Oecumenius who wrote above a thousand years after Christ nay the very Postscripts themselves prove that they are of much later date than the Epistles for in one of them Phrygia is called Pacatiana which was not the name of it till above three hundred years after Christ when it was conquered by one Pacatius a Roman General and after him called Pacatiana and in the Postscript to Titus it is said the Epistle was writ from Nicopolis which it could not be since in the Epistle it self Paul speaks of Nicopolis a place whither he designed to go and Winter and would have Titus come to him there come to me to Nicopolis for there not here I design to Winter these Postscripts therefore betray themselves by their own language And he should have told us what there is in the word Angel that will demonstrate a Diocesan Bishop but instead thereof tells us a long story out of Dr. Hammond which is worse than impertinent for it affirms that those Angels were not Diocesan Bishops but Metropolitanes or Arch-Bishops that had Bishops under them Vid. Dr. Sherlock Vindic. of Prot. Princ. p. 71. now our learned Church Men acknowledge that Metropolitanes are not of Divine but of Ecclesiastical Institution and have no proper Jurisdiction over Bishops and they generally desert Doctor Hammond in this Notion but this Gentleman had not considered so far but found a large Paragraph that would prove the largeness of those Churches and thought he had got a prize in short let them but acknowledge Presbyters to be Bishops as Dr. Hammond says they all were in Scripture Times Dr. Morrice of Diocesan Ep. scop p. 27. and let the Bishops be Metropolitans holding only by Ecclesiastical Institution without any proper Authority over the Presbyters and we shall not much differ from them Let us now see what evidence may be brought to prove that Presbyters are of the same Order with Bishops and have the same power as they And 1st It is no contemptible argument that Presbyters are frequently called Bishops in Scripture that the names are used promiscuously the greatest Patrons of the Prelacy acknowledge the Elders of the Church of Ephesus are so called Acts 20.28 The Ministers of the Church of Philippi are called Bishops and it is observable that the Syriack Version which is very antient has but one word for Presbyter and Bishop now if there be so material a disserence betwixt a Bishop and a Presbyter as some men would make it is strange there should not be a distinct word to express it by if only such as are now owned to be Bishops were called Presbyters the argument would not be so strong for they might think to evade it by saying the lesser is included in the greater and they are Presbyters before they are Bishops but when even those who are acknowledged to be meer Presbyters are called Bishops it is very considerable for the lesser cannot include the greater it would sound very strange in England for a Presbyter to write himself Bishop and if the Apostles had known any thing of this mighty distinction upon which the Fate of so many Churches and Salvation of so many Souls is made to depend we cannot suppose they would have laid such a temptation before us to draw us into an opinion of the Identity of Order by the indifferent and promiscuous use of the Titles Dr. Morrice in his defence of Diocesan Episcopacy makes very little account of the Title of Bishops being given to Presbyters in the Church of Philippi Pag. 29 30. and is pleased to say This debate about the Bishops of Philippi had soon been at an end if our Author had thought fit to explain himself and told us what he meant by Bishops for were the Pastors of single Congregations respectively in Covenant Then there must have been several Congregations or Churches in the same City which Mr. Clarkson will not allow Or were those Bishope only Presbyters ruling the Church of Philippi with common and equal authority Then our Authour must give up the question and instead of making many Bishops must own that there was none at all there but onely Presbyters will he contend that there were no other Bishops than Presbyters That will be to abuse his Reader with the Ambiguity of a Word which he takes in one sence and the Church in another that many Presbyters might belong to one Congregation none ever denied but that many Bishops in the Allow'd and Ecclesiastical sence of the Word had the oversight of one City seems strange and incredible to the Antient Christians Chrysostom observing this expression of the Bishops of Philippi seems to be startled with it What many Bishops in one City By no means it cannot be what then They were not Bishops properly so called but Presbyters I have taken the more notice of this Paragraph Works of the Learned Augustin p. 25. because La Crose magnifies it as a terrible Dilemma though he has lamentably spoiled it in the Abridgment but taking it as the Dr. has laid it before us I see not how it can much weaken our Cause or fortifie his own We do really maintain that these Bishops were Presbyters ruling the Church of Philippi with common consent and whether this be the Ecclesiastical sence of the word or no we are not much concerned to enquire it is sufficient to our purpose that it is the true Scriptural sence and the only one too Communi Presbyterorum consilio Ecclesâ—e gubernabuntur Hieron 1. Tit. for we never find the word in all the New Testament signifying an Ecclesiastical Order of Men Superior to Presbyters we deny not but that this Name very early began to be appropriated to the Senior Presbyter in a Church or City who yet never pretended to be a distinct Order from the rest of his Colleagues of the Presbytery for a long time afterwards But as the word thus used is taken in an Ecclesiastical not Scriptural sence so the Dignity thereby expressed is of meer Ecclesiastical not Divine Institution And whereas Chrysostom says They were not Bishops properly so called he can mean no more by it but that they were not such Bishops as that word was made to signifie by common usage in his time and we grant they were not for the Distinction of Office and Degree not being known in Scripture the word could not be used in that distinguishing sence there Thus a Learned Canonist gives it as the Vogue of many Primitive Authors Lancel Instit Lag Can. l. 1. Tit. 21. p. 32. That Bishop and Presbyter were formerly the same and that Presbyter was the Name of the Persons Age Bishop of his Office but there being many of these in every Church they determined amongst themselves for the preventing of Schism that one should be Elected by themselves to be set over the rest and the Person so elected retained the Name of Bishop for Distinction sake the rest were only called Presbyters and in
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishop Usher renders it Ordinem those that translate it a List would have it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But let them contend about words as long as they please the true import of the place is plain enough to those that consider it with the foregoing Paragraph 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. p. 100. for there we find the Jewish Contests about the Priesthood and those of the Christians about the Episcopacy are compared together the case may be thus contracted Moses knowing that the Tribes would contend about the glorious Title of the Priesthood ordered them to bring their Rods each inscribed with the Name of its Tribe and he laid them up in the Tabernacle telling them That the Tribe whose Rod should blossom God had approved and chosen for the Priesthood Even so the Apostles c. That is as the Sacerdotal Tribe was chosen and approved of God so none must take upon them the office of Episcopacy but Men well approved this seems to me the true sence of the place and the only one that it is capable of And what is here to prove that Bishops are a distinct Order from Presbyters not one word but rather to the contrary for here it is said the Apostles constituted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 98. the aforesaid go a few lines backward and you have the word again and there you will find it refers to Bishops and Deacons which the Apostles ordained for those that should believe Now if they only appointed these two sorts of Officers what is become of subordinate Presbyters the Apostles we see appointed none such the distinction betwixt Bishops and Presbyters according to Clemens is not by Divine or Apostolical institution and it is observable that in this very Paragraph he makes them the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. It will be no small Sin in us to reject those that have discharged the Duties of their Episcopal Function in an holy and unblameable manner happy are those Presbyters who have finished their course They fear not being turned out of their present Settlement It is strange these Gentlemen should threaten us with Clement who as he writ next to the Apostles so he is next to them most friendly to our Cause and this was so evident to the learned Grotius That he gives it as a reason why he thinks this Epistle to be Genuine Quod nusquam meminit exortis Epist 182. ad Bignon c. because he no where mentions that extravagant Authority of Bishops which by the Custom of the Church began to be introduced at Alexandria but plainly shews as the Apostle does that Churches were governed by the Common Council of Presbyters who were also Bishops His next Author is Ignatius and it must be confess'd he puts a distinction betwixt Bishop and Presbyter and bids them all be observant of the Bishop and do nothing without the consent of the Bishop but still here is not a word to prove a Superiority of Office by divine right we grant that in his time the Name of Bishop began to be appropriated to the Senior Presbyter who was as Pastor and the rest his Curats or Assistants but this will make little for the Diocesan Prelate That Ignatius's Bishop was no more than the Pastor of a particular Church his own words abundantly manifest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ep. ad Philad There is to every Church one Altar and one Bishop with the Presbytery and the Deacons my Fellow-Servants here we have the principle of Individuation in Churches not that all the Members of the Church must be no more than can always meet together in one place there be many things that may make that difficult but they must all have One Altar that is One Communion-Table Many Tricks and Salvo's have been invented to evade this instance some say by One Table is meant specifically One but so are all in the World Others One Supream Altar to which the rest were Subordinate but why then may we not say by One Bishop is meant One Supream Prelate with other Bishops under him There is no reason assignable why the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be taken Numerically and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 otherwise That by One Altar is meant One Consistory as Dr. Morrice would suggest is very improbable when in the same Sentence we read of One Bishop with his Presbytery which sure must signifie the Consistory if any thing that Sentence does and is much more likely to do so than One Altar This is so apparent that Mr. Mede confesses Proof of Churches in the second Cent. p. 29. It should seem that in those first times before Diocesan were divided into lesser and subordinate Churches we now call Parishes and Presbyters assigned to them they had not only one Altar in one Church or Dominicum but one Altar to a Church taking a Church for the Company or Corporation of the faithful united under one Bishop and that was in the City and place where the Bishop had his Residence Dr. Morrice would disable this Evidence because Mr. Mede expresses it with Caution and Modesty it should seem But such modesty makes it more valuable being the humor and way of that learned man he had made as strict researches into these things as he could and upon the whole it seemed thus to him but if there was a more than ordinary Caution observed in the Words some will be apt to think it was not for want of evidence that the case was really so but rather because he knew the Notion would not be very agreeable to the Governours of that Church of which he was an Excellent Member The Author of a late Treatise called a Defence of Pluralities supposed to be Mr. Wharton notwithstanding the heights of his Zeal for the Hierarchy which appear sufficiently throughout the Book yet ingenuously acknowledges That at the beginning Page 59. the Bishop and his Presbyters lived altogether in one common place and were maintain'd by the free Oblations of the People which were brought to the Cathedral and deposited upon the Altar or Communion Table when the number of Christians encreased they began to build more Churches than one in a City these new Churches were but as Chappels of Ease annexed to and depending upon the Cathedral Church where the Holy Eucharist was Consecrated This may suffice to shew what kind of Diocess Ignatius's Bishop had and what he means by one Altar Enquiry into the Constitut Discip Vnity c. Of the Primitive Churches Chap. 2. and a late Author has said a great deal to prove out of Ignatius himself that the several Bishopricks of Smyrna Ephesus Magnesia Philadelphia and Trallium were but so many single Congregations governed by a Bishop as Pastor and his Presbyters as Assistants and this he makes the true distinction betwixt Bishop and Presbyter in those times But whether that be so or no is not so material as that our
that the Priests and Bishops be all one St. Austin saith what is the Bishop but the first Priest So saith St. Ambrose there is but one Consecration of a Priest and Bishop for both of them are Priests but the Bishop is the first Thus he The next I shall mention is Dr. Whitaker Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge Contr. Duraeum l. 6. § 19. de Eccl. Regim qu. 1. Cap. 1. de notis Eccles quaest 5. He repeats Sr. Jeromes words at large on 1 Titus and to Evagrius that Bishops and Presbyters were the same that the Primitive Churches were governed by the common consent of the Presbyters that this custom was not changed by the Apostles but afterwards by the Church and thus argues If the Apostles had changed the order as Sanders pretendeth what had it advantaged him to have so diligently collected Testimonies out of the Apostles to prove that they were sometimes the same He might easily have remembred that the Order was changed by the Apostles themselves after the Church was distracted with contentions if any such thing had been done and he enquires Wherefore then saith Jerome Before it was said I am of Paul c. He answers This might deceive Sanders but it is certain Jerome onely alludeth to that place of the Apostle to shew that Schisms were the Cause of changing the Order but this Remedy was almost worse than the Disease for as at first one Presbyter was set above the rest and made a Bishop afterwards one Bishop was preferred before the Rest and this custom at length produced the Pope with his Monarchy Resp ad decion rationem Campiani p. 51. and elsewhere he thus speaks of Aerius his Heresie And truly if to condemn Prayers for the Dead and to make Bishop and Presbyter equal be Heretical Nihil Catholicum esse potest nothing can be Orthodox and Catholick That passage in Mr. Tract of Schism p. 13. Hales of Eaton is as memorable as its Author They do but abuse themselves and others that would persuade us that Bishops by Christs institution have any superiority over men further than Reverence or that any is superior to another further than positive order agreed upon among Christians hath prescribed Nature and Religion agree in this that neither of them hath any hand in the Heraldry of Secundum sub supra all this comes from composition and agreement of Men among themselves wherefore this abuse of Christianity to make it Lacquey to Ambition is a Vice for which I have no extraordinary name of Ignominy and an ordinary one I will not give it lest you should take so transcendent a Vice to be but trivial The most Excellent Arch-bishop Usher both in his Writing and Discourse acknowledged these Orders to be the same that the difference was only in degree that Bishops ordained as Presbyters but regulated the Ordination as Bishops and would not endure to hear the Ordination of the Reformed Churches condemned In his Reduction of Episcopacy Printed by Dr. Bernard he proves both by the words of Paul of Tertullian P. 2 3. and the Order of the Church of England that Spiritual Jurisdiction belongs to the Common Council of Presbyters in which the Bishop is no more than President and page 6. has these words True it is that in our Church this kind of Presbyterial Government hath been long disused yet seeing it still professeth that every Pastor hath a right to rule the Church from whence the name of Rector was also first given to him and to administer the Discipline of Christ as well as to dispense the Doctrine and Sacraments and the restraint of the exercise of that Right proceedeth only from the Custom now received in the Realm no man can doubt but by another Law of the Land this hindrance may be well removed And to say the Truth this was the general opinion of the Church of England for many years after the Reformation and very few even of the Bishops themselves opposed it Till the Treaties about Marriage with Spain and France became the great occasion of corrupting the Court and Church and letting in a sort of Men who in pursuance of secret Articles were to effect an accommodation with Rome Vid. Dr. Heylin's Cyprianus Angl. Mr. Baxter against a Revolt to a Forreign Jurisd p. 25. alibi See also the late Bishop of Hereford's Naked Truth and therefore must settle the Jus Divinum of the Prelacy as the Council of Trent had done before them by taking the power of opposition and dissent out of the hands of the inferiour Clergy who generally abhorred the design from that time this new Doctrine has much grown upon the Nation and with a great deal of noise and confidence has been asserted by the main bulk of the Ecclesiasticks and yet some few of the most learned of them have declared against it I shall onely mention two both of eminent note and figure in the Church at this day I mean the Bishops of Worcester and Salisbury For the Bishop of Worcester I have cited his Irenicum so often already that it would be in vain to add any thing more the main design of that learned Tract especially the latter part of it is to prove that God has not by his Law settled any form of Church Government and he has for ever ruined the pretensions of Episcopacy to a Jus Divinum they say indeed he has retracted that Book but as long as he has not destroyed the reason of it we are well enough for it is upon the reason of the thing not the authority of his person how great soever that we depend and till that Book be undone as well as unsaid it will remain in full force and virtue for reason is always the same though Men and their Interests may vary The Bishop of Salisbury inferior to none in all the accomplishments of Gentleman Vindication of the Church of Scotland p. 306. States-Man and Divine spoke his thoughts freely at a time when Prelacy was in its Zenith thus At first every Bishop had but one Parish but afterwards when the numbers encreased that they could not conveniently meet in one place and when through the violence of persecution they durst not assemble in great multitudes the Bishops divided their charges into lesser Parishes and gave assignments to the Presbyters of particular Flocks which was done first in Rome in the beginning of the second Century c. And P. 310. I do not alledge a Bishop to be a distinct office from a Presbyter but a different degree of the same office c. P. 331. I acknowledge Bishop and Presbyter to be one and the same office and so plead for no new Office-bearer in the Church the first branch of their power is their authority to publish the Gospel to manage the worship and dispense the Sacraments and this is all that is of Divine Right in the Ministry in which Bishops and
the very worst character and mark of the highest hypocrisie a piece of Pharisaisme all over that strains at a Gnat when it swallows a Camel and I cannot avoid having at least a contempt of those kind of thoughts and a compassion for those who fill their Heads with them CHAP. III. An inference concerning Ordination The Point of Succession more largely debated Our English Bishops have no Jurisdiction nor their Canons any power but what is derived from the Civil Magistrates who has now left us to our Liberty in the case of Conformity reflections upon Mr. Norris his charge of Schisme continued I Will now venture to leave this point as sufficiently proved that Bishops have no Power or Jurisdiction given them by the Law of God but what Presbyters have as well as they I have been the larger upon it because it goes a great way in deciding the whole controversie and would save me all farther Labour about the cases of Ordination and Succession As to Ordination if Presbyters be the same with Scripture Bishops the Orders conferred by them must needs be valid for as Monsieur Claude says 't is a right that cannot be taken away from them by Humane Rules it is true indeed there may be such a prudent Order agreed upon for the due management of this work as may make it irregular to ordain without a President but such agreements cannot make the action null for my part I never knew any Ordination amongst Diffenters but there was a Moderator chosen who was chiefly concerned in the conduct of it and such a Moderator wants nothing of the Primitive Bishop And if there be some Antient Canons that say the Presbyters shall not ordain without the Bishop Concil Carth. 3 4. C. 22. so there are others that say the Bishop shall not ordain without the Presbyters and by requiring Presbyters to join in this office it is certain they have the power otherwise their laying on of hands would be a meer nullity The truth is neither a single Bishop nor a single Presbyter can regularly Ordain it ought to be done by a Classis and in that case there must be some President to avoid confusion and that is the general practice amongst us and therefore our Ordinations are not only valid but regular too Bishop Carleton in his Treatise of Jurisdiction saith P. 7. The Power of Order by all Writers that ever I could see even of the Church of Rome is understood to be immediately from Christ given to all Bishops and Priests alike by their Consecration And it is very considerable what Dr. Bernard mentions concerning Arch-bishop Usher's Opinion in this case The Judgment of the late A. B. of Armagh p. 134 135. wherein we have this Historical passage That in 1609 when the Scotch Bishops were to be consecrated by the Bishops of London Ely and Bath a question was moved by Dr. Andrews Bishop of Ely whether they must not first be ordained Presbyters as having received no ordination from a Bishop the Arch-bishop of Canterbury Dr. Bancroft who was present maintained That there was no necessity for it seeing where Bishops could not be had Ordination by Presbyters must be esteemed lawful otherwise it might be doubted whether there were any lawful vocation in most of the Reformed Churches this was applauded by the other Bishops and Ely acquiesced in it c. It was too great a hardship therefore that our Bishops put upon the poor banished Ministers of the French Churches in requiring them to be re-ordained which in the sence of the imposers was a renouncing the validity of their former Ordination and it is very remarkable that some of those that were most zealous in that severe usage of those poor Refugees and would admit none to be Ministers that did not submit to them in it are since divested of their Episcopal power themselves and have now time to consider whether to allow the Ordinations of the Roman Churches and reject those of the Reformed was not to use Monsieur Claudes words a piece of Pharisaisme all over that strains at a Gnat and swallows a Camel And for the pretended Succession if our Presbyters which have Ministerial Ordination and I know no other be really Bishops by the Laws and Language of Scripture We are in the Line still as the Vindicator speaks if such a Line there be though we look upon it as a most wretched piece of confidence and madness to make the Essence of the Ministry and Church depend upon a thing so lubricous and uncertain But that we may if it be possible lead this Man out of his foolish conceit about the necessity of an un-interrupted Line of Succession from the Apostles let us but state the case according to his own assertions and perhaps when it is rightly put it will not require much arguing His opinion in this matter take in these three points 1. Arch-Rebel p. 2 3. He affirms that the Bishops receive their Spiritual Jurisdiction from the Apostles by the Line of Succession this Succession he makes the foundation of their Title and Power 2. From hence he infers that he is no true Bishop who is not ordained by another Bishop and so upwards in a continued line of Episcopal Ordination to the Apostles themselves Arch-Rebel p. 3. so that if a Man could shew a Spiritual Pedigree in a Line of Episcopacy for a thousand years yet if so long ago there was failure he is but a Lay Impostor And 3. That those Churches or what you 'll please to call them that are not under the Government of such Bishops Reply p. 18. as are possess 't of their Authority by such a Line are out of the Communion of the Catholick Church have no Ministry no Sacraments no Salvation The first of these that Bishops have their power from the Apostles as being their Successors P. 20. will certainly infer that they could never be possessed of it till the Apostles were dead unless we can suppose that they were degraded or voluntarily resigned this the Vindicator has deservedly exposed To be the Apostles Successors in Apostolical power the Apostles still living and in Plenitude of Power is a very great Mystery and something like the honest Vicar of N's Prayer for King Charles the II. that he might outlive all his Successors What has the Gentleman to reply to this He puts on a marvellous grave aspect and charges the Vindicator with Scoffing at Timothy and Titus but this is a poor shift of his own when he has rendred himself ridiculous to turn it off to Timothy and Titus I do not believe there is any such Affinity or Line of Succession betwixt those blessed Evangelists and this Gentleman but a man may venture to expose the folly of the latter and still preserve a due Veneration for the former He confesses it was a piece of Ignorance to pray that the King might out-live all his Successors and why then is not he as
so he has put nothing into their Constitution but what will consist with any form of Civil Polity and has not obliged Republican States to become Monarchies in order to their reception of the Gospel I know nothing the Church has to do with Civil Constitutions nor will I ever be of that Ecclesiastical Communion which cannot subsist in Common-wealths as well as in Monarchies but must overturn Publick Constitutions to make room for its own Settlement And as this Doctrine overturns the Primitive and the Reformed Churches so this Gentleman knows not how great a shock he has given his own by it For Historians tell us that those Famous Bishops who were instrumental in Converting so many in the Northern Parts of our Island to Christianity were ordained by the Abbot of Hye who was only a Presbyter and who knows how far the Line of those Bishops reaches To this the Gentleman has made some reply telling us Reply p. 22. That Archbishop Bramhall has cleared the Northumbrian Bishops from receiving their Consecration of the Abbot of Hye and shews that they had it from the Bishop of Derry under whose Visitation this Abbot lived and that this was to be found in the Records at Derry before the Irish Rebellion But it is a strange piece of Considence in these Men to set up a Story reported by themselves out of I know not what invisible Records Beda Eccles Hist. l. 3. c. 4. Haberesolet ipsa Insula rectorem semper Abbatum Presbyterum c. so to confront the direct words of our most ancient and credible Historians Bede expresly says that Island was wont to have an Abbot for its Governour who was always a Presbyter to whose Jurisdiction all the Province and even the Bishops themselves were subject after the example of their first Teacher Columbanus who was not a Bishop but a Presbyter and Monk and that King Oswald when he came to the Throne Vsher de Eccles Brit. Primordiis p. 701. sent to the Elders of Scotland amongst whom in his Exile he had been baptized to desire that a Bishop might be sent unto him by whose Doctrine and Ministry his Realm might learn and receive the Christian Faith From this Island of Hye and from the College of Monks there Aidan was sent having received the Degree of Episcopacy at that time when Segenius a Presbyter was the Abbot and that Aidan being dead Finan succeeded him being likewise sent by the same Monastery The Gentleman tells us we have the story in the Bishop of St. Asaph to the same purpose with Bramhal but he does not tell us that Sir George Mackenzie has answered him besides it is not the same story for St. Asaph will have it to be the Bishop of Dunkeld that joyned in this Consecration not Derry or Derry-magh if there was any such story in those Records 't is a wonder these Gentlemen should not agree better in the telling of it The ingenious Dr. Vindic. of some Protest Princ. p. 102. Sherlock wisely declines disputing the matter of fact concerning this Abbots Ordination of Bishops and fairly grants that the Church of Rome allows the Ordinations of Abbots Soveraign which are but Presbyters to be both valid and regular but says such Ordinations were an incroachment upon the Episcopal Authority and void in themselves which I shall not now question it being sufficient and indeed only proper to my present purpose to shew that Abbots did Ordain and were allowed to do it by the Church of Rome and if such orders be void then the Episcopal Line is broken And who can forbear declaiming against the wretched folly of Men of such principles that will thus unsettle the foundations of their own Churches that they may overturn others and like the Executioners of the three Children will venture a burning themselves that they may be sure to throw others far enough into the fiery Furnace Let us hear how this Gentleman will demonstrate this uninterrupted Line of Succession for He ought to make it as clear as any Article of his Creed there being none more essential to Salvation according to his own account of it And he tells us The very necessity of such a Line is a sufficient reason to prove it no man can be Minister of the Gospel that is not sent no man has power to send who hath not received it by Succession from the Apostles That is to say it is so because it must be so and it must be so because it is absolutely necessary it should be so and if this be not proof sufficient we must go to those that can give us better But 1st Why does he not prove that thore can be no true mission without such a Line we cannot give him credit in a matter of such value and though he repeat it a thousand times we will not regard it till we see it proved We do verily believe with the rest of the Reformed Churches that where-ever the Coetus Fidelium is there lies an inherent fundamental right of chusing and calling persons to the Ministry though this is most regularly exercised by those that are already Pastors and ought not to be done by others where such may conveniently be had but all the World besides the Papists and a few odd Bigotted persons in our own Nation distinguish betwixt an irregularity and a nullity and we believe that both Sacred and Civil Societies agree in this which is founded upon the essence and common principles of all Societies as such that they have a latent power to elect and invest their Officers though by Custom or the Laws of the Community the exercise thereof may be consigned to a particular Order of Men amongst them The Author of the Prejudices challenges Monsieur Claude to produce any Texts of Scripture that give Lay-Men a right to ordain Ministers in any case to which he replies This demand is but a vain wrangling Defence of the Reform P. IV. p. 94 95. for when Scripture recommends to the Faithful the taking diligent heed to the preservation and confirmation of their Faith and to propagate it to their Children it gives them by that very thing a sufficient right to make use of all proper means in order to that end and every body knows the Ministry is one of those means and therefore the obligation the faithful are under to preserve and propagate the Faith includes that of Creating to themselves Pastors when they cannot have them otherwise in short when the Scripture teaches that the faithful have a right to chuse their Pastors it teaches thereby that they have a right to instal them into their Office in case of necessity for that call consisting much more essentially in Election than in installation which is but a formality there is no reason to believe that God would have given the People a Right to chuse their Pastors and to have them installed by others and that he has not given them at the same
Learned Grotius has fully proved that there never was a Council truly called General excepting that of the Apostles at Jerusalem that Councils have no governing Power Non ideo convocari Synodum quòd in co pars sit imperii Yea that the Church has no Legislative Power by Divine Right That what was written in Synods for Order and Ornament are not called Laws but Canons and have either the force of advice only Burnets Abridement p. 139. or they oblige by way of agreement c. And our Reforming Bishops Cranmer Tonstal and others being required to give their opinions concerning the Authority of General Councils declared that this Authority did not flow from the number of the Bishops but from the matter of their decisions and this indeed is the only true notion of Ministerial Power it depends purely upon the matter of their Canons not the Authority of the Person so that they can never by their Authority make a thing indifferent to become a Duty Praeeant ipsi judicio directivo says Grotius they are Councils not Parliaments and only to shew men what is Sin and Duty not to make any thing Duty which was not so before Dr. Sherlock fairly acquits himself of the Suspicion of ascribing unto a Council of Bishops Vind. of Prot. Princ. p. 30. Vind. of the Def. of Dr. St. p. 162. any Power in matter of Faith or Manners or Catholick Unity and because in a former Treatise he had let fall an Expression that might seem to give them such a Power he by much strugling gets from under it and says he meant no more than a Power of Deposing Heretical Bishops but withal adds It does not follow that any Bishops or any Number of Bishops however assembled have such an Authority to declare Heresie as shall oblige all men to believe that to be Heresie which they decree to be so and therefore the effects of those Censures must of Necessity depond upon that Opinion which People have of them those who believe the Censure just will withdraw from the Communion of such a Bishop those who do not will still communicate with him and whether they do right or wrong their own Consciences must judge in this World and God will Judge in the next And elsewhere he thus speaks As for Ecclesiastical Causes nothing is a pure Ecclesiastical Cause but what concerns the Communion of the Church who shall be received into Communion or câ—st out or put under some less Censures c. Here we see it is not in the Power of Councils or Synods to take away any of that Power from Presbyters that God has given them this is none of the Ecclesiastical Causes belonging to them This is more directly asserted by the Author of the Summary of the Controversies betwixt the Church of England P. 119. and the Church of Rome what he says of the Episcopal Office will hold true of the Ministerial in General That a General Council has no Authority to give away those Rights and Powers which are inherent in every Church and inseparable from the Ministerial Office for it is not in Ecclesiastical as it is in Civil Rights Men may irrevocably grant away their own Civil Rights and Liberties but all the Authority in the Church cannot give away it self nor grant the whole entire Episcopacy with all the Rights and Powers of it to any one Bishop If Bishops or Presbyters will not exercise that Power which God has given them they are accountable to their Lord for it but they cannot give it away neither from themselves nor from their Successors for it is theirs only to use not to part with and therefore every Bishop or Presbyter may reassume such Rights though a General Council should give them away because the Grant is void in it self By ancient Ecclesiastical custom Arch-Bishops were set over Bishops Vind. Prot. Prin. p. 72. and yet Dr. Sherlock confesses they have not direct Authority and Jurisdiction over them and if Bishops have no Superiority over Presbyters but what is grounded upon this Ecclesiastical Right it will not amount to formal Authority But 2. No Power can be claimed by Ecclesiastical Right but what has been acquired according to the Rules of those Councils and Customs by which they claim if it be a jus Ecclesiasticum they must come by it more Ecclesiastico in that method which Ecclesiastical Canons have prescribed and nothing is more evident than that the Rules of the Primitive Churches gave all the Presbyters and the People too a voice in the Election of their Bishops the African Bishops in a Council where Cyprian Presided Cypr. Ep. 68. Concil Nic. Arab. Can. Sozom. l. 1. c. 23. determined that Plebs maximè habeat potestatem vel eligendi dignos sacerdotes vel indignos recusandi St. Ambrose Ep. 82. Electio vocatio quae sit à tota Ecclesia verè cartò est divina vocatio ad munus Episcopi That this was the Primitive Custom none will deny though some Question whether this be absolutely necessary or no and I will not say it is necessary where the Office stands upon a Divine Institution but certainly where it only stands upon the Plea of Ecclesiastical Right the Ecclesiastical Method is absolutely necessary to give that Right for our Bishops cannot pretend to stand upon the Foundation of those Canons which they do not observe in their entrance upon that Office since those Canons must needs bind them as much in their Acquisition of Power as the People in their Subjection to them The best Title therefore our Bishops have to shew for their Prelatical Jurisdiction is the Law of the Land Our learned Historians and Lawyers tell us that before William the Conquerors time there were no such Courts in England as we now call Courts Ecclesiastical or Spiritual only by the Laws of Ethelstane the Bishops were allowed to be present with the Sheriffs in their Tourne Courts Brompton de Leg. Ethels where all Ecclefiastical matters were heard and determined Sir Edward Cook says William the Conquerour was the first that by his Charter to the Dean and Chapter of Lincoln prohibited Sheriffs to intermeddle any more with Ecclesiastical Causes but leave them wholly to the Bishop 4. l. Institut c. 53. p. 259. and yet there appears no enrolment of any such Charter till the 2d of Rich. 2d And Cook himself mentions the Red Book of Henry the first de general placit Comitat. extant in the Office of the Kings Rememb in the Exchequer wherein 't is said of the Sheriffs Tourne Courts Ibi agantur primo debita Christianitatis jura secundo Regis placita postremo causae singulorum and he adds certain it is the Bishops Consistories were erected and Causes Ecclesiastical removed from the Tourne to the Consistory after the making of the said Red Book Nothing will set this matter in a better Light than our Acts of Parliament especially that of the 37. Hen 8. Entituled An
a multiplication of Churches by reason of the increase of Believers The Vindicator was well enough pleased to hear him say that the increase of Believers will make it necessary to multiply Churches for according to the Episcopal Model there may be thousands of Congregations and Millions of Souls and all but one Church under one Bishop still the Gentleman now must mend it a little and he puts in distance of place as that which must be added to multiplication of Believers but still if a Bishop may be Pastor of a Thousand Parishes some of them a hundred Miles distant and may do his work by Delegates I see no Reason as the Vindicator speaks why we may not have one Bishop in a Nation or one over all the World He that can delegate one part of his Work may delegate the whole and then it is but multiplying those Delegates and he may have a Diocess as Universal as that of the old Gentleman at Rome He requires a Scripture instance to prove that when believers grow too numerous for one assembly a Colony must be sent out under Independent Officers But he should rather prove that such a Colony must be still in dependance upon the former for if such a Colony desire to have a Bishop and Presbyters of its own those that refuse to suffer it must be able to give some good reason for it And to keep all new assemblies in dependance upon the first Church would make Jerusalem the Mistress of the Catholick Church as Rome pretends This Gentleman tells us there may be a multiplication of Independant Churches for such are the Episcopal and he says he is not for Acring a Diocess or contending about the Extent and therefore I suppose if it should be no bigger than a Parish there 's no harm done to the Essentials of Episcopacy What need therefore of proving by Scripture that a new Colony must be an Independent Church when the Author himself acknowledges it may be so and if it desire to be so I know no body has power to hinder it unless it be the Civil Magistrate And how far it is within his Jurisiliction I shall not dispute The Magnitude of the Church of Jerusalem has been often debated and before any thing can be concluded from thence on the behalf of Prelacy they must tell us how many of those Converts we read of were constant Inhabitants of Jerusalem and stated Members of that Church For if the greatest part of them might be of those that came thither at the Feast of Pentecost it will spoil the Demonstration And they must also prove that they were under the Government of one Bishop And asking questions is not proving that it was so At that time we read of such numerous Converts they had the Apostles amongst them who taught them from House to House and we have no account of their being under the Government of one Bishop but what comes from Hegisippus and an obscure Clement Writers of no Authority And it ought to be considered that if the Church of Jerusalem were so very numerous it is strange they could all be received in so small a place as Pella Defence of the Answer 3. Treat c. 6. Let this Gentleman hear one of the Grand-fathers of his own Church Archbishop Whitgift thus How few Christians were there at Jerusalem not long before it was destroyed being about forty years after Christ Does not Eusebius testifie that they were all received into a little Town called Pella Epiph. Heres 30. de Ponder Mens c. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet the Apostles spent much Time and Labour in Preaching there And Epiphanius confirms the same truth saying That all the Believers and elsewhere all the Disciples inhabited in Pella Let him remove these difficulties out of the way and then he may more plausibly serve himself of this instance What he says in his 39th Page is meer Banter we neither condemn Bishops nor set up Altar against them nor are in any Covenant against them nor refuse to Communicate with them in Sacraments and Prayers A bare denial is answer enough at any time to a bare assertion We hold Communion with them in all that is essential to Episcopacy or the Worship of God See the Petition for Peace 1661. and if they will not let us Worship God with them in the same Congregations but turn us out by their Impositions let them look to it what ever is culpable will lye at their Door we are willing at any time to Communicate with them on Christs Terms but if they refuse it we must not lose the Ordinances of the Gospel for a point of Humane Order such as Parochial Communion Here I think Mr. Chillingworths answer to the Jesuit is very pertinent P. 15. Notwithstanding your Errors we do not renounce your Communion totally and absolutely but only leave communicating with you in the practice and profession of your Errors The Trial whereof will be to propose some form of Worshipping God taken wholly out of Scripture and herein if we refuse to join with you and not till then you may justly say we have utterly and absolutely abandon'd your Communion He is pleased to say Though we pretend to be United to the Head yet not to the Body it being hard to find several Members united into one Body and yet still remaining all Independent If he means Independent in Point of Government one over another Vind. of Prot. Princ. p. 71. the Episcopal Churches are all Independent in that sence as Dr. Sherlock very well proves and therefore by this Gentleman's talk cannot be United into one Body If he means Independent in Point of Communion I know no Churches that pretend to it He affirms that Bishops succeed the Apostles in their Authority over the Presbyters and People For says he it is not reasonable to suppose that any branch of Authority given by our Saviour to his Apostles died with them But this would prove too much for then we must have some Supream Officers in the Church that have Power over Bishops Vid. Review p. 39. as well as over Presbyters and People for so had the Apostles and we may retort his following words upon himself If their Authority over the Bishops expired with their Persons why should that over Presbyters continue after them unless he will suppose that the Inferiour Clergy are the only Persons that need the Regulation of Superiours all Multitudes must have Governours and the Bishops are certainly too numerous a Populace to be all Independent Now let the Gentleman give us an Answer to this and it will serve very well for an Answer to himself It does not concern us to shew that the Apostles Commission was only a Patent for Life but if any Persons now-a-days shall pretend to have a Patent for the Apostleship it behoves them to produce it well attested The Vindicator observed that the Authority of the Apostles was Universal and the
same over all Churches and this Surveyor says The Bishops succeed them in the same Authority only the exercise thereof is limited by humane Agreements and asks the Vindicator whether a Bishop be not as truly a Bishop and a Presbyter as truly a Presbyter in any other Man's Diocese or Parish as in his own But here he puts things together that should be kept distinct a Bishop in the received and ordinary sence of the word is a Relative term and always connotes a Bishoprick either in Possession or Title as his Charge and Cure and therefore though he be Bishop in another Man's Diocese he is not Bishop of that Diocese indeed as a Minister of the Gospel he may Preach and Administer the Sacraments any where that Providence casts him and gives him an opportunity of so doing and if this be all the Episcopal Power they pretend to we will allow it to be as Universal as they please but the Power of Jurisdiction over Ministers and People which they call the Apostolical Power they have not any where but in their own Dioceses and yet even that Power the Apostles had all the World over and could not be limited in it by any Humane Agreements whatsoever By this Notion our Gentleman has advanced the Bishop of Chester has no more Authority in Cheshire than the Bishop of Rome Review p. 40. but what is founded on Humane Agreements and what thanks his Diocesan will give him for such a Doctrine I cannot tell for he afterwards acknowledges that the Bishop of Rome has no Authority at all in England which makes the whole Power of our Bishops to depend upon Humane Agreements without which he that has none at all would have as much as they Or perhaps it is liable to a worse Consequence than that for if every Bishop has Universal Power in all Dioceses by the Grant of Christ and is only restrained in the Exercise thereof by Humane Agreements then may the Bishop of Rome with Apostolical Authority make Canons for all England and Excommunicate us all if we receive them not for Christ gave him Universal Power only it was limited by Humane Agreements which he never agreed to and if he had that could not render his Act unauthoritative but only irregular Only the best on 't is any Bishop in England may make Canons for Rome too and Damn them all Pope and Cardinals and all if they will not obey I would gladly understand this Doctrine a little better and therefore I beg the favour of this Gentleman to tell me what Agreements these are of which he speaks where and when made and by whom Are they only made by the Bishops amongst themselves or had the People a hand therein or does he mean the Laws of the Land If Bishops can by mutual Agreement so restrain the Exercise of their Power why may they not by the like Agreements constitute one to be Head over them all I wish this Gentleman would go to School to a learned Doctor of his own Church though he was not in Communion with him in these Notions yet I hope no Schismatick for all that Treat of Supremacy p. 120 121. 't is the worthy Dr. Isaac Barrow whose words are The Offices of an Apostle and Bishop are not in their own Nature well consistent for the Apostleship is an extraordinary Office charged with the Instruction and Government of the whole World and calling for an answerable Care the Apostles being Rulers as St. Chrysostom saith ordained by God Rulers not taking several Nations and Cities but all of them in common intrusted with the whole World but Episcopacy is an ordinary standing charge affixed to One place and requiring a special Attendance there who as St. Chrysostom saith do sit and are employed in one place Now he that hath such a General Care can hardly discharge such a particular Office and he that is fixed to so particular an Attendance can hardly look well after so General a Charge I need not repeat what has been said about the Powers of Timothy and Titus what the Gentleman here alledges is anticipated and answered He must prove that Presbyters may not do what Timothy and Titus did that they may not ordain that they may not reprove one another for their Faults as they have occasion He says These are the Powers that Bishops have exercised all along and so have Presbyters too and if exercise proves the Title they must therefore be Bishops also He adds The Congregational Invention allows of no such Officers the most ordinary Pastors being all Independent without ever a Timothy or Titus to Govern them and therefore by Scripture stands condemned and if it be so I am sure Episcopacy is involved in the same Condemnation for the Bishops are by their own Party accounted the only Pastors and the Inferiour Clergy are but their Curates and yet these Pastors have none to supervise them but are as Independent as can be there 's no Paul to govern these Timothies and Titus's and therefore their Churches are to use his own words plainly contrary to the Apostolical Pattern And Dr. Morrice has told us That it is not essential to a Bishop to have many Congregations under him Bishops may be Pastors of single Congregations yea they may not have one Presbyter under them Review p. 60. and yet be Bishops still for Milles the Martyr was a Bishop and yet had no Christian in his Diocese and yet I think there are few Pastors of our Congregational Churches but what have Presbyters under them so that Episcopacy and Independency may very well comport together for Episcopacy is Independent and may be Congregational and if the one be condemned by Scripture the other must fall with it He says It is an idle fancy to suppose that the Office of Timothy and Titus was itinerant for then says he they were out of their Office when they were at home the one in Ephesus and the other in Crete If by calling those places their Homes he would insinuate that they were their proper Diocesan Sees where they were to reside 't is a begging of the Question and every Body knows that's the way of Idle Persons it is as certain as our Bibles can make it that Timothy was only to abide at Ephesus for a Season till Paul's return out of Macedonia 1 Tim. 3.14 after which he accompanied Paul into Asia Chap. 4.13 from thence to Italy Heb. 13.23 thence Paul declares he would send him to Philippi Chap. 2.19 and we find him at Rome again Col. 1.1 And Titus was so far from being resident at Crete Gal. 2.1 3. 2 Cor. 2.12 7. 13. 12.8 2 Tim. 4.10 that he was commanded away to Nicopolis before Winter Chap. 3.12 he was sent to Corinth and Dalmatia and went up to Jerusalem with Paul and came to him during his Imprisonment at Rome These Removes our Gent. would have us to think were their Episcopal Visitations but that would
Churches We now come to the proof of an uninterrupted Succession and let us see whether this Gentleman can demonstrate it better than his Alderman it must be remembred that according to these men the Truth of their Church the Authority of their Ministry the Validity of their Sacraments and the Salvation of their Souls depend upon this Line and therefore it requires a proof suitable to the vast weight that is laid upon it and whether he has given us such evidence let the Reader judge He tells us As far as we have an account we find the Succession regular and we have no Reason to doubt of the like care in former Ages we rely upon the Providence of God and the Care and Integrity of our Ancestors and no man shall bereave us of our Confidence Confidence indeed in the highest degree but what if God has never promised such an unbroken line how can we think his Providence should be engaged to preserves it or where has he said it should be preserved in England and what if our Ancestours who were Idolatrous Papists had no integrity nor took no care of any thing but to flatter the Pope and enrich themselves and enslave the World a miserable Faith and Hope that depends upon the Care and Integrity of Apostate Antichristian Bishops and Churches What he says about the Vindicators descending from Adam as if it were as impossible for a Priest to come into a Bishoprick without Episcopal Consecration as for a Man to come into the World without ordinary Generation is so perfectly ludicrous that as I suppose it was only designed to make the Club merry so I shall leave it wholly to them But that which goes before must not be so soon dismist he pretends that we have as good Evidence of an uninterrupted Succession of Ministers Episcopally ordain'd as of pure and genuine Scriptures Vid. Review p. 44. and says he although we have not the Original Manuscripts to compare the One nor entire Fasti in the other Case yet unless any will produce matter of Fact to shew that we are deceived no man shall bereave us of our Confidence But this will satisfie no Body but those that are resolved to be Confident right or wrong for That we have true Scripture is a thing much more capable of Demonstration than that none of our Bishops have ever wanted Episcopal Ordination it is much more easie to impose an unordained Person upon a particular Church Nor could men lye under the same temptations to the one as to the other than a false Bible upon the whole World in the latter all the World would be equally concerned to discover and reject the imposture in the other a particular Diocess is only interested in the one they had a great number of Copies spread abroad by which they might compare and try any that was offered to them in the other they might have nothing but the Credentials or Certificates of Persons dead or living remote which might easily be forged and they not able to find it out And for the Authority of the Scriptures we do not depend upon the single Credit and care of the Antichristian Churches but of many others that have not been made so drunk with the Wine of her Fornication We have the Greek Armenian and African Churches to assure us of this great point but as to the continued Episcopal Ordination of our Bishops we solely depend upon the credit of a blind and deceitful Generation that have out-done all Mankind in deceiving the Nation and putting a thousand cheats upon the World In the matter and stile of the Scriptures themselves we have most excellent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Indications of their divine Original but no such inherent Mark or Character of Divinity is found upon the whole Line and Order of Episcopacy It was always accounted the most horrid Sin in the World to forge or adulterate the Scriptures but I have already proved in this Treatise that in Popish Ages the Power of Ordination was sometimes given to those that were no Bishops and though this was one of the incroachments which the Popes made upon the rights of Episcopacy as Dr. Sherlock tells us yet if they assumed such a power it is greatly to be suspected they did not fail to execute it Besides none ever pretended that the Salvation of mens Souls does absolutely depend upon having a compleat and entire Canon of Scripture but according to these men it does wholly lye upon an entire Line of Succession In these and many other Circumstances these two Cases vastly differ and he that has no more to say for the Authority of Scripture than this man has said for his Line would greatly betray the Honour of his Profession and he that would perswade the World that we have no better Evidences of the Truth of our Bibles than of such a Line does the worst Office imaginable to the Interests of Christianity and to use his own Words it is one of the slyest Libels upon Scripture that I have lately met with Here again the business of the Abbot of Hye falls in our way but having sisted it already I shall not make Repetitions This Gentleman would Salve and Patch up the Business by Suppositions Suppose the Succession of Bishops from that Abbot were extinct and true Bishops called in to Consecrate then the Line would be pieced again And yet all the Churches and Christians that lived under the Successors of that Abbot were damned by their Doctrine but what if they were not all extinct which is unreasonable to suppose and impossible to prove suppose that Line should reach to our times then all within it are Lay Impostors I think the Bishops ought to oblige these men that talk at this rate to demonstrate that the Line is Right or else Chastise them severely for making their Authority depend upon a Supposition impossible to be proved The Gentleman denies that the Church of Rome allows an Abbot Presbyter to Consecrate a Bishop and makes challenges and oppresses his Margin with Citations out of the Schoolmen and indeed to give him his due he has endeavoured all along by the redundancy of the Margin to make amends for the emptiness of the Page which looks like a shallow muddy stream hemm'd in with a flowry Bank on each side but who knows not that there is a manifest difference betwixt what the Court of Rome Practises and what the Schoolmen determine Bellarmine himself upon the Note of Succession confesses that the Pope may by particular Delegation impower Mytred Abbots though meer Presbyters to supply the place of two of the Bishops in the business of Consecration The Presbyters of Alexandria Consecrated their Patriarch for several Generations Cassianus tells us of a young man called Daniel Sum. Angelic Ord. Sect. 13. Filuc Jesu de Casibus Cons par 1. Tract 9. c. 5. Alens sum Theol. par 4. q. 9. m. 5. who lived amongst the Monks of Egypt
of the Land 3. That the Civil Powers have left us to our Liberty in the case of Conformity and therefore we are guilty of no Disobedience to them The first Position concerning the Identity of Power in Bishops and Presbyters has been often and warmly debated and we can scarce touch it so gently but it will be resented as an high affront it is accounted a Plea to their Jurisdiction which in all Courts has an ungrateful sound and must expect to be over-ruled if powerful Interest and loud Menaces can do it and yet it seems so clear in it self both from Scripture Fathers and Protestant Divines our own Reformers not excepted that were it not for the sake of the Silver Shrines we cannot suppose it would have been a Controversie at this day in any of the Reformed Churches For Scripture Proof the Point being Negative the Evidence that is but Negative must be allowed sufficient The Word of God no where asserts that Bishops are a Superior Order to Presbyters therefore they are not so by that Law Those that say they are must produce that Rule which makes them so If no such Rule appears the matter is fully concluded against them This being a Question concerning a very great Power extending to a great number of Persons and producing great Effects a matter of great distinction and dependencies ought to have clear and positive Warrant and Commission from the Word of God Meer Names and Titles Suppositions and fine Probabilities will not all make a Foundation strong enough to bear the weight of a Structure so high and towering as our English Prelacy It is far short of Demonstration to say the Bishops are the Apostles Successors and therefore a higher Order than Presbyters For if they mean that they have the same Power that the Apostles had and in the same degree it will distort their own Scheme of Government and will not only give them power over Presbyters but over Bishops too for such power the Apostles had and it will give every Bishop an Universal Power over all the Churches in the World If it be said they are only the Apostles Successors in some part of their power the answer is obvious so are Presbyters too and we must enquire in what parts and degrees of power do they succeed them And why do not Presbyters succeed them in the same powers And where shall we find any chapter or verse in our Bibles that thus divide the power and give some men the power of Doctrine and others that of Displine and Orders where is the discrimination We find it very plain in Dr. Cosins's Table â—ot so in those of the Apostles Nor is it any more to our satisfaction to say that Timothy and Titus were Bishops of Ephesus and Crete for the Question is not whether there were Bishops in Scripture times but whether those Bishops had any power that the Presbyters had not and if they had whether it belongs to them as Bishops or on some other account St. Peter was a Presbyter and had Authority over Bishops must we therefore argue that Presbyters had power over Bishops Timothy had Authority to command Bishops too and joined with Paul in Writing a Canonical Epistle to the Bishops and Deacons of Philippi will it therefore follow that one Bishop has Authority over another And what did Timothy and Titus that Presbyters might not do if they had the same qualifications They ordained Elders and how does it appear that they did not do it as being Elders themselves and that they had not the assistance of others And may not Presbyters do so too Perhaps it will be said no for they have not the Episcopal Power but that is the very thing in question and must be proved and not taken for granted if God has laid no injunction upon them to the contrary men cannot do it 'T is an odd way of reasoning Titus was left to ordain Elders in Crete therefore he was a Bishop for none but Bishops can Ordain how do you prove that Why because Titus was a Bishop and he alone did Ordain if this be not a Circular Precarious and Trifling way of arguing nothing in the World deserves that name But indeed the many removes which Timothy and Titus made is argument enough that they were not the fixed Pastors of particular Churches no question wherever they came they were employed in the same work which they did at Ephesus and why Titus by being sent into Dalmatia did not become the Bishop of the Churches there as well as by being lest in Creet the Bishop of the Cretians I see no reason he was sent to the one he was left in the other and doubtless in both his work was to set in order the things that were wanting and this was his business every where and would as well entitle him the Bishop of any other place as of Creet The argument from the Angels of the Churches is as dark and inconclusive as the former those messages sent to the Churches were delivered by Vision and in the style and phrase of Vision a singular term is often to be understood collectively as by the false Prophet A. B. Usher understands the Roman Clergy and there are many words in those Epistles that favour this Interpretation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and there is not one word in all that Book intimating that those Angels were single persons much less such as had any power above Presbyters And those that grant them to be single persons will tell us the most that can be inferr'd is a President or Moderator of a Presbytery which is allowed by those that are wholly dissatisfied with Diocesan Prelacy The Gentleman pas ses very lightly over all these difficulties and in a strain of carelessness and confidence natural to him tells us It is evident that the Government of the Church by Episcopacy was of Apostolical Institution for that Timothy was made Bishop of Ephesus and Titus of Creet as is plain by St. Pauls Epistles to them both that the seven Churches of Asia which received the Christian Faith had each a Bishop is evident by the Title St. John gives them in his Letters to them This is the Gentlemans proof of the Divine right of our English Prelacy this is that mighty evidence and demonstration he so often refers to in his Pamphlet saying I have proved I have shewed c. But if it was so plain from St. Pauls Epistles that Timothy and Titus were Bishops why did he not tell us what words those are which make it so very plain Indeed the Postscripts to those Epistles expresly call them Bishops of Ephesus and Creet but does he need to be told that the Postscripts are no part of Canonical Scripture nor joined with the Epistles for several hundred years after Christ Theodoret being the first that mentions them only as part of his own Commentary and yet he has not the word Bishop in them Nor any body else till
process of time their Reverence for these Bishops so encreased that they began to obey them as Children do a Father c. 2dly Not only the same Title but the same Powers are ascribed to Bishops and Presbyters in Scripture both that of Jurisdiction and that of Orders as they are usually distinguished As to the former we read of ruling Presbyters 1 Tim. 5.17 Let the Elders that Rule well be accounted worthy of double honour If this Rule be not the same with their Jurisdiction where lies the difference and where will they find as plain Scripture for the pretended Jurisdiction of Prelates as here we have for the ruling Power of Presbyters and that Admonition of the Apostle Peter is worthy our observation 1 Pet. 5.1 2 The Presbyters which are amongst you I exhort who am also a Presbyter and a witness of the Sufferings of Christ Feed the Flock of God which is amongst you taking the Oversight thereof c. The Spiritual Jurisdiction of Presbyters is here express'd by two words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Defenders of the Hierarchy contend does not signifie barely to Feed but to provide Food as the Governor of a Family and is often used for Government and sometimes that of Princes but however it certainly signifies the office of a Pastor and is a good Argument that the Pastoral Power is vested in Presbyters The other word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taking the oversight or the Episcopal Office doing the work of a Bishop if this will not prove that the Episcopal Jurisdiction belongs to Presbyters I despair of ever understanding the meaning of words The Power of Orders is with the same clearness attributed to Presbyters Timothy himself who they say was a Bishop receives his Office or Gift by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery To this the Gent. replies Dr. Hammond says that those Presbyters were Apostles but that is only the Doctors conjecture and yet if the Apostles were concerned in it it is plain they acted as Presbyters whether they were Apostles or Bishops or Evangelists they acted as a Presbytery I doubt not but if it had been said The Gift which thou receivedst by the laying on of the hands of the Episcopacy these Gentlemen would have presently concluded that Ordination belongs to Bishops as such and would have given us very hard words if we should have dared to dispute it Barnabas and Paul themselves who are called Apostles received their Ordination from Prophets and Teachers Acts 13.1 2 3. and it is observable before this neither of them were called Apostles but presently after they were Chap. 14. Vers 14. These things have so gravel'd the Learned Defenders of Diocesan Prelacy that they have not agreed amongst themselves how to find out a tolerable Evasion Dissert 4. Cap 19 20. Vind of Dissert p. 26. but their most famous Doctors have taken quite contrary Paths Dr. Hammond saw there was no way to come off but by holding that all the Presbyters we read of in Scripture were Bishops and that there was no inferior Order instituted by the Apostles but that presently after in Ignatius's time we meet with them Now this is as much as we desire for it fully proves that by Divine Right Bishops and Presbyters are the same and that the distinction was not founded upon any Scripture Rule but only an ancient Constitution I perceive many have learnt out of Dr. Hammond to evade all these instances of the Powers given to Presbyters in Scripture by saying Those were not meer Presbyters and when we ask them what they mean by meer Presbyters they answer such as were not also Bishops and we grant they were not meer Presbyters if that be the signification of it nor were there any such meer Presbyters in Scripture that we know of Dr. Stillingfleet on the other hand says Vnreason of Separ p. 269. That the Apostles in their times managed the Government of the Churches themselves and therefore there was then no Bishop but they were all one with Presbyters but that as the Apostles went off Bishops came to be settled in the several Churches Now though it is most certain the Apostles did not manage the Government of particular Churches themselves but put it into the hands of the Presbyters they themselves still holding an Universal Superintendency yet we gladly accept the Concession of this learned Prelate 't is indeed à regione adverse to Dr. Hammond but will equally serve our purpose the one says there were no Presbyters in Scripture times inferior to Bishops the other there were no Bishops superior to Presbyters Our conclusion flows alike naturally and freely from both that in Scripture times Bishops and Presbyters were of the same Order 3dly We have no Rules laid down in Scripture for the Ordination of any Bishops but what are the same with Presbyters in 1 Tim. 3. we have the Qualifications of Bishops and Deacons described and no mention made of Presbyters because they were the same with the Bishops and unless we acknowledge that we shall be utterly at a loss for a Reason of that Omission and there are few Commentators but understand it so The learned Grotius upon this place says the Presbyters of the Churches are here called Bishops or Inspectors but that afterward that Name was given 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to one of them that was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 President Titus who was left in Creet to ordain Elders has a Canon given him about the Qualifications of those Elders Ch. 1. v. 5,6 and as a reason it is added For a Bishop must be blameless this would have been no reason had not the Elder and Bishop been the same A late Author thought this so considerable that he puts a new sence upon the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordain Elders in every City as if the meaning were advance Presbyters in every City to the Office of Bishops but this is a stretch upon the word which it cannot bear 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 plainly signifies to constitute and ordain and when the Persons are mentioned it is in the capacity to which they are ordain'd not from which they were advanced as Aristot in Polit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the instauration of Princes and Plutarch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Accusative Case if alone always representing the State unto which the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had raised them nor do I believe any one instance can be given to the contrary in either Sacred or Prophane Writer Now if this distinction of Order had been known in Apostolical times it is very strange we should not have a distinct Rule for the Ordination of the one and the Consecration of the other especially since by the acknowledgment of all it is not having many Congregations or Presbyters under him that makes a Bishop but only a peculiar and higher Ordination And yet we find no footsteps of it but on the contrary in the very Directory for Ordination
of Presbyters they are called Bishops Surely these things are as clear proof that Bishops were not a Superior Order as a Negative is capable of and there being no one Text in Scripture that affirms the distinction Semper praesumitur pro negante we must have concluded in the Negative though we had not had these proofs But what is wanting in Scripture they hope to make up out of the Fathers and Councils in behalf of Diocesan Prelacy it is certain they think their greatest strength lies there And we deny not that many of the Fathers seem to make a great difference betwixt Bishops and Presbyters but this does not overthrow our Hypothesis for if they are the same in Scripture the Sayings of the Fathers cannot make them otherwise and yet few or none of the Ancients say that they are distinct Orders much less that they are so by divine right but some of them acknowledge the contrary as we shall presently shew It is not therefore their using the Name of Bishop in a sence distinct from that of Presbyter or requiring Presbyters to be obedient to their Bishop that will prove a superiority of order jure divino for we grant that it was the early Practice of the Church to choose one of the Gravest and Wisest of the Presbyters and constitute him President over the rest and that where there were many Presbyters in a particular Church commonly the Eldest or worthiest was as Pastor and the other his Assistants but still we know the Parson and the Curates are of the same order and every Bishop in England is equal in order to the Archbishop of Canterbury though they take an Oath of Canonical Obedience to him the same we say of the distinction betwixt Bishop and Presbyter in Primitive Times This would be a sufficient reply unto the Antiquities this Gentleman has alledged but lest he should think he has done a mighty feat in transcribing these Passages I shall animadvert more particularly upon them He begins with the Canons of the Apostles but why they should take place of Clemens Romanus and Ignatius I cannot tell unless he has a Mind to cheat us with the Name or was cheated by it himself Dr. Cave reckons them among the Supposititious Works of the First Age and Dr. Beveridge who has laboured so hard to defend them against Daille only contends that they were written by Clemens Alexandrinus near the latter End of the Second Century But what say these Canons why they say Let not the Presbyters or Deacons do any thing without the consent of the Bishop for he hath the People of the Lord entrusted to him and there shall one day be required of him an Account of their Souls Here says the Gentleman the Bishop has the Power of governing the Presbyters and Deacons Concil Carth. c. 23. Cypr. Edit Goul. Ep. 6. p. 17. Ep. 24. p. 55. it is well argued however the Kings of England can make no Laws without the consent of the Lords and Commons have they therefore the power of governing him Cyprian did nothing without the concurrence of his Presbyters nay he determined to do nothing without the consent of his People by our Gentleman's dialect the Presbyters and People had the Power of governing the Bishop And is there one word here to prove that the Bishop was of a Superior Order The Curates of a Church are to have the direction and consent of the Parson and yet the Order is the same And it deserves to be considered whether 't is likely this Bishop the Canon speaks of was any more than the Pastor of a particular Church since he must be supposed capable of giving the Necessary Orders for management of all Affairs and nothing must be done without his consent it would be a Rule hard to be observed as our present Dioceses are Modell'd and if Presbyters must do nothing without the Bishops consent they must do nothing at all the whole time being too little for Travel and Consultation there would be none left for Action unless by consent we must understand a general Permission to do what they please without consulting him at all in particular Matters which would be a very odd Comment upon such a Text and not very well agreeing with the Reason that is added for this consent viz. That the Bishop has the People of the Lord committed to him and shall give an account of their Souls Surtly this requires a more careful and near inspection than to commit the care of all by an Act of general consent to others without ever intending a personal Acquaintance with one of a Thousand Pres Treat of Repentance so solemnly committed to him Dr. Taylor says he is sure we cannot give an Account of those Souls of whom we have no notice The next passage is out of Clemens Romanus his Epistle to the Corinthians a Piece of Antiquity which all the World has a great Veneration for that which the Gentleman thinks is for his purpose he gives us thus The Apostles foreseeing that there would be Contentions about the Name or Dignity of Bishop or Episcopacy they set down a List or Continuation of Successors that when any died such a certain person should succeed him But this place in Clement is very falsly recited and whoever furnished him with it abused him and imposed upon his Ignorance This Translator whoever he be would have us to think that the Apostles set down a List of the Names of those that were to Succeed in the Episcopal See this we cannot admit until he tell us where this List is to be found how far it went It seems it was a Continuation of Successors but it is hard to imagine how they could have the Names of Persons so ready that were yet unborn and unconverted we know an Infallible Spirit could reveal it to them but surely then we should have had it in the Canon of Scripture such a thing would have been of singular Use not only for prevention of Disputes about the choice of Bishops but for the Uncontroulable Evidence of the Truth of Christianity when they were able to produce a Prophetical List with the Names of Persons then unborn and yet all in due time appearing and ascending the Chair according to that Sacred Roll for these Reasons we cannot but reject the Fiction of any such List of Names which when one died declared that such a certain Person should succeed him And I am sure the words of Clement say no such thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Edit Colomes 103. the true English of them is this And our Apostles understood by our Lord Jesus that contention would arise about the Name of Episcopacy and for this Cause being furnished with perfect foreknowledge ordained those before-mentioned and moreover gave 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 order that whensoever they should die other approved Men should succeed and perform their Functions I know there have been great Disputes about this odd word 〈◊〉
Cause cannot stand without it for as the first variation from Apostolical Practice was the setting up of one above the rest of the Presbyters in a particular Church and calling him Bishop so the next was the keeping of new Congregations in dependancy upon that which was the first Church and though I will not say such dependances are in all Cases unlawful yet they are ordinarily dangerous and can never be proved necessary God has no where tied up a new formed Congregation from endeavouring to have a Bishop and Altar of their own and if this cannot be had with the good Will and Consent of that Elder Church and Bishop who had been instrumental in the Conversion of this new Colony they may no doubt do it without them if general Edification require it Thus I have briefly examined our Gentlemans Antiquities what Advantage he or his Cause has received by them he has now leisure to consider Let us see whether the Primitive Fathers are no more favourable to us than they have been to him And I would lay down this as a just remark upon these proofs out of Antiquity That one Passage which expresly tells us what kind of Superiority Bishops had in Primitive times over Presbyters and how they came by it is of more value in this Controversie than a score that barely mention that Superiority the one speaks directly to the Question the other not we acknowledge those whom the Fathers call Bishops had some kind of Superiority over those called Presbyters and it is a vain thing for Persons to sweat and toil in proving that which we never deny but will grant them at the first demand but the Controversie turning upon this very hinge whether it was a Superiority of Order by Divine Institution those Ancients that speak purposely to this Point are the most proper Evidences in this cause St. Hierom speaks as directly to the Question as 't is possible for one to do he positively asserts and largely proves that Bishops and Presbyters are the same Ad Evagrium Manifestissime comprobatur eundem esse Episcopum Presbyterum and citeth for that purpose Acts 20.28 Phil. 1.1 Tit. 1.5 6 7. And divers other Texts of Scripture and in his Commentary on Ist of Titus affirms Idem ergo Presbyter qui Episcopus c. and tells us that at first the Churches were governed by the common consent of the Presbyters and that the Distinction betwixt Presbyter and Bishop was Magis consuetudine quà m dispositionis Dominicae veritate rather by Custom than Divine Appointment in another place he ascribes to Presbyters the Power of the Keys Ep. ad Heliodorum p. 283. and is so full and express that some of the Papists accuse him of Error herein others labour hard but in vain to invalidate his evidence by pretending that this Praelation of Bishops above Presbyters was a thing done by Apostolical Appointment because Jerom says it was found out as a remedy against Schism when men began to say I am of Paul and I of Apollo which was in the Apostles times but to this it has been often replyed St. Jerom does not speak of that particular Schism of the Corinthians but of others which arose about Contests of the like Nature and that he does not intend that individual Case of the Church of Corinth is most certain For 1. The Schisms he speaks of were occasioned by their differences about those Presbyters that had governed them by common Consent but that of the Corinthians was about the Apostles it cannot be supposed that by the common Council of Presbyters Jerom should mean Paul Apollo and Cephas governing in Common the Church of Corinth 2. This Schism Jerom speaks of was too much promoted by the Presbyters themselves Postquam vero unusquisque eos quos baptizaverat suos esse putabat non Christi c. He does not date this Distinction of Order from the time that the People only contended about their Ministers but when the Ministers also influenced those Contentions and made themselves the Heads of Parties accounting those their own who had been baptized by them now this was not the Corinthian case for there the Apostle was so far from encouraging those sidings that he expresly condemns them 3. The Schism he speaks of was remedied by choosing one of those Presbyters they contended about and setting him over the rest and committing the whole care of the Church to him but I hope none will say that Paul was set above Cephas or he above Paul or Apollo above them both to heal the Corinthians Schism and therefore the rise of Prelacy is not to be dated from that very Schism but from others that afterwards happened in the Churches And it has been observed by a very learned Doctor That the Arguments which St. Jerom brings for this Parity Dr. Stilling Irenic p. 279. are grounded upon those parts of Scripture which were writ after this Corinthian Schism and says he can we think Jerom had so little sence as to say that Episcopacy was instituted upon that Schism and yet bring all his Arguments for Parity after the time that he sets for the Institution of Episcopacy St. Ambrose or rather Hilary Non per omnia conviniunt scripta Apostoli ordinat in Ephes 4. Prospiciente Concilio ut non ordo sed meritum crearet Episcopum multerum sacerd judicio constiti Ibid affirms that the Ordination that was in the Church in his day did not exactly agree with the writings of the Apostles and afterward shews how the difference betwixt a Bishop and Presbyter arose by a meer Act of the Church choosing One that was most worthy and setting him over the Rest but that in the beginning there were no particular Rectors of Churches constituted and therefore all things were managed by the Convention of Presbyters Comment in 1 Cor. 11. These Commentaries are cited by St. Augustine and greatly commended Clemens Alexandrinus Stromat l. 7. tells us that the Discipline of the Church is Penes Presbyteros in the Power of the Presbyters St. Augustine gives us a plain account of the difference betwixt Bishops and Presbyters Secundum honorum Vocabula quae jam Ecclesiae usus obtinuit Episcopatus Presbyterio major est he does not pretend that it was by Divine right but by the Custom of the Church nor in any real act of Power but only in an honourary Title that Episcopacy is Superiour to Presbytery Medinas de sacr Hom. Orig l. 1. c. 5. Consult Art 14. p. 952. Chrys Hom. 11. And this matter is so evident that the most learned Papists acknowledge it was the opinion of most of the Fathers Cassander is positive in it Convenit inter omnes olim Apostolorum aetate nullum discrimen c. To this some Object that both Jerom and Chrysostome notwithstanding all they say for the Identity of these Offices do still except Ordination as that which is peculiar to the Bishop but the illustrious Chamier
as the common Sentiments of the Churches of Helvetia Savoy France Scotland Germany Hungary and the Low Countries that Bishops and Presbyters are by Divine Institution the same and though some of those Churches admit a kind of Episcopacy yet they never pretend a Jus Divinum for it but acknowledge it to be only a Prudential Constitution but I know the Humor of some Men has led them to despise the Reformed Churches and to condemn and unchurch them too I shall therefore more distinctly shew what has been the Judgment of our Learned Country Men concerning this Question Caelius Sedulius Scotus who flourished about the year of our Lord 390 falls in with the opinion and the very words of Jerom Expos Tit. cap. 1. and citing Acts 20.17 bids us observe how the Apostle calling the Elders of but one City Ephesus Fuisse Presbyt quos Episc doth afterwards stile them Bishops which thing says he I have alledged to shew that among the Antients Presbyters were the same with Bishops Venerable Bede speaking of these things Alcuine de div Offic. cap. 35. says Conjunctus est gradus in Multis pene Similis in Acta Apost cap. 20. Tom. 5. Col. 657. Anselme Arch-Bishop of Canterbury above 600 years ago a man so Learned that for his Confutation of the Greeks in the Council of Bari in Apuleia he was dignified to sit at the Popes right Foot is wholly with us in this Point Constat ergo Apostolica institutione omnes Presbyteros esse Episcopos Enarr in Ep. ad Philip. and speaks in the Words of Jerom Sciant Episcopi se magis consuetudine c. And before him the Canons of Aelfrick Anno 990. speaking of Bishops and Presbyters say Spelman Concil Tom. 1. p. 570. Unum tenent eundemque Ordinem Rich. Armachanus a Learned Prelate de Questionibus Armenorum cap. 2. affirms that the Degrees of Patriarch Arch-Bishop and Bishop were invented by the Devotion of Men not instituted by Christ and that no Prelate how great soever hath any greater Degree of the Power of Order than a simple Presbyter and in the 4th Chap. he proves by Acts 7.14 1 Tim. 4. That the Power of Confirmation and Imposition of Hands belongs to the Jurisdiction of the Presbyter and declares that Presbyters succeed the Apostles and makes all the distinction betwixt Bishop and Presbyter to be this he that hath a Cure is a Bishop he that hath not is a Presbyter which agrees with Dr. Of the Church l. 15. c. 27. Fields Notion of Episcopal Jurisdiction and also with that of the Impartial Enquirer into the Government of the Primitive Church before mentioned Come we now to our Reformers John Wickliffe called by Mr. Fox the English Apostle speaks thus Some multiply the Characters in Orders but one thing I confidently averr that in the Primitive Church in Pauls time two Orders sufficed the Presbyter and the Deacon then was not invented the distinction of Pope and Cardinals Patriarchs and arch-Arch-Bishops Bishops Arch-Deacons Officials and Deans with other Officers of which there is neither Number nor Order that every one of these is an Order and that in the receiving thereof there is a Character imprinted as ours Babble it seems good to me to be silent because they prove not what they affirm it is sufficient to me if there be Presbyters and Deacons keeping the State and Office that Christ hath imposed upon them Quia certum videtur quod superbia Cesarea hos gradus ordines adinvenit because it seems certain to me that Imperious Pride hath invented these other Orders and Degrees In the Year 1537. The Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and York and the rest of the Bishops and Clergy in Convocation whose Names are all subscribed to their Book intituled The Institution of a Christian Man Dedicated to the King and ratified by the Statute of 32. Hen 8. thus determine The Truth is that in the New Testament there is no mention made of any degrees or distinctions in Orders but only of Deacons or Ministers and of Priests or Bishops and of these two Orders that is to say Priests and Deacons Scripture maketh express mention c. The Judgment of Arch-Bishop Cranmer as Dr. Stillingfleet reports it ex ipso Autographo was that Bishops and Priests were at one time and were not two things but both one Office in the beginning of Christs Religion Irenic p. 392. That Godly Martyr Mr. Bradford in his Conference with Dr. Harpsfield averrs Acts and Monuments Vol. 3. p. 293. that the Scripture knows no difference betwixt Bishops and Ministers that is Priests and when Harpsfield asked him Were not the Apostle Bishops answered no unless you 'll give a new Definition of a Bishop that is give him no certain place Thomas Beacon a Prebendary of Canterbury and Refugee for Religion in Queen Maries Reign in his Catechism Printed at London and Dedicated to both Arch-Bishops puts the Question What difference is there between a Bishop and a Presbyter And Answers None at all their Office is the same their Authority and Power is One therefore St. Paul calls Ministers sometimes Bishops sometimes Presbyters sometimes Pastors sometimes Doctors Dr. Bridges Dean of Salisbury afterward Bishop of Oxford P. 359 360. in his Book called The Supremacy of Christian Princes endeavours to clear Aerius from the charge of Heresie in this matter and thus replies upon Stapleton Jerome who lived in the same Age with Epiphanius will tell you or if you have not read him your own Canons will tell you Idem est ergo Presbyter qui Episcopus antequam Diaboli Studia c. This was the Judgement of the Antient Fathers and yet they were no Arians nor Aerians therefore and then cites Lombard and Durandus and thus summs up the whole That in Substance Order or Character as they call it there is no difference between a Priest and a Bishop That the difference is but of accidents and circumstances That in the Primitive times this difference was not known c. Dr. Jewel Defence of the Apology Part. 2. C. 9. Divis I. That most excellent Bishop of Salisbury brings in Mr. Harding alledging that they which denied the distinction of a Bishop and Priest were condemned of Heresie as we find in Sr. Austixe and Epiphanius and the Council of Constance to which he answers in the Margent Untruth for hereby both St. Paul and St. Jerome and other good men are condemned of Heresie and afterwards says farther Is it so horrible an Heresie as he maketh it to say that by the Scriptures a Bishop and Priest are all one Or knoweth he how far or to whom he reacheth the name of a Heretick Verily Chrysostome saith between a Bishop and a Priest in a manner there is no difference St. Jerome saith somewhat in rougher sort I hear say there is one become so peevish that he setteth Deacons before Priests that is before Bishops whereas the Apostle plainly teacheth us
Presbyters are equally sharers but besides this the Church claimeth a power of jurisdiction of making Rules for Discipline and applying and executing the same all which indeed is suitable to the common Laws of Socleties and the General Rules of Scripture but hath no positive warrant from any Scripture Precept Therefore as to the management of this Jurisdiction it is in the Churches power to cast it into what mould she will c. I believe I shall rather be censured for having said too much than not enough upon this Subject yet I will venture so much farther upon the Readers Patience who cannot be wearier of reading than I am of transcribing as to conclude this Chapter with the suffrages of three Famous Divines of the Gallican Churches that have all writ in our Day Let the learned le Blanc Thes Sedan de Grad distinc Minist p. 501. be first heard thus Quod spectat vero Discrimen Presbyteri Episcopi c. But as to the difference betwixt Bishop and Presbyter for as much as the Church of England is Governed by Bishops it is the more general opinion of the English that Episcopacy and Presbytery are distinct offices instituted by Christ with distinct powers but the rest of the Reformed as also they of the Augustane Confession do unanimously believe that there is no such distinction by Divine Right but that as the names in Scripture are synonymous and put for each other indifferently so the thing is wholly the same and that the superiority of Bishops above Presbyters which has now for many Ages obtained in the Church is onely of Positive and Ecclesiastical Right and has been introduced thereinto by degrees That even in the Apostles days a certain precedency of honour and place was given unto him who did excell his Colleagues either in Age or in the time of his Ordination so that he was as President or Moderator of the Presbytery and yet look'd upon as altogether of the same office and had no power or jurisdiction over his Colleagues and this Person did always perform those things which the Presidents or Moderators of our Synods now perform But in the following Age it so fell out that this Primacy was not conferr'd according to the Persons Age or time of entrance but a custom was introduced that one of the Presbyters should be chosen by the Votes of the whole Colledge who should continually preside after the same manner over the Presbytery and these after a while assumed to themselves the name of Bishops and by degrees gained more and more Prerogatives and brought their Colleagues into subjection to them till at length the matter grew up to that Tyranny which now obtains in the Church of Rome Moreover though all reformed Divines excepting those of the Church of England condemn that supream power which among the Papists Bishops usurp over Presbyters as Tyrannical and think that by the Law of God there is no distinction betwixt Bishop and Presbyter yet is there some dispute amongst them whether it be not expedient by Positive and Ecclesiastick riâ—â—â— to appoint some degrees amongst the Ministers of the Gospel by which some may be set above others provided such moderation be observed as that it may not degenerate into Tyranny the French and Dutch Churches and not a few in England it self think it dangerous and not sufficiently agreeable to the Laws of Christ to admit any such thing but the Judgment and Practice of the Churches in Germany and Poland is otherwise they have certain Bishops which they call Superintendents that preside in such certain districts over the rest of the Pastors with some Authority and Power but much short of that which the Popish Bishops claim The second I shall mention is Monsieur Jurieu Pastoral Letters let 14. who having spoken concerning the Monastick Life and Oecumenick Councils as two great Novelties which had very unhappy effects he adds Behold a third of them 't is the Original of the Hierarchy which hath given birth to the Antichristian Tyranny hereby is understood that subordination of Pastors which hath been seen in the Church for 1000 or 1200 years in this subordination are seen the lowest Orders in the lowest seats above these are seen the Priests above the Priests are the grand Vicars above the Grand Vicars are the Bishops above the Bishops are the Archbishops or Metropolitans above the Arch-bishops are the Primates above the Primates are the Exarchs above the Exarchs are the Patriarchs above all these appears a head which was insensibly framed and placed there this is that which is called the Pope All this is a new invention with respect to the Apostles who left in all the Churches Presbyters or Bishops to Preach the Word and Administer the Sacraments But the Bishop and Presbyter were not distinguished those which St. Paul calls Bishops he calls Presbyters in the the same place this is matter of fact which our Adversaries cannot deny Then he proceeds to tell us how this distinction was made and the account thereof agreeing very much of that of Le Blanc I shall not transcribe it The last I shall take notice of is the Renowned Monsieur Claude whose Name will be great in all the Churches as long as Piety and Learning have any esteem among Men his words are these As for those who are ordained by meer Presbyters can the Author of the Prejudices be ignorant Historical Defence of the Reform Part. 4. p. 95. that the distinction of Bishop and Priest as if they were two different offices is not only a thing they cannot prove out of Scripture but that which even contradicts the express words of Scripture where Bishop and Presbyter are names of one and the same office from whence it follows that Presbyters having by their first Institution a a rite to confer Ordination that Rite cannot be taken away from them by meer humane Rules can the author of the Prejudices be ignorant that St. Jerome Hilary and after them Hincmar wrote formerly concerning the Unity or as they speak the Identity of a Priest and Bishop in the beginning of the Church and about the first rise of that distinction which was afterwards made of them into different offices can he be ignorant that St. Austin himself writing to Jerome refers that distinction not to the first institution of the Ministry P. 97. but meerly to an Ecclesiastical use And elsewhere And to speak my thoughts freely it seems to me that this confident opinion of the absolute necessity of Episcopacy that goes so high as to own no Church or Call or Ministry or Sacraments or Salvation in the World where there are no Episcopal Ordinations although there should be the true Doctrine the true Faith and Piety there and which would make all Religion depend upon a formality and on such a formality as we have shewn to be of no other than Humane Institution that opinion I say cannot be lookt on otherwise than as
not spoken in any such Humour Men of Tender Consciences though under a mistake will conciliate veneration from others The worst I wish them is that God would shew them the evil of their former impositions upon the Consciences of their poor despised Brethren But that which induces me to mention it is I find the Defenders of the Hierarchy confidently assert that there can be but one Bishop in one Church at the same time therefore if the former be not divested of their power I see not how the present Incumbents can have any by their own Rule and so their Ordinations would be Null if the others be still valid The present Bishop of Worcester in his debate with Mr. Clarkson says it was the Inviolable Rule of the Church to have but one Bishop in a City and Church at once and Dr. Morrice labours hard to conquer Mr. Clarksons objection against it which was Def. of the Ans to Dr. St. p. 19. That Alexander was made Bishop of Jerusalem whilst Narcissus lived He says Narcissus took Alexander into the participation of the charge but foreseeing that Mr. C. would reply then here were two Bishops jointly governing one Church contrary to Dr. St's inviolable Rule he adds Alexander was the Bishop Narcissus retained but the Name and Title onely that is was but a Titular not a real Bishop and it seems that was his part of the Charge to have onely the Title and no Charge at all Now whether T.W. thinks the late Bishops are the Titular and the present the Real or on the contrary we will not oblige him to declare onely we guess at his Sentiments by his calling the Late Arch-Bishop the Ruler of Gods People above half a year after he was deprived Perhaps this Gentleman will satisfie himself with saying the late Prelates have the power still but are restrained from the exercise of it But that would be to confront the Act of Parliament which says expressly they are deprived of their Office and distinguishes betwixt being suspended from the exercise of their Office and being deprived of the Office it self if they did not take the Oaths before the first of August 1689. Primo Guliel Mariae they were suspended from the Execution of their Office for six Months and if then they still refused They shall be ipso facto deprived and are hereby judged to be deprived of their Offices Benefices Dignities and Promotions Ecclesiastical What is it then that the Civil Magistrate may not do in the making of an English Prelate I know it will be said he cannot consecrate him and it is the Consecration that gives the Episcopal power but to this I have two things to return 1. According to their own Practice Episcopal Jurisdiction is exercised by persons never so consecrated as by Presbyters and Lay-Chancellors in the cases before mentioned and they have Authority given them to exercise that Jurisdiction and that not by Deputation from the Bishop but by Legal Constitution and what is the Office of a Bishop but Authority to do the work of a Bishop 2. Since the whole Being of Episcopal power is founded upon their Consecration it is very reasonable to demand from them a plain Rule in Scripture for this Consecration of Bishops as distinct from the Ordination of Presbyters If they chuse this Foot to fix their Divine Right upon it is necessary a clear Scripture Canon should be produced for it but it is most certain they may turn over all the Leaves of their Bible all the Days of their Life before they can find any such thing And as the Scripture is altogether silent as to the difference betwixt the Ordination of a Presbyter and Consecration of a Bishop 1 Tit. nay in the Rule for Ordination makes them the same so this Ceremony of Consecration has not been at all times and all cases thought necessary Repertor Canon p. 49. or practised in the making of Bishops Godolphin tells us that antiently according to the Canon Law and where the Popes Spiritual Power and Authority was in force Bishops were not so much by Election as Postulation Sum. Rosel postulat tit si ques Pan. 2. p. 106. and in that case the Elected was a Bishop presently without Confirmation or Consecration onely by the assent of the Superiour And I have recited already the judgment of Mr. Dodwell that every particular Church had a Power to invest its Bishop and that the calling in the assistance of other Bishops was not for want of a right in themselves to do it I hope these Gentlemen will be more cautious how they lay the whole weight of Episcopal Authority upon Consecration which it seems might sometimes be omitted lest thereby they break their Line and the neck of their cause together Upon the whole matter I think it is clear enough that the English Prelaty is a meer Creature of the Civil Magistrate who may make every Parson of a Parish a Bishop if he pleases their whole power as distinct from Presbyters being founded upon the Laws of the Land by the Statute 25 Hen. VIII 19. it is declared That none of the Clergy shall from thenceforth presume to attempt alleadge claim or put in ure any Constitutions or Ordinances Provincial or any other Canons Nor shall Enact Promulge or Execute any such Canons Constitutions or Ordinances Provincial by whatsoever name or names they shall be called in their Convocations in time coming which shall always be assembled by the Authority of the Kings Writt unless the same Clergy may have the Kings most Royal Assent so to do upon pain of being Fined and Imprisoned at the King's will I need not say how severely the Canons of 40 were damned by the House of Commons where it was resolved That the Clergy in a Synod or Convocation Supplement oâ— Bakers Chron. p. 476. hath no power to make Canons Constitutions or Laws Ecclesiastical to bind either Laity or Clergy without a Parliament and that the Canons are against the Fundamental Laws of this Realm against the King's Prerogative Property of the Subjects Rights of Parliament and tend to Faction and Sedition And the Act of Uniformity has not left the Bishops power to add or change one Ceremony without the Consent of Parliament 4. Lastly We plead that the Civil Power has now left us to our Liberty in the case of Conformity and therefore we are not guilty of Disobedience to Authority in what we do I know it will presently be replied That the Act of Liberty only frees Dissenters from the Penalty of the Law not from the Precept of it and there is a sharp thing written it seems by Mr. Norris to prove that the only Change made by the Toleration as he calls it is that the Penal part of the Law is for the present laid aside Charge of Schism continued as for the Preceptive part that stands where it did and obliges under sin though not under Civil Penalty
about the Year 420. first made Deacon and afterward Priest by his Abbot Paphnutius who was but a Presbyter and all the Schoolmen are not on the Gentlemans side for some of them say that Presbyters by the Popes Dispensation may without the concurrence of a Bishop ordain Deacons He Points at some Canons that forbid Presbyters to Ordain and say every Bishop must be Ordained by three Bishops at least but he that argues from their Canons to their Practice is a meer Sophister as appears by the Concession of Bellarmine just now mentioned and he may as well say no Bishop ever obtained the Promotion Con. Carth. 4. c. 23. by Simony or never Ordiained without his Presbyters for there are Canons against these things as well as the former and he may proceed and say that no Bishops were ever Ignorant Drunken Tit. 1.7 8. Unclean or Quarrelsome because by very Authentick Canons such are declared uncapable of the Office His forty seventh and three following Pages are all built upon a mistake which this Gentleman as well as T. W. fell into I know not how as if the Vindicator ever denied the Validity of the Ordination of Schismaticks whereas he only argues from his Adversaries Assertion that by Schism Men and Societies are utterly cut off from the Catholick Church and have no place nor Interest therein and then I am sure it will follow that they cannot be the Subjects of Apostolical Power which can never be found out of the Visible Church I hope it has been sufficiently proved in this Treatise that this is the just Conclusion from such premises and to talk of a remaining Character that includes the Power of Ordination in those that are utterly cut off from the Church is perfect gibberish and if this Gentleman thinks fit to answer what has been already said to it we shall willingly discourse him further about it In the fiftieth Page he speaks like himself We believe with St. Jerom that the Power of Ordination belongs only to the Bishop and your Ordinations made by Presbyters are void and null and we take you for no more but Lay Intruders We are not much concerned what this Gentleman believes of us nor what he takes us for but he should have been just to St. Jerom though he may think 't is no matter whether he be so to us or no it would be very strange if St. Jerom should say any such thing as he pretends and we should have been glad to have seen the Passage cited if he refers to that Quid enim facit Episcopus excepta Ordinatione quod non facit Presbyter that has been sufficiently explained in these Papers already to intend not any distinct Power that Bishops had by the Law of God but what the Custom and Practice of the Churches at that time had reserved unto them He tells us Review p. 50 51. of some nice Enquiries that have been made into our Mission and that they suspect many of our first Apostles from whom we derive our Orders were never Ordained and supposes the Vindicator had not met with this Observation And it may be he has not and therefore 't is ten to One but it is false for if it were true the Dissenters were much more like to know it than such as he with all his nice Enquiries and Suspicions He wonders the Vindicator should lose so many pages against this Line of Succession which if it would do no good would certainly do no harm Ay but it would do the greatest harm in the World to the Interest of the Church and Christianity to make the Salvation of men depend upon such a Line and that 's the Notion the Vindicator spends some pages upon and he cannot do a better Office to the Church or Protestant Religion than to expose it and if that be not done effectually already by my Consent either he or some Body else shall spend as many pages more upon it We come now to the Vindicators account of Ordination viz. That it is a publick Approbation of Ministerial Abilities by competent Judges This says the Gentleman is such a way of making Clergy men as never was heard of before will a publick Aprobation of a mans Abilities invest him in his Office will a Testimonial from the Inns of Court make a man a Judge without a Commission from the King Now here he confounds Commission and Investiture together as if they were the same thing which 't is certain they are not The Commission always goes before the Investiture and 't is that which gives the Power and the Investiture is only necessary to the regular Exercise of that Power which is given by the Commission If this Gentleman would have the World believe that it is the Bishops that give a Minister his Commission and Ministerial Power as the King gives the Judge his Authority he sets up Episcopacy in the Throne of Christ and is condemned by the Reformed Churches it is Christ alone who grants the Commission in the great Charter of the Gospel wherein he has declared that he will have a standing Ministry and tells us what the Ministerial Qualifications are and has promised to work them by his Spirit in Men in Order thereunto all the Ordainers do is designare personam to Point out the Person that has those Qualifications and this publick Designation with the mans own Dedication of himself to the Work is the Investiture and sets the man apart to the regular Exercise of that Power which Christ by his Charter without and those Qualifications within has given unto him The Case is something like to that of making a Person Mayor of a Corporation the People or Burgesses have the Power of choosing and the Recorder or Steward the Power of Swearing him and yet none of these confer the Authority but only design the Person who receives his Power from the Prince alone by the Charter of the place as his Instrument It is the great command of God to his Church that the Gospel be Preached Religion Propagated Churches Gathered and Governed and Sacraments Administred He has not named the Persons that are to do this but he has described them by their Qualifications and Persons so qualified if they find also a promptitude to undertake the Work which I suppose is that which the Church of England means when she enquires of the Candidates whether they be moved by the Holy Ghost to undertake that Office are to seek for a regular Investiture and the Ordainers are commanded to invest them by a solemn Approbation that is declaring that they find in them those Qualifications by which the Gospel describes a true Minister of Christ We grant that this Investiture is most regularly performed by the Ministers and should not ordinarily be without them which seems to be grounded on this Reason for all Gods commands are highly rational the Ministers are ordinarily to be thought the most competent Judges but as the Investiture it self is not
where we live in its Holy Devotions and so do Dissenters join with the Churches where they live which are as true Churches and their Devotions as Holy as if they were more large and splendid for any thing that yet appears to the contrary In the 60th Page he acknowledges that to have the Government of many Congregations is not essential to a Bishop nor to have Presbyters under him for Milles the Martyr had no Christian in his Diocess But it is Ordination that makes a Bishop If therefore our Ministers have all the Ordination that is necessary to a Bishop by the Word of God they are Bishops though they be but Pastors of single Congregations and now if this Gentleman cannot prove by plain Scripture that a Bishop must have a distinct Ordination from that of a Presbyter Ambrose in 1 Tim 3. Episcopi Presbyteri una Ordinatio est uterque enim est sacerdos to advance him into a Superior Office he has lost the Cause and here we hold it and expect plain and direct evidence to this very point when ever the Reviewing humour returns upon him And if the Pastors of single Congregations have all that is essential to Bishops then our Diocesans are a new Species of Bishops which St. Cyprian disowned in his Prefatory speech to the Council of Carthage And indeed it is liable to very just prejudices for when Bishops have taken away from the Pastors of Particular Churches these Rights and Powers which God hath given them and engrossed all to themselves and their Diocess is become too large for their Personal Inspection and Administration they are forced to set up Officers of humane institution to exercise those powers under them which they have ravished from Gospel Ministers that by numerous Dependencies and large Revenues they may gain that pre-eminence which some Men began betimes to contend for See Mr. Baxters treatise of Episcopacy never yet answered There is nothing more plainly shews these Mens contempt of Antiquity when it speaks not on their side than denying the Peoples power of Election Rational Defence p. 3. Sect. 6. p. 197. which is confirmed unto them by the Canons of divers Councils and Ample Testimony of the Fathers as Dr. Rule has proved And though we will not say such consent is essential to the Ministerial Power yet it is certainly necessary to the Pastoral Relation for the Bishops and Ministers could have no certain cure in such places where the Civil Magistrate does not interpose but by the Peoples consent This Gentleman tells us the consent of the Ministers and People of the Diocess is not necessary but it is left wholly to the discretion of the Church and I wonder what that Church is to whose discretion this is referr'd when the Ministers and People are left out will he say it is in the Power of the Bishops of other Diocesses to impose a Bishop upon any without the consent of Minister and People And must we by the Church understand the Bishops alone without Ministers and People as if they had nothing to do in those matters that are left to the Churches Discretion This lets us see what these Men drive at and how gladly they would enslave the whole World to the humours of a few and those not always the wisest or best of Men. That the Nomination of our English Bishops is vested in the King is very pleasing to Dissenters especially under the Government of one so Wise and Good as ours is But then we must say the Power they receive from the King and Laws is not properly Spiritual Power And we are willing to own them as having Humane Authority over us circa Sacra by the appointment of our Governours as far as by Law we are under their Jurisdiction And certainly many of them are too wise to pretend to any more since our Laws expresly condemn such pretensions as has been already proved by the very Letter of the Law in that case The Gentleman tells us The Vindicator shewed his Abilities in mentioning Ignatius who advises the Bishop to hold frequent assemblies and to enquire after all by their names not despising the Men Servants or Maid Servants and he would fain shew his Abilities in enervating so plain evidence and would impose upon us a great many Negatives and Peradventures which we must help him to prove We must prove That those Assemblies met only in one place that they were no more than ordinary Congregations that the Bishop had no body to assist him in the remoter parts of his charge that no man else acquainted him with the frailties and misdemeanours of particular These and a great many more such Negatives we must prove which we are no way obliged to do we insist upon the plain words of Ignatius and he must prove his peradventures himself or we shall take no notice of them The Author of the Enquiry into the Constitution c. of the Primitive Churches offers to prove that these Diocesses were no larger in the number of Church Members than our present Parishes But whether that be so or no I will not be positive For it is manifest enough the first step towards Prelacy was committing the Government of the Church to one which before was managed by several in common the next was to make that Church as large and great as could be By keeping new formed Congregations under their Jurisdiction and we have early instances of such Incroachments These Men take the Liberty of making words signifie any thing that serves their present purpose If Ireneus say the Presbyters are the Successors of the Apostles there Presbyter must signifie Bishop for fear of spoiling the Plea of Succession Review p. 65 66. If Tertullian say they never receive the Eucharist from any but the Presidents there President must not signifie the Bishop but the Presbyter for it seems in a Bench of Presbyters they are all Presidents though there be a Bishop in Cathedra amongst them Such Men will never be at a loss for something to say Though the Vindicator trusting perhaps to his memory mentioned the Sacrament of the Eucharist instead of Baptism yet it amounts to the same thing for if the Bishop was to take the Confessions of all that were to be Baptised his Diocess could not be of the same Model with ours which such a thing would be altogether impracticable This Gentleman wonders the Vindicator should be so nice in the Notion of Succession p. 19. And afterwards so loose as to make it no more but conformity to the Apostles Model in Government and Worship but the wonder will cease when he considers that in the former place he took Succession in the Sence T. W. used it as that which gives the Bishops their Title to Apostolical Power and here he takes it in the true Sence wherein the Fathers use it whose words will never prove that the Apostles left them their Apostolical Power but onely that ordinary Pastoral
was too easie a Task these Gentlemen were engaged in to require so much help it 's a beaten Road in which they were to Travel and as I do not find that the Papists offered any thing of late but what has been in substance answered a thousand times so it was not necessary for our Doctors to set their Wits on the Rack for a Reply not indeed do I perceive any thing Method and Language excepted that pretends to be new nor is this any Diminution of their Honour but a Peace of Justice to the Memory and worth of those that have gone before them And I might add Fuller C. H. l. 9. p. 74. This clause was left out of the Art in 1571 but A. B Land would have it inserted again Parker Cartwright Walker Boyes Farmer Slater Manby Good all c. the Presbyterians had little Reason to fear that any of their Perswasion would be perverted their distinguishing Principle of the sufficiency of the Scripture will infallibly secure them whilst they adhere unto it But many of our Churchmen had instill'd into their Followers very odd Notions concerning the Power of the Church in Matters of Faith as in the twenty Article and of the Apostolical Succession and Authority of Bishops and their Power of Judging what is fit and decent in the Worship of God to which all others must submit and concerning the binding force of old Canons and Councils and such Doctrines as these would be in danger to betray men into the Arms of that Church that can pretend as high in these matters as any and it is certain in Fact some of their Bishops and Doctors and Clergy fell in with them and it was time for them to bestir themselves to deliver their men out of the Snares which they had helped to lay for them And the Dissenters were very well pleased to see those Learned Men baffling the Papists upon such Principles as they had reason to hope would set the Authors themselves more upright than before some of them had been those that read Dr. Sherlocks Preservatives against Popery and what he there says concerning the Nature of Gospel Worship That God will not now have a Temple nor is his Presence appropriated to any place and the like and compare it with that he has formerly writ especially in that Book wherein he told us Vind. Defence of Dr. St. p. 13. that Christianity is nothing else but Mystical Judaism will find that his late Polemical Engagements were so very beneficial to himself that it had been a thousand pitties to have taken the work out of his Hands And what I have collected out of these Modern debates concerning Church-Unity Communion Succession c. may convince any man that we had all the reason in the World to make them fair way and room when they were got into the good old Road of Scripture Catholick Notions that would infallibly confound the Papists and when they had done that would very much contribute to the reconciling of Protestants amongst themselves The Author of the Review takes upon him to affirm that none of our Ministers endeavoured at that time to fortifie his Conventicle against Popish Delusions but how can he expect to be believed in that which 't is as impossible for him to know as to be an Ubiquitarian and in all the Conventicles in England at the same time and as he can never prove it to be true so there are thousands in England know it to be false and are able to testifie that notwithstanding their Obligations to the Government their Ministers never failed to confute Popish Tenets when they fell in their way and that not seldom they would go a step or two out of their way to meet them As unhappy is he in the little stories that follow Dr. Owen was in Fee with King James and yet was dead several years before Our present Patrons were the men pickt up at Court to compleat our Ruine and yet I know of no Patrons we have for our Liberty but the King Lords and Commons I hope he does not mean them We know very well what Bishops and others were of the Ecclesiastical Commission in the Bishop of Londons Case and in that of Cambridge and Maudlin Colledge in Oxford not one Presbyterian amongst them Let this Gentleman prove that any Ministers of ours assisted at Jesuitical Intreagues or had Mony sprinkled amongst them to carry on those designs and by my Consent whoever is found Guilty shall be his Bondslave but by no means let Confidence and Noise and loud Appeals be taken for Evidence against them Amongst all that Croud of Writers that give us the History of the late Revolution there is scarcely one of them but acknowledges that the Dissenters were aware of the Popish design of taking away the Test and would not consent to it though for the Penal Laws they thought many of them might be very well spared and I challenge him to prove that either Mr. Lob or any other Person amongst those called Presbyterian and Congregational and we have nothing to do with others ever advised King James to any thing but what our Present King and Parliament have thought fit to establish by Law If as this Gentleman tells us a little Money Review p. 33. and a Toleration will make the Dissenters so easie and quiet and well satisfied it is a sign they are not the worst tempered People in the World and it were well if our Churchmen were as easily pleased for what my Lord Falkland a great Royalist said of some of the Bishops in 1641 they were so cordially Papists that it was all that fifteen hundred Pounds a Year could do to keep from Confessing it I am afraid is too true concerning many of our Clergy in another respect it is as much as some hundreds a year can do to keep them Quiet and Content under the present Government However we are obliged to him for telling us what the sober thinking People judge of us it seems They do not stick to say that our Zeal against Popery is all Counterfeit that we would be better Conformists if Popery should prevail than we are now but he should have told us who these sober thinking People are for many will presume to dignifie themselves with those Epithets See the Review Ibid. that have as little right to 'em as any People in the World and it is usual enough for a Mob of Ecclesiastical Politico's to get together and when they are well heated with drinking Healths to the Church of England and have liberally Cursed and Damned the Dissenters then step forth and look big and think themselves capable of reporting the opinion of all the sober thinking men of the Nation and I am the more inclin'd to believe that it is a Cabal of such men as these that have chosen this Gentleman for their Speaker because our own experience assures us those Conformists that are really most sober have always
and to make her glorious in the World when in the mean time Christianity it self has been rendred odious and contemptible Ridente Turce nec dolente Judaeo Turks Jews and Pagans have beheld her flames with pleasure and warmed themselves and said Aha thus we would have it It must not be denied but that Catholick Unity where it is so happy as to be understood acquaints us with something very sacred and venerable of which we cannot be too fond or tender it bears the Image of Divinity and if it were not in it self a most excellent thing the name of it could never be made so specious a pretence It has been often and confidently asserted that all the Dissenters in England have departed from the Unity and Communion of the Catholick Church This lies as a mighty prejudice in the minds of many both against our way Arch-Rebel p. 28. Reply p. 1. and persons too and their common Inference from hence is That we are out of a State of Salvation have no right to any of the Promises of the Gospel that all our Hopes are unwarrantable and groundless Fancies that we are contemners of the Peace and Unity which Christ has bequeathed to his Church and if they will demonstrate that our case is indeed such as they describe it we will not persist in it a day longer for we cannot be so fond of the Inconveniencies of Non-Conformity here as meerly for the sake thereof to purchase to our selves greater Miseries hereafter But that we may evince how void of Reason and Humanity the Sentence which they have past upon us is let us enquire wherein the Catholick Unity and Communion of the Church consists and then try whether none of our Dissenting Congregations be within the Verge of it By this Catholick Unity our Adversaries understand not that which is accidental may be present or absent without the destruction of the Subject which some Churches may have and other True Churches may be without for then it would not serve their purpose which is to conclude all that want this Unity to be in a State of Damnation and indeed it is the truest acceptation of the word to make it signifie Essential Universal Unity Uniformity in accidentals belonging more properly to the common place of order in this sense therefore we shall speak of it that we may come up as close to their thoughts as we can Nothing then belongs to the Catholick Unity of the Church but what belongs to the being of the Church that which makes it a Church makes it one Ens Unum being convertible and nothing can dissolve its Unity which does not destroy its Essence and certainly the being and the state of the Church must not be confounded Many things are required to the due and orderly state and form in which the Church ought to be and appear in the World and which may contribute to her stability beauty and enlargement which suppose her Essence but do not constitute it This Essential Catholick Unity whereof we speak may be distinguished into Political and Moral Political whereby all the True Members of the Church are united unto Christ the Head and that is by true Faith And Moral by which they are United one to another and that is by Christian Love which in some degree always follows the former those that have a mind to it may quarrel with the terms of this distinction but if I may but express my meaning by them I shall not be at all concerned about it 1. The Political Unity is that which does primarily necessarily and immediately constitute that Sacred Society the Church of God which was therefore by the Primitive Christians as well as our first Reformers frequently known by this short definition Catus fidelium the Congregation of the Faithful sometimes the Body of Christ the Temple of God Divin Instit l. 4. c. 13. and such like So Lactantius Ecclesia est verum Templum Dei quod non in parietibus est sed in corde fide hominum qui credunt in eum vocantur fideles The Church is the True Temple of God which does not consist in the bare Walls but in the Hearts and Faith of Men that believe on him and are called Faithful and before him Ignatius in the same sense calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Holy Congregation Ep. ad Trall vid. Isidor Pelus Epist l. 2. Ep. 247. the Assembly of the Saints To the same purpose speak all those Fathers who affirm that the Church was built upon the Faith of Peter not upon his Person or Authority a great Cloud whereof the Illustrious Chamier has collected to our hand proving thereby that our Union with the Church De Oecumen Pont. l. 11. c. 4. is founded in our believing on Christ the True Foundation and Chief Corner Stone nothing therefore can dissolve this Union but what is inconsistent with True Faith in Christ And this agrees fully with the tenour of Holy Scripture which every where lays the Salvation of Men upon their believing Ephes 3.17.4.13 1 Pet. 2.6 Behold I lay in Zion a Chief Corner Stone elect precious and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded By this Faith Men are United to Christ and therefore cannot be divided from his Body which is the Church St. Paul calls the Church of God the House or Family of God and how a Man comes to be a Member of that Noble Family we are told Eph. 2.18 by the Spirit i. e. working of Faith we have access unto the Father and are no more Strangers and Forreigners but Fellow-Citizens of the Saints Gal. 6.10 and of the Houshold of God and therefore this Houshold of God is elsewhere called the Houshold of Faith In short nothing is more evident than that the Apostles received Men and Women into the Visible Church by Baptism upon the Profession of their Faith in Christ and thereby invested them in all the Sacred Priviledges of the New Covenant which belong only to the Church of God This Excellent Grace of Faith from whence our Union with Christ and his Body the Church doth flow is a very comprehensive thing it includes our solemn and hearty Choice of the Eternal God as our chiefest Happiness and hereby all the True Members of the Church are United in the Love and Service of One God and so distinguished from the Pagan World and in an humble affiance in One Mediator in whose hand alone they are brought back unto God and hereby are distinguished from Mahometans and those that call themselves Deists they are also United in the gracious Influences of One blessed Spirit and hereby are distinguished from all impenitent sensual persons who have grieved and quenched that Spirit And they are hereby United in One Rule of Faith Worship and Obedience not that they all understand this Rule alike or are fully conformed unto it but in this they agree that they all take it for their Rule
it plainly speaks of that Extraordinary Mission of the Apostles to the Gentile World by them as Men infallibly inspired for that End were the great Doctrines of the Gospel delivered and the perpetual Rule of Faith laid down this they must by no means have presumed to do had they not been sent of God and yet without such a Gospel the World had never believed on Christ and this Apostolical Doctrine is still the great Instrument by which God converts Souls sometimes by reading of it themselves sometimes by hearing it from others whether duely ordained or no sometimes by bringing it to their Remembrance when they are neither reading nor hearing it though the usual way is by the Preaching of a faithful Ordained Ministry but to say that it is never done by other means cannot be proved by Scripture and is evidently contradicted by Experience I cannot but have a great value for the Judgment of Monsieur Claude in this particular and shall therefore transcribe his words in that learned Treatise before mentioned Histor Def. Part 4. p. 54. viz. It is the Church that produces the Ordinary Ministry and not the Ordinary Ministry that produces the Church The Church was the fruit of the Extraordinary Ministry of the Apostles and Evangelists That Ministry of theirs produc'd it at first and not only produc'd it but it has always made use of that means or that source for its Subsistence and we may truly say That it yet produces it and that it will produce it unto the End of the World For it is the Faith that makes and always will make the Church and it is the Ministry of the Apostles that makes and always will make the Faith It is their Voice that calls Christians together at this day it is their word that essembles them and their teaching that unites them It is certain that the Ministry of the Apostles was singular that is to say only tyed to their Persons without Succession without Communication or Propagation but it ought not to be thought that it was also transitory as that of other Men for it is perpetual in the Church Death has not shut their Mouths as it has others they speak they instruct they incessantly spread abroad Faith and Holiness among the Souls of Christians and there is not another Fountain from whence those Virtues can descend but from them If any demand of us what is the perpetual Voice that we ascribe unto them We answer That it is the Doctrine of the New Testament where they have set down all the Efficacy of their Ministry and the whole virtue of that Word which gave a Being to the Church there is their true Chair and Apostolick See there is the Center of Christian Unity there it is that they incessantly call Men and joyn them into a Society But as to the ordinary Ministry we cannot say the same thing of them it is not their Voice as distinct from that of the Apostles that begets the Faith that assembles Christians into a Society or that produces the Church They are no more but meer Dispensers of the words of the Apostles or external Instruments to make us the better understand their Voice to speak properly it is not the Voice of the ordinary Pastors that produces Faith where it was not before it is the word of the Apostles themselves They are no more but those External Guides that God has established in the Church to lead Men to the Scripture and even such Guides as cannot hinder us from going thither of our selves if we will Therefore there is a great difference betwixt these two sorts of Ministers the one preceded the Church the other follows it the one has an independent and sovereign Authority with Infallibility on its side the other is exposed to Vices Disorders Errors and humane Weaknesses inferior to and depending on the Church And indeed to affirm that no Man can be truly converted but by a Regular Ministry would involve the Minds of Men in endless Perplexities A Man must know all those things that belong to the due mission of the Preacher and must be assured that all those met in the person by whose Ministry he was helped to believe before he can know that he has true Faith this would keep persons in a dark and uncomfortable state all their days especially if a Line of uninterrupted Succession be necessary to a true Mission for then a Man must be able to prove that the Bishop that ordained his Converter was ordained by another Bishop and that by another and so up to the Apostles which because no man in the World can be morally assured of it is impossible for any Man to know that he has true Faith This is an insuperable difficulty on the one hand And on the other those Persons that know they have true Faith by the powerful effects of it upon their Hearts and Lives must conclude from hence that their Preachers were duely ordained and called otherwise they could nor have been instrumental in their Conversion and yet this would not be true for doubtless there are many honest Souls that fear God and work Righteousness amongst those Sects that have no Regular Ministry amongst them So that this Assertion would rob many Souls of the comfort of a true Faith because of the uncertainty of their Ministers Mission and it would confirm others in an irregular and unauthorized Ministry because of the cerainty of their Faith I hope by this time I may venture to conclude That the essential Unity of the Church consists in Gospel-Faith and Love hereby Men are made Saints and unired to Christ and Members of the Catholick Church Did I think the Chester Gentleman would not yet take it I would be so civil to him as to and some more Testimonies That of Clemens Alexandranus is apposite enough The ancient Catholick Church is but one only Church Strom. l. 7. and assembles in the Unity of one only Faith by the Will of one only God and Ministration of one only Lord all those who were before Predestanted to be just having known them before the Foundation of the World In Cant. Hom. 1. In Maten 16. De Ar◠Patr. l. 1. c. 3 In Psal 35. De coronà indilitis So likewise Origen The Church is the Society of the Saints and else where The Church which God builds consists in those who are upright and full of those Thoughts Words and Actions which lead to Blessedness St. Amtrose tells us The Assembly of the Righteous is God's Tabernacle and that the Saints are the Members of Jesus Christ Terrullian says Where there are Three there is a Church though they be Laicks for every one lives by his own Faith S. In Job c. 26. Jerome speaks to the same purpose saying The Church which is the Assembly of all Saints is the Pillar and Ground of Truth because she has in Jesus Christ an Eternal firmness In Cant. Hom. 1. and elsewhere The Church
Atheist or an Infidel is no true Pope This c. Is to be supplied with Arch-Bishops Bishops and all other Orders Advertisement on the Hist of K. Charles p. 193. and many such there have been of one sort or other whose acts therefore in creating Cardinals c. Being invalid it is exceeding probable that the whole Succession has upon this account failed long ago c. I may add hereunto that it is the opinion of Dr. Heylin where there is no Dean and Chapter to elect and no Arch-Bishop to Consecrate there can be no regular Succession of Bishops now where there are so many junctures in which this Line may fail it would be very strange if in all that Series of Ordainers and Ordinations none of those things should happen which break in upon the Succession Nay farther when a Bishop has advanced by lawful paces to the Chair yet it is not impossible but he may lose this power again I know the Papists have invented the Chimaera of an indelible Character to support the other Chimaera of an uninterrupted Succession But Bishop Jewel affirms Apology c. 3. divis 7. That if the Bishop of Rome and I suppose it will hold of any other do not his Duty as he ought except he Administer the Sacraments except he instruct the People except he warn them and teach them he ought not to be called a Bishop or so much as an Elder for a Bishop as saith St. Augustin is a name of Labour and not of Honour and that man that seeketh to have the Pre-eminence and not to profit the People must know he is no Bishop Defence of Apâ—â— part 2. p. 135. And he vindicates this Saying against Harding from other of the Fathers Chrysostom Hom. 13. Multi Sacerdotes pauci Sacerdotes multi nomine pauci opere And St. Ambrose Nisi bonum opus amplectaris Episcopus esse non potes Lib. 4. Ep. 32. de dignit Sacerdot c. 4. And Gregory speaking in the name of wicked Prelates Sacer dotes nominamur non sumus And the Council of Valentia under Damasus c. 4. Quicunque sub ordinatione vel Diaconatus vel Presbyterii vel Episcopatus mortali crimine dixerint se esse pollutos à supra dictis ordinationibus submoveantur Whosoever he be whether of the Order of Deacon Presbyter or Bishop that is convicted of deadly Sin let him be removed from the said Orders Now can any man imagine that in a Line of above 1600 Years length running through Babylon it self there should be none of these who by their intolerable wickedness had nullified their Title Wo unto Mankind if their Salvation depend upon such a Supposition Thirdly The third Part of this Gentleman's Position is That those Churches Reply p. 18. or if they must not be so called those Societies that are not under the Government of such Bishops are out of the Communion of the Catholick Church have no Ministry nor Sacraments nor Salvation This cuts off at a blow the Church of Alexandria and damns all her Members for the First two Hundred Years Of the Government of that Church we have this remarkable Account from Entychius Patriarch there That the Evangelist Mark in the Ninth year of Claudius Caesar Eutychii Annal Pococks Edit p. 328. came unto the City of Alexandria and called the People to the Faith of Christ and as he was walking in the Street broke the Latchet of his Shoe and presently applied himself to one Ananias a Cobler to get it mended in the doing of it Ananias prick'd his Finger with the Aul after that dangerous manner as caused a great effusion of Blood and much Pain insomuch as that he murmured against Mark who said unto him If thou wilt believe on Jesus Christ thy Finger shall be healed and added In his Name let it be made whole and accordingly in the same moment it ceased bleeding and was well from this time Ananias believed and was baptized by Mark and made Patriarch of Alexandria and with him were appointed twelve Presbyters Hitrom Ep. ad Evagr. 85. that when the Patriarchate was vacant one of them should be chosen on whom the other Eleven should lay their hands and bless him and create him Patriarch and then should choose some worthy Person and constitute him a Presbyter in his room who was made Patriarch And this Custom continued till Alexander the Sixteenth Patriarch without interruption which was about 235 Years This Story St. Jerome likewise tells us and by it proves the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters and that Presbyters have not only Power to ordain those of the same degree with themselves but to consecrate Patriarchs too And this Assertion undoes all the Reformed Churches abroad that are governed by Presbyters To this the Gentleman replies That many very Learned and Pious Persons amongst them have declared their longing Desires for the Episcopacy but living in Popish Dominions cannot have any but those of the Popish Communion or in Republicks that will not admit of Episcopacy But are desires then of Episcopacy sufficient to bring a Man within Catholick Communion What then becomes of the Absolute necessity of Apostolical Succession if affectionate Desires after this Communion will free a Man from Schism Then surely Schism lies in the want of such Desires which comes nearer to Mr. H's Notion than this Gentleman I suppose was aware of but after all though 't is pity to put him out of a good humour since he happens so seldom into it if there be no Catholick Communion without Episcopacy and without such Communion our hopes for Salvation are but Fancies as this Gentleman tells us Desires after Episcopacy will not relieve Men it will only prove that they desire such Communion and to be in the way of Salvation but that at present they are not so And I wonder how it does appear that the Reformed Churches desire this Diocesan Episcopacy by what Publick Acts do they declare any such Desires What their Thoughts are concerning it we have already seen It may be indeed as the Honourable Mr. Feb. 9.40 Fines once replied in Parliament to this very thing there are some amongst them that desire Episcopacy that is the Dignities and Revenues of Bishops but that any desire Episcopacy as the fittest and best Government of the Church I do not believe for if they would have Bishops I know not what hindreth but they may they have Presbyteries and Synods and National Assemblies and Moderators therein and how easily might these be made Bishops Germany and Poland are Popish Countries and yet they have Superintendents or Bishops And why will not Republicks admit Episcopacy Is it because they have found it injurious to the Commonwealth Methinks that is no great Commendation of the Order or will they say it does not so well comport with that Form of Government That is a sign it is not of Divine Institution for as God will have Gospel-Churches in all Countries
Societies off from the Unity of the Catholick Church and then the whole thread of his discourse is spoiled which every where makes Schism to be Separation from the Communion of the Catholick Church out of which he says truly there is no true Ministry nor Sacrament 2. If all Schismatical Societies are Unchurched then either they lose the Apostolical Succession and Power or else there may be Apostolical Power where there is no Church And it would be very strange to find a Power to Ordain and to Administer Sacraments in Societies where there can be no Ministry nor Sacraments Church Power without a Church a Right to Gevern the Church by Apostolical Succession and yet no Right to the Church or any of its Priviledges The power which is an adjunct without the Church which is its Subject These are mysteries which I am no more worthy to understand than that of Transubstantiation 3. If the Papal Churches through which this Power is conveyed be not Schismatical then he makes the Founders of his own Church so for he says There 's no way of holding Communion with the Universal Church Arch-Rebel p. 6. but by holding Communion with the Particular Churches we live amongst if they be not Schismatical Instead of speaking plainly to these things he asks us whether Re-ordination of those that come over from the Church of Rome to the Reformed was ever required We answer No and can give a good reason for it upon our Principles but it will be hard to do so upon his We do not think the validity of the Ministry depends upon such Line nor do we believe that either Schism or Heresie as such do utterly destroy their Church state indeed a renunciation of any of the fundamental Articles of our Faith would do it but every heresie will not We believe the Church of Rome to be both Schismatical and Heretical but do not therefore say their Church state is utterly lost though greatly corrupted for then it would be hard to allow their Ordinations especially if we thought Ordination so necessary and that the Validity thereof depended upon the Administrators as this Gentleman affirms Therefore where he says the Vindicator attempts to unchurch the Church of England because our Bishops derive their consecration from Rome he utterly mistakes himself the Vindicator spoke ad hominem and only shewed him what would be the consequence of his own arguing He tells us It is the Judgement of all Reformed Divines that formal Schism can never invalidate the power of formal and regular Ordination But if those Reformed Divines thought as be that formal Schism utterly excludes out of the Catholick Church they must needs acknowledge that where there is formal Schism there can be no such things as regular Ordination and 't is strange this Gentleman that makes Schism such an unchurching thing shall talk of a regular Ordination in a formal Schism one would think the regularity would have been spoiled if the Essence thereof should happily escape Dr. Sherlock Vindic. of Prot. Princ. p. 107 108. And yet some of our Doctor make this the very reason why the Dissenters Ordinations are Null because they ordain in a Schism granting that in case of necessity they may do it But as to the Reformed Divines if they allow the Ordination of Schismaticks to be valid it is either because they think the validity of the Orders does not depend upon the quallfications of the person conferring there or that Schism does not necessarily exclude a Person or People out of the Communion of the Catholick Church and here lies this Gentlemans Error he would tack the candid conclusion of the Reformed formed Churches to the unmerciful Premises of his own but they will by no means comport This Notion of the Necessity of an uninterrupted Line of Succession for the conveyance of Power like Water by Pipes and Conduits the Vindicator made bold to call a Whimsie which has exceedingly raised the Gentlemans Spleen A Whimsie says he that 's some Phantastick device or the Creature of an unst able unsettled Brain which being applied to Prelates that bear the Authority of Christ can be no less than Blasphemy But the Vindicator never charged this Whimsie upon the Prelates the greatest part of whom I dare say will not thank this man for hanging their Authority upon so slender a thread 't is his own Whimsie and so silly a one that we will never charge it on any that do not expresly own it and yet if a Man should venture to say of some Prelates that they are unstable and their Brains unsettled as namely the late Bishops of Oxford and Ely c. I know not how it can be proved Blasphemy nor will any man call it so that has not made an Idol of the Mitre or the Head that wears it unless these clamours proceed from the same Principle with those of the Ephesians who were as tender of their Diana as these men are of the Hierarchy and this Image of Succession that dropt down from Jupiter After all we have said against the Necessity of such a Line yet if this Gentleman or any for him will clear it we will have as much Benefit by it as himself having largely proved that Presbyters are the same with Bishops by the Law of God and therefore our Ordinations are as valid as theirs but we will never so far betray the Honour of the Church nor the Peace of mens Consciences as to make all depend upon that which is impossible to be proved and certainly if it be a thing of that consequence this Gentleman makes it the proof should be as strong and clear as that of the most essential Doctrines of our Religion and to say as Mr. Dodwel is forced at last that a Presumptive Title may serve is to unsay all and to confess that it is not the reality of such a Line on which the Power depends but the strong Conceit and Presumption of men which is the worst Basis that Episcopacy has ever yet been fixed upon 2. The second thing in our Plea is That the whole Jurisdiction of our English Bishops and the Power of their Canons is derived from the Civil Magistrate and Laws of the Land And this I think will follow from the former if this Prelatical Power be not from the Laws of God it must be from the Laws of the Land Here I expect some will reply Datur tertium there is the Jus Ecclesiasticum resulting from the Customs and Canons of the Church by which Bishops formerly laid claim to this Power even when there was no Christian Magistrate but this will be soon answered For 1. This Jus Ecclesiasticum has not the proper nature of a Law nor does it oblige by virtue of strict Authority we are not bound in Conscience by the Canons of Ancient Foreign Churches any farther than the matter of them brings the stamp of Scripture along with it Grot. de Impsum Potestat p. 168. The
they will admit of no other Plea But what if terms of Conformity be not sinful it is sufficient for us that we are under no Obligation to comply with them our Governours have left us at our Liberty and though the Bishops may still command them yet our own Pastors are as truly Bishops as they The Unity of the Church does not depend upon them but may be much better preserved without them and the Act of Liberty in the Preamble declares that it is the Sense of the King Lords and Commons that not Conformity but ease to scrupulous Consciences may be an effectual means to unite Protestants in Interest and Affection and the Worship of God may be as decently performed without them how are we then obliged to comply with such things Will he say it is our Duty to use all those Ceremonies and Customs in the Worship of God that are not sinful What if a Papist should ask him Why do you not Conform to all the Ceremonies of our Church Why do you not use Salt and Cream and Spittle in Baptism Why do you not Cross your Breasts and Shave your Heads Can you prove these things to be sinful I suppose this Gentleman would reply we care not whether they be sinful or no we are not obliged to use them and if the Papist should alledge the Command of the Catholick Church he would reply No Forreign Prelate or Potentate has Authority to enjoyn such things upon us and our own Governours have not done it if the other should urge that we must comply for Unity sake he would answer The Unity of the Church lies not in Uniformity of such Rites and Ceremonies if the Papists should press it further These are decent Ceremonies and serve to excite in men devour thoughts of God and Christ and have rare mystical Signification surely He would rejoyn The Worship of God is managed by us very decently without such things Thus we say in answer to his demand if we be not obliged to Conformity though it should not be unlawful our Nonconformity is very justifiable therefore this Plea of the Sinfulness of the thing is not now so necessary as he imagines but lest we should seem to acknowledge that we had nothing to justifie our practice heretofore when Conformity was required by the Law And that we are still for an unaccountable Singularity and are resolved to differ from others meerly for distinction sake and have no regard to Parochial Order which we have formerly seemed to approve of I shall venture to say something upon this point though I am sensible before-hand some will blame me for saying so much and others for saying no more The World is not to seek for the Reasons of our Nonconformity a large Account has been given thereof in a Multitude of Treatises some of which have received no answer at all as Dr. Rule 's Rational Defence and Mr. Baxter's English Nonconformity Stated and Argued wherein the Case is so copiously and yet so closely debated in the several particulars both of Ministerial and Lay-Conformity that it seems wholly superfluous to add any thing till we see what answer will be made unto it I have seen indeed a little impertinent Scribble of two or three Sheets of Paper wherein the Author pretends not to engage in the Controversie but only tells us with Confidence enough that Mr. Baxter's Book is an unnecessary unseasonable and unaccountable Undertaking and has been already answered which is a very quick and cheap way of confuting Dissenters and the common reply of every baffled Party to all that is writ against them and is only taken up as a little shist to serve an easie and credulous sort of Men amongst themselves but can never be designed to give Satisfaction to others and if such Trifles must pass for an Answer to a Book so Large Distinct and Argumentative as Mr. Baxter's is truly it is to no purpose either to write or read Controversie There are three Steps a man must take before he can arrive at the heighth of English Conformity 1. He must submit to the Use and Practice of the Impositions 2. He must declare his Approbation and good liking of them 3. He must Swear never to endeavour any Alteration some of us stumble at the First many stick at the Second but the Last is most inaccessible 1. Many of us can by no means be satisfied with the constant Use and Practice of these controverted Matters and that for these Reasons amongst others 1. We observe That the great Corruption of Churches has in all Ages risen from this Source introducing unnecessary Ceremonies in the worship of God teaching for Doctrines the Traditions of Men this had reduced the Jewish Church to that Leprous condition wherein it lay in our Saviour's time And the grand Apostacy of Rome begun by advancing the Power of Ecclesiasticks beyond its measure and exerting it in the Invention and Imposition of such Mystical Rites and Ceremonies and by adding still thereunto it grew up to such a Mystery of Iniquity and Monster of Usurpation and Tyranny as it appears at this day in the World and we know not of any Specifical Difference betwixt the Ceremonies in England and those of Rome and we could never prevail with our Antagonists to give us a Rule to distinguish them by It is usually said ours are but few but theirs are many and therefore burthensom but this does not satisfie for many or few alters not the kind and if it be lawful to use Three why not Six Twenty or a Hundred besides if ours be therefore better because they are fewer I hope they will give us leave to infer the fewer Ceremonies and the better and therefore best of all where there are none if the Matter must be resolved into their Positive decency we have already shewed by their own Confession there is no such decency in them but the worship of God may be managed as well without them But if the Matter be fixed upon the Churches Authority then let the Church command never so many we must comply and so are as much enslaved to the humours of the Ecclesiasticks as the Papists themselves and the case standing thus we think none can justly blame us if we are afraid of contributing to the return of Superstition and Arbitrary Church Power by entertaining and embracing those things that have given it rise and strength in other Parts and Ages of the World Our Objection against them is not that weak and silly thing some represent it as if we reject them meerly because the Papists use them but we do it because the Imposition and use of them has given Life and Growth to the Papacy 2. Especially since they are altogether useless and have no tendency to promote that which is good this much strengthens the prejudice they have done a great deal of harm and they can do no good by the Confession of the Imposers and we cannot imagine why they should
Ghost teach us in sundry places of Scripture saying Mercifulness and Alms-giving purgeth from all Sin delivereth from Death and suffereth not the Soul to come into darkness alledging for it Tobit 4. v. 10. and the saying of the Son of Syrach That Alms maketh an Atenement for Sin There are many good Petitions in the Liturgy and good Directions in the Rubrick which we could some of us freely use but we cannot prevail with our selves to Assent to that Notorious Mistake in the Rule for finding Easter nor can well digest that Complemental Prayer Those things which for our Unworthiness we dare not and for our blindness we cannot Ask vouchsafe to give us for the worthiness of thy Son There are excellent Lessons taken out of Scripture and appointed to be Read which our Ministers would gladly do but we cannot approve of those fulsom Apocryphal Tales 〈◊〉 ch 3. ch 5. and 6. about Sarah the Daughter of Reguel and her infernal Spark Asmodeus that killed all her Husbands before they lay with her till at length the Angel Raphael put them into a way to get rid of the Amorous Fiend by burning the Intrals of a Fish which it seems had such a Super-sulphureous stench that the Devil himself could not endure it but quits the Room and his Mistress to the enjoyment of his Rival Tobias I might take notice of the strange and self-contradicting Stories that this pretended Angel told them Of the many odd and gross things we have in Judith and in Ecclesiasticus as where we are disswaded from receiving Strangers to our Houses Ecclus ch 11. v. 34. To be read Octob. 25. for says the Book He will disturb thee and turn thee out of thy own and we are bid give Alms only to the Godly but help not a Sinner give not to the ungodly hold back thy Bread and give it not to him for the most High hateth Sinners Chap. 12.1 2 3. let all Mankind judge how contrary this is to our Saviour's Command Love your Enemies bless them that curse you do good to them that hate you and pray for them that despitefully use you that you may be like your Father which is in Heaven for he maketh his Sun to rise upon the Evil and the Good and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust And yet this Apocryphal Doctrine is appointed to be Read in Churches as a Lesson To be read Octob. 30. Concil Laod. Can. ult 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which I fear too many have learned and this is part of the Book to which we must subscribe as containing nothing contrary to the Word of God and the Preface to the Common-Prayer Book says nothing is ordained to be Read but the very pure Words of God or that which is agreeable to them to which we must likewise Assent Many more such Passages might be and have been mentioned which contain things false or odd and ridiculous and wholly unfit to take up a place in so Sacred a Thing as the Worship of God There are many amongst us that would willingly submit to a Moderate Episcopacy according to Archbishop Vsher's Reduction but we cannot declare our Approbation of delegating the Power of the Keys to Lay Men nor dare our Ministers promise to Publish all such Excommunications as they send out which may sometimes be levell'd at the most Sober religious Persons in the Parish nor dare they consent to Publish the Absolution of Notorious Debauchees who have given no other Proof of Repentance besides Paying the Fees of the Court we dare not trifle with such things as these nor expose the Censures of the Church to that Scandal and Contempt they lye under by reason of such Practices When this Case was proposed to the Ministers of the Helvetian Churches before-mentioned That the Keys of binding and loosing are not used by the judgment of the Presbyters according to the Word of God but by certain Lawyers and made a Money Business and their advice was desired how far these things ought to be complied with They seem to be amazed at the thing Judgment of Forreign Divines p. 16. as altogether incredible and answer That though things which are ill done by one Party may be born with by another while they cannot change or reform them yet if they shall be forced not only to bear but to approve such things and to Assent to so manifest an Abuse we then exhort them that they will rather suffer any kind of Trouble than act herein against their Consciences 3dly We must not only use and approve these things but must Swear That we will not endeavour any Alteration in the Government of the Church this the Oxford Act requires of us and that in terms as Universal as can be and leaves us no liberty to explain our selves or to say that we will not endeavour by any unlawful means to do it And we remember very well how the Marquess of Argyle was dealt with for putting such a sence upon the like words It is not long since a Great Prelate of our Church openly declared That the Spiritual Courts are the great Grievance of the Nation and it is very hard we must be obliged to Swear that we will not at any time endeavour the redress of such a Common Nusance that we must not Study Write or Petition for it this was a clenching blow indeed to fasten and entail all the faults of the Constitution upon our Selves and our Heirs for ever This is a brief Account of those things that have made us Nonconformists and now keep our Ministers out of the Parish Churches those that would see them more largely and strongly and particularly argued are remitted to the Books before mentioned Let us now see what the Gentleman has said to Vindicate these Impositions and then I 'll bid him farewell till we meet again 1. He endeavours to justifie them by the like Practice amongst the Presbyterians mentioning Three significant Ceremonies imposed by them at the taking of the Covenant viz. The Person must be uncovered must stand up and the right hand must be lifted up bare and these he says were terms of Communion amongst them Now really for my part I am much confirmed in my dislike of these controverted Impositions because I find the Defenders of them are forced instead of justifying to recriminate and all they have to say is the Presbyterians were as bad as they when they had the Power in their hands and if there be any Strength in such a Reply it concludes against themselves for doing that which they condemn in others and all that it proves is that all Parties have been at one time or other transported into unreasonable Severities against each other and surely then 't is time for all to amend unless they resolve to perpetuate these Quarrels and to act them alternately in an Endless round There are not many Dissenters now alive that remember any thing of those days and fewer that were
this Gentleman had made Preaching the Gospel of Reconciliation one of them I am sure for that end he press'd that Text How can they preach except they be sent Does he mean the Sacraments why the Fathers of his own Church tell him all Antiquity allows the Baptism of Private Persons in Case of necessity and why not the other Sacrament too the Words of Tertullian are well known offers tingis he argues from that Text He hath made us Kings and Priests unto God and to his Father It is the Authority of the Church that hath put a difference between the Clergy and the Laity Tert. de Corona Militis de Baptism p. 602.603 Laices etiam jus est Sufficiat in necessitatibus and which hath established this sacred honour for the Body of the Clergy this is so true that where there is no Clergy-man to be had thou dost Celebrate thou dost Baptize and thou art to thy self a Priest now where there are three there is a Church though they be Laicks for every one lives by his own Faith and God is no respecter of Persons If therefore these Abyssines deprived themselves so long of the Sacraments they were needlesly scrupulous Ruffinus tells us that when Frumentius by the Providence of God was advanced to some Power in the Realm during the Kings Minority he carefully sought out such as were Christians among the Roman Merchants and exhorted them to meet together and pray which they did and when the Indians came amongst them they instructed them in the Christian Faith and all this was done before he took his Journey to Alexandria and tho' Valesius will needs be so nice as to distiuguish betwixt Oratories and Churches and betwixt Preaching and instructing I yet here was the great End of Churches and Bishops and Sermons happily attained viz. The Conversion and Instruction of Poor Souls a greater Seal of Mission than that of working Miracles wherewith 't is said Frumentius returned The Gentleman 's other instances prove no more but that in the sence of those times it was very desireable to have Ministerial Ordination and that they rather chose to be at a great deal of pains than to want it but it is not the desireableness but the necessity of it that the Vindicator denied and the Church of England you see will stand by him in it Nor was it his design to ridicule the Ceremony of laying on of Hands But that foolish conceit that by such contact there is a transition of power from one to another in a continued Line The Presbyterians themselves always use that Apostolical rite in their Ordinations tho' they do not think it necessary to the conveyance of Authority He charges the Vindicator with want of Sence or Integrity in reporting the Notion of a Patriarchal Right to Soveraignty But if he can explain that Notion any better 't would have been a very obliging thing to have done it I must confess I am as dull as the Vindicator in understanding it and cannot imagine how that Patriarchal Right should exist any where but in the Line of the Eldest Family in the World For if at any time you set up a Younger Brother it must be upon some other Title not the Patriarchal but either the express Nomination of God or Election or Conquest or the like But to claim the Regal Power by Patriarchal Right without pretending at least to the Line of Primogeniture is a thing I despair of ever understanding That this Patriarchal Right was ascribed to our Kings in the Late Reigns is too well known and will not be so easily forgotten by the Nation as it is denied by those that then filled Mens Ears with it E. of W. a Noble Peer pretty well known to T. W. once publickly Animadverted upon this Doctrine and the Authors of it and observed that such a right could be but in one Person in the World at once and no Person in the World could tell who that was What he mentions p. 56. concerning the Decency of Ceremonies has been obviated in the former part and there he may learn from the Bishops and Doctors of the Church of England that the Worship of God is never the better performed for them and therefore never the more decently and Bishop Sanderson condemns him for a Superstitious Fop that thinks otherwise this case is therefore adjudged already See the Review p. 57. If the Motion he makes of allowing the Bishops to be judges of Decency is to be so understood as that whatever the Clergy in Convocation Judge Fit and Decent must presently be submitted to and that the Pastors of Particular Churches or People how mean or half-witted soever must not make use of their discerning faculty this I confess is one way to end controversies by tying us all up to the Inspirations of the Canonical Tribe and this is that some of them have been long aiming at but surely 't is too far of the day to impose at this rate upon English Men. The Survey or endeavours to justifie their Excommunications by the old pretence of contempt and malice but these Men ought to be very certain that it is Malice and not real Scruple of Conscience against which they so severely proceed And they have no power to impose those things upon Men which they know thousands are dissatisfied in and they themselves acknowledge render their Duties not a whit more pleasing and acceptable to God That scandalous and disorderly Persons are to be disciplin'd according to the demerit of their Actions and Behaviour No Church or sober Christian that I know of will deny but that persons of Orthodox Judgment and Sober Conversation should be Excommunicated Fined Imprisoned Banished and Ruined because they dare not comply with such things as have been imposed in England is a practice not to be justified by any Rule in our Bibles or President in the Reformed Churches but is indeed contrary to Humanity it self To what he says about the Greek Churches p. 59. it is sufficient to reply If the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son be not an Article of Faith we desire to have a rule to distinguish what is de fide and what not in those Creeds But if it and the Greek Churches object against it then T. W. has excluded them unless he will say that ours is not the true Athanasian Creed and if it be not why must it be put into the Liturgy and Subscribed and Assented to under that denomination He endeavours to help his Alderman out about the same Table and tells us he meant something else by it than the same Table in Specie but since he has not told us what that more is we may suppose he wanted a handsome Salvo for he durst not say it must be the same numerically and it would be hard to find any thing betwixt those two kinds of Identity He tells us To have the same Prayers is to join with the Church
Lords Dit Merc. 18. Feb. 1662. in his Speech to both Houses told them He was willing to set bounds to the Hopes of some and the Fears of others that in his own Nature he was an Enemy to all Severity for Religion and Conscience how mistaken soever it be and wish'd he had a Power of Indulgence to use upon such Occasions The House of Lords ordered a Bill to be brought in to enable the King to grant Licences to such of His Majesties Subject of the Protestant Religion Ibid. Die Veneris 13. die Martii Commons Journal Die Mercur. 25. die Feb. 15 Car. 2. of whose inoffensive and peaceable Disposition His Majesty should be perswaded to enjoy and use the Exercise of their Religion and Worship though differing from the Publick Rule but the House of Commons when it came before them divided upon it No's 161 Yea's 119. and so it was rejected and greater Severity used than before In the Year 1665. That dreadful Plague in London drove a great many Ministers out of the City and left open a Door for some Nonconformists to Preach in their Pulpits and Men being a little startled and their Spirits softened by that Stupendious Judgment of God there was a Connivance and Private Meetings were set up and multiplied greatly In the Year 1667. The King in his Speech to both Houses of Parliament Die Lunae 10 die Febr. thus express'd himself One thing more I hold my self obliged to recommend unto you at this present which is That you would seriously think of some Course to beget a better Union and Composure in the Minds of my Protestant Subjects in Matters of Religion whereby they may be induced not only to submit quietly to the Government but also chearfully give their Assistance to the Support of it But there was nothing done at that time towards it In 1672. The King again gives Liberty of Conscience upon what design Conjectures were various many believed it to be in favour of Popery but others said the Papists had as much Liberty before being generally winked at and the Penal Laws wholly turn'd upon Protestant Dissenters However the House of Commons took notice of it and would not allow the King any Power to Dispense with the Laws and yet were grown so sensible of the Hardships put upon Dissenting Protestants that a Bill was brought in in favour of them and passed the House and was sent up to the House of Lords and it is verily believed had passed them too but for want of time In 1675. The Parliament met again in which the Church and Court Party laid aside their Zeal against Popery and all the Cry was against Dissenters and a Bill that was Voted in the former Session for Marrying our Princes only to Protestants was carried in the Negative by the Unanimous Vote of the Bishops Bench and rejected And a Test brought in requiring all Officers in Church and State and all Members of both Houses to take this following Oath I A. B. do Declare That it is not Lawful upon any Pretence whatsoever to take up Arms against the King and that I do abhor that Traiterous Position of taking up Arms by his Authority against his Commission or against those that are Commissioned by him in pursuance of such a Commission And I do Swear that I will not at any time endeavour the Alteration of the Government either in Church or State The learned and weighty Reasons that were brought against this Bill by the Country Lords as they were then distinguished from those of the Court and Church we have published by one of the protesting Peers in the same Year This lasted five days before it was committed to a Committee of the whole House They Pleaded against it as a Breach of the Privilege of Peerage that it was in Effect to establish a Standing Army by Act of Parliament That if whatever is done by the King's Commission may not be opposed by his Authority then a Standing Army is Law when ever the King pleases That it struck at the very Root of our Constitution obliging every Man to Abjure all Endeavours to alter the Government in the Church without regard to any thing that Rules of Prudence in the Government or Christian Compassion to Dissenters or the Necessity of Affairs at any time may require The Names of those Noble Peers that with so much hazard to their own Persons endeavoured to stem that impetuous torrent are Buckingham Bridgwater Winchester Salisbury Bedford Dorset Denbigh Pagett Hallifax Howard Mohun Stamford Clarendon Grey-Roll Say Seal Wharton Bristol Aylesbury Audley Fitzwater But all was in vain for says our Honourable Author the Earl of Winchelsea put an End to the Debate and the Major Vote Ultima ratio Senatuum Conciliorum carried the Question as the Court and Bishops would have it and all they could do was to enter their Protests against it and were menaced for so doing And thus with Wind and Tide our Church-men bore down furiously upon the Dissenters and all that durst but seem favourable to them for two or three Years together till the Popish Plot broke out in 1678. which gave such an Alarm to the Nation as reduced some Men to their Wits and others to their Wits-end Now the Humour was diverted another way and a year or two spent in searching into the depth of the Design and while some zealous Protestants were diligently employed in tracing out the Plot others that called themselves by the same Name were as busie by their Counter-mines and Counter-paces to spoil the track and make it undiscernable In the mean while the Dissenters were pretty easie the Meetings encreased and were greatly frequented And there being now a Parliament of true Englishmen they ordered a Bill to be brought into the House of Commons for the Uniting of Protestants and in their Journals we have this Resolve That it is the Opinion of this House that the Prosecution of Dissenters upon the Penal Laws is at this time grievous to the Subject a weakning of the Protestant Interest an Encouragement to Popery and Dangerous to the Peace of this Kingdom But as the Plot died Persecution revived New Sham-plots were forged and fastened upon Presbyterians Then was our Land stained with the No blest and most Innocent Blood of Essex Russel Sidney c. whose invaluable Lives were sacrificed to the Lusts of Papists and Tories whilst Ecclesiasticks sung Te Deum and the injured Nation durst scarcely be seen to lament their fall When the Duke of York arrived at the Crown the Stream of Persecution was very strong and violent and all men thought the unhappy attempt of the Duke of Monmouth would have made it rage more furiously when almost all the Gentlemen in England that were counted Whiggs were under Confinement but not long after a Declaration was set forth for a General Liberty of Conscience I am sure it was unexpected by the generality of Dissenters it found some of them in Prison
has sufficiently taken off this Objection Agere de sui temporis politia non de ea quae fuit ab Ecclesiae initiis and more particularly to that of Jerom Chamier de Occum Pontif. cap. 6. p. 180. manifestum est de suo loqui tempore c. It is manifest when St. Jerom says a Presbyter does every thing that a Bishop does except in Ordination he speaks of the time in which he lived and from that very thing he draws an Argument to prove that formerly Bishop and Presbyter were the same because says he even now though the Names have been for a long time used for Distinction of Degrees yet excepting in Ordination there is nothing that a Bishop does but a Presbyter may do it also and therefore if after so long a Discrimination of Title and Degree Bishops have only gained this one Point of Power it is certain at first there was no difference at all this is the reasoning of that Father wherein he agrees very well with himself and is guilty of no such inconsistency as some careless or prejudiced Readers would charge upon him But that which seems most directly to confront these Witnesses is That Aerius is reckon'd amongst the Hereticks by Epiphanius for this Opinion and is represented as a Prodigy and his Opinion madness which Dr. Morrice does not forget to Proclaim as that which gives a mortal wound to our Cause But a learned Prelate of their own will give them a sufficient answer to this Irenic p. 277. for if Aerius was a Heretick for holding the Identity of Order it is strange that Epiphanius should be the first man that should charge him with it and that neither Socrates Sozomen Theodoret nor Evagrius before whose time he lived should censure him for it and why should not Jerom have equally Animadverted upon who is as express in this as any man in the World But some tell us He was an Arian others say he was put amongst the Hereticks for making an unnecessary Separation from the Church of Sebastia and Eustathius the Bishop thereof not that this was indeed Heresie but it was the custom of angry Bishops in those Ages to call all men Hereticks that stood in their way as appears by the famous Catalogues of Hereticks and Heresies that Philastrius a Bishop and Saint has bequeathed unto the World It is too evident to be concealed that Epiphanius though otherwise a Worthy and Good Man was of a hot and eager Temper rash in his Censures and sometimes transported into great irregularities of Practice as appears by the disturbance he made at Constantinople Socrates c. 11 12. and the rude Language he gave to Chrysostom because he did not at his command banish Dioscorus and condemn the Books of Origen The Learned Author of the Summary of the Controversies between the Church of England and the Church of Rome gives us an instance of the rash and injudicious Zeal of Epiphanius in condemning Aerius for Heresie in another point which will very much depreciate the Authority of that Father in judging of Heresies Summary of the Controv. p. 62.63 64. take it in the Words of our Author At the Celebration of the Eucharist the Bishop or Priest made mention of the Names of Martyrs and Confessors and those who had deserved well of the Church and particular Christians in their Private Devotions remembred their own Relations and Friends and thus it became a Custom without enquiring into the Reasons of it till by this Custom People began to conclude that such Prayers were profitable for the dead and that those who had not lived so well as they should do might obtain the pardon of their Sins by the Intercessions of the Living which I confess was a very natural Thought and shews us the easie progress of Superstition that Customs taken up without any good Reason will find some reason though a very bad one when they grow Popular upon this Aerius condemns the Practice and he is reckoned amongst Hereticks for so doing He desired to know for what Reason the Names of dead men are recited in the Celebration of the Eucharist and Prayers made for them whether by this means those who died in Sin might obtain Pardon which he thought if it were true would make it unnecessary to live vertuously if they had Pious Friends who would pray for them when they were dead Epiphanius undertakes to confute Aerius but gives such Reasons as are no answer at all to his Questions He says it signifies our Belief that those who are dead to this World do still live in another state are alive to God That it signifies our good Hopes of the Happy State of those who are gone hence That it is done to make a Distinction between Christ and all other good Men for we pray for all but him who intercedes for us all Very worthy Reasons of praying for the Dead c. Thus you see what a Monstrous Heretick Aerius was and what an admirable Confuter Epiphanius The Truth is these two Heresies of Aerius concerning the Parity of Bishops and Presbyters and the unlawfulness of praying for the dead are much of the same Nature and Epiphanius's Confutation of them both equally Learned and Satisfactory for it is very observable that in the same place where he condemns that monstrous prodigious Heresie of the Identity of Order he fairly confesses That by the two Orders of Presbyters and Deacons Epiph. conr Acrium haeres 75. p. 905. all Ecclesiastical Offices might be performed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 After the Fathers we have suffrage of the Canonists Gratian cap. 24. Legimus dist 39. cap. 5. Olim dist 95. cap. 4. Nullus dist 60. cap. 16. Ecce dist 95. Lancel l. 1. Tit. 21. p. 32. Auth. Glossae in cap. dist Concil Basil Duaren de sacr Eccl. Min. l. 1. c. 7. And it being thus enrolled in the Canon Law was publickly taught by the Schoolmen and others as Lombard lib. 4. Sentent dist 24. litera I. But at length the Roman Church saw it necessary for the better settling of the Papacy to advance the Order of Episcopacy above Presbytery and in the Council of Trent they have Decreed Sess 23. cap. 4. Can. 6 7. this Superiority and in their New Edition of the Canon Law have inserted this Note Annot. Marg. ad Cap. legimus dist 43. That Bishops have differed from Presbyters always as they do now in Government Prelacy Offices and Sacraments but not in the Name and Title of Bishop which was formerly common to both And those Learned Examiners of the Tridentine Council Chemnitius and Gentilletus Exam. part 2. Lib. 4. the one a Divine the other a Lawyer condemn this Decree the one by Scripture and Fathers the other by the Canon Law The Judgment of the Reformed Churches is so well known by the Harmony of Confessions that I shall not particularly enlarge upon it we have it there laid down