You have heard brethren as well in your private examination as in the exhortation and holy lessons taken out of the Gospel and the writings of the Apostles of what dignity and how great importance this Office is whereto ye are called that is to say The Messengers the Watchmen the pastors and stewards of the Lord to teach to premonish to feed to provide for the Lords Family I acknowledg the passages here alledged are taken out of the old Book of Ordinanion that was established in this Church till the late alteration made Anno 1662. If those Alterations signifie another meaning about the several Holy Orders than what was signified in the Old Book then the sense of the Church of England in these times differs from the sense of the same Church in all times preceding the said Alterations But if they signifie no other meaning than what was signified in the old Book my Citations are of force to shew what is the sense of this Church as well of the present as of the former times about this matter And let this be further considered That the form of ordaining a Bishop according to the Church of England imports not the conferring of a higher power or an authorizing to any special work more than to what the Presbyter is authorized The old form was Take the Holy Ghost and remember that thou stir up the grace of God that is in thee by imposition of hands for God hath not given us the spirit of fea◠but of power and of love and of soberness What is there in this form of words that might not be used to a Presbyter at his ordination Or what is there in it expressive of more power than what belongs to a Presbyter The new form since the late alteration is Receive the Holy Ghost for the work and office of a Bishop in the Church of God now committed to thee by imposition of our hands in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Amen And remember that thou stir up the grace of God that is given thee by this imposition of our hands f r God hath not given us the spirit of fear but of power and of love and of soberness And what is there in this form that is expressive of any office power that the Presbyter hath not unless these words for the work and office of a bishop Now both the name and work and office of a bishop belongs to the Scripture-presbyter who is of divine institution and the presbyter to whom it doth not belong is but a humane creature or an ordinance of man § 7. Of the present Diocesan Bishop A Diocesan Bishop according to the hierarchical state is a Bishop of the lowest degree having under him Parish-Ministers that are Presbyters or Priests but not accounted Bishops and by divine right claiming to himself alone the Episcopal Authority over all the Parish Churches and Ministers within his Diocess which may contain a hundred two hundred five hundred or a thousand parishes For an Episcopacy of this kind I discern no Scripture-Warrant nor Divine Right Every particular Church should have its proper pastor or Bishop and particular Churches with their proper pastors are so evidently of divine right that some eminently learned men in the Church of England have declared their judgment that no form of Church-Government besides the mere pastoral office and Church-Assemblies is prescribed in the Word of God but may be various according to the various condition and occasion of several Churches But if it be said that parochial Congregations are not Churches but only parts of the Diocess which is the lowest political Church I desire proof from Scripture that such Congregations as our parishes having their proper presbyter or presbyters invested with the power of the keys are not Churches properly so called The reason of demanding this proof is because the Scripture is a perfect rule for the essential constitution of Churches though the accidents thereto belonging may be regulated by humane prudence And it is most evident in Scripture that a particular congregation of Christians having their proper pastor or pastors presbyter or presbyters are Churches properly so called and a parochial Minister I conceive to be a pastor presbyter or elder according to the Scripture Moreover if a Diocess containing many hundred or perhaps a thousand parishes as it doth in England do constitute but one particular Church and the parishes be not properly to be accounted Churches but only so many parts of that one diocesan Church why may not ten thousand yea ten times ten thousand parishes be likewise accounted but one particular church and brought under one man as the sole bishop or pastor thereof Nor do I discern how it is possible for one man to do the work of a bishop towards so many parishes which is to oversee all the flock to preach to them all to baptize and confirm all that are to be baptized and confirmed to administer the Lords Supper to all to bless the congregation publickly and privately to admonish all as their need requires to excommunicate the impenitent to absolve the penitent and that upon knowledg of their particular estate for all these are pastoral or episcopal acts And let it here be noted that I speak of the work of a bishop infimi gradus or under whom there are no subordinate bishops If such a Diocesan bishop saith it sufficeth that he perform all this to the flock by others namely by the parish ministers as his Curates and by other officers his substitutes It is answered 1. The pastoral Authority is a personal trust 2. He is to shew his commission from Christ the prince of pastors to do his work by others for I am now enquiring what is of divine and not of humane Right 3. None but a bishop can do the proper work of a bishop and consequently the presbyters by whom the Diocesan doth his work either are bishops or their act is an usurpation and a nullity It is matter of divine Right only that is here considered As for the humane Rights of a Diocesan bishop to wit his dignity and his jurisdiction under the King as Supreme and to which he is intituled by the Law of the Land I intermeddle not therewith § 8. Of a Bishop or Bishops THE Divine Right of a bishop infimi gradus Ruling over many churches as their sole hishop or pastor hath been considered and now it is to be considered Whether there be of divine institution such a spiritual officer as hath the oversight of Bishops or is a Bishop of Bishops The Diocesan Bishop is really of this kind tho he will not own it for he is a bishop of Presbyters who are really bishops if they be that kind of Presbyters that the Scripture mentions But if the Presbyters which in the hierarchical state are subject to the Diocesan Bishop be of another kind they are not of Christs institution What hath been already said
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
it doth not hence follow that Peter was a fixed Bishop of the Jews and Paul of the Gentiles no more were any of the Apostles fixed Bishops in those places where they were more especially imployed and we know that they made frequent removes §. 10. Of the Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus THE Name of Bishop is not given either to Timothy or Titus except in the Postscripts of the Epistles But those Postscripts are taken for no part of Canonical Scripture For if they were free from the objected Errors about the places from which the Epistles were written they cannot in reason be supposed to be Pauls own words and written by him when the Epistles were written Moreover the travels of Timothy and Titus do evidently shew that they were not diocesan bishops nor the setled Overseers of particular churches And those passages 1 Tim. 1.3 I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus and Tit. 1.5 For this cause I left thee in Crete shew an occasional and temporary employment And whatsoever stress may be laid upon these texts to prove they were bishops of those places yet they do not sound like the fixing of them each in their proper diocess The name of an Evangelist is expresly given to one of them 2 Tim. 4.5 and the work enjoined both of them and accordingly performed by them being throughout of the same kind there is all reason to believe that they had the same kind of office Now by several texts of Scripture compared together we find the work of Evangelists to be partly such as belonged to the Apostles whose Agents or Adjuncts they were and partly such as was common to Pastors and Teachers whose office was included in theirs Their work in common with the Apostles was the planting and setling of churches by travelling from place to place and in this regard they have been well called Apostles of the Apostles And in doing this Vice-apostolick service they did also that which was common to pastors and teachers in teaching and ruling but with this difference that the ordinary pastors did it statedly in those churches where they were fixed but these transiently in several churches which they were sent to erect or establish or to set things in order therein as the Apostles saw need Or if Timothy and Titus were not in an office essentially divers from the ordinary pastors and teachers yet they were in extraordinary service as being the Apostles Agents and being in that capacity might have their intrinsick spiritual power enlarged to a greater extent and higher pitch of exercise than the ordinary Ministers Howbeit I rather judg that they had an office specifically different from that of the ordinary pastors because in the enumeration of the several sacred offices Paul mentions the office of an Evangelist as a distinct kind from the rest But if it can be proved that the Superiority of Timothy and Titus over bishops or elders of particular churches was not as they were the Apostles assistants or as extraordinary and temporary officers but as ordinary superiors it will indeed follow that Archbishops or bishops of bishops are of divine Right Nevertheless the Episcopal authority of bishops or presbyters of particular churches such as the Scripture-bishops were remains unshaken § 11. Of the Angels of the Churches ANother allegation for the divine right of bishops of an higher order than presbyters is from the Angels of the seven Churches Apoc. 1. and 2. To which many things are said by those of the other persuasion As that those Angels are not called Bishops nor any where implied to be bishops in the present Vulgar sense of the word That the denomination of Angels and Stars in the judgment of ancient and modern Writers do belong to the Ministers of the Word in general That in mysterious or prophetick Writings and Visional Representations a number of things or persons is usually expressed by singulars and that it is very probable that the term Angel is explained under that plurality you distinguished from the rest Apoc. 2.24 but to you and the rest in Thyatira c. and to be a collective name expressing all the Elders of that church Also some observe that it might be expressed in the same manner as Gods providence in the administration of the World by Angels is expressed wherein one being set as chief over such a countrey the things which are done by many are attributed to one Angel president It is further to be considered that in the church of Ephesus one of the seven the Scripture makes mention of many bishops who were no other than presbyters Acts 20.28 Against this some say That the Elders there mentioned were not the presbyters of the church of Ephesus but the bishops of Asia then gathered together at Ephesus and sent for by Paul to Miletum But 1. This is affirmed altogether without proof 2. The text saith Paul sent from Miletum to Ephesus to call the elders of the church which in rational interpretation must be the Elders of the church to which he sent 3. If the bishops of all Asia had been meant it would have been said the Elders of the churches For in Scripture tho we find the Christians of one city called a church yet the Christians of a Region did ever make a plurality of churches as the churches of Judea the churches of Galatia and the churches of Asia 4. There is not the least hint given of the meeting of the bishops of Asia at Ephesus when Paul sent for the elders of the Church 5. The asserters of prelacy hold that Timothy was the first bishop of Ephesus now Paul did not send for him for he was already present with him and accompanied him in his travels Nor did he commit the charge of the church to him but to the Elders that were sent for 6. It could not be the sence of the church of England that those Elders who are declared to be bishops were bishops in the Vulgar meaning of the word when she appointed that portion of Scripture to be read at the ordination of Presbyters to instruct them in the nature and work of their Office Some say That by the Angel of the church is meant the Moderator or President of the Presbytery who might be either for a time or always the same person and the Epistle might be directed to him in the same manner as when the King sends a Message to the Parliament he directs it to the Speaker Now such a Moderator or President makes nothing for bishops of a higher order than Presbyters § 12. A further Consideration of the Office of an EVANGELIST and of a general Minister COncerning the Office of Evangelists such as Timothy and Titus the query is Whether it was temporary or perpetual An eminent Hierarchical Divine saith That Evangelists were Presbyters of principal sufficiency whom the Apostles sent abroad and used as Agents in Ecclesiastical Affairs wherâ—ver they saw need Now this description doth not make them of a specifically
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
of the Empire it is said to be unusual That presbyters may ordain see Anselm on 1 Tim. 4.14 also Bucer Script Anglic. p. 254 255 259 291. The Lollards and Wickliefists in England held and practised ordination by meer presbyters Walsingham Hist Ang. An. 1389. so did the Lutheran protestants Bugenhagius Pomeranus a presbyter of Wittenberg ordained the Protestant bishops of Denmark in the presence of the King and Senate in the chief Church at Hafnia See Melchior Adam in the Life of Bugenhagius and Chytraeus Saxon Chronicle l. 14 15 16 17. Forbes in his Irenicum l. 2. c. 11. saith that presbyters have a share with bishops in the imposition of hands not only as consenting to the ordination but as ordainers with the bishop by a power received from the Lord and as praying for grace to be confer'd on the persons ordained by them and the bishop That the Ancients did argue from the power of baptizing to the power of ordaining is evident out of the Master lib. 4. distinct 25. 4. Presbyters with Bishops laid on hands for Restoring the excommunicate and blessing the people Cyprian Epist 12. Nor can any return to communion unless hands be laid upon him by the Bishop and Clergy Vid. also Ep. 9. 46. Id. l. 3. Ep. 14. Erasm Edit To the presbyters and deacons against some presbyters who had given the peace of the Church rashly to some of the lapsed with the knowledg of the Bishop In lesser offences sinners after a just time of penance and confession receive Right of Communication by the imposition of hands of the Bishop and Clergy Clemens Alexandrin paedag p. 248. speaking against women wearing other hair than their own saith On whom doth the presbyter lay hands whom doth he bless Not on the woman adorn'd but on anothers Hair and thereby on anothers Head § 8. Testimonies in reference to the Bishops Plea of being the Apostles Successors FOR the diversity of order between a bishop and a presbyter it is alledged That bishops are the Apostles successors which presbyters are not To this it is answered 1. The ancient Fathers make presbyters as well as bishops the successors of the Apostles Irenaeus lib. 4. c. 43 44. We must obey the presbyters that are in the Church even those that have succession from the Apostles who have received the certain gift of truth according to the pleasure of the Father with the succession of Episcopacy Here presbyters are said to have succession from the Apostles and to have succession of Episcopacy This cannot be evaded by saying he intended it only of presbyters of a superior order which are bishops for this is to beg the question and in this Father there is no footstep of any order of presbyters but what are bishops Cyprian l. 3. Ep. 9. 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 Now in the names of Bishops and Praepositi the presbyters are included as I have before made manifest And it is plain that in this place all in the sacred Ministry above Deacons are included in those names and called Apostles Jerome in his Epistle to Heliodor speaks in general that Clericks are said to sucreed the Apostolical degree The late form of Ordination in the Church of England viz. Receive the Holy Ghost whose sins thou dost forgive they are forgiven and whose sins thou dost retain they are retained and be thou a faithful dispenser c. is for the former part the very form of words used by our Saviour to his Apostles to express their Pastoral Authority and fully proves that the office of a presbyter is Pastoral and of the same nature with that which was ordinary in the Apostles and in which they had successors 2. Some conceive there is no proper succession to the Apostles whose office as to its formal state and specifick difference was extraordinary and expired with their persons And in proper speaking the ordinary Bishops or Elders cannot be reckoned the successors of the Apostles for they were contemporary with them in the first planting of the Churches and did by divine right receive and exercise their governing-power which the Apostles did not supercede by their presence tho it were under the regulation of their supereminent authority and the Bishops or Elders of all succeeding ages are properly the successors of those first bishops Bellarmine l. 4. de Pontif. c. 25. saith That bishops do not properly succeed the Apostles because the Apostles being not ordinary but extraordinary Pastors have no successors and that the Pope of Rome properly succeeds Peter not as an Apostle but as an ordinary pastor of the whole church 3. Whereas some say That the Order of bishops began in the Apostles and the order of presbyters in the seventy disciples it is answered 1. As concerning the bishops order when the Fathers speak of Apostles or Evangelists long residing in one church they did by way of similitude call them bishops thereof Reynolds against Hart saith That the Fathers when they term an Apostle the bishop of this or that City mean in a general way that he did attend that Church for the time and supply that room in preaching which the bishop afterwards did And not only the Apostles but itinerant Ministers or Evangelists were in such a general sence bishops of the places where they came Paul staid at or about Ephesus three years Acts 20.31 yet he was not bishop there in the strict and proper sense of the word James was either no bishop of Jerusalem or no Apostle but as many think another James 2. As concerning the order of inferior presbyters said to be instituted in the seventy disciples it is spoken without proof and against Reason Spalatensis saith those seventy had but a temporary commission and therefore that he cannot affirm that Presbyterial Order was directly and immediately instituted in them de Rep. Eccles l. 2. c. 3. n. 4. Saravia acknowledgeth that the seventy disciples were Evangelists de Minist Evang. grad c. 4. § 9. Testimonies concerning the Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus 1. TImothy was not a fixed bishop His travels we find upon sacred Record When Paul went from Beraea to Athens he left Silas and Timothy behind him Acts 17.14 Afterwards they coming to Paul at Athens Paul sent Timothy thence to Thessalonica to confirm the Christians there 1 Thes 3.6 An. C. 47. Thence he returned to Athens again and Paul sent him and Silas thence into Macedonia Acts 18.5 and thence they returned to Paul at Corinth An. 48. Afterwards they travel to Ephesus whence Paul sent Timothy and Erastus into Macedonia Acts 19.22 whither Paul went after them An. 51. from Macedonia they with divers brethren journied into Asia Acts 20.4 and come to Miletum where Paul sent to Ephesus to call the elders of the Church An. 53. Then Paul did
bishop to delegate his Episcopal power to a Lay-man yea or to a Clergy-man if that Clergy-man be not as Christs commissioned Officer authorized to exert that power 18. The sentence of excommunication is denounced for any non observaâ—ce of the judgment of the Court tho in cases of doubtful right and in the smallest matters But no proof of such practice can be produced from the first ages And let the bishops themselves judg howsoever contempt may be pretended in the case Whether many who are usually so sentenced either upon doubtful or trivial matters do indeed deserve to be adjudged to such a state as that sentence duly administred doth import 19. The Parish Minister is bound to denounce in his Church the sentence of Excommunication decreed by the Court tho he have no cognizance of the cause and tho he know the sentence to be unjâ—st But no such practice was known in the ancient church 20. Ministers at their Ordination receive that Office which essentially includes an Authority and Obligation to teach their flocks yet they may not preach without a license from the bishop in their own proper charges or cures tho they perform other Offices of the Ministry But anciently it was not so 21. The present bishops require of their Clergy an Oath of Canonical obedience but let any proof be given that the ancient bishops did ever impose such an Oath or that the presbyters ever took it 22 The Parish minister hath not the liberty of examining whether the Infant brought to Baptism be a capable subject thereof that is Whether he be the child of a Christian or Infidel but he must baptize the child of every one that is presented by Godfathers and Godmothers who commonly have little or no interest in the Infant nor care of its education and who not seldome are but Boys and Girls 23. Confirmation is to be administred only by the bishop and yet it is in an ordinary way impossible for him to examine all persons to be confirmed by him within his Diocess Consequently it cannot be duly administred to multitudes of persons that are to be presented thereunto and they that are confirmed are few in comparison of those that are not But the ancient bishops being bishops of one particular Church were capable of taking the oversight of every particular person of their flocks and did personally perform the same 24. A great part of the adult members of Parish-churches are such as understand not what Christianity is but the ancient churches were careful that all their members might be competently knowing in the Religion which they professed as appears by their discipline towards the Catechumeni and the long time before they admitted them to baptism 25. The Parish ministers have no remedy but to give the Sacrament to ignorant and scandalous persons that offer themselves thereunto they can but accuse the openly wicked in the Chancellors Court and but for one time deny the Sacrament to some kind of notorious sinners but then they are bound to prosecute them in the Court and to procure a sentence against them there where not one notorious sinner of a multitude is or can be brought to a due tryal in regard of the way of proceeding in Ecclesiastical Courts and the multitude of souls in every Diocess The consequent hereof is the general intrusion of the grosly ignorant and profane who pollute the communion of the Church and eat and drink damnation to themselves 26. All parishioners that are of age are compelled to receive the Sacrament how unfit or unwilling soever they be by the terrors of penalties subsequent to excommunication and those that have been excommunicated for refusing to receive are absolved from that sentence if being driven thereunto they will receive the Sacrament rather than lye in Gaol And the Parish-ministers are compelled to give the Sacrament to such 27. Many Orthodox Learned and Pious men duly qualified for the Ministry are cast and kept out of it for not declaring an unfeigned assent and consent to all and every thing contained in the Liturgy and Book of Ordination Let any proof be given that ever any of the ancient Bishops or Churches thought all the points contained in those books so necessary to be assented and consented to or that any of them so severely required the like conformity to opinions forms and ceremonies of the like nature and reason 28. The present bishops debar all Christians from the Lords Supper who through unfeigned scruple of conscience refuse to kneel in the act of receiving the Sacramental bread and wine and they debar from baptism the children of those Parents who judg it unlawful for them to permit the signing of their children with the sign of the Cross But the ancient bishops did not so nor doth the practise of Antiquity warrant the same 29. The greatest severity of the present Church-discipline is directed against Ministers and people who observe not full conformity to the Rules Forms Rights and Ceremonies prescribed in the Liturgy and Canons But the ancient bishops exercised it against those who subverted the Christian faith by damnable Heresies or enormously transgressed the Rules of soberness righteousness and godliness prescribed of God in his word 30. The Oath imposed upon the Church-wardens to make their Presentments according to the Book of Articles framed by the bishop hath had this consequence which ought to be laid to heart that commonly they would rather overlook their Oath than become accusers of their honest neighbours not only those who withdraw from but those who hold communion with the Parish churches 31. The requiring of the reordination of those ministers who have been ordained by presbyters is contrary to the practise of the ancient Church it contradicts the judgments of many Eminent bishops and other Divines of the Church of England who have maintained the validity of Presbyterial ordination it nullifies the ministry of all the Foreign Reformed Churches and of most if not of all the Lutheran churches and it advances the Church of Rome above them for the priests of the Church of Rome upon their conversion are received without reordination whereas those that come from the Foreign Reformed churches must be reordained before they be admitted to the ministry in the church of England And all this is done when in Scripture the office of a bishop and presbyter is one and the same and the difference between them came in afterwards by Ecclesiastical custome It is commonly said That Churches and Bishops being now delivered from their ancient low and distressed state under the tyranny and persecution of the Heathen powers and enjoying the patronage and bounty of Christian Rulers should not be consined to their ancient meanness narrowness and weakness but be enlarged in opulency amplitude and potency answerable to the Civil State Ans It is freely granted that the state Ecclesiastical should in reasonable proportion partake of the prosperity of the Civil state But the question still remains 1. Whether
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
work and duty belonging to a Presbyter who is no bishop Not one place of Scripture doth set forth any Presbyter as less than a bishop Phil. 1 1. Paul makes mention of Bishops and Deacons in the Church at Philippi in the inscription of his Epistle but no mention of Presbyters that were not bishops And it seems by that Text that in the Apostles times there were more bishops than one placed in one city and 't is to be noted that Philippi was but a little City under the Metropolis of Thessalonica Thus bishop and elder in the places aforecited are names of the same office whatsoever it be and the Hierarchical Divines grant as much but are not agreed what office is there set forth by those names One part of them think that those Texts speak of or at least comprehend such Presbyters as are now so called The other part of them think they speak of such bishops as are now distinct from presbyters Now they that hold that the said Texts speak of or include such presbyters as are now so called must needs hold that such presbyters are pastors and bishops in the Scripture sence of those names and so an identity of the bishop and presbyter is confessed and it rests upon them to prove the divine institution of bishops of a higher order over such presbyters and they that hold that the said Texts speak of such bishops as are now distinct from presbyters must needs grant the qualification ordination and work of presbyters inferior to bishops is not set forth in Scripture If it be said that the order of inferior and subject presbyters is of divine institution and yet not defined or expressed in Scripture let a satisfactory proof be brought from some other authority of its divine institution and what its nature is If it be said that at first the function of a bishop and presbyter was one but afterwards it was divided into two and that the division was made by divine warrant the asserters are bound to prove it by sufficient authority To have the power of the keys of binding and loosing of remitting and retaining sins in Christs name as his commissioned Officer is to have Episcopal power and this power belongs to a Presbyter The Asserters of Prelacy answer this by distinguishing the power of the keys in foro interiore or the Court of Conscience within and foro exteriore in the exterior Court to wit that of the Church and say that the former belongs to the Bishop and Presbyter both and the latter to the Bishop only To which I reply 1. The Scripture makes no such distinction and where the Law distinguisheth not we may not distinguish 2. The distinction is vain for all power that belongs to the Pastors of the Church purely respects the conscience by applying to it the commands promises and threatnings of God and it respects the conscience as having the conduct of the outward man and that in reference to Church communion as well as other matters 3. If Presbyters may in the name of Christ bind the impenitent and loose the penitent as to the conscience in the sight of God which is the greater and primary binding and loosing then by parity of reason and that with advantage they may bind and loose as to Church-communion which is the lesser secondary and subsequent binding and loosing That Officer is a Bishop that hath power of authoritative declaring in Christs name that this or that wicked person in particular is unworthy of fellowship with Christ and his Church and a power of charging the Congregation in Christs name not to keep company with him as being no fit member of a Christian Society and also a power of Authoritative declaring and judging in Christs name that the same person repenting of his wickedness and giving evidence thereof is meet for fellowship with Christ and his church and a power of requiring the Congregation in Christs name again to receive him into their Christian fellowship For these are the powers of Excommunication and Ecclesiastical Absolution and a Presbyter hath apparently the said powers As he can undoubtedly declare and charge and judg as aforesaid touching persons in general so by parity of reason touching this or that person in particular all particulars being included in the general He hath undoubtedly a power of applying the word in Christs name as well personally as generally That a Presbyter hath the said powers is granted by the Church of England in the common usage of the Ecclesiastical Courts wherein a Presbyter is appointed to denounce the sentence of Excommunication tho the Chancellor doth decree it And the Excommunication is not compleat till a Presbyter hath denounced it in the congregation That the Apostles have no successors in the whole of their Office is confessed on all hands but if they have successors in part of their Office viz. in the Pastoral Authority in this respect the Presbyters if any are their successors Peter exhorting the Presbyters stiles himself their fellow-Presbyter which is to be understood in respect of the power of Teaching and Ruling The Pastoral Authority of Presbyters is further cleared in many passages in the publick forms of the Church of England touching that Order The form of Ordaining Presbyters in this Church lately was Receive the Holy Ghost whose sins thou remittest they are remitted and whose sins thou retainest they are retained and be thou a faithful dispenser of the word of God and of his holy Sacraments in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Amen Now the former part hereof is intirely the words used by our Saviour John 20.21 22. towards the Apostles expressing their Pastoral Authority And the latter part is no derogation or diminution from the power granted in the former part If Presbyters are not partakers with the Apostles in the Pastoral Authority how could they have Right to that Form of Ordination Likewise this Church did in solemn form of words require the presbyters when they were ordained to exercise the discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded and this Realm hath received the same according to the commandment of God And that they might the better understand what the Lord hath commanded therein this Church did appoint also That at the ordering of Priests there be read for the Epistle that portion of Acts 20. which relates St. Paul's sending to Ephesus and calling for the Elders of the Congregation with his exhortation to them To take heed to themselves and to all the flock whereof the Holy Ghost hath made them overseers to rule the congregation of God Or else 1 Tim. 3. which sets forth the Office and due Qualifications of a Bishop These portions of Scripture this Church appointed to be read to the Presbyters as belonging to their Office and to instruct them in the nature of it And afterwards the Bishop speaks to them that are to receive the Office of Priesthood in this form of words
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
Calendar yet in other chapters appointed to be read this person who speaks that which was untrue is set forth for a holy Angel And c. 7.3 both the Angel and Tobias are reported to say to Raguel that which was false on the Angels part viz. that they were of the sons of Naphtalim who were captives in Niniveh Tho we read in Scripture that Angels were sometimes taken to be men and so called by them that took them to be such yet we do not read therein that any Holy Angels affirmed that they were men and such particular men by name Tob. 12.15 The Angel is reported to say I am Raphael one of the seven holy Angels which present the prayers of the Saints and which go in and out before the glory of the Holy one The presenting of the prayers of the Saints before God looks like a mediatory act And suppose it here signifies but an act of ministry not of mediation yet I question whether it be right to consent to the use of such a passage as seems to imply the mediation or intercession of Angels for us and which may give an occasion to believe it and be made use of to prove that opinion The story of Bell and the Dragon is thought to be fabulous and there may be some regret in consenting to its being appointed to be read at a time when it being omitted the first Chapter of Isaiah would come in course to be read Moreover the reading of the Apocrypha hath been excepted against as it excludeth much of the Canonical Scriptures and taketh in such Books in their stead as are commonly reputed fabulous yet read for real History Of the Tables and Rules for Holy dayes and times IN this Book is contained the appointment of divers Festivals and other solemn times Now tho I scruple not to join in the publick Worship of God performed in those days yet I hesitate about the expresâ— declaring of assent and consent to the use of Tables and Rules directing to the solemnizing thereof It is to me doubtful whether any humane power may lawfully institute such times and days as some of these are I confess there be arguments for the lawfulness of such institution which I cannot well answer and there be other arguments against it which also I cannot well answer and this later sort I crave leave to propound in this place The occasions of these days and times were existent in the Apostles times and if God would have had these days appointed he could as easily and fitly have done it by his Apostles and have left it recorded in Scripture as he did other like things If the institution of these days and times were necessary it is equally necessary in all ages and parts of the Catholick Church and is the matter of an universal Law and so belongs to the Universal Lawgiver If the Universal Lawgiver hath reserved any thing to his own power it can be no less than the making of such Laws and Ordinances as are universally and perpetually necessary To affirm such institution to be universally necessary when God hath made no Law concerning it in Scripture is to overthrow the sufficiency of Scripture as a Catholick Rule of divine faith and worship For men to institute Ordinances of Worship supposed to be universally and perpetually necessary to the Church supposeth a defect in the divine universal and perpetual Ordinances to be made up by adding other Ordinances by way of supplement The fourth Commandment being one of the Decalogue seems to be of so high a nature that man may not presume to make the like The Table of all the Feasts to be observed begins All Sundays in the year so it calls the Lords day which it seems to put upon the same level with feasts of humane institution And there seems as great a sacredness if not greater conferred upon some of the high festivals as upon the Lords day which is of divine appointment The Lords day doth sufficiently answer the ends for which those festivals that relate to our Saviour are appointed for that being in memory of his Resurrection implies a memorial of all things done for mans redemption If such Institutions as these be not prohibited Deut. 4 2. Deut. 12.32 I enquire of what sort is the prohibited addition there spoken of The prohibition seems to me to be not meerly of adding to the Rule to wit the written law but of doing more than that Rule required as the precept is not of preserving the Rule but observing what is commanded in it I do not question the lawfulness of such humane institutions in divine Worship as are in meer subordination to divine institution and serve for the more convenient modifying and ordering thereof and which indeed are not properly additions thereunto because they are not of the same nature and use but are meerly accidentals of worship But I doubt of such humane Ordinances of divine worship as are coordinate with the divine Ordinances and express the same nature reason end and use with them and are additions properly so called The festival days appointed by the Church of England are in the Table of feasts set in coordination with the Lords day and they are not meerly the accidentals but very important integral parts of divine service in this Church In reason it must needs be that God hath sufficiently provided for his honour in the worship which he hath instituted as much as belongs to the reason and end of those things which he hath instituted Thereupon I enquire Whether it be not a presuming of our own against the divine wisdom to add to the divine Ordinances by way of supplement humane ordinances of the same reason and intent with the divine There is no question of the lawfulness of appointing some certain times besides the Lords day either fixed or variable to be spent in publick worship wherein God is to be glorified for Jesus Christ and the work of redemption wrought by him There is no question of the lawfulness of appointing days of humiliation and thanksgiving either for once or anniversarily upon special occasions and that besides the special occasions of those days things of universal and perpetual concernment ought to be minded in the religious exercises then performed In these cases the appointed days and times are only adjuncts of worship which as all other things must be performed in some certain time and they are for the worship but the worship is not for them and they are not intrinsecally holy but only by extrinsick denomination from the holy worship then solemnizâ—d But these concessions do not infer as I suppose the warrantableness of days appropriated to the same use and ends for which the Lords day is designed of God and made intrinsecally and permanently holy and sanctifying the worship as well as sanctified by it so that it were profaneness to alienate them to other uses Now as I assuredly believe that the Lords day is intrinsecally and
permanently or unalterably holy as well sanctifying the duties therein performed as sanctified by them so I suppose that the appointed feasts or at least some of them are set apart by the Church to a state of like holiness I confess that as touching the dedication of such days and times as some of those are which are appointed by the Church I have not a clearness of judgment to determine for or against the warrantableness thereof Nor would I break with the Church upon this account but would make those days an occasion of joining in the unquestionable divine worship then celebrated But I know not how to declare an unfeigned assent and consent to the sanctifying of those days because in so doing I should not speak the truth while I doubt of the warrantableness thereof Of the Order for Morning and Evening-prayer THE second Rubrick before Morning-prayer is taken to enjoin the use of the Surplice Supposing that the use thereof is not in it self unlawful nevertheless I question whether I may lawfully consent to a Rule enjoining the use of it to such Ministers and in such Congregations by which the use thereof is judged unlawful or to which it is odious or greatly offensive by invincible or inveterate prejudice I enquire Whether a consent to the use of this Rubrick doth not imply a consent to the enjoining of this Vestment for the enjoined retaining and using of it so that sacred Ministrations shall not be performed without it is the subject matter of the Rubrick I enquire also Whether I may lawfully declare my consent to the use of this Vestment supposing that tho I do not scruple the bare lawfulness of using it yet I wish in my heart the use thereof were not retained but laid aside in regard of the great offence taken at it it being a thing unnecessary and the worship of God being as decently and profitably performed without it as with it Moreover what were those Ornaments in the Church which were in use by authority of Parliament in the second year of the reign of King Edward the sixth I do not well know Some say this Rubrick seems to bring back the Cope and other Vestments forbidden in the Common-prayer-book 5 6. of Edw. 6. to the use whereof I do not see it fit for me to declare my consent The Responsals of the Clerk and people the multiplied repetitions of the Gloria Patri and the Lords Prayer the omission of the Doxology in the Lords Prayer the composure of many short Collects instead of one continued prayer I can submit unto and declare my consent to them as to things passable But if the declaration of consent imply not only the simple allowableness but also the laudableness and comparative usefulness or expediency of these things I am not clear therein Of the Creed of St. Athanasius I Heartily own the whole Doctrine of the Trinity and of the incarnation of the Son of God as set forth in this Creed yet I am not satisfied to declare my assent to these assertions Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled without doubt he shall perish everlastingly Also This is the Catholick faith which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved Also he therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity This Creed doth contain deep mysteries as that the Son is not made nor created but begotten That the Holy Ghost is neither made nor created nor begotten but proceeding The difference between eternal generation and eternal procession being a mystery wherein the greatest Divines see but darkly we may be justly afraid to condemn all persons as uncapable of salvation who do not understand and explicitely believe these mysteries Likewise the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son being here delivered as a part of the faith concerning which it is asserted That except every one do keep whole without doubt he shall perish everlastingly the undoubted damnation of those Churches and Christians who hold that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father only seems to be thence inferred The best answer to these objections that I have seen I here transcribe out of a book lately written It is to be considered That in this Creed there be some things contained and expressed as necessary points of Faith and other things for the more clear and useful explication of the truth tho they be not of equal necessity to be understood and believed even by the meanest capacity Thus if we first consider the contexture of this Creed the Faith declared necessary concerning the Trinity is thus expressed in the beginning thereof The Catholick Faith is this That we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Vnity neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance After this follows an explication useful to set forth the true Christian Doctrine which begins For there is one person of the Father c. After which explication the same necessary doctrine to be known and believed is thus again expressed and distinguished from that explication in these words So that in all things as aforesaid the Vnity in Trinity and the Trinity in Vnity is to be worshipped he therefore who will be saved must thus think of the Trinity What is contained in this consideration is the more clear by the following observation That our Church doth both here and in her Articles evidently receive the Athanasian Creed and yet from the manner of using the Apostles Creed in the form of Baptism as containing the profession of that Faith into which we are baptized in the Catechism as containing all the Articles of the Christian Faith and in the Visitation of the sick as being the Rule to try whether he believe as a Christian man should or not it is manifest that no more is esteemed in our Church of necessity to salvation for all men to believe than that only which is contained and expressed in the Apostles Creed Hereunto I make this Reply In this point the question is not What the Church of England but what the Athanasian Creed appointed by this Church to be read on certain solemn days instead of the Apostles Creed declares to be of necessity to salvation Now the thing that is manifestly asserted in this Creed to be of necessity to salvation is the intire belief of the Catholick Faith as it is there expressed For it is said Which Faith except every one keep whole c. Wherefore to distinguish the summary of the doctrine of the Trinity set down in the beginning and the conclusion from the whole intermediate explication thereof as if the belief of the one but not of the other were affirmed to be necessary to salvation is a very forc'd and unwarrantable narrowing of the intendment of the Words The explication as well as the said Summary is set forth as that Catholick Faith which except every one keep whole and undefiled he shall without doubt perish everlastingly Yea it is expresly said in
to fasting and prayer and come together again that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency If a mans case be such that without the use of Marriage Fornication or other bodily uncleanness or inward impurity of desires and motions cannot be ordinarily avoided by him and if in that case it be his duty to marry then the avoiding of Fornication or other impurity corporeal or mental is one lawful and honest end of the use of the Marriage-bed even when there is no power of procreation and the procreation of children is not always necessary to be respected therein § 28. When there be several lawful and necessary ends of the use of Marriage viz procreation and the avoiding of fornication or burning it is not necessary that the later of the said ends should be always conjunct with and referred to the former but it may be sometimes separate and independent thereon For the said ends are not things subordinate but coordinate each of them is intended for it self and the one is not in meer subserviency to the other It is granted that the former end is more noble as being necessary to Nature in it self considered and the later less noble as being made necessary by Nature fallen Yet it doth not appear from Scripture or right Reason that the use of the Marriage-bed is sinful and impure in the less noble yet necessary end thereof upon the failing of the other which is the more noble The truth is as the state of man is since the Fall there is no end of Marriage of greater moment than the preserving of Chastity and the due benevolence 1 Cor. 7. is one of the essential dues of Marriage Let it be here noted that they who hold the use of the Marriage bed without respect to procreation to be sin do hold it no sin in that case to render the due benevolence when required because it is a point of justice But if this thing be a sin on the demanders part the rendering of it cannot be a due It is granted there may be a sinful demanding of a just debt and in that case the rendering of that which is sinfully demanded is a point of justice but it is not so if the very thing demanded be the sin of the demander For sin cannot be a matter of right and there can be no obligation of Justice to cooperate to anothers sin And therefore if the rendering of this benevolence be a righteousness the demand thereof is righteous and the thing demanded is no sin § 29. They who reject the aforesaid end and condemn the aforesaid use of Marriage which is clearly justified 1 Cor. 7.2 3 4 5 do alledg that which is said ver 6. This I speak by permission not of commandment Wherein they say the Apostle by way of pardon grants the use of lust within the bounds of Matrimony Hereupon the true intent of those words is to be examined The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used both for permission and for pardon and here it is evidently used for permission being opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 commandment and it signifies not the remitting of a fault but the allowing of an honest liberty as contradistinct to the injoining of duty The Apostle's meaning is that he doth not injoyn Marriage or the use of the Marriage due as a general duty for he wishes that all men were as himself but allows it as a lawful benefit And not only so but he doth prescribe it as a remedy against sin for those that have need of it in which case it becomes a duty To say that the use of lust is here granted within the bounds of Matrimony is I think an imputation too foul to cast upon the word of God and for it to grant by way of pardon the committing of a lesser sin that some greater sin may be avoided seems to derogate from its perfect purity Never was any moral evil permitted by Gods Moral Law upon the reason of avoiding a greater evil The permission of Divorce among the Jews was but political and did of it self amount to no more than a legal impunity in that Commonwealth For the Divorcing of a Wife might be a mortal sin notwithstanding Mal. 2 16. The Lord God of Israel saith that he hateth putting away Moreover if the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must needs signifie Pardon let them who will have it so shew cause why it must not be applied as well to the rendering as to the demanding of the conjugal due For whatsoever the sense of the word be neither the express Text nor rational interpretation doth carry it to one part excluding the other But themselves deny that the rendering of the due doth need pardon § 13. It is common with those who are loose in the Commandments of God to be very severe in the Traditions of men according to this kind of principle Popish Writers hold that the intendment of corporeal delight in the use of Marriage is a sin and that it is not without fault if it be done partly for procreation and partly for pleasure tho the pleasure be not chiefly intended What strange rigor is here imposed upon mankind against human nature it self to make it sin for a man to be affected with desire of pleasure in the fruition of his own Wife If sensitive pleasure be naturally connex with the innate appetite the intended fruition thereof can be no more sin than Nature it self Yea let these rigid Imposers think whether the non-fruition or non-intendment of that which is inseparable from sensitive Nature be naturally possible and consequently whether according to this principle the procreation which they allow must not necessarily be accounted sin These and the like opinions greatly detract from the purity and honour of Marriage and manifestly lessen the impurity and dishonour of Whoredome by making Marriage it self so vile and faulty and consequently they intangle the consciencious sort of men in causeless scruples and imbolden the licentious in dissolute ways The truth of the case is That if Pleasure be ultimately intended in this or any other act of the Animal Nature it is a mortal sin but if it be intended in subserviency to holy and spiritual ends it is no sin at all Pleasure and Lust which is the inordinacy of Pleasure are very different things Lust tho it keep within the bounds of Marriage is in it self ever dishonest and repugnant to Reason and cannot be venial as the Papists hold it to be The truth is the aforesaid Doctrines of Popish Writers do but serve according to their known design to debase Marriage and render it a less desirable yea a more unsafe state to the strictly consciencious that they might inhance the estimate of single life The Church of England hath otherwise determined in this case That Marriage was ordained for a remâ—dy against sin and to avoid Fornication That such persons as have not the gift of Continence might marry and keep themselves undefiled