shall so far prevail Sect. 6. And indeed I think the most of this cause is carried on in the dark What Books have they written to prove our Ordination Null and by what Scripture Reasons do they prove it The task lieth on them to prove this Nullity if they would be Regarded in their reproaches of the Churches of Christ. And they are not of such excessive Modesty and backwardness to divulge their accusations but sure we might by this time have expected more then one volume from them to have proved us No Ministers and Churchess if they could have done it And till they do it their whsperings are not to be credited Sect. 7. Argument 2. If that sort of Prelacy that was exercised in England was not necessary it self yea if it were sinfull and tended to the subversion or exceeding hurt of the Churches then is there no Necessity of Ordination by such a Prelacy But the Antecedent is true therefore so is the consequent The Antecedent hath been proved at large in the foregoing Disputation Such a Prelacy as consisteth in the undertaking of an impossible task even for one man tâ— be the only Governour of all the souls in many hundred Parishes exercising it also by Lay men and in the needful parts not exercising it all all a Prelacy not chosen by the Presbyters whom they Govern yea suspending or degrading â—he Presbyters of all those Churches as to the governing part of theâ—â— office and guilty of the rest of the evils before mentioned is not only it self unnecessary but sinful and a disease of the Church which all good men should do the best they can to cure And therefore the effects of this disease can be no more Necessary to our Ministry then the burâ—ing of a feaver or swelling of a Tympany is necessary to the body Sect. 8. No Bishops are Necessary but such as were in Scriture times But there were none such as the late English Bishops in Scripture times Therefore the English Bishopâ— are not necessary He that denyeth the Major must go further in denying the sufficiency of Scripture then I find the Papists ordinarily to do For they will be loth to affirm that any office is of Necessity to the Being of the Church or of Presbyters that is not to be found in Scripture or that was not then in Being Therefore so far we are secure Sect. 9. And for the Minor I prove it thus If the English Bishops were â—either such as the unfixed General Ministers nor such as the fixed Bishops of particular Churches then were they not such as were in Scripture times But they were neither such as the unfixed General Ministers nor such as the fixed Bishops of particular Churches therefore c. Sect. 10. Besâ—des these two sorts of Ministers there are no more in the New Testament And these aâ—e diversified but by the exercise of their office so far as they were ordinary Ministers to continue The unfixed Ministers whether Apostles Evangelâ—sts or Prophets were â—uch as had no special charge of any one Church as their Diocess but were to do their best for the Church in general and follow the direction and call of the Holy Ghost for the exercising of their Ministry But it s known to all that our Engsish Bishops were not such They were no ambulatory itinerant Preachers they went not about to plant Churches and confirm and direct such as they had planted but were fixed to a City and had every one their Diocess which was their proper charge but Oh how they discharged their undertaking Sect. 11. Object The Apostles might agree among them selves to divide their Provinces and did accordingly James being Bishop of Jerusalem Peter of Rome c. Answ. No doubt but common reason would teach them when they were sent to preach the Gospel to all the world to disperse themselves and not be preaching all in a place to the disadvantage of their work But 1. It s one thing to travail several ways and so divide themselves as itinerants and another thing to divide the Churches among them as their several Diocesses to whâ—ch they should be fixed Which they never did for ought is proved 2. And its one thiâ—g prudently to disperse themselves for their labour anâ— another thing to claim a special power over a Circuit or Diocess as their charge excluding a like charge and power of others So far as any man Apostle or other was the Father of souls by their conversion they owned him a special honour and love which the Apostles themselves did sometimes claim But this was nothing to a peculiar Diocess or Province For in the same City a Ierusalem some might be converted by one Apostle and some by another And if a Presbyter convert them I think the adversaries will not therefore make them his Dâ—ocess not give him there an Episcopal Power much less above Apostles in that place Nor was this the Rule that Diocesses could be bounded by as now they are taken Sect. 12. Nor do we find in Scripture the least intimation that the Apostles were fixed Diocesan Bishops but much to the contrary 1. In that it was not consistent with the General charge and work that Christ had laid upon them to go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature How would this stand with fixing in a peculiar Diocess Sect. 13. And 2. We find them answering their Commission in their practice going abroad and preaching and planting Churches and sometimes visiâ—ing them in their passage but not sâ—tling on them as their Diocesses but going further if they had opportunity to do the like for other places Yea they planted Bishops in the several Cities and Churches which they had gathered to Christ. Though Paul staid three years at Ephesus and other adjacent parts of Asia yet did not all that abode prove it his peculiar Diocess And yes its hard to find again so long an abode of Paul or any Apostle in one place Elders that were Bishops we find at Ephesus Acts 20. and some say Timothy was their Bishop and some say Iohn the Apostle was their Bishop but its clear that it was
the Ministry separating us to the Gospel of God do give us our Authority in general to perform any Ministerial act yet I have before shewed that a further Call is neeedfull for the particular exercise of this power and this is usually by the people who may sometime call a man to be their stated Pastor and sometime but to exercise some one Pastoral act or else to exercise all but pro tempore as there is need § 25. And by this means it came to pass that the line of Succession in many Churches is drawn down from the Apostles by Eusebius Hierom and other antient writers Not because the Apostles were the stated fixed Bishops of those Churches as the Successors were but because they first planted and Governed them and were their Bishops pro tempore till they had setled Bishops over them and then went and did the like by other places so that one Apostle or Evangelist or unfixed Minister might be the root of Succession to many Churches even as many as they first planted but their Successors had but one Church § 26. Object 4. But what use is there among us for such Ministers as these when all the Nations are Converted from Infidelity already Answ. 1. If there were no use of such with us we must not forget the lamentable necessity of them abroad in the world 2. As I before said experience of the ignorance and unbelief of many about us in the best Parishes doth cause me easily to believe that in Ireland and part of Scotland and Wales and other places where setled Ministers are few such an Itinerant Ministry is of necessary use among us 3. But yet where there are setled Teachers enough they may be spared for if we had Parishes that had not the knowledge of Christ it is a greater work of mercy to such a Parish to settle a converting Teacher among them to fit them for a Church-state that so they may have frequent Teaching then to send them but now and then a Sermon But where Ministers are not so plentiful it were a great sin for an able man to confine himself to one Town or Parish and neglect the Countrey round about 4. And also there is use for Itinerants to water and take care of the Churches which are planted as the Apostles and others formerly did § 27. Concerning these unfixed Ministers I add these following Propositions 1. That such Ministers may not deprive the fixed Pastors of any of their Power they may not disable them from Governing their own Churches as fully as if there were no Itinerant Ministers If they are admitted pro tempore to assist the Churches where they come that will not enable them to hinder them or assume a Lordship or a Rule over the Pastors of the Churches § 28. 2. These Itinerant unfixed Ministers are not so obliged to perpetual motion but that they may reside for a considerable time in a place either for the following on the work of Conversion where they find a plenteous harvest or for setling Churches or surpressing heresies or disorders or because of their own disability to travail And thus Paul staid at and about Ephesus in Asia three years Act. 20.31 Their stay must be prudentially apportioned to their work and opportunities § 29. 3. No Itinerant Minister can of himself exclude another from his Province and appropriate it to himself and say Here I will work alone or here I have greater Authority then you nay it was usual for these Ministers to go by companies or more then one as Paul and Barnabas Paul and Silas Paul and Timothy Titus c. so that it was no mans Province or Diocess where they came For they that Convert Souls to Christ and not to themselves and Baptize into his name and not in their own do know the greatness of the work and burden and therefore are glad of all the assistance they can get when those that do nothing are the men that thrust others out of the Vineyard and say This is my Diocess or Province you have nothing to do to labour here § 30. 4. Yet may there lawfully and fitly be a Prudential distribution or division of their Provinces among such unfixed Converting Ministers for to be all together and go one way must needs be a neglecting of most of the world and so not a wise or faithful performance of the work of Christ. And therefore some should go one way and some another aâ— may most promote the work § 31. And ordinarily it is most convenient that there go more then one to the same people and therefore they will not be like a fixed Diocesan Bishop for they have many wayes need of mutual assistance one would be oppressed with so great a work and have many disadvantages in the performances Pauâ— used not to go alone § 32. The persons to be exercised in this ambulatory Ministration may be determined of and their Provinces distributed any of these three wayes or all together 1. By the Judgement and Consent of Pastors If many shall choose out one or two or more as â—it for such a work the persons chosen have reason to obey unless they can prove or know the Pastors to be mistaken and to have been misguided in their choice The Prophets and Teachers of the Church at Antioch must send or separate Saul and Barnabas for the spâ—cial work in which the Holy Ghost would imploy them Act. 13.1 2. which seems to me to be but a secondary Call to some special exercise of their former Office one way rather then another Thus also by mutual agreement their Provinces may be allotted and divided § 33. 2. By the Magistrates appointment and command also may this be done Though he make not Ministers yet may he do much in assigning them their Provinces Seats and Stations and it is our duty to obey his Commands in such cases if they be not plainly destructive to the Church much more if they are beneficial to it § 34. 3. Also by a Ministers own discerning of a fit opportunity to do good either by the Magistrates bare permission the peoples invitation or their willingness or not opposing or though they do oppose yet some other advantages for the work may be discerned or Hopes at least Now though the Call of Ordination must be from the Pastors of the Church and neither Magistrates nor people can make us Ministers yet the Call of Opportunity may be from the people and Magistrate more commonly then any And he that is already a Minister needs not alwayes another Call for the exercising of his Ministry save only this Call by Opportunity He had his Authority by that Call that placed him in the Office which was done at first and must be done but once But he hath his Opportunity and station for the exercise of that Authority by the people and Magistrates and perhaps may receive it over and over many times § 35. 5. This way of exercising the
Accommodation § 10. A fourth witness is Dr. Forbs of Scotland who having written purposely a Book called his Irenicon for Accommodation on such terms I need to say no more of him but refer you to the Book I shall name no more of the Episcopal party These four are enow to my purpose § 11. That the Presbyterians of England specially are willing to close upon these terms of a fixed Moderator I prove 1. By the profest Consent of that Reverend Learned servant of Christ Mr. Thomas Gataker a Member of the late Assembly at Westminster who hath professed his judgement of this matter in a Book against Lilly I refer you to his own words for brevity sake § 12. My next witness and for brevity many in one shall be Mr. Geree and the Province of London citing him in their Ius Divinum Ministerii pag. Append. 122. the words are these That the Ancient Fathers in the point of Episcopacy differ more from the high Prelatist thâ—n from the Presbyterian for the Presbyterians alwayes have a President to guide their actions which they acknowledge may be perpetual durante vita modo se bene gesserit or temporary to avoid inconvenience which Bilson takes hold of as advantagious because so little discrepant as he saith from what he maintaineth See the rest there § 13. 3. Beza the Leader against Prelacy saith de grad Minist Evang. Instituti Divini est ut in omni coetu Presbyterorum unus sit qui ordine praeat praesit reliquis It is of Divine Institution that in every Assembly of Presbyters there be one that go before and be above the rest And dividing Bishops into Divine Humane and Diabolical he makes the Humane tolerable Prelacy to be the fixed President § 14. 4. Calvin who is accused for ejecting Episcopacy besides what he writes of it to Card Sadolet saith in his Institut lib. 4. cap. 4. § 1. Ea cautione totam suam Oeconomiam composuerunt Ecclesiae veteris Episcopi ad unicam illam Dei verbi normam ut facile videas nihil fere hac parte habuisse à verbo Dei alienum § 2. Quibus ergo docendi munus injuâ—ctum erat eos omnes nominabant Presbyteros Illi ex suo numero in singulis civitatibus unum eligebant cui specialiter dabant titulum Episcopi ne ex aequalitate ut fâ—â—ri solet dissidia nascerentur Neque tamen sic honore dignitate superior erat Episcopus ut Dominium in Collegas haberet sed quas partes habet Consul in Senatu ut referat de negotiis sententias roget consulendo monendo hortando aliis praeâ—at authoritate sua totam actionem regat quod decretum Communi Consilio fuerit exequatur id munus sustinebat Episcopus in Presbyterorum coetu § 4. fine Gubernationem sic constituti nonnulli Hierarchiam vocarunt nomine ut mihi videtur improprio certe scripturis inusitato Cavere enim voluit spiritus sanctus nequis principatum aut dominationem somniaret quum de Ecclesiae gubernatione agitur Verum si rem omisso vocabulâ— intueamur N. B. reperiemus veteres Episcopos non aliam regendae Ecclesiae formam voluisse fingere ab ea quam Deus verbo suo praescripsit This he writes after the mention of Archbishops and Patriarcks as well as of Bishops governing in Synods § 15. Where by the way let me give you this observation that Bishops Governing but in Synods can have no other power of Government then the Synods themselves have But Synods themselves as such are not directly for Government but for Concord and Communion of Churches and so consequently for well-governing the several flocks Nor hath a Synod any Governing Power over a particular Pastor as being his superiour appointed to that end but only a Power of Consent or Agreement to which for unity and communion sake he is consequentially obliged not by Virtue of Gods Command that requireth us to obey the Higher Power for three Pastors are not made so the Rulers of one but by virtue of Gods commands that require us to do all things in Unity and to maintain the Peace and Concoâ—d of the Churches and to avoid Divisions and discord § 16. If any think that this doth too much favour the Congregational way I must tell him that it is so true and clear that the Episcopal men that are moderate acknowledge it For instance the Reverend Bishop Vsher did without asking of himself profess to me that it was his judgement that certainly Councils or Synods are not for Government but for Vnity and that a Bishâ—p out of Council hath the same Governing Power as all the Council though their vote may bind him for Vnity to consent § 17. This being so it must needs follow that an Archbishop or the President of a National Provincial Diocesan or Classicall Assembly or of any Association of the Pastors of many Churches hath no superiour Governing power over the Parochial or Congregational Bishop of one Church but only in concurrence with the Synod a Power of Determining by way of Agreement such points as he shall be obliged for Unity and Communion to consent to and perform if they be not contrary to the word of God This evidently follows from this Reverend Archbishops doctrine and the truth § 18. And if any shall think that the Presbyterians will not yield that a particular Church do ordinarily consist but of one full Congregation I confute them by producing their own Concessions in the London Ministers Ius Divinum Ministerii Append pag. 123. they plainly say that The later Bishops were Diocesan the former that is the Bishops of the first or ancient times were Bishops only of one Congregation And pag. 82. they say These Angels were Congregational not Diocesan In the beginning of Christianity the number of Believers even in the greatest Cities were so few as that they might well meet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in one and the same place And thâ—se were called the Church of the City and therefore to ordain Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are all one in Scripture Thus far they yield to the Congregational men § 19. 5. One other witness of the Presbyterians readiness to accommodate on these terms I shall give and no more and that is Mr. Richard Vines a man that was most eminent for his management of the Presbyterian cause in the Assembly and at Vxbridge Treaty and in the Isle of Wight the Papers there presented to the King are to be seen in Print When we did set up our Association in this County I purposing to do nothing without advise and designing a hearty closure of all sober Godly men Episcopal Presbyterian Congregational and Erastian did consult first about it by Letters with Mr. Vines and in his answer to mine he approved of the design and thought our distance very small and yielded to a fixed Presidency though not to a Negative