heavy on one mans shoulders as he thought it did formerly on the Bishops here But I do not as yet discern the divine Right of Episcopacy in the state and priviledges thereof here following wherein I desire information and would gladly receive satisfaction if there be such divine Rights indeed None can be justly offended with me for examining in my own defence that Right which I am accused to have invaded do not discern that a Bishop infimi gradus I mean one that hath none under him but Parish-Ministers who are pretended to have no Episcopal governing-power I say I discern not that such a Bishop can by divine Right challenge to himself alone the Episcopal Authority over hundreds of particular Churches For every particular Church should have its proper Pastor or Bishop And particular Churches with their proper Pastors are so evidently of Divine Right that some eminently learned men in the Church of England have declared their judgment That no Form of Church-government besides the meer Pastoral Office and Church-assemblies is prescribed in the Word of God but may be various according to the various condition and occasion of several Churches Neither do I discern how it is possible for one man to do the work of a bishop towards hundreds of Churches I mean the work of a bishop infimi gradus under whom there are no subordinate Bishops or Pastors For the work of such a bishop is to oversee all the Flock to preach to them all to baptize and confirm all that are to be baptized and confirmed to administer the Lords Supper to all to bless the Congregation publickly and privataly to admonish all as their need requires to excommunicate the impenitent to absolve the penitent and that upon knowledg of their particular estate If such a Diocesan bishop saith it sufficeth that he perform all this to the Flock by others namely by the Parish-Ministers as his Curates and by other Officers his Substitutes it is answered 1. That the Pastoral Authority is a personal trust 2. It is desired that he shew his Commission from Christ the Prince of Pastors to do his work by others for I am now inquiring what is of divine and not of humane Right 3. None but a bishop can do the proper work of a bishop But if it be said That the Parochial Congregations are not Churches but only parts of the Diocess which is the lowest particular Church I desire proof from Scripture That such Congregations as our Parishes having their proper Presbyter or Presbyters invested with the power of the keys are not particular Churches properly so called The reason of my desire of this proof is because the Scripture is a perfect Rule for the Essential constitution of Churches tho accidents there unto belonging may be regulated by humane prudence 2. It is most evident in Scripture that a particular Congregation of Christians having their proper Pastor or Pastors Presbyter or Presbyters are Churches properly so called And a Parochial Minister I conceive to be a Pastor or Elder according to the Scripture Moreover if a Diocess containing a hundred two hundred five hundred or a thousand Parishes as somewhere it doth do constitute but one particular Church and those particular Parishes be not properly to be accounted Churches but only so many parts of that one Diocesan Church why may not ten thousand yea ten times ten thousand Parishes be likewise accounted but one particular Church and brought under one man as sole Bishop or Pastor thereof In all this I have not argued against the right of an Arch-Bishop or Overseer of other Bishops such as Titus must needs be if he were Bishop of Crâ—te where Bishops or Elders were to be ordained in every City If either Scripture or Prudence guided by Scripture be for such an office I oppose it not and nothing here spoken makes against it If our Diocesan Bishops be in very deed arch-Arch-Bishops or OOverseers of inferior Bishops to wit Parish-Ministers I do not here argue against it but only say that in their Archiepiscopal Diocess or Province they cannot exercise their authority any otherwise than according to the rules of Gods word for the edification and peace of the Church and that they cannot discharge the inferior Bishops from their obligation to Christ whose immediate Ministers and Stewards they are and to whom they are immediately accountable Moreover I do not discern that any Bishop can by divine right so challenge or claim such a circuit of ground for his Diocess as for example the County of Sussex as that thereupon he can by the said right prohibit all other Pastors whatsoever to do the work of the Ministry in any case without his licence within such a circuit of ground or that such a measure of ground is related to his Episcopal office as a propriety for government Ecclesiastical like as certain territories and dominions are as a propriety in reference to Civil government related to the temporal Soveraingty of a Prince The partition of one Church from another by local bounds is not of divine institution but of humane prudence from the convenience of the thing I say convenience not absolute necessity And the state of things may be such as to compel to vary from it in some particulars It is supposed by learned men that in the Apostles times there were several Churches at Rome under their several Bishops or Pastors in the same local bounds as one of the Circumcision and another of the Uncircumcision And if it were not so de facto I think few will deny but that it lawfully might have been so If upon the aforesaid diversity of condition in the persons namely as being of different nations and languages there may be several Churches under several Bishops or Pastors within the same local bounds why not also upon other diversity of condition which may render them as uncapable of being of the same particular Church as if they were of divers nations One instance may be an unmovable diversity of persuasions about points of Religion As for example Why may not Lutherans and Calvinists of the same nation town or village have their several Churches under their several Pastors and live in peace Nothing could hinder the said peace but want of Christian Humility and Charity And consequently why among us may not Christians that have invincible diversity of persuasions in matters of Church Government live peaceably within the same precincts in their several Churches Besides all this if the local bounds assigned for one mans immediate Pastoral charge be so vast and the multitude of Souls therein be so great as to render it impossible for any one man to fulfil that charge towards them can it be judged an usurpation against dwine right if another Pastor without license from him should perform ministerial service within those bounds Likewise let it be 〈…〉 ered what may or may not be done in any circuit of gro 〈…〉 â—here the inhabitants are destitute of competent provision
regulation of Authority to exercise my Ministry no otherwise than as in subordination to and as authorized and regulated by the Bishop of the Diocess THIS Head hath Three distinct Branches to be distinctly proved whereof the first is That I am not obliged by the Nature of my Office to exercise my Ministry no otherwise than in subordination to and as authorized and regulated by the Bishop of the Diocess 1. The Nature of this Office doth not require it either in reason or from the declared will of Christ first not in reason for there is evidently no reason in the nature of the office beng the office of a Bishop or Pastor that it cannot be exercised but in subordination to a Diocesan Bishop if any say that there is let him shew it 2. Christ who is the Author and only proper giver of all spiritual authority in the Church hath not either by himself or by the Mediation of the Apostles so defined or limited the aforesaid office of Presbytetate as that it can be exercised no otherwise than in the aforesaid subordination If any one affirm that Christ hath so defined or limited it it rests upon him to make proof of it If it be urged that I have no power but what I received by the Ordainers and that is a power of administring only in the aforesaid subordination I answer 1. I have already proved that by the very form of my ordination I received the office of a Pastor and Successor of the Apostles in their Pastoral office 2. Tho Christ give the ordinary spiritual power and particularly that of Presbyters in some respect by the mediation of men yet he gives it not by them as giving the power but as instruments either of designing the person to whom he gives it or of the solemn investiture of that person as the King is the immediate giver of the power of a Mayor in a Town Corporate when he gives it by the mediation of the Electors not as giving the power but designing the person to be invested with it or by the mediation of some officers as instruments of the solemn investiture 3ly For asmuch as the ordainer or ordainers that designed me to this office of Christs Donation could not by any act of theirs inlarge or lesson it as to its Nature or Essential State or define it otherwise than it is stated by Christ in his word in case such words were pronounced out of the Book of ordination I say not that they were but in case they were as import a lessening of the office in its essential state they are void and null If a Minister that joyns a man and woman in Marriage according to the true intent of that ordinance shall add other words that forbid the husband the government of his wife that addition is a nullity 2. I am not obliged by any Oath or Promise to exercise my Ministry no otherwise than as in subordination to the Bishop of the Diocess I acknowledg that when I was ordain'd I made those promissory Answers to the Bishops Interrogatories which are contained in the Book of Ordination that then was But 1. let it be considered that if the said interrogatories and answers or any of them superinduced any limitation upon the Office that takes away any thing essential to it I say not that they did but in case they did they were nullities 2. The promise then made to obey my Ordinary and other chief Ministers to whom the government and charge over me is committed concerns me only as a Presbyter standing in relation to the Bishop as one of the Clergy of the Diocess which I now am not being cast out of that relation and made uncapable of it and consequently the said capacity ceasing the obligation câ—aeth 3. The said promise must be understood either unlimitedly or with limitation if unlimitedly it was a sinful promise in the matter thereof and therefore void if with limitation as in things lawful and honest then I have not broken it for it is not lawful nor honest for me to desist from fulfilling the Ministry that I have received if the Ordinary so require 3. Nor am I obliged as aforesaid by being under the regulation of Authority I Treely acknowledg that in the exercise of my Ministry I am not exempt from the Regulation of any just Superior Authority in the Church as for the Civil Authority it is after wards to be spoken of whether it be by way of government or of agreement And I had much rather live under a Regulation than not But it cannot be supposed that any Superior Authority can limit me to the prejudice of Christs Authority and interest and the obligation that he hath laid upon me to discharge the Office with which he hath intrusted me My Office is a Trust received from Christ to be accounted for to him I am his and not the Bishops Minister Let it be supposed tho not granted that the Bishop of the Diocess were my rightful Superior to Repulate me in my Office yet for him to â—oâ—bid me to discharge my Office and for me thereupon to desi 〈…〉 to the prejudice of Christs Authority who would have me now to discharge it Christ chargeth me among the rest of his Ministers in those words of St. Paul Col. 4. 17. Take heed to the Ministry that thou hast received in the Lord that thou fulfil it If any shall say That Christ hath now forbidden me to exercise the Ministry or discharged me from it it behoves them to prove it and I am ready to receive and consider any proof of it § 3. That I invade not the Right of the Diocesan Bishop in exercising the Ministry where he claims the Right of being the Pastor HERE lest my sense of Episcopacy be mistaken I judg it necessary to premise 1. That I fully own the Scripture-bishop or Evangelical Pastor 2. That I do not disown the Episcopacy that was of ancient Ecclesiastical custom in the time of Ignatius yea or of Cyprian 3. That Bishop Ushers Model of Church-government by Arch-bishops and bishops with their Presbyters was offered to his Majesty by the Divines of the Presbyterian persuasion as they were called for a ground-work of accommodation between the Bishops and them And I assent to the offer which they made 4. After the same manner I assent to the state of Episcopacy as described by K Charls the first in his discourse touching the differences between Himself and the Two Houses in the point of Church-government in these words That he is not against the managing of the Episcopal Presidency in one man by the counsel and consent of many Presbyters but that he had offered to restore it as a fit means to avoid those errors and corruptions and partialities which are incident to any one man also to avoid Tyranny which becomes no Christian least of all Church-men besides it will be a means to take away that odium and burden of affairs which may lye too
the Right of the Bishop upon the account of exercising the Ministry where he is the Pastor 4. That I make a Schism in the Church 5. That I violate the Authority of the Civil Magistrate To these particulars the several Heads of my Defence following are a direct Answer 1. That I have received from Christ the Office of a Pastor mentioned Eph. 4. 11. and that I am bound in my present state to fulfil it 2. That I am not obliged either by the nature of my Office or by any oath or promise or by being under the regulation of Authority to exercise my Ministry no otherwise than as in subordination to and as authorised and regulated by the Bishop of the Diocess 3. That I invade not the Right of the Diocesan Bishop in exercising the Ministry where he claims the right of being the Pastor 4. That I do not violate any true bonds of Church-Unity nor in any respect cause divisions and offences 5. That I do not violate the Authority of the Civil Magistrate § 1. That I have received from Christ the Office of a Pastor mentioned Eph. 4. 11. And that I am bound in my present state to fulfil it THE Ministry that I have received is the sacred office of Presbyterate to which I am ordained according to the form of Ordination that was established in the Church of England That this office is of divine right I take for granted and that according to the Scripture it is the office of a Pastor mentioned Eph. 4. 11. I thus prove 1. Wheresoever this office is set forth in the Scripture it is set forth as the office of a spiritual Pastor or Bishop which is to feed the Flock of God by teaching and ruling it And a Presbyter who is a sacred Officer of the Christian Church but not a Bishop or Pastor is no where mentioned in Scripture If it be said that this Office is otherwise set forth in Scripture or that a Presbyter who is a sacred Officer of the Christian Church yet no Bishop is there mentioned let the Assertor shew the place or places If it be said that this Order of Presbyterate may be of divine instâ—tution yet not defined or expressed in Scripture I desire satisfactory proof from some other Authority both of its being of divine institution and what its nature is 2. To have the Power of the keys of binding and loosing of remitting and retaining sins in Christs name as his commissioned officer is to have Episcopal or Pastoral Power and this Power belongs to the said Office of Presbyterate Forasmuch as some distinguish the Power of the keys into that which is in in foro interiore or the Court of Conscience within and that which is in foro exteriore in the exterior Court to wit that of the Church the former of which is said to belong to the Bishop and the Presbyter and the latter to the Bishop only I further inforce my argument 1. The Scripture makes no such distinction and where the Law distinguisheth not we may not distinguish 2. The distinction in this case is vain for all power that belongs to the Pastors of the Church purely respects the Conscience and it respects the Conscience as having the conduct of the outward man and that in reference to Church communion as well as other matters 3. If Presbyters may in the name of Christ bind the impenitent and loose the penitent as to the conscience which is the greater and primary binding and loosing then by parity of reason and that with advantage they may bind and loose as to Church-communion which is the lesser secondary and subsequent binding and loosing 3. That Officer is a Pastor or Bishop that hath a power of Authoritative declaring or judging in Christs name that this or that wicked person in particular is unworthy of fellowship with Christ and his Church and of charging the congregation in Christs name not to keep company with him as being no fit member of a Christian society also a Power of authoritative declaring or judging in Christs Name that the same person repenting of his wickednes and giving evidence thereof is meet for fellowship with Christ and his Church and of requiring the congregation in Christs Name again to receive him into their Christian fellowship for these powers are no other than the powers of Excommunication and Ecclesiastical absolution Now the Presbyter hath apparently the said Powers as he can undoubtedly declare and judg and charge as aforesaid touching this or that person or particular all particulars being included in the general he hath undoubtedly a Power of applying the Word in Christs Name as well personally as generally 4. For the further clearing of what is already argued let it be considered that an Authoritative Teacher in the Church commissioned by Christ is also a Pastor for the government of a Pastor is only by the Spiritual Sword which is the Word of God and the discipline which he exercises is no more than the personal application of the same word to judg the impenitent and to absolve the penitent in Christs Name and he that Authoritatively teaches in Christs Name as the Presbyter doth can do so much in the personal Application of the Word 5. The Pastoral Authority of Presbyterate is further cleared by many passages in the publick forms of the Church of England touching that order In the very form of my ordination according to the ancient use of this Church I received the office of a Pastor and Successor of the Apostles I mean not in their Apostolick but Pastoral office The form was this Receive the holy Ghost whose sins thou remittest they are remitted and whose sins thou retainest they are retained and be thou a faithful dispenser of the Word of God and his Holy Sacraments in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Amen Now the former part hereof is intirely and compleatly the form of Words used by our Saviour Joh. 20. 22 23. towards the Apostles expressing their Pastoral Authority and the latter part Be tbou a faithful dispenser c. is no derogation or diminution from the Power granted in the former part If the Presbyters are not the Apostles successors in the Pastoral Authority how could they have right to that form of ordination In the form of ordering Priests or Presbyters in one of the prayers after the mentioning of Christs sending abroad into the world his Apostles Prophets Evangelists Doctors Pastors there follows thanksgiving to God for calling those that were then to be ordered Priests to the same Office and Ministry of salvation of mankind Whence it appears that this Office is the same with some of the forementioned kinds And what can it be but that of Doctors and Pastors This Church did before the last alteration made Anno 1662. in solemn form of words require the Presbyters when they were ordained to exercise the discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded