provinces of narrower circuits of ground And how doth it appear that an Oecumenical council rightly so named can be For suppose it be not necessary to consist of all the bishops in the world but of some as delegates in the name of all yet it must consist of so many proportionably delegated from all in the several quarters as may signifie the sence and consent of all Hereupon let it be considered whether there be a possibility of such assemblies much more whether there be a possibility of the continuation or of the succession of them in such frequency as would be requisite in case such an assembly were Head of the Church Nor doth it stand with reason that an Oecumenical council in case it were existent can possibly execute the authority that belongs to the head of the Universal Church in overseeing all in receiving appeals from all in making authoritative determinations for all either immediately by it self or mediately by subordinate councils judicatories and ministers to be superintended regulated and determined by it in their proceedings Nor is there any notice given of the said headship of a General council more than of the Popes or any other bishops universal headship in the primitive and authentick records of the Charter that Christ hath given to his Church to wit the Holy Scriptures Nor is any rule given therein for the constitution of a General council whether it shall be made up only of the Clergy or only of such bishops as are of a higher order thâ—â— Presbyters or of all such bishops of the Catholick Church or if of some in the name of all what number there must be either definite or indefinite and proportionate to the number of those that are represented It is evident de facto that the officers of the Catholick Church as the particular bishops or pastors and the associations and conventions of them do not derive their spiritual authority from a General council Nor doth it appear that de jure they should derive their power from it any more than from the Pope § 11. The infallibility of the Catholick Church examined THE Romanists assert an insallibility about matters of faith somewhere seated within the Catholick Church as the perpetual priviledg thereof some of them place it in the Pope and others in a General council Hereupon this priviledg is to be considered whether it be and what it is The meaning of the term is a being not liable to be deceived or to deceive about those matters about which it is said to be That the catholick church is infallible in the essentials of the christian religion is a most indubitable truth for every member of the catholick church so remaining is infallible so far it involves a a contradiction that any such should err therein for it were as much as to be a christian and no christian The Query therefore is whether it be liable to errour in the integrals aâ—d accidentals of Religion Now the church remaining such is not necessarily or in its nature infallible so far and therefore if it be infallible it must be so from the free grant of Christ But it doth not appear in the Holy Scripture that any such grant is made to the church What was the Apostles doctrine and consequently the doctrine of the Church in their days obedient to their authority we know what the church universally held in any one age touching all the integral parts of religion much more concerning accidentals I conceive extreamly difficult if not impossible to be known But that the church hath de facto if not universally yet very generally erred in the same errour about some integrals of religion appears by the ancient general practise of some things now generally accounted erroneous as for instance the giving of the Lords Supper to infants Moreover it is evident that the whole Church in its several parts hath erred some in one point some in another and that no part thereof hath been found in which hath appeared no error in some point of Religion or other And if all the parts may variously err in several points why may not they also harmoniously err all of them in one and the same point If the Catholick Church be not infallible in all doctrines of Faith much less is any such Council infallible as was ever yet congregated or is ever like to be congregated Hereupon it follows that in all Controversies of doctrine we cannot stand finally to the decision of the Catholick Church if it were possible to be had or to the decision of any the largest Council that can possibly convene We cannot tell what the Catholick Church is nor what particular Churches or persons are sound parts thereof but by the holy Scriptures For what Criterion can be brought besides them Mens bare testimony of themselves is not to be rested on How can we know that the first Nicene Council was orthodox in its determination about the Sacred Trinity and the second Nicene Council erroneous in its determination for Image-worship but by finding that the former was consonant and the latter dissonant to the Scripture in their aforesaid determinations If it be said That of Councils called General those that consist of greater numbers of bishops must carry it against those that consist of lesser numbers let some proof either from Scripture or Reason be given for it What ground is there from either to conclude that in the time of the Arrian Heresie the major part of bishops in the Roman Empire or the major part of those that assembled in Council and for instance in the first Council at Nice might not possibly have been Arrians Moreover if the major part were to carry it in the first six Centuries why not also in the ten last That promise of Christ Mat. 28. I am with you always to the end of the world may imply That there shall be a successive continuation of Bishops or Pastors in the Catholick Church to the worlds end that shall be Orthodox in the Essentials yea and in the Integrals of Religion yet it doth not imply that they shall be the greater number of those that are called and reputed bishops or pastors within Christendom nor that the greater number of those being convened in Councils shall not err in their Conciliar determinations about matters of Faith § 12. Of the Indefectibility of the Catholick Church CHRIST hath promised the perpetuity of the Church in general in saying that he would build it on a Rock and the gates of Hell should not prevail against it and I am with you always to the end of the world but how far and in what respect this perpetuity and indefectibility is promised ought to be enquired into lest we expect or insist upon more than the promise hath ensured That which Christ hath promised cannot be less than that there be always upon earth a number of true believers or faithful Christians made visible by their external profession of Christianity successively
because it cannot be seen without an act of the understanding no more may the unity of the Catholick Church be for that reason judged invisible I have already shewed that the adequate notion of visible and invisible in this subject is to be not only the object of the bodily eye or other external sence but also of any humane intuition or certain perception or that which falls under humane cognizance and judgment § 9. The Polity of the Catholick Church THE Catholick Church is not as secular Kingdoms or Commonwealths are autonomical that is having within it self that Power of its own fundamental constitution and of the laws and officers and administrations belonging to it as a Church or spiritual polity but it hath received all these from Christ its Head King and Law giver Indeed as it includes Christ the Head it is in reference to him autonomical but here we consider it as a political Body visible upon earth and abstracted from its Head Nevertheless it hath according to the capacity of its acting that is in its several parts a power of secondary Laws or Canons either to impress the Laws of Christ upon its members or to regulate circumstantials and accidentals in Religion by determining things necessary in genere and not determined of Christ in spâ—câ—â— but left to humane determination The spiritual authority seated in the Church is not seated in the Church as Catholick so as to descend from it by way of derivation and communication to particular Churches but it is immediately seated in the several particular Churches as similar parts of one political Body the Church Catholick The Church Catholick is as one universal or Oecumenical Kingdom having one supream Lord one Body of Lawâ— one Form of Government one way of Enrollment into it and subiects who have freedom throughout the whole extent thereof radically and fundamentally always and actually to be used according to their occasions and capacities but having no Terrene Universal Administrator or Vicegerent personal or collective but several administrators in the several provinces or parts thereof invested with the same kind of authority respecting the whole kingdom radically or fundamentally but to be exercised ordinarily in their own stated limits and occasionally any where else according to a due call and order Wherefore tho it be one political society yet not so as to have one terrestrial vicarious Head personal or collective having legislation and jurisdiction over the whole And indeed no terrestrial Head is capable of the Government and Christ the Supream Head and Lord being powerfully present throughout the whole by his spirit causeth that such a vicarious Head is not wanted Indeed the Apostles as such were universal officers having Apostolick authority not only radically or habitually but actually also over the whole Catholick Church in regard they were divinely inspired and immediately commissioned by Christ under him to erect his Church and to establish his religion even the Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government that was to be received by all Christians But this office was but temporary in the nature and formal reason of it and so expired with their persons and was not of the essence or a constitutive part of this society § 10. The Headship of a General Council examined BY Headship over the Church in this inquiry is not meant a dominion and Desporick power over it for the Church hath no Lord but Christ nor soveraign authority over it which is the power of legislation and final decisive judgment by which men stand or fall finally for the Church hath no King but Christ I exclude Headship in any such sence as not fit to come under consideration But the Query is Whether a general Council be supream in that kind of power which resides in the Church and is only ministerial and dispensatory that is whether it hath a supream ministry or Geconomy over the Catholick Church so that all Churches and ministers have their power conveyed to them from the same not as from the Fountain which is Christ alone but as from the first receptacle thereof and are subject to its authoritative regulation and determinations and finally accountable to it for their administrations Who can affirm that an Oecumenical council rightly so named was ever in being The councils that have born that name were conventions of Bishops within the Roman Empire except some very few that were without it and those living near the confines of it Whereupon let it be considered whether the said councils were truly Oecumenical or just representatives of the Catholick Church That which is wont to be said for the affirmative is that no Bishops were excluded from the right of voting therein but from all parts of the world they might come to them as rightful members of them if they would But what if no greater number of Bishops meet upon a summons to a General council than did at the council of Trent May such a convention be called an Oecumenical council because all might come that would when so small a number came as was comparatively nothing to the number of bishops throughout the world Or can the convention of a greater number suppose as many as met in the first Nicene council be justly called a representative of the Catholick Church or carry the sence of it when it bears no more proportion to it Surely it is not their freedom of access but their actual convening at least in a proportionable number that can justly give the denomination And what if the bishops without the limits of the Roman Empire would not come to a General council called by the Mandate of the Roman Emperour especially they that lived in the remoter parts as Ethiopia and India c Were they obliged to come to a general council in case it had been summoned in another especially a remoter Empire or Dominionâ— Moreover what if they could not come which may well be supposed by reason of the restraint of their several Princes or the length of the journey or insuperable difficulties or utter incapacities Tho the most illustrious part of the Catholick Church was contained in the Roman Empire yet an assembly of the bishops thereof could no more make a representative of the Catholick Church than an assembly of the bishops of the other part of the world without them could have done if there had been such an assembly Besides the ancient General councils were usually called in the Eastern parts of the Empire and tho the bishops of those parts might convene in a considerable number yet the number from the Western parts was inconsiderable and as none comparatively to a just proportion Let it be hereupon considered whether the said councils were a just representative and did carry the sence of that part of the Catholick Church that was included in that Empire And in this consideration it is not of little moment to observe what numbers of bishops were ordinarily congregated in the many provincial assemblies and that within
Iowest political church but as constituted by the political union of congregational or parochial churches held also to be political under an officer of another order and the proper superior of those officers under which the parochial churches immediately are then let it be observed that a church of this frame is not properly an Episcopal but an Archiepiscopal Church For the churches whereof it is compacted are properly Episcopal being such as have each of them their own bishop pastor or elder But the divine right of such an Archiepiscopal church I leave to further inquiry As for a National church I come now to inquire in what sence it may or may not be granted In a more general notion it is some part of the universal church distinguished and severed from the rest of that body by the limits of a Nation or of a civil state or in other terms a nation of Christian churches or the Christian churches of a Nation But there are more express and special notions thereof respecting the frame of Ecclesiastical Polity which are discrepant from each other And about the being thereof in these special notions mens judgments vary Some own a national church in this sence only viz. a nation of churches or the churches of a nation agreeing at least in the essentials of christian Dectrine divine Worship and church-Government Some own a national church in a stricter sense namely the said churches not only agreeing in the points aforesaid but politically united by the same common band of Ecclesiastical Government under one head personal or collective And this stricter sence hath a subdivision for it may be understood of the churches united in a Civil Ecclesiastical polity under a civil head or supream or of the churches embodyed in the band of a polity purely Ecclesiastical under a spiritual head or supream I own the rightful being and divine warrant of a national church as united in one Civil Ecclesiastical polity under one civil head or supream either personal as in a Monarchy or collective as in a Republick And in this sence I assent to the National Church of England viz. All the churches in England politically united under one Supream Civil Church-Governour the Kings Majesty Yet it is to be understood that the partition of a church by the bounds of a nation or of a civil state is but extrinsecal or accidental to the church as such also that the union of the churches of a nation in the band of civil church-polity under a civil head is but an extrinsecal and not an intrinsecal union But I question the divine warrant of a national church embodied in the band of one national polity purely Ecclesiastical under one spiritual head or supream either Personal as a Primate or Patriarch or collective as a consistory of bishops or elders intrinsecally belonging to it and being a constitutive part of it For I find no Canon or Precedent for it in Scripture which is the adequate rule of divine right in the frame of churches and of what intrinsecally belongs thereuntò and I do not know any such spiritual head of the Church of England as for the Arch-bishops of Canterbury and York they at the most can be heads but of their respective provinces and are not subordinate but coordinate to each other in point of Archiepiscopal Government however the case is between them in point of precedency Yet if the civil supream power shall constitute a person or persons Ecclesiastical to be head of a national church or the churches of a nation politically imbodied I here offer nothing against it or for it But if there be such a national constitution being but humane it is but extrinsecal and accidental to the church and being derived from the civil supream it is but a civil church-polity § 21. The subordination of particular Churches to an association or collective body of the same Churches considered I Come to enquire whether there be a subordination of churches taken distributively to an association o◠collective body of the same Churches or an assembly thereof and again whether there be a subordination of that collective body to a larger association of more collective bodies or to an assembly thereof and so forward till we come to the largest that can be reached unto The association of particular churches is of the law of nature and therefore to be put in practise according to their capacity tho there were no positive law for it for they are all so many distinct members of one great body or integral parts of the Catholick church and they are all concerned in each others well being both in reference to themselves as fellow members of one body and to Christ their Head whose honour and interest they must promote each church not only within themselves but throughout all the churches to the utmost extent of their agency And they naturally stand in need of each others help in things that concern them severally and jointly Likewise that there be greater and lesser associations acting in their several spheres higher or lower the one included in the other is of the law of nature or of natural convenience for the more ample capacity and more orderly contributing of the mutual help aforesad such as have been called classical provincial and national assemblies used in one form of church-government yea and beyond this the association of the churches of many nations as far towards an oecumenical council as they are capable of convening is of the same reason But of an oecumenical association truly so called that is of all the churches in the world the moral impossibility thereof hath been spoken of before It is also by the law of nature most convenienient that in the lesser associations all the ruling officers personally meet and that in the larger they meet by their delegates or representatives chosen by all and sent in the name of all which meetings are called assemblies or synods and the convenience of meeting by delegates is that the particular churches be not for a time left wholly destitute of their guides and that there may be less trouble and difficulty and danger of disorder in the whole management Note That what is most naturally convenient hath in it the reason of necessary or is matter of duty unless when something gainsay or hinder and then indeed it ceaseth to be convenient And that there be some kind of subordination in the said associations and their respective Assemblies is of the Law of nature which requires order but as to the kind or manner of subordination men go several ways Some place it in a proper Authority or Governing power that the collective bodies of Churches have over the several Churches included in them others place it in the agreement of the several churches and some of these make this further explanation that the Canons made by Synods as they are made for the people who are subject to the Pastors are a sort of Laws and oblige by
preservative and accumulative not destructive or diminutive The Church is Christs family and the magistrate is not the Lord but a member of it and cannot govern it at his pleasure but only as the Lord himself hath allowed and the state thereof requires In short the magistrate as well as the minister hath received his authority for edisication not for destruction The magistrate cannot make any new essential or integral part of religion either Doctrine of Faith or Divine Worship but he is as much bound up to the religion that is of Gods making as the meanest of his Subjects for he and they are Gods Subjects both alike But by his civil sanctions he may strengthen the true religion and enforce the observance of the Divine Laws so far as it is meet they should be inforced by Humane Laws and this is the most noble part of his work in matters of Religion The Magistrate may and must take care that sacred things be duly administred by sacred or spiritual officers and he may and must punish them for mal-administration He may and must restrain persons of impious principles from venting their wicked errors and from any open impious practice by a power formally civil tho objectively ecclesiastical He may convocate synods or councils of ecclesiastical persons to advise and conclude according to the Word of God how the Church being corrupt is to be reformed and how to be guided and governed when reformed And he ought to use his own judgment of discretion concerning the decrees and judgments of ecclesiastical persons in reference to his own act of political ratifying the same The Magistrate cannot maâ—e any new kind of sacred or spiritual office becâ—use he cannot institute any new sacred work and the work that Christ hath instituted â—ath an officer of his own institution already appointed for it also because a spiritual office is to be administred not in the Magistrates but in Christs Name yet he may make new offices for civil service about sacred things He cannot appoint any thing in religion that is forbidden by the divine laws nor forbid any thing appointed by the divine laws All his authority being from God cannot be against him And therefore such injunctions and prohibitions can lay no obligations of obedience upon the subject Hereupon he cannot forbid the preaching of the Gospel or the administring of Sacraments for then it were at his pleasure whether Christ should have a Church or Kingdom upon earth He cannot take one part of the Pastors office from him while he continues him the exercise of the other for that were to maim and marr the office He cannot deprive a Pastor of his Pastoral office or discharge him from fulfilling his Ministry because it is held from Christ and not from him He may not compel aminister to give the Sacraments to whom he pleases nor may he compel any to profess either in word or deed wha they believe not or to take that which God hath made the specia priviledg of Believers The accidental parts modes and circumstances of Religion which are necessary in general and left undetermined of God in particular the Magistrate hath power to determine according to the general rules of Gods Word Forasmuch as the Divine Law doth constitute more particulars and leaves less to humane liberty and God is more jealous and conscience more scrupulous in sacred than in common things it behoves the Magistrate to be wary humble and sober in his determinations about these matters He may regulate the preaching of the Gospel provided that regulation be for the furtherance not the hinderance thereof And that can be no part of due ordering that causeth the destruction or dangerous detriment of the thing ordered The Magistrate may not appoint that which is not simply forbidden of God if it be scandalous or mischievous in the consequents nor may he forbid that which God hath not appointed but left indifferent if the omission of it be scandalous or mischievous in the consequents because in such cases God hath forbidden the former and required the latter by his general command and because the Magistrate hath his authority as was said for edification not for destruction OF CERTAINTY and INFALLIBILITY § 1. Of Certainty in general I Begin the enquiry by taking notice of the common distinction of objective and subjective Certainty Objective Certainty or Certainty in the object is the immutable verity of the thing it self For that a thing is what it is is unchangeably true Subjective Certainty is the firmness of assent to a thing apprehended as it is It is this later which I enquire into and it presupposeth the former It must be supposed that our faculties are true that is that in their sound state and set in due circumstances they are adapted to discern things as they are indeed Otherwise the question of the nature of Certainty is out of dores there being no such thing in the world Certainty of Assent includes three things 1. That it be firm without staggering 2. That it be true and not erroneous 3. That it rest upon firm and sure grounds The first is evidently necessary because it is the very notation of the word Certainty the notion we mean thereby is not to doubt or stagger in our apprehension of a thing The second is as evidently necessary for Certainty is an affection of knowledg but an erroneous apprehension is not knowledg but ignorance a confident mistake cannot be certainty The third also is clear for if the grounds be either false or weak the knowledg built thereon cannot be sure Tho the assent be true in respect of the object yet it is not certain in this case because not judicious nor solid yea tho the apprehension be according to the thing yet as far as it rests upon a false or weak ground it is not knowledg properly so called but a casual confidence or presumption and when the insufficiency of the grounds shall appear the apprehension fails and vanisheth away Meer probability is not Certainty strictly so called it is indeed an affection or mode both of knowledg and of error which is a kind of ignorance for that which is only probable may either be or not be what it is apprehended to be and so the apprehension thereof may be either true or false either knowledg or error Yet the apprehending of a probable thing only as probable is always a right apprehension for whether the thing be or not be it is certainly true that it is probable The reason of probability lies in a sufficient evidence that a thing not only may be but is so indeed rather than not so as it is apprehended to be The reason of Certainty lies in a sufficient evidence that a thing must needs be as it is apprehended For if there be not such evidence then if we indeed consider the matter we presently apprehend that in regard the thing may be otherwise it is so for ought we know and that
they grant a kind of Certainty as the one by usurped authority impose upon mens belief in the matter of Religion which is mans highest concernment so the other take away or lessen that security of the mind which is reasonably required in so great a matter and give too great advantage to the pretenders on the other extream The term infallible may be taken first in a passive signification and then it is that which cannot be deceived And so it may be applied either to the propounder or to the believer of a truth It may also be taken in an active signification for that which cannot deceive and so it may be applied to the propounder as also to the truth it self proposed and â—o the evidence thereof as in our English Translation Act. 1.3 by many infallible proofs that is evidence that could not deceive Infallibility as ascribed to the propounder or believer of a truth is subjective infallibility as ascribed to the truth propounded or the evidence thereof it is objective infallibility which signifies no more than that the thing cannot be false and cannot objectively deceive Now if there may be objective there may be also subjective infallibility If there be truth and an evidence of truth that cannot be false then an understanding apprehending that truth as it is cannot be deceived therein nor can deceive in propounding the same to others Besides objective infallibility is an insignificant thing in reference to an understanding uncapable of infallibility An object is denominated infallible with respect to the understanding to which it is or may be propounded as not to be deceived in it § 12. Of Infallibility which is hypothetical and limited and that which is absolute and unlimited INFALLIBILITY therefore denoting an impossibility of being deceived and of deceiving inquire we into the subject to whom it doth belong Some say an impossibility of being deceived belongs only to an infinitely perfect understanding We must distinguish between an impossibility of being deceived that is absolute and unlimited and that which is hypothetical and limited I grant that an absolute impossibility of being deceived belongs not to a finite understanding And no asserter of infallibility in the creature intended the former but the latter kind Hypothetical and limited impossibility of being deceived may belong to a finite and in particular to a humane understanding and it is that which supposeth a full revelation natural or supernatural to the subject in whom it is and is limited to the truth so revealed and this hypothetical infallibility doth not rest barely upon the perfection of the humane nature but upon this principle That God is true in his revelations both natural and supernatural and that he doth not govern the world by falshoods Now this is proper infallibility For upon this principle I am not only sure that I am not deceived but also that I cannot be deceived as to the particular truths so evident to me or to speak it plainer it cannot be that I am therein deceived for it were a contradiction Moreover that which is certain is so upon necessary grounds and therefore cannot be false And he that knows it to be certain knows it upon those necessary grounds and consequently that it cannot be false and this is to know it infallibly If we know nothing infallibly we know nothing either as necessary or as impossible whether absolutely or hypothetically § 13. Of stated or permanent Infallibility and that which is but pro tempore IT hath been shewed that an understanding that is not absolutely or by the perfection of its nature infallible may be secured from possibility of mistake and an understanding that is not universally infallible may be secured from possibility of mistakes and so be infallible in certain cases and to certain intents Now it is further to be noted That there may be a stated or permanent Infallibility and that which is but temporary The former did belong to the established Prophets of the Lord in their declarations to his people and to the Apostles of Christ in matters pertaining to their Apostolical Commission for establishing the Religion and Churches of Christ Also upon supposition of the Saints perseverance it belongs to all true Christians as to the Essentials of Christianity The temporary Infallibility belongs to such persons as receive the Visions of God or are divinely inspired not statedly but occasionally at some particular time or times as among holy men Zacharias John Baptists Father Gideon the Parents of Sampson among the unholy Balaam in his Prophesies before Balaac and Saul who sometime was found prophecying § 14. The Infallibility of a finite Vnderstanding further cleared IT is granted by the deniers of Infallibility That that which is true is not possible to be false And thence I infer If I know it to be true I know it is not possible to be false and so I infallibly know it And my assent to a truth as for instance to the Christian Faith cannot possibly be false Some that say an impossibility of being deceived belongs only to an infinitely perfect understanding do grant that an understanding liable to be deceived may not be deceived and be sure that he is not And I infer thereupon that he cannot be deceived in that particular assent I mean not that he cannot simply but in that state and circumstances wherein he is put he cannot be deceived therein and that he knows he cannot because he knows it implies a contradiction that he should be deceived in that wherein he is sure that he is not deceived For if I may be deceived in such an apprehension or assent not only simply but all circumstances being put I cannot be sure that I am not deceived therein Likewise those that say an impossibility of being deceived belongs only to an infinitely perfect understanding do grant that a man cannot be deceived in that thing with the belief whereof God inspires him and gives him such evidence thereof as cannot be false Now this is a concession of hypothetical and limited insallibility to humane understanding For it is here acknowledged that there may be such evidence of divine inspiration as cannot be false And indeed I take it for a repugnancy in nature that God should inspire the belief of a falshood Nevertheless a man divinely inspired is not simply infallible in his apprehension of divine inspiration for he may sometime be deceived in thinking he is so inspired when he is not Thus it being evident that an understanding that is not simply infallible in a matter may in the state and circumstances wherein he is put be therein infallible I think it better to explain and limit the term and notion of infallibility in the humane understanding than wholly to reject it But howsoever they that reject or dislike it do grant and contend for a sufficiently certrin evidence of truth and I will not quarrel if that will serve for infallibility And they will also grant that they who
experience consider we whether a man may and ought to have a Certainty therein and of what sort it is On the one hand doubtless it is not such a Certainty as expels all fear of carefulness On the other hand it is doubtless such a Certainty at least as expels anxiety and is sufficient to settle the peace of conscience And I think in this both Papists and Protestants do agree There is a Certainty that expels all apprehension that the contrary may be true whereof this is an instance That there were such persons as Alexander the Great and Julius Cesar and this hath gained the name of moral Certainty tho I think it may be called natural as grounded on naturally certain evidence And that a man may have such a Certainty of his unfeigned faith is held by Protestants in general and some Papists Nevertheless the Papists in general grant not this kind but only a lower kind of Certainty hereof which they call conjectural yet they tell us that it is certainty truly so called that it expels fluctuation and suspence and brings peace and joy and security and withal they say that the Just believe indeed that they are not herein deceived but not that they cannot be deceived But how this lower kind can be certainty properly so called I see not For an apprehension that the thing is otherwise than I think excludes all Certainty properly or strictly so called The above said moral Certainty of justification or being in the state of Grace is not attained by all justified persons and where it is attained it is not ordinarily continued without interruption nor ordinarily in the same degree because justified persons even the best of them do not continue without interruption in the same degree of faith and holiness on the internal sense whereof this Certainty depends THE TRUE STATE Of The ANCIENT EPISCOPACY § 1 What was anciently a Bishops Church THE Name Church is the first and only Scripture-name properly belonging to a Bishops charge In the beginning of Christianity Bishops or Pastors had their Churches in Cities or Towns And commonly the Converts of the Adjacent Villages were by reason of their paucity taken in as parts of the City Congregation and all made but one particular Church the members whereof had local Communion with each other Accordingly the name of city applied to a Bishops charge could be but extrinsecal it being not the name of the thing it self but only of the place where it was congregate The name of Parish came next in use for the said charge And this name is still in use for a particular Church or Congregation which hath its proper and immediate Bishop or Pastor The word Diocess as relating to a Bishop was unknown for several ages of Christianity but afterwards it was borrowed from civil use and applied to the Church A Diocess was one of the larger divisions of the Roman Empire and comprehended several Provinces Accordingly when it was first applied to the Church it was used for the same circuit and as a Province was the charge of a Metropolitan who had many Bishops under him so a Diocess was the charge of a Patriarch who had many Metropolitans under him And according to this sence there was a Canon made to forbid the running for ordination without the Diocess that is without or beyond the foresaid patriarchal circuit But the use of the word for the charge of such a Bishop as had no Bishops but only Presbyters under him came up in latter times From the first and only Scripture-name properly belonging to a Bishops charge it is inferred that a Bishop and a particular Church are correlates A particular Church as such hath its own proper Bishop and a Bishop as such hath his particular Church as his proper and immediate charge The bishops Church was anciently but one society Ecclesiastical which might and did personally meet together at once or by turns for Worship and Discipline under the same immediate Pastors which appears by the proofs here following 1. All the members thereof even men servants and maid-servants as well as others might and should be known by name to the bishop Ignat. Ep. to Policarp Id. ad Trall In the Panegyrick of Paulinus Bishop of Tyre Euseb lib. 10. cap. 4. It is said 'T is the work of a bishop to be intimately acquainted with the minds and states of every one of the flock when by experience and time he hath made inquiry into every one of them 2. One Church had but one Altar and consequently but one stated assembly for full Communion Ignat. Ep. ad Philadelph To the Presbyters and Deacons my fellow servants If one bishop must here be taken numerically so must one altar The Apostles Canons c. 5.32 make it appear there was but one altar and one bishop with the Presbyters and Deacons in a church Also Council Antiochen c. 5. Hereupon Mr. Mede saith that before diocesses were divided into parishes they had not only one altar in one church or dominicum but one altar to a church taking church for the company or corporation of the faithful united under one bishop or pastor and that was in the city or place where the bishop had his Sea or Residence Add hereunto that to set up another altar was accounted a note of schism 3. Each single church had its proper and immediate bishop Ignat ad Philad as before to every church one altar one bishop He shews also that without a bishop the state of a church exists not Ep. ad Smyrn Wheresoever the bishop appears there is the church as wheresoever Jesus Christ appears there is the Catholick church A particular church was then no larger than that where the bishop appeared Id. ad Trall The bishop is a type of the highest father and the Presbyters are as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of God and the bond of Apostolical concord Ib. Be subject to the bishop likewise to the presbyters and deacons This shews that the bishop and presbyters were together in one and the same particular church and jointly took the immediate charge of the flock 4. Some of the Ancients testifie that the Apostles placed only bishops without presbyters in some churches Epiphan Heres 65. 5. Concerning the largeness of a bishops church let that instance of Gregory Thaumaturgus be considered He was made bishop of Neocaesarea when he had but seventeen Christians afterwards when many were converted at Comana a small town that was near he did not make it a part of his own diocess but ordained Alexander the Collier a right worthy person to be their bishop And they were of no greater number than what met to chuse him and hear him preach 6. The ordinary work of a bishop shews that it was but one single church that he had charge of Justin Martyr setting forth the manner of the church assemblies tells us that the President himself preached gave thanks administred the Eucharist and exercised discipline Tertullian
de corona Militis c. 3. saith We take the Sacrament of the Eucharist from the hand of no other than of the President It is to be noted that in those times they received the Sacrament at least every Lords day And it is confessed by Episcopal Divines that this President was the bishop But if any say that he was a meer presbyter they must grant that a presbyter had the name of President and a governing power 7. It is much asserted among the Hierarchical Divines that anciently bishops only were allowed to preach And if this was so it was and could be but one single church that a bishop had as his immediate charge for we cannot imagine that there were churches which ordinarily had no preaching or in which preaching was not ordinarily allowed yea the presbyters might not baptize without the bishops command or consent This shews that each particular church had its proper bishop 8. That church in which divine worship was performed had also discipline exercised in it Tertul. Apol. c. 39. 9. The bishops church was no greater than that all the people could meet together and chuse their bishop In Cyprian's time at the ordaining of a bishop the next bishops came to the people for whom the bishop was to be ordained and every one was acquainted with his conversation Cypr. lib. 1. Ep. 4. Erasmus Edit to Felix a presbyter Nor let the people flatter themselves as free from the contagion of the sin when they communicate with a priest that is a sinner They ought to separate themselves from him seeing they chiefly have the power either of chusing worthy or refusing unworthy priests Sacerdotal Ordinations ought not to be made but under the conscience of the assisting people The custom is with us and almost throughout all provinces That to the celebrating of Ordinations all the next bâ—shops of the same province assemble with the people to whom the Praepositus is ordained To the same purpose we find much in very many of his Epistles This was the ordinary course of the first Ages for all the people to chuse their bishops and to be present thereat for which a multitude of testimonies may easily be produced 10. Apost Can. c. 5. shew that the bishop with his presbyters and deacons lived on the gifts of the same altar 'T was the custom of bishops and their presbyters to dwell together and be in common 11. The numerousness of the ancient bishops and their churches shew that those churches were of no large extent In the first council of Carthage it was decreed c. 11. That for examining every ordinary cause of an accused presbyter six bishops out of the neighbouring-places were to hear and determine and for every cause of a deacon three bishops It is reported that Patrick planted in Ireland three hundred sixty five churches and as many bishops In the Vandalick persecution six hundred and sixty bishops fled out of one part of Africa besides all that were murthered imprisoned and tolerated Many proofs hereof might be alledged but in general it sufficeth to note That a great number of bishops could on a sudden meet together in a Provincial Assembly as in the sixth council of Carthage two hundred and seventeen bishops were met And in the times of persecution under the heathen Emperors there were numerous Assemblies of bishops when they went in fear of their lives 12. The paucity of Presbyters in a Bishops Church shews that it was not very large In greater Churches they had a greater number of presbyters but in smaller they had often two sometimes one sometimes none The matter here considered touching the ancient form and state of a bishops Church will be further cleared in the following Sections § 2. Of the place where a Bishops Church anciently was and might be constituted THAT every City which had a competent number of Christians had a bishop with his Church is granted on all sides And that it was not a bishops seat which made that a City which otherwise would not have been so but that every Town or Burrough was a City receptive or capable of a bishop cannot reasonably be denied The Scripture useth the word City for any Town or Burrough Mat. 12.25 Mat. 23.34 Luk. 2.3 Luk. 7.11 Act. 15 21. Crete which was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 could not have a Hundred cities in it unless such as our Burroughs and in every such city the Rule was to ordain elders or bishops Tit. 1.5 What argument from Scripture or reason can be brought why Worcester Glocester Chichester c. should be made Cities and seats of Bishops rather than Shrewsbury Ipswich Blimouth c In the first ages of the Christian Church all Towns were Cities to this intent without any difference Yea any places of greater confluence of people were in the same capacity of having Churches Theophilus Alexandrius Epist Pascal in Bibliotheca Patrum 3 Tom. mentions Bishops in very small Cities Zozomen saith that Spiridion was bishop of the Town Trimethus and said to be Keeper of sheep in that Town after he was bishop There is also sufficient proof that bishops were ordained in Villages or in places that were no Cities Majuma was the port of Gaza and because it had many Christians it was honoured by Constantine with the name of a City and a bishop of its own And when Julian in malice took from it the honour of being a City it still kept its own bishop tho it had the same Magistrates and Military Governours with Gaza And when the bishop of Gaza sought to subject the Clergy of Majuma to himself saying 't was unmeet that one City should have two bishops a Councel in Palestine called for that purpose confirmed the priviledges of Majuma Sozomen l. 5. cap. 3. Cenchrea was but a Port of Corinth as Pyraeus of Athens yet we find a Church constituted there Rom. 16.1 They who say it was a parish subordinate to the Church of Corinth having only a presbyter assigned to it are bound to prove it Clemens Apostolical constitutions lib. 7. c. 84. saith that Cenchrea near Corinth had Lucius a bishop Sozomen l. 7. c 19. saith when throughout Scythia there are many Cities which have all one bishop there are other Nations where bishops are ordained in villages as among the Arabians and Cyprians and Phrygian Montanists In the Counccil of Sardica Can. 6. it was decreed that bishops may not be ordained in villages or in small cities where one presbyter will suffice lest the name and authority of a bishop should become vile But this was done in the middle of the fourth Century and the decree implies that till then bishops had been allowed in villages and small Cities The Chorepiscopi were placed in country villages when Christians grew so numerous as to have Churches in them and this proves that the Churches then kept in a narrow compass The Canons made to express this sort of Ministers and to turn them into the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the 57th Canon of the Laodicean Councel do shew that bishops with their Churches had been constituted in villages tho in some dependance on the City-bishop Mr. Beverege in his Annotations on Council Anchyram c. 13. shews that the the Chorepiscopi were truly bishops tho the exercise of some Episcopal functions were denied them by the Canons and by the Canon last mentioned they were not absolutely forbidden to ordain presbyters and deacons but that they should not do it without the permission of the City-bishop under whom they were § 3. Of divers Cities having two Bishops at once THERE are many instances in the antiquity of two bishops allowed at once in the same City Narcissus and Alexander were bishops of Jerusalem at the same time Euseb Hist l. 6. c. 9 10. Ignatius and Euodius were both bishops of Antioch at the same time Clemens const l. 7.46 At Rome Linus and Clâ—tus were fellow bishops in Peters days Platina in the life of St. Peter Epiphanius heresy 68 concerning Meletius saith Alexandria had not anciently two Bishops as other Cities had Austin was made Bishop of Hippo in the days of Valerius and joined with him as his colleague in the Episcopal function Aug. Epist 34. to Paulinus And some learned men of the hierarchical way conceive that Peter and Paul were bishops of Rome at the same time the one of the Circumcision and the other of the Uncircumcision The Nicene Council was the first that decreed that universally there should be but one bishop in a City Can. 8. If any that come from the Novations to the Catholick Church be a bishop let him have the dignity of Priesthood unless it please the Catholick bishop to give him also the honour of the Episcopal Name If it doth not please him let him find a place for him that he may be a Chorepiscopus in the parish or a presbyter in the Clergy that there may not seem to be two bishops in one City As concerning the Catalogues of the ancient bishops in great Cities wherein the succession is by one single person after another It may be considered That Historians being of later ages had respect to the custom of their own times wherein the Episcopacy resided in one And when anciently there were two or more equal in the name and authority of a Bishop the survivor was reckoned the successor whenas he was indeed but the surviving colleague Some do thus labour to remove the contradictions of Historians touching the order of the succession of the first bishops of Rome Linus Cletus Anacletus c. by supposing that these or some of them were presbyters or bishops at the same time ruling that Church in common and that the following writers fancying to themselves such bishops as were set up in the Church in their times fell into those diversities of tradition § 4. Of the more late Erection of many Parishes under one bishop IT is acknowedged by all parties that Christians in great Cities were not divided into divers fixed Congregations or Parishes till long after the Apostles days And tho when they were multiplied they had divers meeting-places yet those places were promiscuously frequented and the people were taught and governed by all the Presbyters in common and were called but one Church It is observed by Epiphanius Heres 68. n. 6. That it was the Custom only at Alexandria to have one president in the whole City and to distribute the presbyters to teach severally vid. Grot. Annot. on 1 Tim. 5.17 Seldens Comment on Eutych Origin Alexand. p. 85. And most agree that it was two hundred and sixty years after Christ before parishes were distinguished And there must be a distinction of parishes before there could be a union of them into Diocesses § 5. That Bishops and Presbyters are of the same order The Testimony of later times concerning it THat this is not the opinion only of those who are now called Presbyterians let the testimonies both of ancient and later times touching this point be considered I begin with those of later times The French and Belgick Confessions assert the parity of order of all Ministers of the Gospel Reynold Peacock bishop of Chichester wrote a book de Ministrorum aqualitate which the Papists caused to be burnt Vid. Erasmus his Annotations on 1 Tim. 4. Cassanders consult Article 14. saith It is agreed among all that of old in the Apostles days there was no difference between bishops and presbyters but for orders sake and avoiding of schism a bishop was put before a presbyter This his opinion he delivered to the Emperor of Germany being sent for by him to inform his conscience about such questions In the time of King Henry the Eighth there was published a book by Cranmer and others called the bishops book wherein is affirmed that the difference of bishops was a device of the ancient fathers not mentioned in Scripture An. 1537. In the book called the Institution of a Christian man made by the Clergy in a provincial synod and set forth by the Kings Authority and approved by the Parliament it is asserted That the Fathers of the succeeding Church after the Apostles instituted certain inferior degrees of Ministry yet in the New Testament no mention is made of any degrees or distinctions in orders but only of Deacons or Ministers and of presbyters or bishops The Parliament Divines at the Treaty in the Isle of Wight in their Answer to the King say This doctrine of the sameness of the order of a bishop and presbyter was published by King Henry the Eighth An. 1543. to be received by all the subjects and was seen and approved by the Lords both spiritual and temporal and by the lower house of Parliament The words of the book are The Scripture mentions these two orders only to wit Presbyters and Deacons and the Apostles confirming them by prayer and imposition of hands Mr. Mede discourse 5. on 1 Cor. 4 1. saith there are properly but two orders Ecclesiastical Presbyters and Deacons the rest are but divers degrees of these two Dr. Hammonds opinion concerning bishops and presbyters is thus declared in his Annotations on Acts 11. Altho the Title of Elders hath extended to a second order in the Church and now is in use only for them yet in the Scripture-times it belonged principally if not alone to the bishops there being no evidence that any of that second order were then instituted in the Churches Now if in Scripture-times presbyters of an inferior order to bishops were not instituted as this learned man supposeth it is evident that all those Church-officers called presbyters mentioned in Scripture were bishops and if this inferior order of presbyters be not to be found in Scripture I desire to know what proof can be made of its divine institution Many if not most Papists acknowledg that presbytery is the highest order in the ministry and that Episcopacy is but a different degree of the same order And it is
no resolved point of faith among them whether bishops differ from presbyters only in degree or in order and office Catalogus Testium veritatis Tom. 2 reports that Wicklief held but two orders of ministers Walsing Hist. in Rich. 2 p. 205. saith That it was one of Wickliefs errors that every priest rightly ordained had power to administer all Sacraments Dr. Reynolds in his Epistle to Sir Francis Knolls shews That they who had laboured for Reformation of the Church for five hundred years past held that all pastors be they intituled bishops or priests have equal authority by the Word of God Ockham a great Schoolman faith that by Christs institution all priests of whatsoever degree are of equal authority power and jurisdiction Catal. Test Verit. Richardus de Media Villa in 4 Sent. distinct 24 q. 2. saith That Episcopacy is to be called not an order which is a Sacrament but rather a certain dignity of an order Council Colon. Enchirid. Christ Religion Paris edit An. 1558. p. 169. of holy orders saith bishops and presbyters were the same order in the primitive church as all the Epistles of Peter and Paul and Jerom also and almost all the Fathers witness Richardus Armachanus l. 9. c. 5. ad quest Armen saith There is not found in the Evangelical or Apostolical Scripture any difference between bishops and simple priests called presbyters It. lib. 11. q. Arm. c. 5. Johan Semeca in his gloss dist 95. c. Olim saith In the first primitive church the name and offices began to be distinguished and the prelation was for the remedy of Schism Gratian distinct 60 c. null ex urb pap saith The primitive church had only those two holy orders presbyterate and diaconate And Dr. Reynolds saith That this was once enrolled in the Canon-Law for sound doctrine Peter Lombard the father of the Schoolmen Lib. 4. distinct 24. tit 1. saith the same and that of these two Orders only we have the Apostles precept Sixtus Senensis heaps up the testimonies of others upon his own to the same thing § 6. The Testimony of Antiquity for the identity of Bishops and Presbyters HERE I first observe by way of preface That Michael Medina de Sacr. Orig. accusing Jerome of holding the sameness of bishops and presbyters saith that Ambrose Austin Sedulius Primasius Chrysostome Theodoret Oecumenius Theophylact were in the same Heresie as Bellarmine reports him lib. 4. de Eccles Milit. c. 9. The same Medina gives this reason why Jerome Austin and others of the Fathers fell into this Heresie as he calls it because this point was not then clearly determined of Hist of the Council of Trent lib. 7. p. 570. And Bellarmin de clero l. 1 c. 15. saith that this Medina assures us That St. Jerome was of Aerius his opinion in this point Touching Aerius Whitaker Controv. 2. q. 5. saith that he was not accounted an Heretick by all but by Eustathius who opposed him Dr. Reynolds in his Epist to Sir Francis Knolls shews out of bishop Jewel that Chrysostome Jerome Ambrose Austin Theodoret Primasius Sedulius Theophylact and most of the ancient Fathers held that bishops and presbyters are one in Scripture with whom Oecumenius and Anselm of Canterbury and another Anselm and Gregory and Gratian agree The Testimony of Clemens Romanus Clemens in his Epistle to the Corinthians mentions but two Orders Bishops and Deacons Pag. 96. The Apostles preaching through Regions and Cities did constitute their first fruits proving them by the Spirit to be bishops and deacons to those which should afterward believe With him bishops and presbyters are every where the same Ib. p. 4. Ye walked in the Laws of God subject to them that have the rule over you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and giving due honour to the Presbyters among you ye warned the young men that they should follow things moderate and grave Ib. p. 100. Our Apostles foreknowing there would be contentiona bout the name of Episcopacy for this cause having received certain foreknowledg appointed the aforesaid Episcopacy and gave Ordination 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that if they dyed other approved men might successively receive their Ministry 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It will not be a light sin to us if we eject out of thier Episcopacy those that have unblameably and holily offered that gift blessed are those presbyters who are gone before who have received a fruitful and perfect dissolution for they fear not lest any one should cast them out of the Charge wherein they are set Ib p. 108. Base things very base and unworthy of Christian conversation are reported That the most firm and ancient Church of Carinth for one or two persons doth move sedition against the presbyters Ib. p. 120. Who then is generous among you and let him say if the sedition and contention and schisms be risen because of me I will depart whithersoever ye will and do the things commanded by the multitude only let the flock of Christ be in peace with the presbyters set over it Ib. p. 128. You therefore that have laid the foundation of schism be subject to the presbyters be instructed unto Repentance c. These are the passages in that Epistle relating to the point here in question And who cannot see that here are only two Orders of Ministers bishops and deacons and not three bishops priests and deacons Also Presbyters and those in the Episcopacy and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are evidently the same And here is no mention of any office above the presbyters and to them the church were required to be subject As concerning that passage p. 7. To the High Priest proper ministrations were appointed to the priests their own place was assigned and upon the Levites their proper ministry lay and the Laick man bound to Laick precepts I conceive that it alone affords no argument for three Orders of ministry or essentially different offices in the Gospel-church For it respects the present matter but only in way of similitude and no more is signified thereby than as under the Mosaical Oeconomy there were several orders and several ministrations pertaining to them so it is also in the Gospel-church but it may not be used in argumentation beyond what is plainly designed in it much less may it be urged to prove any thing contrary to the tenor of the whole Epistle besides the High-priests office was not of another kind from the priests but a higher degree in the same office for some particular ministrations which also in time of his incapacity might be ordinarily performed by another priest And let the comparison be forced to the utmost it will shew no greater difference between a bishop and a presbyter than between an Archbishop and an ordinary bishop It is Grotius his argument That this Epistle of Clemens is genuine because it no where makes mention of that excessive authority which began to be afterwards introduced or was at first introduced at Alexandria by the custom of that church after the
convene and ordain one to the Patriarchate and that they might chuse the Patriarch out of any Region Jerome as an Historian only mentions from the testimony of Eusebius some bishops made by the Apostles But who can prove that those bishops were of a higher order than Presbyters The Testimonies of other Ancients in the same point Cyprian lib. 3. Epist 9. Erasmus his Edit to Rogatianus The Deacons must remember that the Lord chose Apostles that is bishops and Praepositi but after the ascension of the Lord the Apostles made Deacons to themselves as ministers of their Episcopacy and the church Here are but two Orders mentioned 1. bishops and Praepositi who were as the Apostles 2. Deacons who are ministers to them and the church Id. lib. 1. Epist 11. to Pomponius When all ought to maintain discipline much more the Praepositi and the Deacons From this and the other place before cited it may plainly appear that there was no middle office between that of the Praepositi and the Deacons And all the Presbyters being Praepositi must needs be of the same Order with bishops that title importing the very nature of the bishops office Chrysostome on the first to Timothy consesseth that there is little or no difference between a bishop and a presbyter That a bishop had not a different ordination from a presbyter Ambrose shews on 1 Tim. c. 3. in these words Why after the bishop doth he come to the ordination of a deacon Why but because there is one ordination of a bishop and presbyter for either of them is a priest but the bishop is the first every bishop is a presbyter but every presbyter is not a bishop for he is a bishop who is first among the presbyters Here note that the difference lies in this that the bishop is the first among the Presbyters Vid. Sedulius on Tit. 1. Anselm of Canterbury on Phil. 1. Beda on Acts 20. Alcuinus de divinis officiis c. 35 36. all agreeing in this point § 7. Testimonies to prove That the Episcopal Authority is really in the Presbyters 1. THAT Presbyters have the power of the keys and that the Apostles received it as Presbyters is commonly agreed on all sides Mr. Thorndike in his form of primitive Government and Right of Churches p. 128. saith That the power of the keys that is the power of the Church whereof that power is the root and source is common to bishops and presbyters Bishop Morton in his Apology Dr. Field and many others say much more 2. Presbyters have the power of jurisdiction and discipline particularly of excommunication and absolution Spalatensis proves that the power of excommunication and absolution is not different from the power of the keys which is exercised in foro poenitentiali and is acknowledged to belong to presbyters L. 5 c. 9. n. 2. l. 5. c. 2. n. 48 c. Jerome in his Epistle to Heliodor saith If I sin a presbyter may deliver me to Satan In the Church of England a presbyter is set to pass the sentence of excommunication in the Chancellors Court tho he doth but speak the words when the Court bids him Tertullian in his Apology c. 59. saith that probati quique seniores all the approved Elders did exercise discipline in the Church Clemens Alexandrinus Strom. l. 7. saith that in the Church the presbyters keep that discipline which makes men better Irenaeus l. 4. c. 44. With the order of presbytery they keep the doctrine of the Apostles sound and their conversation without offence unto the information and correction of the rest This place shews that discipline for correction as well as doctrine for information did belong to the presbyters Epiphanius haeres 42. reports that Marcion was expell'd by the Roman presbyters the Sea being vacant Id Heres 47. That Noetus was convicted judged and expelled by a session of presbyters Many Diocesses have been long without bishops upon several occasions and governed all that time by presbyters Vid. Blondels Apol. sect 3. p. 183 184. The Church of England allows presbyters in the Convocation to make Canons Also it allows presbyters to keep persons from the Communion of the Church for some offences and to receive them again if they repent To say that the presbyters cannot exercise this power without the bishops consent doth not derogate from the truth of their power herein for in some ancient times it was so ordered that presbyters could perform â—o sacred ministrations without their bishop They might not baptize as hath been observed without the bishops command but that limitation respected only the exercise of the power but not the power in it self 3. Presbyters have power of ordaining Acts 13.1 2 3. The Church of Antioch had not many Prelates at that time if any but the prophets and teachers there are mentioned as Ordainers Whereas some say they were bishops of many Churches in Syria they speak without proof and against the text which saith there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers c. which clearly expresseth that they all belonged to that Church this right of presbyters is confirmed by the passages before cited concerning the ordaining and making the bishops of Alexandria by the presbyters of that Church Firmilian in Cyprian Ep. 75. saith of them that Rule in the Church that they have the power of baptizing of laying on of hands and ordaining and who they be he expressed a little before viz. Seniors and Praepositi by which the presbyters as well as the bishops are understood Foelicissimus was ordained a deacon by Novatus one of Cyprians presbyters schismatically yet his ordination was not nulled by Cyprian but he was deposed for mal-administration The first Council of Nice in their Epistle to the Church of Alexandria and all the Churches of Egypt Libia and Pentapolis thus determine concerning the presbyters ordained by Meletius Socrat. l. 1. c. 6. Let those that by the grace of God and helped by our prayers are found to have turned aside to no schism but have contained themselves within the bounds of the Catholick and Apostolick Church free from spot of error have authority of ordaining Ministers and also of nominating those that are worthy of the Clergy c. Now tho they had not this power granted them to be exercised apart without their bishop yet it is to be noted that they had the power tho the Bishop as president guided in all those acts The Author of the Comment on the Ephesians that goes under the name of Ambrose saith That in Egypt the presbyters ordain consignant if the bishop be not present Also Austin faith that in Alexandria and all Egypt if the bishop be wanting the presbyters consecrate Presbyters sent bishops into England and ordained bishops for England Bedes Hist l. 3. c. 4 5. The Abbot and other presbyters of the Island Hye sent Aydan c. at King Oswalds Request and this was the ordinary custom tho in respect of the custom
was referred to a Synod consisting of bishops and presbyters Other precepts given them were above the proper work of a bishop of a particular Church To erect and govern Churches in a hundred Cities and to govern such presbyters who according to Dr. Hammond were bishops belonged not to an ordinary bishop of a particular Church Wherefore this latter sort of duties belonged to Timothy and Titus as Evangelists or General Ministers who had a kind of Vice-Apostolick office of which sort were Barnabas Silas Apollos Titus Timothy and Epaphroditus and others Ambrose on Eph. 4. saith they are stiled Evangelists who did Evangelizare sine Cathedra It often happened that those unfixed Officers resided for a longer time in some places and then they managed the affairs of those Churches in chief during the time of their residence § 10. Concerning the Angels of the Seven Churches in ASIA IT is much insisted on that these Angels were bishops of a superior Order to that of presbyters Whereupon let it be considered 1. That the title of Stars and Angels are not proper but figurative and mystical names made use of in a mystical book and that the said names are common to all ministers Gregory the Great l. 34. Mor. on Joâ— c. 4. saith that these Angels are the preachers of the Churches 2. That the name Angel may be taken collectively not individually Austins Homily on the Apoc on these words I will remove thy Candlestick saith that John calls the Church the Angel As the Civil state of the Pagano-Christian Empire is called the Beast and the Ecclesiastical state the Whore so Angel may signifie the whole Presbytery but put in the singular number to hold proportion to the seven stars which signifie the same thing and the seven Candlesticks In these Epistles to the Churches there are indications that not a single person but a company is represented under this name Rev. 2.10 16 24 25. 3. Beza saith that this Angel was only praeses Indeed he to whom the title of bishop was appropriated by the ancient Fathers was the President of the presbytery Ambrose on 1 Tim. c. 3. saith He is the bishop who is first among the presbyters This priority or presidency is in History observed to have begun first at Alexandria the people whereof above other men were given to schism and sedition as Socrates saith of them l 7. c. 13. If this presidency began at Alexandria upon the death of Mark it must needs be long before the death of John the Apostle Howbeit Clement in his Epistle to the Corinthians takes no notice of such a priority or presidency of one above the rest in that Church And Jerome having mentioned John as the last of the Apostles saith that afterwards one was set over the rest Now whereas Jerome called the imparity of bishops and presbyters an Apostolical tradition it is to be noted that with him an Apostolical tradition and Ecclesiastical custome are the same But the main thing still remains unproved for ought that is to be gathered from this title of Angel or from any thing contained in these Epistles to the Asian Churches namely that these Angels whatsoever they might be were bishops of a superior order than that of presbyters or that they had a superiority of jurisdiction over the presbyters or that they were bishops set over divers setled Churches or fixed Congregations with their Pastors or that they had the sole power of jurisdiction and ordination The main point in controversie is not Whether bishops but whether such as the present Diocesan bishops have continued from the Apostles times to this Age. The ancient bishop was the Officer of a particular Church not a general Officer of many Churches He was not a bishop of bishops that is he did not assume a power of ruling bishops who have their proper stated Churches Cypr. in Conc. Carth. saith None of us calls himself or makes himself to be a bishop of bishops or by tyrannical terror drives his Colleagues to a necessity of obeying The ancient bishop did not govern alone but in conjunction with the presbyters of his Church He did not and might not ordain without the Counsel of his Clergy Ignatius in his Epistle to the Trall saith What is the presbytery but the sacred Assembly of the Councellors and Confessors of the bishops Cyprian in his epistle to Cornelius wisheth him to read his Letters to the flourishing Clergy at Rome that did preside with him Id. l. 3. Ep. 14. Erasm Edit From the beginning of my Episcopacy I resolved to do nothing without your counsel and without the consent of my people 4. Conc. Carthag 23. The sentence of a bishop shall be void without the presence of his Clericks Concil Caâ—thag c. 22. Let not a bishop ordain Clericks without a Council of his Clericks The Present Ecclesiastical Government compared with the Ancient EPISCOPACY IT is commonly objected against the Nonconformists That they are enemies to Episcopacy and that they renounce the Ancient Government received in all the Churches The truth of this Objection may easily be believed by those that hear of Episcopal Government and consider only the name thereof which hath continued the same till now but not the thing signified by that name which is so changed that it is of another nature and kind from what was in the first Ages There be Nonconformists who think they are more for the Ancient Episcopacy than the Assertors of the present Hierarchy are and who believe they are able to make it evident may they be permitted Something to this purpose is here in a short Scheme tendered to consideration and proof is ready to be made of each particular here asserted touching the state and practice of the Ancient Church 1. IN the first ages a Political Church constituted as well for Government and Discipline as for Divine Worship was one particular Society of Christians having its proper and immediate bishop or bishops pastor or pastors In these times the lowest political Church is a Diocess usually consisting of many hundred parishes having according to the Hierarchical principle no bishop but the Diocesan Yet these parishes being stated ecclesiastical Societies having their proper pastors are really so many particular Churches 2. In the first Ages the bishops were bishops of one stated Ecclesiastical Society or particular Church But in the present age bishops that are of the lowest rank according to the Hierarchical principle are bishops of many hundred churches which kind of bishop the ancient churches did not know and which differs as much from the ancient bishop as the General of an Army from the Captain of a single Company 3. The bishop of the first Ages was a bishop over his own Church but he was not a bishop of bishops that is he was not a Ruler of the Pastors of other Churchs But the present bishop even of the lowest rank according to the Hierarchical principle is a bishop of bishops namely of the presbyters of
his Diocess who are the proper and immediate Pastors of their several Churches and really bishops according to the true import of that name and office as it is in Scripture 4. The Presbyters of the Church of England if they be not bishops are not of the same order with the presbyters mentioned in Scripture for all presbyters therein mentioned were bishops truly and properly so called Now if they be not of the same order with the Scripture presbyters they are not of divine but meerly humane institution but if it be acknowledged that they are of the same order as indeed they are why are they denied to be bishops of their respective Charges And why are they bereaved of the Episcopal or pastoral Authority therein 5. The bishops of the first Ages had no greater number of souls under their Episcopacy than of which they could take the personal oversight But the present bishops have commonly more souls under their Episcopacy than a hundred bishops can personally watch over The ordinary work of the ancient bishop was to preach give thanks administer the Eucharist pronounce the blessing and exercise discipline to the people under his charge But the bishops of the present age neither do nor can perform these ministries to the people that are under their charge 6. The ancient bishop did exercise his Episcopaâ—y personally and not by Delegates or Substitutes But the present bishop doth for the most part exercise it not personally but either by his Delegates who have no Episcopal authority of themselves but what they derive from him alone or by Substitutes whom he accounts no bishops 7. The ancient bishops did not govern alone but in conjunction with the presbyters of his Church he being the first presbyter and stiled the Brother and Colleague of the presbyters But the present bishop hath in himself alone the power of jurisdiction both over the Clergy and Laity 8. The ancient bishop did not and might not ordain Ministers without the counsel of his Clergy But the present bishop hath the sole power of ordination Tho some presbyters whom he shall think fit join with him in laying on of hands yet he alone hath the whole power of the act without their consent or counsel 9. To labour in the word and doctrine was anciently the most honourable part of the bishops work and it was constantly performed by him in his particular Church or Congregation But now preaching is not reckoned to be the ordinary work of a bishop and many bishops preach but rarely and extraordinarily 10. The ancient bishops were chosen by all the people at least not without their consent over whom they were to preside And when a bishop was to be ordained it was the ordinary course of the first ages for all the next bishops to assemble with the people for whom he was to be ordained and every one was acquainted with his conversation But the present bishops entrance into his office is by a far different way 11. Anciently there was a bishop with his Church in every City which had a competent number of Christians But in the later times many yea most Cities have not their proper bishops I mean bishops in the Hierarchical sense tho they be as large and populous as those that have It is to be noted that the manner was not anciently as now that a Church and its bishop did cause that to be called a City which otherwise would not be so called but any Town-corporate or Burrough was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a City according to the ancient use of the word 12. Because in the first ages the Christians of a City and its adjacent Villages did ordinarily make up but one competent Congregation There was commonly but one Church in a City and that City-church took in all the Christians of the adjacent Villages who were but one stated Society all the members whereof might have personal communion one with another But the dividing of the bishops Cure into such parts as are now called Parishes came not in till long after the Apostles times and when that division first took place they were but as Chappels of Ease to the City-church Here it is to be noted That till Constantine's time it cannot be proved that there were above four or five Churches in all the world that consisted of more people than one of 〈◊〉 parishes nor of half so many as some of them 13. In the beginning of Christianity Cities or Towns were judged the â—ittest places for the constituting of Churches because in them the materials of a Church to wit believers were most numerous and in them was the greatest opportunity of making â—ore Converts with other advantages which the Villages did not afford Yet when the number of Christians encreased in a Region Churches having their proper Bishops were constituted in Villages or places that were not Cities one proof whereof is in the Chorepiscopi who were bishops distinct from ordinary presbyters Thus it was in the first ages But in the following times when the worldly grandure of Episcopacy was rising decâ—â—ed were made that bishops might not be ordained in Villages or small Cities lest the name and authority of a bishop should â—e contemptible 14. Tho it hath been decreed by Councils That there be but one bishop in a city and the custom hath generally prevailed yet there in manifold proof that in the first ages more bishops than one were allowed at once in the same city yea in the same church Indeed the Ecclesiastical Historians now extant being comparatively but of later ages and having respect to the government of their own times set down the succession of the ancient bishops by single persons whereas several bishops presiding at the same time the surviving and most noted Colleague was reckoned the Successor 15. The ancient bishops exercised discipline in a spiritual manner by the sword of the Spirit which is the word of God and by arguments deduced from it sought to convince the judgment and awe the conscience according to the true nature of Ecclesiastical discipline But the present bishops have their Courts which are managed like Secular Courts to compel men to an outward observance of their decrees by the dread of temporal penalties annexed to excommunication 16. The present bishops say of their Church-government that without secular force none would regard it But the ancient bishops thought it a reproach to Christs discipline to declare to the world that it is a powerless thing of it self and insufficient to obtain 〈…〉 unless the temporal sword inforce it 17. The Episcopal or Pastoral authority is now commonly exercised by a Lay-chancellor and tho an ordinary priest be present in the Court to speak the words of excommunication yet the Chancellor as Judg decrees it And excommunications and absolutions pass in the bishops name and authority when he never had the hearing of the cause but anciently it was not so In this case I enquire Whether Christ hath authorised any