THE DISCIPLINE AND ORDER Of Particular CHURCHES NO NOVELTY Proved from Scripture Reason Antiquity and the most Eminent Modern DIVINES OR A Discourse of the Church in a Scripture Notion with her Extent Power and Practice tending to Moderate the Minds of Men toward Dissenters in Matters Ecclesiastical and to acquit such from the Charge of Innovation Faction Separation Schism and Breach of Union and Peace in the Church who cannot conform in many things to the Rules Canons and Practices of others By a Lover of Truth Peace Unity and Order London Printed Anno Dom. M.DC.LXXV THE DISCIPLINE AND ORDER OF Particular CHURCHES no Novelty c. THE Church of God since the days of the Gospel was and is according to Scripture-expressions either first the whole Body of Christ consisting of all the Elect See the disputation against Campion at the Tower Sep. 18. 1581. in the Morn by Tulk. and Goad as Eph. 5.23 Christ the head of the Church the Saviour of the Body ver 27. That he might present to himself a Glorious Church ver 25. Christ loved the Church and gave himself for it So Heb. 12.22 23. To the General Assembly and Church of the First born written in Heaven c. Col. 1.18 He is the Head of the Body the Church c. Dr. Carleton sometime Bishop of Chichester in his little Piece Called A Direction to know the true Church p. 3. saith That the Saints before the Law under the Law and under Grace make up the Body of Christ or Members of the Church and that this is the Catholick Church Or Secondly the Universal Visible Church or whole Visible Body of Believers upon the whole Earth at the same time as Acts 2.42 The Lord added to the Church daily Mr. Baxter Cure of Church-Divisions p. 82. Hoâ—keâ— Eccl. Polity third Book p. 88. c. So Eph. 3.21 Vnto him be Glory in the Church by Christ Jesus throughout all Ages Or Thirdly a particular Congregation Society or Company of Professors of the Faith of Jesus Christ usually meeting together in one place as one Body for the participation of the same Ordinances and Exercising the same Duty as a Church in Edifying one another Reynolds in his Conference with Hart Cap. 6. p. 218. saith That a Bishop in our sence is him to whom the Over-fight and charge of a particular Church is committed such as Ephesus Philippi and the seven Churches Prayer c. Such as was the Church in Jerusalem Acts 11.22 Tydings came to the Ears of the Church which was in Jerusalem and they sent forth Barnabas and others c. That this was but one Congregation is evident from Act. 15. where Paul and Barnabas and others coming from Antioch to this Church they were received by the Church first and then the Apostles and Elders The Apostles Elders and Brethren the whole Multitude were present at the Discourse of the Matter and the Epistle wrote in the name of the whole Apostles Elders and Brethren met together with one accord ver 25. Such was the Church of Antioch which was gathered together Acts 14.27 when Paul and Barnabas came and with whom they had Assembled before a whole year Acts 11.26 And were afterwards gathered together to receive and hear the Epistle Acts 15.30 Such were the Churches which the Apostles visited and ordained Elders in Acts 14.23 for they did it by suffrage Likewise the Church in Corinth 1 Cor. 1 2. Vnto the Church of God in Corinth These met in one place 1 Cor. 5. 1 Cor. 11.18.20.23 Cap. 14.23 So the Church at Cenchrea near Corinth See Smect p. 40 41. 47 58 59. Bishop Jewels Reply to Harding p. 230. And Mr. Stillingfleet quotes Pareus in Rom. 16. for this that the Church of Corinth did meet sometimes at Cenchrea because of the violence of their Enemies in Corinth Therefore also when the Apostles spake any where of the Assemblies or Societies of Believers in any one Country they call them not a Church in the singular Number or the Church of such a Country or Isle but Churches as of many in the same Country as in Judea Macedonia Galatia Asia 1 Thes 2.14 2 Cor. 8.1.18.23 24. Gal. 1.2.22 The Holy Ghost mentions seven Churches by name in Asia Rev. 1.4 Ch. 2. Ch. 3. And as to this the same Bishop Carleton in the same Book p. 2. saith That particular Churches are visible Assemblies c. and Governed by divers visible heads and proves it by Gregory Lib. 4. Epist 3. A fourth Church in Scripture Phrase cannot be found since the time that all in every Nation which fear God are accepted as the Apostle said Acts 10.34 35. Such as National Provincial Synodical c. We read not in Scripture nor in any Church History for many years after Christ of any Church distinct from these Descriptions before given Now it is to be presumed that there are none who will affirm that the first of these three Churches could possibly meet together or do any Act as a Church either in choosing Officers determining Controversies Ordering things indifferent to Edification giving Interpretations of Scriptures partaking of Ordinances and casting out of Offenders c. Or that ever any such Power was derived down from Christ upon them as a Church so to do or that he ever intended this Church when he directs any thing to be done by the Church as such because of the utter impossibility of their performance thereof as a Church part of which being already fallen asleep and part not yet born Also it may be concluded as to the second Church above described that it is utterly impossible they should at any time meet together as a Church in one Body to agree upon consent unto Act or Order any thing according to the power given to the Churches as above joyntly as such a Church or partake of Ordinances joyntly as such Nay it 's improbable if not impossible that in their Representative this Church should meet and put themselves into a capacity to Act as a Church in any of the things to be done by a Church as such Nay was there ever any such meeting of this Church None as can be found in Story Or if this were possible where have we Authority of Scripture or Primitive Practice to justifie such a Company of Representatives to call themselves a Church in this sence and to take to themselves the Power of the whole Church given to her by Jesus Christ and to call their Acts the Acts of the Church And it would be strange for any to affirm that Christ hath put the Power as to the Execution of it into the hands of a Body that can never possibly be able to Execute the Power derived upon If any number of Men would colourably make themselves the Churches Representative It is necessary they should be chosen by the whole and some one at least for every particular Church Body Society or Congregation throughout the World as the Messengers
Matter as to the particular Churches to which every Member must joyn himself to wit to the Parish wherein each Member resides for the time being and also as to the manner of joyning and being admitted that is by their being Parishioners To say nothing of the Irrationalness of this way 〈◊〉 the Apprehension of such who consider what it 〈◊〉 that makes a Society to be so and any one to â—ecome a Member thereof or of such who know â—hat it is to have Communion in Christian Societies â—s such We Answer First That there were no such Laws â—ade by the first Christian Emperors against Chriâ—tian Liberty in this case Secondly If any were made since it is reasonaâ—le to enquire how such who made those Laws â—ad this Authority derived upon them from God in â—uch cases If it cannot be shewed as we think it â—annot be then the Freedom continues still to Chriâ—tians It is wonderful that Men yea Christians should â—hink it most just to preserve Mens Liberty of Livâ—ng where they please and to remove from one place to another to choose what Society they please in Civil things And yet restrain Mens Liberâ—y in this case as if Soul-health Liberty Comâ—ort and Profit is not to be preserved above that of the Body Especially since the Law of Nature â—nd the Law of God hath left it free Thirdly That Law which makes all Persons inâ—efinitely Living or that shall Live in such a Preâ—inct to be a Church and Members one of another â—n a particular Society and puts them under a neâ—essity of joyning together as one Body in the Matters of God can very hardly be defended from oppugning the Laws of Christ which forbids Felâ—owship in such things with such and such Persons many of which may be found in every Parish amongst us But to prove by some particulars now That the Power in Church-Affairs was for some Ages Exercised in and by these particular Churches and noâ— else-where without any Interruption or Controll considerable And without any additional or Superiour Authority Bish Nicholson Vindication of the Church of England p. 26. agrees this of Deacons after the Apostles days Anâ— first as to the choosing of their Ministers Acts 6 2 3.5 6. The whole Church there the Multitude by the Apostles own Direction did choosâ— their Deacons and were Judges of their Qualifications The Apostles told them what the Deaconâ— should be the Multitude were Judges whether they were such For the same seven without Examination or Exception which they chose were by the Apostles set apart for the work The Apostles being then the only Officers of that Church which was then but one Society or Congregation Lorinus Salmeron Gasper Sanctus upon Act. 14.23 Deer Part 1. dist 62. See Assembly of Divines upon Act. 24.23 So for the Elders or Bishops Acts 14.22 23. Paul and Barnabas ordained or appointed them Elders in every Church but for the manner it was by suffrage i. e. by the Peoples choice or Vote thus the very Text is rendred in some Translations and so by Magdeburg Divines Translated They created Presbiters in every Church by suffrage Cent. 1. Lib. 2. Cap. 4. Col. 401 402. and this could not be but in particular Congregations who could meet together to this end The Apostles carried no Men with them but passing from Church to Church they appointed such of every Church whom they found there and who were more capable of Judging than the Church of which they were Members and who had experience of and acquaintance with them That this was so is yet more evident by this That afterwards for many hundred years together this way only was continued in the Churches for the Congregations or particular Churches to choose their own Bishops and other Ministers and they â—ccounted it as their Right without any controll as â—or instance in Euseb Eccl. Hist Lib. 3. Cap. â— 1. p. 44. It is said that after the death of James â—he Apostles and Disciples of our Lord gathered â—hemselves together to consult who should succeed â—nd they all with one voyce judged Simon worthy So Euseb Lib. 6. Cap. 28. p. 110. when all the Brethren of the Church of Rome had gathered themselves together for the Electing of a Bishop their Bishop being dead and many had thought upon Notable and Famous Men Fabianus being present the whole Multitude with one accord and the same Spirit of God agreed upon him and made him Bishop The People of a Church in Constantinople being by their Bishop before his Death desired to choose one of two Men he named because of their Vertues did after his Death meet and choose one of them Soc. Eccl. Hist Lib. 2. Cap. 4. p. 253. So did the People of a Church in Millan being met together with one voyce chose Ambrose to be their Bishop which the Emperour concludes there to be the work and will of God Socrat. Lib. 4. Cap. 25. p. 335. There are such Multitudes of Presidents and Instances of this Practice that it would be endless to mention them Only see some Instances in the same Histories of Socrates Lib. 2. Cap. 9. p. 256. Lib. 4. Cap. 13. p 324. Lib. 6. Cap. 2. p. 359. Lib. 7. cap. 7. p. 377 378. Lib. 7. cap. 12. p. 380. cap. 26. p. 390. Evagr. Eccl. Hist Lib. 4. cap. 6. p. 473. Lib. 2. cap. 11. p. 436. This continued unquestioned 500 Years at least And though attempts were sometimes made by Bishops and the Civil Powers they engaged tâ— Depose Ministers and thrust in others upon Churches yet still the Churches refused them and chosâ— others themselves when they wanted them a Soc. Lib. 2. cap. 6. p. 254 One Emiseus there refused at two several places by the People a Alexandria and Emisa So likewise Socrat. Lib 4. cap. 7. p. 318 319. when one Eunomius waâ— sent to Cizicum by a Bishop of Constantinople anâ— commanded to be placed there by the Emperour yet was he refused and Eunomius went and Live with him that made him Bishop So again Socraâ— Lib. 7. cap. 12. p. 380. One Salvatus rejecteâ— by a Church in Constantinople So again at Cizicum where a Bishop at Constantinople appoint Proclus to be their Bishop The Church at Cizicum understanding what was done prevented it anâ— chose Dalmatius a Religious Man to Govern and Proclus being not admitted there spent hiâ— time at Constantinople Socrat. Lib. 7. cap. 28 p. 391. and many more Instances of this Nature might be given Yet we find no complaint made thereof as any irregular Act of the People which doubtless would have been had it not been their known right Cyprian agrees to this that if any were intruded upon the People he was taken for a false Bishop noâ— a true Pastor for which he is quoted by the Magdeburg Divines Cent. 3. cap. 7. col 175 176 Moreover the Emperour Constantine acknowledgeth this right to be Lodged in these particulaâ— Churches See his Epistle to the Church in Antioch where
themselves the name of the Church as invested with authority to make Laws to impose upon others in these Church matters For if a fourth Church on Earth distinct from the three descriptions above be not found and proved to be vested with this power and capable to execute it according to Christs mind none of these three did ever execute any such Power the two first never made Laws since they grew to big to meet in one place the third never made any to be binding or observed further than in and by the same Congregation or Society where they were made and by whom they were agreed to It is true we find That other Churches liking the Rules of some one Church did imitate them and agree of the same in their Churches also as Socrat. â—n his Eccles Hist lib. 5. cap. 21. p. 351. c. affirms That in those dayes there were diversities of Observations and Rites in several Churches without any forcing of any but every Church as it seemed good to them and that such as liked those Rites did commend them to their Posterity for Laws And Mr. Thorndike in his Book called the true way of composing differences pag. 26 27. saith That if a part of a Church speaking there of a National Church as men tearm it shall give Law to the whole such part that so doth for so doing are Schismatick If therefore any particular Church being but a part of the whole in his sence should make Rules for the whole or if it be said that the Convocation or Synod is such a Church who have this Power to make Laws for the whole these also are but a part of the Church in Mr. Thorndikes sence and but a little part too If these therefore shall give Laws to the whole then hear what Thorndike saith If yet they say This is the whole Church in their Representative Answer first cannot justly call themselves the Representative of the whole for they were neither chosen nor sent by the whole nor did the whole ever intrust them with any such Power Nor were they chosen sent and intrusted by the particular Churches of the whole without which in any rational way they cannot be supposed to be the whole Church in her Representative no nor the Church of England in her Representative if not so sent chosen and intrusted by the particular Churches thereof as above nor will they we presume challenge any authority from Christ immediately derived upon their persons to be the Churches Representative and to make Laws for them But Secondly If it should be granted though against all reason that they do indeed represent the Church of England yet then it must be proved by the Word of God or very good authority that any such Representative was called the Church and so accounted and hath such power to make Laws for many Churches or Congregations by Divine-right and to whose Laws those Churches were bound to give obedience for Conscience sake If that in Acts 15. be urged it seems to be altogether impertinent unlesse they will make the Apostles and whether all or some only we cannot determine the Elders of the Church in Jerusalem and all the brethren of that Church a Convocation or Synod And such another we can hardly find now adayes that this was so and no other is apparent from the very Text for all these met together about the matter and it is said verse 22. It pleased the Apostles and Elders with the whole Church to send chosen men of their own Company c. cheif men amongst the brethren and in the next verses we find That the Apostles Elders and Brethren wrote about the matter and say It seems good to us being assembled together with one accord to send c. here the brethren were as much the Convocation as the Elders But then also consider the causes why the Church at Antioch sent to this Church at Jerusalem about this matter and why they in Jerusalem write their mind again to them they are two The first may be Supposed that is because there were some of the Apostles the second is Expressed that is because those men who came to Antioch and preached the Circumcision there pretended that they came from Jerusalem from the Apostles and whole Church there with this Doctrine therefore was there great reason why they should apply themselves to them to be resolved of the truth in that matter for about the same question Paul and Barnabas had before disputed at Antioch and also mark the matter they write about it hath a suitableness to that which they had desired to be resolved in The epistle tells them that they who wrote the Epistle had given no such commands to those men to teach such things ver 24. And further That it seemed good to the Holy Ghost to lay no greater burthen upon them than such necessary things therein mentioned which things were necessary to be abstained from because the use of them would then have offended and fornication was sin in it self and by the way note here are no new things required to be done of those but somewhat they should forbear to do because by doing it they may offend such who could not judge it to be lawfully done and sin Here now is not the least footsteps for such a Synod as the Convocation our Council of Bishops or Ministers as a Church to make lawes which shall be binding to any more than themselves who agree to them For the Church at Jerusalem had such a thing fallen out with them as did at Antioch That some had come from Paul and Barnabas and that Church with false Doctrine unto them might as well have written to them at Antioch to have been resolved And Paul and Barnabas and the Elders and Brethren of that Church of Antioch might have written an Answer to them with equall authority Nay but is there ground to give like credit or subjection to a Rule of any Convocation or Synod now as there was to the Apostles in those days Surely No But if it be said that they are the Churches Representative and their Lawes are the Lawes of the Church by humane authority only then it will be necessary to prove That such who take upon them to make Churches and Convey power to them by their Lawes have such a power delegated to them from Jesus Christ so to do Otherwise their Lawes will not creat such a Church with authority in these cases and to whose Laws obedience is to be expected for Conscience sake The old Rule must be remembered None can give to another that he hath not in himself But if it be said that the Governours of the Churches of a Nation or Kingdome with the Magistrates authority have power to determine of matters indifferent in their owne nature about the worship of God and in Church Government and by Law to impose them upon the particular Churches of that Nation For Answer to this first we think it a
he tells this Church in general that they did affect Eusebius and would have Elected him to be their Bishop and then he perswades them to choose another seeing all did not agree therefore saith he not Lawful because saith he he that is Elected to a Bishoprick by the general Suffrage of Wise men assembled to deliberate thereof ought by Gods Law to enjoy it This is Recorded in Eusebius of the Life of Constantine Lib. 3. cap. 58. p. 52. Yea the great Nicene Councel agree it in these words expressed in Socrat. Lib. 1. cap. 6. p. 225. Speaking about some who might be in a Capacity of being made Ministers they say if they be found worthy and the People choose them they may Succeed the Deceased c. Yet further it 's manifest by the same History That where any one Congregation did divide into two Bodies each apart chose their own Bishops for themselves as in the Case of the Church of Antioch Socrat. Lib. 5. Cap. 9. p. 343. Lib. 4. cap. 1. p. 316. So in many other Cases when those of the true Faith had Bishops imposed upon them by the Arrians they divided themselves from the Arrians and chose to themselves Bishops and Assembled alone And it is observable That all these Bishops thus chosen and appointed of the People of these particular Churches were still acknowledged as Lawful Bishops by all and in all the Councels mentioned in those Histories Nor do we find the least Objection any where Recorded in those days against such who came thus to this Office as being unlawfully called To this Practice of the particular Churches and their Right thereto the Fathers give in their Testimonies also a touch of them therefore Tertul. in his Apol. to the Gent. Cap. 39. p. 137. English Translation saith That in these Assemblies there are Bishops that preside they are approved of by the Suffrage of them whom they ought to conduct So saith many others Possidon in vita Aug. Cap. 4. Leo. 1. Epist 95. quoted by the Magdeburg Divines Cent. 2. cap. 7. col 134 135. Cent. 1. Lib. 1. cap. 4. col 179. Cent. 3. cap. 6. col 146 147. The Roman Presbiters in their Epistle to Cyrian affirm that every Church hath a like Power of Choosing Calling and Ordaining Ministers and for just cause again to depose them Cyprian Lib. 1. Epist 4. Aug. Epist 100. Cyprian Epist 68. And Cyprian himself saith That the right of choosing such as are fit and refusing the unworthy belong to the People and whole Church and that by Divine Authority And that the Officers and People did consult about it with common consent And for these things he is quoted by the Magdeburg Writers Cent. 3. cap. 7. col 153.173 174 175. Cap. 6. col 135 136.146 and also that the People did consider the Life and Manners of the Persons to be chosen and judge and much more to this purpose in those places before John Ferus a Fryer in his Comment upon Act. 11. and Magdeburg Cent. 5. cap. 6. col 178 179 180. Now we shall add a few Testimonies and Judgments of latter Ages and of Men otherwise differing The Papists themselves at the Councel of Trent acknowledged that this was the usual Practice of the Church of God for 800 Years together after Christ for the particular Churches to choose their own Ministers and they then affirmed that there were remaining at that day the Records thereof at Rome and they then and there desired that those Records might be destroyed lest Luther who maintained this Right to the People should make use of them to bring in the Custom into the Church again And they there also acknowledge that this was taken from the Church by the Authority of a Council only who made a Decree against it See the Conference of Rayno'ds Hart c. 6. p. 223. Hart saith out of Genebrard that Clemens took not the Bishoprick by the Councel of the Lord least the Example of taking it by nomiâ—ation of Peter should pass to posterity and derogate from the free providence of the Church in choosing of her own Bishop Genebâ—ard Chronolg l. 3. in Lin. See more l. 4. Seculo 11. Cited in the same Confer Cap. 7. l â—76 Concil Trident. in English Lib 7. p. 590 591.598 See more of the same Council Lib. 8. p. 725. And he that wrote this History complains against Rome about this in these words The Church of Rome grant not the People the Election of their Ministers which certainly saith he was an Apostolical Institution continued more than 800 Years Concil Trident. Lib. 2. p. 163. Bishop Jewel in his Reply to Mr. Harding p. 230. Saith out of Cyprian Lib. 1. Epist 4. That the Bishoprick was bestowed upon Sabinus by the consent and voices of the whole Brother-hood of that Church to which he was to be Bishop He there saith that Honorius the Emperour Writing to Boneface doth agree him to be Bishop whom some of the Clergy and whole Brother-hood shall choose And the Bishop himself then there affirms from hence that every particular Church is called the whole Church And after in p. 282. The Bishop affirms that Cyprian in the same place saith That the People being Obedient to Gods Law have Power especially to choose worthy or refuse unworthy Priests Mr. Stillingfleet in his Irenicum p. 306. quotes Tertul. Exhort Castil c. 7. for these words That all the difference between the Ministers and People comes from the Churches Authority and again p. 416. himself saith That Episcopal men will hardly find any evidence in Scripture or the Practice of the Apostles for Churches consisting of many fixed Congregations for Worship under the Charge of one man nor in the Primitive Church for the Ordination of Bishops without the preceding Election of the Clergy and at least consent and approbation of the People so much he allows there and something more in p. 339. where he useth these words speaking of Elders now the voyce of the People which was used in the Primitive times is grown out of use c. by which he confesseth it to be the Primitive Practice But Mr. Stillingfleet having as he saith been at the pains to transcribe some of Bishop Cranmer's words they will serve well here and we shall again transcribe so much of them as speaks to this particular See them in the same Irenicum p. 391 392. They are these That in the Apostles time when there were no Christian Princes by whose Authority Ministers of Gods Word might be appointed nor sins be corrected by the Sword there was no Remedy then for correction of Vice or appointment of Ministers but only the consent of Christian Multitude amongst themselves by an uniform consent to follow the Advice and perswasion of such Persons whom God had most endued with the Spirit of Wisdom and Councel c. Sometimes the Apostles and others unto whom God had given abundance of his Spirit sent or appointed Ministers of Gods
Word sometimes the People did choose such as they thought meet thereunto and when any were sent by the Apostles or other the People of their own voluntary will with thanks did accept of them not for the Supremacy Imperial Dominion that the Apostles had over them to command as their Princes or Masters but as good People ready to Obey the good Councellors and to accept any thing necessary for their Edification and Benefit And again that the People before Christian Princes were commonly did Elect their Bishops and Priests thus far of Bishop Cranmer which words of his as Mr. Stillingfleet there affirms he put his own Hand to and gave it in in answer to certain Questions put to him in King Edward the Sixths Time and now remain upon Record Bishop Nicholson of Gloucester in his Vindication of the Church of England p. 27. grants the Truth of this That the People did choose their Pastors in the Primitive Ages of the Church in express terms and saith it was taken away from the People by Christian Princes when the Fathers disliked the use So far of him in this place Polanus in his Sintagma Lib. 7. Cap. 15. fully proves and affirms this Right to be Lodged in these Churches Under this Head De Electionibus seu vocationibu◠Ecclesiasticis First he saith That the Liberty or Power of Election calling or sending of Ecclesiastical Persons is a Right which the whole Church hath in choosing and calling to themselves approved and fit Ministers and in placing them into Sacred Order p. 542. After in his next p. 543. under this Question a quibus Electio seu vocatio Ministrorum Ecclesiae fieri debeat By whom the Election or calling of Ministers of the Church ought to be made He saith That unto the Legitimate or Lawful Election of the Ministers of the Church especially of the Pastors is requisite a free and ingenious consent and Suffrage of the whole Church whose business it is that is of the Elders and Flock The which consent must not be had by intreaty or sold for a price much less forced and extorted so that it is the part of the whole Church to choose Ministers for themselves And there he gives these following arguments to evince it First because even in the time of the Apostles the whole Church whose business it was did choose Ministers for themselves or to it self Neither did the Apostles themselves saith he Ordain any one for Ecclesiastical charges only by their own Authority but always by the Church consenting and approving Acts 6.2 c. and 14.23 Secondly because by this means the Churches own Liberty which Christ hath given to it is kept For a Pastor or Minister of the Word of God is not to be obtruded upon the Church of God against his will Can. Null invit distinc 61. Thirdly because it serves to this That even the Ministers may with a good Conscience Rule the Lords Flock by whom he is Elected and the Flock of the Lord may in like manner yield themselves the more easie to him to be Instructed and fed than to him who beside or against their will is thrust upon them and again he is not to be acknowledged for a Lawful Pastor of the Church who hath been intruded on the Church by the Authority and Command of the Prince Quod testatur Concil Parisiense primum Can. Octavo Tomo Secundo Concil And after he saith in the same p. That fit Persons are to be nominated and presented to the People before the Election and should be openly proposed in the Assemblies And again in p. 544. Under this Question Qualiter seu quomodo Ministri Ecclesiae Eligi vocari debeant How the Ministers of the Church ought to be chosen and called Acts 14.23 Those Persons are to be Nominated of whom the Election and Calling ought to be made to this end that the Church by the free Suffrage of the whole Congregation or such to whom she hath committed a Right and Power of choosing may approve and accept of one of them That the Suffrages are collected by some Pastor of the Church or of another to whom he shall commit it And they are given either in Order by every Elector Vivâ voce or joyntly of all or many by lifting up of hands or either way c. For if by giving their Suffrages Vivâ voce there were variance and they go into many Sentences of unprofitable and tedious prolixity Those who had any Votes for Ordination were again named and every one being named they who chose him were commanded to lift up their Hands At the Nomination of whom either all or many lifted up their Hands this Man was concluded to be Lawfully Elected After this manner saith he Paul and Barnabas did Create Elders Acts 14.23 And after under this Question By what Rite or Ceremony c. he saith He who was Elected by the Church with free Suffrages at length received Ordination of the Pastors of the Church 1 Tim. 4.14 5.22 the whole Multitude of the Church being present Then Polanus concludes with these words They do therefore grievously sin who do manifestly drive away the Ecclesiastical People or Flock from the Election of their Ministers which saith he the false or Counterfeit Popish Bishops do yea they do grievously sin who do impose Bishops and Pastors upon the Church against their will Thus far Polanus agrees in his own words From some of the former Authorities The African Synod Athanasius Cornelius and others The Presbyterian Divines in their Book called Smectimnius admits this power to reside in the People of particular Churches and that by Divine Authority They say First That the especial power of Judging of the Worthiness or Unworthiness lay in the People Secondly That the power of choosing or refusing them upon this Judgment resided in the People Thirdly That the power descended upon them by Divine Authority Athanasius say they in his Epist ad Orthodoxos blamed the Intrusion of Bishops as against the Apostolical Precepts against the Canon and compelled the Heathen to Blaspheme Mr. Prin in his Book of un-bishoping Timothy and Titus p. 69. affirms this out of Alcuvinus de Diviniis Officiis Cap. 37. That Ministers of all sorts were made to the Year 800 by this Election of Clergy and People and that they were all present at their Ordination and consented to it Also he affirms in p. 72 73. That Martin Bucer in his Book of recalling and bringing in again the use of Lawful Ordination saith That this power is in the People Much more might be produced to prove this particular See only Magdeb. Cent. 4. cap. 6. col 43. Concil Trident. in English Lib. 8. p. 725. Lib. 7. p. 591. 598. Lib. 6. p. 404 405. And as to imposition of Hands upon these thus chosen Mr. Prin in the same Book p. 72 73. quotes Jerome Epist to Evagr. and his Comment upon Titus for this That the Ancient Consecration of Bishops
was nothing else but their Election c. And that all the Rites and Ceremonies now used are but Novelties And Martin Bucer for these conclusions in his afore-said Book and in his Scripta Anglicana of the Office of Pastor p. 154. 159. 191. and on Mat. 16. That imposition of hands on those chosen Ministers belong to the Presbiters but that this they have not Originally but only Instrumentally as Servants to the whole Congregation And that this ought to be done publickly in the Church where they are Elected before all the Congregation and that the imposition of hands is no essential part of Ordination Luther held this Concil Trident l. 7. p. 590. but that it may be omitted And that those who are Elected and Lawfully called to the Ministry by the Suffrage of the whole Church and People are Ministers Lawfully called and Ordained without this Ceremony And Mr. Prin there further proves this by David Blond Apol. Sect. 3. de Ordinatione plebis in Electionibus jure from p. 309. to 448. He also affirms p. 81. That Morney Amesius Morney Lord of Plessis in his Book de Eccesia cap. 11. and sundry others there quoted say That the People alone in case of Necessity where are no Bishops or Ministers or where Bishops refuse to ordain as they ought may Elect and Ordain Ministers The right of Ordination and Election being Originally in the whole Church and people c. and that imposition of hands is no Essential but Ceremonial part of Ordination as Angelus de Clavaso Peter Martyr Mr. Baxters body of Divinity of Ordination p. 79. and others both Papists and Protestants affirm Mr. Stillingfleet in his Irenicum p. 392. where he transcribes Bishop Cranmers answer to the Questions before mentioned hath set down these words amongst others as the Bishops own words The Bishop having affirmed that the people before Christian Princes did commonly Elect their Bishops and Priests saith further That in the New-Testament he that is appointed to be Priest or Bishop needed no Consecration for Election or appointment thereto saith he is sufficient Now having so great a cloud of witnesses beyond all exception and a concurrent sentence in this matter by Persons at so great a distance each from other in their Judgment in other things and living in several ages of the World It seemeth strange that there should be such wrestling against the common right of the Church of God and such a stir to make that Scripture Acts 14.23 to speak something else than that which so many Learned eminent Godly Men agree it doth and the practice of the Church so long and universally and fully affirm it to do Much more strange it is that men should be blamed for being of this Judgment and practising accordingly having so much ground to believe it to be the truth If any should pretend that there are other Officers in the Church of God besides Ordinary Bishops and Deacons Hoâ—ker in his Eccles Polity 4th Book p. 417 418 c. allows Presbyter and Deacons to be the Clergy and that no where in the New Test are they called Priests nor will he contend for that Name See more p. 123 of the same Book by Divine Right to continue Let such prove it if they can But it seems clear that after Prophets Apostles and Evangelists these extraordinary Officers of Christ were deceased who while they continued had extraordinary Furniture given them from Christ for their work These of Bishops or Elders and Deacons in the particular Churches were all one no superior and General Officers over many as Mr. Stillingfleet in his afore-said Irenicum p. 416. saith that the Episcopal Men will hardly find any evidence in Scripture or the Apostles practice for Churches consisting of many fixed Congregations for the Worship of God under the charge of one person First it is manifest that Bishops and Elders in those days were the same Officers and not one above the other Acts 20. where the Apostles â—nt for the Elders of the Church of Ephesus and â—â—ving Discoursed with them he gave them â—harge that they the same Persons should take â—ed to the Flock over which the Holy Ghost had â—ade them Bishops or Overseers as our Tranâ—tion hath it So when Peter writes 1 Epist 5 â— 2 c. He there calls the Ruling Officers in â—eneral Elders whether Ruling only or Ruling â—â—d Teaching Elders See 1 Tim. 5.17 Bishop Cranmer in the place before quoted by â—r Stillingfleet in his Irenicum p. 392. saith â—hat the Bishop and Priest were at one time and â—ot two things but both one Office in the beginâ—ng of Christs Religion Dr. Fulk against the Rhem. upon Titus 1.5 â—nd Jerome in his Comment upon Titus affirms â—is And the Magdeburg Divines quote Jerome Amâ—rose and Chrysostome for the proof of this and â—lso for shewing how in after Ages one Elder was â—xalted above the rest Doctor Whittaker in his Answer to Campian in his ten Reasons 10. Vol. and then called the Bishop â—y way of Eminence and that this was by Humane â—uthority Cent. 2. Cap. 7. col 126. Cent. 4. â—ap 6. col 491. Cent. 5. cap. 7. col 737. Nay â—regory Nazianzen wisheth this Episcopal decree â—bolished and saith it is Tyrannical Orat. 28. So â—ad it proved in his days as it seems Bishop Jewel in his Reply to Mr. Harding p. â—22 229. 250 251 252. alledgeth this out of Jeâ—ome Cyprian c. That Bishops are greater than â—riests more of Custom than of Gods Ordinance That the Power of all Priests by the Authority of Gods Word is one and equal and that it was â—nly Policy that set one over many And in p. 257. â—oncludes against Papists in these words If Christ saith the Bishop appointed not one Priest ovâ— another how then is it likely he should appoint oâ— over all And so Mr. Stillingfleet in his afoâ—said Book See Smect p. 24. 26. Raynolds conference with Hart cap. 8. p. 461 462. affirms this Policy to be the ground of raising one Eâ—deâ— abâ—ve others and so step by step to the Pope See also p 540 541 p. 276 277. 310 311. proves this 〈◊〉 large That Bishops and Presbiters were the saâ—â— in Primitive times and that Arius was not câ—demned for that Opinion but for his separatâ—â— from such who set up Bishops above other Priesâ— and he quotes Aug. Epist 29. for this That 〈◊〉 difference between Episcopacy and Presbitery tâ— the one is greater than the other arise only by 〈◊〉 Custom of the Church attributing a Name of greâ—er Honour to them Secondly That Bishops Elders and Deacâ— were all the Officers Christ intended to have câ—tinued in the Church after the Apostles days seeâ— clear in this That when the Apostle wrote to 〈◊〉 Church of the Philippians he mentioned these â—ly To the Bishops and Deacons Phil. 1.1 Aâ—â— when the Holy Ghost mentions the Qualificatiâ— of Church-Officers he names none but these Nâ— doth he
seem to intend any other nor any other â—corded in the Scripture of the New Tesâ—ment which doubtless would have been if Châ— had intended any other to have been continued 〈◊〉 the Church for it would have been necessary 〈◊〉 have known how such should have been Qualifiâ— as well as these But of these two see at large 1 Tiâ— 3. Titus c. 3. And that these were all in the Primitiâ— Churches the Century Writers affirm Magdâ— Cent. 1. Lib. 2. cap. 7. col 508 509. Cent. â— cap. 7. col 125. This also may we note Tâ— after the Church had departed from the Apostoliâ— Order and by humane prudence appointed oâ— Elder or Bishop in every Congregation or Socit◠〈◊〉 the first step and after in a larger Circuit â—ve the rest Yet even these Bishops were then â—ke manner chosen by the Body of those Churchâ— where in he was to be Bishop as the Authoriâ— herein before alledged fully prove But now if it shall be Objected as some have â—med to do That this power of Election in the â—urch was not a Priviledge belonging to them of â—t but of conveniency Ere we give answer 〈◊〉 shall go over some such pretences as these â—irst the Papists Concil Trident. lib. 7. p. 590. They at the Council of Trent â—â—itted this use to have been in the Primitive times the Churches But as to the Right they say â—re That though the people did choose yet it 〈◊〉 by the tacit or explicit consent of the Pope This conceit will easily fall for in those days â—re was no such thing in Nature as a Pope if â—y mean by a Pope such a one as is now at â—me with such Authority as he challengeth thereâ— he could not by his consent bring it in or had â—een so the Pope had erred to have given conâ—â— to the Church that she should have called her â—isters in another way than Christ had appointed Christ did not appoint this way If Christ did â—oint this way then his consent was insignificant-mentioned in this case unless they will say Christ â—n appointed no way but that he left all to the â—retion of the Pope in this matter which we â—k they will not affirm Again Secondly Bishop Nicholson of Glouâ—er in his Book before cited p. 27. admits the â—ter of Fact that the people did choose but â—o the Right he saith first That it was after 〈◊〉 Apostles days Although we see Arch-Bishop Cranmer Polanus the Magdeburg Divines and many others of express contrary Judgment in the places befoâ—â— quoted and agree that this was in the Apostâ—â— days and their own way in which they Ordain Elders in the Churches Secondly he saith That this was not a Priâ—â—ledge belonging to them of Right but of Conveâ—ency for which we have the Bishops own word â—ly not the least proof offered against which 〈◊〉 stream of other Learned and good mens judgmeâ—â— before cited generally run And this also the â—shop himself in the same place in the very nâ— words ingeniously adds and affirms That 〈◊〉 choyce of the People was derived from the Ruleâ— Christian Equity and Society and he there furtâ—â—â— sub joyns this excellent effect it had That heâ— it came to pass that the People did quietly receâ— willingly maintain diligently hear and hearâ— love their Pastors From whence we may conclude That suâ— such whom the Bishop there saith took away 〈◊〉 Power from the Churches were to be blamed 〈◊〉 rashness at least And that there is a loud call for 〈◊〉 restoring of this Conveniency if it be no moâ—â— to the Churches since it was derived from such â—cellent Rules and hath such desirable effects Nâ— such to be found following any other way brouâ—â— in in the room thereof And that it may of â—â—vine Right rather than of Conveniency brouâ—â— in by mans Wisdom for it is rare to find a Câ—â—stitution of mans derived from such Principles 〈◊〉 to have such Fruits which do exceed for goodâ— the Constitutions of Christ himself Again Thirdly One more such pretence we 〈◊〉 in Mr. Stillingfleet in his afore-said Book p. 2â— Who though he had before in the place herein â—oted allowed that the People did choose yet â—e he saith It seems strangely improbable that the â—ostles should put the choice at that time into the â—ads of the People and he makes this the only â—und of his conjecture That there were none â—n that were fitted for the work but whom the â—â—ostles did lay their hands upon by which saith 〈◊〉 the Holy Ghost fell upon them whereby they â—â—re fitted and qualified for the work the people â—n saith he could no ways choose men for their â—ilities when their abilities were consequent to â—â—eir Ordination These are his own words as to â—â—s matter But his ground seems very feeble for â—e concluding of such an improbability for we â—ust either take it for granted or he must prove â—rst that the Holy Ghost fell on none but such on â—nom the Apostles laid hands Secondly That the â—oly Ghost fell on no men till the Apostles had â—d hands upon them for the Ministry Thirdly â—hat when ever the Apostles laid hands on any they â—ere by that imposition of Hands Ordained Miniâ—â—ers If this be not granted or proved then there â—â—ght be many in every Church qualified with gifts 〈◊〉 the Holy Ghost and fitted for the work some â—â—thout laying on of hands some by laying on of â—ands of the Apostles and yet not Ministers thereâ—â— Then these were fitted for the work and these â—ight be chosen by the Church before Ordination â—ut so it was it 's evident that the Holy Ghost fell â—pon many without imposition of hands that he â—ll upon some by imposition of hands before they â—ere made Ministers That all were not made Miâ—â—sters on whom the Apostles laid hands and who â—â—ceived the Spirit So that Multitudes were fitted and qualified for the people to choose in every plaâ—â— almost See Acts 10. There were many heariâ— Peter Preach and while he was yet speaking 〈◊〉 Holy Ghost fell on them all and they spake wâ— Tongues here is no imposition of hands nor sâ—ting apart for the Ministry for they were not baâ—tized ver 47. yet were these Persons qualifiâ—â— for the People to have chosen any man among them Again Acts 8.14 15 16 17. The were many Men and Women at Samaria that belieâ—ed and the Apostles at Jerusalem hearing of 〈◊〉 sent unto them Peter and John who prayed and laâ— their hands on them and the received the Hâ— Ghost Yet sure Mr. Stillingfleet will not saâ— these were made Ministers by this however the were qualified thereby to have been chosen by tâ— People Again Acts 19. Paul found certain Disciples 〈◊〉 Ephesus twelve in Number of Men he laâ— on them and they received they Holy Ghost aâ— Prophecyed And there is no colour to say that theâ— were Ordained Ministers thereby So that theâ— were more Persons qualified for the work to be châ—sen by the people
before Ordination Yea what saith Mr. Stillingfleet to that place 〈◊〉 Acts 6. where the Apostles direct the Multituâ—â— to choose out from amongst themselves seven Mâ— of honest report and full of the Holy Ghost aâ— Wisdom whom the Apostles might appoint â— Now had Mr. Stillingfleets conceit been true thâ—â— the qualification was consequent of Ordination 〈◊〉 had been in vain to have given such a direction to thâ— people But we see the people did find out among themselves seven such Men every way fitted to 〈◊〉 Ordained Ministers There were many of the Brethren in that single â—â—ngregation at Corinth abundantly qualified for 〈◊〉 work as doth clearly appear in those Epistles 〈◊〉 the rest of the Brethren were to covet such gifts 〈◊〉 qualifications though they might never be â—â—de Ministers and so in several other Churches 〈◊〉 did not the Apostle to Timothy and Titus set â—wn what should be the qualifications of such who â—â—uld be made Bishops and Deacons with which â—â—y must be furnished before they were to be Orâ—â—â—ned Sure then it cannot be imagined that â—â—e were such to be chosen until they were Orâ—â—â—ned By this time Mr. Stillingfleets strange â—â—probability may be removed and if this be all 〈◊〉 ground he hath for it's improbability he may â—â—clude with others That the Apostles did put 〈◊〉 Electing power into the hands of the People 〈◊〉 â—heir days and that Abilities were Antecedential 〈◊〉 not Consequential of Ordination â—t is wonderful that such a famous and Learned â—â—n as Mr. Stillingfleet is should through â—â—l against the Peoples right of Election be so â—â—ch mistaken â—ndeed it is lamentable to see how Protestants â—eneral when they write against the Papists do 〈◊〉 assert the peoples power of chosing their Miâ—â—â—â—ers by Divine right as in many of the instances â—ore Yet at home amongst their brethren they â—â—ffle and are loath to confesse the truth of it they not practice it they will not suffer other to do it 〈◊〉 are perswaded it ought to be so yea many â—â—â—tend against it and make Lawes for another â—â—nner of making Ministers In so doing they do 〈◊〉 a little advantage the Popish interest We have here purposely digressed a little 〈◊〉 shew what poor devices there are to deceive 〈◊〉 people that they may not think it their duty priviledge to choose their own Ministers and thâ— such men might order this matter at their pleasurâ— And now for answer to the objection it self thâ— needs no more to be said but this That the Divâ— right of the people in these Churches about tâ— matter is already proved by what hath been saâ— Unless better evidences can be shewed to the câ—trary than any of the aforementioned suggestioâ— and conceits or other thing we have seen or heard Or if it shall be objected further that although was so in the infancy of the Church as some sâ— yet it may not be so now and Decrees of Councâ— or of the Church as some term it and Laws of Mâ—gistrates have taken it away Answ 1. The Churches were better able to â—â—termine of the mind of Christ then than now thâ— were fewer occasions to turn her aside in those daâ— in such matters B. Jewel on Hag. 1. Hodiae venenum infunditur in Eccles and we have no new revelatiâ— of the truth in this thing more than they then hâ— They had more abundant of the spirit of God â—mongst them than now amongst us they had 〈◊〉 Apostles then living amongst them and after thâ— for some time such as saw the Apostles and tâ— practices in these things and conversed with thâ— about such matters And sure while these ligâ— were in the Church she was most like to walk the right rule and so after ages judged The trâ— is had those men that then made up the Chuâ— been still living they might have been said to hâ— been in their infancy in those dayes and now in 〈◊〉 age but they being dead and new Church-maâ— still arising it may be said she is still in her infanâ— And verily much more childish she is than she was â—n those dayes But the Church in Name the Older she grew the more she doted and when all â—hese antient lights went out the more she stumâ—led like Israel of old when Moses had been gone out 40 dayes they made them a Calf Josh 24 3. Judges 2.7.8 c. and Aaron â—he High Priest was also in the folly and the Elder â—hat Church grew when their Fathers who had â—een Gods wonders were dead the more blind and â—dolatrous they waxed Therefore is it much safer â—o follow the footsteps of the Church in her infancy â—han her Rules in her age so far as is possible But 2dly What warrant have we from Gods word to conclude that the Church must walk by â—ne Rule in her infancy or more properly in the â—rimitive Gospel dayes and by another in her elâ—er age one under Heathen Magistrates another â—nder Christian not the least word for it in Scripâ—ure that we can find had it been necessary or the â—ind of Christ it should have been so no doubt â—ur Lord would have let us known his pleasure in 〈◊〉 and have left some Rules for it And who will â—ead for the taking away such things from the â—hurches by humane Councels and Laws which â—hrist as King and Lawgiver to his Church hath â—iven unto them That in the ordinary meetings of these Churches â—e matter of their worship and work was only â—ading the Scriptures expounding them or â—eaching exhorting comforting one another â—ging Psalmes sometimes made by the holy breâ—ren breaking bread or participation of the Lords â—pper prayer as he who prayed was able givâ—g to the poor c. as appears by these Scriptures Act. 1.14.15 ch 2.41.42 Act. 12.5.12 1 Cor. 11.20.23 c ch 12. ch 14. Act. 20.7 1 Thes 5.11.14 Heb. 10.24.25 So it was after the Apostles dayes Euseb Hist lib. 7. c. 17. p. 28.29 Tertul. in his Apol. c. 39. p. 137. 139. 141 Engl. Transl saith that here we pray to God c. read the holy Scriptures according to the Condition of the times what serveth to the admonishing and confirming of the faithful we cease not saith he to confirm or discipline by the strength of precept we continually repeat here we make exhortations and threatings they feast saith he and before they sit down they pray after they sing Psalmes or Hymnes every one composeth after the capacity of his mind and as it began with prayer so it ended c. Plinius secundus Euseb l. 3. c. 3. p. 53. lib. 10 cap. 3. p. 184. saith something of it And Justinus saith that here the writings of the Prophets and Apostles were read then preaching to stir up the people to imitate the things read then all stood up in prayer then the Lord Supper prayer preceding then every one gave to the poor as he would for this he is quoted by the Magdeburg Divines Cent. 2. c.
6. col 114. 115. And they also say that Nicephorus and Clement write that they haâ— here Psalmes composed by the faithful Cent. 2. c. 6 Col. 115.116 And for the manner they further in the same 114. col say that here they read thâ— Scriptures as they could and he that was chief oâ— did preside prayed and gave thanks as he was ablâ— and so other things as above And to this Tertâ— in his said Apol. cap. 30. p. 119. saith that the prayers no man did prescribe or declare to the what to say because saith he it is our heart Wâ— prayed a Prayer conceived and produced c aâ— it was decreed at the Councel of Carthage agaiâ— reading of any thing but the Canonical Scripture in these Churches Magdeburg Cent. 4. c. 6. Col. 412. No other service or prescribed formes or any reading of prayers c. once mentioned to be used in those dayes It 's true in process of time step by step forms of prayer and prescribed rules of worship crept in or were thrust in upon the Churches upon pretence at first that by this they might prevent the spreading of the Arian Heresie which said they men might vent in prayer if they had liberty to have prayed what they had pleased therefore they agreed that Ministers should make their own form and pray no other then after that these forms should not be used till he had conferred with some of the able brethren of the Church whereof he was Minister then the next step was that this prayer must be approved of by a Council e're they might use them again that one and the same form should be used in several Churches as it is at this day all which such as are acquainted with History cannot deny But from this we conclude it was not so from the beginning and it is evident also that the power of managing of the worship of Gods appointment according as we see it was in those dayes belonged to the particular Congregations and each did as to the circumstances of these as they judged most convenient and tend most to edification nor did any other in those days â—ntermedle with these matters but in their own Churches nor did these Churches themselves ever â—dd any thing to their worship or prescribe any â—orms of prayer or rules of worship to which they â—ecessarily bound themselves till this policy enteâ—ed about the Arians which never had any successe â—o the end pretended We see that they prayed before as they were able and no man prescribed words they read according to the condition of the times The Pastor or Bishop exhorted to follow such things as were read and he gave thanks as he was able they sang Hymnes composed by Godly brethren c. nothing imposed upon them nor did any then pretend authority over them to give rules to the Churches in those things That in those ordinary meetings of these Churches the private brethren who were able did without any allowance of any Church but the Congregation whereof they were members openly preach exhort admonish and comfort one another mutually see Rom. 15.14 1 Cor. 12. ch 14. yea they might Covet gifts to this end as the Apostle there directs the Corinthians and it is said of them 2 Cor. 8.7 That they abounded in utterance and how could this be known or used if not in their Assemblies Jerom. upon 3d. Titus see also Colos 3 16. 1 Thes 5.11 Heb. 3.12.13 cap 10.24 1 Pet. 4.10.11 If it be said that these had extraordinary gifts their practice therefore is no rule Answ The Officers of Churches themselves in these dayes have no such extraordinary gifts and if the brethren now have such ordinary gifts as the Officers have as to this work both being from God ought not these brethren then by the same rule to imploy their tallenâ— also in an orderly manner as the Apostles directed the use of extraordinary gifts amongst the Corinthians for the Churches good as believers oâ— old did use their extraordinary gifts for the Churches good in those dayes especially these gifts which are given chiefly for this end that believers should employ them for the edifying of their brethren wheâ— as tongues were not given for that end but for a sigâ— to the unbelievers 1 Cor. 14.22 This the brethren did ordinarily in the Primitive Churches as the Magdeburgh Divines alleadge out of Ambrose that in the time of the Apostles in the first Church it was granted to all men to preach and explain the Scriptures Cent. 4. c. 6 col 491. and Fulk against the Rhem. upon Rom. 10. allow this right and urgeth this place of Ambrose and Ruffinus to prove it And in the Churches afterwards Reynold in his conference with Hart c. 3. p. 103 104 saith that all the faithfull owe the duty of strengthening their brethren each to other according to the measure of Grace given to them the brethren did the like Justine writes that in his time the gift of Prophesying did flourish in the Church Euseb l. 4. cap. 18. p. 68. Irenaeus affirms that in his time every one receiving grace of Christ after the quantity of his tallent bent himself to benefit the other brethren in the name of Christ Euseb l. 5. cap. 7. p. 82. This practice is also affirmed to be lawful and usual in those dayes in their open Assemblies yea when Bishops themselves were present in the Congregation as the Bishops of Caesaria and Jerusalem maintains and gives divers instances in those days against one who found fault only because they preached when Bishops were present not for their preaching only or otherwise yet this also they justifie as that which was lawful and in common use at that day See Doctor Taylor Prophesie p. 109. yea and that which the Bishops themselves did then desire the brethren to do See it at large Euseb l. 6. c. 19. p. 106. Mr. Harding against Bishop Jewel though Papist yet he saith that Prophesying is expounding of Scripture and interpreting and he there grants that in case God shall please when we come together in the Church for Comfort and Edifying to give into our Hearts and put into our Mouths what we should Pray and Preach and how we should handle the Scripture then we might do it and he there further saith and alloweth that in the Apostles dayes they came into the Church to the intent that they might profitably Exercise the gifts God gave and by the same especially by the gift of Prophesying edifie one another and Teach one another See this in Bishop Jewels reply to Harding p. 192 193. And the Bishop himself agrees that the brethren as well as Officers may have gifts of the Spirit these are his words in p. 527. 532. That the Spirit of God is bound neither to sharpnesse of Wit nor abundance of Learning oft-times saith he the unlearned seeth that thing that the learned cannot see See Raynolds in his Conference with Hart. c. 2. p.
63 and he there quotes Ephiphanus l. 2. for these words only to the Children of the Holy Ghost all the Scriptures are plain and clear Bishop Nicholson of Gloucester in his aforesaid Book p. 32. from Rom. 12.7 8. saith that those gifts are given to other Christians as well as to Officers and that they ought to use these tallents as well as Officers and there he proves it by other places of Scripture also So that it is plain that the brethren may have the Spirit of God and such gifts of Prophesying as Officers have then surely it 's given to them for use Mr. Stillingfleet in his Book before mentioned p. 249. saith first that it was so in the Church-meetings of the Jews these are his words that any one amongst the Jews who enjoyed any repute for Religion or knowledge of the Law was allowed a free liberty of speaking for the instruction of the People as we see saith he in Christ and his Apostles Act. 13.15 though they were no Officers And secondly he confesseth at large that it was so in the Churches in the primitive times that such did Preach c. The Truth is there is not one president of any credit for some hundred of years of any complaint made against this practice or use as unlawful irregular or as an usurpation of or intrusion upon the Ministers office nor was there any decree in the Church of God in those dayes for the prohibiting of it And it 's very clear by all the places before that every particular Congregation did order every thing about this matter themselves and none else since the Apostles dayes did intermedle with the ordering thereof Now how the prohibiting of the brethrens improving their Tallents in this case robbing of the Churches of that profit Christ intended them by bestowing such gifts will be answered at the last day can hardly be resolved to the Comfort of such who shall be active in it That these Churches or Congregations usually met together for the performance of these and other things when and where they pleased Mr. Vines of the Sacrament p. 194. agrees that these Churches have power so to do and as often as they agreed so to do without any prescribed Rules in the Apostles times for either time or place except on the Lords day and that these Churches practised according to this liberty for some ages we think none can deny since the Scriptures every where clear it where the meeting of Christian Churches is spoken of sometimes in Schools sometimes in Houses c. as the Churches pleased and was most convenient for them and one Church was no rule in this to another nor were any places or times set down as Rules for more than one Congregation to walk by unlesse they did voluntarily approve of what another did and so do the same Thus it was after the Apostles dayes as the Magdeburgh Divines say Cent. 1. l. 2. Cap. 6. Raynolds Conference with Hart c 8. p. 491. Raynolds saith Christians may sing the song of the Lord in all places now no ground unholy every house Sion and every faithfull Company yea every faithfull body a temple to serve God in Col. 492 493. That no certain places or hours were prescribed or enjoyned in the Churches but each Church did herein as was most convenient It 's true we find that after some time They for conveniency of meeting built some places used others formerly built for the commemorations of some Persons or things as Ecclesiastical History testifies And when the Arian Bishops had prevailed with the Emperor to shut up those places from other Christians these met in private places and built them new ones and there met by themselves yet were not these blamed in those days for these meetings though not in their publick places nor any punishment awarded for them No not by these cruel Arian Emperors In those days nothing but the Churches meeting in any place did consecrate that place and Worship was equally accepted in a House as in a publick Temple in one place as in another at one time of the Day as another That in these Congregations Societies or particular Churches and not elsewhere for some ages together from the Apostles downward Offendors scandalous sinners wicked persons c. being members of the Congregations were admonished Publickly and in case of obstinacy or notorious fact Mr. Vines upon the Sacrment p. 166 â—95 say That it was the power of a Church of Christian as such to prevent scandals cast out of the Church by the consent of the whole Congregation whereof he was a member that is The whole Society Ministers and brethren met together for that work And by them again to be received in again upon repentance And that the judgement of all in this Case lay wholly and only in this Church as such and all this by Divine Right The Church of Corinth which was but one Congregation who met in one place togeâ—â—er to partake of Ordinances as before is proved â—ad this power 1 Cor. 5. where the Apostle blames â—he whole Church for not casting out the wicked â—erson ver 2. charging them to meet and doe it 〈◊〉 the name or power of our Lord Jesus ver 4 5. â—nd gave them to know or put them in mind â—hat it was their power and duty to doe it ver â— 2. do not ye judge them that are within saith â—e is it not your duty and power to judge them â—hat are within your Church is it not your practice 〈◊〉 to doe That this authority of theirs in this â—atter carries the force of his argument is plain â—â—om his conclusion ver 13. Therefore put away c. he would not have made their bare judgement â—hat such a power resided amongst them or that â—hey practised such a thing his premises for such a â—ositive conclusion had not the right of judging â—nd casting out been in them according to Christs â—hind in that of Matth. 18. Tell the Church c. Bishop Jewel was of the same mind from this Text â—ecause such a Church only who can easily meet 〈◊〉 one place as a Church not the general Church in â—ne sence or another is capable to hear what is told â—hem c. See his words before set down at large â—nd the same Apostle writes to this Church again â—s a Church to receive the same person in again he â—aving manifested great repentance And to this he â—erswades them by several arguments First That the former Censure of many was sufâ—icient unto him 2ly Lest he should be overwhelmed with sorâ—ow and Thirdly Because of Satans device and design which was to destroy by that which was appointed â—f God to heal Therefore the Apostle beseecheth them to receive him in again 2 Cor. 2.6 7 8 1â— which argues strongly that their power lay in thiâ— also as in casting him out So he wrote to the Galâ—thians to cut off such who troubled them with falsâ—
doctrine And we find the seven Churches in Asâ—â— acting thus and not one blamed for the neglect 〈◊〉 another in this matter nor one commended for thâ— good in another but each Church for it self Pergâ—mus blamed for having such amongst them that heâ— the doctrine of Balaam Thyatira for suffering thâ— woman Jezebel to teach and seduce c. The Churcâ— of Ephesus commended for trying the false Apâ—stles Magdib Cent 1. l. 2. cap 7. Col. 522. Rev. 2.2.14 15 20. which clearly sheweâ— that these Churches had no dependency one of anâ—ther but each had power both to try false teacher and to have cast them out not to have suffered theâ— amongst them and the not doing it or the dâ—ing of it accordingly is taken notice of by thâ— Lord Jesus Christ as a neglect or a work of eaâ—â— Church as particularly and alone concerned and 〈◊〉 the whole body of each Church as is evident 〈◊〉 those places and these words there used in thâ— close of what was written to each Church Heâ— what the Spirit saith to the Churches not to thâ— Officers or particular Persons offending or Bishop but the whole and they blamed for suffering suâ—â— Persons amongst them That those Churches weâ— but particular Societies or single Congregationâ— and the things spoken are spoken to the whole bodâ— of each Church Ambrosius Ausbertius Perkinâ— and Brightman affirm And also Dr. Tulke Tydal and the Old Translators call them seven Coâ—gregations Ephesus one and that said to be bâ— one Flock Acts 20. For at this time were mâ—titudes of Jews and Heathens in this City Yeâ— â—en Polycarp their Bishop was called out to suffer â—â—re were but few Christians in that City as Euâ—ius History tells us The Presbyterian Divines â—ree this See Smect p. 40 41 43. Tertul. also tells us That in these Congregatiâ—s these things were done In these Assemblies â—â—ith he we make Exhortations and Threatnings 〈◊〉 Divine Censures that banisheth Sinners and exâ—deth them from our Communion We Judge â—â—m saith he with very great Circumspection â—cause we know that God is in the midst of us â—d knows what we do Apol. Cap. 39. p. 137. 〈◊〉 this the Magdeburg Century Writers fully â—ree And also sets forth the manner how the Conâ—egations did it Cent. 1. Lib. 1. Cap. 4. col 158. â—b 2. Cap. 4. Col. 358 359. Cap. 6. Col. 498. â—â—d again they prove this from Augustine Cent. â— Cap. 4. Col. 380 381 382 383 384. And â—ain they say from Ambrose ad Valentinianum â—peratorem That those Churches had this Powâ— and none else and this ought to be done openly the Congregation the People being present Cent. â— cap. 7. col 500 501. And that in the Epistle the Roman Presbyters to Cyprian it is affirmed at the Presbyters Deacons and Lay-People â—re wont to be together in Councel and to speak â—d confer their own sence and mind in these things those days Cent. 3. cap. 7. col 176.152 153. â—â—d that Cyprian himself saith That as the Peoâ—e and whole Church hath Power to choose their â—â—n Ministers So if the Bishops did fall into Heâ—ie they were deposed by the Clergy and Peoâ—e and they appoint another And that it was â—t Lawful for the Bishop to do any thing herein â—thout the Peoples Councels Cent. 3. cap. 7. col 173 174 175 176. And again they say that Origen did rebuke the Pride of some Priests those days who did despise the Counsels of tâ— Inferior Priests and Lay-Men Cent. 3. cap. 7. câ— 151 152 153. Many more Testimonies might 〈◊〉 offered for the proof hereof in those days noâ— denying it or practising otherwise for many Agâ— And Mr. Stillingfleet Mr. Vines upon the Sacrament P. 129 173 194 195 196. agrees all this fâ—lly And also saith That God gave this great Charter to the Church not the Emperor and that God gave it to them as a Church in the same Irenicum p. 4â— saith as to a Power arising from mutual compaâ— and consent of Parties he acknowledgeth a Powâ— to bind all included under that Compact Not 〈◊〉 virtue of any supreme binding Power in them bâ— from the free consent of the Parties submitting saiâ— he which he saith there is most agreeable to thâ— Nature of Church-Power being not Coersive bâ— Directive and then he avers That such was tâ— Confederate Discipline of the Primitive Church bâ—fore they had any Christian Magistrate From whicâ— words of his may be gathered That there was 〈◊〉 Agreement amongst Christians of each Society 〈◊〉 Congregation to submit to the Laws of Christ fâ—â— he saith none can be bound but those that consenâ— and it canno tbe supposed that such a confederatioâ— or Agreement can be well made amongst more thaâ— can conveniently meet in one place as a Churcâ— that all are bound who do thus Confederate or joy themselves together in a Society and that this Society and Church by virtue of this Confederatioâ— as a Church hath Power in this case to deal wiâ—â— as many as do come amongst them and consenâ— Especially since he hath in the same Book p. 13â— agreed that a real confederation ought to be bâ—tween those who joyn themselvas together in Goâ—pel-Ordinances in Order to their being a Church and saith that none will deny this who know what it is that makes a Society to be so which is â—â—ch a real confederation with one another And â—â—terwards p. 148 149. to the matters in hand more â—xpresly he saith these things That the Jews being â—â—e Church of God secluded Men from their Soâ—eties which saith he may be looked upon not 〈◊〉 a civil but a Sacred Action and that they had â—â—is Power of Excommunication and for the Chriâ—â—ian Church he saith the practice of Discipline â—pon Offenders was never questioned c. That â—ence saith he we gather in that it hath been the â—ractice of Societies constituted for the Worship â—f God to call Offenders to an account for their Ofâ—ences and if upon Examination they are found â—uilty to exclude them their Societies and that it 〈◊〉 the dictate of the Law of Nature That every Offender against the Laws of a Societie must give â—n account of his actions to the Rulers of the Soâ—iety and submit to the censures inflicted on him â—rom all which sayings of his this will follow That every particular Church or Society joyning â—ogether by a Confederation amongst themselves â—ave this Power within themselves to call Offenders â—o an account and to seclude them their Society if â—here be just cause found Yet take one place more â—f him and then we shall leave this as undenyable it is in p. 228 229. where he saith It must in reaâ—on be supposed that all Matters of the Nature of â—candal to the Church must be decided there Mat. â—8 And there he Argues the Lawfulness of Exâ—ommunication in Christian Churches and adds â—his For if every Person saith he might withâ—raw from the Society of such a one as continued â—efractory in
his Offence then much more may a whole Society and the Officers of it declare such a one to be avoyded both in Religious and Famiâ— civil Society which saith he is the formal â—ture of Excommunication Thus Mr. Stillingâ— Lodgeth this Power in every Society or Chuâ— joyned together by mutual consent over every 〈◊〉 that consented by the unquestioned practiceâ— the Churches Nature of Societies and the vâ— Law of Nature To these Churches for the most part the Eâ—stles were directed which the Apostles wrote esâ—â—cially when they wrote to any as a Church as 〈◊〉 the Corinthians Thessalonians c. And wâ—â— they wrote to more than one Congregation thoâ— in the same Countrey they directed them to 〈◊〉 Churches in the Plural Number as the Epistlâ— the Galatians So the Epistle to the Churcheâ— Asia otherwise they wrote in general to all 〈◊〉 Saints 2 Cor. 8.19 23. 1 Cor. 16.3 Act. 14.26.27 Act. 15.30 Colos 4.16 17. 1 Thes 5.27 or all in such a Country and not to aâ— Church as such And to these Churches that 〈◊〉 The whole Body of each of them Officers and Pâ—ple all Church-Affairs were Directed Thâ— Churches as such sent Messengers c. appâ—ved of such to be sent to them by their Letteâ— and as a Church Received Letters 〈◊〉 assembled together to read them to agree 〈◊〉 things that concerned the Church as the Chuâ— in Antioch Jerusalem and others So after 〈◊〉 Apostles days Ignatius Polycarpus and others wâ— wrote Epistles to Churches as such directed thâ— to such particular Churches and to the whole â—dy of them and makes mention of their Ministâ— in the Body of their Epistles as most of the Apâ—stles did in theirs See the Epistles of Polycarpâ—â— and Ignatius at large Yea the Emperors theâ—selves when they had any thing to write to aâ— Church as such about any thing that did conceâ—â— them as a Church as in the Matters of election of â—â—nisters or restoring them again after banishment â—â—ey wrote to the whole people of the Church as â—â—seb and Socrat testifie See the Epist recordâ— Euseb of the life of Constantine lib. 3. cap. â— p. 52. 53 Socrat. lib. 2. cap. 2. p. 252. 253. p. 18. p. 268. 269. So that by this we have herein before set forth â—hough but a part of what is Extant to the same â—rpose it may be judged somewhat clear that â—â—rticular Churches have this power by Divine â—â—ght unlesse it can be proved by better evidences â—hat it is placed by Divine authority elsewhere or â—at this power is given to none at all which we â—â—nk none will suppose If therefore any have â—rested this power from these Churches and investâ— any other there with and continue the same by â—â—ce of Humane Lawes and so hold the People in â—bjection thereunto It will be necessary good â—arrant of Scripture be shewed for it or else it â—ay be said of such as once it was said of the Scribes â—d Pharisees Math. 15.1 2 3 4 5 6. It is â—ritten ye shall do so and so But you say no it â—all be thus and thus as we may there see at large â—d as Christ there concludes against them he â—d In vain do ye worship teaching for Doctrines â—e Commandements of men Or if men should be 〈◊〉 Mr. Stillingfleets mind in the generall That there â—no forme of government of Divine right Or of â—e Bishop of Gloucester his mind in this particular â—hat the Peoples electing power was not a Divine â—â—ght Yet let these judge of it so farre as the same â—ersons agree the Contrary in the same Book And â—st Mr. Stillingfleet in p. 199. averrs that all essenâ—lls of Church Government are contained in Scripture clearly That essentials are such things thâ— are necessary to the preservation of such a Socieâ— as the Church From which words of his may 〈◊〉 gathered That he grants here in a few word what he seems to bend his whole discourse againâ— For whatsoever is clearly contained in Scriptuâ— is of Divine authority all that is necessary for tâ— preservation of a Church-Society is therein câ—tained therefore Church-Government yea 〈◊〉 very forme of it being necessary to Church pâ—servation or else there needs no talke about it 〈◊〉 not necessary and contained in the whole of it 〈◊〉 Scripture is certain and of Divine right And yâ— if men will not believe that this doth follow thâ— he intends thereby the forme should be include but that he would distinguish here Then let the persons allow but that which Mr. Stillingflâ—â—â— grants afterwards in the same book p. 417. whiâ— is this That that forme of Church-Governmeâ— which comes nearest to Apostolicall practice is tâ— best and tends most to the advantage of the peaâ— and unity of the Church of God That this forâ— is to be gathered from Scripture and Antiquitâ— Whence wee inferre if then that be best and mâ—â— for the Churches peace and unity which comâ— nearest the Apostolick practice c. And this Gâ—vernment and order we have before endeavourâ— to evince be sufficiently proved to be nearest tâ— Apostolicall practice and gathered to be so froâ— Scripture and Antiquity Then at least it is tâ— best forme of Government in the Church and mâ— for the Churches unity and peace And so for tâ— Bishops mind about Election of Ministers Iâ— men who will be of this Judgment against the Dâ—vine right of the people in this matter also be swaâ—â—ed by him to believe what he saith further about it â—his words were before recited That this was derived upon the people from rules of Christian equity and society and had admirable effects as we have fully set down under that particular head of the Churches power in choosing their own Ministers look over his Words in p. 27. of his Apol. whence in brief may be observed That except any other way of choosing them than by these Congregations as before be derived from the same rules and have the same good effects or it cannot be proved that those rules and effects are equally good with these at least Then it follows that that way of making Ministers by the particular Churches Election is the best and most for the Churches and also for the Ministers advantage The Excellency of those Rules and the Desireableness of those Ends still remaining and the contrary effects from a contrary practice being apparent and the rules whence this latter way came in can hardly be made out to be of equall worth with the rules from whence the former was derived Well then if these premises be true and cannot be disproved by better evidences and authorities We shall offer to consideration these things First Why should any judge evil of those who own and practise according to this Or how inâ—eed can any convinced of these things joyn â—hemselves to or have to do with any Church or Congregation denying these things or opposing â—hem or giving up this power to others and castâ—ng off their duty up on others and
whose Ministers â—re made after another manner and imposed upon â—hem Or how can any such convinced Ones have â—o do in Congregations and Ordinances otherwise Ordered and Acting then according to this rule in faith to expect Gods presence and blessing in it how can any knowing these things without renouncing Christ as Lord and Lawgiver in his church own and subscribe to the exercise of this power by others then these Churches much more how can any so convinced enforce others to give subjection to any Usurping this power without sin against Christ Whatsoever is not of Faith is sin so that if we are found in the practice of any thing in these matters not commanded at all or of any thing commanded in other manner then is prescribed by the Law of Christ we cannot groundedly believe for a blessing there Mr. Hooler Eccles Polity in the Preface having no promise for it Nay it is sin if we do but doubt it Rom. 14.22.23 Therefore every one ought to be at liberty till he be convinced and fully perswaded in his own mind er'e he meddle with these things Secondly Surely this then justifies and commends such who being fully perswaded of the truth of the premises do endeavour to regulate their practices in all Church affairs by these rules for the Scripture saith as we have received how ought to walk and to please God so should we abound c. 1 Thes 4.1 and as Tymothy was charged to continue in the things he had learned and had been assured of knowing of whom he had learned them and that from a Child he had known the Holy Scriptures 2 Tim. 3.14 15. So are Saints in general commanded to stand fast and hold the Traditions which they have been taught by word or Epistle 2 Thess 2.15 especially when they have by reading and searching the Scriptures like the Noble Beraeans Act. 17. proved these things to be so and find that the primitive Gospel Churches practised according to this and so trying all things hold fast that which is good and stand fast in the liberty Christ hath left them for in so doing they are lesse like to erre Mark 12.24 do ye not therefore erre not knowing the Scriptures c. And if these have their foundation for their practices here they may boldly say with Paul Act. 24. after the way they call Heresie so worthy I c. believing all things that are written c. Bishop Jewel in his reply to Harding p. 111. alleadgeth these words out of Cyprian lib. 2. Epist 3. speaking of Bishops If any of my Predecessors have not followed or kept that thing which the Lord by his Example and Commandement hath Taught us he for his simplicity may be pardoned but if we wilfully offend there is no pardon for us who are already warned and instructed of the Lord Again that after God hath once opened his truth to us if then we shall continue in error c. And again in p. 144. he quotes Cyprian ad Caecil lib. 2. Epist 3. for these words It behoveth the Religion we professe and our reverence towards God and â—he very place and Office of our Priesthood to keep â—he Truths of the Lords tradition and by the Lords â—dvertisements to correct that thing that by certain â—ath been amisse that when he comes in his Glory â—nd Majesty he may find us to hold what he warnâ—d to keep that he taught us to do that he did All which words of his presseth an exact keeping to â—he Rules left us when we know them But if it shall be objected that the people of the Churches are unlearned and cannot understand â—criptures and thence 't is they mistake and wrest â—criptures that it is for learned Men who understand Tongues c. to give the meaning of Scriptures and that others ought to submit to their judgments herein and to practise as the learned Fathers and Doctors of the Church have done before us See Helis Serm. of the abuse of Difficult places of of Scripture Matth. 1â— 10.11 For Answer hereto briefly First The Apostle by the term unlearned intends not unskilful in Tongues nor in humane learning but unskilful in the Spiritual meaning of the Holy Ghost in the Scripture We know the Gospel is hid to some to them that are lost c. though otherwise never so learned wise or great and to others it is given to know Secondly That in this sence the Scripture is not understood by the help of the greatest Art Skil of Tongues nor the largest humane Wisdome of any this can only reach the letter but by the help of the Spirit of God 1 Cor. 2.14 The things of God are foolishness to the Natural man nor can he know them because they are spiritually understood oâ— discerned Now surely none will deny but that 〈◊〉 man may be very learned and wise in humane things See the Conference between Raynolds and Hart c. 2. p. 58. cap. 6. p. 2â—7 and have great skill in Tongues and yeâ— be but a natural man still that is not having the Spirit of God by whom spiritual things are openeâ— to us where is the Wise where is the Scribe wherâ— is the Disputer of this world and God chose thâ— foolish things of this world to confound the wise c. that no flesh should Glory in his presence Matth. 12.7 c. 13.10 11.12 Luk. 19.41 42. Joh. 3.10 Act. 13.17 27. Act. 26.9 aâ— is abundantly clear in 1 Cor. 1.18 19 20.27 28 29. And this was apparent amongst the Jewâ— their most learned men Scribes and Pharisees chief Priest c. with all their learning and pretence to greater knowledge than the rest of thâ— Jews could not find out the meaning of the Prophets concerning Christ but Crucified Him and Christ said of them that they were the blind leading the blind and that they were therefore blind because they thought they did see above others although these were as confident that they were the only knowing men as the learned Doctors and Rulers of Churches of latter ages have been of themselves And the contrary on the other hand â—o 9.39 Bish Jewel's Reply to Harding p. 533. 526 Luk. 24.44 45. John 8.12 31. Joh. 6.14 Eph. 1.17 13. 1â— Epist Joh. 2.27 we see men of no knowledge in Tongues c. nor much worldly Wisdom when Christ by his Spirit had opened their understanding they then understood the Scriptures And for this end amongst others was the Holy Ghost promised to the followers of Christ he himself said that such as believed should not sit in darkness but have the light of life that his Spirit should take of his and shew it to them And the Apostle saith the anointing which they should receive should teach them c. Thirdly That this Spirit of God is neither promised nor given to the learned Doctors able Schoolmen or Governours of Churches only but is promised to all believers in general and so bestowed upon all
He in the same Book called a Directiâ— to know the true Church p. 23. 24. 36. 37. â—â— 39. 44. 46. 47. 53. See tâ—â— Conference between Raynolds and Hart c. 2. p. 45 46. there affirms and proves 〈◊〉 many Fathers that the Scripture is the judge of â—ntroversies that we must not take what the â—urch teacheth without limitation For saith 〈◊〉 she hath a Rule to teach by the Scriptures and 〈◊〉 long as she teacheth by this she is to be heard That is a manifest sliding from the true Faith and an â—ident sign of Pride to reject any thing that is writâ— or to bring in any thing which is not written â—at we should not regard this or that mans sayings 〈◊〉 seek all these things out of Scriptures Optatus l. 5. contra Parmenian Donat. Cited by Raynolds in the same Conference p. 402. from â—ich we must in nothing depart And of the Paâ—sts he saith That they presume that they deal â—th simple men who may not examine their Doâ—ines and therefore he adviseth us lest we should 〈◊〉 deceived to look to our Rule which is the Scripâ—re Now from all this we have transcribed we may conclude this Objection to be fully answereâ— and the Matter undenyable That other Membeâ— of the Church besides Learned Doctors skilled 〈◊〉 the Tongues and Governors of the Churches maâ— understand the Scriptures by the help of the Spiâ— of God That they ought to read them aâ— search them for this end That God will give 〈◊〉 them his Spirit to open their Understandings aâ— sometimes more to those than to the Learned Dâ—ctors That Learning and Worldly Wisdom caâ—not unfold Scripture without the Spirit of Goâ— That it is no safe way to follow our Fathers stepâ— no nor the Rules of Councels nor Churches aâ— further than they follow the Scriptures That it 〈◊〉 safe in times of dissention in Judgment to make 〈◊〉 the Scriptures That the Scripture is the Judge 〈◊〉 Controversies Now we know it is in vain fâ— unlearned men to read and impossible to search tâ— Scriptures or try Doctrines by them if Mâ— learned in the Tongues cannot reach to understaâ— them or may not conceive of the sence of theâ— and give their Judgment of them as their owâ— Rule for their own Practices And surely it is nâ— ground enough for any Man to believe that such thing is the truth and to expect Gods Blessing 〈◊〉 the Practice of it See Mr. Hildershams to this Lecture 59. on Joh. 4. Lect. 8. on Joh. 4. Mr. Gee in his Exposition of Rom. 18. barely upon this That Learâ—ed Men Nay though very Godly Men have 〈◊〉 Interpreted such a Scripture or was of such an â—pinion about it or that the Learned Godly Meâ— who went before us did practice thus unless 〈◊〉 so he himself be by their Demonstrations and Râ—â—sons clearly satisfied in his own mind that the Opinion and Practice therein is really the veâ— Truth If these things be full to answer such an Objectioâ— â—t by Mr. Harding against the Protestants why â—t as full and suitable every way to confirm the â—swer here Offered by Protestants to the self-same â—bjection made against them by their Fellow-Breâ—en If it shall be Objected further That many â—stimonies for the proving of the Premises from â—ence these conclusions are drawn are not Scripâ—es but Traditions To this Answer may be â—de First That those Examples and Evidences conâ— with the Scriptures and therefore the â—ore heed to be given to them especially consideâ—â—â—g that these are only Matters of Practice geneâ—â—ly owned and not contended against in those â—ys and also considering how some of these Teâ—â—monies have remained so many hundred years unâ—literated against all the Endeavours of Rome and â—ers whose Interest and Practice these things opâ—se and who have for their Interest sake corrupâ— most of the Fathers and Councels to make â—â—m speak as they would Secondly That they are the sayings and consent Antient and Modern Writers and Men of difâ—â—â—ent Judgments in other things yet all accord in â—s as the Practice in those days in these things 〈◊〉 that it was by Divine Right which may add â—he weight to them But Thirdly No more will be demanded That these â—stimonies should speak for the Matter in hand â—n the Adversaries cause these and the like Auâ—rities to testifie against them Surely it will be â—nted that they are as forcible and may as ratioâ—â—ly be used where it makes for as where it makes â—â—ainst any position We are to keep the Ordinances and Order one delivered in the Church as they were delivered bâ— the Apostles and according to which the Church of God in the Primitive times did walk Be ye fâ—â—lowers of me saith the Apostle Keep the Ordinaâ—ces or Traditions as I have delivered theâ— unto you 1 Cor. 11.1 2. Therefore did he whâ— the Corinthians there had erred about the Lorâ— Supper send them again to the first Institution 〈◊〉 regulate themselves by after he had told them their disorder said I have received of the Loâ— that which I delivered unto you That the Loâ— Jesus the same Night c. and so repeats agaâ— the whole Institution in the same Chapter ver 2â— 24 25 26. forms nothing anew but repeats whâ— he himself received of the Lord both for Matâ— and Form Thirdly Doubtless such who fear the medliâ— with any other manner of Churches Ministers Oâ—dinances or other manner of Ministration so 〈◊〉 to joyn with them or partake in them are to commended if they are confirmed by these Eâ—dences in the truth of the Premises For the Scrâ—ture tells us we may not add to or diminish frâ— the Rule the Lord hath set us but Obey that every thing Deut. 4.2 especially since the doâ— of any thing in God's Worship not commanded Hooper Epist to King Edw. so dangerous What became of Nadab and Aâ—hu for their doing that which was not command though not forbidden in any express words 〈◊〉 there could be no warrant in God's Law Lev. 〈◊〉 1 2 3. God also complains of such Jer. 7 â— for building High-Places which he command not Therefore God did not only direct and coâ—mand about the Tabernacle and Temple and evâ— â—art thereof but also every Tittle of the Worship â—erein and the manner and Circumstances thereâ—bout And God takes it ill as an intrusion upon â—s prerogative Royal See Bishop Andrews upon the second commandment when Men shall presume 〈◊〉 do any thing in his Worship as a part thereof â—hich he commanded not or walk therein by any â—ther Rule than what he hath prescribed for no â—an was permitted to vary by adding or diminiâ—ing Mr. Stillingfleet in his Irenicum p. 6. saith â—hat whatsoever is looked upon as a part of Worâ—ip if not commanded of God it is no way acâ—eptable of God therefore unlawful Mat. 15.9 â—nd saith That Tertul. de Orat. Cap. 12. rejects â—l those things as superfluous and superstitious which are done without the
must use them And so to determine of the manner of their use That the generality shall not esteem them as necessary or use them so or that they should be so used as not to restrain the free use and Exercise of Necessary Duties of Worship and in Church Affairs although performed in another way by such who cannot submit to the way prescribed That the use of them shall not harden or encourage the Refractory in their errors All which things no doubt ought to be well weighed e're Men undertake to determine of and impose those things which Christ hath left free and which the Church in the Primitive times used as things indifferent and each Church ordered and altered as they pleased For if either of these things fall out in the case these indifferent things may not be used though they should be granted to be never so indifferent in their own Nature much less may they be imposed But Secondly If the Matter were granted to be evident that they might find out and determine of indifferent things so as to answer the ends of their use and be freed from the abuse See Doctor Taylor liberty of Prophesie p. 109. The next thing to be resolved is By what Rule of Gods Word can these make out That this Authority is derived upon them from Christ thus to determine of one indifferent thing above another to answer thâ— ends of the use thereof Mr. Hooker in his Eccles Polity first Book p. 26 27. saith Impossible it is that men should have compleate lawful power but by consent of men or immediate appointment of God Power if lawfull then it is either granted or consented to by them over whom they exercise the same or else given extraordinary from God and to be imposed upon a the Churches within their reach Either they muâ—â— have it immediately from Christ and have promises of Guidance herein or conveyed to them by the Churches themselves To derive it from Christ immediately is a very hard work and sure they will not challenge it as conveyed to them by the Churches unless they will first acknowledge the Churches to have this Power in themselves and then make it out that every particular Church and Society in that Nation have given their Vote to intrust them with this Power but the Truth lyeth in the quite contrary For First Those who undertake to determine thus for the Churches will not confess That these Churches have Power to determine of themselves or to choose any to determine for them and then they can never prove any such Power by the Churches Vote No such things were known among the Primitive Gospel-Churches For every Church or Congregation did in these indifferent things even as they amongst themselves judged fit and agreed being left free by Christ and his Apostles so the Churches used them None for many Ages undertook to determine nor did the Churches impower any so to do Nor indeed is any such trust reposed in any Persons by the Churches at this day The particular Bodies of Congregations and many of their Officers too are looked upon in this Matter as insignificant Cyphers It is true Episcopal Assemblies after a few Ages began to take upon them to give some Rules to Churches though those were Observed but so far as the Churches thought good yet these determinations of theirs answered not the ends pretended For as it is cited before in this Discourse out of Gregory That Contentions have been always increased by Episcopal Assemblies so he that reads the Ecclesiastical History impartially may every where plainly perceive the truth thereof And how far they answered the ends of Order Edification Peace and Vnity in the Churches in these days we shall leave the judicious observers of such things to judge Then may we enquire further How any rational Account can be given why one part of the Christians in a Nation and those very few in comparison of the whole should determine of such things to be imposed for all the rest seeing no special power is derived upon them so to do nor any promise of infallible Guidance in this matter entailed upon Them more than upon others And as to these Matters we shall offer a few things more in Mr. Stillingfleet his own words in the same Irenicum p. 45 46. That the Pastors or Governors of Churches are commanded Mat. 28.20 To teach what Christ had commanded them but no Authority saith he thereby given to make new Laws to bind the Church but rather a tying them up to the Commandments of Christ already laid down in his Word For saith he A Power to bind Mens Consciences to their determinations lodged in the Officers of the Church must be derived either from the Law of God giving them this right or else only from the consent of parties For any Law of God there is none produced saith he with any probability of Reason but that Heb. 13.17 Obey those who have the Rule c. But that saith he implies no more than submitting to the Doctrine and Discipline of the Gospel and to those whom Christ hath Constituted as Pastors of his Church wherein the Law of Christ doth require obedience c. But this saith he gives them no Authority to make new Laws or Constitutions binding mens Conscience any more than a command from a Superiour Authority that inferior Magistrates should be obeyed doth imply a Power in them to make new Laws to bind them Yet he here acknowledgeth a Power arising from the free consent of the parties submitting which saith he is most agreeable the Nature of Church Power being not coactive but directive And that such was the confederate Discipline of the Primitive times And again further in p. 118 119. That if it be said that men are bound to be ruled by their Governours in determining what things are lawful and what not he Answers That no true Protestants can swear blind obedience to Church Governours in all things That it is the Highest usurpation to rob men of the Liberty of their Judgment That it is our plea against the Papists that every one hath a Judgment of private discretion which is the rule of practice as to himself We saith he allow a Ministerial Power in the Governours yet he saith this extends not to bind men to go against the dictates of their own reason and Conscience their Power is only directive and declarative and in matters of Duty can bind no more than reason and evidence brought from Scripture by them doth Again either therefore men are bound to obey all things absolutely and without any restriction or limitation which saith he if it be not Usurpation and Dominion over others Faith in them and the worst of implicit Faith in others It is hard to define what either of them is or else if they are bound to obey only in lawful things I then saith he enquire who must be judge what things are Lawful and what not If the Governors
still then the Power will be absolute again for to be sure saith he what ever they Command they will say it is Lawful either in it self or as they Command it If every private person must be judge what is lawful and what not which is Commanded then he is bound no further to obey than he judgeth the thing to be lawful which is commanded And he there affirms See the Bishop of Glou. Apol. p. 41. as we have before set down that every man will be his own judge in this Case and that the plea of an erroneous Conscience takes not off the Obligation to follow the dictates of it Again let men saith he turn and wind themselves which way they will by the same Arguments any will prove separation from the Church of Rome Lawful because she requires unlawful things as Conditions of her Communion It will be proved Lawful not to conform to any suspected or unlawful practise required by any Church Governours upon the same Terms if the things so required be upon serious and sober enquiry judged unwarrantable by a mans own Conscience And again in p. 120. 121. he quotes Mr. Hales of Schism p. 8. for this That where any thing unnecessary suspected and by many held unlawful is imposed it is duty to separate See this more at large transcribed there in Mr. Stillingfleet who there Commends Hales for as Learned and Judicious a Divine as this Nation bred And Mr. Stillingfleet there adds these words If we saith he would take away all unnecessary things suspected by many and judged unlawful by some and make nothing the bounds of our Communion but what Christ hath done c. allowing a liberty for matters of indifferency and bearing with the weakness of those who cannot bear things which others account lawful We might saith he indeed be restored to a true Primitive lustre All which things of Mr. Stillingfleets may as forceably be turned against the Magistrates imposing these things by Law as against the Church Governors determining them to be imposed for if one were not absolute in their Power to determine of one indifferent thing above another for others to practise sure neither the other to impose such things Tertul fo Scapula for what ever may not lawfully be determined for or required of may not be imposed upon others and they compelled to obedience That which Christ hath left indifferent about these things should be so used and no man should presume to take away their indifferency by imposing them by force of Law since God hath not given to every man alike apprehensions of the same things So Mr. Hooker his Eccles Polâ—â—y in the Peface asserts that whatever we doe if our own secret judgment consent not unto it as fit and good to be done the doing of it is sin to us a though the thing it fâ—lf be allowable Rom. 14 5. See alâ—o his second Bâ—ok p 58 as the Apostle saith one esteemeth one day above another another esteemeth every day alike And again I know that nothing is unclean of it self but to him that esteemeth any thing unclean to him it is unclean All things are pure but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence therefore he directs here that every manshould be fully perswaded in his own mind Rom. 14.5.14.20 and chap. 15.1 That the strong should bear with the infirmities of the weak And again 1 Cor. 8.4.7 he saith we know an Idol is nothing c. howbeit there is not in every man this knowledge where he also in the latter end of the same chapter exhorteth those who do know to have respect to those who do not know and rather than offend them not to use their own liberty in such things which were indifferent in their own Nature Thus we see the Apostle though he could infallibly resolve the lawfulness of the things in themselves yet would he be so far from determining these things to be done by others who had other apprehensions that he would not use the things themselves nor would he have others to use them where their use proved offensive to weak ones and would have every one perswaded in his own mind and this he knew was Gods prerogative only Such who offend their brethren by the contrary sin against Christ How then is it possible to justifie an imposition of such things by Laws which say they bind Conscience to obedience because the Magistrate commands upon such who doubt of the lawfullness of the things themselves See Doctor Moor in his Book intit mystery of Godliness Book 10. c. 10. p. 515 516 c treating of liberty of Conscience and of the Duty of Christian Magistrates in matters of Religion See also de Eccles l. 4. c. 14. maintains liberty in Religion by many Arguments See Hookers Polity p. 159 160 161. of his fourth Book or as they are circumstantiated for this is to put such upon a necessity of sinning either they must do the thing injoyned and so sin or if they do it not they sin in not obeying the Magistrate if the Magistrate commands makes it necessary sure we are that in the Primitive Churches they thought so for neither Governours of Churches nor Emperours when Christian did for some ages determine for or impose upon many Churches in these things or if any did tamper this way the Churches did not take themselves at all bound to regard it for in those dayes so may Churches or Congregations so many several usages or forms in these things as each Church thought best and most convenient for them Thus the Magdeburgh Divines agree Cent. 2. Cap. 7. Col. 134.135 That every Church had a like Power to exercise the Ceremonies received from the Apostles or to make new ones for edification so also saith Socrates of his dayes in his 5th Book 21. chap. English transl p. 351. c. That in those days there were diversity of observations and Rites in several Churches without any forcing of any but every Church as it seemed good to them c. That it is plain that the Apostles left every man free without Fear Compulsion or Constraint to adict himself to that which seemeth to him to be good and Commendable That hardly could two Churches be found that observed the same Rites and Ceremonies that in the observation of Easter and other holy dayes every man did as he thought good c. see this at large So that from all that hath been said in this matter we cannot think that upon a sober discourse Those that call themselves the Governours of the Church will ever arrogate to themselves by prepretence of Divine Authority any special right to determine of any indifferent thing above another to be that which is every way lawful and inoffensive and that which is most for edification decency and order unity and peace in the Church Or that they have any special skill of judging in this case above other learned and Godly men in the
absolute or of their denying their profession of Jesus Christ or of withdrawing from the Congregation or Society to which they were regularly joyned without just cause refusing to walk in such a Church of Christ in the orderly participation of ordinances and to submit to the laws of Christ exercised therein Or they must find a fourth Church described in Scripture or in the Apostles dayes and shew such a one now from which a man may be said in a proper sence to separate also prove what act it is that makes a separation from that Church And that these persons are guilty of separation thence by such an Act or else they cannot rationally conclude any of these to be separatists or scismaticks in any sence at all If they can do neither of these they will see cause to be angry no longer But it is possible they may alledge against some of these that they have separated from the particular Congregations whereto sometimes they were joyned therefore are they seperatists For Answ first Then it must be proved that they were regularly joyned to that Congregation that is by a voluntary Act of theirs in understanding which is proved by some expresse desire in him that joynes and an actuall admission by the Society to which he is joyned For a man may ignorantly sit down at a Sacrament in these Churches where no order is observed to prevent that confusion as in Most Parish Churches yet this makes not a regular joyning nor him a fixed member of that Church or Society a heathen may do this besides this is not consisting with the nature of a regular Society of rationall men much less of Christians where must be a consideration or compact between all the parties obliged yea further if a man be made of such a parish by the law of the land and bound by the Law joyn with the same Parish as a Church and be one of the members thereof This cannot be a regular joyning him to this Church neither without his own voluntary Act For by the Law of Nature and the law of God men are left free to joyn themselves to what Congregation or Society they pleased Amos 3.3 How can two walk together except they be agreed And it is against both these yea against the very nature and well being of such Societies to force men to be of this or that Society against their own minds and without the free consent of the Society it self yet this was the case of most we presume who withdrew from parish Churches and Societies either they did never by any act desire a regular admittance or did the Society ever in truth make any Actuall admission only sate down at a Sacrament or they were made of the Society by a Law neither of which can be made out to be such a regular joyning to that Society as to dâ—nominate any such person to be a Schismatick or Seperatist for leaving them and joyning himself to any other Besides should we grant that they were regularly joyned and so actuall members of this or that Church yet if they remove to another Church if the Church of England be but true to their own Principles and own their common practices See Mr. Vines upon the Sacrament p. 266. he saith as we may remove for health c. so for more fruitful Ordinances as regular the guilt of separation cannot lye in this neither for they allow a man to leave one parish and go to another for conveniency of Habitation Ayre Trade c. Bodily advantages and then joyn with the other Parish Church as a member there and leave the first yea and that without acquainting the first Church whereof he was a Member with his intentions and for this he shall be no Separatist so that from this it 's clear that separation lyes not barely in this that men leave one Congregation or Society and joyn themselves to another And wee think it may easily be granted that if outward concernments be enough to acquit a man from the guilt of separation on such an account and warrant his remove from one Church to another much more may Soul concernment justifie a leaving of one Church and adjoyning to another Yet further we hope none will deny but that there may be just cause for withdrawing from some Societies and whether this might not fall in for a sufficient plea for many to clear themselves by from any crime upon the account of withdrawing from the Society where once they were and joyning to another Mr. Stillingfleet in his said Irenicum p. 117. 118. 120. agrees thus much That where any Churches retaining purity of doctrine do require the owning of and conforming to any unlawful or suspected practice men may lawfully deny conformity to and communion with that Church in such things Hales of Schisme p. 8. without incurring the guilt of Scisme and gives this reason for it If our separation from the Church of Rome was therefore lawfull because she required unlawfull things as Conditions of her Communion Then wherever such things are required by any Church Non-communion with that Church in those things will be lawfull too And where saith he Non-communion is lawfull there can be no Schisme in it If that justified our withdrawing from the Church of Rome Mr. Raynolds conference with Hart p. 666. 667. will it not saith he justifie mens Non-conformity in things supposed by them to be unlawfull And again our best Writers against the Papists lay the imputation of Schisme not upon these who withdraw Communion but upon those who require such things whereby they did rather eject men out of their Communion than the others separate from them And he quotes Mr. Hales of Schisme to prove fully The refusal of Communion in case any unnecessary things suspected by some and held unlawfull by others be made Conditions of Communion to be Lawfull and Duty c. Now it may be this might be the case of every one who hath withdrawn Communion from parishes that many things are required there whithout a Conformity to which no communion can be had with them That these required things are in the judgment of those who thus withdraw unnecessary useless unlawfull or suspected at least And then this will upon the same grounds acquit every such one who have withdrawn from the Charge of Scisme And though Mr. Stillingfleet seems a little in the 117. p. of the said Book to mince it in these words I say not that men may proceed to erecting of new Churches Yet he in his Book called a Rational Account c. p 332. seems to own such a thing when he pleads against Rome and justifies Protestants separations These are his words Suppose all the particular men I converse with were Leprous my associating my self with them doth not imply any separation from the Communion of all mankind but that I am loth to be infected as they are Therefore I withdraw till I can meet with